Cinema I

Cinema #1

by Gilles Deleuze

Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) was Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII. He is one of the key figures in poststructuralism, and one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Cinema I is a revolutionary work in the theory of cinema and begins Deleuze's major reassessment of film, concluded in Cinema II. In it, Deleuze identifies three distinct principal types of 'image movement' and draws upon diverse examples from the work of such major filmmakers as Griffith, Eisenstein, Cassavetes and Altman. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Babara Habberjam.

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

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

Deleuze is a key figure in poststructuralist French philosophy. Considering himself an empiricist and a vitalist, his body of work, which rests upon concepts such as multiplicity, constructivism, difference and desire, stands at a substantial remove from the main traditions of 20th century Continental thought. His thought locates him as an influential figure in present-day considerations of society, creativity and subjectivity. Notably, within his metaphysics he favored a Spinozian concept of a plane of immanence with everything a mode of one substance, and thus on the same level of existence. He argued, then, that there is no good and evil, but rather only relationships which are beneficial or harmful to the particular individuals. This ethics influences his approach to society and politics, especially as he was so politically active in struggles for rights and freedoms. Later in his career he wrote some of the more infamous texts of the period, in particular, Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. These texts are collaborative works with the radical psychoanalyst Félix Guattari, and they exhibit Deleuze’s social and political commitment.

Gilles Deleuze began his career with a number of idiosyncratic yet rigorous historical studies of figures outside of the Continental tradition in vogue at the time. His first book, Empirisism and Subjectivity, is a study of Hume, interpreted by Deleuze to be a radical subjectivist. Deleuze became known for writing about other philosophers with new insights and different readings, interested as he was in liberating philosophical history from the hegemony of one perspective. He wrote on Spinoza, Nietzche, Kant, Leibniz and others, including literary authors and works, cinema, and art. Deleuze claimed that he did not write “about” art, literature, or cinema, but, rather, undertook philosophical “encounters” that led him to new concepts. As a constructivist, he was adamant that philosophers are creators, and that each reading of philosophy, or each philosophical encounter, ought to inspire new concepts. Additionally, according to Deleuze and his concepts of difference, there is no identity, and in repetition, nothing is ever the same. Rather, there is only difference: copies are something new, everything is constantly changing, and reality is a becoming, not a being.

He often collaborated with philosophers and artists as Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Guy Hocquenghem, René Schérer, Carmelo Bene, François Châtelet, Olivier Revault d'Allonnes, Jean-François Lyotard, Georges Lapassade, Kateb Yacine and many others.

Reviews

[Zoey Selwyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Letterboxd be like

[Jared Colley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wow, this is the most creative exploration of film theory I have ever read. It remains consistent with Gilles Deleuze's more fundamental philosophical views. Philosophy, for him, is a creative endeavor - it is not a representational exercise nor is it a process of clarifying what we say in other fields, disciplines, etc. Philosophy is the creation, exploration, & putting to use of concepts, and that's what this book is. Deleuze introduces a concept and explores it by way of film - putting it to use by classifying film images. If you read any/much film theory, this will not serve as another dialogue contributing to the mainstream discourse of film studies (at least not at first read). Deleuze pretty much ignores the tradition of "how one usually must talk about film." He creates his own concepts (as one would expect) and thoroughly explores their application to pre-WWII films of all national traditions. Now, this hits upon one of my objections/complaints of this book; he only addresses films before WWII, and many of these movies are now inaccessible to the average person. He gives reason & argument for only addressing early films; he claims such films centered around "movement" - whereas later films focus on "time" (the movement image vs. the time image). However, this narrow focus made the book hard to see through; after reading about 20th film that I had not seen (nor well ever...), I began to be frustrated. Still, this book is fascinating for its analysis of various montage traditions (Russian, American, German, & French...) - never read such a penetrating and clarifying assessment of the subject.

