Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image by JOHN MULLARKEY Review by: JOHN M.

CARVALHO The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 68, No. 4 (FALL 2010), pp. 428-431 Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40929558 . Accessed: 01/04/2014 03:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

428
The secondreasonforthebook's overallsuccess is thatGregory offers us compelling and arguments ofhowwe use stories to construct specific examples our moralframeworks. We are sometimes awareof thesemoral butaremoreoften notconframeworks, sciousofthem. thestories we readare Nevertheless, formative because they morallessons, even provide thesimplest ofstories. He citesthesimple taleofthe "ThreeLittlePigs" as providing lessonsaboutboth intellectual and moralvirtue. "the Gregory explains, of the story verystructure requiresus to see that theproblem with thefirst twolittle a pigsis primarily ofintellectual virtuean inability tocalcudeficiency laterealistically thedangers ofa world where wolves with roamfreelylacedwith a dolporcine appetites as well,revealedby their lop of ethicaldeficiency desireto spendtheir timedancing and self-indulgent thanworking (foolishlittle singing porkers)rather hardand building homes"(p. 184). He draws sturdy fromthis that even the simplest storiesare able to drawour attention to different kindsof virtues and vices (he notesfourkindsof virtues: physical, intellectual, social,and ethical)of everyday living, and we makethesekindsof ethical on a judgments basis without about it muchat all regular thinking (p. 178). to stoGregory pairsshort examples(references ries like the "Three Little Pigs") withmore extendedexamplesof our engagement withauthors like CharlesDickensand JaneAusten.In fact, the last chapteris almostentirely an analysisof ethical engagement withthesetwo authors. Of course, arenotnewtoethical ofDickphilosophers analyses ensandAusten, butI think that setshimself Gregory othersby setting of apartfrom up the framework theanalysis ina different His absolute way. emphasis on thepervasiveness ofstories in ourlives, thecomwe findin fictional and the characters, panionship thatwe find withcompelling narrative engagement allow himto make thesefamiliar (that arguments we findmoralvirtue in Dickensand Austen)seem morepoignant. He is well versedin the arguments ofMartha Nussbaum's Love's Knowledge (how narrative can offer us thedoubleconsciousness thatwe can be so intimately involved and at thesame time andIrisMurdoch's TheSovereignty distanced) ofthe Good and carefully himself fromthe distinguishes kinds ofarguments that make. they reasonfor this book a successis Mythird thinking inclusion of twochapters Gregory's usingtwofully short stories to provide andexegecontext reprinted sis forhis theory. He uses Katherine Anne Porter's "The Grave" to discussethicalimplications of life, death,and the impactthatit can have on the formativeexperiences of children, as well as James Thurber's "The CatbirdSeat" to discusshow it is thatmisogyny is made so prevalent in thelanguage

TheJournal ofAesthetics andArtCriticism

and craft ofthis It was niceto readthefull text story. of the storyalong withGregory's ethicalanalysis. He showedclearly how thekindof analysis thathe advocates(and argueswe do with or without knowto understanding theethical ingit) can be so helpful ofa text. He explains that"stories conimplications tribute to our understanding ofwhattheright thing be is, give us modelsof how the right thing might look whenthewrong done,and showus howthings is done. Stories, of course, cannotmakeus be thing or the law or theTen good anymorethanreligion Commandments can,butifwe are everto makeourselvesbetter andtheissuesoflife byseeingourselves moreclearly, morecomprehensively, and in greater then itfollows that storiesatleastsomekinds depth, ofstoriesare qualified to provide us with assistance thatis vital,vivid, and irreplaceable" (p. 191). The storiesthathe thinks are bad forus are not the ones thatmight invite us to sympathize with vicious or immoral characters (as is often argued),but the kinds oftalesthat are "mostly stories that thoughtless forcommercial the reflect, reasons, eagerly mostly of anygivencultural leadingclichesand prejudices moment - [His] larger stories traffickpointis that and clichesanesthetize our ability ingin prejudices to think about the veryissuestheypretend to illuminate"(p. 194). Gregory forthe arguesfervently thatstories have an essential roleto playin position thekindsof people we ultimately becomeand does itconvincingly. Thisbookisan important addition totheliterature abouttheimportance offiction, and liternarrative, aturemoregenerally, but it is especially important inexplicating therelationship between narrative and moralcharacter. This is also an important alternativeto Nussbaum's in Love's Knowledge arguments and PoeticJustice (amongotherplaces) thatliteraturecan make us moremoral.WhatGregory adds is theinsistence of a widerangeof stories thatpersistswithor without thekindof training Nussbaum advocateinaddition to a wider might rangeofmoral virtues. SARAH WORTH ofPhilosophy Department Furman University
mullarkey, john. Refractions of Reality: Philosophy and the Moving Image. New York: Palgrave

