comments on affect theory, a meditation on escape velocity. In pursuing this theme I seem to have accumulated a disproportionate bunch of notes on one book, in fact one chapter of one book. This then is also not quite a review... a summary [with crit in square brackets] of a colleague's (Janet Harbord) chapter on 'Innocent Monsters: film and other media' in her book "The Evolution of Film: Rethinking Film Studies" 2007 Polity Press. This is a book critical of foundational, fixed, homogeneous, located notions of film -- 'film isn't what it used to be'. Harbord pursues an expanded notion of what film is when it escapes the cinema, starting in this chapter [I'm only reading chapter 5 here] with an archive of images of terror [not detailed] 'stacked and layered on top of each other' (118) in Hoolbooms 'Imitation of Life' (2003). She asks if we might reconfigure the story of the decline of cinema (no more celluloid products) as a story of escape? The escape of film, not of us -- escaping from fixed, viewer controlled (the view decodes and digests) contingency, escape from the cinema hall... So that film haunts new spaces, walks the streets like the uncanny zombie resurrection [not unlike fetish objects with their own lives and brains]. The question of the constructed nature of the non-human world arises -- the model of human construction has no dynamism, maybe the non-human is not to be reduced: is the alterity of the non-human irreducible to human