it’s as though, in a way, he’s always stammering. not stammering in words, but stammering in language itself. you can normally only be a foreigner in another language, but here it’s a case of being a foreigner in one’s own language.
..
and isn’t even a specific conjunction or relation, it brings in all relations, it upsets being, the verb… and so on. And, “and…and…and…” is precisely a creative stammering, a foreign use of language, as opposed to a conformist and dominant use based on the verb ‘to be’.
..
when godard says everything has two parts, that in a day there’s morning and evening, he’s not saying it’s one or the other, or that one becomes the other, becomes two. because multiplicity is never in the terms, however many, nor in all the terms together, the whole. multiplicity is precisely in the “and,” which is different in nature from elementary components and collections of them.
..
and is neither one thing nor the other, it’s always in-between, between two things; it’s the borderline, there’s always a border, a line of flight or flow, only we don’t see it, because it’s the least perceptible of things. and yet it’s along this line of flight that things come to pass, becomings evolve, revolutions take place. 

(deleuze on godard, from negotiations)