A few days ago I came across a video of Grace Jones song “Corporate Cannibal”. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgMn2OJmx3w
It made me think about the notion of “body” once again. (Although this is a music video not a film, I think its worth thinking on.) It distorts the image in such a fashion that the body becomes something else. It is almost liquified. The distortions are quite shocking at first but as we get used to them, it begins to create another effect. As we normalize the distorted body, we begin to see the synchronizations of the distortions with the beats and this alien, liquified body becomes “familiar”. Yet we still keep our distance to it since we cannot predict its actions. Boldly enough, the images gets closer and closer and at some point we only see fractions of Grace Jone’s mouth or eye. We are aware that there is actually a solid body in front of the camera but this feeling withers away after a while. This “liquified body” begins to represent its own distortion. This represents a realm we cannot experience. Still though we experience the effects of this body and its relation to us. From this point of view the distorted body (accompanied by strange and creepy words such as: “pleased to have you on my plate…your meet is sweet to me…”) looks quite annoying. The image of the body turns back to itself: now it only represents itself. The realm put before us is so sterile that our only reference is the distortion and the distorted body itself.
Alev Değim
Recent Posts
14 Kasım 2009 Cumartesi
8 Kasım 2009 Pazar
Struggle for Understanding Deleuze 2
Gönderen
Film and Genre
Why is it difficult to read philosophical texts?
Prima facie, this question may seem irrelevant as a means of beginning a response paper for a course such as Film & Genre, but while I was reading the texts taken from Cinema 2: The Time Image by Deleuze, the question above – which is an unceasing one for me – rises up again.
Everyone with a piece good luck of meeting a philosophical text can experience the congested feeling in his/her chest. If the experience is intense enough, it is inevitable to be confronted with such a question and when the question is once asked, it will be very difficult to act as if it is not. So it is expected quite easily that being plausible or implausible, everyone that undergoes the process above has his/her own set of answers.
At this point, I will not list all the answers in my own set, but I want to emphasize one of them. Take the first 13-line of Deleuze’s text with the title Cinema, body ad brain, thought as an illustration. Although I acknowledge – because of their distinctive linguistic styles, vocabularies, and metaphors as a part of their philosophies – the fact that it is more difficult to make sense of texts by 20th century French philosophers such as Baudrillard, Derrida and Deleuze, present text of Deleuze seems to be a plausible illustration for my points.
In that 13-line part of Deleuze’s text, Deleuze does not use any term which is specific to philosophy. If we skim the recurrent words in the text, we see words such as body, thought, life and category with which everyone is familiar in his/her daily life. Although this familiarity with this vocabulary seems to assist the reader in appreciating the text, I argue that this familiarity with these words is a transparent obstacle between the reader and the text. This familiarity is the origin of illusion that makes the reader to think that s/he can easily permeate into the text.
Since – apart from neologism – philosophers do not have distinctive words, they have to make use of the same words that the readers also use, but with different connotations. These different connotations are the building blocks of the obstacles separating the reader from the text, because the readers also have their own sets of connotations stemming from their own history with these words. If the readers do not – at least partially – put their own sets of meanings into brackets before approaching the text – because of the mismatch between different connotations originating from the same words – they would face the transparent obstacle. Since the connotations which a philosopher attributes to a word are the means of embodying his/her abstract thoughts and of conveying his/her vast readings of it, if the reader can manage to uncover connotations some of which are explicit and some of which are immanent in the text, s/he can make the transparent obstacle visible, though s/he cannot completely get rid of it.
In our daily lives, body is not a subject-matter about which we think so much. Perhaps the reason for this lack is the fact that we often think through body. Body along with its extension to life provides the medium that we think through and this close relationship with our bodies may conceal its importance in the manners we think. Anyway almost everybody has own sets of meanings which are related with the words body and life. But Deleuze’s usage of these words may not be match with what others think about them and this situation stands as an obstacle in front of one who wants to understand him. With his/her meanings sticked to a concept, it is not easy for someone to grasp what Deleuze says via this word in his own understanding. So before trying to grasp what Deleuze wants to mean via words such as body and life, I think, beginning from what body and life mean for Deleuze is a more proper way.
Deleuze does not see the body as an obstacle separating thought from itself. What does ‘itself’ mean at this context? Is it thought or thinking or both? What about the body?
The story of body as an obstacle can be traced back to Descartes, even Plato. But the term body is also reminiscent of Spinoza as well as categories of thought being reminiscent of Kant, and life which is of Bergson. I think that Deleuze’s reading of body is immersed in at least Spinoza, Kant and Bergson. So such a sentence as ‘Give me a body then’ can become a formula of philosophical reversal. Reading the body not as an obstacle separating us from thinking but as a force enforcing us to think is the source of the reversal in philosophy.
Life is unthought in the sense that it is what is concealed from thought, argues Deleuze. And the body, I think, is the intersection between one that thinks and life, through which categories of thought will be thrown into categories of life. What are the categories of life then? They are the attitudes of body. Attitudes or postures of body are tiredness and waiting which are related with the before and the after, respectively. I think this relation enables the attitudes of body to become also the categories of life. Although Deleuze talks about three attitudes, namely tiredness, waiting, and despair, later on he states that tiredness is both the first and the last one, because it is tiredness that contains the before and the after simultaneously. A thinking-thing learns what a non-thinking thing is capable of and this is called thinking by Deleuze.
M. Kemal İz
Prima facie, this question may seem irrelevant as a means of beginning a response paper for a course such as Film & Genre, but while I was reading the texts taken from Cinema 2: The Time Image by Deleuze, the question above – which is an unceasing one for me – rises up again.
Everyone with a piece good luck of meeting a philosophical text can experience the congested feeling in his/her chest. If the experience is intense enough, it is inevitable to be confronted with such a question and when the question is once asked, it will be very difficult to act as if it is not. So it is expected quite easily that being plausible or implausible, everyone that undergoes the process above has his/her own set of answers.
At this point, I will not list all the answers in my own set, but I want to emphasize one of them. Take the first 13-line of Deleuze’s text with the title Cinema, body ad brain, thought as an illustration. Although I acknowledge – because of their distinctive linguistic styles, vocabularies, and metaphors as a part of their philosophies – the fact that it is more difficult to make sense of texts by 20th century French philosophers such as Baudrillard, Derrida and Deleuze, present text of Deleuze seems to be a plausible illustration for my points.
In that 13-line part of Deleuze’s text, Deleuze does not use any term which is specific to philosophy. If we skim the recurrent words in the text, we see words such as body, thought, life and category with which everyone is familiar in his/her daily life. Although this familiarity with this vocabulary seems to assist the reader in appreciating the text, I argue that this familiarity with these words is a transparent obstacle between the reader and the text. This familiarity is the origin of illusion that makes the reader to think that s/he can easily permeate into the text.
Since – apart from neologism – philosophers do not have distinctive words, they have to make use of the same words that the readers also use, but with different connotations. These different connotations are the building blocks of the obstacles separating the reader from the text, because the readers also have their own sets of connotations stemming from their own history with these words. If the readers do not – at least partially – put their own sets of meanings into brackets before approaching the text – because of the mismatch between different connotations originating from the same words – they would face the transparent obstacle. Since the connotations which a philosopher attributes to a word are the means of embodying his/her abstract thoughts and of conveying his/her vast readings of it, if the reader can manage to uncover connotations some of which are explicit and some of which are immanent in the text, s/he can make the transparent obstacle visible, though s/he cannot completely get rid of it.
In our daily lives, body is not a subject-matter about which we think so much. Perhaps the reason for this lack is the fact that we often think through body. Body along with its extension to life provides the medium that we think through and this close relationship with our bodies may conceal its importance in the manners we think. Anyway almost everybody has own sets of meanings which are related with the words body and life. But Deleuze’s usage of these words may not be match with what others think about them and this situation stands as an obstacle in front of one who wants to understand him. With his/her meanings sticked to a concept, it is not easy for someone to grasp what Deleuze says via this word in his own understanding. So before trying to grasp what Deleuze wants to mean via words such as body and life, I think, beginning from what body and life mean for Deleuze is a more proper way.
Deleuze does not see the body as an obstacle separating thought from itself. What does ‘itself’ mean at this context? Is it thought or thinking or both? What about the body?
The story of body as an obstacle can be traced back to Descartes, even Plato. But the term body is also reminiscent of Spinoza as well as categories of thought being reminiscent of Kant, and life which is of Bergson. I think that Deleuze’s reading of body is immersed in at least Spinoza, Kant and Bergson. So such a sentence as ‘Give me a body then’ can become a formula of philosophical reversal. Reading the body not as an obstacle separating us from thinking but as a force enforcing us to think is the source of the reversal in philosophy.
