Conclusion

What is it to say that we think the commodity through the moving image? Throughout this

book I have tried to answer this central question by investigating the notion that cinema is

a form of consciousness and that cinema’s organic machinic intelligence develops an

entirely fresh ontological terrain for the parthenogenesis of the commodity. The first part of

my thesis was concerned with cinema’s historical invention and how cinema, as an

industrial machine that mechanically reproduces images, automates perception and

manufactures physical affects, remediates the organisational logic of industrial capital and

is driven by the internal logic of the commodity. The early conclusion that I drew from my

theoretical analysis of film montage and genealogical mapping of the film frame in

Renaissance perspective, was that at its most basic level, cinema employs a regime of

abstraction that is isomorphic with that of the commodity. Before even a narrative or

diegesis can be represented or constructed, cinema requires the spectator to enter into a

fetishistic relation with the universal exchange-value of the montage frame; this is how

meaning is formed - in the circulatory exchange of montage images. In this respect, we

think the commodity through the moving-image as soon as we begin ‘reading’ the film

montage as an assembly of framed images. When we understand cinema as not only a

medium of representation but as cognitive and perceptual machinery, as a cinematic

consciousness that imagines film worlds and subjectivities through the formal designs of

the film montage, then the fantastic claim made by Beller that cinema is the material

expression of the commodity or money as consciousness is given considerable weight.

What this theoretical and aesthetic insight into the isomorphic relationship between

the formal structure of cinema and the commodity’s global regime of abstraction confirms

are the broader historical cycles of capital as it begins to penetrate into all dimensions of

social life over the course of the twentieth century. If cinema formally arranges its machine

consciousness according to the abstract laws of the commodity, then this is because with

the invention of cinema and the emergence of cinematic consciousness capital reproduces

itself in the perceptual and bodily space of human consciousness as a mode of production.

In the first half of the twentieth century, what I have called the era of industrial cinema, the

society of the spectacle was still in its infancy and the cinematic economy of the image

was still establishing itself as mode of production for consumer capitalism. As I detail in

second half of my thesis, the post-war economic boom ensured that capital maintained the

same logics of power that Marx had identified in the industrial age right up until the crisis of

Fordism in the 1970s. It wouldn’t be until the end of the twentieth century that the machine

assemblage of cinematic consciousness would become directly utilised as a mode of

economic production - by which time the ontology of the film image had become

completely transformed by digital technologies.

Despite the protracted development of cinema as fully fledged mode of production

during the modernist period, it would be in the hands of Soviet filmmakers such as Vertov

and Eisenstein as well as Leni Riefenstahl, that cinema would be employed as an political

apparatus that could subject the thoughts, desires and consciousness of a mass audience

to the machinic controls of its visual and affective economy. The fascist cinema of

Riefenstahl and the totalitarian cinema of late Eisenstein are exemplary in that they

illustrate how modernist film montages did more than just represent worlds, subjectivities

and consciousness through the formalised abstraction of the commodity, but that the filmic

assembly of images could produce perceptions, thoughts and affects as an externalised

object within the internal mind-body of the subjugated spectator.

It is from my examination of Eisenstein’s dialectical montage and the fascist

informatics of what Deleuze names as movement-image cinema that a more nuanced

picture of cinematic consciousness emerges in relation to the commodity. Instead of just

asserting that cinema remediates the formal architecture of capital in its structural

apparatus, the montage cinema of Eisenstein and Riefenstahl shows how cinema thinks

through the spectator, how the formal aesthetics of the film montage operate as a mode of

production, producing thoughts and affects in the rhythmic framings and imagistic

parcelisations of time and space. Cinematic consciousness becomes a site of production

only when the film economy of the montage-frame translates the attention and emotional

responses of the film audience into a commodity-signifier. In other words, when the labour

of attention, perception and sensation can be measured by the formal relations between

images, by the exchange-value of the framed images as their conflictual juxtaposition or

syntheses create meaning and affect, then they can be realised as commodity-signifiers

for the immaterial labour of cinematic vision and consciousness. In regard to Eisenstein

and Riefenstahl, the valorisation of the audience’s libidinal and affective energies wasn’t

motivated by the logic of economic exchange but by the politics of fascism. Yet, as

Eisenstein’s complex taxonomy of dialectical montage effects illustrates, in the era of

industrial cinema, the idea that thoughts, sensations and responses could be programmed

by filmic movements and the arrangements of the montage, and that these formal

experiments in turn could be catalogued and used in the service of propaganda, already

marks the moment when the mental and bodily labour of the cinematic spectator has

become commodified by industrial cinema’s montage of effects.

Industrial cinema’s most influential figure is Eisenstein. Eisenstein’s films and

theoretical writings represent the most sustained attempt of the period to theorise cinema

as a tool for manipulating the minds and bodies of the masses, and he best articulates

how the cinematic apparatus can function as an instrument of power. However, what really

sets Eisenstein apart from his contemporaries is his attempt to philosophise cinema’s

montage as a universal model for social communication, and to promote the thesis that

cinema constituted a machinic language that transcended the individual and could

structure and mediate society’s mass collective consciousness. Eisenstein’s forays into

imagining montage cinema as a great social media apparatus that organises not

individuals, but the thoughts, affects and sensations felt by individuals into the organic

unity of the filmic montage, is a genuine attempt to theorise cinema as a transubjective

collective machine consciousness. Eisenstein was perhaps the first real theorist of

cinematic consciousness to emerge in the era of industrial cinema and his writings on

cinema provide some of the core theoretical foundations for the philosophy of cinematic

consciousness. It is to this book’s detriment that I couldn’t explore Eisenstein’s significant

theoretical contribution to film philosophy more, except to say that his theorisation of film

montage as formal language for a human-machine cyborg consciousness is a theoretical

touchstone for my own historical conception of cinematic consciousness as it materialises

as a philosophical object in the modernist cultural imaginary.

Eisenstein’s philosophical and political imagining of montage cinema as a

communicative model for the machinic and collective arrangement of social space shows

remarkable prescience when viewed from a contemporary perspective. In many ways, the

global communicational architecture of digital culture realises Eisenstein’s project of

creating, as Cubitt puts it, ‘a society among his images’.1 Digital culture has enabled us to

better understand what Eisenstein was telling us over half a century ago; that images are

more than just representational objects, they are communicational interfaces that structure

the time and space of the social. In the virtual environments of the digital, images signifiy a

whole series of relations, connections and interactive experiences, as Ron Burnett writes:

I use the term image to refer to the complex set of interactions that constitute the

everyday life within image-worlds. The ubiquitious presence of images far exceeds

the conventional notions that images are just objects for consumption, play or

1 Op cit., Cubitt, 1998, p.44.

information. Images are points of mediation that allow access to a variety of

different experiences. Images are the interfaces that structure interaction, people

and the environments they share.2

Our current understanding of the digital image as a medium for communication and

interaction helps us to re-evaluate the ontology of the image as an interface that ‘thinks’

through its relation with other images, bodies, affects and the cultural and social networks

of communication. I have coined the term cinematic consciousness to describe how the

image ‘thinks’ through the medium of film, but the theoretical principles of cinematic

consciousness perhaps find their most crystallised expression in the virtual information

networks of cyberspace. As users navigate through the vast virtual world of digital

information, images become sites of visualisation that allow us to ‘think’ through the

artificial datascapes of cyberspace. Like with cinematic consciousness, the distributed and

complex networks of high-speed digital communication constitute an artificial intelligence

that humans plug into. As such, the subjectivity of the human user is redefined in the

informatic datascape of the digital as a cellular monad that transmits and receives

information along the channels of a vast network.

The second half of my work was motivated to a large extent by the need to situate

cinematic consciousness in the historical and theoretical context of digital culture. How the

philosophical object of cinematic consciousness informs our knowledge and experience of

virtual interactive environments and networks of digital culture is a question that implicitly

runs through my discussion of the Deleuzian time-image in post-war Italian film and is

directly confronted in my final chapter. After Eisenstein, Deleuze’s philosophy of cinema

represents a seminal moment in the theoretical history of cinematic consciousness. His

demarcation of cinema into the two semiotic regimes of the movement-image and the

time-image is premised on the idea that cinema after the Second World War cinema

begins to ‘think’ through a different ‘image’ of time. It is here, in the historical figure of the

time-image, that cinematic consciousness begins to ‘think’ outside the spatiotemporal

parameters of the classical filmic montage. The passage from the time-image to the digital

image is therefore the story of cinematic consciousness becoming informatic and

expanding beyond the technical, formal, aesthetic and ontological limits of filmic media.

There are a number of suppositions that can be drawn from my analysis of the

Deleuzian time-image and the digital image as historiographic reference points for the

narrative of cinematic consciousness. First, following Deleuze’s cinematic philosophy, the

2 Ron Burnett, How Images Think (Cambridge, MA,London: MIT Press, 2005), xviii.

time-image reveals a transformation in the cinematic image that is both ontological and

dimensional. The deep focus, long takes of Italian neorealism, the ‘dead time’ images of

Antonioni, more than just stylistic techniques, are for Deleuze moments when cinema

begins to ‘think’ through new philosophical concepts of time, space, knowledge and being.

It is worth repeating Deleuze’s concluding remarks in Cinema 2 to help clarify what

Deleuze means by the suggesting that cinema produces new ‘concepts’ for philosophical

thought:

Cinema’s concepts are not given in cinema. And yet they are cinema’s concepts,

not theories about cinema. So there is always a time when we must no longer ask

ourselves, ‘What is cinema?’ but ‘What is philosophy?’ Cinema itself is a new

practice of images and signs, whose theory philosophy must produce as conceptual

practice. For no technical determination, whether applied (psychoanalysis,

linguistics) or reflexive, is sufficient to constitute the concepts of cinema itself.3

The time-image offers us through cinema a new way of thinking (and by thinking Deleuze

includes both intelligible cognitive associations and those sensual and affective

experiences that exist outside the traditional bounds of knowledge) through the ‘concept’

of the virtual as an image of time. In Deleuze’s cinematic philosophy, cinema is dominated

up until World War II by the ‘thought-machine’ of movement-image cinema or what I call,

pace Beller, the industrial mode of cinematic production and its filmic-perceptual-cognitive

economy of frame-montage. With the time-image comes a semiotic regime that challenges

the fundamental principles of classical montage/narrative cinema by disrupting the

cognitive, causative, sequential chronologic and spatio-temporal organisation of the filmic

montage. The time-image invests the framed film image with a temporality (what

Tarkovsky calls ‘time-pressure’) that refuses to be understood in the formal context of the

temporal interval between frames or as the cut that marks time as differential demarcation

in the space of the montage. Rather, the time-image images time as a virtual present; as

the indeterminacy of the Now felt in the illusory ‘real-time’ of Italian neorealism or in the

existential gravity of duration sensed in the viewing of Antonioni’s empty spaces. From this

alternate presentation of time in post-war time-images of European cinema, Deleuze

argues a new virtual sense of time emerges, where time is thought as an imminent

becoming or potential in the continuous flux of worldly duration.

3 Op cit., Deleuze, 1989, p.280.

If we depart from Deleuze’s abstract quasi-Bergsonian philosophy of the time-

image, what he in actual fact identifies in cinema is a mutation in what Franscisco Varela

calls ‘time-consciousness’.4 As Hansen discusses in his work, Varela’s neurological theory

of time-consciousness can be read alongside Deleuze’s concept of the time-image. 5

Varela’s model of time-consciousness offers us a way of understanding the shift from the

cinematic consciousness of movement-image cinema to that of the time-image to finally

that of the digital image, as corresponding to a change in time-consciousness, one that

occurs as the human experience of time becomes increasingly mediated by the

computational machine time of electronic and digital culture. Varela, like Deleuze,

promotes the idea that ‘time is less an object of consciousness than its very foundation’

and that it is primarily through affectivity that human consciousness processes the object

of time as an embodied flow, as a microphysical impression experienced in the internal

space of the body, before it becomes translated into a perceptual location in external

space.6 As I have mentioned at various points in the book, Deleuze argues that the

temporal object of the time-image is imperceptible as a perspectival register in the filmic

montage’s spatial geometry. The time-image communicates the time of the image as an

affective experience; the ‘sense’ of time as a virtual conjunction between incompossible

images, places, subjectivities, identities, metaphors and associations outside the

sensorimotor or cognitive connections determined by the spatio-temporal economy of the

frame-montage (this economy is expressed in much of film theory as a narrative logic or as

diegetic coherence). What the time-image expresses, as a philosophical and historical

‘concept’, is a cinematic figuration for a new time-consciousness that supersedes the

perceptual and cognitive capacities of human consciousness while establishing the virtual

as a temporal modality for the cinematic image.

During the immediate post-war period the communication of the virtual as a new

formation of time-consciousness tended to resonate as a lack or emptiness in the time-

images of post-war European cinema. More than just a symbolic expression for the crisis

in the cultural and historical imagination after the Second World War, the anxiety

generated by the time-images of Italian neorealism and Antonioni were symptomatic of a

new time-consciousness being carved out in the bodies, subjectivities and social space of

late twentieth century capitalism. The restructuring of global capital from the Fordist model

of mass industrial production and consumption to an informational economy driven by the

4 See Franscisco Varela, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (Cambridge MA.:

MIT Press, 1991). 5 Op cit., Hansen, 2004, pp.249-254.

6 Ibid, pp. 249, 250.

planetary networks and circuits of televisual, electronic and digital communication, requires

the creation of a human and social time-consciousness that will ensure the interface

between individual consumers and the cybernetic communicational media of corporate

capital will be smooth and productive. This assertion provides the second major

supposition that grounds my genealogical analysis of the time-image and the digital image;

that the time-image opens up a nascent time-consciousness in cinematic consciousness

that will later become the basis for our virtual experience of time in the ‘real-time’

interactive interfaces of digital media.

Because despite Deleuze’s utopian belief that modern cinema had the capacity to

empower thought by imaging time as a virtual object in consciousness, it is only with the

digital image that the temporal object of the virtual is fully realised as an embodied time-

consciousness. Before the advances in digital technology the notion of the virtual could

only ever be imagined in cinema as an absence, like in the time-images of Antonioni, or as

a philosophical abstraction; consider Foucault’s description of Deleuze’s concept of time in

the following passage: ‘a splitting quicker than thought and narrower than any instant. It

causes the same present to arise - on both sides of this indefinitely splitting arrow - as

always existing, as indefinitely present, and as an indefinite future’. In digital culture, the

time-consciousness of the virtual, understood as the perception of time as an infinite now

that bifurcates into a myriad of potential pathways and trajectories, relates the interactive

experience of navigating the distributed networks of cyberspace through the screen of a

computer. Similarly, it is only through our interactive interface with digital images that the

temporal object of the virtual can be mapped in human time-consciousness. The haptic

sensations and physical intensities that are elicited in the spectator by the CGI effects of a

Hollywood blockbuster register the virtual and inhuman time of the digital as a bodily

affect. Indeed, as Hansen concludes in his study of the time-image and the philosophy of

new media, the ‘inscription of machinic time can only be the catalyst for an affective

experience through which the human being confronts her own dependence on the

inhuman, or better, the preindividual’, the embodied affects created in the human-machine

interface with the digital image hereby ‘traces out a beyond of the time-image that leads

beyond the confines of Deleuze’s study’.7

Finally, Hansen’s claim that the affects and intensities produced in the body by the

invisible or virtual architectures of digital communication technologies and computer

networks ‘broaden the very threshold of perception itself, by enlarging the now of

7 Michel Foucault, ‘Theatrum Philosophicum’ in Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and

Interviews (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), p.193. Ibid., p.270.

perceptual consciousness’, suggests that in the digital age we are witnessing a further

deterritorialisation of the sensorium.8 If the arguments put forward by Varela and Hansen

are correct, then digital technologies are opening up and registering the time-

consciousness of the virtual in the microphysical affects of neurophenomenological

experience. This represents a radical restructuration of cinematic consciousness as it

moves from being a mode of productive consumption driven by a filmic economy of vision

to a mode of productive consumption that is organised around bioinformatic networks of

digital and computational media. Furthermore, this is why the history of cinematic

consciousness is also the microhistory of the commodity-image as it becomes

informational; once the commodity-image is digitised its time of mediation in perceptual

consciousness is no longer dominated by visual temporalities but by the microphysics of

bodily affects and intensities.

The historiographic narrative of cinema consciousness as it makes the transition

from industrial cinema’s filmic economy of vision to the post-war cinema of the time-image

and then finally becomes transformed by the digital technologies of the information age,

documents the development of the commodity as a mode of communication. At first it is

industrial cinema and the temporal economy of the film montage that reproduces the value

created in the circulatory exchange of the commodity in the time and space of the market

as a value in our collective cinematic consciousness. To say we think the commodity

through the moving image is to acknowledge that the sensorimotor connections produced

in the temporal economy of the frame-montage ensure the value of affective and cognitive

labour can be measured by the speed at which the spectator can perceptually process the

flow of moving images. As such, cinema has continued to push the boundaries of human

perception by accelerating the mediative time of the film interval that separates adjacent

images and determines shot length.

Bordwell’s tracking of the average shot length in film over the course of the

twentieth century and into the twenty first provides historical evidence to suggest that

‘today, films on average are cut more rapidly than at any other time in U.S. studio

filmmaking’.9 According to Bordwell, for the first time in the history of film, there are films

coming out every year in the 2000s that have an average shot length of less than two

seconds. Contrast this with the period between 1930 and 1960, where the average shot

length for feature films was around eight to eleven seconds, and what is evident is that

contemporary filmmakers increasingly demand more of our perceptual abilities than they

8 Ibid., p.258.

9 David Bordwell, The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies (Berkely, Los Angeles:

University of California, 2006), p.122.

have ever done previously.10 Incidentally, Bordwell claims that the rapid cutting style of

contemporary Hollywood films find their historical antecedent in the short shot lengths of

late 1920s Soviet silent montage. The historical connection lends further credence to idea

that the first mode of industrial cinema has continued to expand and intensify its visual

economy in the postmodern era through the rapid montages of big-budget action films and

the high-speed cutting techniques employed in music videos.

Although, despite the genealogical continuity between industrial cinema and the film

spectacles of present-day Hollywood, the productive logic of industrial cinema was

disrupted by the cinematic regime of the time-image after the Second World War. The

time-image short-circuits the visual economy of the frame-montage and replaces the

mediative time of the (commodity-signifier)frame - the perceptive interval that differentiates

images - with the time-pressure flowing through the image as a temporal modality for

cinematic consciousness. Suddenly in the post-war period cinematic consciousness is

freed from the perceptual apparatus of industrial capital cinema, it can think the image

through a virtual time outside the automated sensory-motor linkages of the movement-

image montage. Unfortunately, Deleuze’s philosophical theory of the time-image was only

ever a utopian imagining of cinema as an indeterminate and open diagram for the

communicative production of radical and progressive social, subjective and historical

possibilities. The reality was that the post-war European cinema of the time-image was

about coming to terms with the new epistemological and ontological reality of

postmodernity - with the new ‘historical sense’ that came with thinking about the time of

historical and lived experience through the metaphor of the virtual.

Towards the end of the twentieth century the virtual (historical) time of duration had

become the infinite space of the digital as a new cybernetic model of cinematic

consciousness emerged in the global information and communication networks of

postmodern capital. This collective machinic consciousness is no longer governed by the

perceptual machinery of cinema but by the traffic of information that flows through the

corporate controlled computer-mediated communication circuits. In this media ecology

instead of thinking the commodity through the moving image we feel the commodity

through the bodily intensities generated in the bioinformatic webs of corporate marketing

and commercial synergies that shape our media consciousness. The challenge that we

face today is to free the affects, desires and thoughts of our collective consciousness from

the circuits of information that imbricate these social and subjective energies into the fluid

networks of corporate capital. In the post-cinematic future it will become imperative that 10

Ibid., p.121.

theorists and creators of the new media release cinematic consciousness from the

temporal architecture of the commodity. And if post-cinematic media is to offer us

liberation from the totalising and universal power of capital, it will need to anchor the time

of communication in radical and alternative configurations of social experience.

________________________________________________________________________

FILMOGRAPHY

Abyss, The. 1989. James Cameron. 20th Century Fox Film Corporation/Lightstorm Entertainment, USA.

Age d’or, L’ .1930. Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dali. Vicomte de Noailles, France.

Alexander Nevsky. 1938. Sergei M. Eisenstein. Mosfilm, USSR.

Armageddon. 1998. Michael Bay. Touchstone Pictures/Jerry Bruckheimer Films, USA.

Arrivée d’un train à La Ciotat, L’. 1896. Auguste and Louis Lumiére. France.

Avventura, L’. 1960. Michelangelo Antonioni. Cino Del Duca, Italy.

Barque sortant du port. 1895. Louis Lumiére. France.

Batman. 1989. Tim Burton. Warner Bros. Pictures/The Guber-Peters Company, USA.

Battleship Potemkin. 1925. Sergei M. Eisenstein. Goskino/Mosfilm, USSR.

Blade Runner. 1982. Ridley Scott. The Ladd Company/Blade Runner Partnership/Run Run Shaw, USA. Blow-up. 1966. Michelangelo Antonioni. Bridge Films, UK.

Bicycle Thieves. 1948. Vittorio De Sica. Produzioni De Sica, Italy.

Charlie’s Angels. 2000. McG. Columbia Pictures Corporation/Flower Films/Global Entertainment Production GmbH & Company Medien KG, USA.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind. 1977. Steven Spielberg. Columbia Pictures Corporation/EMI Films, USA.

Démolition d’un mur. 1896. Louis Lumiére. France. Desserto rosso, Il. 1964. Michelangelo Antonioni. Film Duemila, Italy.

Doom. 2005. Andrzej Bartkowiak. John Wells Productions/Di Bonaventura Pictures/Doom Productions, USA.

Eclisse, L’. 1962. Michelangelo Antonioni. Cineriz, Italy.

Film-truth/Kino-pravda [nos. 1-23]. 1922-1925. Dziga Vertov. USSR.

Germany Year 0. 1948. Roberto Rossellini. Produzione Salvo D’Angelo, Italy.

Grido, Il.1957. Michelangelo Antonioni. SpA Cinematografica, Italy.

Independence Day. 1996. Roland Emmerich. Centropolis Entertainment/20th Century Fox Film Corporation, USA.

Jurassic Park. 1993. Steven Spielberg. Universal Pictures/Amblin Entertainment, USA.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World. 1997. Steven Spielberg. Universal Pictures/Amblin Entertainment, USA.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. 2001. Simon West. Paramount Pictures/Mutual Film Company/BBC/Lawrence Gordon Productions, USA.

Man with the Movie Camera. 1928. Dziga Vertov. VUKFKU, USSR.

Miami Vice. 2006. Michael Mann. Universal Pictures/Forward Pass/Michael Mann Productions, USA.

Mission Impossible. 1996. Brian De Palma. Paramount Pictures/Cruise-Wagner Productions, USA.

Mortal Kombat. 1995. Paul W.S. Anderson. New Line Cinema/Threshold Entertainment, USA.

Notte, La. 1961. Michelangelo Antonioni. Nepi Film, Italy.

October. 1928. Sergei M. Eisenstein. Sovkino, USSR.

People of the River Po. 1943. Michelangelo Antonioni. Artisti Associati, Italy.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl. 2003. Gore Verbinski. Walt Disney Pictures/Jerry Bruckheimer Films, USA.

Sortie des usines Lumiére, La. 1895. Louis Lumiére. Lumiére. France.

Spider-Man. 2002. Sam Raimi. Columbia Pictures Corporation/Marvel Enterprises, USA.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture. 1979. Robert Wise. Century Associates/Paramount Pictures, USA.

Star Wars. 1977. George Lucas. Lucasfilm/20th Century Fox Film Corporation, USA.

Street Fighter. 1994. Steven E. de Souza. Capcom Entertainment, USA.

Strike. 1925. Sergei M Eisenstein. Goskino, USSR.

Superman: The Movie. 1978. Richard Dooner. Alexander Salkind/Dovehead Films/Film Export AG, USA.

Super Mario Brothers. 1993. Annabel Jankel and Rocky Moreton. Allied Filmmakers/Cinergi Pictures Entertainment Inc/Hollywood Pictures/Nintendo, USA.

Un chien andalou. 1929. Luis Buñuel. Vicomte de Noailles, France.

2001: A Space Odyssey. 1968. Stanley Kubrick. MGM/Polaris/Stanley Kubrick Productions. USA.

Terminator 2: Judgement Day. 1991. James Cameron. Le Studio Canal/Carolco Pictures/Lightstorm Entertainment/Pacific Western, USA.

Triumph of the Will. 1935. Leni Riefenstahl. Leni Riefenstahl-Produktion, Germany.

Umberto D. 1952. Vittorio De Sica. Amato Film, Italy.

Volcano. 1997. Mick Jackson. Donner/Shuller-Donner Productions/Fox 2000 Pictures, USA.

Wing Commander. 1999. Chris Roberts. Carousel Picture Company/Digital Anvil, USA.

X-Files, The. 1998. Rob Bowman. 20th Century Fox Film Productions/Ten Thirteen Productions, USA.

X-Men. 2000. Bryan Singer. Bad Hat Harry Productions/Donners’ Company/20th Century Fox Film Corporation, USA.

