The Intervals of Cinema

by Jacques Rancière, John Howe (Translator)

Cinema, like language, can be said to exist as a system of differences. In Intervals of Cinema, acclaimed philosopher Jacques Rancière looks at cinematic art in comparison to its corollary forms in literature and theatre. From literature, he argues, cinema takes its narrative conventions, while at the same time effacing literature’s images and philosophy; and film rejects theatre, while also fulfilling theatre’s dream.

Genres: Film, Philosophy, Art, Nonfiction, Theory, Cultural, Academic

160 pages, Paperback

First published April 21, 2011

About the author

Jacques Rancière (born Algiers, 1940) is a French philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris (St. Denis) who came to prominence when he co-authored Reading Capital (1968), with the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.

Rancière contributed to the influential volume Reading "Capital" (though his contribution is not contained in the partial English translation) before publicly breaking with Althusser over his attitude toward the May 1968 student uprising in Paris.
Since then, Rancière has departed from the path set by his teacher and published a series of works probing the concepts that make up our understanding of political discourse. What is ideology? What is the proletariat? Is there a working class? And how do these masses of workers that thinkers like Althusser referred to continuously enter into a relationship with knowledge? We talk about them but what do we know? An example of this line of thinking is Rancière's book entitled Le philosophe et ses pauvres (The Philosopher and His Poor, 1983), a book about the role of the poor in the intellectual lives of philosophers.

Most recently Rancière has written on the topic of human rights and specifically the role of international human rights organizations in asserting the authority to determine which groups of people — again the problem of masses — justify human rights interventions, and even war.

In 2006, it was reported that Rancière's aesthetic theory had become a point of reference in the visual arts, and Rancière has lectured at such art world events as the Freize Art Fair. Former French presidential candidate Ségolène Royal has cited Rancière as her favourite philosopher.

Reviews

[Amirsaman · Rating 1 out of 5]

احمقانه‌ترین و وقیحانه‌ترین ترجمه‌ای که تا حالا از چیزی خوندم. رهاشده در صفحه‌ی ۱۰۲.

[Clove · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot! But also, no, I didn’t

[rita · Rating 4 out of 5]

"o cinema não é um objeto sobre o qual eu me tenha debruçado como um filósofo ou como um crítico. a minha relação com ele é um jogo de encontros e intervalos. (...) antes de ser um caso teórico, a cinefilia é uma relação com o cinema e é um caso de paixão"

a relação entre cinema e literatura, cinema e política, cinema e teoria - em suma, o cinema enquanto "uma multidão de coisas".

[حسين الضو · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't learn much from it..

[fiona · Rating 4 out of 5]

c’est toujours passionnant de lire Ranciere
(même si je comprends pas tout)

[Heronimo Gieronymus · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am always most fond of Rancière when he is writing on cinema. This should not be surprising considering that I have an academic background in Film Studies. However, I am not only interested in Rancière when he writes on the cinema. Really, his two principal subjects are aesthetics and politics, broadly speaking, and I have long found his digressions on both those subjects to be of interest. That being said, his publications strike me as being of uneven value. I was very taken w/ his recent book Aisthesis: Scenes from the Aesthetic Regime of Art, which may well indeed be his finest. There are parcels of insight contained within it that, even after the general theoretical thrust of the work has dimmed in my mind, continue to stay w/ me (I benefited immeasurably, for example, from his critical linkage of Dziga Vetov and Walt Whitman). The Intervals of Cinema is a fairly streamlined and accessible work, and reading it in its entirety certainly doesn't demand a major dedication of time. It is essentially six essays split in broadly thematic twos, preceded by a strong preface. The first section focuses on cinema in relationship to advances made by modernist literature, a second section (certainly the broadest) on art and cinema (mostly about the dynamics between performance and fiction, the seen and unseen), and the final section on cinema and politics. There is not a poor essay in the bunch. They are all in some way remarkable. If pressed to choose, I would say that I think the strongest section is the first. But this whole collection is very much a unified theoretical work. It looks pertinently at concepts related to narrative, visual grammar, what it means to look, bodies, performance, justice, and injustice. And again, of course, the visible and the invisible. Fair warning: a strong familiarity w/ film history is pretty much essential.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting collection of essays by Rancière, bringing his philosophical eye to cinematic form. I found the chapters on Vertigo and Bresson's Mouchette particularly interesting and it was nice to see a brief take on Bela Tarr's Sátántangó in a later essay (which I just finished watching). He introduced me to some interesting films that I wasn't aware of that I'll have to see if I can track down.

