Prior to the productive encounters that can be staged between Emmanuel Levinas’sthought and cinema at the level of reception, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne introducehis philosophy to their filmmaking at its moment of inception.1Luc Dardenne’s diary Audos de nos images documents their filmmaking from 1991 to 2005, and isinterspersed with brief but erudite references to Levinas’s work. While Levinasianthinking is one among many cited influences in this text, which also features quotationsfrom the writings of novelists, poets, and other philosophers, along with (...) detailedreferences to other filmmakers, his work is a signal point of inspiration and ethicalaspiration for their filmmaking. The Dardenne brothers seek permanently to unsettlereceived ideas of what cinema is. In this, their approach is bound up explicitly, but notexclusively, with the ethical underpinnings of Levinas’s thought. Levinas’s reformulationof ethics as first philosophy creates a fissure at the root of the philosophy of being. TheDardennes’ films, in turn, perform a Levinasian-inspired challenge to the being ofcinema. At its most extreme moments, to kill or not to kill is the key question that theircinema raises. This tacit rewriting of the interrogative opening to Hamlet’s infamous soliloquy, shifts attention away from a self-centered concern with being or non-being,and towards the survival of the other. The passage from being to non-being, whichwould involve the death of the subject, is displaced here by a preoccupation with killing,or failing to kill, someone else. This particular move from dying to killing lies at the heartof the Dardennes’ mortal ethics. (shrink)

Emmanuel Levinas never wrote about cinema. To the uninitiated, this may appearsurprising, given that his life spanned the twentieth century, in which film emerged as amajor art form, and his work includes tantalising allusions to films and the cinematicmedium. Far from surprising, however, the liminal place that cinema occupies inLevinas’s thought is entirely understandable. Although his philosophy features manycultured references to literature and the other arts, and he discusses the work of suchwriters as Marcel Proust and Michel Leiris in some (...) detail, his early work is dismissive ofthe aesthetic dimension in ethical terms. More significantly still, his philosophy bears achallenging relation to questions of vision and the phenomenological world ofappearance, tending towards the anti-ocular and revealing an iconoclastic approach toimages. There is something provocative, then, in wanting to ask what Levinas’sphilosophy has to say about cinema, if we understand this realm as the location parexcellence of the moving image. Yet this is precisely the guiding question of this SpecialIssue, which is the first to bring together articles on the work of Levinas and the insightsthat his philosophy can offer to film studies. The collection features an internationalselection of contributors, and includes Levinas specialists as well as film scholars. Thereis no easy bond to be forged between this philosopher and film, and the possibility ofmaking this connection remains open to interrogation throughout some of the articles.But by taking Levinas to the cinema, while tracking the cinematic aspects of his thinking,all of the contributors address this hitherto occluded relation in generative ways, andeach creates a critical opening for future research in the field. (shrink)