Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GEOFFREY SYKES
Abstract
In his two Cinema books, Gilles Deleuze updates his lifelong philosophical
inquiry using semiotic terminology, which explicitly draws on concepts of
Peirce. In a direction that is arguably of utmost signicance for contempo-
rary semiotics and media studies, Deleuze upgrades his lifelong interest in
philosophy and psychoanalysis using a pragmatic semiotics that involves
major claims for the non- linguistic status of semiotics, as suitable for his
subject matter, lm, and for a fundamental distinction between semiotic
and logical or linguistic based semiology.
Philosophy as theory, and semiotic theory at that, becomes grounded in
innumerable case studies of individual lms. In the same way, Peirce drew
on case studies in science, mathematics, and logic, synthesizing these in
proposals for existential graphs that could assist practical reasoning, so the
Cinema books are quite distinct writings by a conceptual philosopher like
Deleuze, in their sustained attention to enumerated technical subject
matter.
The Cinema books can be regarded in part and, interpretively, as a
whole, as an inspired, albeit intuitive, translation of Peirce for and as media
studies, and through extrapolation, new and televisual media. This paper
argues that the Cinema books provide a pertinent and foundational basis
for an encompassing semiotic model of contemporary media.
1. Introduction
are often excluded from traditions of logic and linguistics, but whose
microanalysis is possible on lm (1989: 29).
One cannot overstress the signicance for any contemporary semiotic
thought, of Deleuzes substitutional terminology. By rebranding sign as
image, and the latter as a moving, cinemagraphic form, he asserts that
semiotics is not only a tool, even an essential tool, for media study, but
that semiotics itself is a form of media study. It is lmic images that
give rise to signs (1989: 29). The sign is an immediate representation or
image of its subject, made possible through the technology of lm. Under
the interpretive gaze of Deleuzes attention to twentieth century lm, pre-
sumptions about all semiotic theory need to be carefully reassessed yet
this reassessment, I would argue, can provide the grounds for a compre-
hensive and fundamentally semiotic account of modern media.
Having declared a manifesto for semiotics, as distinct from semiology,
Deleuze proceeds to elaborate a dyadic model of two semiotics the
movement and time image (Cinema books 1 and 2, respectively), each
with subtypes of images (aect, percept, dicisign, etc). We should note
parallels of his neologistic style with that of Peirce: both authors con-
sciously create a semiotic domain that appropriates and transforms exist-
ing concepts and disciplines, whether of idealist or empirical philosophy,
or lm or scientic logic. Deleuze uses various alternative terminologies,
including noosigns, image-components, signaletic material or
ideograms (1989: 29), for cinegraphic signs. Like Peirce, he adopts
pseudo scientic terms, of the machine, geometrical and geographical con-
cepts like crystalline regime, automaton, deterritorialization, and
his famous, rhizome, as well as a subjective lexia (the aect image)
to clarify and celebrate a dimension of the material semiosis and repre-
sentation, of the body, of speech act, social situation, and abstract states,
on lm, of a complex realization of semiosis as lm, and also lm as
semiosis, in an interpretive perspective often overlooked by studies of cul-
ture and signication. His premise, based on the image lexicon, is so dis-
tinct and radical, even in a crowded tradition of semiotic theories, that he
calls it the basis of a pure semiotic (1986: ix). He does not disguise his
pleasure in elaborating his schema based on his essential foundations.
(Kevelson 1990: 5978; Apel 1981) and it is these themes, and in the
case of Bakhtin, authors, that Deleuze stresses in contrast to the more
subjectivist states of thought he addressed under the rubric of the Time
Image.
Deleuze regards Thirdness as an inquiry into mental or cognitive
signs, yet one that seems to diverge from Bergson and become consistent
with Peirces later, post Kantian thought (and indeed Peirces own antip-
athy to Bergson). Analysis of that process involves directors as varied and
international as Bunuel, Renoir, Wilder, Fassbinder, Visconti, Roussel,
Stroheim, Hitchcock, and Rohmer. As he says of Rohmers gentle inqui-
ries into French conversational manners, the whole story (histoire) of
modes of existence, of choices, of false choices and of the consciousness
of choice, dominates the series of Moral Tales (notably My Night at
Mauds) (1986: 116). It is the Pascalian consciousness of Rohmers
work that relates phenomenology (or philosophy) and lm.
Under the banner of the Thought Image, Deleuze begins to reapproach
Hollywood lm that he had previously dismissed as exemplifying a clas-
sical mode of movement narrative. He praises Hepburn, and other con-
versational works (1989: 232) as being free American discourses, and
oering comedy that embed the spoken speech act as a component of
the visual image and lmic image.
The unied whole of lm, indeed the future of lm to which move-
ment-images contribute, corresponds to the genuine signs of Thirdness,
in which the wholeness of Peircean sign experiences converge. Thus, al-
though there are indeed three sign or image categories in Deleuze, and
although he claims synchrony of his own semiotic types with those of
Peirce, it can be argued that all three correspond with those of Peirce.
5. Conclusion
chosen to highlight the latter by means of his latter day, slim two-volume
publication on lm. Yet the main directions of his thought in particu-
lar the radical conguration of sign as media image, and his cooption of
Peirce in an ongoing study of media, have been argued. The task is not to
take on or contextualize every detail of his cinematographic theory it
is possible that such phenomenological theory of lm can ultimately be
contested but to employ and be inspired by its features, as Peirce
inspired him, and to move towards an integrated, interpretive semiotic
approach to televisual images, that fully addresses digital forms of the
twenty-rst century as Deleuze addressed the lmic forms of the twentieth.
References