Alain Badiou’s Cinema

“The cinema has always been the subject of everyday conversations and that reinforces its role as a form of ongoing, informal education” - Alain Badiou

​The cinema is for Badiou one that is interested in everybody, one that welcomes regular words as much as unpretentious bits of knowledge. In the event that the reality of the matter is that, as Badiou puts it, ‘philosophy doesn’t have to produce the thinking of the work of art, because art thinks by itself’ , then what is the place of  the philosopher in this school for everybody? Is it accurate to say that he is an master or a follower? Does he address or tune in? What space does the talk of reasoning case for itself after entering the school?

Remarking on André Bazin, Badiou figures a vague answer by asserting that there are great and awful explanations behind reasoning's current enthusiasm for film. While both reasons propose to the possibility of the philosopher as teacher,, they don't discount the likelihood of a philosophical apprenticeship through film. The terrible reason focuses to theory's requirement for intercession. Cinema  is a piece of a common affair and in this manner offers itself unequivocally as a site of arrangement. At the end of the day, film helps by deciphering the ideas logicians make and work with. Film is consequently instrumental to reasoning. The great one communicates then again, a specific need at the heart of cinema. Rationality intercedes correctly on the grounds that silver screen is presently re-characterizing its own space; film does not have its own inquiries (123). As it were, the thinker either utilizes silver screen as a site for outlines or creates the reasoning that film can't do. In both cases the logician coaches silver screen as to its own particular potential outcomes, as though movies were unknowingly giving responses to inquiries they don't get it.

---

​In the essay ‘Can a film be spoken about?’ Badiou depicts his talk as aphoristic (restricted to the undefined judgment of ordinary discussions, additionally from the diacritical one of the film analyst) which intends to talk about a film qua film, with a specific end goal to sort out one's talk around “cinema’s subtractive (or defective) relation to one or several among the other arts”. In this entry the connection amongst  cinema and philosophy appears to experience a reversal: so as to talk about a film, one must comprehend it qua film, one must give the peculiarity of a film a chance to uncover itself, through takes and cuts, with a specific end goal to“maintain the movement of defection, rather than the plenitude of its support”. It is through the mindful examination of silver screen's takes and slices that film's deficient connection to painting, music and theater is uncovered. In this manner from the “discourse of the master”  we have moved to the talk of the understudy. The savant's place in this school for everybody appears to be fairly questionable, a development between the instructor's work area and the understudy's seat. This accumulation is an enlightening case of how this development educates the continuous experience amongst cinema and philosophy.

​With a specific end goal to comprehend this experience one should along these lines be mindful from one perspective to the course of a group of stars and on the other to a progression of dreams. In the section ‘Cinema as Philosophical Experimentation’, Badiou portrays film as having an advantaged relationship to reasoning. However this relationship experiences from the onset a procedure of duplication and produces two inquiries and two methodologies:  “how does philosophy regard cinema?” and “how does cinema transform philosophy?” .

​One ought to dependably remember that the scholar poses the question ‘how to regard cinema’ from a particular reasonable star grouping, a profoundly explained outline. This minute – which could be said to identify with Badiou's ‘bad reason’ – can never be totally stifled in light of the fact that the philosophical direction unavoidably demands (a) philosophical personality communicated from inside logic through philosophical vocabulary. At the end of the day, the star grouping must be unmistakably characterized each time rationality goes through silver screen, regardless of whether this heavenly body is confirmed, conceded or tested by film. The heavenly body delimits the parameters of the experience.

In Badiou’s constellation cinema is presented as a ‘defective art’. Cinema therefore can be categorized as one of the four conditions (art, science, love, politics) that Badiou comprehends as creating truths. The philosophical errand – constantly organized around the class of truth – is along these lines that of conveying a development between the movement of contentions and the presentation of points of confinement. This development then seizes truths, logical, political, imaginative and loving ones. . Philosophy, as the realization of this development is in this way, the site of thought at which (non philosophical) truths seize us and are seized as such”  and can just arrange an "objectless subject, a subject open just to the truths that travel in its seizing and by which it is seized". As art cinema is accordingly on the double logic's condition and offense, since, as Badiou states, “philosophy is always gnawed at, wounded, indented by the evental and singular character of its conditions”. The misty brightness of art crosses philosophy and seizes it, but art does not become an object for philosophy. With the term inaesthetics Badiou illuminated exactly this thought: the philosopher does not transform art into a question for logic, but rather portrays the intraphilosophical impacts of artist as “the thinking of the thought that it itself is”.

​It is from inside the heavenly body externally laid out here then that Badiou can comment that the " relationship between philosophy and cinema is not one of knowledge, but one of transformation”.  It stays to be perceived how, from inside Badiou's constellation, cinema transforms philosophy. A to begin with, hurried answer, can be endeavored: : cinema never transforms philosophy, however constantly just a philosophical constellation; the change practiced by film on reasoning must be seen from inside a particular philosophical signal, that is from inside the specificity of a heavenly body. This is for two reasons: it is constantly through the intervention of a specific constellation (or genre, or sequence, or concept) that the experience between the two happens. The constellation is not really an appropriate name, it could rather be characterized as a solitary setup of ideas and their introduction or better as the intervention between these two minutes. This course of action delivers a peculiarity that gives importance on to the experience by deciding the whys and hows of a philosophical look on film.  Cinema can therefore transform the singular constellation, the likelihood of a particular method of considering. To state, for example, that film conveys philosophy to an end, would intend to reduce once again cinema to philosophy, as though cinema could be totally consumed by philosopohy; it implies besides that from one perspective cinema  satisfies its assignment by conveying philosophy to one more end, while  philosophy can then start once more, by and by. The second reason is maybe all the more illuminating: to say that cinema as such transforms philosophy as such, would dependably lessen the dialog to the vitality of both, thus either would be changed into an outright that drops another supreme and its own peculiarity. In other words  this would mean from one perspective to request that of cinema distinguish what is fundamental about philosophy and after that change this pith, and then again to request that philosophy recognize what is basic about film and submit itself to the change this substance can create. The question subsequently is to be placed in these terms: what can be opened by and in cinema from inside a solitary star grouping that difficulties this specific game plan? What components and works of cinema, as distinguished by a  particular constellation, create onthis constellation a muddling, a deafness, a blind side, the minute where eventually very constellation  that has delivered this very understanding can't be straightforwardly watched any longer.

Badiou gives a case by saying that film produces new blends: “if we are able to create philosophical concepts from cinema it is by changing the old philosophical syntheses by bringing them into contact with the new cinematic synthesis”  For this situation cinema changes philosophy by caving in the resistance between developed time and unadulterated span, amongst progression and brokenness.Cinema in this manner delivers new worldly combinations. It is along these lines as a philosophical circumstance that cinemacan change philosophy, by grabbing the blends logic has made and acknowledged. ​

​Badiou then advances a second argument. Cinema transforms philosophy since it opens it to a difficulty, it shows this inconceivability by exhibiting it. The inconceivability identifies with the authority of sensible limitlessness. Cinema  draws in a battle with the endless and fruitful movies prevail with regards to filtering the unending, by creating effortlessness out of everything there is. Out of this vastness Cinema develops with something new, something which may seize philosophy in a way that philosophy  can't yet perceive, something which is both a condition and an offense. As Badiou expresses “while philosophy involves inventing new synthesis, I think that it hasn’t completely understood cinema yet”. Maybe here dwells the reasoning of cinema: an imperviousness to be seen, hence a tutoring and a future; atruth for everybody that philosophy can't yet educate. At any rate this is the thing that Badiou appears to let us know.