Who Did It?

Keywords: Narratives, Spectator, Immediacy, Modernism, Postmodernism

Sergio Tavares
selutava@jyu.fi
slt.filho@gmail.com
Master of Arts in Digital Culture
University of Jyvskyl
2009

The following analysis relates to the transition from modernist to postmodern
cinema/audiovisual, and the understanding of how the focus has changed from one era
to another is essential to understand how new media (and especially computers) can be
perceived on contemporary society.
What is seen on the film Cach (Michael Haneke, 2005) is an unsolved mystery: this
analysis will try to understand how an interpretation of it can display several of the most
contemporary ideas on media, such as immediacy, transparency, interaction and
repositioning the audience. Although it is a practice that comes from early cinema, as it
will be presented, in contemporary media paradigm it seems to make much sense and to
represent a stronger tendency.
Hopefully it will also pose questions about how texts are viewed by the readers nowadays
and if there are possibilities of subverting, creating or enhancing the experience of
interpretation. Finally, the essay makes a modest attempt to classify Cach as a modernist
or postmodernist film. Together, the answers provided and discussions raised by the
article are an important part of the whole study presented by this compilation as a thesis,
since it goes from traditional narrative to subversive storytelling. Using traditional media
but already aiming the effects of new media might raise an important question: where is,
exactly, the change on new media?
Cach: plot outline
Cach
1
, portrays the fictional story of a couple terrorized by the mysterious arrival of
videotapes through the mail, a fact that may be related to events occurred years ago, when
the protagonist, Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteuil) had issues with his adopted brother.
Once the investigations take place, several conflicts unfold, from the characters childhood

1
Cach. Dir. Michael Haneke. Les Films du Losange. 2005.
to a marriage crisis caused by the investigations.
2
However, the question of who delivered
the tapes, of what generated the entangling mystery, remains unanswered.
Reader, narrator and author: at the same room
An interpretation of the plot solution leads us to a conclusion that may open a discussion
about an unusual form of narration. The relevance of such discussion is justified by new
ways of creating meaning and interaction with the viewer, an interaction that may be
broadened by new media technology as, for example, the internet as a supporting media to
film, books or other 'texts'. This Under the paradigm of new media this interaction might
have raised the demand for interactivity, not in the usual way of films talking to
audience, but rather a demand for the audience to reach a different status, closer to the
film development (matters that are going to be discussed on this and other essays
contained on this compilation of articles). What follows is not the complete analysis of the
film, but discussions on this specific interpretation that answers the film question who
delivered the tapes to the protagonists? by saying that who did it was Michael (aneke
himself.
According to Tzvetan Todorov, Russian formalist, the genre of the fantastic narrative
may belong to the eerie universe as Edgar Allan Poes stories, where mysteries are
solved by unusual, but rationally explainable coincidences) or to the marvelous universe,
where facts are explained by supernatural phenomena
3
.
However, the particular interpretation on Cach presented by this work invites us to
engage on a peculiar form of narrative: the fact would have an acausal genesis, apart
from the diegesis
4
of the film. It may not even be considered a non-digetic feature, like the
soundtrack score that the viewer listens and that the characters do not, for this soundtrack
belongs to the film, but not to the fictional universe: tthere characters do not hear the
music, but the viewer does (HAYWARD, 2000). The fantastic event (the mysterious
delivery of the tape to the protagonists has no cause inside the storys world, not
supernatural, not rational, not even a deus ex machina situation.
5
It might be perceived as

2
IMDB, Cach. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387898/ Access in September 30, 2009.
3
Todorov, Tzvetan. Pour une theorie du recit [For a Theory of Prose]. Sao Paulo, SP: Perspectiva,
2001. P. 35
4
Diegesis refers to narration, the content of the narrative, the fictional world as described inside
the story, Ub film it refers to all that is really going on on-screen, that is, to fictional reality.
Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies, The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. 84-86.
5
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, deus ex machina is an expression in Latin that means
a power, event, person, or thing that comes in the nick of time to solve a difficulty; providential
interposition, esp. in a novel or play. "Deus ex machina." Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 30 Sept.
counter-cinema or deconstruction, that is, practices of cinema that subvert the usual
cinematographic narration, codes and practices (HAYWARD, 2000:80).
In deus ex machina, the author intervenes on the story as a direct agent, without
empowering any character to make the intervention (having the tapes delivered). Inside
the world of Cach, which is depicted as the real world no supernatural forces, but a
rather rational investigation about who delivered the tapes) there is not, allegedly, an
agent; no character delivered the tape, no divinity, no force of nature, no miracle. Much is
advocated against the use of such tool (Aristotle, 2001), since it is a simple solution that
compromises the verisimilitude as well the suspension of disbelief. That goes, for example,
to a film portraying the sufferings and struggles of a poor family which, in the end, simply
finds a lottery ticket flying over the property. It is a picturesque example that serves to
understand why the tool of deus ex machina is often criticized and treated as scriptwriting
inadequacy.
However Haneke uses this artifice in a different way; it is precisely the deus ex machina
that generates the mystery in the story, and unlike the common usage of this narrative
structure, which often portrays the miracle of the deus ex machina as a coincidence, a
divine manifestation or a force of nature, the agent is external to the narrative. We might
remember of P.T. Andersons Magnolia, where people that lived by or crossed a street
named Magnolia had their lives changed on a night that frogs fell from the sky
6
. In this
case, it is possible to think that it is also a direct intervention from P.T. Anderson to the
diegetic world of the characters empowered by a God-like force. (anekes works, on the
other hand, relates more to the idea of interaction and post-modern film, if his films are to
be considered together as an opus
7
.
In Cach there is a cause for the delivery of the tapes. It lies, however (and accordingly to
the present interpretation), outside the narratives universe. Thus the fact is not
completely acausal, having its genesis on the author himself, on peculiar way of deus ex
machina where there is no divinity empowered but the author himself, and an

