Through the Realist Defile profoundly that of someone who does not see. The subject does not see where he is leading. He follows. In no case will he be able to apprehend himself in the dream, in the Cartesian cogito as thought. Now we forget Lacan for a while. I return to another way of presenting discourse, in which I — as I'm doing — should widen the descriptive nature of the discourse, and thereby hope to arrive at ^ some insight as Arun did, in which the area of discourse was being widened and widened such that many elisions came in, and insights were found. I begin with Internationalism, the problem of the International, of the predication of the International. I think the example of Eisenstein is to me very central; central in various senses of the term. I see a similarity between what Eisenstein does, in his context, at the beginning of this century, and much of what happens in our context in India. I don't think that this fact, that Eisenstein is a writer, a filmmaker and a teacher, is in any way a coincidence. I don't think that the fact that he looks towards the east for help in evolving the kind of cinema he wanted to evolve is a coincidence. Nor for me is it a coincidence that Dadasaheb Phaike writes on cinema. I think there is some identical similarity, to which we address ourselves. There is firstly — and here I shall sound my views on cinema — some tension in relating to a medium, one that came to Eisenstein not as a result of the historical deliberations of the context within which he finds himself. It is not the result of the ideological aspirations of the context within which he is. That is exactly what happens in the context of Dadasaheb Phaike. Cinema does not come to him either as the result of the scientific or ideological aspirations of his context; and I think this is an important similarity. Therefore they both write, on cinema, and, in the case of Eisenstein, it is even more interesting. Because in nineteenth century Russia this debate between the westemizers and the slavophiles is carried on right until the revolution. Which is when the debate takes a different turn altogether; it opens up, and you had to consider your choices as you worked through the representations or the mediums or modes that have been made available to you. Like the debate that was available to us in our context, and we had to think of how we are going to go through the spaces or mediums or modes available to us. This is where I return to a part of the written material I have with me. II Now what I am positing is the concept of the other line. I think there is a particular kind of cinema — I have mentioned some of the names already — which I view as the cinema on the other line. This is not third world cinema; it is the cinema on the other line. What is this other line? Against the paradox of infinity (horizon) and enclosure (frame) is the other line, thinking itself, even as it passes through this very corridor of paradox. It thinks the Journal of Arts & Ideas