Life is unthought in the sense that it is what is concealed from thought, argues Deleuze. And the body, I think, is the intersection between one that thinks and life, through which categories of thought will be thrown into categories of life. What are the categories of life then? They are the attitudes of body. Attitudes or postures of body are tiredness and waiting which are related with the before and the after, respectively. I think this relation enables the attitudes of body to become also the categories of life. Although Deleuze talks about three attitudes, namely tiredness, waiting, and despair, later on he states that tiredness is both the first and the last one, because it is tiredness that contains the before and the after simultaneously. A thinking-thing learns what a non-thinking thing is capable of and this is called thinking by Deleuze.
M. Kemal İz
5 Kasım 2009 Perşembe
Movement-Time-Image: Struggle for Understanding Deleuze 1
Gönderen
Film and Genre
From the titles of two books that Deleuze wrote on cinema, i.e. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image (1983) and Cinema 2: The Time-Image (1985), it is not difficult to understand that French philosopher’s main concern in cinema is image. Beginning with Plato, with different connotations such as representation, experience, phenomenon, consciousness, simulacrum, subjectivity etc., image always happens to be one of the main and crucial topics of philosophy.
Through being both an essential part of cinema and crucial topic of philosophy, image is like a capstone by which Deleuze conjoins his views on cinema with his philosophical claims. For Deleuze, cinema undergoing a transformation from the movement-image to the time-image reveals the true nature of time (Trifonova, 2007, p. 221). At this point the question arises: What is the true nature of the time (at least for Deleuze)? Omitting this grand crucial question for a great while, we can go on saying that according to Deleuze, cinema also transforms philosophy via offering a cinematic form such as time-image. In this way he wants to conjoin cinema and philosophy. By the means of time-image, cinema demands a new mode of thinking for both itself and life. Since the couple of movement and time can be seen as essential for the couple of cinema and life, through that new mode of thinking which cinema demands based on the time-image, new perspectives can be developed concerning the becoming in life. But at this point let’s turn two cinematic forms that Deleuze focus on his books, viz. movement-image and time-image.
The roots of the movement-image can be traced back to early cinema, i.e. the pre-WW2 cinema and archetype of movement-image can be found in the Hollywood genre film emphasizing movement and action. This emphasis on movement is important, because in that type of cinema, time is also conveyed through movement. In other words, time is determined and measured by movement. Via camera angles skimming across a visual field, movement is expressed and via this expression of movement, time is presented indirectly, i.e. determination of time based on the movement itself. So “The movement-image is a form of spatialized cinema” says Totaro, which means that as in the everyday life, time is thought as a grand link connecting movements and it used to track changes (Totaro, 1999 and Colebrook, 2006, p. 29).
On the other hand, image-time is a characteristic of modern cinema, i.e. post-WW2 cinema and roots of it can be found in the European modernist or art film. In this type, time is presented directly. So in the movement-image, characters that are situated in a narrative content, perceive the events around them and take action based on these perceptions. But in the time-image, characters cannot react in a direct way. In other words, in the movement-image which time is expressed indirectly, characters react in a direct fashion, but in movement-image, although time is expressed directly, characters do not seem to react in a direct fashion (Totaro, 1999).
For Deleuze, power of cinema lies in this transformation from the movement-image to the time-image. By the means of time-image as a cinematographic form, a new kind of perception, i.e. acentered perception is offered (Trifonova, 2007, p. 227). In our daily life, we perceive things through imposing concepts on them, which suit our interests. But camera as an eye with no interest, i.e. a camera that does not organize images from a fixed point as a human eye, conveys the image in its entirety. “But the cinema is not simply the camera: it is montage” acknowledges Deleuze, and montage reminds me the subjectivity, in other words when the montage is taken into consideration, it is not very difficult to talk about a point of view, but Deleuze responds: “And if from the point of view of human eye, montage is undoubtedly a construction, from the point of view of another eye, it ceases to be one” (1989, p. 81). So Deleuze seems to secure the disinterestedness of camera. But these two broad concepts, viz. movement-image and time-image, their realization in cinema and how Deleuze secures the disinterestedness of camera are still puzzling for me.
Colebrook, C. (2006). Gilles Deleuze. New York: Routledge.
Totaro, D. (1999). Gilles Deleuze’s Bergsonian Film Project (Part 1: Cinema 1: The Movement-Image). Off Screen. [On-line]. Available: http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/9903/offscreen_essays/deleuze1.html
Trifonova, T. (2007). The Image in French Philosophy. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
M. Kemal İz
1 Kasım 2009 Pazar
Mix of thinking
Gönderen
Film and Genre
“Decisions that we can understand as the thinking of the film” said Frampton.
As spectators, we understand those decisions as images from the eyes of directors and producers. We may be aware of these images, may be not. But some people think and re-think on those images with the relation to their own world. If we look the films different than “thinking”, we can always find consciously enjoyed activities.
Do we have to focus in films to think? or there are may be films that have more than we think. The perception and the attention of people changes but always the focused or unfocused person has thoughts about it even film does not match with him/her.
I do not think that every spectator can easily think on a film like they have a film mind. Because we know that there are lots of people that they go films to separate from everyday life but besides them, there are also some people that they can not stop the relation of themselves from the reality of films. In these two circumstances, there are stimulants that the spectator is aware of or not. We know, the stimulating thing is the moving image but we have to examine these two situations in that how do those people think about the images they saw?
The words of Kubrick; “Watching a film is like having a daydream” are suitale for the people who watches film as separate themselves from the world. But all the images we saw, gives us experiences about the film. Experience is series of filtered thoughts and we all experience the life and even the films, differently. Thinking a film needs mental process that a person gained the experience from a film. Frampton clarifies the film experiences that “this is not much more than saying we experience film using the same brain that we use to experience reality” and we can say that understanding the reality is different from the understanding a film. But I do not know how much of the understanding reality is suitable for daydreamers?
But it can not be rejected that films help to create new ways of thinking from the real life. Filmgoers does not need imagination, they experience the films buy their perception on images. Before the cinema industry developed that much, there were lots of books that people tried to improve their imagination skills. By the developments, now we have moving images that may be makes us a bit lazy on thinking written sources, but it improves our perception may be more than imagination.
Absolutely, the perception has a direct relation with our thoughts because it is also related with our mode of thinking while watching. We are always selecting and choosing, so “our thinking chooses a way of joining the film”.
As a conclusion, we have just experiencing films to get meaningful thoughts. Furthermore, the people who feel the film like real life, I believe, they do not have a thought at the end of the film because they never experienced it as a film, they live and feel it.
Pelin Gezginer
As spectators, we understand those decisions as images from the eyes of directors and producers. We may be aware of these images, may be not. But some people think and re-think on those images with the relation to their own world. If we look the films different than “thinking”, we can always find consciously enjoyed activities.
Do we have to focus in films to think? or there are may be films that have more than we think. The perception and the attention of people changes but always the focused or unfocused person has thoughts about it even film does not match with him/her.
I do not think that every spectator can easily think on a film like they have a film mind. Because we know that there are lots of people that they go films to separate from everyday life but besides them, there are also some people that they can not stop the relation of themselves from the reality of films. In these two circumstances, there are stimulants that the spectator is aware of or not. We know, the stimulating thing is the moving image but we have to examine these two situations in that how do those people think about the images they saw?
The words of Kubrick; “Watching a film is like having a daydream” are suitale for the people who watches film as separate themselves from the world. But all the images we saw, gives us experiences about the film. Experience is series of filtered thoughts and we all experience the life and even the films, differently. Thinking a film needs mental process that a person gained the experience from a film. Frampton clarifies the film experiences that “this is not much more than saying we experience film using the same brain that we use to experience reality” and we can say that understanding the reality is different from the understanding a film. But I do not know how much of the understanding reality is suitable for daydreamers?
But it can not be rejected that films help to create new ways of thinking from the real life. Filmgoers does not need imagination, they experience the films buy their perception on images. Before the cinema industry developed that much, there were lots of books that people tried to improve their imagination skills. By the developments, now we have moving images that may be makes us a bit lazy on thinking written sources, but it improves our perception may be more than imagination.
Absolutely, the perception has a direct relation with our thoughts because it is also related with our mode of thinking while watching. We are always selecting and choosing, so “our thinking chooses a way of joining the film”.
