Memory Studies The appearing memory: Gilles Deleuze and Andrey Tarkovsky on `crystal-image'
Alexander Kozin Memory Studies 2009; 2; 103 DOI: 10.1177/1750698008097398 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

Additional services and information for Memory Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions: Citations

Downloaded from at University of South Australia on February 24, 2010

immobile sections of movement. Vol 2(1): 103–117 [DOI: 10. Deleuze examines the ways in which phenomenality of time discloses itself through the semiotic dimension of cinema. Solaris INTRODUCTION …there are not only instantaneous images.’ as developed by Gilles Deleuze in the two volumes of Cinema (1986–89). volume-images which are beyond movement itself… (Deleuze. London. there are movement-images which are immobile sections of duration. 2010 . In this article. The main objective behind my examination is two-fold: demonstrate that cinema can be approached as a special kind of phenomenological inquiry (semiotic phenomenology) and. that is. semiotic phenomenology. and (3) the appearance of time itself. Freie Universität Berlin. As one of the original phenomenological themes.ARTICLES The appearing memory: Gilles Deleuze and Andrey Tarkovsky on ‘crystal-image’ ALEXANDER KOZIN.1177/1750698008097398] Downloaded from http://mss. In these texts. change-images. limit-phenomena. An analysis of Andrey Tarkovsky’s film Solaris provides an illustration. Deleuze identifies three distinctly different senses of cinematographic time: (1) time as the movement of image. relation-images. I explain this emphasis by connecting a particular kind of time-image to the phenomenological concept of remembering. duration-images. Germany Abstract In this article I examine the concept ‘crystal-image. is deemed to be of special significance to Deleuze. Singapore and Washington DC www. 1986: 11) Although the above quote outlines the very basics of Deleuze’s typology of time. timeimage. Key words disclosure.sagepub. that is.sagepublications. on the strength of this hybrid method. together with imagining. Subsequently. ISSN at University of South Australia on February 24. these basics are sufficiently clear to suggest that only the third kind of In this article I elaborate the latter via the concept of ‘crystal-image’. materiality. remembering has been approached first by psychologically minded MEMORY STUDIES © SAGE Publications 2009. (2) the movement of time-image. New Delhi. Los Angeles. fi nally. there are. further our understanding of memory and its materiality. time-images.

‘Kant’. This position evolves from the notion of radical difference. I suggest that we should approach Deleuze through the method of semiotic phenomenology. Deleuze had never acknowledged the impact of différance on his thought beyond a mere motivation past Kant. ‘cinema’ or ‘Baroque’. Unlike Derrida. which is essentially a Kantian legacy. Strauss. distinguishing them from fixed. essences that are vagabond. Kearney. albeit in very different veins. by the phenomenological studies of time. Instigated by Jacques Derrida. The multiplicity of phenomena studied by Deleuze easily conceals his method behind concrete investigations. I argue that. 2010 . Ricoeur. I see this article as a contribution to the general theme of this special issue.3 There is much evidence that Deleuze espouses both phenomenology and semiology.g. 1990: 177). memory.104 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) phenomenological research (e. ‘analyses of concept-making’ (Deleuze. More specifically. through a focused reading of his works.1 The implications of this perspective demand an argument of its own. more recently. ‘Bergson’. In order to proceed with my argument. The influence of phenomenology on these analyses becomes evident from the acknowledgment that Deleuze bestows on Husserl and his contribution: ‘Husserl thought a decisive step forward when he discovered a region of vague and material essences (in other words. With this thesis. 1966) and. In turn. Sartre. Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. Maurice Merleau-Ponty.sagepub. Specifically. for example. schooling or film-image. ‘Francis Bacon’. Waldenfels grounds his view of Deleuze in the fact that the latter was highly influenced by the radical turn in phenomenology in the late 1960s and followed that turn toward ‘a transformation of phenomenology’ (1983: 488). the latter comes about in two ways: by way of an ongoing argument visà-vis Henri Bergson with the key phenomenological figures. or différance. this turn retains not only the focus on the empirical world but also its modes of constitution (transcendentals). history and narrative (e. However. Casey. 2006). Bernhard Waldenfels (1983) describes Deleuze as a second-generation phenomenologist. memory can be shown in a series of reflective and reflexive images. In Deleuze. and by his philosophical at University of South Australia on February 24. 1987. such as Edmund Husserl. who coined the term and so incorporated it in his philosophy explicitly. A great variety of his foci as well as his critique of traditionalism contribute to the difficulty of locating Deleuze within any traditional philosophy. In his early overview of French philosophy. that is. neither one of which can be fully accessible to experience on its own. At the same time. be it a historical figure or a social phenomenon. the importance of identifying the precise position from which he contributes to the main object of this examination: bringing a phenomenological argument and semiological analyses together in order to show the birth of a concept (crystal-image). 2002. who is no longer attached to the phenomenological foundation directly but is attached to it via numerous associations and dissociations. be it architecture. hence. Downloaded from http://mss. Carr. insists Waldenfels. 1991. inexact and yet rigorous). I would like to propose that Gilles Deleuze’s Cinema 1 (1986) and Cinema 2 (1989) added to both orientations. it is hardly possible to see him completely outside of any philosophical tradition. as a property of time.g.2 The latter should help us understand better how memory may show itself as a materiality. 2004. it is precisely in the motivation that we find a continuous association with phenomenology. which seeks to disclose the relationship between time and various forms of sociality.

perhaps. which express themselves differently when engaged in either the empirical or the transcendental realms.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 105 metric and formal essences’ (1990: 177). among these two-faced concepts is the relation-concept. The Logic of Sensation. on the surface of the matter. as he conducts his argument in an implicitly phenomenological key that can be traced in both the set-up and the trajectory for his deliberations: he begins with the analysis of representation (phenomenon) as it was introduced by Plato and ends in the realm of social phenomenology with the question of the Other and the third. to that matter. explains Žižek. intense matter’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987: 153). meet at the nodal points. for example. Thus. unformed. an examination of how the artist could paint ‘the scream more than the horror’ (2004: 12) situates Deleuze alongside with the phenomenologists of transcendence. The latter cannot help but presuppose a different kind of dialectical relationship. the pure flux of Sense in contrast to representational Signification’ (1993: 123). as an inquiry that seeks to subvert sedentary thinking via nomadic interventions rather than analytical reversals. According to Žižek. to use Deleuze’s own metaphor. such as eidos and hyle. where extreme signification resides.’ A body without organs is ‘nonstratified. Deleuze introduces dual liminal categories such as ‘sense-event’ or ‘time-image’. creating ‘waves or oscillations’ (Žižek. 2010 . like the other side of the coin. or by Husserl. thus allowing for the actual and virtual to co-exist in the mode of dialectical co-determination. the other side cannot be removed or ignored. the other face is turned toward Language – that is.. or. The strongest. ‘abstract’/‘concrete’. ‘image’ and ‘effect. Deleuze understands philosophy as necessarily critical. Deleuze asks himself the most basic phenomenological question: What makes the appearance of various phenomena possible if one accepts that their phenomenality exceeds the boundaries of the sensual? The answer to this question is sought out in the liminal realm. The emphasis on phenomenality in itself leads Deleuze to a philosophical method that Slavoj Žižek calls ‘dialectical materialism in its fullest sense’ (1993: 38). Henry. that is. non-substantial surface of Becoming . 2002). Deleuze locates this mode in a systemic concept that he calls ‘a body without organs. In Difference and Repetition (1994).com at University of South Australia on February 24. Marion. or the sign that emerges from the collusion between ‘matter’ and ‘force’ in the divide between ‘organic’ and ‘non-organic’. He is more explicit about his intellectual commitments in Francis Bacon. The proximity of the dialectically bound units distinguishes them only at the point of indistinguishability. for the object of his phenomenologically oriented philosophy Deleuze takes a liminal phenomenon. the fold.g. With Marx. Instead. or ‘compossibility’ that proceeds to the concrete from the possible. With this dual focus (surface of being and pure sense). This relationship engages other than traditional dualities offered by Hegel. 1973. it is the pure. these categories have two faces: ‘one face is turned toward things – that is. whose two components are the ‘actual’ and ‘virtual.4 Downloaded from http://mss. 1997.’ Divided by experience.’ This divide does not close with the reduction to a single concept. the actual. or ‘quantum particles’. 2004: 4). who stress the possibility of givenness being a phenomenon in itself rather than a mode of constitution for what is being given (e. of which the aim and purpose are both transcendental and phenomenological...sagepub. Deleuze confirms this admiration in practice. Janicaud.

whereby cinema is conceived as a semiotic system. – that of time: ‘it [time] is inherent in cinema … It pulsates through the blood vessels of the film. argues Deleuze. italics in the original). for Deleuze. Aristotle. is the system of pre-linguistic images and signs’ (1989: 262). argues Deleuze. the humans. He finishes Cinema 2 with the following elaboration. including the most fundamental of those. Although Deleuze proffers this critique in a number of texts.106 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) In this article. In the course of human history it has generated most basic concepts. a dialectic of rivals and suitors’ (2001: 292). which suspends the natural course of events and thus makes the nature of the reversal visible. ‘It seems to us that cinema. Deleuze proposes two models: (1) time as movement and instant. The most important philosophical concept for Platonism is time. Of special importance for Deleuze’s argument is a set of two pair-figures: Plato and Aristotle. one cannot simply bypass this dialectic: it has been in use for as long as we. Importantly. that is. In order to understand the real need for this reversal. scrutinized and reformulated. as a system of disclosure. this concept must be excavated. Husserl. and Leibniz and Bergson. The use of the term ‘reversal’ is notable. It can hardly be otherwise because Plato’s conception on time is based on myth which. expounding this very dialectic.sagepub. Deleuze begins his argument in Cinema 1 by claiming that Plato sought to impose a self-sustained (circular) and therefore non-productive ambiguity on the process of making sign-images. and Deleuze emphasizes this importance by playing in the same paragraph on the words ‘reverse’ and ‘reserve. and so. presupposes a separation between spirit and matter and the eternal return of spirit to all the reformed matter. one must consider Platonism as ‘a dialectic of rivalry (amphisbetesis).’ meaning to show that any reversal brings about a reservation. 2010 . According to Deleuze. can remember. he summarizes his sentiments most strongly in an essay titled ‘The Simulacrum and Ancient Philosophy’. I approach this matter in the semiotic terms. precisely through its automatic and psycho-mechanical qualities. making it alive through various rhythmic pressures’ (Deleuze 1989: 114).5 Deleuze designates literature as one such system. Hegel. a preverbal intelligible content (pure semiotics)’ (Deleuze 1986: ix. ARGUING FOR ‘TIME-IMAGE’ The argumentative trajectory toward ‘time-image’ is conducted by Deleuze in the traditional philosophical key as long as it engages major ‘philosophers of time’: Plato. at University of South Australia on February 24. Deleuze goes as far as to define his entire philosophical project as ‘a reversal of Platonism’ (2001: 291). I recuperate Deleuze’s argument that institutes the second model as a new orientation for understanding materiality of time (memory) as ‘time-image’. which. At the end of his analysis. Thus. In the next section. and in Cinema 1 names film as another: ‘The cinema seems to us to be a composition of images and of signs.6 I take the above two quotes as direct evidence for the semiotic phenomenological method. In the essay’s section ‘Plato and Simulacrum’. and (2) time as movement and change. ‘Plato understands time as eternity’ (1994: 5). by virtue of its liminal status is capable of disclosing the world in its constitutive dimensions. The pursuit of spirit by matter Downloaded from http://mss. Leibniz. Bergson and Heidegger.

robotics. Deleuze contrasts this naturalistic concept of time with Leibniz’s process-oriented concept. time moves by increments. He therefore continues his analysis by examining those conceptual shifts that have occurred on account of Plato. the old cinema fills up the space of perception by showing time as a sequentially ordered movement toward a pre-specified point of destination (imaginary) or backward toward an achieved product (memory). physics and astronomy and then bio-technological: cryogenics. such as mathematics. which can only lead to the past. if we approach ambiguity not as a mathematical deficiency. some of which are so small as to allow us to call them instants. Charles Chaplin’s 1936 film Modern Times serves as an illustration of this model. who refuses to accept either natural or divine order as the proper foundation for the appearance of time. first abstract. Traditional interdisciplinary divides point to the incompatibility of ‘points’ and ‘species’. making Deleuze rightfully suspicious about wider philosophical implications of Platonism: the primacy of spirit and the ability of ideas to perfect themselves by way of establishing the ‘right’ fit to the corresponding matter.’ where ‘one’ is an instant). Leibniz thinks of time as if it were a forgotten future. it accumulates. who follows the Platonic logic to proclaiming that ‘time is a number’ (Deleuze 1989: 130). The connection of time to technology makes Deleuze use Ford’s assembly line as a metaphor for the movement image. time becomes the purview of sciences. argues Deleuze. The idea of time as a regulated change is alien to Deleuze. It also leaves behind Aristotle. each series is extended in other series which converge around these points. argues Deleuze. another world in another time begins in the vicinity of points which would bring about the divergence of the obtained species (2001: 297. making it impossible to conceive of a system that would position a mathematical and a biological concept next to each other without creating some kind of ambiguity. or a future that has been committed to memory before it actually occurred. it is a line that moves and. etc. adds to the original image thus making the image appear as if it gets fuller and fuller with every frame and every cut until it reaches completeness. Once divided into instants. which is but a prolongation of the present.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 107 and the rivalry among dematerialized ideas set time to zero. or as the progressive development in a series along an infinitely long path. For Aristotle. Downloaded from http://mss. I would like to present this archeology in the next three subsections. However. 2010 . with the monads being assimilated to singular points. italics in the original) The syntactic complexity of this quote matches its logic. bionics. as it moves. The latter means that. which he summarizes in The Logic of Sense: Time is the result of the operation of compossibility. in at University of South Australia on February 24. First shift: From Aristotle to Leibniz The first shift observed by Deleuze leaves behind the Euclidian geometry of movement as an essential character of time. time would indeed show itself as ambiguous. as would Aristotle. but as Leibniz did – in line with his differential mathematics – in terms of a space created by an addition to nothing (defined as ‘zero plus one. But unlike Plato’s thinking of time as the ambiguity of pursuit.

Russian neo-symbolism). It also designates a relationship of mutual contamination of the two terms. This is to say that ‘time-image’ collapses the two parallel times together in a space which. “everything is the beginning”’ (1989: 45). 2010 . time is non-directional. time is still bonded by number. can be defined as ‘liminal’. Both mathematics and philosophy begin with ‘one’. Bergson suggested that time was the movement of number ‘one’.g. the tensions should be understood as the temporal effects of the matter on the world and the world on the matter. If Leibniz begins and ends with ‘one’. Deleuze writes. In multiplication. Third shift: After Bergson As a philosopher of time. Italian neo-realism. Bergson is definitional for Deleuze. rather. moreover. ‘CRYSTAL-IMAGE’ For accessing this kind of time. Deleuze suggests a particular visual aesthetics. claims Deleuze. a flowing-matter in which no point of anchorage nor center of reference would be assignable’ (1986: 57). Deleuze makes sure that he puts a hyphen in the compound word ‘time-image. to Downloaded from http://mss. hence. for Leibniz. Following this logic. At the same time. This kind of space does not know the distinction between the past. the unbearable and the impossible. – the new cinema (e. it was Leibniz who first suggested that time should be viewed as ‘a movement’. ‘the countdown never begins and never stops. Bergson takes ‘one’ as the nexus of multiplications: ‘“One” can only multiply itself. bringing memory to perception. At the same time. hence. who begins his Cinema 1 and Cinema 2 with one of many commentaries on Bergson and essentially constructs his own model of time on the basis of the Bergsonian view of time: ‘a state of things that would constantly change. like Aristotle.108 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) Second shift: From Leibniz to Bergson However. This kind of genesis was particularly attractive for Deleuze given his interest in the empiricism of a transcendental kind. or ‘durations of different tensions’ as opposed to ‘the homogenous time of beginnings and origins’ (2004: 275). According to Deleuze. ‘For Leibniz’. the human ability to experience time as it moves for itself. time runs like a stream. leaving us little if any room to think time as ‘many’.sagepub. at University of South Australia on February 24. Leibniz gives absolute priority to number ‘one’. No wonder then that Deleuze approaches time at the intersection of memory and matter. or. It is the most abstract number’ (2002: 58). concerned with both semiotics and phenomenology.’ stressing our understanding that image belongs to time and does not just represent time. In that space. French neo-classicism. The content available to consciousness blends with the subconscious absorption of this content. the new cinema is what produces singular memory in the intolerable. everything is movement. time appears only as singular memory. In this definition of time. For Bergson. Its mission is ‘to make holes. present and future. as I argued earlier.

An opening line of the chapter on ‘crystal-image’ in Cinema 2. 2010 . or. helping us follow ambiguity toward its appearance in an assemblage. this quote not only confirms the relationship between the world and imagery. although it presupposes ‘matter. taking us beyond anthropological structuralism with its staple distinctions: ‘hard’ and ‘soft’. Once again. the distinction between the real and the imaginary had to be foregone: the new cinema was very convincing in demonstrating its indiscernability. ‘past’ and ‘future’.g. which exposed ‘transcendentals’ for an analytic intervention. however. The emergent signs and their assemblages in the film are based on the confluence of the two. the former shows an analytic of an image. and it is in that pivot that we find one of the most basic conditions for our experience of the world as image: ‘what we see in the crystal … is time. only the film shows dynamic indiscernability of the actual and the virtual: ‘Distinct.’ According to Deleuze. by suppressing many things that have been added to make us believe that we were seeing everything’ (Deleuze 1986: 22). The ‘crystal-film’ is therefore the kind of film that exposes the relations between what is being reflected and the act of reflecting. on the contrary. For Deleuze ‘transcendentals’ show themselves as ambiguous signs (e. Our thoughts become matter. the same feature brought in a new conception of frame and framings.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 109 introduce voids and white spaces. the kind of analysis Deleuze presupposes deals precisely with the movement from the actual to the virtual toward a mirror image. except that the film shows more than a reflection. memory to photographic or cinematographic image). ‘Cinema does not just present images. while mirror does only that. what is opaque and virtual becomes luminous and actual. with two sides if we relate it to the invisible character … and the crystal turns over on itself’ (1989: 88). The choice of the name for the concept can be explained through the physical properties of mineral morphology: the structure of a crystal allows us to see how. to put it in phenomenological terms. with each turn of the crystal. it contains a prime mover. in its double movement of making presents pass. although it examines ‘transcendentals’ or ‘liminalities. hence. but indiscernible. This is not to say that images do not come from the world.. we must remind ourselves that the kind of phenomenology that preoccupies Deleuze is neither strictly speaking transcendental. the cinema of the last half of the 20th century severed its connection with the cinema that had come before it. the ‘given’ and ‘givenness’. it surrounds them with a world’ (1989: 68). hence the need to supply their phenomenological exposure with a semiological interpretation. Both create oblique.’ nor is it empirical. He finds it in the concept ‘crystal-image’. opaque and obscure images. This reversibility makes all sorts of binaries coalesce. By openly embracing this agenda.g. such are the actual and the virtual which are in continuous exchange’ (1989: 71).7 In turn.sagepub.8 I see in the film what I otherwise could have seen in the mirror. ‘saying’ and ‘said’. ‘here’ and ‘there’. it establishes the direction of fit: images to the world (e. the significance of the semiotic concept ‘mirror’ for Deleuze’s entire philosophy: ‘Mirror is a turning crystal. With this ‘extra’. The latter showed just an image. while matter becomes an object of our thoughts. which is the minimal unit of ‘visual semiosis.’ The liminal in-between that it explores is not at University of South Australia on February 24. to rarify images. replacing one after the Downloaded from http://mss. Peirce’s ‘thirdness’). This insistence on the material presence without content (body without organs) reflects Deleuze’s emphasis on the pure signifier.

’ ‘materiality’ and the ways of showing them. This is how Tarkovsky describes what is going on in the film: ‘in their striving for knowledge people in the film loose grasp on reality. In question are thus such philosophically laden notions as ‘reality. I would like to examine it in Andrey Tarkovsky’s feature film Solaris (1972). and of course.10 More importantly. First. Inevitably. ANDREY TARKOVSKY’S SOLARIS In Cinema 2: The Time-Image. which challenges them through the dreams and material manifestations’ (1986: 199). However. When on the station Kelvin encounters ‘visitors’ who have already ‘affected’ the remaining three crew members. dropping it into the obscure depth’ (Deleuze 1989: 87). thus. We can observe these constellations at ease in all Tarkovsky’s films as he constructs and presents his assemblages in prolonged and detailed sequences. Guggenheim. In this respect. even in as ‘unfaithful’ an adaptation of Solaris as Lem claims Tarkovsky’s film to be. Michael Crichton’s 1987 novel Sphere exploits ‘alien materialization’. Deleuze openly recognizes Tarkovsky’s film-making as congenial to his own. the time that appears is inalienable from the place of its appearance. like sound in music. This importance is manifest in two cinematic translations of it. The rest of the film is dedicated to Kris’s coming to terms with the possibility of the materialized memory of his dead wife.g. Paul Anderson’s 1997 film Event Horizon). Tarkovsky proclaimed his intention to show the same nexus of time. After the flight control center on the earth looses communication with the station. like color in painting’ (1989: 288). 2010 .11 Downloaded from http://mss.g. Solaris was conceived as a psychodrama that takes place on a space station orbiting a planet-like ocean ‘Solaris’. while going towards the future. In addition. who pays her living husband a visit of conscience. but also of preserving all of the past. the main theme had to be preserved. Stanislaw Lem’s novel Solaris (1970) has been a classic of the science-fiction genre since its first publication in 1961. which is one of the main themes of Solaris) and science-fiction film (e. psychologist Kris Kelvin is dispatched to Solaris to evaluate the mission. ‘time becomes the basis of bases in cinema. Gutman and Varvantakis (this volume) explore this place at the site of architecture.110 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) next. this interconnection is not the main reason for choosing Solaris for the following analysis. it is rather shown as crystal-time turned into time-crystals. which are sign-images capable of forming constellations or families of signs.9 With this quote. While Dekel. Solaris is no exception: there is no rush of time. Deleuze refers to the following quote from Tarkovsky. the novel has been influential in both science-fiction literature (e.sagepub. – Tarkovsky’s 1972 Solaris and Steven Soderbergh’s 2002 Solaris. nor is time presented through extreme emotional effects. this nexus is not given by way of a narrative. The ‘crystal-film’ that rises from the liminal place gives us a glimpse of time. The influence of Lem’s novel lies in him introducing the possibility of having time appear as matter (simulacrum of a human being) ‘made’ from human memories. in his own interpretation of the at University of South Australia on February 24. memory and matter as was keeping Lem’s novel together.

for this time is before memory. all too close and still all too small (this image will come up in the last scene of Solaris. I investigate four sets of images from Solaris in the order that reflects the pivotal movement of crystal-time in the film. The water grass image comes to be definitional for both Tarkovsky’s cinematography and. 2010 . The hunters (frontal figures in the lower left-hand side corner) are returning home literally and symbolically: they have belabored and for that were granted an easy descent with a view of the home from the height that the home-dwellers do not possess.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 111 In the following. who anticipates the advent of modernity. by the passage of time. Breugel shows the twilight of a winter day by blending together the brown-green of the sky and the yellow-white of the snow-covered earth. preparing food. and biological home for the entire human race. playing and skating on the ice. as a visual symbol that reflects on the world and its experiences: ‘Cinema uses the materials given by nature itself. Deleuze’s interest in Tarkovsky: ‘this is not an extensive and action-oriented image but rather impactful in a sense that it alters our awareness of time via an overt stretching out of the affective interval between action and perception’ (modified from Powell. The film opens with the image of underwater grass. a central theme that informs all Tarkovsky’s works. 137–8). people are living a pastoral life: they are hunting. pp.12 The first set includes the opening and the closing images from Solaris. when he presents it in the historical perspective at the end of the film through the image of Hunters in the Snow he admits of the inevitability of having to part with this life and its recurrent return. unfolds before the viewer layer by layer as an aesthetic object. It is the spiritual. then the image will be so too’ (1986: 106).14 In Solaris. The two images are connected by the idea of ‘home’. physical. It closes with an image of Pieter Breugel’s painting. fishing. In the Hunters.13 One can find an association with Homer’s Odyssey here: when Odysseus returns home he sees it anew as if from the divine perspective. For Downloaded from http://mss. Each set is designed to represent time semiotically. Tarkovsky calls this very image ‘indivisible and elusive’ and explains its significance as follows: ‘if the world is inscrutable. carrying wood. which was the fastest growing metropolis at the time. Tarkovsky is still an idealist in his critique of science and technology. Tarkovsky is nostalgic about this kind of time. the snow is glowing green. at University of South Australia on February 24. There cannot be a memory of this time. which lies below. the tonality of the surrounding context is in transition: the sky is about to turn dark. The Hunters in the Snow (1565). The view is ‘disclosive’ in the phenomenological sense: the home. co-extensively. but appeared as a whole. However. manifested within space that we observe about us and in which we live’ (Tarkovsky. The pastoral image of the grass and the image of the home-coming hunters recover their significance vis-à-vis the image of a modern city and the image of the space station. In Breugel’s painting. an island with a home will be coming up close first and then moving further and further away).sagepub. The first image comes from the footage shot by Tarkovsky in Tokyo. but he is also already a visionary. 2007. The brilliance of the color and the weaving of the grass represent the primordial time when the ‘mother-earth’ had not yet been divided into elementals by the humans. This ‘other’ image is the very movement-image that Deleuze has criticized in the beginning of his Cinema 1. 1986: 177).

the tunnels of the space station are closed onto themselves like the tunnels of memory. on the director can be traced in another conflated symbol-image: the first aside in the film is the iconic image of Christ the Redeemer by Andrey Rublev (ca. or. the dream of dreams. a conceptual metaphor that provides a meta-commentary on the accompanying image of the first appearance of Harey (Natalia Bondarchuk). He merges the image of the human anthill and the image of the isolated space station that too features multiple levels and tunnels but is suspended in outer space as if in opposition to the earth and to the collective psyche of the many as it itself offers us a focus on the isolated psyche of a few. Removed from their primordial home. Both designate the liminal sphere. Notably. the modern city symbolizes speed. – both Antonioni and Goddard had already done that. at the same time. the function of this scene in the film is more complex than simply a straightforward critique of modernity. displaced. produce two simulacra. a miniature ‘earth’ of the space station. It is difficult to miss the force of the dual appearance: in the first image the God’s face appears in the static object of a religious icon and in the second Harey appears as an embodied memory past the person who she comes to represent. The juxtaposition of the two images is subtle: unlike the highway tunnels that lead outside into the imaginary world of the future. both wondrous and terrifying.112 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) Tarkovsky. then. which makes the Downloaded from http://mss. According to the plot of Solaris. which although not a home in the technical sense.15 His own unique insights about relating the arteries of a quintessential modern city to the tunnel structure of a space station deal with having the pastoral home. and Tarkovsky acknowledged their claims to originality. too. Tarkovsky’s contribution to depicting the time of modernity was not in showing memory as a series of shifts from elevated highways to tunnels. It is there. anonymity and death. – the modern city as the horizontally dispersed vulgarization of the pastoral time. Still. his wife. who assigned the highest ethical priority to the moral orthodoxy. to be more proper.sagepub. The film ends with Kris falling into the ocean and into his only home (depicted as a house standing on an island). and the third kind of home. Yet. subject and object. 2010 . the second home. The influence of Tolstoy. Trigg (this volume) shows the effects of this transformation in the relationship between trauma. There. Tarkovsky uses the first image as a place of transition for the appearance of the second image and thus links the two sides of modernity. and so he has to carry the guilt of her death to his own literal and metaphorical fall. Tarkovsky plants his own metaphysics. joining the past and the future in the neverending at University of South Australia on February 24. its own and its emerging double. but a state of transformation. in the liminal ‘zwischen’ that things begin to happen. The collapse of the literal and metaphorical charges the appearance of memory with spiritual energy as Tarkovsky introduces this memory as a human embodiment. of the liminal space. The collapse of an emotion with a movement coincides with the fusion of pastoral and modern settings. rests at the limit of the primordial home. 1410). Kris is indirectly responsible for the suicide of Harey. situated in the midst of this home’s most technologically advanced accomplishment. postmodernity. the inhabitants of the space station are. Crossing is therefore not a place. thus suggesting the divine intervention into the matters of human morality. the religious notion of ascension finds a direct phenomenological correspondence in the notion of vertical givenness.

where the limp body belongs to the person who has just died before and for the other. but the other of the self that one was used to possess and wanted to share but was eventually forced to give up. her touch coming from the early renaissance Italian painting by Giovanni di Paolo’s The Annunciation (1435). and not just any other.’ The final set of images shows the ethical side of time as the unity of a dead body and its living bearer. Deleuze showed that the ‘new cinema’ was an institution that took upon itself the task of creating images of the phenomena that would have otherwise been inaccessible to us. With this turn of the crystal. This is why its effects become reminiscent of the actual/virtual state of reality.’ a time-event expressed by Tarkovsky as follows: ‘In the end everything can be reduced to one simple element which is all a person can count upon: the capacity to love’ (1986: 200). Also known as liminality. merge along the same line of flight: memory. 2010 . In completing the turn of the crystal. Following this extraordinary sense of ethics makes Harey disappear as she wills herself into immaterial oblivion after the final realization: ‘I am not who I am. while the texture is provided by the narrative. Film recovers our emotional lives in dreams that reflect the primordial state of being. she is slightly hovering over the pleading man. But as she becomes human herself. the divine symbol of transformation. ‘film is an emotional reality’ (1986: 176). Out of love for the other whose flesh she embodies. The depth of human memorials comes about as visual symbols (images). I suggested Downloaded from http://mss. the same love that brought the living memory to flesh makes the matter immaterial. Her body is not hers and her memories are not hers any longer. Here. this state does not know about the antagonism between the unreflective attitude and the super-reflective state. In this set we see a commoners’ version of pieta. this state allows us to capture the ‘transcendentals’ behind these symbols. the two variations of the original kind (before the secondary division into men and women). the home-knitted throw on her back reminiscent of angelic wings. The divine ‘crystal-image’ changes into the ethical ‘crystal-image. the reclining Harey is simultaneously tending to Kris as a lover but also as an angel. The human being and the divine being. the construction of new identities for the specters proceeds according to the strictest sense of ethics. An angel. CONCLUSION For Andrey Tarkovsky. Specifically. not even a loved one. she comes to Kris as a materialized response to the call of conscience. she realizes that she ought to die. this article added two emphases: (1) on the method of Deleuze’s investigation and (2) on the phenomenon of at University of South Australia on February 24. In the Cinema 1 and Cinema 2. By moving progressively from the appearing symbols to the basic structures of the human world Deleuze performs an analysis of a semiotic field (cinema) toward identifying its effects on our conception of the phenomenon of time. pre-separated from the yoke of the natural attitude. she ought to disappear.sagepub.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 113 time of this dual appearance divine. unlike the angel who rejoices at the opportunity to become human. To this scheme.

divine and. Downloaded from http://mss. 2010 . who consider the concept of ‘life’ to be the most important aspect of Deleuze’s philosophy (e. Parr calls it ‘a memory’ and argues that ‘it is the memory of double becoming. 2006. which enables thought. one of the seminal films by the Russian film director Andrey Tarkovsky. it comes as a materialization of time. I reproduced the philosophical argument that led Deleuze to the concept of ‘timeimage’. where the phenomenon of time would appear as ‘thirdness. 1992). It is precisely after such resolutions that I introduced the concept of ‘time-image’ and then elaborated it in the analysis of Solaris. which is based on the genealogical link to Bergson rather than the analytic procedure used by Deleuze in his investigations. In order to illustrate the relevance of semiotic phenomenology. it is a mythical memory of the place without a human. see Holenstein (1974). The analyses identified four modes for the appearance of ‘crystal-time’: as pastoral. Tracing the trajectory of the philosophical argument established the progressive path for the analysis.sagepub. see Lanigan (1989. and action’ without them showing themselves as thought. this volume. the buzzing confusion of the modern city. it means ‘singular memory’. Colebrook.’ or a meta-sign that emerges between the signifier and its reference after all the subjective and objective considerations have been dealt with. ethical time-image. a human being. this memory puts the inside and outside together’ (modified from Parr. 5 For other applications of semiotics to the analyses of materiality. For a number of ingenuous applications of semiotic phenomenology to communication studies. 2006). nor collective. 3 It might be important to note that the concept of memory used here is Deleuzian. My key objection to this emphasis lies in its inner logic. to the outer space. In the film. to the encounter with the impossible on board the space station. modern. Hallward. 2 This emphasis distinguishes my perspective from that of the vitalists. The progression from one time-facet to another required a change of the corresponding spatial coordinates.g. 2000: 231). The four facets of time make four corresponding kinds of memories. at University of South Australia on February 24. who is nonetheless a memory of the things passed as well as a spiritual being. feeling or action (modified from Murphy. in Solaris. see Gutman and Kontopodis.114 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) that semiotic phenomenology should be taken for the preferred method of inquiry into the work of Deleuze. to the modern city. this volume. ‘crystal-time’ shows itself as the destruction of the past memory in the name of the future to come. The first dream-memory is idyllic. Notes 1 On the origin of semiotic phenomenology. The encounter with materialized memory calls for the highest form of sacrifice and therefore takes time to ethics. feeling. 4 One can also call the body without organs ‘a limit. 2006: 129–30). Then one encounters an appearance of the past memory as wonder. AnsellPearson 1999. neither psychological. the second memory is that of the actual home. from the motherearth. In the end. its form is that of a biological entity. to the humanization of that encounter. The appearance is awesome. finally. A phenomenological perspective in relation to the same phenomena can be found in Trigg.

’ in K. Galeta. London: Continuum. C. For Deleuze. 83–4). References Ansell-Pearson. H. Tarkovsky uses the running image. and History.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 115 6 According to Lecercle. Deleuze identifies four fields (worlds). a new kind of image and revealed hitherto unexplored areas of reality’ (1989. G. (2002). Paris: Editions de Minuit. trans. which punctuates the sameness of an object in movement. G. H. London: Continuum. Narrative. 10 There is an uncanny similarity in this perspective with what Deleuze said about new cinema and reality: ‘The new cinema displayed a new kind of art.M. Deleuze distinguishes between and among hyalosigns. 12 Another way of putting it. Downloaded from http://mss.sagepub. Matter and Memory. Tarkovsky entrusts the facial image with a regular sign at University of South Australia on February 24. Carr. Palmer. based on the director’s belief that the camera is capable of unearthing the hidden significance of the material world’ (1989–90: 29). ‘is to penetrate the environmental facts. London: Continuum. Bogue. London: Continuum. 11 Here I agree with Petric who states that ‘Tarkovsky rejects facial expression as a way of conveying ideas’ (1989–90: 32). Key Writings. according to Petric. 7 John Rajchman clarifies: ‘cinema comes about as another art of seeing and acting […]. NY: Dover Classics. Tomlinson and B. pp. chronosigns.S. (2003) Deleuze on Cinema. Mineola. Deleuze. (2006) Deleuze: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Routledge. Habberjam. Colebrook. in Cinema 2. (1990) Pourparlers (Conversations). both literature and cinema belong to the last field. (1999) Germinal Life: The Difference and Repetition of Deleuze.A.’ 15 See Tarkovsky (1986). H. H. 14 Although Deleuze never mentions Breugel in his works. (2) qualities and sense impressions. noosigns and lectosigns. or crystals of time. trans. and (4) art (2002: 212–13). E. (1987) Remembering: A Phenomenological Study. a master of the expressionless face. Deleuze. (2004). Bloomington. pp. K. 13 When showing the Breugel painting in the film. a new kind of wholeness. Bergson. Mullarkey (eds) Henri Bergson. strict and solemn. New York: Routledge. eliminating the immediacy of the ‘fold. R. which would make visible something unseen and intolerable’ (1999: 43). D. making its appearances orderly. Pearson and J. Bergson. Casey. the key objective of camera movement for Tarkovsky. N. trans. where signs are encountered: (1) worldliness. 49–77. ‘The Idea of Duration. 8 Thus. Paul and W. the painter should be particularly appealing to the philosopher who reminds us that mannerism ended Baroque by taking it to the rule. thus simultaneously demystifying and problematizing the concept of face. (1991) Time. (1989) Cinema 2: The Time-Image. 2010 . Bloomington. G. 9 Adapted from Bogue (2003). (1986) Cinema 1: The Movement Image. IN: Indiana University Press. Tomlinson and R. as a mannerist. (3) love. Instead. Deleuze. IN: Indiana University Press.

J.-L. G. (1994) Difference and Repetition. Murphy. Marks (eds) Deleuze and Literature. P. and F. Cox. Patton. A. (2000) ‘Only Intensities Subsist: Samuel Beckett’s Nohow On’. trans. 125–45. Strauss.) Becomings: Explorations in Time. (2002) Strangers. R. New York: Routledge.-P. London: Verso. Altered States. trans. 229–50. Downloaded from http://mss. M. in Deleuze and the Contemporary World. A. T. Hunter-Blair. MN: University of Minnesota Press. D. PA: Dusquesne Univeristy Press. Minneapolis. G. J. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Deleuze. D. PA: Duquesne University Press. Lecercle. Hallward. (2001) The Logic of Sense. Forgetting. J. P. Etzkorn. and F. Buchanan and J. Rajchman. Film Quarterly 43(2): 28–34. IN: Indiana University Press. (2006) Memory. (1989) Phenomenology of Communication. B. M. B. in I. Frankfurt/ Main: Suhrkamp. in E. A. trans. E. trans. trans. (1999) ‘Diagram and Diagnosis’. Austin. trans. Seem and H. 42–54. at University of South Australia on February 24. R. Ithaca. S. R. Holenstein. Pittsburgh. (1970) Solaris. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. San Diego. and Film. Bloomington. Paris: Le collège de philosophie. Petric. London: Continuum.-J. Smith.R.W. Tarkovsky. trans. CA: Harcourt. trans. trans. Kearney. Hurley. Waldenfels. K. (2002) Being Given: Toward a Phenomenology of Givenness. Marks (eds) Deleuze and Literature. G. (2004) Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation. Ricoeur. Žižek. London: Verso. London: Continuum. Pellauer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Stanford. (2007) Deleuze. Henry. A. J. Deleuze. Chicago: Univeristy of Chicago Press. Dusquence University Pittsburgh. Kosky. Gods and Monsters: Ideas of Otherness. Kilmartin and S. Lanigan. Massumi. Parr. (1983) Phänomenologie in Frankreich (Phenomenology in France). Žižek.sagepub. CA: Stanford University Press. Buchanan and J. Powell. L. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blamey and D. (1992) The Human Science of Communicology: A Phenomenology of Discourse in Foucault and Merleau-Ponty. Janicaud. E. (1986) Sculpting in Time: Andrey Tarkovsky. (1997) Chronos: pour intelligence du partage temporal (Chronos: On the meaning of shared time). M. S. A. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. NY: Cornell University Press. MN: University of Minnesota Press. (2006) Out of This World: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Creation. G. K.116 MEMORY STUDIES 2(1) Deleuze. (2006) ‘Deterritorialising the Holocaust. (1989–90) ‘Tarkovsky’s Dream Imagery’. Guattari (1983) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. (1972) Solaris. Deleuze. trans. Lane. Tarkovsky. ed. V. Deleuze. (2004) Organs Without Bodies: Deleuze and Consequences. London: Routledge Lanigan. 2010 . Stanislaw. Marion. pp. The Great Russian Filmmaker Discusses His Art. R. Lester (2nd edition). Webber. Grosz (ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. P. History. trans. J. New York: Columbia University Press.J. Minneapolis. Sartre. Memory. (2002) Deleuze and Language. and Futures. Elkaim-Sartre. USSR: Mosfilm. G. (1966) Phenomenological Psychology: The Selected Papers of Erwin W. (1973) The Essence of Manifestation. Strauss. Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. J. (2004) The Imaginary: A Phenomenological Psychology of the Imagination. (1993) The Metastases of Enjoyment. Routledge: London. J. in I. (1974) Roman Jakobson’s Approach to Language: Phenomenological Structuralism. TX: University of Texas Press.

ethnographic methods and discourse analysis.sagepub. His areas of specialization include phenomenology. D-14195 Berlin. 2010 .net] Downloaded from http://mss. Address: Freie Universität Berlin. He is currently working on the book project The Liminal Place of Law. Fachbereich Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften. conversation analysis.kozin@gmx. Crime. Janus Head. semiotics. Media.KOZIN THE APPEARING MEMORY 117 ALEXANDER KOZIN (PhD in Philosophy of Communication) is a Research Fellow at Freie Universität Berlin. [email: alex. ethnomethodology. Culture. He has published in Semiotics. Germany. Alteneinstrasse 2–4. Comparative Sociology and other academic journals. Germany. Semiotic Sign Systems. where he has participated in the international research project ‘Comparative Microsociology of Criminal Defence Casework’ since at University of South Australia on February 24. Text and Talk.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful