This has to be his worst and most nonsensical book. There's not even a poetic element to his writing here, just meandering on and on about shit that's just not there. It inspired the worst trends in film criticism too. Nobody who has given a fuck about the ''image-affection'' has gone on to make an illuminating movie, and this kind of seemingly silly point wouldn't be as salient if the book didn't claim to be concerned with breaking down cinema to its essentials. It just doesn't work that way.
Man really can't leave anything alone. Occasionally something good comes out of this wretched tendency but most of the time, it's stuff like French ""philosophy"".
>>25461539You have never read a philosophy book in your entire life, LARPer
>>25461556I'm sure this sounds like an insult in your babble raped mind, but it's really not, you know. You're no closer to truth or knowledge than someone who doesn't know what a Kant is. Incidentally, this is the situation of most babble lovers.
>>25461602It doesn't sound like you read, care of or understand philosophy. Why are you in this thread exactly?
>>25461602>Thinking about something is considered ''babble''>You just can't really know anything, maaaan. You and the noble savage are like the same.Whatever you say, nigger
>>25461656To remind you that academia is just another industry.
Do you have actual criticism to offer? I appreciate this book because it introduced me to Bergson, but I was overwhelmed by the references to all these films and directors I've never watched.
