What is a movement-image? 2° Intro

As we said on “Cinema according to “The Frontiers” we consider cinema because we can leave our static way to consider reality. The philophical tradition has always tried to face our limits of perception (Shall Achille overcome the turtle? How platonic ideas are immutable? and so on…)

Moreover the progress of science show us a dynamic reality in which traditional “substances” and staticity are are not more useful to understand the essence of things. We are always here, triyng to manage with limits of our perception and awareness, and hoping to understand more about our place in the universe. This is why the title “The Frontiers” seems the most suitable to express what we are talking about.

Firstly we have to clarify what we mean with “image”. We consider it as it is: an “organization of perception” (Gestalt as phenomenologists like to call). It can be also a sound, or a smell.

When we are awake we think in terms of “staticity” because we need it to survive but the real nature of “perception” is a continuos movement. This is why when we dream there is more “perception” than we are used to think: everything is without logic because external perception are confused with internal “past perceptions”.  This happens because each “present perception” never ends. It is what Leibniz (before Freud) called unconscious considering our perception of waterfall or seaside in which each wave is perceived only unconscoiusly. This is also why psycoanalysis plays with language and his connection with this contradicting and confused world. And why for a psycoanalist is more important the “signifiant” than “significance”, because “signifiant” indicate to us the direction of our psyche.

A contradictory dreamlike image is a photo of this “becoming” and this is why it can give us more information about our self than anything else.


Photo: a scene taken by “Soul”, film animation by Disney Pixar

“Cinema” according to “The Frontiers” | Intro

Everyone, at least once, visiting a museum or listening music has reflected about the question “what is music?”, “what is paiting?”. In the same way we can ask ourself “what is a film?” “what means Cinema?”.  In our age, dominated by any kind of screenings, the question is becoming even more engaging.

There a lot of reasons for which we go to cinema, but here we consider the ability of cinema to realize movement with images, to “animate” images. While at theatre we follow a story played by real people in a phisical and stable place, at cinema we are in front of an “automatic reproduction”, an automatic movement without a support. And considering paitining or photography we see the same crucial difference: the movement is continuos. This is why our traditional way to consider reality as stable and de-fined isn’t useful for the reading of a film.

The French philosopher Gilles Deleuze has written two interesting book, respecetevely called “The movement-image” and “the Time-image”. It is not casually that it has been a philospher to have grasped the potential of cinema. “Movement” and “Time” are the most difficult concepts for the “common sense”, and they are in fact two of the most important questions of philosophy (Zenone’s paradoxes, “unmoved mover” elaborated by Aristotle…)

“The movement-image” of cinema is an image that is moved by itself and so the question became “Who moves who that moves who?”, we enter in a new domain without “substances”and in which the “whole” isn’t given, a movement without a mover, a “pure movement”.


For those wishing to knows more about philosophycal concepts considereted here : Kant (“time” as pure form of the subjectivity), Bergson (“duration” as “indivisible time”), Nietzsche (“became who you are”), Deleuze (intensity, non-chronological time, Aion), Minkowksy (phenomenological phichiatry, “lived time”), Heidegger (temporality of Dasein).

Image: Google’s celebration of Shirley Temple, hollywoodian icon.