We can continue this "yes, he did", "No, he didn't" argument separately if you really want to, but in continuing to argue the point, we've taken the initial query a little to far down this road. my contention is less of Deleuze's intent, but of the inescapable permutations of his attempting to narrate a collection of films into a manageable corpus. Which are ultimately to be seen as his view on the development of the medium. My interest is in the philosophies behind film study, and Deleuze, Bazin, Kracauer et al. heve all contributed to the philosophy of film history, whether or not in truth they were just waxing rhapsodic about their favourite films, or aiming at a developed theory. In viewing cinema from the period of the late teens to the present, we are all film historians in some way, whether charting an arbitrary, conceptual/philosophical, or industrial development. My point about Deleuze is that he misses out so much of the very early period of cinema, and pre-cinematic vision cultures, in looking at the development of the movement image, which is why I consider his view of film history a little truncated. It might be because he was not as versed in cinema of attractions, or precinematic forms; or it could be that he simply didn't think them worth considering. I find that examining the effect of his ideas on viewing this history of visual development is fascinating. It may not have been his intention, but there are many Film theorists who do in fact follow a lead from him in viewing cinema history in this way. It's one of many leads which Deleuze'z writing encourages, and he is not alone as a philosopher in influencing film histories. Myself, I find Deleuze's work fascinating in opening up a view of vision culture based on a 'quest' for the representation of perception, of both movement and time. I see Deleuze's ideas, drawn from Bergson, as providing a view of the development of both vision technologies and vision cultures from the Rennaissance onwards. If Gilles Deleuze wasn't particularly interested in this, I'm sure he would have had no objection to theorists developing his ideas. It would be interesting to conjecture on Bazin's ideas on photography and its progression to cinema, but thankfully we have his writings on photography for just that purpose. Deleuze himself never developed such a cross-form analysis in such detail, but that doesn't mean study of his writings should not open out into these areas. Finally, two points: 1 The original question was one of epistemiology. After students of film have been immersed into the dominant history of film, a la Bordwell Thompson, and so on. Surely students should be made aware of the philosophies which guide this history (Marx', Adorno's, Bazin's or whoever) and philosophies which might be seen to challenge dominant paradigms. It seems a shame to me that we can't promote this curiosity and discourse. 2 A point on the subject of paradigms. The dominant paradigm in film study on the intention of meaning and the unconscious is the use of psychanalysis, but the dominant (and indeed accuracy and usefulness) of this approach is constantly questioned. Are we to rebuke such argument as well? Sincerely, Damian ---------------------- Damian Peter Sutton [log in to unmask] ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite