Exerpt from a conversation with Gilles Deleuze on the television broadcast of Jean Luc Godard's "Six fois deux"; Cahiers du Cinema 271 (November 1976)


Godard's not a dialectician. What counts with him isn't two or three or however many, it's AND, the conjunction AND. The key thing is his use of AND. This is important, because all our thought's modeled, rather, on the verb 'to be,' IS. Philosophy's weighed down with discussions about attributive judgments (the sky is blue) and existential judgments (God is) and the possibility or impossibility of reducing one to the other. But they all turn on the verb 'to be'. Even conjunctions are dealt with in terms of the verb 'to be' - look at syllogisms. The English and the Americans are just about the only people who've set conjunctions free, by thinking about relations. But when you see relational judgments as autonomous, you realize that they creep in everywhere, they invade and ruin everything: AND isn't even a specific conjunction or relation, it brings in all relations, there are as many relations as ANDS, AND doesn't just upset all relations, it upsets being, the verb ... and so on. AND, 'and ... and ... and. . . ' is precisely a creative stammering, a foreign use of language, as opposed to a conformist and dominant use based on the verb 'to be.' AND is of course diversity, multiplicity, the destruction of identities. It's not the same factory gate when I go in, and when I come out, and then when I go past unemployed. A convicted man's wife isn't the same before and after the conviction. But diversity and multiplicity have nothing to do with aesthetic wholes (in the sense of 'one more,' 'one more woman'. . . ) or dialectical schemas (in the sense of 'one produces two, which then produces three'). Because in those cases it's still Unity, and thus being, that's primary, and that supposedIy becomes multiple. When Godard says everything has two parts, that in a day there's morning and evening, he's not saying it's one or the other, or that one becomes the other, becomes two. Because multiplicity is never in the terms, however many, nor in all the terms together, the whole. Multiplicity is precisely in the 'and' which is different in nature from elementary components and collections of them. Neither a component nor a collection, what is this AND? I think Godard's force lies in living and thinking and presenting this AND in a very novel way, and in making it work actively. AND is neither one thing nor the other, it's always in-between, between two things; it's the borderline, there's always a border, a line of flight or flow, only we don't see it, because it's the least perceptible of things. And yet it's along this line of flight that things come to pass, becomings evolve, revolutions take shape. 'The strong people aren't the ones on one side or the other, power lies on the border' Giscard d'Estaing made a sad observation in the lecture on military geography he recently gave the army: the more that things become balanced at the level of the largest groups, between West and East, U.S. and USSR, with planetary consensus, link-tips in space, global policing, and so on, the more they become 'destabilized' between North and South - Giscard cites Angola, the Near East, the Palestinian resistance, but also all the unrest that produces 'a regional destabilization of security,' airplane hijacking, Corsica ... Between North and South we'll keep on finding lines that derail the big groups, an AND, AND, AND which each time marks a new threshold, a new direction of the zigzagging line, a new course for the border. Godard's trying to 'see borders,' that is, to show the imperceptible. The convict and his wife. The mother and child. But also images and sounds. And the clockmaker's movements when he's in his clockmaking sequence and when he's at his editing table: an imperceptible border separates them, belonging to neither but carrying both forward in their disparate development, in a flight or in a flow where we no longer know which is the guiding thread, nor where it's going. A whole micropolitics of borders, countering the macropolitics of large groups. At least we know that's where things come to pass, on the border between images and sounds, where images become too full and sounds too strident. That's what Godard's done in Six Times Two: made this active and creative line pass six times between them, made it visible, as it carries television forward.