新生學校財團法人新生醫護管理專科學校圖書館 |

Refractions of reality = philosophy and the moving image /

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Refractions of reality/ John Mullarkey.
Reminder of title:	philosophy and the moving image /
Author:	Mullarkey, John.
Published:	Basingstoke [England] ;Palgrave Macmillan, : 2009.,
Description:	xviii, 282 p. ;23 cm.;
Subject:	Motion pictures - Philosophy. -
Online resource:	access to fulltext (Palgrave)
ISBN:	9780230582316

Refractions of reality = philosophy and the moving image /
Mullarkey, John.

Refractions of realityphilosophy and the moving image /[electronic resource] :John Mullarkey. - Basingstoke [England] ;Palgrave Macmillan,2009. - xviii, 282 p. ;23 cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 261-272) and index.

Preface: The Film-Envy of Philosophy -- Introduction: Nobody Knows Anything! -- Illustrating Manuscripts -- Bordwell and Other Cogitators -- Zizek and the Cinema of Perversion -- Deleuze's Kinematic Philosophy -- Cavell, Badiou, and Other Ontologists -- Expanded Cognitions and theSpeeds of Cinema -- Fabulation, Process and Event -- Refractions of Reality Or, What is Thinking Anyway? -- Conclusion: Code Unknown - A Bastard Theory for a Bastard Art.

Why is film becoming increasingly important to philosophers? Is it because it can be a helpful tool in teaching philosophy, in illustratingit? Or is it because film can also think for itself, can create its own philosophy? Indeed, many film-philosophers claim that film does more than merely illustrate philosophical texts: rather, film itself can philosophise in direct audio-visual terms. Too often, however, when philosophers claim to find indigenous philosophical value in cinema, it is only on account of refracting it through their own thought: film philosophises because it accords witha favoured kind of extant philosophy. Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image is the first book to examine all the central issues surrounding the vexed relationship between the film-image and philosophy. In it, John Mullarkey tackles the work of particular philosophers and theorists(Zizek, Deleuze, Cavell, Bordwell, Badiou, Branigan, Rancèire, Frampton, and many others) as well as general philosophical positions (Analytical and Continental, Cognitivist and Culturalist, Psychoanalytic and Phenomenological). Moreover,it also offers an incisive analysis and explanation of several prominent forms of film theorising, providing a meta-logical account of their mutual advantages and deficiencies that will prove immensely useful to anyone interested in the details of particular theories of film presently circulating, as well as correcting, revising, and re-visioning the field offilm theory as a whole. Throughout, Mullarkey asks whether the reduction of film to text is unavoidable. In particular: must philosophy (and theory) always transform film into pre-texts for illustration? What would it take to imagine how film might itself theorise without reducing it to standard forms of thought and philosophy? Finally, and fundamentally, must we change our definition of philosophy and even of thought itself in order to accommodate the speci?cities that come with the claim thatfilm can produce philosophical theory?

Electronic reproduction.
Basingstoke, England :
Palgrave Macmillan,
2009.

Mode of access:World Wide Web.

ISBN: 9780230582316

Standard No.: 10.1057/9780230582316doiSubjects--Topical Terms:

88314
Motion pictures
--Philosophy.Index Terms--Genre/Form:

96803
Electronic books.

LC Class. No.: PN1995 / .M73 2009eb

Dewey Class. No.: 791.4301

Refractions of reality = philosophy and the moving image /
LDR:03754nmm 2200301Ia 4500 001 159432
003 OCoLC
005 20100709081738.0
006 m d
007 cr cn|
008 160219s2009 enk sb 001 0 eng d
020 $a 9780230582316
020 $a 0230582311
024 7 $a 10.1057/9780230582316 $2 doi
035 $a (OCoLC)314821496
035 $a ocn314821496
040 $a UKPGM $b eng $c UKPGM
049 $a APTA
050 1 4 $a PN1995 $b .M73 2009eb
082 0 4 $a 791.4301 $2 22
100 1 $a Mullarkey, John. $3 307255
245 1 0 $a Refractions of reality $h [electronic resource] : $b philosophy and the moving image / $c John Mullarkey.
260 $a Basingstoke [England] ; $a New York : $c 2009. $b Palgrave Macmillan,
300 $a xviii, 282 p. ; $c 23 cm.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references (p. 261-272) and index.
505 0 $a Preface: The Film-Envy of Philosophy -- Introduction: Nobody Knows Anything! -- Illustrating Manuscripts -- Bordwell and Other Cogitators -- Zizek and the Cinema of Perversion -- Deleuze's Kinematic Philosophy -- Cavell, Badiou, and Other Ontologists -- Expanded Cognitions and theSpeeds of Cinema -- Fabulation, Process and Event -- Refractions of Reality Or, What is Thinking Anyway? -- Conclusion: Code Unknown - A Bastard Theory for a Bastard Art.
520 $a Why is film becoming increasingly important to philosophers? Is it because it can be a helpful tool in teaching philosophy, in illustratingit? Or is it because film can also think for itself, can create its own philosophy? Indeed, many film-philosophers claim that film does more than merely illustrate philosophical texts: rather, film itself can philosophise in direct audio-visual terms. Too often, however, when philosophers claim to find indigenous philosophical value in cinema, it is only on account of refracting it through their own thought: film philosophises because it accords witha favoured kind of extant philosophy. Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image is the first book to examine all the central issues surrounding the vexed relationship between the film-image and philosophy. In it, John Mullarkey tackles the work of particular philosophers and theorists(Zizek, Deleuze, Cavell, Bordwell, Badiou, Branigan, Rancèire, Frampton, and many others) as well as general philosophical positions (Analytical and Continental, Cognitivist and Culturalist, Psychoanalytic and Phenomenological). Moreover,it also offers an incisive analysis and explanation of several prominent forms of film theorising, providing a meta-logical account of their mutual advantages and deficiencies that will prove immensely useful to anyone interested in the details of particular theories of film presently circulating, as well as correcting, revising, and re-visioning the field offilm theory as a whole. Throughout, Mullarkey asks whether the reduction of film to text is unavoidable. In particular: must philosophy (and theory) always transform film into pre-texts for illustration? What would it take to imagine how film might itself theorise without reducing it to standard forms of thought and philosophy? Finally, and fundamentally, must we change our definition of philosophy and even of thought itself in order to accommodate the speci?cities that come with the claim thatfilm can produce philosophical theory?
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Basingstoke, England : $c Palgrave Macmillan, $d 2009. $n Mode of access:World Wide Web. $n System requirements: Web browser. $n Title from title screen (viewed on Mar. 3, 2009). $n Access may berestricted to users at subscribing institutions.
650 0 $a Motion pictures $x Philosophy. $3 88314
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local. $3 96803
710 2 $a Palgrave Connect (Online service) $3 227469
776 1 $c Original $z 9780230002470 $z 0230002471 $w (DLC) 2008035183 $w (OCoLC)236331478
856 4 0 $3 Palgrave Connect $u http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9780230582316 $z access to fulltext (Palgrave)