Interview Ranciere

8/13/2019 Interview Ranciere

1/9

9

FILMS UNDER DISCUSSION / INTERVIEWS Cinema Comparat/ive Cinema Vol. I No. 2. 2013 9-17

The Power of Political, Militant, Leftist

Cinema. Interview with Jacques Rancire

Javier Bassas Vila

ABSTRACT

In this interview, Jacques Rancire tackles specific questions about politics, aesthetics and cinema, presenting explanations thatmay help to orientate readers through the though of the French thinker. Te several periods characterising his work since the1970s and, mainly from the publication of Proletarian Nightsin 1981: his supposed aesthetic turn from workers historyor political theory to aesthetics, which was always present since his first Works, theory, art and politics from the point of view

of the gaps of cinema, the concept of the politics of the amateur and its possible application in other arts, the distinctionbetween the Brechtian paradigm (Group Dziga Vertov, Medvedkine) and the post-Brechtian paradigm (Straub-Huillet), aswell as the relationship between filmic language and the political struggles or the possible distinction between Europeancinema (the mythological order) and the American one (the order of the legendary), questions that he has addressed in hisworks of the last years, in which cinema has an increasing importance.

KEYWORDS

Workers history, political theory, gaps of cinema, politics of the amateur, Brechtian paradigm, filmic language, politicalstruggles, Pedro Costa, Straub-Huillet, Dziga Vertov Group.


2/9

Jacques Rancires thought is undisciplined,at least in two different but interlinked senses. Onthe one hand, in the 1970s Rancire suggested areading of Marxism that broke with the dominant

interpretations of the time, specially with thescientifist Marxism imposed by Althusser (seeLa leon dAlthusser, originally published in 1976and re-published in 2012 by La Fabrique anddue to come out soon in Spanish). On the otherhand, the broad interest that his thought hastriggered at an international level seems to bealso the consequence of another in-discipline:his reflections are constructed in the cross-overbetween different disciplines such as the theory

of cinema, literature and contemporary art froma prism founded in a powerful Reading of thehistory of workers in the nineteenth century. Tetexts ensuing from this crossover have not onlysparked the interest of philosophers, historiansand militants, but also of artists, film and artcritics and curators.

We have asked Jacques Rancire generaland specific questions about politics, aestheticsand cinema, which are here preceded by someexplanations that we hope will help to orientatethe readers who are less familiar with the thoughtof the French philosopher. We also refer to hisbooks in some instances, to invite readers toundertake a more in-depth reading, accordingto the interests of each reader. All of this becausewhat is at stake in this interview, as in thoughtmore generally, is to trace ones own path, totranslate with ones own words and experiencesthe words that our predecessors have translated

and experienced for themselves.

***

Politics and aesthetics: In light of the mostrecent books that you have published, somereaders have claimed that over recent years

your thought has focused on aesthetics rathertan in workers history or political theory itself what has been referred to as an aesthetic turnin your trajectory. However you have dismissed

such turn in several occasions, arguing thatthe aesthetic reflection was already at thecentre of your works from the 1970s aboutthe history of workers insofar as, already then,

your point of departure was a reflection onwhat you consider the aesthetics, that is, therelation between what can be seen, said andthought. Nonetheless one cant but notice thatsince the year 2000, and aside collections ofinterviews and articles, you have exclusively

published books on literature, art and cinemain relationship to politics.1Following on yourfirst Works on the history of workers, what isit that interests you in these artistic forms? Or,perhaps more precisely, given that you state thatpolitical subjectivation can be defined as aninterval to be occupied between two identities,do you consider artworks as paradigmaticexamples of such intervals in which a politicalsubjectivation is produced?

First of all, let me start by making clear that I havenever written a general theory of subjectivationas an interval between identities, the examples ofwhich would be provided by artistic manifestationsalongside political manifestations. My interestrather lies in the phenomena of un-identificationand in the material and symbolic intervals thatauthorise them. In Proletarian Night, I focusedon the gap that opens up between the being-worker, as an imposed condition and habit,

and the subjectivation of the worker producedby the distance taken from that being-worker. Iattempted to show the cross-overs between thosedifferent universes that produced such intervals for instance, the appropriation on the part ofthe workers not only of culture, but also of formsof speaking, looking and of affects that werent

THE POWER OF POLITICAL, MILITANT, LEFTIST CINEMA. INTERVIEW WITH JACQUES RANCIRE

1. La Fable cinmatographique(2001), Le destin des images

(2003), Malaise dans lesthtique (2004), LEspace des mots(2005), Politique de la littrature (2007), Le spectateur

mancip (2008), Les carts du cinma (2011), Bla arr

(2011) and the collections of articles and lectures Aisthesis(2011) and Figures de lhistoire(2012).

10 Cinema Comparat/ive Cinema Vol. I No. 2 Spring 2013


3/9

made for them. I tried to rethink the figure ofthe political subject based on those crossovers andthose intervals, in contrast with the theories thatinsisted on citizenship or militancy from the point

of view of belonging. It seems clear, then, that thisdetermines an interest in the forms of interferenceof identities that may be produced by the artsand specially those art forms with an uncertainstatus given their double character of mechanicalreproduction and form of entertainment. In thissense, cinema created an unprecedented form tobring together not only art and entertainment,but also the reproduction of the worlds lived andthe pleasure of the shadows. Tis is why cinema

has been subject to interferences of identities.Among the symptoms of May68 in France, wefind manifestations in support of the director ofthe Cinmathque Franaise, whom the Ministerof Culture attempted to sack on the basis thathe wasnt following the working methods of agood cultural manager. Tis battle was led by theNouvelle Vague, which was itself a significantexpression of a gap between identities. In the1960s in France there were two nouvelles vagues.Tere was a sociological identity constructed byan influential reformist newspaper that identifieda new youth, liberal in its way of living, and, atthe same time, less marked by ideology, morepragmatic, more open to reformist policies.Now, the Nouvelle Vague appropriated thissociological subject to make something elseout of it, to create a figure of ironic distance.I am thinking here of the figure of distanceembodied by Jean-Pierre Laud in particular: thefigure of a youngster half-rebel, half-simple, la

Buster Keaton. Godard made him represent, forinstance, the posture of the Chinese militant.It might have seemed ludic, but even the ludicside of these political postures corresponded tocertain political subjectivity important at thetime. In spite of the militant positions that somefilm-makers of the period may have adopted, thefigures they produced played a certain role in thepolitical subjectivations of the period.

Lets talk about your general approach to cinema.In Te Gaps of Cinema(2011), you state that there

exist gaps between cinema, on the one hand, andtheory, art and politics, on the other. I wanted toask you three questions in relation to these gaps:

Te gap of cinema from theory: you say thatyou dont see yourself as a philosopher nor filmcritic and that, instead of film theory, you preferto speak of cinephilia and of amateurism. Yousuggest then the politics of the amateur asthe position that best defines your particularrelationship to cinema (RANCIRE, 2011d:15). You also add that amateurism cannot bereduced to enjoying the existing filmic diversity,but rather constitutes a theoretical position

cinema as a cross-over of experiences andknowledges as well as a political one cinemabelongs to all, not only to specialists. In thatsense, is the politics of the amateur anothername for the emancipation of the spectator,

which you developed in your previous texts(Te Emancipated Spectator, 2008)? In lightof the emancipation of the spectator and thepolitics of the amateur, what room is there leftfor the critics, for the theorists (Deleuze, Bazin,Bergala, etc.), in short, for film specialists?

Te politics of the amateur defines, to beginwith, a position in the field of what is calledtheory. Te politics of the amateur opposes theidea that there would be a position a discipline that would belong to the literary or film theorist,the social historian or the cultural historian, etc.;and it opposes it because there is no univocaldefinition of these spheres, there is no reason toconsider that the phenomena classified under

these names constitute a set of objects that can bedefined using rigorous criteria. Te idea that theywould define specific areas that would depend ontheir own methods is precisely a way to eschewthe most essential problems therein posed andwhich are, precisely, the problems relative to thedistribution of the genres of discourse, of action,of spectacle and, finally, of human beings. Infact, I already applied a politics of the amateur inProletarian Night, placing myself in the territory

of the social historian without holding a passport.Obviously, this politics gains a specific resonance

JAVIER BASSAS VILA

11Cinema Comparat/ive Cinema Vol. I No. 2 Spring 2013


4/9

in relation to spectacle, and especially in thosespectacles where the pleasure of judgement getsmixed together with pleasure itself. I have insistedon the function of cinephilia as an appropriation

of cinema on behalf of the spectators, altering thusthe criteria of taste. Tis is something that alreadybegan with Chaplin, who became the icon of anart of cinema opposed to the films dart, andwhich was very important when the cinephiliaof the 1950s and 60s glorified the authors ofthe westerns, of cinema noir and of musicals,dismissed by the dominant taste of the period.If cinema played the function that we evokedabove, it is because during that period it belonged

to the spectators alone. Tere werent academicdepartments on film studies. And critic/theoristssuch as Bazin had a side a bit amateur, self-taught.Nothing to do with the style of the likes of DavidBordwell. In any case, the politics of the amateurdoesnt prevent specialists from doing their job.Nonetheless, it is useful to remember every nowand then that cinema is not in any way the nameof a sphere of homogeneous objects that dependson the same form of rationality. What relationshipa priori can be determined between theories ofmovement, the learning of the use of a camerain the different moments of the evolution of thetechniques, the poetics of narration developedby this or that film-maker, the feelings thatpreside the outings on a Saturday evening, themanagement of the multiplex and the Deleuziantheory of the movement of images? At a certainmoment, it was debated whether a theory ofcinematographic language could be constructedbut, besides the fact that it incredibly restricted

what cinema signifies, the basic elements ofthat language could not be univocally defined.Te famous language is slippery in many ways.

A language always entails an idea of what makeslanguage and what language makes. Cinema isalways, at the same time, a form of entertainmentand an art form, an art form and an industry,an art form and an idea of utopia of art, imagesand reminiscences of those images, words on theimages, etc. In short, cinema is an art form only

insofar as it is a world. And the theories of cinemaare then forms of circulating in that world; they

are investigations on particular segments of thatworld or the bridges between the different realitiesthat the word cinema encompasses. Such workof building bridges begins already with the need

to say with words written on a page what has beenperceived in a dfilement, or a sequence, of imageson a screen. Te theories of cinema or the filmreviews contribute to the production of cinemaby remaking films and connecting their differentrealities, which constitutes the grouping we callcinema.

Gap between cinema and art: In this sense, whatis the relationship between the entertainment

side of cinema and the politics of the amateuryou are proposing? Can the politics of theamateur be applied to other arts that are, soto speak, less popular and entertaining thancinema (say, for example, opera or a certainform of theatre)?

Te popular or elitist character of an art form isnot a fact, a constant. Opera is now a symbol ofa form of spectacle reserved for the wealthy oneswho can afford it, but it has not always been thisway. Without the need to refer to emblematicevents such as the representations of La Muette dePortici in Brussels in 1830 or Nabuccoin Milan in1842, which became truly popular manifestations,there was a time in which many small, provincialcities had their own lyrical theatre and in whichopera or operetta melodies circulated broadly andin parallel to the music then called of varieties(in fact, they have continued to circulate since,albeit in the form of a commodity consumed

in an inert form, via the soundtracks of filmsand advertisements). Likewise theatre in thenineteenth century was also a place were popularentertainment and high-brow culture could stillbe mixed together and where, therefore, thepolitics of the amateur could question dominantborders and criteria. In an article for the journalRvoltes logiques, I analysed the way in which themixture still present in theatre could alter themeaning and effect of the works. More recently,

in two chapters from the bookAisthesis (2011) Istudied the way in which the poets, the spectators




5/9

of the little theatres, dedicated to popularentertainment, could elaborate the new artisticsensibility that influenced so strongly the art oftheatre and performance later on. And when the

public found itself outside of the theatres andthe museums, cinema took over and producedthe effects that other arts could have producedbeforehand. And it could produce them becausethe border between art and entertainment wasnot fixed: the authorities that legislated about artdidnt worry too much about cinema and didntreally have stable criteria. And so, on the onehand, people could feel a certain emotion withoutthe need to decide if it was art or entertainment;

and, inversely, undisciplined spectators couldunfold their passion for art in Works that werein principle conceived as entertainment. Suchalterations or interferences of legitimacy wereessential for the constitution of cinema as anobject of passion and, finally, as a world of its own.Obviously, after that, all forms of formatting havebeen produced, which tend to cancel the powerof amateurs by predetermining the relationship ofthe films to theirspectators.

Te gap between cinema and politics: Terelationship between politics and cinema isnot, in any way, a simple, direct and causalrelationship. In the chapter titled Politicsof Films, you differentiate a Brechtianparadigm from a post-Brechtian paradigm(RANCIRE, 2011d: 106): the Brechtianparadigm is characterised by a form thatunveils the tensions and contradictions ofthe situations with aim at sharpening the

gaze and the judgement in order to elevatethe level of certitude that backs the adhesionto an explanation of the world: the Marxistexplanation; the post-Brechtian paradigm,conversely, does not offer an explanation of the

world that would serve to resolve the tensions,but instead remains in a tension withoutresolution. Does such shift from one paradigmto the other also represent a change in thepractices and the aims of the political struggles

in the turn from the 1960s to the 70s? Whathappened, for instance, between the practice

and the filmic language of the Dziga VertovGroup or the Medvedkin Group (Brechtianparadigm) and, on the other, the practice andthe language of a film such as Straub-Huillets

From the Cloud to Resistance(Dalla nube allaresistenza, Jean-Marie Straub, Danile Huillet,1979)(post-Brechtian paradigm)?

Te Brechtian paradigm or the other types ofparadigms of the politicisation of art that wereoperating after 1968 (to turn cinema into amedium of communication of the struggle, tobreak the separation between the specialists andthe people by offering cameras to the people

participating in the struggle, etc.) were based onthe material existence of those struggles and onthe Marxist horizon that gave them meaningand intellectually granted their efficiency, withoutthe need to demonstrate it materially. No one hasever verified the extent of the awareness producedby Brechtian distance nor the contribution ofWind from the East(Vent dEst, Jean-Luc Godard,

Jean-Pierre Gorin, Grard Martin, Groupe DzigaVertov, 1970) or Vladimir and Rosa (Vladimiret Rosa, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Pierre Gorin,Groupe Dziga Vertov, 1970) to the developmentof the struggles of the 1970s. When the doublesupport of this politicisation the materiality ofthe existing struggles and its ideal convergencein a scheme of interpretation of society andits evolution crumbled, the critical modelsorientated by an anticipation of its effect alsoentered in crisis. On the one hand, criticismwas duplicated: the procedure of distancingthat were at the core of a Marxist critique of

situations, discourses and images were used tointerrogate this form of criticism itself. Tisis what I tried to demonstrate in the way Jean-Marie Straub and Danile Huillet appropriatedPaveses texts and used them to divide the Marxistcertitudes that ruled over their film History Lessons(Geschichtsunterricht, Jean-Marie Straub, DanileHuillet, 1972). Tis is what can be seen, forexample, in the dialogue between the father andthe son in From the Cloud to Resistance, where

the crude sense of injustice and the strategicconsideration of the means and the aims oppose

JAVIER BASSAS VILA



6/9

each other without possible resolution. On theother hand, the sense of what is political wasdisplaced: the emphasis shifted from laying barethe reasons of oppression to the manifestation of

the capacity of the oppressed. See the differencebetween Othon (Jean-Marie Straub, DanileHuillet, 1970), in which Corneilles text is recitedin a monochord manner by people belonging tothe art world, in order to make of that work alesson on power that will always remain up to date(hence the importance of the sounds of city trafficthat can be heard on the background) and Operai,contadini (Jean-Marie Straub, Danile Huillet,2002), in which Vittorinis text is recited in the

midst of the countryside, almost in a liturgicalmanner by amateur actors, because the story ofthis ephemeral community is, first of all, a meansto show the elevation of thought and of languageto which the common people can aspire. Te aimof the distance produced by the mise-en-scne isnot to give a lesson about society, but rather toexpress the sensible capacity that characterises aperiod of time. I believe that such a displacementcorresponds to a thought movement and to thepolitics of the last decades: when the Marxistforms of explanation of the world and of thestruggle were, on the one hand, disqualified bythe collapse of revolutionary hopes and, on theother hand, recovered from the services of thedominant order, the question of the ability ofanonymous citizens and of the constitution of anew sensible tissue took over the lead from modelsof strategic action based upon the explanation ofthe modes upon which domination works.

Continuation about filmic language andpolitical struggles: in Te Gaps of Cinema, youalso discuss Eisensteins Te Old and the New(Staroye i novoye, 1929). Tere you state that,in that film, one can perceive the faith in a newpolitical and economic system collectivisedagriculture as well as the faith in a new filmiclanguage. In that sense, which film of our timecould be said to correspond to Eisensteinsfilm in that period? Tat is, in what new filmic

language could we believe today? Or, whatfilmic language should be avoided by the

films being filmed today about current socialmovements (such as 15M, Occupy Wall Streetor Arab Spring) and what filmic language isassociated to a new idea of the collective a

collective life and economy?

We shouldnt expect any correspondence there.Eisenstein, like Vertov, wanted to align the powerof a new medium of expression with that of anew society. Te aim of filmic language was notto translate communist faith but to construct asocial practice that opened up the constructionof a communist world. Such identity of sayingand doing pretended to supress the mediation

of images. It is clear that we are now witnessesto a completely different relationship. No onecan think of making of cinema a communistsymphony of coordinated movements laVertov, or a tractor that cultivates brain, to useEisensteins expression. Cinema exists massivelyas a technique, as industry, as a consecrated art, asacademic discipline, etc. Hence film-makers canhardly imagine the identification of cinema witha new social practice. However they are ratherfaced with problems such as: how can situationsand conflicts be represented today so as to breakwith the dominant logic of representation, theconsensual logic that has previously subjectedimages to its own ends? Tese are the problematics which in themselves do not have a determinedrelationship to recent movements that haveoccupied me in my work: for instance, how tobreak with the victimist figure of the immigrant,as in Pedro Costas researches/fictions about theend of a shanty town in Fontainhas and the

character of the worker Ventura? How to breakwith the dominant vision of the pain and theruins of the Middle East, as attempted both in EliaSuleimans bittersweet comedies on Palestine andKhalil Joreige and Joanna Hadjithomass films,in which the images of the destruction broughtabout by the war are replaced by the modificationof the visible and the disappearance of the imagesproduced by the war? We know that such attemptsalso question the distribution of the genres

documentary/fiction, as well as prompt a newreflection on the forms of fiction. We know that




7/9

cinema is not only in the work of investigation/fiction about the present, its contradictions andstruggles. Tere is also all that circulates instantlythrough the internet the images of ahrir

square or Puerta del Sol yesterday, the images ofaksim today and all that the form of videoand video-installation encompasses today: this allentails a different relationship to technique tanthe dream of the Soviet avant-garde in the 1920s.New techniques are not used today as a form ofconstructivist practice that negates the mediationof the image. Internet, social media and thevideos that circulate through these channels arerather used as a great common tissue that serves

to bring together people and, at the same time, toextend such union via its images.

In 1976, you responded to the questionsasked by Serge Daney and Serge oubianain an interview titled Te fraternal image(RANCIRE, 2009: 15). We are interestedin the distinctions that you trace therein andthat serve to better understand the history ofcinema and, more precisely, the political powerof images. We will formulate two questionsabout this. In an interview, you first establish adistinction between European cinema (focusedon the mythological order, the effect of the realon the code of representation) in opposition to

American cinema (rather focused on the orderof legends and their genealogy). You also addthat European fiction refers to the impossibilityof an origin that unites us (we are this way),

whereas American fiction tends towards theunity of a community (we come from here)

Te distinction that I established then didntoppose European to American cinema, but wasinstead focused on the relationship between thefigures of the nation, or the peoples, characteristicof traditional American fiction and the Frenchtradition. I didnt speak there as a historian.

But is that distinction still valid today? Couldthat distinction be understood as a symptom at

a political and social level, and, if so, of whatexactly? And also, what could be said about the

fictions of the nation in other cinemas (Asianor Latin-American cinemas, for instance)?

What I aimed to do then was to intervene in a

French situation, which was the recycling of theideas of the Left and of the figure of the people,which eventually led into the official culture ofthe Left during the Mitterand period: a culturein which collectivity was thought of as a form offamily meeting and of the distribution of types(the Renoir model, to say it bluntly). o thisfamily picture I opposed there the Americanmodel based on the narrative of a foundation,as the Western narrative, in which collectivity is

born out of the conflict between mythologicalfigures rather tan realist ones. Obviously, suchopposition was rather simplistic and the landscapeI then drew quickly changed. Te Americanlegend about the birth of the Law was altered,either because of the assimilation of the cynicismof the Spaghetti Western, or because of attemptsat violent contestation, such as Heavens Gate(1980) by Cimino. And the American fiction ofthat time, from Scorsese to Ferrara to erenceMalik and Clint Eastwood, has recreated timeand again the defeat of the Law and the cul-de-sac of the community. However it has done sopreserving the same figures of epical enlargement.

And European cinema, because of the market itwanted to occupy, has often exploited the familiarvein, either under the guise of the comedy of localcustoms in the French tradition, or Rohmerstradition, or under the guise of the out-therefamily tale la Almodvar. It seems obviousthat the game has become more complex given

the emergence of the new Asian cinemas, whichhave relied in different affects than the dominantdistribution: tensions between a dominant urbanform of living and traditional cultures (Kiarostami)or between the standardisation of the Americanmode of life and the relationships, temporalitiesand mythologies from other locations (Hou-Hsiao Hsien, sai Ming-liang, Wong Kar-Wai);interferences in the relationship between theimaginary and the real tied to specific forms of

religiosity (Weerasethakul), for instance, amongstother tensions.

JAVIER BASSAS VILA



8/9

Continuing with the interview from1976, you state that Leftist cinema tendsto artificially bring together the people,effaces the contradictions of the struggle and

supports a nationalist imaginary through theworkers struggle. Do you perceive a changein the tendency of todays Leftist films (TeShock Doctrine [Mat Whitecross, Michael

Winterbottom, 2009], Inside Job [CharlesFerguson, 2010], Dormamos, despertamos(wiggy Hirota, Alfonso Domingo, AndrsLinares y Daniel Quiones, 2012), ahrir-liberation square (Stefano Savona, 2011),Michel Moores films, or others)?

In that framework, I also established a distinctionbetween features made for a wide audience, whichaimed to put popular and workers history at theservice of a certain Leftist culture, and the filmsof the struggle which circulate essentially withina militant circuit such as Un simple exemple(Cinlutte, 1974), a film about the strike of aprinting house in which the problem resided, asfar as I understand, not so much on film itself buton the exemplarity given to that for of film of thestruggle, that is, in the model of Leftist thoughtthat turned particular workers conflicts not onlyinto examples but also into proofs of existenceof a collective process. It is clear, however, thatthis model fell out of favour with the workersdefeats in the 1980s. oday the dominant formof the political film is that of the documentary,which no longer accompanies a fight, but rathera catastrophe for instance, the Columbinemassacre or the crisis of the subprimes focusing

then on an analysis of the system that has producedsuch catastrophe. As well as vain manifestationsof critical self-satisfaction, as is the case ofMichael Moore, this genre may produce incisive

analysis of the financial system (Inside Job) ororiginal mise-en-scne, such as Cleveland versusWall Street (Jean-Stphane Bron, 2010), wherethe effective battle of the inhabitants dispossessed

of their dwellings by the insurance companiesled to a fictional trial. Now the authors of suchanalyses know from the start that being aware ofthe laws of the system is not enough to generatea revolt. Tis is not say that they are useless. Wehave seen how a moral sentiment that was seenas useless, indignation, has been able to displaya renewed force in recent years. But that means,precisely, that the effect of such analyses ofdomination is not the unveiling of the laws of the

system which has increasingly become fatalistlogic but rather the constitution of a sentimentof what is intolerable and in the sharing of thatsentiment. Tis is also the framework in whichto think about the films made about the recentmovements (ahrir, 15M or Occupy Wall Street).oday these films participate in the constitutionof a new collective sentiment, made of intoleranceof the dominant order and, at the same time,of communal trust amongst individuals: thesentiment of a world of affects to be shared and notsimply the sentiment of injustice or the absurdityof the world. Amongst the videos that contributeto the instantaneous circulation of images ofnew struggles and the more elaborate films, onehas the feeling of a sort of common bet on theunion of anonymous peoples and in the power ofimages. Te rehabilitation of images against theso-called critical tradition is perhaps an essentialquestion today. Perhaps such rehabilitation evenrelegates to the background the idea of a radical

use of the cinematographic instrument.

ranslated by Helena Vilalta.




9/9

AIDELMAN, Nria and LUCAS, Gonzalo de (2010).

Jean-Luc Godard. Pensar entre imgenes. Conversaciones,

entrevistas, presentaciones y otros fragmentos. Barcelona,Intermedio.

ASN, Manuel (2011).Jean-Marie Straub, Danile Huillet.

Escritos. Barcelona, Intermedio.

RANCIRE, Jacques (1981). La Nuit des proltaires.

Archives du rve ouvrier, Paris, Fayard.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2001). La Fable cinmatographique,

Barcelona, Paids.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2003). Le destin des images, Paris,

La Fabrique.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2004).Malaise dans lesthtique,Paris, Galile.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2005). LEspace des mots, Nantes,

Muse des Beaux Arts de Nantes.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2007). Politique de la littrature,

Paris, Galile.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2008).Le spectateur mancip, Paris,

La Fabrique.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2009). Et tant pis pour les gensfatigus. Entretiens, Paris, ditions Amsterdam.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2010). El espectador emancipado,

Pontevedra, Ellago Ediciones.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2011a). Les carts du cinma, Paris,

La Fabrique.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2011b). Bla arr, le temps daprs,

Paris, Capricci.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2011c).Aisthesis. Scnes du rgime

esthtique de lart, Paris, Galile.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2011d). Las distancias del cine,Pontevedra, Ellago Ediciones.

RANCIRE, Jacques (2012). Figures de lhistoire, Paris,

PUF.

RANCIRE, Jacques (reed. 2012). La leon dAlthusser,

Paris, La Fabrique.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Doctor in French and Philosophy by the Sorbonne-

Paris IV and by the University of Barcelona, where heteaches theory and practice of translation. He directs thecollection Essays by Ellago ediciones and the collectionPensamiento a tiempo in Ediciones Casus belli. Specialisedin the thought of Jean-Luc Marion and Jacques Rancire,

he has published several articles, editions and translations

of and on these authors, as well as Ren Daumal, Jean-Luc Godard, Jean-Luc Nancy, Jacques Derrida, CatherineMalabou, Flix Guattari, Marguerite Duras and Jean-MarieStraub and Danile Huillet, amongst others.

JAVIER BASSAS VILA

JAVIER BASSAS VILA


Interview Ranciere

Documents

Transcript of Interview Ranciere