________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, Richard, ed. French Film Theory and Criticism, Volume 1: 1907-1939. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. Agee, James. Agee on Film, Volume I. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1969. Alpert, Hollis. ‘A Talk with Antonioni’. Saturday Review (New York). 27 October 1962, 65. Anderson, Perry. The Origins of Postmodernity. London: Verso, 1998. Antonioni, Michelangelo. The Architecture of Vision: writings and interviews on cinema. Ed. and trans. Marga Cottiono-Jones. New York: Marsilio Publishers, 1996. Aristotle. Physics. Trans. R.P.Hardie and R.K. Gaye. Adelaide, SA: University of Adelaide Library, 2007. Armstrong, Tim. Modernism, Technology and the Body: A Cultural Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Arrighi, Giovanni. ‘Hegemony Unravelling - I’. New Left Review 32 (March/April, 2005), 23-80. Arrowsmith, William. Antonioni: The Poet of Images. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Askoy, Asu and Kevin Robins. ‘Hollywood for the 21st Century: Global Competition for Critical Mass in Image Markets’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 16 (1) (1992), 1-22. Aumont, Jacques. Montage Eisenstein. Trans. Lee Hidreth, Constance Penley and Andrew Ross. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Barnouw, Erik, et al. Conglomerates and Media. New York: New Press, 1997. Barthes, Roland. S/Z. Trans. Richard Miller. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. Basu, Anustup. ‘The Human and his Spectacular Autumn, or, Informatics after Philosophy’. Postmodern Culture, 14.3 (2004). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pmc/v014/14.3basu.html (accessed 18 December 2006). Bazin, Andre. What is Cinema? Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Beahr, Peter.‘The “Iron Cage” and the “Shell as Hard as Steel”: Parsons, Weber, and the Stahlhartes Gehäuse Metaphor in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’. History and Theory 40 (2) (2001), 153-169. Beasley-Murray, Jon. ‘Whatever happened to neorealism? Bazin, Deleuze and Tarkovsky’s Long Take’. Gilles Deleuze, philosophe du cinéma/Gilles Deleuze, philosopher of cinema. Ed. D.N. Rodowick. Iris 23 (Spring, 1997), 37-52. Bekheterev, Vladimir. General Principles of Reflexology. Trans. Emma Murphy and William Murphy. New York: Arno Press, 1973.

Beller, Jonathan. ‘Cinema, Capital of the Twentieth Century’. Postmodern Culture 4.3 (May 1994). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/postmodern_culture/v004/4.3beller.html (accessed 31 January 2005). Beller, Jonathan. ‘The Spectatorship of the Proletariat’. Boundary 2 22.3 (1995), 171-228. Beller, Jonathan. ‘Dziga Vertov and the Film of Money’. Boundary 2 26.3 (1999), 151-199. Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. Trans. Harry Zohn. London: Jonathon Cape, 1970. Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books, 1972. Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. Trans. N.M. Paul and W.S. Palmer. New York: Zone Books, 1988. Blaise, Clark. Time Lord: Sir Sandford Fleming and the Creation of Standard Time. New York, Toronto: Pantheon Books; London: Weidenfield & Nicholson, 2000. Bordwell, David. Narration in Fiction Film. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1985. Bordwell, David. The Cinema of Eisenstein. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press, 1993. Bordwell, David. The Way Hollywood Tells It: Story and Style in Modern Movies. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California, 2006. Breton, André. Manifestoes of Surrealism. Trans. Richard Seaver and Helen R. Lane. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1969. Brunette, Peter. The Films of Michelangelo Antonioni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Burnett, Ron. How Images Think. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, 2005. Cameron, Ian, Wood, Robin. Antonioni. New York: Praeger, 1971. Castell, Manuell. The Rise of Network Society. Malden, MA, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. Chapman, Seymour. Antonioni, or, the Surface of the World. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1985. Crary, Jonathan. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge, Mass., London: MIT Press, 1999. Cubitt, Sean. Digital Aesthetics. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998. Cubitt, Sean. ‘Introduction. Le reel, C’est L’impossible: The Sublime Time of Special Effects’. Screen 40.2 (1999), 123-130.

Cubitt, Sean. The Cinema Effect. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, 2004. Cuccu, Lorenzo. La visione come problema: Forme e svolgimento del cinema di Antonioni. Roma: Bulzoni, 1973. Damisch, Hubert. The Origin of Perspective. Trans. John Goodman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1976. Darley, Andrew. Visual Digital Culture: Surface Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres. London: Routledge, 2000. Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. London: Rebel Press, 1992. Deleuze, Gilles. ‘Lettre à Michel Cressole’. La Quinzaine littéraire 161 (April 1, 1973), 17-19. Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 1: The Movement Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. Deleuze, Gilles. The Logic of Sense. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. New York: Columbia Press, 1994. Deleuze, Gilles. Negotiations. Trans. M. Joughin. New York: Columbia Press, 1995. Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Descartes, René. Descartes: Philosophical Writings. Ed. and trans. Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Thomas Geach. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1954. Descartes, René. The Philosophical Works of Descartes vol I. Trans. John Cottingham, Dugald Murdoch and Robert Stoothoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Descartes, René. The Philosophical Works of Descartes vol. II. Trans. John Cottingham, Dugald Murdoch, and Robert Stoothoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Descartes, René. The Philosophical Works of Descartes: The Correspondence vol. III. Trans. John Cottingham, Dugald Murdoch, and Robert Stoothoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Devinatz, Victor G. ‘Lenin as Scientific Manager Under Monopoly Capitalism, State Capitalism and Socialism: A Response to Scoville’. Industrial Relations 42 (3) (2003), 513-520. Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. Chicago: Open Court, 1925. Durkheim, Emile. The Rules of Sociological Method [1895]. Trans. Sarah Solovay and John Mueller. New York: Free Press, 1964.

