Deleuze and cinema

Which differentiation—perception, affection, impulse, action, reflection, or mental relation—governs the shot, and how does it alter connections among parts so that the whole changes qualitatively?

Within a specific shot, first distinguish how the four-part structure operates: how an originary world appears within a derived milieu, and how elementary impulse penetrates real behaviour while seizing object-fragments. Then identify which of the two types of signs makes this operation visible—a symptom, or a fetish as the appearance of an object-fragment—before determining whether the film follows Stroheimian descent/entropy, Buñuelian repetition/cycle, or another demonstrable realization.

Specify the encompassing pressure of S, trace how it contracts through bodies and groups into A, then compare the institutional, spatial, and force relations of S with S′. If only a task is completed while the situation remains unchanged, the circuit has not been demonstrated.

What initially unintelligible act does the shot give us? Which index of lack or equivocity makes its situation inferable, and how does that inference rewrite the next action? If the situation is fully established from the outset, A–S–A′ is not the most precise account.

Identify the third term introduced between situation and action, then demonstrate shot by shot whether it transforms the prior S–A or A–S direction through substitution and prefiguration, inversion of large and small powers, or discourse that makes an implicit problematic relation into the image's object.

First determine whether the shot takes a relation, symbolic act, or intellectual feeling as its object. Then ask how camera, editing, and sound distribute that operation among character, film, and spectator rather than merely supplying psychological information; a further diagnosis of relation-image requires separate evidence of Thirdness at work.

First list the habitual series, then identify the demark that makes it deviate or contradict itself, or the concrete symbol that bears several relations or variations of one relation. Finally show how the film lets spectators know or discover the relation ahead of a character and incorporates that response into framing, editing, and suspense rather than merely making them wait for a solution.

Identify the symptoms actually present and how they combine, without forcing all five into the sequence. Then explain how these surface features deprive action of its power to integrate the world, and whether that failure produces a new optical or sound relation or remains a plot setback.

Record what the figure perceives, how the body is affected, and what action follows; then ask whether that action alters the milieu and supplies usable cues for the next perception. At which link does the circuit break?

Can action use up this sound or image? What does the remainder compel us to notice?

Does the character’s inability to act produce a more powerful seeing?

Does the space contain action, or dissolve the coordinates action requires?

Identify the unactualized yet already operative relations, memories, or tendencies that constrain the shot, then show how they differentiate into this actual composition, performance, sound, or narrative form. Merely imagining a possible future does not pass the test.

Name both faces of the circuit and track how each reflection, recollection, performance, or copy acts back upon the supposed original. Can the faces continue to exchange while the analysis still specifies their difference in kind?

Which face is momentarily clear, how does it darken the other, and where do they reverse?

What world is a local form crystallizing, and how does that world act back upon it?

Identify the present problem that triggers recollection, then trace how the figure enters, changes, or fails to reach a region of the past. If a flashback merely supplies causal information and returns to one timeline, it remains a causal flashback.

List the figures, events, and audiovisual relations altered by each present version, then ask whether the film finally restores one adjudicating master present. If every difference can be explained by missing information, deactualization has not occurred.

How do temporal relations connect the images: a search through sheets of past, coexisting incompossible presents, or temporal series in which before and after become qualities of change? Does this relation still organize the shots when the action-goal is removed?

Does the film expose a lie to restore truth, or alter the rules by which truth and falsity are produced?

Who can adjudicate among versions, and is that position itself drawn into the series of falsifiers?

Does this cut conceal an ellipsis, or produce an irreducible relation?

Does the image merely present a puzzle, or does it undo an established whole of thought and force thinking to face the Outside, the unthought, and its own powerlessness?

First state whether the analysis concerns body or brain: how does an attitude bear time before story, or how do cinematic connections organize space, probability, and disjunction into a map of thought?

Beyond showing objects, which invisible relations does the image ask you to read?

Does narration change the actual relation among speaker, filmmaker, and collective?

Who speaks, to whom, through which path, and which conditions, responses, and consequences does the image show?