As a conclusion, we have just experiencing films to get meaningful thoughts. Furthermore, the people who feel the film like real life, I believe, they do not have a thought at the end of the film because they never experienced it as a film, they live and feel it.
Pelin Gezginer
26 Ekim 2009 Pazartesi
Scénario du film Passion
Gönderen
Film and Genre
“…not creating a world, but the possibility of a world…” says Godard.
In the following link, there is a video in which Godard explains his process of developing the scenerio of Passion. I think, there are some clues in the video on Godard’s approach to film and thought. The video is not only of an interview with him; it is presumably produced by himself using his montage techniques. For those who are taking Andreas’ class, you will remember that I have mentioned this video in the discussion on Godard, but after reading the article of Deleuze, it has been a more interesting spectacle for me.
Segah Sak
In the following link, there is a video in which Godard explains his process of developing the scenerio of Passion. I think, there are some clues in the video on Godard’s approach to film and thought. The video is not only of an interview with him; it is presumably produced by himself using his montage techniques. For those who are taking Andreas’ class, you will remember that I have mentioned this video in the discussion on Godard, but after reading the article of Deleuze, it has been a more interesting spectacle for me.
Segah Sak
A metaphor: American Beauty
Gönderen
Film and Genre
After reading Thought and Cinema and Image part in Seven-film thinking, two rhyming words, which are metaphor and metonymy, led me to think about. In the Thought and Cinema, metonymy is defined as which separates images whereas metaphor connects images together with the whole. Eisenstein mentions two different images can have the same harmonics for making metaphor.
At that point, American Beauty clearly exemplifies the concept of metaphor. There are two striking metaphors in this movie or maybe we can also say first one is metaphor and second one is metonymy: The first one is rose imagery referring to beauty. Mena Suvari is depicted as an object of desire because of Kevin Spacey’s fantasy about this girl and the rose image is detached herself with the imagination of Spacey. Except this detachment, the red is apparently used as the color of door, flower standing on the table, Real Estate posters of Peter Gallagher, Annette’s clothes and Spacey’s new car. Alan Ball, the screenwriter of American Beauty, uses red color in different ways during the film. As for the question of what this color generally symbolizes is life force. Every character defines their life force (soul, sex, assertion, individuality, ambition etc.) differently. Also, Suvari is an object of hatred linked with Annette Bening that she cultivates the roses in her garden at the first scene. Second one is the plastic bag dancing in the air also has a red wall behind it. We can say this is another object symbolizes again beauty in more spiritual way. Wes Bentley’s words explain why I said it is spiritual: “I realized that there was this entire life behind things, and this incredibly benevolent force that wanted me to know there was no reason to be afraid”. Also, this object is again used at the end of the film because now it is associated with Spacey’s death at peace.
Here, we can see the red color as a distinctive metaphor generally referred by viewer to the rose in the film and then embeds the other images.
Eisenstein also adds in the first article: “A circuit which includes simultaneously the author, the film and the viewer is elaborated. The complete circuit thus includes the sensory shock which raises us from the images to conscious thought, then the thinking in figures which takes us back to the images and gives us an affective shock again.” Here, the rose appears as a way of transmission from the image to thought, then coming back for recall of our sensory shock.
Lastly, Nietzsche declares On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense that truth is in fact ‘a movable host of metaphors and metonymies’ due to the fundamentally metaphorical nature of concept-formation, a series of creative leaps from nerve stimulus to retinal image (first metaphor) to sound as signifier (second metaphor).
I think our mind actually needs syntagmatic and synthetical connections between signifiers and signified or metaphors and metonymies in a movie to make meaningful, instead invasion of signs without any connection as Godard does in Histoire(s) du Cinema. That’s why it gets help from our memory.
Actually, discussion about metaphor and metonymy goes on but now it is just a little end waiting for the new ones..
References:
“Metaphor in Philosophy”, Wikipedia
“Thought and Cinema”, (156-187)
“Seven-Film thinking”, Image
Aytul Demiray
25 Ekim 2009 Pazar
Economic, industrial and technologic realities of cinema
Gönderen
Film and Genre
After we had discussed the history of the cinema at the lesson, I just think about the unification of economic, industrial and technologic realities of cinema. By these developments, nobody focus on works and authors’ as much as latter works. The result of the financial and technological factors, these changes still effects and it seems that it will affect the future of cinema history.