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society [1893]. Trans. W.D. Halls. New York: Free Press, 1984. Eisenstein, Sergei. Eisenstein at Work. Comp. Jay Leyda and Zina Voynow. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949. Eisenstein, Sergei. Immoral Memories: An Autobiography. Trans. Luda Schnitzer and Jean Schnitzer. Paris: Union Generale d’Editions, 1964. Eisenstein, Sergei. Eisenstein on Disney. Ed. Jay Leyda. Trans. Alan Upchurch. Calcutta: Seagull, 1986. Eisenstein, Sergei. Non-indifferent Nature: Film and Structure of Things. Trans. Herbert Marshall. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Eisenstein, Sergei. Selected Works: Volume 1 – Writings, 1922-34. Ed. and trans. Richard Taylor. London: BFI Publications, 1988. Eisenstein, Sergei. Mémoires [1977-1985]. Trans. Jacques Aumont, Michèle Bokanowski and Claude Ibrahimoff. Paris: Julliard, 1989. Eisenstein, Sergei. Towards a Theory of Montage Vol. 2. Ed. Michael Glenny and Richard Taylor (eds.). Trans. Michael Glenny. London: British Film Institute Publishing, 1991. Elssaesser, Thomas, ed. Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative. London: British Film Institute, 1990. Elssaesser, Thomas and Warren Buckland. Studying Contemporary American Film: A Guide to Movie Analysis. London: Arnold, Hodder Headline Group; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Epstein, Jean. ‘Magnification and Other Writings’. Trans. Stuart Liebman. October 3 (Spring, 1977), 9-25. Flanagan, Owen. Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. Flaxman, Gregory, ed. The Brain is the Screen: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Cinema. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Frankfurt, Harry. ‘Descartes on the Creation of Eternal Truths’. Philosophical Review 86 (1977), 36-57. Forester, Tom, ed. The Microelectronics Revolution: The Complete Guide to the New Technology and its Impact on Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980. Foucault, Michel. Language, Counter-memory and Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ed. Donald F. Bouchard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Frampton, Daniel. Filmosophy. London, New York: Wallflower Press, 2006.

Friedberg, Anne. The Virtual Window: From Alberti to Microsoft. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, 2006. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Avon Books Inc., 1992. Gandy, Mathew. ‘Landscapes of Deliquescence in Michelangelo Antonioni’s Red Desert’. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers 28 (2) (2003), 218-237. Gardner, Howard. The Mind’s New Science: A History of Cognitive Revolution, revised ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1987. Grenier, Cynthia. ‘Ill-starred Thirteenth Festival of Cannes’. Film Quarterly 13 (4) (1960), 15-19. Hansen, Mark B. New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, 2004. Harding, Colin, Popple, Simon, eds. In the Kingdom of Shadows: A Companion to Early Cinema. London: Cygnus Arts Press; Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, 1996. Hardt, Michael. Gilles Deleuze: An Apprenticeship in Philosophy. London: UCL Press, 1993. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press, 2000. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. Penguin Press: New York, 2004. Harvey, David. Limits to Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1982. Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge, MA., Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Harvey, David. Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, New York: Routledge, 2001. Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Hassan, Robert. ‘Timescapes of Network Society’. Fast Capitalism 1.1 (2005). http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/1_1/hassan.htm (accessed 24 September 2006). Heath, Stephen and Theresa de Lauretis, eds. The Cinematic Apparatus. London: MacMillan Publishing, 1980. Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Trans. W. Lovitt. New York: Harper, 1977.

Helmholtz, Hermann von. Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays. Ed. David Cahan. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Ivanov, V.V. Ocherkii po istorii semiotiki v SSSR [Essays on the history of semiotics in the U.S.S.R.]. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. Jameson, Frederic. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981. Jameson, Fredric. ‘Cognitive Mapping’. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Eds. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988, 347-360. Jameson, Fredric. Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991. Jameson, Frederic. The Cultural Turn. London, New York: Verso, 1998. Jameson, Frederic. Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions. London, New York: Verso, 2005. Kellner, Douglas and Steven Best. The Postmodern Adventure: Science, Technology and Cultural Studies at the Third Millenium. New York, London: The Guildford Press, 2001. Kirby, Lynne. Parallel Tracks: The Railroad and Silent Cinema. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1997. Kracauer, Siegfried. The Mass Ornament: Weimer Essays. Trans. by Thomas Y. Levin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Kuhn, Annette, ed. Alien Zone 2: The Spaces of Science Fiction Cinema. London, New York: Verso, 1999. Kushner, David. ‘The Infinite Arcade’. Wired 14.08 (2006). http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/nintendo.html (accessed 12 Dec 2006). Lash, Scott. ‘Capitalism and Metaphysics’. Paper presented at the Meeting ‘Capitalism and Metaphysics’ organised by the Institute of Sociology of the Faculty of Humanities at Porto University (2004). http://www.letras.up.pt/isociologia/uploads/files/Working7.pdf. (accessed 8 September 2006). Lenin, V.I. Imperialism. New York: International Publishers Company Inc., 1934. Lerner, Vladimir. ‘Vladimir Bekhterev: his life, his work and the mystery of his death’. History of Psychiatry 16 (2005), 217-227. Long, Malcolm. ‘Navigating the Digital Marketplace’ [AFTRS lecture at the University of Western Australia] (6 June 2006). Lukacs, Georg. The Meaning of Contemporary Realism. Trans. John and Necke Mander. London: Merlin Press, 1962.