+ 282 pp.,$90.00cloth. Macmillan, 2009,xviii

Thisbook willbe a challenge formanyifnotmost readersof thisjournal.I know it was a challenge forme. Not because the films referenced and the are eccentric, someoffered interpretations though timestheyare. Not because the treatment of what the authorcalls Anglo-cognitivist filmtheory and

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews of filmis reductive, it could be though philosophy so described. Not because the authorfavorswhat he calls Euro-culturalist approachesto the "techof cinematic pronology, ideologyand materiality and consumption," he distribution duction, though is how does (p. 8). Whatwillbe challenging surely what readers advances John beyond might Mullarkey to figures think to includein thisEuro-culturalism in Continental current and theoriesonly recently will More challenging, criticism. still, philosophical of thismorerecent be Mullarkey's theory critiques inparticmoreexotictheory, andpreference for still of non-philosophy a theory ulara theory matching an irony he relishes, ofnon-art with that, Mullarkey offilm. Forthosewho recommends fora philosophy willbe a glanceat thereward acceptthechallenge, in Europe and, trends themostrecent philosophical an argument for more giving upthecomimportantly, films of an illustration pulsionto make particular in general an illusidea and film somephilosophical itself. ofphilosophy tration world in theEnglish-speaking reflections Critical Ranciere ofAlainBadiouandJacques onthewritings in thiscentury and have proliferemergedlargely takestheir atedonlyinthelastfive Mullarkey years. Whileboth oeuvre as common combined knowledge. inFrance for werewriting andpublishing thirty years in the1970s-!990s Continental or more, philosophy withstudies of Foucault, was preoccupied Deleuze, of Badiou and Ranciere and Derrida.The thought and from thepoststructuralism is often distinguished thatprecededit as "eventphilosodeconstruction a keyconceptin whatwas already revamping phy," that earlier Europeanthinking. theevent ForFoucault, Deleuze,andDerrida, figas the chance of an abstraction, uredas something ofsomething actualization or anticipated onlyvirtuForBadiou,theeventis thematerial allysignificant. effect of forRanciereit is the material condition; Filmis an event forBadiou by real,concrete change. fora subtractive condition "orgabeingthematerial on theother oftheother arts:"It operates nization" in a movement arts, point, usingthemas a starting from themselves" thatsubtracts them (p. 130). Film andtherest butrefuses from draws music, literature, their to be defined and,refusing byanyone ofthem, andwithout an essence itremains undefined essence, is found forRanciere, of itsown.The eventin film, line and the "fabin theconflict betweenthestory in imageswhichmaterially ulation"of a narrative andcon"thwarts" thetextual narrative, interrupting it(p. 157). tradicting willdrawfrom butreject thesetheories Mullarkey offilm, and every other offilm, becausethey theory of thephilosophy unreducefilm to an illustration thetheory of film they propose.Badiou, derwriting makesfilm illustrative of the axMullarkey argues,