Technology develops rapidly and at the each period of it, we use different equipments and styles for each of them (cameras, lenses, new techniques…). So, here is the question that how can we know the resistance of a technical device to time? Will it be resist to change or demise for ever?
By the technological change the succession of financing films may not be acceptable. I want to give an example that I saw in a music &film market a few weeks ago. A guy and his girlfriend asked to the salesperson of the shop, a movie that they could watch. He gave some CD to them then asked them in which media will they watch the movies. But it does not any meaning for them because they only wanted to watch it. Salesperson told them the CD is in HD quality and they could not watch them with high visual quality at DVD players. However, it again does not matter for them and they said “we only want to watch it, visual quality is unnecessary”. So, here I ask, where are these technological developments going for these kinds of people? Or, do they protest the technology to watch films at low prices? Therefore, it can be said that the economic processes are also important for cinema as technology.
The architectures and decorations of cinema halls had been changed, according to these changes; the ticket prices increased. Additionally, if we add the financial film price which has high technological devised at the production, we can ask: who will watch those films at cinemas. There is a cinema culture in our society. Some movies should be watched at the cinema saloon for the fans of films, but who will pay these high prices that are the results of the economic and technological factors or for whom are those films made for? In which class of people do producers produce those films, do they classify people according to their many by using the technology?
Also by these developments in technology, cinema always takes the benefits of it. I don’t think that people try to develop technological devises for cinema, I believe it develops and cinema affects from it.
However, by these developments, I just ask “for whom” for prices and now I am asking again it for the technological products. Technology develops very rapidly and the progress of the humanity has some difficulties to catch those developments in some cases. It changes every day in fact every minute. But do viewers intelligent enough to understand them as quick as it do. I believe a time period need for the people to understand what does it for and what it is describe.
I think the savior of the cinema technology is sound technology. It takes some of the loads on the viewer from some misunderstandings about the film and raises the intelligibility.
As a conclusion, I just criticized the economical and technological changes on cinema. But do not misunderstand me that I did not say technology is not necessary and nobody knows its worth. I believe technology add many technical data to cinema industry. I just discussed and ask do this industry make classification on people by playing their money.
Pelin Gezginer
Technology develops rapidly and at the each period of it, we use different equipments and styles for each of them (cameras, lenses, new techniques…). So, here is the question that how can we know the resistance of a technical device to time? Will it be resist to change or demise for ever?
By the technological change the succession of financing films may not be acceptable. I want to give an example that I saw in a music &film market a few weeks ago. A guy and his girlfriend asked to the salesperson of the shop, a movie that they could watch. He gave some CD to them then asked them in which media will they watch the movies. But it does not any meaning for them because they only wanted to watch it. Salesperson told them the CD is in HD quality and they could not watch them with high visual quality at DVD players. However, it again does not matter for them and they said “we only want to watch it, visual quality is unnecessary”. So, here I ask, where are these technological developments going for these kinds of people? Or, do they protest the technology to watch films at low prices? Therefore, it can be said that the economic processes are also important for cinema as technology.
The architectures and decorations of cinema halls had been changed, according to these changes; the ticket prices increased. Additionally, if we add the financial film price which has high technological devised at the production, we can ask: who will watch those films at cinemas. There is a cinema culture in our society. Some movies should be watched at the cinema saloon for the fans of films, but who will pay these high prices that are the results of the economic and technological factors or for whom are those films made for? In which class of people do producers produce those films, do they classify people according to their many by using the technology?
Also by these developments in technology, cinema always takes the benefits of it. I don’t think that people try to develop technological devises for cinema, I believe it develops and cinema affects from it.
However, by these developments, I just ask “for whom” for prices and now I am asking again it for the technological products. Technology develops very rapidly and the progress of the humanity has some difficulties to catch those developments in some cases. It changes every day in fact every minute. But do viewers intelligent enough to understand them as quick as it do. I believe a time period need for the people to understand what does it for and what it is describe.
I think the savior of the cinema technology is sound technology. It takes some of the loads on the viewer from some misunderstandings about the film and raises the intelligibility.
As a conclusion, I just criticized the economical and technological changes on cinema. But do not misunderstand me that I did not say technology is not necessary and nobody knows its worth. I believe technology add many technical data to cinema industry. I just discussed and ask do this industry make classification on people by playing their money.
Pelin Gezginer