[Ellie Curran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ranciere’s love for cinema is both endearing and inspiring. His analysis of key films, auteurs and film movements delicately weaves together Marxism, the development of the narrative, politics/the politics of film and philosophy in an accessible way, placing the reader in the position of an equal. I finished the book feeling like his friend and will have to re-read it once I’ve watched all of the films he discusses.

[Darren · Rating 4 out of 5]

I still ain't smart enough to get all of this but I got enough out of it

[Ippolit · Rating 2 out of 5]

Definitely not a great place to start w/ Ranciere. These are the meditations of someone mid-late career. Essay on Bresson is worth reading.

[Maria Nolasco · Rating 4 out of 5]

"La photographie, c'est la vérité et le cinéma, c'est vingt-quatre fois la vérité par seconde"

[Filipe Siqueira · Rating 3 out of 5]

Infelizmente perdi a maioria das referências porque não vi a maior parte dos filmes e sem tais elementos o livro e suas teorias perde força

[Dylan Kiewel · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

the preface of this may have hoodwinked me a bit. as perfect a clarification and defense of cinephilia as one could ask for. the rest of the book was hit or miss for me depending on my interest in the filmmakers he was talking about i think. the bresson section on mouchette. of course this will hit for me. umpteenth cinephilic rumination on vertigo less so. rossellini's philosophical films ? no thanks. straub and costa yes to some extent. the minelli part felt underwhelming though i do very much want to fully embrace him.

[Arman · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب حاضر، از دو جنبه قابل‌توجه است. نخست اشتیاق و شیفتگی یک فیلسوف به سینما و دیگری تحلیل‌های او از فیلم‌ها.از هیچکاک، ورتوف، نیکلاس ری و ژان لوک گدار به‌عنوان یکی از رادیکال‌ترین و پیشروترین سینماگران جهان تا وینسنت مینلی که آثار کلاسیک متفاوت و به نامی در کارنامه هنری خود دارد.
https://taaghche.com/book/40702/

[Alba F. Fuertes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cinco estrellas para los fragmentos políticos, que deslumbran en su análisis de la potencialidad estética de Pedro Costa; dos para las nebulosas indescifrables que componen el resto del libro.

“El cine no puede ser el equivalente a la carta de amor o de la música de los pobres. Tampoco puede ser el arte que se limita a devolver a los humildes la riqueza sensible de su mundo. Debe aceptar no ser más que la superficie donde procura cifrarse en nuevas figuras la experiencia de quienes han sido relegados al margen de las circulaciones económicas y las trayectorias sociales”

[Charlie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel like Rancière's political science-minded readers would maybe get more out of this than I did, coming in as a Rancière neophyte and film studies reader. Not gonna lie, a lot of this was going a bit over my head!

[agenbiteofinwit · Rating 3 out of 5]

i thought i had trouble understanding english because i really had no clue what the man was on about; also it feels incredibly hazy and obscure for me. thought it had more to do with film theory but it’s just some in-depth essays about mostly films i hadn’t watched. gave up halfway.

[Tacodisc · Rating 1 out of 5]

Practically unreadable. Painfully unclear writing, and what few insights come through aren’t particularly worth the time.

[Sadra]

ترجمه، ویرایش و حتی ساده‌ترین مسائل در یک جمله‌بندی ساده مشکل دارد. مترجم و ویراستار و ناشر باید ابتدا کمی با زبان فارسی آشنا بشوند و بعد درباره ادامه به کار در حوزهٔ نشر تصمیم بگیرند.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Cinema cannot be the equivalent of the love letter or the music of the poor. It can no longer be the art that simply gives back to the humble palpable riches of their world. It should consent to being merely the surface on which the experience of those relegated to the margins of economic circuits and social pathways seeks to be ciphered in new forms. That surface should welcome the split between portrait and painting, chronicle and tragedy, reciprocity and fissure. One art should take shape in place of another."

[Hélder Magalhães · Rating 4 out of 5]

Uma leitura essencial para os amantes de cinema. Um estudo sobre o sistema de diferenças e contradições que fazem o cinema existir — as relações e dissociações com a literatura e o teatro.