429 iomatics ofbeingas suchthatstructures histhinking in general. WithBadiou,"we don'task whatfilm is, but rather whatit makes us think," whichis what he sayswe shouldexpectofhisphilosophy (p. 131). illustrate the Ranciere, Mullarkey says,makesfilm of aesthetics thatcharacterizes his agonistic politics from to end:"Film, likeall the philosophy beginning 's picture of thepolitical as bearsout Ranciere arts, a plurality of discordant voicesrangedagainst each other in absolutedemocratic (p. 162). equality" toMullarkey, all film suffers the According theory to think thewhole.Everythepainoftheparttrying to theextent thatitproposesto be thetheory, is ory, can nevercapture and,as partial, necessarily partial Even David Bordwell, whowrote thewholeoffilm. are correct, that"we mustpretend thatall theories all methods are valid,and all critics assumed, right," that"all theories are equallywrong Mullarkey says, of cognitive scienceand to the twintruths relative form" Bordhisownpoetics offilm (p. 190).Against well's"incomplete relativism," Mullarkey arguesfor relativism" whichis "alwaysreflexive, a "complete absolute itself as well,withan immanent involving itsownindefinite purchase" (p. 190). concerning is a This argument, open to criticism, certainly but rarelystated in clue to the thinking implicit of Mullarkey'stext,namely,the non-philosophy little ofLaruelle'sprodigious Laruelle. Francois Very has been transfrom1971 to the present, output, latedintoEnglish(mostof it online);thereis,likeon his little wise, commentary English language very hisPrincipes work. Fromwhatis availableand from de la non-philosophie (Paris 1996),Laruelleargues from a deciis circular. thatall philosophy Starting sion to splitthe worldintowhatthereis to know, theReal, and whatcan be knownaboutit,philosothat theReal in terms to construe phyis condemned theconcepts ithas ofit.What confirm or disconfirm is thewayout of this Laruellecalls non-philosophy follows Laruellein thewayhe dilemma. Mullarkey makestheobjectoffilm andtheobjectoffilm theory In its inconcepts. what cannot be objectified precisely wouldhave of the Real, Mullarkey approximations In its apfilm tendto nonrepresentational non-art. tend offilm, he wouldhavefilm theory proximations A philosophy that to nonconceptual non-philosophy. wouldfollow dilemma wouldescape itsconstitutive thelead offilm theory. on More generally, wantsto improve Mullarkey that while Deleuze's claim that filmmakers alsothink, think withconcepts, filmmakers think philosophers with But itis notjustfilmmakers whothink, images. Filmitself to Mullarkey. themovthinks, according think.And while Deleuze ing images themselves certain films were exemplary cases of cinthought that"iffilmcan ematicthinking, insists Mullarkey think thenall films can think" (p. 4). The idea is not

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

430

TheJournal ofAesthetics andArtCriticism

to reducethought to "mere"imagesbutto "inflate" Lightis refracted one medium when,passingfrom therealmateriality ofimages intothinking it changesspeed. Light processes intothe depthsof another, filmthinks whatphireflected in a mirror is redirected at the surface in (p. xiii). On his view, exactly or oughtto think, whathe an instant. What is possible in thatinstant, howthinks, losophy namely, theReal. But film itself imcalls,following Laruelle, ever,is a limitset by other,broadermovements and recommends forphilos- established and biproveson philosophy by our cultural, psychological, because,like ophya new wayof thinking precisely ological situation.The mirroris tin plated and film the Real itself, moves."The reality thatfilm is certainsocial expectations, to shaped to maximize "is itself alcertainpersonalneeds, to confirm certain writes, supposedto capture," Mullarkey satisfy such that filmmustmiss its pufacts aboutparts ofourbodiesand ourenvironment ways in motion, tativetarget, mustconvergeon something thatis we cannot that see directly. to Mullarkey, According itselfdivergent" states "film's ownthinking to thesebroader move(p. xv). In fact,Mullarkey belongs that is "processual ordivergent. ments," totherefracted realitiesand slow, axiomatically reality enduring, As such," he continues, "film's based thickof our bodies,our affects, and our culture at poweris always on a missedencounter, a convergence withdiver- large. moveus because movement On thisview, therefractions thatconfigure film's gence.Moving pictures is whatis Real" (p. xv). are notjustincomplete or imperfect reflecthinking The language here invites comparison with tionsoftheReal, butrather contextual critical, perthe psychoanalytic and evaluations ofwhatwe taketo be real. theoryof Jacques Lacan, and spectives devotesa chapterto Slavoj Zizek's noThese "refractions of reality," the thinking in film, Mullarkey Lacanianfilm But theimplicit ref- call attention to how "reflections" toriously theory. onlyoutlineour erence whoseemstoborrow, with- virtual influence on the Real, onlysketch whatwe is,again, Laruelle, outacknowledging oftheSymbolic, wanted to getfrom it.Theytellus,precisely, that the it,Lacan's rubric theImaginary, and theReal. We can understand the tinlackswhat itwants to imagelockedinthemirror's Real inMullarkey's as that form ofbecoming reflect. The slow, and thick effects ofbodtheory enduring, whichneverbecomessomething, whichalwaysdiies and thebroadcultural movements thosebodies from to makeofit.We constitute ofreflection and verges anysensewe attempt impedethetransparency forever missan encounter withthisReal, withthis form a sedimented resistance to the instantaneous, because the symbolic symbolic oftheReal. Whatever can be said sheer,unremitting becoming, ordering structures of meaning sometobe true abouttheReal,then, inthethinking keep us encountering proper to keep thisimpossible at to film, is an opaque thickness formed from thing, anything, becoming multiple, is in flux.It moves, it overlaid mediations ofsocial, bay.More simply put,reality psychological, physical, itgenerates newforms andcorrupts effects. changes, existing and biological Filmis also influx. structures. It moves, itchanges, it to Mullarkey, whenfilmthinks, it So, according new forms and discards old technologies. does not think It refracts imthe thick, generates something. is in a privileged to conofbodiesandpeoples.It approximates Film, consequently, position pededeffects or successfully, thereal invaintheflux oflife, forms inresponse to vergeon, nevercompletely changing flux ofourworld. in that flux. And a theory offilm changes embracing This bringsus to a commenton the title of itspartiality andrelativity and absolutely completely book.It is commonly thatfilm, wouldfollow suit.If Mullarkey does notgivemany Mullarkey's thought as philosophy, aimsto mirror, or reflect the offilms that fit this itis becausehis model, capture, examples worldas completely as possible.However, film because which we are to supposeis an example theory, the worldit attempts to capturemoves and, in its of thecomplete relativism he has in mind, does not is always other than himto do so without withmovement, circular, becoming something permit becoming it is, Mullarkey thinks thatfilmcan nevermirror outmaking films itself andfilm intoan illustration of or reflect the world.It can onlyoffer whatHenri hisview. Yet Mullarkey has a view, and,while clearly called"impeded refractions" ofit.Following dressed ofnon-philosophy, I wonBergson up intheprotocols the argument from Matter and Memory, it is reallyso verydifferent from "the Mullarkey der whether as representational use of reality" writes, "Reflection, or, perception creative Maya Deren advocated, and thought, is a limit case of refraction" better whatStanBrakhage called still, (p. 188). provocatively It mediates itsobject"at thehighest thereal. In all of thesecases,film thinks speeds and in "tricking" the shortest us just thosepartsof the as it does notidealizeas a signofitscatime," giving justinsofar wantedto see, "and in the nartoreflect butslowsdownandthickens object our theory enough pacity in refractions of the rowest movement to approximate themateriality (or angle)ofthepresent possible" world itis thinking about. (p. 188). More clearly is an ideal stateof thendoes film reflection But ifthis is Mullarkey's stated, view, not, whatis otherwise, and normally, bentand skewed. as Mullarkey construes that it,once again,illustrate

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews not trying to persuadeus that view?Is Mullarkey orillustrates a wayofthinking that film itself exhibits with And,yet, favorably non-philosophy? compares thevalueof book invites us to question Mullarkey's film ofmaking into film as suchan illustration, using It also invites us otherwise theorize. whatwe cannot film. Whatwe theillusion ofthecomplete toquestion and uncertain on film is an unstable, world, capture that world arethemwehavefor themeans capturing imselvesconstantly changing (computer-generated toreflect that world for notso much example), agery, but in responseto broadercultural moreperfectly is surely demands. andpsychological right Mullarkey to cautionthata theory aimingto fixwhatfilmis

431 wellmisswhatis essential about essentially mayvery thesechanges for theelancinematique offilm (p. 11). does notmakeit easy At thesame time, Mullarkey ofhisbook. His argument is not to track thevirtues whether and,in theend,he questions easyto follow, thisunsatisfying he has made hispoint.He presents as approximating the principles of nonconclusion butwhatever Laruelleand thosefollowphilosophy, than inghimmaybe up to seems moreinteresting that.
JOHNM. CARVALHO

ofPhilosophy Department Villanova University

This content downloaded from 182.185.224.57 on Tue, 1 Apr 2014 03:11:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions