10.54103/2036-461X/17923
In The Affect Theory Reader, Gregory J. Seigworth and Melissa Gregg write about Roland Barthes’s splendid notion of ‘shimmer’: an ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ that may be inventoried as patho-logies (by which to contemplate pathos) of bodies (human and nonhuman). In Alex Garland’s 2018 film Annihilation, a refracting effect — the Shimmer — which has appeared around a lighthouse and is slowly spreading outwards, is being studied. Military groups have entered the Shimmer never to return. A group of female scientists — of which Lena (Natalie Portman), a biologist, is one — enter the Shimmer and begin to inventory the strange organic duplicates of form within it. These organic structures, while extraordinarily nuanced, are also patho-logies of organic life as they are refracted by the Shimmer. This article will consider the ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ of cinema and its patho-logies via the conditions of the rhythm of the pixel in cinema, and beyond, in social media. While cinema, as well as social media, can be conceived as an affective experience, this essay will consider how the rhythm of the pixel as an energetic relation allows for an ethics to arise in the relation between the media text and the spectator/operator. In an examination of the rhythm of the pixel beyond the cinematic medium, I consider the energetic ‘becoming’ of the spectator/operator and the digital image (text and image in social media) as they act in relation. In an examination of the rhythm of the pixel beyond the movie theatre, I consider the infinite intensities in the aisthetic encounter of body and text/image in social media and its correlation to the politics of a mass-art. My hope is that in the ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ of rhythm beyond the cinematic medium and the pixel beyond the movie theatre, what may be found is patho-logies conjured by affective intensities and their connectives whereby digital interactions may no longer be refracted by the passions of divisive debate, but by an ethics of care, compassion, and empathy.
application/pdf
2036-461X
17923
38
en
Sharon Jane Mee
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Cinéma & Cie. Film and Media Studies Journal
digital hostility
Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium/The Pixel Beyond the Movie Theatre
Text.Serial.Journal
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie
22
Beyond Cinema
2022-06-27
2022-05-21
2022-12-30
2022-12-30
121-137
Cinéma & Cie
Sharon Jane Mee
2022/06/27
10.54103/2036-461X/17923
121
University of New South Wales
2036-461X
38
digital hostility
en
137
Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium/The Pixel Beyond the Movie Theatre
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie/article/download/17923/15815
22
                                                                                       Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium/
                                                                                       The Pixel Beyond the Movie Theatre1
                                                                                       Sharon Jane Mee, University of New South Wales




                                                                                       Gregory J. Seigworth and Melissa Gregg write about Roland Barthes’s splendid notion                Keywords
                                                                                       of ‘shimmer’: an ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ that may be inventoried as patho-logies                 Rhythm
                                                                                       (by which to contemplate pathos) of bodies (human and nonhuman). In Alex Garland’s
                                                                                       2018 film Annihilation, a refracting effect — the Shimmer — which has appeared around
                                                                                                                                                                                            Shimmer
                                                                                       a lighthouse and is slowly spreading outwards, is being studied. A group of female                       Pixel
                                                                                       scientists enter the Shimmer and begin to inventory the strange organic duplicates of                   Ethics
                                                                                       form within it. These organic structures, while extraordinarily nuanced, are also patho-      Digital Hostility
                                                                                       logies of organic life as they are refracted by the Shimmer. This article will consider                   DOI
                                                                                       the ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ of cinema and its patho-logies via the conditions of
                                                                                                                                                                                         10.54103/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License




                                                                                       the rhythm of the pixel in cinema, and beyond, in social media. In an examination of the
                                                                                                                                                                                  2036-461X/17923
                                                                                       rhythm of the pixel beyond the cinematic medium, I consider the energetic ‘becoming’
                                                                                       of the spectator/operator and the digital image (text and image in social media) as they
                                                                                       act in relation. In an examination of the rhythm of the pixel beyond the movie theatre,
                                                                                       I consider the infinite intensities in the aisthetic encounter of body and text/image in
                                                                                       social media and its correlation to the politics of a mass-art.




                                                                                         An ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ is the way Roland Barthes describes ‘shimmer’
                                                                                       in his series of published lectures, The Neutral: Lecture Course at the Collège
                                                                                       de France (1977–1978).2 In The Affect Theory Reader, Gregory J. Seigworth
                                                                                       and Melissa Gregg outline the affects that would constitute an ‘inventory of
                                                                                       shimmers’ in ‘neutrally inflected, immanent pathos or “patho-logy”’.3 In Alex
                                                                                       Garland’s 2018 film Annihilation, the Shimmer is a refracting effect that causes
                                                                                       the area around a lighthouse to become populated with organic duplicates of
                                                                                       existing organic structures. The Shimmer in Annihilation allows for a way of
                                                                                       thinking about the shimmering energetic plane in and of the digital image. My
                                                                                       interest is in how ‘shimmer’ as an ‘extreme changeability of affective moments,
                                                                                       a rapid modification’4 characterizes an aisthetic, as well as ethical, encounter
                                                                                       with the image, and how such an encounter may be considered in spectator/
                                                                                       operator interactions with media texts beyond cinema.
                                                                                         With the rise of nationalist movements and authoritarian governments,
                                                                                       and digital hostility in social media, a return to the study of the sensory and
                                                                                       sensuous body is more important than ever, for in our aisthetic encounters


                                                                                       Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                    121
      we may apprehend an ethics beyond a politics of inadequate ideas. Referring
      to Gilles Deleuze’s citation of the Second World War as ‘a violent encounter to
      thought’, Nadine Boljkovak, in her book Untimely Affects: Gilles Deleuze and an
      Ethics of Cinema, points to Deleuze’s contention that the ‘war machine’, beyond
      its violence, comprises ‘revolutionary movements’ such as are found in art’s
      creative invention and resistances.5 Thinking about affect’s potential — and the
      creativity and resistance that it inspires — this article seeks to examine social
      media text and image through infinite intensities by which we may recognize the
      conditions for a patho-logical interaction in this ‘exhaustively nuanced space’.6
         This article will consider relations of affect in the development of cinema to
      the digital image and beyond, in social media, via the rhythm of the pixel. In a
      consideration of the pixel beyond the movie theatre, that is, in the relocation of
      the pixel from cinema to social media, it is necessary to recognize the affective
      and energetic relations that exist between social media text and image and
      social media operator. The rhythm of the pixel in both cinema and social media
      generates an energetic relation between the media text and the spectator/
      operator. I want to consider this energetic relation as an ethical one through the
      media text and the spectator/operator’s ‘capacities to affect and be affected’.7
      To think about relations of affect in the rhythm of the pixel beyond the cinematic
      medium, I first establish what this means for cinema. I analyse Annihilation to
      understand the affective and energetic force of the pixel in cinema that acts in
      relation. To consider the rhythm of the pixel beyond the cinematic medium is to
      consider an affective acting in relation. Such an acting in relation is an energetic
      exchange between media text and spectator/operator in a mutual ‘becoming’.8
      In my consideration of the place of affect in these encounters, my intention is
      to locate an ethics of care, compassion, and empathy in our engagement with
      cinema and beyond, in social media.



      ANNIHILATION
        In Garland’s Annihilation, Lena (Natalie Portman) is an academic who works
      in biology at John Hopkins University. After her husband, Kane (Oscar Isaac),
      is quarantined at a science facility after a military mission, Lena decides to join
      the next mission into what is called the Shimmer (fig. 1). The mission is to reach
      the purported source of the Shimmer — the lighthouse — enter the lighthouse,
      acquire data, and return. As Dr Ventress (Jennifer Jason Leigh) explains to
      Lena, the Shimmer is: ‘A religious event, an extra-terrestrial event, a higher
      dimension. We have many theories, few facts.’ Dr Ventress’s party consists
      of five women, all scientists — herself, Cass Sheppard (Tuva Novotny), Anya
      Thorensen (Gina Rodriguez), Josie Radek (Tessa Thompson), and Lena.
        Once inside the Shimmer, the group of women find mutated organic structures
      — flowers, plants, and animals. The Shimmer provides the conditions and
      process (is the patho-logy) for the blooming of life. Lena explains the organic
      structures to Lomax (Benedict Wong) at the science facility on her return: ‘The



122                                          Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
                                                                                     Fig. 1:
                                                                                     The Shimmer
                                                                                     in Annihilation
                                                                                     (Alex Garland, 2018)




mutations were subtle at first. More extreme as we grew closer to the lighthouse.
Corruptions of form, duplicates of form.’ Lomax: ‘Duplicates?’ Lena: ‘Echoes.’
Lomax: ‘Is it possible these were hallucinations?’ Lena: ‘I wondered that myself,
but they were shared among all of us. It was dream-like.’ Lomax: ‘Nightmarish?’
Lena: ‘Not always. Sometimes it was beautiful.’ However, it is Josie who more
fully explains the Shimmer and the organic structures that are present within
it when she says to Lena: ‘The Shimmer is a prism, but it refracts everything,
not just light and radio waves, animal DNA, plant DNA, all DNA.’ The refracting
effect of the Shimmer is observed when Cass is taken by a bear-like creature
and after she is found dead, the creature returns with a growl that sounds like
Cass’s death cries. Josie reflects upon it: ‘It was so strange hearing Sheppard’s
voice in the mouth of that creature last night. I think as she was dying, part of
her mind became part of the creature that was killing her.’ In consideration
of the refraction of DNA through the medium of the Shimmer in Annihilation,
this article will examine the refraction of affect in cinema and beyond, in social
media, via the ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ of what Barthes calls ‘shimmer’.9
What is also refracted through this ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ is the (human
and nonhuman) patho-logies of our digital interactions by which media text and
spectator/operator engage in a mutual ‘becoming’.10



AESTHETICS AND ETHICS
  The aesthetics, and even ethics, of the digital image (text and image in social
media) — as an affective and energetic force — can be found in the organic
rhythms of life. In an early scene in the film, Lena describes the evolution of a
cell/of all life to her classroom of students:

         This is a cell. Like all cells it is born from an existing cell. By
         extension, all cells were ultimately born from one cell. A simple


Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                     123
                                      organism alone on Planet Earth, perhaps alone in the universe.
                                      About 4 billion years ago, one became two, two became four. Then 8,
                                      16, 32. The rhythm of the dividing pair, which becomes the structure
                                      of every micro blade of grass, sea creature, plant creature, and
                                      human. The structure of everything that lives and everything that
                                      dies. […] The cell we are looking at is from a tumour.

                               The rhythm of the dividing pair is an organic rhythm (fig. 2). Thus, the rhythm
                             of the dividing pair has a ‘thisness’ found in relations of movement and affect.
                             Such a ‘thisness’ is the way Deleuze and Félix Guattari describe a body as a
                             ‘mode of individuation very different from that of a person, subject, thing, or
                             substance’.11 Deleuze and Guattari write: ‘They are haecceities in the sense that
                             they consist entirely of relations of movement and rest between molecules or
                             particles, capacities to affect and be affected.’12 Thus, a body, for Deleuze and
                             Guattari, is defined by haecceities:

                                      A body is not defined by the form that determines it nor as a
                                      determinate substance or subject nor by the organs it possesses
                                      or the functions it fulfils. On the plane of consistency, a body is
                                      defined only by a longitude and a latitude: in other words, the sum
                                      total of the material elements belonging to it under given relations
                                      of movement and rest, speed and slowness (longitude); the sum
                                      total of the intensive affects it is capable of at a given power or
                                      degree of potential (latitude).13

                                The organic structures in the Shimmer are mutations of form precisely
                             because they are first of all a relation: the refraction of ‘animal DNA, plant DNA,
                             all DNA’. The voice of the bear-like creature is the sign of a relation and an
                             intensive affect having taken place: the sonic intensities of Cass’s death-cries
                             have affected the bear-like creature in the same moment that Cass has been
                             affected by the bear-like creature, which has also resulted in her death. Equally,
                             it could be said that the rhythm of the pixel has a ‘thisness’ found in relations of




Fig. 2:
The rhythm of the dividing
pair in Annihilation
(Alex Garland, 2018)



124                                                                 Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
movement and affect. The intensities of the digital image affect the spectator/
operator, and the expression of the affect in the spectator/operator is the sign of
a relation and an intensive affect having taken place. For cinema, ‘capacities to
affect and be affected’ are found in the ‘automatic movement’ of the movement-
image.14 As Deleuze writes:

         It is only when movement becomes automatic that the artistic
         essence of the image is realized: producing a shock to thought,
         communicating vibrations to the cortex, touching the nervous and
         cerebral system directly.15

  Thus, what is found in the ‘automatic movement’ of cinema — in the vibrations
of movement that ‘touch[…] the nervous and cerebral system directly’16 — is a
communicating ripple of affective intensities ‘producing a shock to thought’.17
Deleuze gives as examples the work of Dziga Vertov, Sergei Eisenstein, Abel
Gance, and Élie Faure.
  In Vertov’s 1929 film Man with a Movie Camera, the use of shot and montage
constructs a ‘rhythmic montage’.18 The operation of Eisenstein’s montage
is not simply one of the ‘communication of movement in images’, but of the
development of montage ‘from the image to thought’.19 Montage has the
capacity to produce a ‘shock to thought’, which gives rise to what Deleuze calls
the ‘spiritual automaton’ in the spectator.20 The ‘spiritual automaton’ does not
come about through ‘logical or abstract’ thought by ‘formally deducing thoughts
from each other’ to think ‘determinate substance or subject’.21 Just as a body
has ‘capacities to affect and be affected’,22 ‘[a]utomatic movement gives rise to
a spiritual automaton in us, which reacts in turn on movement’.23 That is, the
‘spiritual automaton’ comes about in ‘the circuit into which they [the spectator]
enter with the movement-image, the shared power of what forces thinking and
what thinks under the shock; a nooshock’.24
  The intensive vibrations of the movement-image ripple outwards, causing
change, like the rippling outwards of the Shimmer’s refractions that is causing,
as Lena says, ‘giant waves in the gene pool’. The ‘shock to thought’ of the
movement-image can be conceived as an encounter with energetic and material
qualities in the image/world that ‘gives rise to sensibility’.25 As Deleuze writes
in Difference and Repetition:

         Something in the world forces us to think. This something is an
         object not of recognition but of a fundamental encounter. […] The
         object of encounter […] really gives rise to sensibility with regard
         to a given sense. It is not an aisthêton but an aisthêteon. It is not
         a quality but a sign. It is not a sensible being but the being of the
         sensible. It is not the given but that by which the given is given. It is
         therefore in a certain sense the imperceptible [insensible].26

  When ‘something in the world forces us to think’ it is to think the ‘unthinkable
in thought’.27 That is, it is a ‘thinking’ in haecceities — an encounter with the
sensible, and even imperceptible — ‘the grey, the steam and the mist’ in Akira


Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                     125
      Kurosawa’s Cobweb Castle (also known as Throne of Blood, 1957).28 Such an
      encounter is an aisthetic encounter: that is, an encounter with sensation prior to
      our recognition of it, where subject and object are instead engaged in a mutual
      ‘becoming’.29 As Boljkovak writes: ‘This shattering of stable constructions by force
      enables intensive perception and new approaches to life, seeing and being.’30
      Haecceities of ‘movement and rest, speed and slowness’ while ‘unthinkable in
      thought’ ‘touch[…] the nervous and cerebral system directly’.31 In the aisthetic
      encounter, a body — defined not by ‘form’, ‘substance or subject’ — has the
      potential for ‘becoming-intense, becoming-animal, becoming-imperceptible’.32
      In Annihilation, the voice of a bear becomes Cass’s voice, leaves grow from
      the skin of Josie’s arms and as she disappears amongst a stand of human-
      shaped trees we understand that she becomes a tree, and energy pours from
      Dr Ventress’s mouth until she becomes the imperceptible energy that swirls
      around Lena to form a throbbing vortex.
        Cinema provides a valuable resource for challenging ways of thinking.
      Aisthetic encounters with media texts, bodies, characters, and social and
      cultural situations, can provoke consideration of how we can engage ethically
      with others and the world. In Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, Deleuze
      invokes what Baruch Spinoza says in his book, Ethics: ‘We do not even know
      of what a body is capable.’33 In consideration of ‘intrinsic determinations’ such
      as intensities of colour,34 we can begin to understand an ethics whereby the
      expression of a body may affect other bodies. While the rhythm of the dividing
      pair sets ‘intrinsic determinations’ or ‘intensive qualities’ for a body that
      may be affected by other bodies/the world,35 it also announces the potential
      whereby the expression of a body may also affect other bodies. According
      to Spinoza’s Ethics, it is in the expression of, and relations between, bodies
      where communities are formed. As Bruce Baugh writes, ‘a community or an
      association, corresponds to a collective power of being affected, and results
      in collective or communal affects’.36 It is through intensities of colours and the
      qualities, sounds and textures of moving bodies, that cinema can express the
      power that bodies have to affect other bodies, and also, an ethical engagement
      with others and the world. My article seeks to understand ‘communal affects’
      through intensity’s difference in cinema and beyond, in social media.37



      THE AISTHETIC ENCOUNTER AND MASS-ART
        How do we understand the aisthetic encounter that attends mass-art as
      entertainment? In this article, the convergence is represented by the affective
      force of cinema in communication with its spectators via a sensory manifold. I
      contend that the image and the spectator are components in the flow of energy
      and are simultaneously invested: in the circuit of the movement-image, the
      image and the spectator each have ‘capacities to affect and be affected’.38 And
      yet, precisely because of this affective relation between the spectator and the
      image, mass spectatorship retains heterogeneity. As Deleuze writes: ‘What



126                                          Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
theatre and especially opera had unsuccessfully attempted, cinema achieves
(Battleship Potemkin, October): to reach the Dividual, that is, to individuate a
mass as such, instead of leaving it in a qualitative homogeneity or reducing
it to a quantitative divisibility.’39 The aisthetic encounter with the image is a
heterogeneous experience. The viewer of cinema thinks and feels intensities in
a particular way. As Deleuze notes in Expressionism in Philosophy: ‘Intensive
quantity is infinite, and the system of essences an actually infinite series. We are
here dealing with infinity “through a cause.”’40 On the other hand, the capacity of
bodies ‘to be affected’ can only be in ‘a very great number of ways’.41 Thus, the
particularity of intensities thought and felt by the viewer is of intensities in the
aisthetic encounter — the event as ‘cause’ — for spectators of mass art.
   In light of these intensive quantities, we may understand the cinematic event
as ‘cause’ for the conditions, or patho-logies, that arise in the encounter between
body and image/world. According to Seigworth and Gregg in their introduction
to The Affect Theory Reader, patho-logies are accounted for in an ‘inventory of
shimmers’:

         What should follow as critical practice, Barthes argued, is a
         neutrally inflected, immanent pathos or “patho-logy” that would
         be an “inventory of shimmers, of nuances, of states, of changes
         (pathè)” as they gather into “affectivity, sensibility, sentiment,” and
         come to serve as “the passion for difference.” 42

  In this ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ ‘of shimmers, of nuances, of states, of
changes (pathè)’ as they are inventoried, we may further consider the viewer’s
relation to — and the patho-logies that would be an inventory of — the shimmers,
nuances, states, and changes of the pixel in the digital image.43
  And yet, in thinking about cinema as the ‘cause’ for infinite patho-logies,
Eisenstein’s work on pathos in cinema suggests something more about the
empathic bond that is formed between the film and the spectator. Eisenstein
notes that this bond of pathos is not one of mimesis, that is, of ‘impelling the
spectator to reproduce the perceived action, outwardly’.44 Rather, Eisenstein
suggests that ‘the affect of a work of pathos consists in whatever “sends” the
spectator into ecstasy […] ex-stasis — literally, “standing out of oneself”, which
is to say, “going out of himself”, or “departing from his ordinary condition”’.45 In
this sense, ex-stasis in cinema, for Eisenstein, implies more than a patho-logy
in the ‘departure from a condition’.46 As Eisenstein writes: ‘To go out of oneself
inevitably implies a transition into something else, to something different in
quality, to something opposite to what was.’47 In Annihilation, the refraction of
Lena’s DNA for the formation of the Lena double (Kristen McGarrity) implies a
transition of Lena out of herself. The refractions caused by the Shimmer are
a ‘breaking up’, deflection or a ‘change in direction’ of DNA as in the Oxford
English and Spanish Dictionary definition of refraction: ‘light, radio waves, etc.
being deflected in passing obliquely through the interface between one medium
and another or through a medium of varying density’.48 The ‘transition into
something else’, it could also be said, is a ‘power or degree of potential’ of the


Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                      127
      body in its affective ‘becoming’.49 In Annihilation, the ‘transition into something
      else’ of the body in its affective ‘becoming’ is even an annihilation of the self.



      CINEMA BEYOND THE CINEMATIC
      MEDIUM: THE SHIMMER
         Beyond the cinematic medium of celluloid, ‘shimmer’ characterizes the
      pixel in digital cinema. In The Cinema Effect, Sean Cubitt writes of the pixel:
      ‘Movement starts in non-identity, the unstable zero pixel at origin.’50 In
      Annihilation, the Shimmer refracts; that is, the Shimmer is the deflection of
      light waves, radio waves etc. as it passes through different mediums.51 In his
      series of lectures published as The Neutral, Barthes writes of the ‘shimmer’
      as an ‘exhaustively nuanced space’ ‘whose aspect, perhaps whose meaning, is
      subtly modified according to the angle of the subject’s gaze’.52 As a ‘conjunction
      of intellect and affect’, Barthes further writes about the ‘shimmer’ that it is a
      ‘hyperconsciousness of the affective minimum, of the microscopic fragment
      of emotion […] which implies an extreme changeability of affective moments,
      a rapid modification, into shimmer’.53 Seigworth and Gregg develop Barthes’s
      notion of shimmer in ‘An Inventory of Shimmers’: ‘It becomes then a matter of
      accounting for the progressive accentuation (plus/minus) of intensities, their
      incremental shimmer: the stretching of process underway, not position taken.’54
      Like the ‘shimmer’ as ‘process’ rather than ‘position taken’, the pixel ‘starts
      in non-identity’.55 For Cubitt, ‘pixels are temporal, not spatial. That cinematic
      present, like the point of origin of graphs, can be given a number: zero. Zero is
      not a quantity so much as a relation.’56 It is the energetic relation between the
      image and the viewer that I am interested by which we can describe the digital
      image. I am particularly interested in the way the energy of the pixel — as a
      ‘stretching of process underway’ — acts in relation.57
         Rosalind E. Krauss characterizes the energetic renewal of each pixel that
      makes up the image of the television set as the electric ‘pulse’ of the (analogue)
      televisual image.58 Seigworth and Gregg’s description of ‘shimmer’ as a
      ‘progressive accentuation (plus/minus) of intensities’ is much like the on/off
      of pixels that Krauss describes, where plus/minus determines the progress
      of pulsing intensity and its relation.59 The digital image, composed of moving
      (vibrating) and energetic pixels and sound, has the force of an energetic field.
      The digital image does not have the indexical recuperability of the photographic
      image, rather, in its moving pixel terrain, it has the behaviour and expression of
      an opening out of the energetic plane.
         Garland’s film Annihilation demonstrates the force of intensity that opens out
      the body to the image/world. When Lena enters the lighthouse, she finds a deep
      pit surrounded by a coral-like webbing and makes her way inside. She finds Dr
      Ventress in a cave at the bottom of the pit. As Dr Ventress says to Lena before
      energy begins to pour from her open mouth: ‘Our bodies and our minds will be



128                                          Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
fragmented into their smallest parts until not one part remains: annihilation.’
Dr Ventress’s body disperses in a cloud of swirling energy and, as the energy
swirls around Lena, it forms a vortex that opens like an eye in front of Lena (fig.
3). The vortex is composed of throbbing energetic and material particles. The
throbbing vortex draws a drop of blood from Lena’s eye, and, within the opening
of the vortex, the blood cells divide and multiply until a Lena double is formed.
  Cinema is found in these throbbing energetic and material particles. In a 1927
issue of Close Up, the poet and cineaste H. D. refers to cinema as having the
therapeutic powers of a mind cure.60 H. D. describes the experience of cinema
spectatorship: ‘We depended on light, on some sub-strata of warmth, some
pulse or vibration [...] We sank into this pulse and warmth and were recreated.’61
The encounter with cinema is an encounter with vibrations of energy — as light
— that ‘recreates’, which we can see extending, for H. D., from the nineteenth-
century belief in the restorative powers of electricity. It is interesting to note
the similarities in the mind cures alluded to in H. D.’s description of cinema as
‘pulse or vibration’ and what Deleuze says about the vibrations of ‘automatic
movement’ that ‘touch[…] the nervous and cerebral system directly’.62 The
behaviour and expression of an opening out of an energetic plane in cinema
and beyond, in the digital image, coincides with what Seigworth and Gregg call
a ‘bloom-space’ for ‘affectivity, sensibility, sentiment’.63 They write: ‘In fact, as
much as anything, perhaps that is what such a “neutral” bloom-space offers:
the patho-logy of a body intersecting with the pedagogy of an affective world.’64
What is found in the patho-logy of a body in its intersection with the world,
indeed, at the intersection of spectator/operator and media text, is, as Barthes
writes, ‘the passion for difference’,65 or what Deleuze calls ‘infinity “through a
cause”’.66
  Thinking about cinema beyond the cinematic medium of celluloid is a thinking
about event as opposed to narrative.67 The digital event is a relation. Cubitt
writes: ‘The verb “relates”, however, should be understood to mean “establishes




                                                                                        Fig. 3:
                                                                                        The throbbing vortex of
                                                                                        energetic and material
                                                                                        particles in Annihilation
                                                                                        (Alex Garland, 2018)



Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                          129
      a relationship”, not as “tells a story.”’68 Working within the digital event as a
      relation, the encounter with the digital image is an encounter with the energy
      of the pixel. The pixels that form the throbbing vortex in Annihilation, alongside
      the pulsing electronic soundscape takes cinema beyond the cinematic medium
      to something like a music video. As Cubitt writes: ‘It is important to recognize
      that narrative is neither primary nor necessary to cinema, and it forms no part
      of any putative essence of the medium.’69 The importance of the digital event as
      a medium is of relation and not of story.
        In Annihilation, the Shimmer refracts. Like the energy of the pixel that acts in
      relation, what is found inside the Shimmer is an acting in relation via duplicates
      of form and refractions of movement and sound. The Shimmer is a reification
      of Jenelle Troxell’s explanation of how Henry Wood’s 1893 manual Ideal
      Suggestion through Mental Photography: A Restorative System for Home and
      Private Use describes: ‘invisible threads, which connect us with each object
      which makes up our environment. Vibrations are ever passing over these
      connections, backward and forward, and it is for us to control their purpose
      and quality.’70 Like the vibrations of ‘automatic movement’ that ‘touch[…] the
      nervous and cerebral system directly’,71 the ‘invisible threads, which connect’
      in Annihilation are of movement, force, and pressure. When a Lena double is
      formed in the pit beneath the lighthouse, Lena runs for the door. The Lena
      double in mirroring her movements, produces a corresponding pressure against
      the door, such that Lena is pressed between the door and the Lena double. It is
      only when Lena releases her own pressure against the door and falls that the
      Lena double falls with her. However, this acting in relation is also what leads to
      the Lena double’s demise. In corresponding movement with the Lena double,
      Lena places a grenade between their hands — a gift given — and pulls the pin
      with her thumb. She runs as it explodes. Fire engulfs the Lena double. As the
      lighthouse catches alight, the Shimmer surrounding the lighthouse dissipates
      and the organic structures begin to collapse.



      THE PIXEL BEYOND THE MOVIE THEATRE
        With the rise of nationalist movements and authoritarian governments that
      give way to digital hostility in social media, we can begin to consider the energetic
      power of the pixel beyond the movie theatre. Indeed, in 1985 in Cinema 2: The
      Time-Image (translated into English in 1989) Deleuze identified the effects of the
      rise of nationalist movements in the treatment of the cinema spectator:

                Cinema is dying, then, from its quantitative mediocrity. But there
                is a still more important reason: the mass-art, the treatment of the
                masses, which should not have been separable from an accession
                of the masses to the status of the true subject, has degenerated into
                state propaganda and manipulation, into a kind of fascism which
                brought together Hitler and Hollywood, Hollywood and Hitler.72


130                                           Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
   How might the effects of cinema as mass-art be aligned with social media?
What is interesting to consider is the ways that social media may be aligned
with ‘bad cinema’, which, according to Deleuze, represents violence to produce
shock. Deleuze writes: ‘The shock would be confused, in bad cinema, with the
figurative violence of the represented instead of achieving that other violence
of a movement-image developing its vibrations in a moving sequence which
embeds itself within us.’73 We could, however, ask of Deleuze what happens when
the ‘figurative violence of the represented’ and the ‘violence of a movement-
image’ are both at once in the image? 74 What happens when the ‘violence of a
movement-image’ — the vibrations of the energetic pixel ‘touching the nervous
and cerebral system directly’ — is the affect of the image (as well as text in
social media), precisely because it appears in a violent representation?75 This is
to extend the consideration of ‘bad cinema’ and indeed, social media, beyond the
‘violence of the represented’ to consider its thought and felt vibrations: vibrations
that constitute, for Deleuze, the ‘automatic movement’ of the movement-
image.76 The importance for me in this argument, is the way by which violence
is perpetuated in social media then, not simply in a representation of violence,
but in the thought and felt vibrations of violence as an outcome of the energetic
relation in digital communication. Certainly, social media has the potential for
representing violence, such as the violence in the case of the raping of legba
and Starsinger by Mr Bungle in the text-based virtual world LambdaMOO.77
The ‘violence of the movement-image’ in social media is also in the rhythm of
vibrations and the energetic relation — the ‘shock to thought’ of text and image.78
Such a ‘shock to thought’ is as Deleuze notes: ‘a recognition of powerlessness
[…]. What cinema advances is not the power of thought but its “impower.”’79 The
aisthetic encounter, in its sounds, textures, rhythms, movements, and affects,
is the source of an ‘unthinkable in thought’.80 As Deleuze writes: ‘if it is true
that thought depends on a shock which gives birth to it (the nerve, the brain
matter), it can only think one thing, the fact that we are not yet thinking, the
powerlessness to think the whole and to think oneself, thought which is always
fossilized, dislocated, collapsed’.81 In Annihilation, thinking is not found in a
thinking of the whole from the outside, but in the encounter: ‘Unfathomable
mind’, Dr Ventress says with her eyes sealed shut by skin to Lena. ‘We spoke.
What was it we said? That I needed to know what was inside the lighthouse.
That moment’s passed. It’s inside me now.’
   The affective nature of ‘bad cinema’ — and the same could be said of social
media — suggests a philosophising potential as it relates to the kind of subject-
spectator/operator generated in the encounter; that is, in the energetic relation
of the pixel in communication with its spectators/operators. Just as Kieran J.
O’Meara contends that feminism should be understood as a tradition rather than
an ideology, thinking and feeling with cinema, or social media for that matter,
cannot be found in an ‘all-encompassing logic of life and history’.82 The pixel
communicates. However, what the pixel communicates is an affective force in
the aisthetic encounter of body and image. In our aisthetic encounters we may
apprehend an ethics beyond a politics of inadequate ideas. As O’Meara writes:


Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                       131
      ‘the Feminist tradition challenges us to think corporeally, to consider life as a
      bodied subject, where norms collide to cluster around our bodied existence,
      and how our experiences of these bodies encounter “the political”’.83 Sensory
      images do not produce metaphorical allusions or engage in politically divisive
      debate, but ‘demonstrate’ the power of affect in their political dimension.84 An
      attention to the aisthetic encounter suggests a kind of affirmative (rather than
      divisive) politics, whereby care, compassion, and empathy may be considered
      as an outcome of the affective intensities and connectives of the movement-
      image.



      DIGITAL HOSTILITY
        Like mass spectatorship in cinema, it is possible to see how social media
      retains heterogeneity. The particularity of image and text is the cause of infinite
      intensities in the aisthetic encounter. The iterative and participatory qualities
      of social media — which is also the cause of the energetic relation in social
      media — means that the pixel is more event than narrative.85 For multi-user
      dimensions (MUDs) or MOOs (MUD, Object-Orientated) on the internet such
      as LambdaMOO, textual descriptions of the virtual world and the commands
      given for how you want your character to appear and act, puts your character
      in energetic relation with other characters. However, the energetic relation in
      social media — via the affective force of the virtual and energetic pixel — is one
      of emotional entwinement with our real-life selves. Thus, we may think about
      the affective force of virtual intensities in the way that Boljkovak writes:

               Deleuze again insists upon an act of replaying or redoubling, upon
               foldings, unfoldings and refoldings that expose not only the actual
               events of our lives but also their underlying virtual intensities and
               affective significances.
               To counter-actualise, then, is to refold, break open and recombine
               thought, not to sense a totalising, homogeneous world but to strive
               to explore fragmentary, imperceptible relationships, to become
               imperceptible, neither actual nor virtual, this nor that, but always
               becoming, differing.86

        Such ‘fragmentary, imperceptible relationships’ are the stuff of haecceities in
      the aisthetic encounter — of sounds, textures, rhythms, movements, and affects
      that do violence to thought.87
        In Annihilation, Lena describes to her husband, Kane, the rhythm of the
      dividing pair by which the cell becomes immortal and never dies, whereby the
      cell is coded with its own destruction — a fault in the genes with old-age as
      the result. Equally, our interaction with social media could be said to be coded
      with its own self-destruction wherein digital hostility arises. Self-destruction
      is the sentiment with which the film Annihilation sets its biological premise. As
      Dr Ventress says to Lena: ‘Almost none of us commit suicide, and almost all of
      us self-destruct in some way, in some part of our lives. We drink or we smoke.



132                                          Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
We destabilize the good job or the happy marriage. These aren’t decisions,
they are impulses. […] Isn’t self-destruction coded into us, programmed into
each cell?’ The ‘violence of a movement-image’ is a violence to ourselves — as
one of self-destruction; however, it is also the vehicle for violence by and to
others.88 Deleuze writes: ‘the movement-image was from the beginning linked
to the organization of war, state propaganda, ordinary fascism, historically and
essentially’.89 Moving from mass-art to ubiquitous social media and the effect
of digital hostility on bodies, I want to argue that the violence of the movement-
image when imposed by others can also be recognized as wrapped up in a
politics of inadequate ideas when affect is exchanged for passion.
  Greta Olson writes in her essay ‘Love and Hate Online: Affective Politics in the
Era of Trump’ about how the Trump campaign inspired hate as well as love in
Trump’s followers: the Trump campaign was an affective one.90 As Olson writes:
‘political sentiments are determined by viscerally experienced sentiments and
a physically imagined sense of rightness or wrongness, rather than one that is
worked out through rational means’.91 In a politics of inadequate ideas it would
not simply be affective engagement that forestalls such ideas — in fact, they
may be made up of it — but rather an ethics that extends from ‘capacities to
affect and be affected’.92 We must be careful to note that, as Deleuze writes:

         An affection is not a passion, except when it cannot be explained by
         the nature of the affected body: it then of course involves the body,
         but is explained by the influence of other bodies. Affections that
         can be completely explained by the nature of the affected body are
         active affections, and themselves actions.93

  Where Trump’s campaign is considered to be an affective one that inspired hate
as well as love, to confuse affect with the passion inspired is to limit the ethical
relation in affect. The Trump campaign was built on a politics of inadequate
ideas by conjuring a divisive binary of winners and losers — ‘us’ versus ‘them’
(where the ‘them’ is often the media).94 What is refracted through our digital
interactions in social media is patho-logies of passion found in divisive debate.
In Spinoza’s Ethics, it is not simply that the body has a power for being affected:

         The more power a thing has, or the greater its power of existence,
         the greater number of ways in which it can be affected. Bodies
         are affected by different things, and in different ways, each type of
         body being characterised by minimum and maximum thresholds
         for being affected by other bodies: what can and what cannot affect
         it, and to what degree.95

  What can be noted is that, as Baugh writes: ‘a body’s power of acting and
being affected’ is also a ‘relation of parts’.96 In consideration of what defines a
body’s potential, Deleuze writes: ‘A body’s structure is the composition of its
relation. What a body can do corresponds to the nature and limits of its capacity
to be affected.’97 For a community, as Baugh writes, this is the ‘collective power
of being affected, and results in collective or communal affects’.98 Thus, a


Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                      133
      thinking and feeling with affect — the ‘unthinkable in thought’99 of affect — is not
      a depiction of a particular kind of speech act as exemplified by Andrew Anglin
      when he writes: ‘One of the unifying marks of the Alt-Right sensibility is the
      assumption that no speech act is beyond the pale.’100 A thinking and feeling with
      affect is an ethical engagement for a harmonious collective.
         In her book Untimely Affects, Boljkovak considers the events of the Holocaust
      and Hiroshima in an examination of films by Chris Marker and Alain Resnais.
      Boljkovak describes a kind of ‘creative becoming’ through art’s resistance to
      violence.101 She writes: ‘As Deleuze and Guattari repeatedly insist, destructive
      forces double each possibility for flight; caution must be taken to pursue the
      line of greatest resistance and creativity.’102 Thus, there is another way by
      which we might consider mass-art as a ‘war machine’. Vertov’s Man with a
      Movie Camera is just one example of a ‘revolutionary movement’ in cinema’s
      creative invention.103 Revolution is also the revolving action of transport and
      industrial machinery in Vertov’s film and entails new perceptive capacities for
      the spectator. However, ‘revolutionary movements’ also require resistance.
      Deleuze writes: ‘The work of art is not an instrument of communication. […]
      The work of art strictly does not contain the least bit of information. To the
      contrary, there is a fundamental affinity between the work of art and the act
      of resistance.’104 When considering affect and the body’s potentials, it is worth
      considering what the body is open to, or indeed, where there is resistance. As
      Seigworth and Gregg write: ‘affect is persistent proof of a body’s never less
      than ongoing immersion in and among the world’s obstinacies and rhythms, its
      refusals as much as its invitations’.105 Beyond a politics of inadequate ideas, we
      can take affect’s ‘demonstration’ to mean a revolution of sorts: a revolution by
      which care, compassion, and empathy may be considered as a resistance — or
      refusal — to hostility.106 For Boljkovak, art’s potential is found in Marker’s ‘things
      that quicken the heart’: perhaps an energetically pulsating pixel by which we
      may consider affect in all its ethical compassion.107




134                                           Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
Notes
 1
    I would like to thank Luke Robinson for endorsing the publication of my article and Gabrielle Lowe for
her feedback on my article, as well as the anonymous peer-reviewers for their very helpful comments on
an earlier draft of this article
  2
    Roland Barthes, The Neutral: Lecture Course at the Collège de France (1977–1978), trans. by Rosalind E.
Krauss and Denis Hollier (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 51.
  3
     Gregory J. Seigworth and Melissa Gregg, ‘An Inventory of Shimmers’, in The Affect Theory Reader, ed.
by Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth (Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 2010), 1–25
(11); quoting from Barthes, 77.
  4
    Barthes, 101.
  5
     Nadine Boljkovac, Untimely Affects: Gilles Deleuze and an Ethics of Cinema (Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press, 2013), 18, 13; quoting from Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations, 1972–1990, trans. by Martin
Joughin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 172.
  6
    Barthes, 51.
  7
     Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. by Brian
Massumi (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), 261.
  8
    Deleuze and Guattari, 232–309.
  9
    Barthes, 51. It is thought-provoking to compare Barthes’s notion of ‘shimmer’ with the way that Deborah
Bird Rose describes ‘shimmer’ through the event of ‘reciprocal capture’ in which ‘different ways of being
and doing find interesting things to do together’. Deborah Bird Rose, ‘Shimmer: When All You Love is Being
Trashed’, in Arts of Living on a Damaged Planet, ed. by Anna Tsing, Heather Swanson, Elaine Gan and Nils
Bubandt (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017), G51–G63 (G51). In her analysis, Rose gives
the definition of the Australian Indigenous Yolngu term bir’yun as: ‘shimmer, the ancestral power of life
[that] arises in relationship and encounter’ (Rose, G52–53). Rose writes: ‘The term bir’yun — which does
not distinguish between domains of nature and culture — is characteristic of a lively pulsating world, not
a mechanistic one. Bir’yun shows us that the world is not composed of gears and cogs but of multifaceted,
multispecies relations and pulses’ (Rose, G55).
  10
     Barthes, 51; Deleuze and Guattari, 232–309.
  11
     Deleuze and Guattari, 261.
  12
     Ibidem.
  13
     Ibidem, 260.
  14
      Ibidem, 261; Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time-Image, trans. by Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 156.
  15
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156.
  16
     Ibidem, 156.
  17
     Ibidem.
  18
     Anna Lawton, ‘Rhythmic Montage in the Films of Dziga Vertov: A Poetic Use of the Language of Cinema’,
Pacific Coast Philology 13 (Oct 1978), 44–50 (49).
  19
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 157.
  20
     Ibidem, 156.
  21
     Ibidem, 156; Deleuze and Guattari, 260.
  22
     Deleuze and Guattari, 261; Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156.
  23
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156.
  24
     Ibidem, 156.
  25
     Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. by Paul Patton (New York: Columbia University Press,
1994), 139.
  26
     Ibidem, 139–40.
  27
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 168.
  28
     Ibidem, 169.
  29
     Deleuze and Guattari, 232–309.
  30
     Boljkovak, 18.
  31
     Deleuze and Guattari, 260; Deleuze, Cinema 2, 168, 156.


Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                  135
 32
     Deleuze and Guattari, 260, 232.
 33
     Gilles Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, trans. by Martin Joughin (New York: Zone Books,
1990), 226.
  34
     Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy, 196.
  35
     Ibidem.
  36
     Bruce Baugh, ‘Body’, in The Deleuze Dictionary, ed. by Adrian Parr (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2005), 35–37 (37).
  37
     Baugh, 37.
  38
     Deleuze and Guattari, 261.
  39
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 162.
  40
     Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy, 197.
  41
     Ibidem, 218.
  42
     Seigworth and Gregg, 11; quoting from Barthes, 77.
  43
     Barthes, 51, 77.
  44
     Jenelle Troxell, ‘Mind Cure and Ecstasy on the Pages of Close Up’, Screen 58.3 (Autumn 2017), 349–71
(364); quoting from Sergei Eisenstein, ‘Methods of Montage’, in Film Form, ed. and trans. by Jay Leyda (New
York: Harcourt Brace, 1977), 80.
  45
     Troxell, 364; quoting from Sergei Eisenstein, ‘The Structure of the Film’, in Film Form, ed. and trans. Jay
Leyda (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1977), 166.
  46
     Troxell, 364; quoting from Eisenstein, ‘The Structure of the Film’, 167.
  47
     Ibidem.
  48
     ‘Refraction’, in Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary <https://www.lexico.com/definition/refraction>
[accessed 9 March 2021].
  49
     Troxell, 364; quoting from Eisenstein, ‘The Structure of the Film’, 167; Deleuze and Guattari, 260.
  50
     Sean Cubitt, The Cinema Effect (Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press, 2004), 41.
  51
     ‘Refraction’, in Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary
  52
     Barthes, 51.
  53
     Barthes, 101.
  54
     Seigworth and Gregg, 11.
  55
     Ibidem, 11; Cubitt, 41.
  56
     Cubitt, 33.
  57
     Seigworth and Gregg, 11.
  58
     Krauss writes: ‘Or, and why not, there is the television set itself, this impassive eye that nonetheless
exudes a constant visual beat since its image is produced by an electric current scanning upward along the
hundreds of lines that cross the screen, generating an “image” through the continual renewal of its pulse,
becoming all the more apparent when the set goes out of calibration and the whole image is wiped upward
again and again as though pushed by an insistently reappearing black, horizontal bar’. (Rosalind E. Krauss,
The Optical Unconscious [Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press, 1993], p. 202).
  59
     Seigworth and Gregg, 11.
  60
     Troxell, 354.
  61
     Ibidem; quoting from H. D., ‘Cinema and the Classics III: The Mask and the Movietone’, Close Up 1.5
(1927), 23.
  62
     Troxell, 354; quoting from H. D., 23; Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156.
  63
     Seigworth and Gregg, 9; Barthes, 77.
  64
     Seigworth and Gregg, 12.
  65
     Barthes, 77.
  66
     Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy, 197.
  67
     Cubitt, 38.
  68
     Ibidem.
  69
     Ibidem.
  70
     Troxell, 356; quoting from Henry Wood’s Ideal Suggestion through Mental Photography: A Restorative
System for Home and Private Use (Boston, MA: Lee and Shepard, 1893).
  71
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156.
  72
     Ibidem, 164.



136                                                                 Mee, Rhythm Beyond the Cinematic Medium
 73
     Ibidem, 157.
 74
     Ibidem, 157.
  75
     Ibidem, 156–57.
  76
     Ibidem.
  77
     Julian Dibbell, ‘A Rape in Cyberspace. How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a
Cast of Dozens Turned a Database into a Society’, Village Voice, 23 December 1993, 36.
  78
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156.
  Katleen Gabriels and Marjolein Lanzing also note how ‘instances of online vitriol can be conceptualized as
onlife violence: violence that transgresses and affects both the offline and online world’. Katleen Gabriels
and Marjolein Lanzing, ‘Ethical Implications of Online Vitriol’, in Violence and Trolling on Social Media:
History, Affect, and Effects of Online Vitriol, ed. by Sara Polak and Daniel Trottier (Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2020), 197–214 (197).
  79
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 156, 166.
  80
     Ibidem, 168.
  81
     Ibidem, 167.
  82
      Kieran J. O’Meara, ‘On Feminism as Tradition, Not Ideology’, poLit: Discussion Political Thought
(10 March 2021), <https://thinkpolit.blogspot.com/2021/03/on-feminism-as-tradition-not-ideology.
html?fbclid=IwAR346cmixPHN40632He6uUixqtbc_pT69jTCWkh3nV5NxPzn1FT9-DCSsTE&m=1> [accessed
15 March 2021] (para. 9 of 9).
  83
     O’Meara, para. 9 of 9.
  84
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 183.
  85
      Greta Olson, ‘Love and Hate Online: Affective Politics in the Era of Trump’, in Violence and Trolling on
Social Media: History, Affect, and Effects of Online Vitriol, ed. by Sara Polak and Daniel Trottier (Amsterdam:
Amsterdam University Press, 2020), 153–77 (173).
  86
     Boljkovac, 20.
  87
     Boljkovac, 20, 29.
  88
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 157.
  89
     Ibidem, 165.
  90
     Olson, 160.
  91
     Ibidem, 154.
  92
     Deleuze and Guattari, 261.
  93
     Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy, 218–19.
  94
     Ibidem, 162–63.
  95
     Baugh, 36.
  96
     Ibidem, 36–37.
  97
     Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy, 218.
  98
     Baugh, 37.
  99
     Deleuze, Cinema 2, 168.
  100
      Olson, 172; quoting from Andrew Anglin, ‘A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right’, Daily Stormer, 31 August
2016.
  101
      Boljkovac, 13.
  102
      Ibidem, 21.
  103
      Ibidem, 13; quoting from Deleuze, Negotiations, 172.
  104
      Gilles Deleuze, ‘Having an Idea in Cinema (On the Cinema of Straub-Huillet)’, in Deleuze and Guattari:
New Mappings in Politics and Philosophy, trans. by Eleanor Kaufman, ed. by Eleanor Kaufman and Kevin
Jon Heller (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), 14–19 (18).
  105
      Seigworth and Gregg, 1.
  106
      Deleuze, Cinema 2, 183.
  107
      Boljkovac, 93.




Cinéma & Cie vol. 22 no. 38 2022 · ISSN 2036-461X                                                      137
