motor action. We run, in fact, into a principle of intederminability, of undiscernibility: we no longer know what is imaginary or real, physical or mental, in the situation, not because they are confused, but because we do not have to know and there is no longer even a place from which to ask.» [27] This non-difference results in a reversal in the concept of temporality: time is no longer the measure of movement, but movement is a perspective of time. With this, a structure emerges that Deleuze terms «crystal»: «What we see in the crystal is no longer the empirical progression of time as succession of presents […] The direct time-image or the transcendental form of time is what we see in the crystal.» [28] At the same time, a new form of sign emerges, which Deleuze terms the «Hyalo sign» (from the Greek Hyalos (crystal, glass)) and which makes the crystal intelligible in three «coalescences» and coexistences: as the exchange between current and virtual, pure and opaque, and seed and milieu. At issue are relationships in which images collect their own content and (as purely optical and acoustic situations) bring it to the point of crystallization. This is not the place to go into

Deleuze’s «application» of this notion or its «derivation» from different films. Let me only point out that crystal can be thematized and illustrated in various ways: as a complete crystal (Ophüls), as a crystal with cracks from which something escapes (Renoir), as a crystal in the process of formation (Fellini) and as a disintegrating crystal (Visconti). Deleuze speaks in this sense of the crystal image—not the time-image. Although the time-image is seen in the crystal, as a transcendental notion the time-image can only be understood on the philosophical level, developed by Deleuze in a series of comments on Bergson based on his theses: «since the past is constituted not after the present that it was, but at the same time, time has to split itself in two at each moment as present and past,» and «the only subjectivity is time, nonchronological time grasped in its foundation, and it is we who are internal to time, not the other way around.» [29] Deleuze’s comments aim at «the overtaking of psychological memory towards a world-memory,» whereby the signs that point to this can be termed «facies.»

If one attempts to see Graham’s «Cinema» in