Lukacs, Georg. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971. Luxemburg, Rosa. The Accumulation of Capital [1912]. London, New York: Routledge, 2003. Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984. Makdisi, Saree, Casarino, Cesare, Karl, Rebecca E., eds. Marxism beyond Marxism. London: Routledge, 1996. Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, 2001. Marcus, Millicent. Italian Film in the Light of Neorealism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. Marx, Karl. Capital vol. 1. [1887]. Ed. Friedrich Engels. Trans. Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House (no publication date). Marx, Karl. Capital vol. 1 [1887]. Trans. Ben Fowles. New York: Vintage, 1976. Marx, Karl. Capital vol. 3 [1893].Trans. David Fernbach. London: Penguin Books, 1991. Marx, Karl. Grundrisse. Trans. Martin Nicolaus. London: Allen Lane, New Left Review, 1973. Minkowski, Eugene. ‘Bergson’s Conceptions as Applied to Psychopathology’. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 63 (4) (June, 1926), 553-568. More, Kevin Z. ‘Eclipsing the Commonplace: The Logic of Alienation in Antonioni’s Cinema’. Film Quarterly 48 (4) (1995), 22-34. Munsterberg, Hugo. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study. New York: D. Appleton, 1916. Negri, Antonio. The Savage Anomaly. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991. Negri, Antonio. Political Descartes: Reasons, Ideology and the Bourgeois Project [1970]. Trans. Matteo Mandarini and Alberto Toscano. London, New York: Verso, 2006. Overbey, David, ed. and trans. Springtime in Italy: A Reader on Neo-realism. Hamden, Conn: Archon Books, 1979. Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich. Conditional Reflexes and Psychiatry. New York: International Publishers, 1941. Peirce, Charles Sanders. Peirce on Signs. Ed. James Hoopes. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Pierson, Michele. ‘CGI effects in Hollywood science-fiction cinema 1989-95: the wonder years’. Screen 40.2 (1999), 158-176.

Petric, Vlada. Constructivism in Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Peucker, Brigitte. ‘The Fascist Choreography: Riefenstahl’s Tableaux’. Modernism/modernity 11 (2) (2004), 279-297. Rodowick, D.N. Gilles Deleuze’s Time-Machine. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997. Rodowick, D.N. Reading the Figural, or, Philosophy after New Media. Durham, London: Duke University Press, 2001. Schefer, Jean-Louis. L’homme ordinaire du cinema. Paris: Editions Gallimund, 1980. Shaviro, Steven. The Cinematic Body. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Sherrington, Charles. The Interactive Action of the Nervous System. New York: Scribner’s, 1906. Simmel, Georg. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Ed. and trans. Kurt H. Wolff. New York: Free Press, 1950. Simmel, Georg. On Individuality and Social Forms. Ed. Donald L. Nevine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Simmel, Georg. The Philosophy of Money. Trans. Tom Bottmore and David Frisby. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978. Sobchack, Vivian. Screening Space: The American Science Fiction Film (Second edition). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Sobchack, Vivian. The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Sobchack, Vivian, ed. Meta-morphing: Visual Transformation and the Culture of Quick Change. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Sontag, Susan. ‘Fascinating Fascism’. New York Review of Books 22 (1) (February, 1975). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9280 (accessed 23 October 2006). Spielmann, Yvonne. ‘Expanding Film into Digital Media’. Screen 40.2 (1999), 131-145. Stein, Eliot, ed. Kino International Presents L’Age D’or – Pressbook. Compiled by Eliot Stein for the release of L’Age D’or in 1980. Tarkovsky, Andrey. Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cinema. Trans. Kitty Hunter-Blair. London: Bodley Head Ltd., 1986. Tofts, Darren, Annemarie Jonson and Alessio Cavallaro, eds. Prefiguring Cyberculture: An Intellectual History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. Varela, Fransciso. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Vertov, Dziga. Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov. Ed. Annette Michelson. Trans. Kevin O’Brien. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. Wark, McKenzie. Virtual Geography: Living with Global Media Events. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. Wayne, Michael. ‘Post-Fordism, Monopoly Capitalism, and Hollywood’s Media Industrial Complex’. International Journal of Cultural Studies 6 (1) (2003), 82-103. Wedgewood, C.V. The Thirty Years War. New York: New York Review of Books, 2005. Žižek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London, New York: Verso, 1989. Žižek, Slavoj. Looking Awry: An Introduction into Jacques Lacan through Popular Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.