Ner This aesthetic closely approximates that of the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida. The accompanying process of displacement makes possible the fulfillment of a repressed desire through a series of surro- gate images, since it transfers to the latter the affect which properly belongs to the former. That consolidation was effected by Jacques Lacan. Email required Address never made public. Speech, on the other hand, has an individual and localized existence.

Author:Bakora Fauran
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):1 December 2008
PDF File Size:5.18 Mb
ePub File Size:12.16 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Considerable doubt has recently been cast on the subversive potential of a cinematic avant-garde which dispenses not only with narrative but with any non-specific meaning — of a filmic practice which attempts to foreclose altogether on diegetic orchestration, secondary identification and representation.

The question of the object is also the question of the subject, since it is through a specific scopic and auditory relation to the former that the latter is both constituted and culturally positioned: We have recently posed the question as to whether the alienation of the viewing subject which is induced by the system of suture is irreducible, or whether it might not be possible to do away with it through some perversion of the apparatus: for example, by inscribing into a film the means of production, or by rendering the screen opaque by multiplying its iconic or sonorous traces to the point of undifferentiation or unreadability, thus obliterating the fantasmatic scene and —literally— returning the spectator to his place.

One could expound at length on the interest of this operation, and on its implementation. It is certain that it mobilizes the gaze differently, induces it to wander across the surface, towards the decor, that opens to it other adventures. But it is not certain from these adventures are of a fundamentally different nature from the derivatives of representation, nor that they effect a fundamental social subversion —a subversion in the paths crossed by desire and the social.

Beneath these facile conflicts of imaginary profundity and surface real remains the question of the object— what to do, what is to be done, with the look? And the voice? As Bonitzer emphasizes elsewhere in the same discussion, the look is not to be confused with the image track, nor the voice with the sound track. Rather, the look is "submitted to the work of the image track," and the voice to that of the sound track. These points might best be defined as "subjective spaces" since it is through insertion into them that the viewer assumes a given subjectivity.

They come into play only in relation to an object, and entertain with that object a potential reversibility for instance, the object in one sl ot may very well become the space from which the look proceeds in the next. The field thus constituted —the field brought into existence by the positioning of the look and voice in relation to a cinematic object— is described by Bonitzer as a "fantasmatic scene". Fantasmatic has here a double valence. It evokes both what Metz would call the "imaginariness" of the filmic object.

What this means is that the first of the performative positions cited above is literally synchronized with the third, and the second with the fourth; the condition of seeing is associated with that of speaking, and the condition of being seen with that of being overheard.

The potential fluidity of the fantasmatic scene is in this way arrested, and its combinative possibilities circumscribed. As Fredric Jameson remarks in The Politics of Unconscious, a "libidinal apparatus" is always "a machinery for ideological investment"; it provides "the vehicle for our experience of the real. I do not mean narrative in the narrow sense of story fabula and characters or logical structure actions and actants , but in the broadest possible sense of discourse conveying temporal movement and positionalities of desire, be they written, oral or narrative forms



Columbus: Ohio State University Press, Butte details why this matters in terms of subjectivity, embodiment, and ultimately community, searching through various case studies in both film and print in order to reconsider the status of suture in contemporary narratological studies. One of the central figures whom Butte indicts is the French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. This shift from loss to presence enables Butte to traverse relatively uncharted theoretical terrain, ushering the reader effortlessly from Sylvia Plath to Atul Gawande, Robert Bresson to Alfred Hitchcock, and Luce Irigaray to Toni Morrison among others. Butte hopes to salvage what remains of suture from classical suture theory, endorsing espousal over lack, presence over absence, and immanence or embodiment over transcendence. Barrie, and the Coen Brothers, Butte attempts to disentangle networks of intersubjectivities latent in fiction and film narratives 5.


On Kaja Silverman’s Notion of "Suture" in Film Theory

I need only, to make them reappear, pronounce the names: By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. Not only is the content of each xuture to contrast markedly with the other, but the form as well. The chapters of this book approach the connection be- tween psychoanalysis and semiotics in a variety of ways, but each argues that signification occurs only through discourse, that discourse requires a subject, and that the subject itself is an effect of discourse. Each of the two parts silvwrman the lin- From Sign to Subject, A Short History 9 guistic sign is itself arbitrary, which is another way of saying that neither part has any prior or autonomous existence: Never- theless, Saussure not only maintains the distinction between the two categories, but privileges the former over the latter.

Related Articles