The Passion and the Affection

I know we are way past the affection-image in our readings, but after watching the Carl Th. Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), I couldn't help but be reminded of those readings. It helps, that perhaps, the idea of the affection image has impressed itself on me in a greater way than many of Deleuze's other concepts. 

On first viewing of the The Passion I was hit by the sheer volume of close-up shots contained within it. It almost feels like the films contains nothing but close-ups and therefor affection-images by Deleuze's definition, "there is no close-up of the face, the face is in itself a close-up, the close-up is by itself face and both are affect, affection image." (88)

Without speech, and even if there where no intertitles, I believe the affect would still make the entire film "felt". The heavy reliance on this particular part of the movement-image makes the affective power of the cinema obvious. 

I mentioned once before, that David Lynch, relies heavily on the affection-image in order to create films, that baring a logical narrative, can still draw the viewer along a line – between logic and overt emotionality – of affection. Similarly, a film that carries forward a pretty simple and logical narrative, such as The Passion of Joan of Arc contains within its use of the affection-image the ability to move beyond its narrative into something more powerful and primal. Something that, regardless of interest in the story itself, can carry the entire film.

* Copyrighted material used under Fair Use license. 

Weighing the interval

Deleuze perhaps provides a means of tracing a continuum of magnitude (be it a felt duration or some measure of intensity or of weight) capable of organizing the variability of the interval. “The more the reaction ceases to be immediate and becomes truly possible action, the more the perception becomes distant and anticipatory and extracts the virtual action of things” (Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, 65). I doubt this “measure” of the interval can exhaust or encapsulate all approaches or ramifications of the interval itself, but it is useful for investigations of both cinema and thought. When Deleuze reintroduces the concept of “framing” as it relates to the interval (Cinema 1: The Movement-Image, 62), one might be tempted to find an equation or ratio that relates the delay to the amount of analysis performed, or the fundamental potential for analysis. I would not hesitate in suggesting that this relationship would be insufficiently represented in a linear fashion, more often than not. Is the notion of “diminishing returns” relevant at some point in the extending of this relationship? The time-image, as well as the conditions that accompany it or bring it into focus, might assist one in creating hypotheses.

Analyzing the close-up

When we are talking about the potential range of meanings that can be assigned to a close-up, (and in particular the close-up of the face) what are the methods (if any) for understanding the significance of each of the key concepts Deleuze is making? Is it really possible to completely shed preconceived notions of the aesthetic implications of a close-up and replace them with new ideas for analysis? Deleuze argues that the juxtaposition of 'power and quality are intertwined and at any moment the two poles can pass from one to the next' (p.95).  If this is the case then what are the signifiers or clues for making this assessment? Furthermore what happens when we combine the analysis of two poles with a discussion of light and shadows? From what I gathered the face reflects light, retains emotion, and becomes intensive rather then reflexive. But can the effect of light and shadow really be reduced to that? I guess I am just looking for some clarification on how Deleuze reached these conclusions, and whether or not they hold up consistently, or only in these certain instances.