2009.
<http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063682?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=dieges
is&first=1&max_to_show=10>. From the Aristotelian point of view, the deus ex machina resource is
criticized for offering an easy solution with not much truth likeness. [] the incidents should be
nothing illogical; and should anything illogical be necessary. Aristotle. Poetics. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum, University of Copenhagen, 2001. Print. Pp. 30-32.
6
Magnolia. Dir. P.T. Anderson. New Line Cinema. 1999.
7
A work or production in any of the arts; a production or performance more generally. "Opus."
Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00333025?query_type=word&queryword=opera&first=1&
max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&result_place=2>.
intervention that is so subtle that does not take place within the screen, being part of the
film: the viewer wont see (aneke leaving the tapes at the couples mailbox; the viewer
will only realize that if reflecting about the movie after the movie has ended.
Usual interventions made by authors consist in the author empowering a character to
perform interventions relevant to the story. They can be either a thunder storm or odd
coincidences (if the story follows no supernatural occurrences). In another case, the
author will empower supernatural forces to do so, creating a fantastic diegetic (fictional)
universe. But in Cach, it is hard to believe that a supernatural force delivered the tapes.
Differently from a fantastic tale where tapes materialize on a room it is very unlikely
that Haneke was trying to write a science fiction film about spontaneous materialization of
objects, or even an eerie story about dream and madness, being the case of the characters
imagining the whole conflict). It is possible, though, to affirm: who delivered the tape was
Michael Haneke.
This direct intervention of the author on the universe of the narrative changes the
perception of the whole narrative experience, since the reader knows (or gets to know
after the story has ended) there is an external agent acting on the diegetic universe of the
story.
Furthermore, this agent (the film director) shares the same world (or level, or dimension)
as the reader: we might suppose that Haneke is in Germany, or in France, or shooting a
new movie while the viewer is watching the film, and the entangling idea is that even
being part of the real world he was able to sneak inside the story and put the tape at the
characters house.
The lack of a logical, rational or supernatural explanation within the narrative that
explains the appearance of the tape in the characters bedroom implies an agent located
outside the whole universe of the characters. In other words, it is an agent that is able to
travel between the real and fictional world. Viewer, author and characters are taken to a
similar level.
)t might be relevant to illustrate how (anekes intervention, on this interpretation of
Cach, should not be classified as an extra-diegetic feature. (is intervention does not
belong to the level of the fictional world. Seymor Chatman brings some interesting
discussions on the topic, based on Grard Genettes graphic of the narrative elements
8
.





Figure 3.1: Based on Grard Genettes graphic, the illustration of Hanekes intervention on
the fictional world.
On one hand, such position may set a fracture on the narrative diegesis and weaken its
verisimilitude
9
(or truth likeness), generating an undesired effect of breaking the illusion
of the film. Haneke dodged this effect by creating the expectation that the viewer would

8
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell
U.P. 1978:150

9
Verisimilitude is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the fact or quality of being
verisimilar; the appearance of being true or real; likeness or resemblance to truth, reality, or fact;
probability. As the dictionary states, it is a term also applicable to statements or narratives.
Verisimilute Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50276413?single=1&query_type=word&querywor
d=verisimilitude&first=1&max_to_show=10>.

