Beckett's Film , “which could only have been played by Buster Keaton”
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21118074 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul Ardoin (English Department, University of Texas at San Antonio, One UTSA Circle, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 5-21 |
| Publication date | 2015-10-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Angelaki (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0969-725X • E-ISSN: 1469-2899 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0969725x.2015.1096627 |
| OpenAlex | W2275712501 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 16 |
This article uses Deleuze's three-part theory of the movement-image as a way to investigate the potential importance of his unexplored claim about the casting of Beckett's Film. In “The Greatest Irish Film” Deleuze writes that the starring role in Film “could only have been played by Buster Keaton” (in Essays Critical and Clinical, trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997) 23), but he does not explain why. Here, I return to the Bergsonian basis of Deleuze's film theory, as well as to early responses to Beckett's Film, in order to complicate our understanding of Deleuze's perception-image, action-image, and especially his affection-image
Affection · Art · Art history · Epistemology · Irish · Linguistics · Modernist Literature and Criticism · Philosophy · Philosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism · Samuel Beckett and Modernism
| Highly cited | No |
|---|