[Tintarella · Rating 5 out of 5]

می‌دانیم که اشیا و آدم‌ها همواره مجبورند خودشان را از نظر دور نگه دارند، یعنی باید هنگامی که در نقطه‌ی آغاز به سر می‌برند خودشان را پنهان کنند. غیر از این چه می‌توانند بکنند؟ آن‌ها درون مجموعه‌ای هستی می‌یابند که دیگر آن‌ها را شامل نمی‌شود و برای این‌که از آن مجموعه کنار گذاشته نشوند، باید ویژگی‌های مشترک‌شان را با آن مجموعه نشان دهند؛ جوهره‌ی یک چیز هیچ‌گاه در نقطه‌ی شروع آشکار نمی‌شود، بلکه در میانه، در مسیر پرورش و پیشرفتش آشکار می‌شود، هنگامی که قدرتش تضمین شده باشد. برگسون که با طرح پرسش «نو» به جای «ابدیت» فلسفه را متحول کرده بود این نکته را بهتر از هر کس دیگری می‌دانست. مثلاً او گفت که نو بودن زندگی در آغازش نمی‌تواند آشکار شود، چون در آغاز زندگی ناگزیر به تقلید از ماده است... آیا این قضیه درباره‌ی سینما صدق نمی‌کند؟ موقعیت سینما در ابتدا چه بود؟ از یک سو زاویه‌ی دید ثابت بود و از طرف دیگر دم و دستگاه فیلمبرداری با دم و دستگاه نمایش فیلم تلفیق شده بود و از یک زمان انتزاعی یک‌دست و یکسان برخوردار بود. تکامل سینما باید به میانجی مونتاژ رخ می‌داد، از طریق دوربین متحرک و رهاسازی زاویه‌ی دید. نماها دیگر نه ساکن که متحرک بودند. سینما در حکم کشف مجدد آن حرکت-تصویری بود که در نخستین فصل ماده و خاطره آمده بود
.
چندباری کتاب رو شروع کرده بودم ولی هیچ‌وقت نتونسته بودم به ته برسونمش؛ از سختی و پیچیدگی تزهای برگسون که بگذریم، کتاب تماماً درمورد فیلم‌ها صحبت می‌کنه که بدون تماشا کردن‌شون نمی‌شه زیاد جلو رفت. برای همین توی یکی دوسال اخیر سعی کردم کارهای خوب سینمای صامت رو تماشا کنم و باز به کتاب برگردم. حقیقتاً این دوران سینما شگفت‌انگیزه.
توی فصل مونتاژ (فصل سه) درباره‌ی چهار مکتب اولیه سینما صحبت می‌شه:
گرایش اُرگانیک مکتب آمریکائی: گریفیث
گرایش دیالکتیکی مکتب اتحاد جماهیر شوروی: آیزنشتاین و بقیه
گرایش کمّی مکتب فرانسوی پیش از جنگ جهانی دوم: آبل گانس و بقیه
گرایش درون‌گستر مکتب اکسپرسیونیستی آلمان: مورنائو و بقیه
در فصل چهار، دلوز، حرکت-تصویر و سه نوع اون رو معرفی می‌کنه و توی فصول بعدی این سه نوع به اضافه‌ی یک گونه‌ی چهارم و دو حالت بینابینی رو شرح می‌ده:
ادراک-تصویر (فصل پنج): پازولینی، رومر، ورتوف
تاثر-تصویر(فصل شش و هفت): برسون، درایر، آنتونیونی
تکانه-تصویر(مابین تاثر-تصویر و کنش-تصویر)(فصل هشت): بونوئل و استرنبرگ
کنش-تصویر (فصل نه (فرم بزرگ) و ده (فرم کوچک)): فورد، کازان، رِی، فولر، لوبیچ، هاکس، چاپلین و کیتون
بازتاب-تصویر(فصل یازده): حرکت از فرم بزرگ به فرم کوچک: آیزنشتاین، هرتزوگ، کوروساوا و میزوگوچی
نسبت تصویر (فصل دوازده): هیچکاک... نئورئالیسم ایتالیایی، موج نوی فرانسوی و به سوی فراسوی حرکت-تصویر
.
چگونه می‌شود از تصاویر فی‌نفسه‌ای سخن گفت که به هیچ‌کس تعلق ندارند و هیچ‌کس را نیز خطاب قرار نمی‌دهند؟ چگونه می‌شود از نوعی نمودیافتن سخن گفت، در حالی‌که حتی یک چشم هم وجود ندارد؟ دست‌کم به دو دلیل می‌توان گفت که این امکان‌پذیر است. نخست با متمایزکردن آن‌ها از چیزهایی که به عنوان اجسام تصور می‌شوند. در واقع ادراک ما و زبان ما اجسام (نام‌ها)،کیفیات (صفات) و کنش‌ها (فعل‌ها) را از هم متمایز می‌کند. اما کنش‌ها، دقیقاً در این معنا، از پیش حرکت را با ایده‌ی نوعی مکان موقت و ناپایدار جایگزین کرده‌اند که حرکت به سمت آن‌ها هدایت می‌شود یا با ایده‌ی نتیجه‌ای که حرکت به دنبال دارد. کیفیت، حرکت را با ایده‌ی سوژه‌ای جایگزین کرده است که استمرار و ثبات دارد، در همان حال که این حالت منتظر تعویض با حالتی دیگر است. بدن حرکت را با ایده‌ی سوژه‌ای جایگزین کرده است که به آن تحقق می‌بخشد یا با ایده‌ی ابژه‌ای که تابع حرکت می‌شود و در نهایت با ایده‌ی وسیله‌ی نقلیه‌ای که حرکت را منتقل می‌کند. خواهیم دید که چنین تصاویری در جهان شکل می‌گیرند (کنش-تصویرها، تاثر-تصویرها، ادراک-تصویرها). اما این تصویرها متکی به شروطی تازه‌اند...
