NARRATION AND MONSTRATION IN THE CINEMA

Author(s): ANDRÉ GAUDREAULT

Source: Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring 1987), pp. 29-36
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687768
Accessed: 20-12-2015 16:23 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Illinois Press and University Film & Video Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Film and Video.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NARRATION AND MONSTRATION IN THE CINEMA
ANDR? GAUDREAULT

The scope of narratology has so greatly some degree of certainty (or at least to
expanded of late that thosewho work with name it, to give it a singluar name) the
ithave sought towiden itsfield of applica illocutionary origin of the narrative
bility. Film as narrative, however, poses ?nonces. Such is notably the case for the
rather serious problems for the scriptural narrative1 which always
narratologist whose conceptual tools for remains rooted in a "narrator" (in the
analysing works which liewell beyond the strict sense: a basic function or agent
ken of that which can legitimately be responsible for conveying the narrative).
called "literature" remain few in number. This also gives rise to the numerous
Consequently, therefore, such already narratological problems which arise when
ambivalent terms as "narrative," "narra ever a narrative seems to be produced by
tion," or "narrator" pose problems when any of themany (sub)functions or agents
theyare used outside theirfield. Indeed, as such as the flesh and blood characters of
soon as one leaves the realm of verbal nar the theatre or the "shadow and light" char
rative (thatwhich is transmitted solely by acters of the cinema which appear tomove
words), it becomes difficult to locate or about either on the stage or the screen
identifywith any degree of certainty the quite autonomously (precisely because of
illocutionary origin of the narrative their apparent "humanity"). Herein lies
?nonc?s. For, unlike most other narrative the origin of all the difficulties which
forms, the purely verbal narrative (novel, emerge when the conceptual apparatus of
short story,tale, etc.) always presents itself narratology which has traditionally been
(to a greater or lesser extent, which need devoted to thedescription of purely verbal
not concern us immediately) as the pro (and more often than not of purely scrip
duction of a "unified organizing con tural) phenomena is transferred to the
sciousness" which is responsible for the study of theatrical2 and filmic narrative.
?nonc?s. Whenever there is speech, some This iswhy it is of the utmost importance
one is speaking. As soon as words are given to distinguish clearly between the two
the slightest organisation, they always basic means for conveying a storywhich
already appear as the product of a can be called narration and monstration,
particular speaker (whether s/hebe visible as I have argued elsewhere (Gaudreault,
or not, anthropomorphic or not), and it is Prol?gom?nes). In keeping with my
always relatively easy to identify with hypotheses, scriptural narrative is con
veyed only in the mode of narration
ANDR? GAUDREAULT is a professor in (despite some quite spurious indicators of
the film studies program, Department of Litera monstration) whereas theatrical narrative
ture, at Laval University in Quebec, Canada. is conveyed solely in the mode of
He has servedas special editorforLes Cahiers
monstration3 (despite some equally spuri
de la Cin?math?que (1979) and Iris (Paris,
Tom
ous indicators of narration).
1984). He is co-director, with Gunning
(SUNY, Purchase) of a research project
devoted to early cinema. His book on cinema But what exactly is the status offilmic nar
will be publishedbyKlincksieck
and narrativity rative? In which mode does the filmic
(Paris) later this year.
narrative operate? Is it in a mode more
Copyright? 1987 by Andr? Gaudreault akin to narration or to monstration? Or

JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987) 29

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 indeed isfilmic narrative not perhaps con my view, a blind spot of film theorywhich
veyed through a complex of narration and is attributable yet again to "the most
monstration? In their own way and in amazing magical apparatus there has ever
their own terms,many film theorists have been":5 the cinematograph. The question
answered this type of question, with dis of the temporal modalities which filmic
tinctlydifferent results. It is quite obvious narrative sets into play is less simple than
and quite undeniable that film "shows" itmight appear and it is through it that I
things.But towhat extent (if at all) can it shall attempt to pose theproblem of film's
safely be assumed that film "narrates"? narrative modes.
Consensus has yet to be reached.
The equivalence usually established
Indeed, the frequent hesitation between between present time and monstration, on
"narration" (to narrate) and "monstra the one hand, and between past time and
tion" (to show) that occurs when it narration, on the other, seems hard to
becomes necessary to identify the funda deny. Filmic narrative does appear to be
mental mode of film's story-telling func inextricably linked to the contradiction
tion only serves to illustrate clearly that, this equivalence causes. This leads to con
initially,filmic temporality tends rather to clusions with important consequences for
situate itself on the side of theatre (of the questions we are tryingto resolve. As a
monstration) than on the side of scriptural result, in a dissertation dealing mainly
narrative (of narration). Iuri Lotman with the difficulties of adapting scriptural
states this in an almost peremptory man narrative for the screen, Michel Colin
ner: "In every art related to sight and to states:

iconic signs, only one time is possible: the

present" (136). Of course, filmic narrative It appears therefore thatfilmic narra
is based upon a kind of temporal manipu tive transforms novellistic narrative
lation that is quite impossible in the whose action is set in the past into a
theatre,but, as has often been noted, it still narrative of the present, by trans

"does not possess (...) the temporal flexi forming "telling" into "showing". The
bility of thewritten word" (Vanoye 179). novel "tells" what has happened
It can undoubtedly perform certain tem whereas the file "shows" what is hap
poral feats (flashback, flashforward, etc.) pening (...) [This] is determined by
which are for all intents and purposes for the fact that they result from two
bidden to the theatre but, like the theatre, quite different "language acts", the
itdoes seem to be eternally "condemned" novel "tells, the film shows" (156).
to being "the site of presence itself
(Bellour 275). As Metz has pointed out, a Such a statement raises the crucial prob
spectator arriving at a film in themiddle of lem of thepossibility of film's access to the
a flashback could not possibly know that sphere of narration. The question of film's
the pictures on the screen portray thepast, position in relation to the two modes of
relative to some original time of "narra "telling" (or "narrating") and "showing"
tion" (47). has often been raised. Unlike scriptural
narrative, filmic narrative seems to fall
Indeed, ithas for all intents and purposes, under a form ofmimetic di?gesis,6 rather
become a common place to state that like the theatre.Would then the funda
filmic narrative, like the theatre, knows mental agent responsible for communicat
only the present tense.4 Such a statement, ing the narrative of film therefore be a
which bears theweight of the obvious and monstrator which, like the theatrical
which seems truly self-evident (indeed, so monstrator, would be deprived of the fac
self-evident as to be suspect) represents, in ulty of narration, despite some occasional

30 JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987)

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
manifestations of it?Would it be reason ematic narrator. For, like the scriptural
able, however, to say that thismonstrator, narrator, the filmic narrator imposes (or
as "grand image-maker," could carry out can impose) a look upon the spectator.
all thework ofmonstration without ever
drawing upon the resources of narration? I This is to say, then, that the narrated
thinknot. It seems tome that the instance world, of both filmic and scriptural narra
which conveys filmic narrative is both a tives, is the result of an intermediary look.
monstrator and a narrator, as I shall now And it is precisely this unavoidable pre
attempt to demonstrate. supposition of an intermediary look8
which in turn implies the existence of a
One of themain reasons why the theatrical "time of reflection" on the part of the nar
monstrator is unable to move beyond rating instance, a time which necessarily
monstration lies in the fact that s/he (or, situates itself somewhere between the
more accurately, it) is locked into a single moment at which the events occurred (or
temporal modality: the present. As Ivo are supposed to have occurred) and the
Osolsobe has stated: "It could be said that moment at which they are perceived by
the "grammar" of ostention knows only the narratee.9 And this is not the case with
the indicative present tense"(417). "scenes" which have been produced by the
Monstration is the present: in order to monstrator, in the theatre or the cin
showwhat was, ithas to show it in thehere ema.

and now. The situation of the cinema is,

however, quite different from that of the The rule of the game which theatre
theatre "simply" because of the existence imposes upon itsmonstrator is to make
of editing, the activity which permits "events appear to be happening in the
spatio-temporal segments to be articu present" (Van Rossum-Guyon 488). This
lated together. Indeed, the theatre has no is because the theatre "is a present which
"... flashback, no fragmentation of the knows nothing of the past" (Thomas
image seen at a glance, no framing and no Mann quoted by Ubersfeld, Lire 243),
breaking down of shots which, in the cin "the (theatre) actor's work is an enuncia
ema, lead the spectator by the hand" tion in thepresent which therefore forces
(Ubersfeld, L'Ecole 303-304). Indeed, the the spectator to experience the fictional
theatre and the cinema aremost often dis past physically, as though itwere in the
tinguished, at the narrative level, precisely present" (Ubersfeld, Lire 243). The physi
by the fact that the instance responsible cal presence of actors in the theatre
for filmic narrative can effectively direct produces in effect a "resurrection before
the spectator. Without even pausing to which spectatorsmust forget that they are
consider the many temporal variations watching the past" (D. S. Likhatchev
which it affords,we can agree that editing quoted by Lotman 136). Or as Michel
is theprivileged operations bywhich a cin Butor would say in his analysis of (scrip
ematic "narrator"7 intervenes. This has in tural) narrative in the third person which
fact been indicated by all film theorists lack any apparent narrator, "the distance
(Bal?sz, Mitry, Metz, etc.). It is therefore between reported events and themoment
because of editing that the spectator gets at which they are reported obviously has
the feeling that s/he does not watch the no incidence" (77).
story which unfolds before him/her
through his/her eyes alone. It is mainly In the cinema as well (if,as I propose, the
through the successive positionings of the function of the monstrator is identified
camera that the spectator comes to per with theprocess of shooting thefilm) there
ceive the role of this helper (who is isno possibility of opening a temporal gap,
sometimes an opponent!) which is the cin a breach within which the narrating

JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987) 31

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 instance could allow itself to "reflect" fact a past made present, then certain edit
upon theworld it narrates, conveying its ing operations (though clearly not all)
substance through the filter of its view allow for themastery of timewhich is one
point. But this is not due to the immediacy of the possibilities of all narrational activ
of the spectator's vision, as in the theatre, ity.Whence the importance of Metz's
nor, to say the same thing in other words, reaction to the affirmation that "diegetic
is it due to the coincidence of the time is present time": "Is itnot rather the
spectator's visionwith the action which is filmic image that is always in the present?
represented. In the cinema, the And is thefilm, for itspart, like the novel,
monstrator always shows something not always in the past?"(73) This observa
which, in one way or another, has been. It tion, however, needs to be specified. The
is rather due to the coincidence between image, as a shot (as an uninterrupted flow
the action represented and the vision of the of frames), is perceived as being in the
monstrator, that is to say of the camera, present but editing allows for the irruption
which can be said to have been delegated of a narrating instance which takes the
by themonstrator to occupy the place of spectator "by the hand" and makes him/
the spectator during the period of the her undergo various temporal experi
action to be recorded. ences. Whence also the importance of
distinguishing clearly between the time of
It is because the monstrator, any action and the time of viewing, as Jean
monstrator, clings so closely to the imme Paul Simon has suggested (58).
diacy of the "representation" that it is
incapable of opening up this gap in the It is through editing that the narrator can
temporal continuum. That which I am exercise its power over the narrated. And
shown nowmight verywell have been pro
if it can be stated that editing is the opera
duced before it was shown tome;10 as a
tion which affords it the opportunity of
process of monstration it remains a
simultaneous abstracting itself from the present (the
rigourously synchronous
to use of Genette.
present itselfof the narrated), it isbecause
"narration", the words
this situation is entirely analogous to stan
(Fronti?res 158). Only the narrator can dard filmic practice outside of any
sweep us along on itsflying carpet through
narratological considerations. It is indeed
time. It is the intersection, themeeting, of
the case that the editor (= the narrator)
two viewpoints, the viewpoint of the nar
receives thematerial (= the shots) which
rator and the viewpoint of the narratee
have been recorded by the camera (= the
which opens up the gap allowing for tem
monstrator); therefore he carries out his
poral "difference": I see now (indirectly in
the case of scriptural structuring activity only after the action
narrative,
"shown" has already reached an irrevoca
"directly"11 in the case of filmic narrative) ble end. And, just like the narrator of a
from without, that which the narrator
scriptural narrative, this editor-narrator
adjutant saw before vat,from within. It is can henceforth become, to use Otto
the narratorwho re-places before my eyes,
Ludwig's words (quoted by Kayser 81):
in whatever order suits it, events which
have already occurred.
... the absolute master of time and
The conclusion which must be drawn from space... He can do whatever thought
this cinematic situation is that it is the can do, he represents without any of
editing activity of the filmic narrator reality's fetters,he stages events with
which allows for the inscription of a true out a care for physical impossibility,
narrative past.12 One must recognize that he is endowed with all the powers of
if the shot is in the present tense, if it is in nature and of themind.

32 JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987)

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In contrast, the cinematic monstrator is that the film image "is not in the present
"caught" within the constrains of reality, even if for the spectator it unfolds in the
of its reality: the camera, the reality of 24 present" (181). How then can this tem
frames per second.13 The camera poral ambiguity be resolved? Quite easily
monstrator's activity is necessarily of a if we consider the filmic monstrator's
continuous nature (at least under normal activity of monstration to be a type of
conditions of shooting and exhibition). quoting,14 regardless of whether one is
And this is so despite the fact that it is dealing with a narrative of events or a nar
rooted initially indiscontinuity. The artic rative inwords. Quite literally, the filmic
ulation between frames produces an monstrator quotes characters when they
intrinsic illusion of continuity which is speak: it extracts a segment of linguistic
founded on fundamentally discontinuous reality and restores it linguistically (by
rawmaterial. Indeed, what could be more means of the sound track).The same quot
discontinuous than a succession of frames ing occurs, metaphorically, when it
breaking down a movement? Between extracts from reality a segment of actions
each pair of images, there is always and and gestures at the shooting stage and then
necessarily amissing interval, a gap,which restores them iconically on the filmic
even extreme slowmotion filming cannot image. In a novel, the passage: "Then
eradicate. But during projection, the syn Pierre replied: /feel veryUP is said tobe in
thetic operation thatbrings the pictures to the past, even though the sentence uttered
"life", all discontinuity vanishes. And it is by Pierre is in the present. The filmic
the lifebrought to the pictures which is (of monstrator does the same thingwhen it
necessity) in the present: the past is indeed quotes (restores now what had occurred
rendered present. earlier) through the sound track the sen
tencewhich Pierre had spoken and when it
Ifwe return to Benveniste who states that quotes in the present the gestures which
thepresent is "the coincidence of the event Pierre had made.15
described with the discursive instance
describing it" (262) we must agree that the It remains the case, however, that the
monstrator's product, the shot, is as tem "unipunctuality"16 to which the
porally ambiguous as could be. What monstrator is bound prevents it irreduci
exactly is the event described by the dis bly frommodulating the temporal flow of
cursive instance which is themonstrator? the narrative: it is an eternal past, which,
Is it the event which occurs in frontof the even though itmoves forward, can not be
camera during the recording process conjugated in any other terms. Only the
which is shooting?Or is it the event which narrator (= the editor) can inscribe,
occurs during the restitution process between two shots (bymeans of cuts and
which is projection? As formyself, I have articulations) themark of its viewpoint,
littledoubt that themonstrator's "speech can introduce a guided reading and
act" occurs during projection but that the thereby transcend the temporal oneness
"event described" occurs at an earlier which unavoidably constrains the dis
moment, during shooting. The illusion of course of monstration. Only through the
thepresent provided by viewing the shot is articulations which it accomplishes can
then certainly nothing more than a the filmic narrator become like the scrip
simulacrum of the present. The fact tural narrator and "emphasize the tem
remains, however, thatwhether past (as it poral distance between the present time of
is in realty) or present (as itpresents itself), narration and the past time of the story"
the shot "shows with no distinction of (Lintvelt 56). The narrator "speaks"
temporal planes," as has stated Francis through the articulations. As the "sover
Vanoye (181), which has well understood eign speaker,"17 the narrator may choose

JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987) 33

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tomake its power over the temporal flow "narrate, it shows" (72). The fundamental
of the narrated more or less felt, and it instance responsible for communicating
enjoys nearly all the same powers of tem the filmic narrative is composed of two
poral modulation as does the scriptural parts. Therein lies thenarrative originality
narrator. and specificity of the cinema. The filmic
monstrator-narrator brings about
It could thereforebe said that the cinema syncretically the union, themerging of the
contains, each at a different level, two two basic modes of narrative communica
types of narrative. The shot is a sort of tion: narration and monstration.
micro-narrative on whose basis is erected
a second narrative at another, higher level. Translated from French by Paul Attallah
On thewhole, then, filmicnarrative is the and revised by Tom Gunning.
result of the superimposition of two layers
of narrativity, each of which belongs to Notes
one of the two "articulations"18 of thedou
ble mobility characteristic of cinema: the
Reference will be made throughout to scrip
articulation between frames and the artic tural rather than to written narrative in order
ulation between shots, to use the terms set quite simplytomark, within theverydesigna
forth by Roman Gubern (8). These two tion of the object of study, the necessary
coalescence between the product
layersof narrativity do not originate in the (the narrative)
and thevehicle (writing).The expressionwrit
same type of semio-narrative operations
tennarrativelends itselftoo easily to the idea of
and each ultimately presupposes the exis a total autonomy of the two entities, with the
tence of two separate instances each first term being altogether too passive. At any

responsible for their respective communi rate, one also generally speaks of afilmic narra
tive rather than of a filmed narrative.
cation. In order to produce a
2It should be noted that the expression "theat
"pluripunctual" filmic narrative, one rical narrative" is used here to refer only to
must, firstof all, call upon a monstrator, narrative produced on stage and not to the play

which, during the shooting, records a mul under its written form which must be seen as a
titude of micro-narratives type of "scriptural narrative".
(the shots)
3This is a term which I have chosen in order to
which each possess, in the final analysis, a
avoid the use of "representation", which is both
certain narrative autonomy.19 The micro toomarked and toopolys?mie.Though it is lit
narratives are produced through themode tle used, monstration does appear to be a more
of monstration and cannot accede to the functional term. Without turning it into a nar
status of narration, as we understand it.
rative mode, Betty Rojtman gave it recently a
meaning which I adopted in my dissertation:
One must then call upon another narrating "The theatre is mimetic and proposes to its
instance, the narrator, which will take audience-receiver the "monstration" of a lan

charge of the micro-narratives and, guage articulated directly through the charac
ters" (106). It shouldbe added, as regardsthe
depending on how "enamoured" with nar
cinema, that Xavier de France has also used this
rative it is,will work upon their narrative
term with a somewhat different meaning. Con
substance in order to negate their auton the basic agent responsible for the
sequently,
omy. The narrator takes thismaterial and communication of a narrative of monstration
inscribes its own viewpoint there, trans such as a theatre play is the "monstrator,"
which stands to monstration as the narrator
posing it into a continuous guided reading stands to narration.
for the spectator. 4Imyselfat one timesubscribedto thisidea as
an almost definitive fact. (Detours 47).
The cinema is, therefore, a complex of 5Ingmar Bergman, quoted without references
mimetic and non-mimetic in the 1980 scheduleof the"Cin?matographe,"
dieg?sis thefilm societyof theColl?ge de Sainte-Foy in
di?g?sis, of monstration and narration, Qu?bec City.
contrary to the conclusions of Francis 6This refers to Plato's concept of mimesis
Vanoye: "Strictly speaking, film does not (TheRepublic, Book III) which is so named in

34 JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987)

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
order to make its status as diegesis stand out. ,6I have formed this noun from two terms put
Contrary to general belief, Plato never opposed forward by Eisenstein: "In the unipunctual cin
mimesis to diegesis. In his scheme, diegesis has ema (singlepoint ofviewwithfixedcamera),we
two main forms: haple diegesis (simple narra are dealing with pictural In the
composition.
tive) and diegesis dia m?meseos (narrative via pluripunctualcinema (withchanges inpoint of
imitation). It should be added, however, that view), we are dealing with composition through
mimetic diegesis here has a meaning somewhat montage". Quoted by Lotman 83-84.
different from the strict meaning Plato gave to 17I owe this expression to Ropars
his concept of mimesis which was worked out at Wuileumier (19).
a time when 18"
scriptural narrative did not yet Articulation" here bears no resemblance to
really exist. See for further information my dis its usage in linguistics.
sertation (Prol?gom?nes 171) or my paper on 19The autonomy of micro-narratives is so
the subject (Mimesis). great that it tookabout 15years,from 1895 to
7The inverted commas should indicate 1910, before theywere brought togetherinto
clearlythattheexistenceof sucha functionhas the singlecontinuousflow and before thecine
not yet been resolved. matic narrator was thereby brought into exis
8As regards the cinema, the word "look" can tence. On this subject, see my articles dealing
be rather confusing. I am not referring here to with theoriginsof thecinema: (Detours,Theat
the literallookwhich is a propertyof thecam Temporalityand L'Arriv?e).See aswell
ricality,
era. I am referring rather to a "directed look" (a Tom Gunning's doctoral dissertation, on the
guided reading)at thenarratedworld which is birth of thefilmic narrator. It is furthermore
obviouslypresupposedby the syntagmaticjux probablyworth noting that theunderstanding
taposition of shots. The "look" of the camera, of the shot as an autonomous unit (indeed, as an
with few exceptions (such as camera move autonomous narrative), all through the early
ments towhich I shall return)does notbind the yearsof thecinema (at leastup until 1910),was
spectator's look to any particular guided read with consequences fortheway inwhich
fraught
ing, as is true also of a scene in the theatre. film was understood at that time. Itwas because
9Iowe this idea toMichel Colin who said ina each shot was thought to be a kind of autono
conversation: "For there to be narration, there mous narrative that "temporal overlaps" were
has to have been a narrator who stands outside so common in thefilms of theday. This also
the here and now of the ?nonce'. Likewise, if explains, inmy view, the essential particularity
thereisediting,therenecessarilyhas tobe some of almostall chasefilmsof theperiodwhichwas
organizing instance whose intervention occurs that any of the successive seriesof shotsonly
after the filmed event." ended after all the pursuants had left the screen.
10In the theatre, it is assumed that the re
presented events happened elsewhere. In the
cinema, the same applies, with the additional
twistthatthework of theactors tookplace prior
to its re-presentation (therefore its re-repre
Works Cited
sentation) on the screen.
11
The inverted commas should indicate that
this is in fact an illusion.
Bellour, Raymond. "L'instant du code".
12And, in all likelihood, of all the other tem
poral modalities of language. Consequently, the In Le cin?ema am?ricain, tome 2.
narrator can draw upon the resources of the Edited by Raymond Bellour. Paris:
conditional and of the optative: for example,
the "sequence of possibilities" inwhich the two
Flammarion, 1980.
heroes flee in a car in Pierrot le fou (Jean-Luc Benveniste, Emile. Probl?mes de
Godard, 1965). linguistique g?n?rale, tome 1. Paris:
,3Or 16 f.p.s. as in silent films. Or, in fact, at Gallimard, 1966.
any speed (greater than 10 f.p.s. below which Butor, Michel. Essais sur le roman. Paris:
the illusion of continuous movement ceases) so
Gallimard, 1969.
longas it is projected at the same speed.
14Quotingis the name I give to the typeof Colin, Michel. Film: la transformationdu
showingwhich is the faithfulreproductionof texte du roman. Unpublished doctoral
dialogue presumably spokenby the characters thesis. Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes
of a scriptural narrative (- reported speech).
Etudes, 1974.
(Gaudreault,Prol?gom?nes 154).
15
is a way of making the past "pres
de France, Xavier. El?ments de
Quoting
ent" again. Any quotation is in fact a way of sc?nographie du cin?ma. Paris:
reactualizing a moment from the past. Universit? de Paris X, 1982.

JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987) 35

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gaudreault, Andr?. "De L'Arriv?e d'un Kayser, William, "Qui raconte le
train ? The Lonedale Operator: une roman?". In Po?tique du r?cit. Paris:
trajectoire ? parcourir". InDavid Wark Seuil, 1977.
Griffith. Paris: L'Harmattan/ Lintvelt, Jaap. Essai de typologie narra
Publications de la Sorbonne, 1984. tive.Paris: Librairie Jos? Corti, 1981.
_"Detours in Film Narrative: the Lotman, Iouri.Esth?tique et s?miotique du
Development ofCross-Cutting". InCin cin?ma. Paris: Editions Sociales,
ema Journal. Illinois, 1979. 1977.
_"Mimesis, di?g?sis et cin?ma". In Metz, Christian. Essais sur la signification
Recherches S?miotiques/Semiotic au cin?ma, tome 2. Paris: Klincksieck,
Inquiry, vol. 5, 1. Toronto, 1985. 1972.
_R?cit scriptural r?cit th??tral, r?cit Osolsobe, Ivo. "Cours de th??tristique
filmique: prol?gom?nes ? une th?orie g?n?rale". In Etudes litt?raires,vol. 13,
narratologique du cin?ma. Unpublished No. 3. Qu?bec: Presses de l'Universit?
doctoral dissertation. Paris: Universit? Laval, December 1983.
de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1983. Rojtman, Betty. "D?sengagement du Je
-"Temporality and Narrativity in dans le discours indirect". In Po?tique
Early Cinema (1895-1908)". In Film 40, 1981.
beforeGriffith.Edited by John Fell. San Ropars-Wuilleumier, Marie-Claire. "Nar
Francisco: U.C.L.A. Press, 1983. ration et signification". In Le cin?ma
_"Theatricality" and "Narrativity" am?ricain, tome 2. Edited by Raymond
in theWork of Georges M?li?s". In Bellour. Paris: Flammarion, 1980.
Working Paper Series. Montreal: Simon, Jean-Paul. "Remarques sur la
McGill University, 1982. temporalit? cin?matographique dans
Genette, G?rard. "Fronti?res du r?cit". In les films di?g?tiques". In Cin?mas de la
Communications 8. Paris: Seuil, 1966. modernit?: films, ?A?ories. Paris:
Gubern, Roman. "David Wark Griffith et Klincksieck, 1981.
l'articulation cin?matographique". In Ubersfeld, Anne. LEcole du spectateur.
Les Cahiers de laCin?math?que, No 17. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1981.
Perpignan, December 1975. -Lire le th??tre. Paris: Editions
Gunning, Tom. D. W. Griffith and the Sociales, 1978.
Narrator-System: Narrative Structure Vanoye, Francis. R?cit ?crit, r?citfilmique.
and Industry Organization inBiograph Paris: CEDIC, 1979.
Films (1908-1909). Unpublished doc Van Rossum-Guyon, Fran?oise. "Point de
toral dissertation. New York: New York vue ou perspective narrative". In

University, 1986. Po?tique A, 1970.

36 JOURNALOF FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring1987)

This content downloaded from 138.38.44.95 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:23:05 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions