<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for shadowplay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dcairns.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dcairns.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>david cairns</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:28:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lost in Time and Lost in Space&#8230; and Meaning by jiminholland</title>
		<link>http://dcairns.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/lost-in-time-and-lost-in-space-and-meaning/#comment-64419</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jiminholland]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dcairns.wordpress.com/?p=23137#comment-64419</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#039;Rhizome&#039; nails it.

If not precisely in the Deleuzean sense, than the botanical one Deleuze metaphorizes out of:  as Wiki tells us, &#039;If a rhizome is separated into pieces, each piece may be able to give rise to a new plant.&#039;

For nearly two years -- which is to say, since I first became a regular reader of Shadowplay -- I&#039;ve been telling academic colleagues, cinephile friends, and (certain rare, particularly sharp) students, that David Cairns writes, on this blog and other venues he links to on this blog, with a zig-zag perceptual/conceptual logic that produces the most illuminating English-language film criticism of our time.

This is, in effect if not intent, Nawyecka criticism:  &quot;man says he&#039;s going one way, means to go t&#039;other,&#039;&quot;

This is criticism that merits comparison to Manny Farber and Serge Daney.

And if ever I need a single piece to substantiate my claims, today&#039;s post would be it.

Hat&#039;s off to you, David.

Now, having produced in effect what turns out to be the only fan letter I&#039;ve ever written, I want to say that I wish you did not call Shadowplay &#039;the willfully eccentric film blog.&#039;

I don&#039;t recall the reasons that I first checked Shadowplay out, but when I did it was at a time when you&#039;d posted something on Jesus Franco; although I&#039;m a Francophile in many respects, I&#039;m not one when it comes to that Spanish filmmaker, so my reaction to my first visit here was:  &#039;willfully eccentric&#039; + Jess Franco post = focus on cult films I&#039;m not especially fond of.

But my more substantive objection is that &#039;willfully eccentric&#039; suggests that you&#039;re forcing yourself to be so, as though you were up to the same thing here that Beethoven was with his op 135 string quartet:  &quot;Es muß sein!&quot; 
  
But I dunno, maybe you are.

In any case, &quot;effortlessly eccentric,&quot; &quot;organically eccentric&quot; -- these square more closely with my experience of what you do here.

How about &quot;skewed views&quot;?  Or &quot;cinemanamorphosis&quot;?

OK, I&#039;ll shut up now.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;Rhizome&#8217; nails it.</p>
<p>If not precisely in the Deleuzean sense, than the botanical one Deleuze metaphorizes out of:  as Wiki tells us, &#8216;If a rhizome is separated into pieces, each piece may be able to give rise to a new plant.&#8217;</p>
<p>For nearly two years &#8212; which is to say, since I first became a regular reader of Shadowplay &#8212; I&#8217;ve been telling academic colleagues, cinephile friends, and (certain rare, particularly sharp) students, that David Cairns writes, on this blog and other venues he links to on this blog, with a zig-zag perceptual/conceptual logic that produces the most illuminating English-language film criticism of our time.</p>
<p>This is, in effect if not intent, Nawyecka criticism:  &#8220;man says he&#8217;s going one way, means to go t&#8217;other,&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>This is criticism that merits comparison to Manny Farber and Serge Daney.</p>
<p>And if ever I need a single piece to substantiate my claims, today&#8217;s post would be it.</p>
<p>Hat&#8217;s off to you, David.</p>
<p>Now, having produced in effect what turns out to be the only fan letter I&#8217;ve ever written, I want to say that I wish you did not call Shadowplay &#8216;the willfully eccentric film blog.&#8217;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t recall the reasons that I first checked Shadowplay out, but when I did it was at a time when you&#8217;d posted something on Jesus Franco; although I&#8217;m a Francophile in many respects, I&#8217;m not one when it comes to that Spanish filmmaker, so my reaction to my first visit here was:  &#8216;willfully eccentric&#8217; + Jess Franco post = focus on cult films I&#8217;m not especially fond of.</p>
<p>But my more substantive objection is that &#8216;willfully eccentric&#8217; suggests that you&#8217;re forcing yourself to be so, as though you were up to the same thing here that Beethoven was with his op 135 string quartet:  &#8220;Es muß sein!&#8221; </p>
<p>But I dunno, maybe you are.</p>
<p>In any case, &#8220;effortlessly eccentric,&#8221; &#8220;organically eccentric&#8221; &#8212; these square more closely with my experience of what you do here.</p>
<p>How about &#8220;skewed views&#8221;?  Or &#8220;cinemanamorphosis&#8221;?</p>
<p>OK, I&#8217;ll shut up now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lost in Time and Lost in Space&#8230; and Meaning by dcairns</title>
		<link>http://dcairns.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/lost-in-time-and-lost-in-space-and-meaning/#comment-64416</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[dcairns]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 22:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dcairns.wordpress.com/?p=23137#comment-64416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why thankyou!

2001 is a pretty good open text for projecting your own interpretations on. Kubrick in general seems well suited to this, especially as his career progresses.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why thankyou!</p>
<p>2001 is a pretty good open text for projecting your own interpretations on. Kubrick in general seems well suited to this, especially as his career progresses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lost in Time and Lost in Space&#8230; and Meaning by Doug Bonner</title>
		<link>http://dcairns.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/lost-in-time-and-lost-in-space-and-meaning/#comment-64406</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Doug Bonner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 16:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dcairns.wordpress.com/?p=23137#comment-64406</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David, I *love* work that is filled with cultural rhizomes like this piece.  Your writing is absolutely Eisensteinian in its montage!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, I *love* work that is filled with cultural rhizomes like this piece.  Your writing is absolutely Eisensteinian in its montage!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>