Where should I start from?

>>9693306
You start with the Greeks

>inb4 no
You won't understand Lacan without Aristotle.

>>9693324
It occurred to me that this has ben asked before. But I couldn't really find what I want.
Also, I'm currently reading Poetics.

>>9693331
Start with Parminedes and Heraclitus

>>9693331
Is English your second language?

File: 18620824_1462325210500455_8106942894151109965_o.jpg (184KB, 1200x547px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1200x547px

>>9693306
Go full deleuzian and just rhizomatically learn my dude

pick a point and if you dont understand something go read about it till you do, if you dont understand the that then yo go read something else to understand it further ad infinitum

>>9693306

>Lacan
Freud, Kojéve (and Hegel), Saussure/Levi Strauss.

>Zizek
Lacan, Marx, The German Idealists, Frankfurt School and Badiou (and Heidegger).

Pretty effin' big project if your only purpose to critique a couple of film clips, buddy.

>>9693306
zyzzk=critics movies by lacan, dont take his thing from him, thats his but if'n you wanna GET the slav maybelike read everything he did, and everything they dudes he read read, all the way back—you have to go back
back to the first peoples: greco-romams: hedothenes, ~sudo-dyojenes, purple-y and the great medium-evil philosophister: anonymous
then and ONLY THEN (THENN if'n it please you) can u get a full unnerstanding of the artfrom known as LA KINO!

>>9693306
stop polluting movie criticism with pseudophilosophy, for fucks sake
coming up next: a Derrido-Lacanian reading of Oliver Twist

>>9693423
Yes, it is.

>>9693928
Thank you.
I know, but it's not only for that. I am a literature student. And I have always loved reading, now I believe it's time to get serious.

>>9693892
I guess it's also a good way of doing it, I hope I don't get confused though.

>I want to start learning about movies
>I also want to study Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault

Those are key writers in any film studies class, so jump right in

>>9694011
>4011▶
>>>9693306 (OP)
>stop polluting movie criticism with pseudophilosophy, for fucks sake
>coming up next: a Derrido-Lacanian reading of Oliver Twist
It's not only for movie criticism, I should have said that. I just want to get serious in literature and all kinds of art.

>>9695120
All of those?
And is it that easy to just start like that?

>>9693995
>back to the first peoples
That's the hard part. But I will do it.
I should start learning. It's really the time.

>>9695134

Yes. Deleuze has two books called Cinema 1 and Cinema 2, start there.

>>9695160
Now that seems the perfect place to start for cinema. Thanks!

Watch The Pervert's Guide to Cinema and The Pervert's Guide to Ideology

>>9693306
You really don't need to read any philosophy to critique movies the way Zizek does.

Just make some wild accusations about a director's intentions with certain scenes and somehow frame them into contemporary events that are perpetuating and institutionalizing the prevailing power structures

>>9695107
What's your mother toungue?

Also, don't read Lacan if you're interested only in movies. He wrote only to broaden psychoanalysis theory and clinic. Trust me, it won't help as a starting point to read him directly.

On the other hand, why don't you start reading directors?

Andrei Tarkosky's Sculpting Time
Farocki / Godard, Film as Theory
Farocki's correspondance with Kaja Silevrman

Also read about history of cinema in general. You will need those resources even before philosophical or psychoanalytical ones.

>>9693324
You can never understand Lacan.
You may enjoy reading him lying down on the diván and you will need, before anything else, to read a lot of Freud.
Aristotle may help with a pair of paragraphs. Freud is unavoidable.

>>9696545
Anon basically wants to be Zizek though, really he should find a balance and read an author who thinks the opposite so he can do his best to draw his own conclusions but we all know the chances of that happening.

>>9694011
Give us serious movie criticism bibliography then.

Start with thinkers who don't take hours of back-research to make it through a paragraph before you move on to the near-impenetrable. Bazin, Eisenstein, Walter Benjamin, the film critics of the French New Wave, etc., supplemented with Marx and Heidegger.

>>9696566
>thinkers who don't take hours of back-research
>Heidegger

Get your shit toghether, anon. You've obviously never read Walter Benjamin or Heidegger.

>>9696603
I mean I'm not saying Heidegger is easy but there's stuff there that makes the difficulty worth it, as opposed to Deleuze or Lacan. And as far as Benjamin goes if I was going to name drop someone I haven't read (on an anonymous message board?) I would have gone with Hegel or something

>>9696566
What Heidegger is relevant to film?

>>9696783
Any of his writings on aesthetics. I'd recommend 'Poetry Language Thought'

>>9696798
Thank you. I'm guessing "The Origin of the Work of Art" is the big one.

What work on Marx is relevant?

>>9693306
Film Art: An Introduction by Bordwell

>>9693306
Watch Zizek's Perverts Guide to ideology and read Mark Cousin's book on film.

File: 19260401_183258368872746_3153228816677406774_n.jpg (39KB, 526x526px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 526x526px

>>9695117
getting confused is part of the process, just keep digging

Thinking you need le sniffle zizek and crew to understand cinema.

>>9696749
Well, maybe I 4channed too hard back there. Sorry.
But I still think Walter Benjamin and Heidegger are really difficult.
Once a teacher made the whole group read Benjamin's The Origin of German Tragic Drama. It was terribly hard to understand (Max Horkheimer himself said it was too obscure) but anyway it gave us a broad outlook of Benjamin's opinions about the History of Philosophy.
What I want to say is that you and me were both mistaken.
Benjamin and Heidegger may take several hours to trace back their references, but anyway the learning will be worth it.

>>9693306
There will be no easy path, OP. So I somehow agree with the rizomatic method >>9693892 suggested.

>>9693306
Schlomo Zizek has no theory and no plan on cinema except to repropriate it.

>>9693892
And Lacanian psychoanalysis is not pro-capitalist. It just doesn't give a fuck about it outside the specific discourse of the subject speaking.