Tag Archives: Alain Badiou

Badiou On Dialectical Critique

Bibliographic Note: Badiou, A. (2000). Metaphysics and the Critique of Metaphysics. Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy, 10(1), 174–190. 


On Dialectical Critique

Dialectical critique is solely concerned with showing that the categories that metaphysics applies from the outside to a supposed undertermined being, the categories that is uses to arrange and demonstrate this essential indeterminancy, are in fact names for the becoming of the determining of this presumed indeterminacy. Each and every category, whether it be being, nothingness, becoming, quality, quantity, causality, and so on, ultimately consists of a definite time of determination, if only one has the patience to follow the true movement of transformation whereby each category takes place as the exteriorization and dialectical truth of the preceding ones. (p. 187)


On (Science of) Logic

“Critical philosophy had already turned metaphysics into logic.” “Logic” means: a regulated process of determination, whereby the undetermined absolute (for example being, being as such) letsk integral singularity take place as the ultimate immanent specification of itself. Logic is here the logic of determination, which leaves no indeterminacy behind, and which, in this sense, abolishes metaphysics. (p. 187)



Leave a comment

January 30, 2019 · 3:42 pm

Editing, or the False Movements in Dario Argento’s Suspiria (1977)


IMAGE 1.A film operates through what it withdraws from the visible. The image is first cut from the visible.” 


IMAGE 2. “Movement is held up, suspended, inverted, arrested.


IMAGE 3. “Cutting is more essential than presence—not only through the effect of editing, but already, from the start, both by framing and by the controlled purge of the visible.


IMAGE 4. “It is of absolute importance that the flowers cinema displays (as in one of Visconti’s sequences) be Mallarméan flowers…


IMAGE 5. “…that they be absent from every bouquet. I have seen them, these flowers, but the precise modality of their captivity…


IMAGE 6.…to the cut brings forth…


IMAGE 6. “…indivisibly, both their singularity and their ideality.


Quote from Badiou’s essay ‘The False Movements of Cinema.

Leave a comment

Filed under Blog Post, Photo

Research Log 3.0: Mind-Maps & Detours

June 19, 2018


from Agnes Varda’s Visages Villages (2017)

For the past few weeks, I have been engaged in the following activities:


It has been a year ever since I collected ebooks in my Mendeley software. It’s my e-library. For the past few weeks, my goal was to run through everything I collected for the purpose of sorting out literature in their respective fields and disciplines. In total, I have 127 books to sort in my computer related to m thesis, not to mention the external books and printed reading from course works.

Critical Literature Review

Aside from sorting activities, I also did a critical review of some of the related literature to my thesis. So far, I have read the following essays and introductory chapters of the books

  1. Gerstner, D. A. (2003). The Practices of Authorship. In D. A. Gerstner & J. Staiger (Eds.), Authorship and Film(pp. 3–25). New York and London: Routledge.
  2. Koepnick, L. (2017). The Long Take: Art Cinema and the Wondrous. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
  3. Henderson, B. (1980). The Long Take (1971). In A Critique of Film Theory(pp. 48–61). New York: E.P. Dutton.
  4. Derrida, J. (1994). Dedication and Exordium. In P. Kamuf (Trans.), Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International(pp. xv–xvi). New York and London: Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group.

All of which can be found here in my blog.



Aside from reading, I also developed a mind-map for my thesis to help me assess the potential pathways of going through its framework. But there must be a caveat in doing this. It must not pre-empt or close the maps from creating other new pathways, but rather work out the contradictions that also confront the work. The mind map provides a way to write the thesis in an orderly manner, constructing a schema of arguments that serve as guides to different operations, concepts and methods to go through.

Detour 1:  “….aporetic limit…”

One of the key concepts in my thesis design is the search for aporetic limits. This is something I coined in my concept paper I showed to my adviser. After reading the opening parts of Derrida’s Specters of Marx, I felt a sudden apprehension of not actually being able to get something related to my thesis. I wanted to read something related to aporetic limit. Google algorithm led me to the book ‘Derrida and the Political’ by Richard Beardsworth, who used the exact term ‘aporetic limit’. Beardsworth (1996) wrote:

‘Rather than dwelling with the aporia of need, Marx effaces the aporia by positing the remainder of the difference between particularity and universality as the universal class of the proletariat. Marx therefore develops the aporetic ‘limit’ as a sublatable opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The gesture is Hegelian, even if Marx simultaneously simplifies Hegel’s idea of an absolute state by ‘positing’ the social universality of one class. Marx’s reduction of the aporia of need prolongs and simplifies Hegel by making unrecognized violence into an ontological principle of class struggle. The modern period of revolutionary politics which justifies political violence in the name of a social subject ensues.’ (p. 95)

Let us first discuss the meaning of aporia in relation to how Beardsworth reads Derrida. Aporia is an uncontrollable position that manifest at the time of decision, action, writing, expression, and deployment. In his reading of Derrida, for Beardsworth, derrida-and-the-politicalaporia emerges from the displacement of transcendental discourses like philosophy with empirical discourses like human sciences (anthropology, social science, etc.). An aporia is ‘neither is philosophy or outside it, one from which the future of thinking and practice is thought’ (p.5).

An aporia is what negotiates and re-inscribes, for Beardsworth, the metaphysical notion of transcendental and the empirical. It is where Derrida locates the ‘necessity of judgement and the promise of the future’ (p. 5) Beardsworth further elaborates two qualifications of an aporia: (1) it necessitates one to make a decision and judgement, (2) it necessitates one to make a decision not in the present but in the face of contingency. An aporia therefore ‘inaugurates a philosophy of judgement and a thinking of justice in relation to time.’ (p. 5)

One can see Beardsworth ambivalent position with Marx’s project. There is an attempt to privilege the concept of aporia contra Marx’s paradoxical deployment of the reversal of Hegelian dialectic. The paragraph quoted above is written under the heading of Modern Political Fate and the Suppression of the Event of Time. It starts with the elaboration of how Hegel’s last work Philosophy of Right suppresses aporia. He said: ‘The aporia of dialectic ‘is’ the aporia of time’ (p. 91). This originates from the suppression of time under the logic of dialectic, leading to a paradoxical point where recognition becomes misrecognition, in which truth (time itself) is hidden.

In the previous paragraph, Marx enters as a bad example of download (1)deploying the concept of aporia. Beardsworth wrote: ‘Marx is certainly right in the Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State to criticize Hegel for deriving the institutions of the social whole from a presupposed idea. But he gives the wrong reasons when he argues for the reversal of Hegelian idealism and for the practical and revolutionary development of the material existence of the people’ (p. 94). Beardsworth outwardly state Marx’s wrong move is the appropriation of Hegel’s dialectic: ‘The problem in Hegel is not the idea of the idea; the problem is the: logic of this idea. This logic, the law of contradiction, is repeated in Marx’s materialism, turning his thinking of ‘matter’ into a logical idea.’ (p. 94) Beardsworth accuses Marx of suppressing time within the philosophy of history. Beardsworth state: ‘His very attempt to go beyond philosophy, plunging it into the matter of socio-technical history, remains metaphysical when he inscribes his thinking of time and practice within the Hegelian logic of contradiction.’ (p. 94)

Beardsworth, however, does not accuse Marx entirely of the faults of Hegel. He considers Marx’s constitution of the dialectical relation between the proletariat and the ruling class as the aporetic limit in itself, as a ‘sublatable opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat’. What he points out is the replication of the logic of contradiction(?) in relation to Dialectical Materialism. Afterwards, Beardsworth move towards a moralization of violence with regards to depoliticization, or the erosion of political ontology, of nation-states. There is actually a dialectical materialist rationale behind these erosion of political ontology, that has nothing to do with the aporia that Beardsworth is trying to posture. It is the result of class struggle which is the politico-material manifestation of what he tries to efface as the logic of contradiction(?). Mao said that in his essay On Contradiction: ‘The law of contradiction in things, that is, the law of the unity of opposites, is the fundamental law of nature and of society and therefore also the fundamental law of thought. It stands opposed to the metaphysical world outlook.’ Beardsworth fails to reconcile that logic of contradiction is not a logic per se of coming to terms with reality but system of thought (a law) that allows us to think of nature and social conditions not as One but always Two. And in the recent iteration of Badiou, a Three.

With this, it is necessary to rescue aporia from the clutches of Beardsworth’s overdetermination of its metaphysical opposition by sublating it (via a negation of negation) and turning it upside down as a materialist concept. It might as well be important to read aporia in relation to a strand of thinking that can only be extracted from a Maoist lens of looking at contradiction, but also taking into account the historical importance of Derrida’s impetus to locate it at the conflicted area of materialism and idealism. Is there a way to appropriate aporia in class struggle? Beardsworth was close. He inscribed it as the sublatable opposition between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. To transform aporia into a tool for analysing aesthetic objects, this requires another long post.

Detour 2: In Search of Marx’s Method on Film Analysis, or ‘What if Marx was a Film Theorist?’


This month of June, in between eczema flare-ups and restless weekends, I managed to gather a lot of books about the dialectical materialist methodology. In  German Ideology, in the part where Marx disses Max Stirner, Marx deploys a close reading of Stirnex’s texts, in particular his most contentious Ego and His Own, the progenitor of anarchic individualism and, to some extent, poststructuralism,  Marx was very much attentive to Stirner’s textual inscription, often making fun of Stirner’s use of metaphysical concepts etc.

Close reading can be done in films: frame-by-frame analysis, stylistic analysis, etc. But all of which has to be extended first from the base criterion of cinematic time. Cinematic images have to be analysed as temporal continuum, not as framed presences. Massumi’s idea of topological movement in Parables of the Virtual comes to mind.

The problem however is relating this temporal continuum to the story world, which contains some of the most interesting positions, expressions etc. that may reveal the ideological implications of the film. If viewed from a dialectical materialist perspective, it requires one to relate film style or film form in relation to the modes of production (the base) and the ideological superstructure. It is a basic problem in Marxist epistemology, specifically, the problem of the relation of the particular and the universal.

I have collected different references that might probably illuminate a method on ideological analysis of the aesthetic mode of production. Books like Dance of the Dialectic: Step in Marx’s Method by Bertell Ollman; a collection of essays titled Marx at the Movies: Revisiting History, Theory and Practice edited by Ewa Mazierska and Lars Kristensen which conceives the relation of cinema and Marxism from a post-Soviet historical moment; H.T. Wilson’s Marx’s Critical/Dialectical Procedure; and countless of essays that bear the term ‘method’, ‘dialectical’ and ‘materialist’ like Peter H. Sawchuk’s Dialectical Materialist Methodologies for Researching Work, Learning, Change: Implications for Class Consciousness, authors Cassia Baldini Soares, Celia Maria Sivalli Campos, and Tatiana Yonekura’s article Marxism as a theoretical and methodological framework in collective health: implications for systematic review and synthesis of evidence, and the article titled In the shadows of the dialectic method: Building a framework upon the thoughts of Adorno and Gramsci by Ulrich Hamenstadt, all of which provide you some groundwork from which you can explore dialectical materialism.

But the challenge is ‘converting’ the method as an epistemological tool to analyse films and non-filmic materials. One of the candidates for such a method is political economy of film. However, political economy is more interested in looking at the bigger relations, the industrial relations of people, not so much on the close analysis of the content.

My dilemma is actually rooted in creating a method that would bridge the universal (ideological space) with specific (the story world, the film, the modes of production of the film). Such an attempt to account for a more comprehensive while also looks at the detail led us to the next section, Badiou’s essay The Autonomy of the Aesthetic Process.

Detour 3: Crystallizing my Methodology via Badiou’s essay Autonomy of the Aesthetic Process


Badiou’s essay The Autonomy of the Aesthetic Process, published in his recent work The Age of the Poets, was an unexpected find. Last month, when I was preparing my presentation paper for Marx @ 200, I encountered Badiou’s essay via Karlo Mongoya, fellow Marxist scholar who also reads Badiou (see his blog here). Since my essay last month is about contesting Deleuze’s notion of affect and art as autonomous, Badiou’s essay came in a surprise since Badiou is a Marxist and, assuming he had read Marx, he also knows the importance of accounting any phenomena, object, idea or a thing, as a product of social forces and relations. Badiou is a materialist dialectician, with Maoist and Lacanian influences, and would probably have read Deleuze. Deleuze is however not a materialist, but a transcendental empiricist, who emphasizes the primacy of pre-anthropocentric multiplicity – the plane of immanence – that continuously re-organizes reality. If Badiou would eventually come across the autonomy of art in Deleuze and Guattari’s book What is Philosophy?, it would most likely resonate in this essay. However, Badiou’s essay was written twenty-five years or so years before the publication of What is Philosophy?, hence, the tangent would just have been accidental.

When I read Badiou’s essay The Autonomy of Aesthetic Process, a month after accessing it, to be exact, last June 29, it felt as if all my crises about the political ontology of film style, ideology, and the author has been resolved. Badiou’s essay is an introduction to a methodology towards an analysis of representation, maybe his own methodology of doing aesthetic analysis.

His essay starts with a problem: the lazy approach of Marxist analysis of arts that assigns art work as a reflection of ideology of class. This is not Deleuzian territory. Badiou’s essay creates a corrective approach to ideological analysis. There is an obvious adaptation/appropriation of Althusserian notion of ideological apparatus as ‘a homological relation that it is supposed to maintain with the real of history’ (p. 111).

What Badiou attempted in this work was to appropriate two works of two thinkers: Mao’s critical program in Yenan Lectures and Pierre Macheray initial, unfinished attempt to think beyond the idea of art as ideological form.

First, Badiou takes on Mao’s project as part of the corrective mechanism: ‘to study the development of this old culture, to reject its feudal dross and assimilate its democratic essence in a necessary condition for developing a new national culture.’ (p.113) From there, he derives nine statements on the relation of art, ideology and science.

In the first statement, Badiou negates the usual Marxist line of critique on art as an ideological form, because, for Badiou, art’s specificity of its aesthetic process decenters the specular relation of the closed infinitude of ideology. For Badiou, ideology is a homological concept, which is a clear adaptation of Althusserian ideology as an enveloping relation. (p. 112)

In the second statement, Badiou marks the break between science and art. For Badiou, art does not affect knowledge. However, unlike ideology, Badiou states that art is closer to science than ideology because both art and science produces reality effects. However, what differentiates them are their products: art produces imaginary reality while science produces real reality. (p. 112) For Badiou, the usual lazy Marxist approach to art works as either theoretical or ideological forms must be liquidated. In light of truth, signification in the artwork is not enough to check artwork’s concealed transhistoricity and prophetic value. Hence, he proposes a proper way of looking at ‘art, as the ideological appearance of the theoretical, the non-true as the glorious envelope of the true’ (p. 113). This notion is affirmed by Lenin. Badiou therefore conclude that ‘We cannot declare at the same time that there is a democratic essence to feudal art and that this art is a purely ideological reflection, with a universal vocation, of the ‘lived experience’ of the dominant class. We cannot observe that art produces the true on the basis of the false and declare, as in a certain socialist realism that in the final instance theoretical truth conditions aesthetic validity’ (p. 114). This severs the binary opposition between art and science/ideology.

Badiou then adapts Mao Zedong’s response to this problem. In order to assess the relation of aesthetic object to the dominant class, Mao introduces four matrices of analysis: (1) class being – the class where the writer belongs, (2) class-stand or class position – the general space of the problematic of the write, or the political position for which the writer stands. For Badiou, this is the space of questions. (3) class-attitude – the approach of the writer in answering the problematic, for Badiou, this is the space of answers; (4) the class-study or class-culture – the structure of the theoretical realm, the one that structures the class stand of the writer, or in simpler terms, the power relations that structures one’s stand. For Badiou, Mao’s response to the problem is a particular decentering between aesthetic process, historical reality and ideology. This leaves us a question: what is the relationship among aesthetic process, historical reality and ideology?

Badiou then brings up Pierre Macherey for offering an answer. Macherey posits that aesthetic process is irreducible to ‘theoretical grasping of reality’ or ‘ideological process’ (p. 116). Macherey concludes that ‘the artwork is not what translates ideology, nor what effaces it: it is what renders it visible, decipherable, insofar as it confers upon it the discordant unity of a form; exposed as content, ideology speaks of that whereof it cannot speak as ideology: its contours, its limits’ (p. 117). For Badiou, the ideology functions as a closed infinity of a specular relation, ‘a closed infinity that cannot show its closure without breaking the mirror in which it is reduplicated.’ (p. 117)

In his third statement, Badiou further clarifies the relationship of ideology and art as ideology that produces the imagination of reality, and in return, art produces ideology as imaginary reality (p. 117). Summarily, Badiou notes that ‘art repeats in the real the ideological repetition of this real. Nevertheless this reversal does not produce the real; it realizes its reflection.’ (p. 118)

Badiou proposes a decentered relation between historical reality and the aesthetic process. Reading Macherey, he proposes four matrices that structures the relation: (1) the real – the global historical structure i.e. the capitalists, the proletarian class, the bourgeois, etc. in displaceable power relation, (2) the ideologies – always in series, fragmentary reflections brought about by the ensemble of pressures upon the class they represent.’ (p. 118); (3) the author – not a creative subjectivity, but a concept of place, a point of view, where Mao’s concept of class being, class stand, class attitude and class structure applies. For Badiou, the author is not a psychological concept, but a topological one. (4) the work – a donation of forms, an exhibition of limits.

Badiou however discovers the flaw in Macheray’s conception of the relation. For Macheray, the form of the art work’s presence is ideologically produced. For Badiou, this misconceives the presence effect of the artwork which, for Badiou, is the materiality of the artwork itself. This led Badiou to conclude that aesthetic process comprise of the double articulation of the signification of the artwork and its presence effect as an object of material culture. Ideology’s reversal is assigned to the signification effect, while the historical real is related to the presence effect.