فعلاً ما فقط حرکت‌ها را داریم که به این خاطر تصاویر نامیده می‌شوند تا آن‌ها را از چیزی که تاکنون به آن تبدیل نشده‌اند متمایز کنند، اما این دلیل سلبی کفایت نمی‌کند. دلیل ایجابی‌اش این است که سطح درون‌ماندگاری کاملاً از نور تشکیل می‌شود. مجموعه‌ی حرکت‌ها، کنش‌ها و واکنش‌ها نوری است که پخش می‌شود، نوری که «بی هیچ مقاومت و خسرانی» منتشر می‌شود. این‌همانی تصویر و حرکت ریشه در این‌همانی ماده و نور دارد. تصویر حرکت است، درست همان‌طور که ماده نور است. بعدها برگسون در استمرار و هم‌زمانی اهمیت وارونه شدنِ خطوط نور و خطوط صلب و وارونه‌شدنِ شکل‌های نوری و شکل‌های هندسی یا جامد را با نظریه‌ی نسبیت نشان داد: از منظر نسبیت، شکل‌های برساخته از نور است که شروط خود را بر شکل‌های صلب تحمیل می‌کنند. اگر به یاد بیاوریم که برگسون چه‌قدر مشتاق خلق فلسفه‌ای بود که به علم مدرن تعلق داشته باشد (نه به مفهوم تامل در باب علم، یعنی نوعی معرفت‌شناسی، بلکه برعکس نوعی ابداع مفاهیم خودآیین که توان انطباق با نمادهای جدید علم را داشته باشد)، آن‌وقت است که می‌فهمیم چرا مواجهه‌ی برگسون با اینشتین اجتناب‌ناپذیر بود. نخستین جنبه‌ی این مواجهه و رویارویی تصدیقِ انتشار یا پخش نور بر کل سطح درون‌ماندگاری‌ست. در حرکت-تصویر هنوز اجسام یا خطوط ثابت وجود ندارد، فقط خطوط یا پیکره‌های نور وجود دارد. قطعاتِ فضا-زمان چنین پیکره‌هایی هستند؛ آن‌ها تصاویری فی‌نفسه‌اند. اگر این تصاویر برای کسی نمود نیابند، یعنی بر چشم کسی، به این خاطر است که نور هنور منعکس یا متوقف نشده است و نور مادام که از حرکت بازنایستد هرگز... عیان نمی‌شود. به بیان دیگر، چشم، درونِ چیزهاست، در خودِ تصاویر روشن‌تاب. «عکاسی، اگر عکاسی وجود داشته باشد، در خودِ درون چیزها و برای همه‌ی نقاط فضا از پیش تصویر و عکسش گرفته می‌شود».
این گسست از کلِ سنت فلسفی است که نور را در سمت روح قرار داد و آگاهی را شعاع نوری دانست که چیزها را از دل تاریکی ذاتی‌شان بیرون می‌کشد. پدیدارشناسی هنوز کاملاً درون این سنت کهن قرار داشت: اما به جای آن‌که نور را به نوری درونی تبدیل کند، صرفاً آن را به سمت بیرون تاباند، گویی قصدیت یا حیث التفاتی آگاهی پرتو نوری متعلق به یک چراغِ برقی بود (هر آگاهی آگاهی از چیری‌ست...) برگسون تلقی کاملاً متفاوتی داشت. چیزها به خودی خود روشن بودند بی‌آن‌که چیزی آن‌ها را روشن کند: تمام آگاهی چیزی است، آگاهی را نمی‌توان از شیئ، یعنی از تصویر نور، تفکیک کرد. اما این‌جا نوعی آگاهی درست و حقیقی وجود دارد که در همه‌جا منتشر می‌شود و با این حال منبعش را فاش نمی‌کند: آگاهی در واقع عکسی‌ست که از پیش در همه‌ی چیزها وجود دارد و برای همه‌ی نقاط گرفته و برداشته شده است، اما این آگاهی «نیمه شفاف » است. در نتیجه، اگر عملاً نوعی آگاهی در جهان شکل گیرد، در جایی روی سطح درون‌ماندگاری، بدین خاطر است که تصاویر بسیار خاص، نور را منعکس یا متوقف کرده‌اند و «پرده‌ی سیاهی» را پدید آورده‌اند که در صفحه غایب است. خلاصه این‌که این آگاهی نیست که نور است، بلکه مجموعه‌ی تصاویر یا نور، که همان آگاهی است، درون ماده وجود دارند. همان‌طور که برای آگاهی‌مان از واقعیت این آگاهی چیزی نخواهد بود مگر همان تیرگی و ماتی‌ای که بدونِ آن نور «همواره منتشر می‌شود بی‌آن‌که هیچ‌گاه منبع آن عیان گردد». تقابل میان برگسون و پدیدارشناسی، از این منظر تقابلی ریشه‌ای است.
از این رو می‌توانیم بگوئیم که سطح درون‌ماندگاری یا سطح ماده مجموعه‌ای از حرکت-تصویرهاست؛ توده‌ای از خطوط یا پیکره‌های نورانی؛ دنباله‌ای از قطعه‌های فضا-زمان.

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a brilliant analysis of how the history of film impacted its form, its style and the technological advancements of it. Deleuze argues that before WW II cinema can best be defined by looking at how directors attempted to capture movement and how that movement is related to time. As a a result of these developments, Deleuze argues that cinema is the logical progression in the development of human thought (philosophy) so that cinema represents the ways in which the mind, body, and time constantly relate and react to form some type of human experience.
Deleuze displays a passion for abstract ideas and a refined sense of the technical qualities of film and how those qualities may be used to make films. For anyone interested in thinking more deeply about cinema and philosophy this is a must read.

[Harry · Rating 1 out of 5]

Being a French philosopher, Deleuze is happy to constrain himself in his own rigid schema of film semantics and then proceed to dismember and mangle the work of several filmmakers to make it fit. On a positive note, there are some interesting perspectives on various aspects of the cinematic language here and there, although, more often than not, the most substantial bits end up being quotes by others - usually filmmakers, by the way, not philosophers or film theorists. But even the best parts of this book feel more like poetic ideas than any kind of a coherent system of analysis. I understand that after finishing this book I should continue with Cinema II: The Time-Image. But I think that, for now at least, I will pass.

[Myriam Rodriguez Del Real · Rating 5 out of 5]

me ha parecido super revelador leer este libro para trabajar la ontologia de deleuze!!! como dice nicolás no es un estudio sobre cine sino una excusa para hablar de su movida: la ontologia!!!!

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the first of the two-volume study of cinema that Deleuze undertook through his university seminar and then in print. This volume deals with the pre-World War II concept of what he calls the "movement-image", basing his reflections on Henri Bergson's works as well as developing a classification of cinematographic effects through the semiology of CS Peirce. For anyone interested in delving into this more deeply, I have provided thumbnail (and some not-so-thumbnail) descriptions of Deleuze's Cinema seminars, from 1981-1985, at deleuze.cla.purdue.edu, and the first year, 81-82, follows the chapters of The Image-Movement quite (and perhaps too) rigorously. I say "too rigorously" because even Deleuze was not satisfied with what he accomplished in year 1, so he devoted all of year 2, 82-83, to a sort of do-over of the material presented in year 1, as well as providing numerous developments that would prepare discussion of the material appearing in volume II, The Time-Image, material that occupies most of years 3 and 4.

[S*****]

Unfinished but I’ve read as much of this book as I’ll probably ever read

[Alex Abbott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Breaks down cinema to its most semiotic: the image. I have some reservations about the relation of certain types of films transposed against what “image” Deleuze duscusses but there’s some really essential stuff here on hawks, Ford, Losey, Herzog, and especially Eisenstein. Made me sit back in ponder, stroke my chin and furrow my brow.

[Peyman Gh · Rating 5 out of 5]

دارم ترجمه اش میکنم. بیشتر بدرد دلوزی ها میخوره تا سینمایی ها اما بدلیل علاقه ام به سینما دارم این ترجمه رو انجام میدم و البته شناخت بیشتر از دلوز. تا حالا که خوب پیشرفته. احتمالا تا شیش ماه دیگه تمومه. دلوز رو بخاطر سیلان ها و امیالش دوست دارم. همین

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting.

[محمد خضر · Rating 3 out of 5]

قرأته متماهي وقريب من كتاب بارت و سوزان سونتاغ في الصورة
مع اختلاف الرؤية بين الفلسفي والفني
وربما الترجمة كان سببا في عدم تقبله

[joe]

A book of film philosophy and critique that strips the art form back to its most simple and mechanical infrastructure. Deleuze aims to split the finer points that make up the film as whole, and then intensely focus upon each of these points to figure out their historical development.

I feel that once you accept this book for its almost impenetrable nature, you can find sections and pieces of the content that do stick with you, but there are other times when, upon a first reading, you will be left feeling confused and deflated from noticing just how much information is flying in one ear and out the other.

I consider it redundant to highlight any elements of impenetrableness in relation to philosophy packed within this work, because, well, obviously that comes with the territory of picking this subject, I just don’t think I quite expected it with this. Maybe it’s due to the book centring around film, a form of entertainment that I’ve grown up with and, outside of a handful of mind-altering movies, has had the main impact of pure enjoyment in my life. In that way, Cinema I does well to open new viewpoints and voices for me to take into any of the future films I go on to consume. Like I said, it can just be a little difficult to follow in the moments that Deleuze is really in flow-state, rambling to the point of manic passion as you inwardly plead for him to just let you know if what he’s touching on is good or bad critique.

Outrageously detailed, maddeningly microscopic. I’d recommend this book for anyone who wants to amplify their outlook on film and expand on skills and reference points in terms of film critique and weighted analysis.

[Sean · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took quite a while to get into this (I think I read 70 pages in 2 months), but once I buckled down and pushed through the rest (I read the remaining 140 pages in 2 days) it worked a whole lot better. It’s an incredibly dense text, but also an incredibly rewarding one once I started to understand it—I think a lot of it is just how long it took to familiarize myself with Deleuze’s style of writing. With that all in mind, I’m still very comfortable calling this an “essential text” as it has unlocked a whole world of vocabulary and ideas to use when interacting with film (and art in general). I honestly wish I’d read this earlier because, even though I would’ve understood it less, I’d have had more time to sit with it and use it as a lens, but in any case, this feels like a pretty definitive moment for me, so I’m excited to see how this work grows with me over time and incrementally changes how I look at film. I’ve really just never experienced anything like this, there are already a half-dozen passages bouncing around my head that I don’t think will ever leave, and there will undoubtedly be more to come!!

[Vuk Trnavac · Rating 5 out of 5]

Malo je reći da Delez dobro poznaje filmsku umetnost, a potrebno je istaći da on na temelju ovog dela, ali i potonjeg (2. dela) osim što gradi jednu sopstvenu fenomenologiju (filmske) slike na temeljima sopstvenog bergsonizma, itekako uspeva da provuče neke svakodnevne diskurse koji se opet povratno tiču samih filmova o kojima govori.
Bilo bi zanimljivo samo izlistati sve filmove i režisere o kojima govori, a svakako da su među njima mnogi od najvećih filmskih stvaralaca. Izostala je analiza Tarkovskog i uklapanje u njegov zahtevan kontekst. Nadam se da je ima u drugom delu.

[Aljoša Toplak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shoutout to my university professor who made us study Pierce's theory of signs -- without it, I'd probably find this book utterly incomprehensible. Because this isn't film theory in its usual sense, it's a philosophical taxonomy of images. In it, to grossly simplify his point, Deleuze identifies the dialectics of classic cinema, which is:

1. perception-image (what's seen);
2. affection-image (close-up, emotional reaction);
3. action-image (character does something in given situation).

I especially appreciated the closing thoughts on Hitchcock, who is said to perfect the classical cinematic system—he doesn't just use it, he exposes and amplifies its underlying logic to the point where it almost starts to break down. Hitchcock explores the limits of representation within that system, and in doing so, he prepares the ground for its collapse—which is exactly what happens in postwar cinema (leading to Deleuze's Cinema Volume 2). He acts like the philosopher who perfects a system so well that it starts to show its own contradictions (Wittgenstein comes to mind).

Sadly Deleuze often presupposes that we know both the history of cinema, the movies he mentions and the philosophies he cites. Luckily I studied philosophy and am familiar with Pierce and Bergson, etc. But my lack of knowledge about cinema showed a lot, I even had to skip some parts because they didn't say a whole lot to me. If someone can sit down and read this book with relative ease -- I must admit, that's a flex.

[Zeyad El Rashidy · Rating 4 out of 5]

جميل بالرغم ان اغلب الكتاب مش فاهمه بس مع الوقت و إعادة القراءة هيبقى اجمل

[Camille🪼]

L’universitaire primé par pitié pour un mec qui parlait du capitalisme ect l’accessibilité à son écriture il s’est pas posé de questions ce fdp😭😭😭😭

[Christopher McQuain · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5. Possibly an inexhaustible text; there's no way I fully grasped or absorbed nearly everythinghere. But a first reading provoked profoundly, at least, and dug some refreshing new tracks in my thinking, about cinema and also, unexpectedly, about the philosophical and the metaphysical.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was somewhere between a freeze frame and a buffering screen that I met Gilles Deleuze. The year? 2021–2023. The world was virtual, cinema was being discussed in square boxes on Zoom, and I was a replacement teacher for an online film studies batch based in Bangalore.

The class was supposed to be straightforward—genre, mise-en-scène, a little Hitchcock, a dash of Kurosawa. But Deleuze had other plans. Enter Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. This wasn’t just a book; it was a philosophical labyrinth where Bergson met Eisenstein for espresso, and every frame came with metaphysical baggage.

I didn’t pick up Deleuze because I wanted to—I picked it up because I had to. My students were smart, curious, and somehow already name-dropping "affection-images" in the group chat. So I dove in.

At first, it was chaos. Sentences unfolded like Möbius strips. Concepts spiraled. I had to pause every page and rewatch half of Battleship Potemkin just to breathe. But slowly, like montage itself, meaning began to emerge in the juxtapositions.

Deleuze taught me that cinema is not just about storytelling—it's about time, perception, and how we think through images. A simple tracking shot? No longer simple. It became a philosophical movement in itself. A dissolve? A bridge between sensory-motor schemas.

During one class, I attempted to explain the “perception-image” using a scene from Bicycle Thieves. I expected silence. What I got instead was a barrage of interpretations. One student said it felt like the frame itself had "a nervous system." And just like that, I realized: Deleuze doesn’t simplify cinema—he dignifies it. He takes it seriously enough to give it the same complexity we reserve for life.

Was it exhausting? Yes.

Did I feel like I was trapped in a Tarkovsky dreamscape half the time? Also yes.

But did Cinema 1 rewire the way I see movement, time, and light on screen?

Absolutely.

So here's to that unexpected journey into French philosophy, Soviet montage, and Indian film students who asked all the right questions. Deleuze didn’t just help me teach film—he changed the way I watched it. Forever.

[Ebrahim Barzegar · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب رو جرعه جرعه خوندم مثل شراب که تاثیرش بیشتر باشه و بیشتر مکیف شم.
دلوز با فلسفه آفرینشگری که در ذهنش داره وارد تاریخ سینما میشه و سینما و فیلم رو با بنیان های فلسفی خودش واکاوی میکنه. این کتاب تحلیل سینما نیست و یا فیلم، این کتاب تاریخ سینما یک فیلسوفه با تمام ادراکات و حواس و جهان بینی خودش.

دلوز در ابتدا با تبیین و معرفی کلید واژه های خودش کتاب رو آغاز می کنه و سپس دستگاه فکری خودش رو سکوی پرتابی به سوی فیلم و سینما قرار میده. و در نیمه دوم کتاب به تحلیل جامع و کلی - منظورم طرح کلی و ساختار کلی فیلمسازه - می پردازه.

درک نگاه دلوز آسون نیست، پیچیده و هزارتوئه. مثل ریشه درختی می مونه که بعد از قطع شدن، جون می گیره و مسیر جدیدی رو پیش می گیره.

ضمنا ترجمه عالی آقای مازیار اسلامی رو هم دست کم نگیریم. واقعا عالی بود

[Srishti Jain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cinema 1 and 2 are both difficult books to fathom and completely submerge yourself within. I have taken half a year between work breaks and smoke breaks to completely understand the ideologies and breakthroughs this book tries to provide its reader. I still believe I need to read them again to fully engage and emulate these theoretical studies of cinema in the way I process it as a viewer. However reading cinema 1 and 2 is essential to grow, demystify and critic any audio visual material and watch movies with a keen mind to create your own ideologies and arguments regarding the material. These books are a learning curve in cinematic language, theory and the philosophy behind the technicalities of film.

[Natalia Hernández Moreno · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nothing beats a feverish cinephile’s narration of cinema’s history. “Kafka suggested making mixtures, putting phantom machines on the apparatuses of translation: this was very new for the the time, a telephone in a train, post-boxes on a boat, cinema in an airplane. Is this not also the whole history of the cinema: the camera on rails, on a bicycle, aerial, etc.? And that is what Wenders wants when he makes the two series interpenetrate in his first films […] This is the affection-image: it has as its limit the simple affect of fear and the effacement of faces in nothingness. But as its substance is has the compound affect of desire and of astonishment – which gives its life – and the running aside of faces in the open, in the flesh.”

[Susan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Started reading this as part of thinking-through my slowly-evolving film project on Christine Jorgensen, but got bogged down, felt like I wasn't familiar enough with the Bergson that Deleuze relies on so heavily, so I've put it down until I can wade through Matter and Memory and perhaps Creative Evolution. Also broke down and got the Delueze Dictionary. And I've been ordering a lot of Hitchcock on Netflix to refreh my memory before tackling Cinema 2 . . .

[Andrés Quesada]

Una hermenéutica del cine distinta a la deconstrucción típica de la crítica contemporánea, esta bergsoniana sirve para mirarlo de otra forma, desde un lugar más "esencialista" y formal. A la vez hace que el cine parezca una expresión metafísica de una cosmovisión de la ciencia y la física moderna. Por más de que estos dos enunciados sean contradictorios, en el libro conviven. Las ideas de Bergson que explica Deleuze son extrapolables a áreas fuera del campo del cine. Un gran hallazgo.

[Amy Woodbury Tease · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deleuze's theory (part one) of the cinema. A good read for those who want to think about how the cinema works as apparatus and how it helps us to theorize perception and to think about "the image" as an idea or concept.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deleuze's analysis of the construction of the movement image and its relation to the creation and perception of subjectivity. This book gives a detailed structural analysis of film, its history and development. Cinema I focuses on spatial subjectivity and the construction of the hero. Excellent.

[Joanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Harder than snot to read, but I'm still chewing on its ideas two years later.

[Laginestra · Rating 5 out of 5]

L'amore per il cinema confessato da un genio. Per me commovente.

[Yahya · Rating 1 out of 5]

ربما سوء الترجمة