Preface to the english-language edition Preface to the English-language Edition true for politics: politics need more thought (and creativity)instead both nostalgia and denial in order to be creative. Cinema appeared of empty mimicries of the past. Along the same lines, certainly there to Deleuze to be highly innovative in all regards(bad films notwith is no politics without agency, but agency requires more than the fc- anding), and modern cinema was tion of a self-transparent and almighty subject. new forms of agency folded in time, linked in more complex ways to Deleuze's claim that modern cinema sets time free from its subor perceptions, affects, and thoughts. It had lost a certain"realism"and dination to movement does not say that movements and actions are he simplicity of the classic form, but in doing frozen in a still time; it does not say that films become "slow"(even if layers of reality and subjectivity. In this regard, one may say that cin ome may). It says that movements and actions no longer shape both ema, for Deleuze, was in advance of philosophy and politics, which, time and space but rather that they time and space, which nost of the time, overplay the sovereignty of the action. And it ex- is a very different statement. The line of the universe is no longer plains, I believe, why the best political philosophy of Gilles Deleuze described by, or centered on, our possible actions; actions-along can be found in his Cinema books with affects, perceptions, and thoughts-take place, respond, or fail to each other. t. In short: not only"actions"have agency, and the agency they do have does not go straight from one action to another one. In Deleuze's view,we cer- tainly need more thought to follow the tracks of multiple agencies, certainly need more thought to create "new forms of life"; but we also need, maybe in the first place, to acknowledge the power of tght. Such an insistence on of thinking may seem trivial, especially coming from a philosopher. And it would be so if Deleuze, following Heidegger, did not constantly remind us how difficult it hink, and that in fact. most of the time, we do Certainly, Deleuze's analyses of modern cinema do not produce a new model of agency endowed with the consistency and simplicity of the organic and/or dialectic form of the action-image. It may be difficult to renounce the image's power and the belief in the redemp- tive(and transcendent)function of the future that underlies it, but he fact is there is nothing we have to renounce: we no longer believe in organic ties or dialectical laws. We can act"as if" we still believe those ties or laws to avoid the complexities of the present; we can deny that they no longer carry any power of conviction for us, but these are only reactive moves. And it is reactive, although in a dif- ferent way, to turn back, in a nostalgic mood, toward a(mythical) better past. The critical task of thinking, for Deleuze, must avoidPreface to the English-language Edition true for politics: politics need more thought (and creativity) instead of empty mimicries of the past. Along the same lines, certainly there is no politics without agency, but agency requires more than the fic￾tion of a self-transparent and almighty subject. Deleuze's claim that modern cinema sets time free from its subor￾dination to movement does not say that movements and actions are frozen in a still time; it does not say that films become "slow" (even if some may). It says that movements and actions no longer shape both time and space but rather that they occur in time and space, which is a very different statement. The line of the universe is no longer described by, or centered on, our possible actions; actions-along with affects, perceptions, and thoughts-take place, respond, or fail to respond, to each other, react to each other, or not. In short: not only "actions" have agency, and the agency they do have does not go straight from one action to another one. In Deleuze's view, we cer￾tainly need more thought to follow the tracks of multiple agencies; we certainly need more thought to create "new forms of life"; but we also need, maybe in the first place, to acknowledge the power of thought. Such an insistence on the importance of thinking may seem trivial, especially coming from a philosopher. And it would be so if Deleuze, following Heidegger, did not constantly remind us how difficult it is to think, and that in fact, most of the time, we do not think. 2 Certainly, Deleuze's analyses of modern cinema do not produce a new model of agency endowed with the consistency and simplicity of the organic and/or dialectic form of the action-image. It may be difficult to renounce the image's power and the belief in the redemp￾tive (and transcendent) function of the future that underlies it, but the fact is there is nothing we have to renounce: we no longer believe in organic ties or dialectical laws. We can act "as if" we still believe in those ties or laws to avoid the complexities of the present; we can deny that they no longer carry any power of conviction for us, but these are only reactive moves. And it is reactive, although in a dif￾ferent way, to turn back, in a nostalgic mood, toward a (mythical) better past. The critical task of thinking, for Deleuze, must avoid XIV Preface to the English-language Edition both nostalgia and denial in order to be creative. Cinema appeared to Deleuze to be highly innovative in all regards (bad films notwith￾standing), and modern cinema was particularly capable of exploring new forms of agency folded in time, linked in more complex ways to perceptions, affects, and thoughts. It had lost a certain "realism" and the simplicity of the classic form, but in doing so, it gained deeper layers of reality and subjectivity. In this regard, one may say that cin￾ema, for Deleuze, was in advance of philosophy and politics, which, most of the time, overplay the sovereignty of the action. And it ex￾plains, I believe, why the best political philosophy of Gilles Deleuze can be found in his Cinema books. xv