Since this requires Badiou to synthesize a statement on separable ideological contents, which contains the following conditions:

  1. It produces in and of itself a complete effect of signification, without any enclaves
  2. It has a logical structure of a universal proposition
  3. It is not tied contextually to any subjectivity

Badiou gives an example by analysing Robert Musil’s unfinished novel The Man Without Qualities. From his analysis, Badiou comes up with four types of statements. Three of which do not fulfil the criteria of separable statements: (1) the I-statement of the speaker (X [d(y)]), which is enclaved in a context, with singular proposition. For Badiou, this statement does not contain any effect of signification, (2) the d(X) statements, which are descriptions of characters and objects in the story, does not have any universal proposition, (3) the X(S) statements, statements with universal proposition, but tied to a subjectivity in the novel.

For Badiou, the only statement that fulfils the three conditions are of the type S (example: The voice of truth is always accompanied by fairly suspect parasites, but those who are most interested want to know nothing about it.)

A brief segue on cinematic ‘statements’. We can actually classify shots in terms of Badiou’s classification of statements: (1) the I-statement stands for the subjective shot of the characters, (2) the d(X) statements stands for establishing shots, (3) X(S) statements stand for shot/reverse shot of a film, while the S statements stands for master shots where there is full coverage of the mise-en-scene. Hence, in cinema, a separable ideological shot involves one that is not (1) a subjective shot, (2) not an establishing shot, (3) not a shot-reverse shot, but rather a mise-en-scene shot from the third person perspective. This is an insufficient comparison, however, since Badiou formulated his theory in terms of literature, which he termed as novelistic discourse.

Badiou also reminds us that the raw materials for the production of aesthetic products are already aesthetic, hence incapable of ‘aestheticizing ideological elements’. This led Badiou to formulate the theory of aesthetic mode of production (theoretical aesthetics).


Badiou conceives the aesthetic mode of production as double articulation of the presence-effect and the effect of signification, or the production of film-as-material and film-as-diegetic-material. I asked my thesis critic, media studies expert Ma. Diosa Labiste, on the significance of this finding. She said that this is the basic process of representation. She is also critical of the one-to-one relation of ideological series and the effect of signification and the presence-effect and the historical real, and suggested that I should Derrida Sending: On Representation, which provides another perspective in looking at the process of representation as decentered by time itself. Derrida is always critical of the deployment of presencing in the process of representation. And perhaps, in reading Badiou’s essay alongside Derrida’s notion of representation, we may be able to grasp a critical notion of representation that would undo its very notion.


Leave a comment

Filed under Academic Writings, Literature Reviews, Notes, Research Updates

ANNOUNCEMENT | 6th Deleuze & Guattari Studies in Asia International Conference

6th D&G Conference

I will be attending the 6th Deleuze and Guattari Studies in Asia International Conference to be held in Ateneo De Naga, Naga City, Camarines Sur on July 5-7, 2018. That is this coming week. I will present my paper titled Deleuze, Marx and Cinematic Time: Towards a Temporal/Durational Materialism. 

Deleuze, Marx and Cinematic Time: Towards
a Temporal/Durational Materialism
Adrian D. Mendizabal, University of the Philippine Film Institute, UP Diliman



This paper will attempt to enunciate a provisional concept of temporal/durational materialism emergent from the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze (& Felix Guattari), hereby designated as D&G, and Karl Marx. The relation between Marx and D&G is commonly rooted in the two-volume texts of Capitalism and Schizophrenia namely Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus. D&G appropriates Marx’s critique of the political economy of capitalism reinventing Marx’s idea of production (i.e. desiring-production, desiring machines, etc.). However, only a few have established the relation between Deleuze’s Cinema 1: Movement-Image and Cinema 2: Time-Image books and Marx’s dialectical and historical materialism (DHM). This paper will attempt provide a working relation between Deleuze’s categorization of cinematic temporality in Cinema 1 and 2 and Marx’s concepts of production and labor time. The paper will also provide arguments on how this key relation provides a rethinking Marx’s DHM materialism as a temporal materialism, which Deleuze and Badiou implicitly adapts in some of their works.

My presentation is tentatively scheduled on the third day. I will be attending the conference with friends, colleagues, previous teachers and fellow academics.

See you in Naga!

For more details about the conference, you can visit their Facebook page or email them at deleuze.in.naga.2018@gmail.com.

July 1, 2017

Leave a comment

Filed under Conferences

June 2018: Round-Up



From Tie Xi Qu: West of the Tracks (Wang Bing / China / 2002)


June 2018 | Best Reads of the Month

Aside from watching films, going to work, going to the gym, and writing a great deal of other things for thesis, I also find time to read non-thesis related articles. I don’t think there has ever been a time this month that I actually tried to read a fictional work i.e. novels, short stories, poetry. I’m way too much invested in non-fictional writings. As much as I would love to read great works of literature, I’m tied and committed to academic books and articles related to my thesis. Occasionally, I also read non-thesis related writings. Here are of some of them:

  1. The Autonomy of the Aesthetic Process by Alain Badiou
  2. Art Won’t Save Us by Anna Khachiyan
  3. Marx’s Commodity-Fetishism & The Crisis of Contemporary (Conceptual/Post-Conceptual) Art by E. San Juan [Plenary Speech During Marx @ 200 Conference]
  4. Ranciere and Cinema by Diagonal Thoughts
  5. On the Role of Agitation and Propaganda by Paul Saba
  6. Fifteen Theses on Contemporary Art by Alain Badiou
  7. Art in Order: Anatomy of Film List by David Heslin

JUNE 2018 | Favorite Films of the Month



Woman in the Dunes (Hiroshi Teshigahara / Japan / 1964)

My cinephilia experience this June is a downer. Most of the films I’ve watched came from Hollywood. They were disappointing, except, of course, for Hereditary, which is an outstanding example of classic horror film that did not rely so much on art cinematic devices (i.e. the way Lynch would do it) and used a great deal of its mise-en-scene, deployment of cinematographic movement, editing and sound to construct a ‘flat’ (as in a flat ontological  sense) dimension of demonic haunting, refined by Toni Collette’s otherworldly facial register, Milly Shapiro’s otherworldly presence and Alex Wolff’s superb acting. The narrative fluidity resembles that of a bath tub slowly being filled with water until it horribly overflows at the end. It is weird that the film has no flashbacks or flashforward. It seems to hinge its nonlinear temporal dimension on the photographic (the photo album), the scuptural (Annie’s miniature art project) and the uncanniness of a somnambulistic experience (Annie sleepwalking). Physical forces from other dimensions disrupt the order of its filmic world. This makes the film incredibly exhausting and mentally draining as it assigns the index of the image as is, in a literal sense of the everyday. It’s as if we are the subject of the demonic haunting like Rosemary, in  the film Rosemary’s Baby (1968), when she looked at her baby for the first time.


Hereditary (Ari Aster / USA / 2018)

Teshigahara’s masterpiece Woman in the Dunes is by far the most transgressive and transformative film I’ve watched this month. The desert, the bodies and the spatial tension altogether created this labyrinthine landscape that epitomizes capitalism’s inescapable tendency towards the desertification of the world. Another great film I’ve watched this month is Fei Mu’s Spring in a Small Town (1948). It is a melodrama masterpiece from post-Sino-Japanese War China that actually exceeded my expectations in terms of style. Several shots were well-rehearsed long takes that involve multiple framing and re-framing. And it surprised me how the woman subjectivity practically dominated the space of discourse of the whole film. The heroine plays a double role as an omniscient narrator of the film and as the character itself.


from Spring in a Small Town (Fei Mu / China / 1948)

I have only seen one Filipino film this month, Treb Montreras’  Respeto (2017), which I reviewed in advance for NYAFF 2018 for VCinema. Respeto is technically commendable, but like many Philippine independent films that came out in the past years, it lacks  sharpness in terms of deploying its political critique.


The worst film I’ve watched this month is Rampage. As much as I like its more-than-real humanization of the animal via CGI, I don’t think it has something to offer to the viewers more than the adrenaline rush one feels when Dwayne Johnson moved beneath the battle of giant animals: a giant wolf, a giant albino gorilla and a giant mutated crocodile. The idea of giantism as an cinematic trope in science fiction movies is better explored when a much larger social dimension is explored. The good example of this is Del Toro’s Pacific Rim, which is a better film than his Best Picture winning film.

I have also seen two compelling South Korean films I Saw the Devil and The Chaser, which are both about serial killers. While they both have different market pressures, South Koreans do better films compared than their Hollywood counterparts these days. Albeit their differences in their captured markets, Koreans deploy aesthetics in a more nuanced way without relying so much on CGI. They usually build their stories on existing socio-economic condition of Korean society and is not afraid to highlight the class contradictions in their society.

Between I Saw the Devil and The Chaser, the former has a more formally conscious approach in executing its action scenes: well-staged, well-rehearsed scenes, precise and almost perfect framing that heightens the mood. It has also a well-written screenplay. The latter, The Chaser, has an elliptical and unruly narrative, which makes it more interesting that the straightfowardness perfection of I Saw the Devil. The Chaser is interested in exploring dimensions of falseness, miscommunication and the decenteredness of reality. Both of them are testament to Korean Cinema’s commitment to high aesthetic standards for their popular films.

I have also seen two queer films Close-Knit, a Japanese film about a non-traditional family in which a transgender woman assumes the mother of the household, and Love, Simon, an American film about a teenage boy coming out to the whole school. Both are inspirational films, nothing fancy or nothing out of the box. Both deal with societal pressures and notions of acceptance. In Close-Knit, there was scene that paid a sweet and tenderly tribute to Ozu’s Late Spring (1964).

Between the two, Close-Knit is a more body-conscious film, while Love, Simon has a particular commentary on the impact of social media (i.e. postsecret blogs, Facebook, etc) in the construction of gender discourse. Both films ended up affirming the status quo in the end.



Close-Knit (Naoko Ogigami / Japan / 2017)

The June 2018 Film List


Transformative and Transgressive (5/5)

Woman in the Dunes (Hiroshi Teshigahara /  Japan / 1964)

Best of the Best (4.5/5)

I Saw the Devil (Kim Jee-woon / South Korea / 2010)
Hereditary (Ari Aster / USA / 2018)

Very Good (4/5)

Spring in a Small Town (Fei Mu / China / 1948)
The Chaser (Na Hong-jin / South Korea / 2008)

Good (3.5/5)

Respeto (Treb Montreras II / Philippines / 2017)
Close-Knit (Naoko Ogigami / Japan / 2017)

Fair (2.5-3/5)

Love, Simon (Greg Berlanti / USA / 2018)
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (Simon West / USA / 2001)

Unbearable (1-2/5)

Ocean’s 8 (Gary Ross / USA / 2018)
A Wrinkle in Time (Ava DuVernay / USA / 2018)
Life of the Party (Ben Falcone  / USA / 2018)
Blockers (Kay Cannon  / USA / 2018)
Tomb Raider (Roar Uthaug / USA / 2018)
Maze Runner: The Death Cure (Wes Ball / USA / 2018)
Rampage (Brad Peyton / USA / 2018)


I Saw the Devil (Kim Jee-woon / South Korea / 2010)


JUNE 2018 | Anomalous Materials of the Month


The violent NutriAsia dispersal

[digital encounters in the web, evental sites of ruptures, exclusionary digipoiesis]

June 2018 is a violent month for the Philippine working class. There were around three or four major labor issues circulated in Philippine social media sphere. The most prominent was the strike and violent dispersal of the NutriAsia workers and the protest of laid-off contractual workers of Jollibee. Aside from these issues that provided self-reflexive ruptures in the Philippine social media sphere, the internet is also filled with non-sequiturs, farce, parodies and comic  reliefs that provide occasional disruption and paradoxical play to our everyday. Here are some of my selection of ‘Anomalous Materials’ for June 2018:


JUNE 2018 | AgitProp Corner of the Month

June has passed and the People’s movement is still stronger than ever, even if government institutions like NEDA, DFA, DOF and NHA have purposely downplayed and undermined the role of people’s movement in the democratic process. Agitations and propagandas are necessary in revealing the contradictions of the bureaucratic capitalist machinic system that continuously robbed the working class of their right to live a decent life. According to Lenin:

Only agitation can reveal on a broad scale the real state of mind of the masses, only agitation can make for close co-operation between the Party and the whole working class, only making use for the purposes of political agitation of every strike, of every important event or issue in working-class life, of all conflicts within the ruling classes or between, one section of those classes or another and the autocracy, of every speech by a Social-Democrat [communist] in the Duma [parliament], of every new expression of the counter-revolutionary policy of the government, etc.–only work like this can once again close the ranks of the revolutionary proletariat, and provide accurate material for judging the speed with which conditions for new and more decisive battles are coming to a head.

(“The Assessment of the Present Situation,” CW, Vol. 15, pp. 278-279.)

Meanwhile, below is a collection of selected AgitProp (and accidentally AgitProp-like) materials that circulated online this month.

To read more about AgitProp, Paul Saba wrote a very good article in the journal Revolution in 1978 titled On the Role of Agitation and Propaganda


Diary, Notes, Sketches for JUNE 2018


There was a wide release of Isle of Dogs (Wes Anderson / US-Japan / 2018) in select Philippine theaters during the first week of June. The premiere happened last Wednesday, May 30, 2018. I missed it.


June 3. Congratulations to my friends Epoy Deyto and Donna Wendy Idano Deyto for their new baby girl.


Pujita Guha Hanoi Talk

Fellow Lav Diaz scholar Pujita Guha gave a talk on Lav Diaz at Hanoi DocLab last June 15, 2018. Here is her Abstract for the Talk:

In his 2016 Berlinale Award winning 8-hour epic, Hele Sa Hiwagang Hapis (A Lullaby to the Sorrowful Mystery) Filipino film auteur Lav Diaz intersects three narratives panning out in the forest, in the wake of the Katipunan Revolution of 1896-97. The first narrates Gregoria de Jeus’s search for the last remains of her husband, the Katipunan Supremo Andres Bonafacio; the second, Jose Rizal’s fictional protagonist Simoune’s escape into the forest; and the third, the impish horse-demon Tikbalangs who toy with the unwary visitors of the forest. A history fabulated with myths, and a history little known, the forest, I argue, arrives as a crucial site to imagine Filipino histories that are evidenced outside existing discourse. Akin to the fragmentary and opaque histories the film tackles, the forest too does not thrive as a linear space that can be easily tendered to human enquiries – it is dense and labyrinthine, a meandering landscape playing a dyad of light and dark, known and unknown, visible and invisible.

Reading from the film then, this presentation undertakes the act of re-configuring the forest as typically understood in modernity. Considered a virginal space which is someplace else, removed from the violent intrusions of history – a sublime isolated landscape often – I re-imagine the forest as a space that is lived and encountered materially, lived through all its density. The forest, then, both expands the concept of history outside of the human while enfolding its own traces of history. It is a witness to the secret, untold histories that are enacted there, consequently becoming an archive of the same. The forest becomes a crucial space that this project traverses: a closed world where anti-colonial revolutions meet pagan-animistic cultures, shamans meet with military personnel, and objects acquire magical lives of their own. As a dense, vexing landscape the forest allows one to closely introspect an entanglement with different species, enter into a world where objects, vegetal, animal or mineral, begin to speak alike. To this effect, the paper introspects the interaction between the social/cultural, the historical and the fantastic, the natural and the cultural even.


June 5. Remnants of Lynch. It’s been a year since Twin Peaks: The Return debut in American Television. I have always had it on the back on my mind ever since, especially the song Shadows by Chromatics.



June 30, 2018

Leave a comment

Filed under Blog Post, Personal

On (Non)Separation of Academic and Public Spheres

Richard Javad Heydarian

This is a circumferential argument on a certain text from Richard Javad Heydarian’s Facebook wall. Heydarian is a political analyst and assistant professor in De La Salle University.

Heydarian’s text conceives a separatist relation between intellectual and public wherein the academic ‘tends to annihilate common sense by boiling down to the most arcane’ and the public ‘tends to boil down to semantics’ and refuse to engage with ‘evidence-driven, systematic analysis.’ What Heydarian renders legible is an unstable binary relation between academic and public. It is a ‘versus’ relation of an allegedly two separate spheres, each sphere described at their disadvantage, particularly their tendencies to ‘boil down’ the productive potential of their debates. Of what particular debate? We are not entirely sure. But Heydarian’s involvement with the foreign policy dispute may give us a context of where this is coming from – a comparison between intellectuals debating with each other and public officials arguing on semantics related to resolving a foreign policy dispute. Heydarian insists that in order to resolve the disadvantaged positions of both the intellectual and public debates, a public intellectual must emerge in-between (maybe as an arbiter?) and whose primary job is to ‘bridge the gaps in both spheres’. This writing does not directly invalidate Heydarian’s positions and arguments raised in the text, but moves in circumferential direction, as an appendage, a preface or a postface, or a note of a note. Consider this a dissemination in Heydarian’s text. By lifting the binary that Heydarian conspired, this text seeks to problematize the binary relation between academic vs. public and propose a new configuration of their relation.

The separation between academic and public has to end. Why? Because it is impractical to continue thinking that the academic and public inhabit two separate worlds. In affirming Alain Badiou’s platonism, there is only One world and we, including non-human animals and objects, all live in it. Each is a parasite and a host to one another. It is only the relations we humans invent that created these hierarchies and division among people, objects and things. In other words, we created the ‘walls’ that divide people from people and objects from things, all for the dissemination of our self-interest. We created the logic of stratification for the class system, the nation-state, the linguistic divide, the institutional divide, the private/public divide. We even created a machine that generates infinite walls based on juridical provisions of the state apparatus – the bureaucracy.

Is the intellectual within the public sphere? Yes, she IS in the public sphere even if she denies it, unless of course if she chooses to be hermetic for the rest of her life. There is no ‘ivory tower’ for academics because these academics live with us. They shape and influence the public sphere more than how the public sphere shapes itself. They are our teachers, Facebook friends, colleagues, government officials, people in the media, etc. They are our lawmakers and justices/judges in the judicial sector. They are our engineers and scientists. They compose the Left, the Center, and the Right flank of the ideological divides, which also includes the apologist, the reactionary, and the apolitical. They are our financial experts who embody all the necessary tenets of neoliberalism and Ayn Rand’s objectivisim, because like any hospitable intellectual, a ‘progress’-ive intellectual can be a host to neoliberal ideas.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Social Media