Guys, I study film.
I am alos intersted in philosophy and have read some philosophy books here and there as well as reading in different online ecycopledias about different authors.
I am especialy interested in deleuze and have read parts of bergsonism, movement image and a thousand plateous.
I have also read an introductory book to lacan and again, the articles about him in online ecyclopedias.
I know this is no way to truly study philosophy however I feel that a TRUE study of philosophy involves actually producing content, as in writing books or writings.
Only though that process of comentary on other writers and producing works can you truly be philosopher and fully engage with philosophers and their ideas.
But, I study film and want to make films(I am studying at a film school), so as i am not a philosopher nor intend to be I feel it is not my job to fully understand and engage with philosophers but instead, get inspiration from them.
Understand in feelting their most important concepts and especially modes of thinking.
The absorbtion of these general modes so they become natural to me seems the thing i need to subconsiously use them as i write and make films.
So what I understand of lacan in very very general terms is his understanding of how we try to structure reality but can never pin point it. We grow as kids and are introduced to the symbolic order that is language and through it, through the languages of others we get out place within this order.
This is how we construct who we are.
He divides it into 3 main levels.
Real imaginary and symbolic.
The real is the thing we can never fully grasp but we try to which is the symbolic levle and the imaginary is our misconceptions based on our perception of ourselves whci is essentialy how others percieve us.
Then to live our lives properly we must aknolwedge our inherent desire(petit object) to grasp that ungraspable part that we miss through the structuring of reality through language that can never be quenched.
Now what i understand of deleuze in very general terms is a certain a desire to breakdown ideas of some sort of source.
To stop thinking of knowlede and life in the form of a tree with a trunk, with one source and instead focus on the details and think of everything as connected with other things.
Rhisomatic perticular thinking with focus points where things converge and spread on..
Reminding me of facault's ideas about inspecting points of convergence in their right and specific place, analyzing everything around these focal points using all the standards and realities of the time of these points...
Am I way off? What do you think? What would you say are the most inspiring or key concepts about deleuze and lacan?
I know many here hate lacan but I find his ideas to be much more in line with my interests as oppose to some of freuds which i find, after lacan, to be juvenile(not freuds fault of course).
>>8177857
This very sober explanation zizec gives of his understanding of lacan is very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiEeON3bq8A
What I still fail to clearly understand is the virtual as expressed by zizek and deleuze.
>>8177857
If you want to make films, drop film school and go to the films.
>>8177888
Not him, but easy there Tarantino. I'm also a film school idiot, and while it is true that you really don't need a theoretical class as long as you can meticulously analyze cinematography, I think that the main advantage of film school is connection-building.
>>8177888
But what if i dont want to make meme movies but instead want to change human kind's perception of reality?
>>8177980
Favorite filmmakers?
>>8177980
You're never, ever going to succeed.
>>8177980
makes me wonder wheter artaud or brecht would shitpost on 4chan
>>8178020
Well, I dont think its about succeeding.
>>8178011
Hmm.. I dont know about favorite directors but These are directors that made a films I really enjoyed and that spring to my mind atm.
Tarkovsky, Gaspar Noé, Haneke, lars von trier, malick, Leos Carax, Kieslowski, Herzog, Brakhage.
I dont know if any of these fit my objectives or standards nor am I sure any should.
In general I enjoy many films, including animations and blockbusters and art films and comedies.
Anyone with knowledge of Deleuze and lacan?
>>8178156
spot on
>>8178607
drop lacan
keep deleuze
read baudrillard
but before all of that:
read plato, hume and kant at the very least
>>8178156
you should kill yourself for naming tarkovsky in the same post as all these hacks
>>8178648
Why would i drop lacan if through zizek his ideas are revitalized? and i find them interesting on their own. Not the parts that talk about symptoms and treatment..
>>8178648
I did read baudrillard a bit.
>>8178673
Lacan is fucking retarded and Zizek is a monkey, funny but you don't want him sexing your daughter. Good night.
>>8177857
the Imaginary shouldn't be thought of as just misconceptions. It's also where lacan puts fantasy.
Another anon mentioned Baudrillard. "Simulation and Simulacra" is often thought of as his most important work, but there are some other works that you should check out as a film maker.
"The Perfect Crime" is a good read, all about the duplication of the real and it's replacement by this double.
"The Transparency of Evil" is an easier read, very topical and timely. Seemingly random musings on Michael Jackson, pornography, nuclear weapons, transgender issues, cancer, lots of other stuff. "Cool Memories" is a very similar book. pic related.
>>8177857
Film expert here:
FLICKS
1. Shining (Kubrick, 1980)
2. 一代宗師 / 一代宗师 (Kar-Wai, 2013)
3. L'inhumaine (L'herbier, 1924)
4. [달은 해가 꾼는 꿈] 예고편 (Park, 1992)
5. بادکنک سفيد (Panahi, 1995)
MOVIES
1. The Godfather, Part III (F. Coppola, 1990)
2. Á bout de souffle (Godard, 1960)
3. And a Little Kid Shall Lead Them (Griffith, 1909)
4. Kindsköpfe (Dugan, 2010)
5. Fear & Desire (Kubrick, 1953)
FILMS
1. Höstsonaten (Bergman, 1978)
2. Hets (Sjöberg, 1944)
3. The Birth of a Nation (Griffith, 1915)
4. 十二生肖 (Chan, 2012)
5. IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1891091718191611€€€€&-@ (Sandler, 2016)
CINÉMA
1. Mogambo (Ford, 1953)
2. Lost River (Gosling, 2014)
3. ¿Quién me quiere a mí? (Sáenz de Heredia/ Buñuel, 1936)
4. Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999)
5. Der Student von Prag (Rye/ Wegener, 1913)
KINO
1. Berlin — Die Sinfonie der Großstadt (Ruttman, 1927)
2. Pauvre Pierrot (Reynaud, 1892)
3. Mauvais Garçons (1995, Bay)
4. Avatar (Cameron, 2009)
5. 劇場版ポケットモンスター ミュウツーの逆襲 (Yuyama, 1998)
ABSOLUTE KINOGRAPHY
1. Interstellar (Nolan, 2014)
2. L'ascension du chevalier noir (Nolan, 2012)
3. 01010101 01101110 00100000 01000011 01101000 01101001 01100101 01101110 00100000 01000001 01101110 01100100 01100001 01101100 01101111 01110101 (1928, Luis Buñuel)
>>8179172
>The Godfather, Part III (F. Coppola, 1990)
I can't claim to be a film expert (I'm a published art critic, but mostly around "fine" art). But I'm very skeptical that you included the Godfather Part III. Are you sure you didn't mean Godfather Part 1 or 2?
>I study film
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>8179208
you are responding to pasta
>>8179858
t. neet
