Thank you, im currently reading part two (still not finished with it) and this was helpful to reassure some thoughts. I have got one general question though. What is meant by saying that the time image replaces the movement image? because isn't the system of action, affection and perception as presented in book one present in every movie? do these two kind of images (movement and time) just live in coexistance in every movie? is by replacing then meant that in some movies (most european post war author cinema for example) that the strongest image becomes the time image, because movement as such is not the driving force within the narratives? Just need to get that point clear in order no to loose myself between the passing of one image type to the other. thanks in advance!
@Autonomia75
6 жыл бұрын
Philipp Eckel It’s a good question. Consider the film, L’Avventura or Last Year at Marienbad. Of course, there are perception images and affection images in both films. However, the action images that would complete the motion image - i.e., the indirect time image - break down. In L’Avventura, the search for the missing woman does not fail so much as it is forgotten as her fiancé and close female simply lose interest in the fate of the missing woman in light of their own ambiguous and inconclusive affair. In Marienbad, the divergent memories of the two main characters prevent the consolidation of any coherent narrative line, and therefore any encounter with challenges or movement to a resolution. What takes the place of the thwarted indirect time images are direct ones - e.g., the island in L’Avventura with its multiple temporal layers - the rock formations, the hut, and the current visitors - , and the hotel interior in Marienbad apparently frozen in time along with the hotel’s guests. The narrative and cinematic techniques that would allow the characters to attempt to master real difficulties and test themselves in the process, resulting in either success or failure that characterize classical Hollywood cinema are absent, and what takes their place are pure optical images that present time directly.
@philippeckel8487
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you i think i got it now. What you are saying is that the big difference is that the movement/motion image in these movies is not strongly present anymore because the before (first book) mentioned scheme of resolution (action/reaction....) is interrupted by time. Being time-images then the kind of response to the action-image. If motion images though rather engage with the movement, understood as time, which lies in themselves, (aka the motion of one shot) and the montage composes it to a whole, does the time image then rather appeal to the whole than to itself? or this assumption erratic? I vaguely remember melancholia by von trier, would for example the continuously approaching planet be considered a time-image? greetings.
Пікірлер: 3