(fictional universe)
(level of action)
ImpliedAuthor Implied Reader
Narrator Addressee
(real world: level of nonfictional communication)
Character 1 Character 2
MICHAEL HANEKE
find a solution to the mystery until the end of the film (never breaking the illusion, never
showing he could be the one responsible for delivering the tapes). However this solution
never comes and the viewer is compelled to think of the possibilities after the movie is
over. In this sense, Haneke preserves the sense of reality and narrative cohesion until the
final credits appearance, to only play his deus ex machina trick afterwards and thus
preserve the suspension of disbelief
10
.
Stepping a little out of this analysis, we might consider an example that illustrates how a
director might break in the films diegesis: Alfred (itchcock appeared in nearly 37 self-
referential cameos in his movies, from 1926 to 1976. The appearances were usually plain,
as a passerby trying to catch a bus in North by Northwest (1959), or even glancing at the
camera on a corridor as in Marnie (1964)
11
. That may have been a playful way Hitchcock
used to interact with the viewer, stating that there he was, the magician behind the
curtain, offering the viewer another story.
On (anekes Cach, although theres no appearance, the intervention is much stronger,
considering that he was the one who delivered the tapes to the main characters. If
Hitchcock would play with the spectator in this manner, we might think of him changing
the position of crime evidences, or stashing the crime weapon somewhere else which
would consist on a very diverse way of storytelling and definitely break the feeling of
verisimilitude, since his movies were mainly crime stories and the audience most probably
wanted, first and foremost, to see the mystery being solved in a rational, investigative
manner.
Since (aneke didnt appear on the screen, the viewer will only realize the directors
interference after the movie has ended. But Hitchcock and his cameos are an interesting
way of perceiving the director within the narrative waiving to us, the viewers.
A reality-game?
Regarding the problem of diegesis and verisimilitude, it is proper to claim that a strong
diegesis is more based on coherency rather than physical laws or the boundaries of
rationality. If the characters remain loyal to their natural and spontaneous reactions, the

10
The notion that an audience watching a fictional film permits itself to believe that the story is
believable. Argentinean writer Jorge Luis Borges has a very succinct definition for that: [The Actor]
on a stage plays at being another before a gathering of people who play at taking him for that other
person. from Everything and Nothing, Borges, Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings,
Donald A. Yates and James E. Irby, eds. New York: New Directions, 1962, p. 248.

11
Alfred Hitchcock - The Master of Suspense. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://hitchcock.tv/cam/cameos.html>.
diegesis coherence is preserved. Every fictional work projects purely intentional objects
outside the narrative
12
, that is, the story must convince the viewer that the object
depicted could exist as autonomous objects on the real world (people, places, cities etc).
On (aneke, however, the object of the actor who delivered the tapes is not a projection,
but Haneke himself. If so, the viewer is facing a narrative with a direct external
interference, and a very contemporary and popular analogy would be the reality-shows,
where characters on a closed environment develop a narrative and suffer specific external
influence by an agent (the public, for example).
Hence Cach is a film that places the reader on a higher level of participation, as an
accomplice of the author, witnessing the authors intervention over the aquarium where
the characters are: in a way, the feeling of standing on the shoulder of a giant that not only
had the power to create all the narratives and character, but also to intervene on it the
way he wants.
After the film ends, the puzzle lingers on. Will the reader realize the agent is the author
only after the end of the narrative? The reader may even become part of the authors
game, becoming another character trying to figure out who delivered the tapes. Or on a
written/narrated text, even the narrator, allegedly omniscient, might question who
performed that action. After that, it is possible to ask when the story has really ended if
we have reached a point where the reader is one of the characters, does the narrative end
in the aftermath, in the real world?
The possibilities are multiple, and if not new phenomena, we might ask what is new on the
media paradigm that makes these features more relevant, more appropriate or more in
line with the context: will they make more sense as new media becomes more interactive?
We might also wonder about narratives that openly display to the viewer this kind of
direct intervention, or even how the characters would react within the story if they knew
that someone is able to do such illogical interferences.
New media, with its channels and platforms, allow the viewer to have much more power of
interaction even a power that the viewer may not want to have. But taking interpretation
on account, we might discover such potential of interaction and agency in other ways.

12
Rosenfeld, Anatol. A Personagem de Ficcao [The Fictional Character]. Sao Paulo, SP:
Perspectiva, 2005, p. 15
Supporting websites, cross-media of all kinds, puzzles, enigmas, investigations gathering
different kinds of media are possible, making the opera even more broad, abstract and
open. As the content of internet is unlimited and overtly accessible, an author might even
lead the text's intention to the web and the range of possibilities becomes broadens up.
Such freedom of choice is not always welcomed by the viewer, who often prefers to be a
spectator rather than a co-author.
Apart from viewers co-authoring and making their own intentions as authors on the texts
(useful to remember Umberto Eco declaring that the texts have intentions of their own)
13
,
it is possible to realize that when author, narrator and reader reach the same level, there
are also less hierarchically fixed parts and, thus, a puzzling and exciting experience may be
proposed, somewhat differently from what viewers are used to.
Modernism, Postmodernism, Self-reflection: a change in the mirror
position
The characters of Cach rationality wont solve (anekes game, unless they consider at
some point that they are characters in a film. Having that in mind, we might straight-
forwardly ask: are we all characters on (anekes story?
Regardless if we are or if we are not, as viewers, we must find the path from difficulty of
interpretation to the stability (perhaps to the instability) of realizing the obvious fact that
hes at the same the same in our physical world as the director, but as a director who can
cross the frontier of fictional and real world. It is important to remember that after the
reader realizes this, there is a change on the paradigm, and the reader assumes a role that
is closer to the role of Haneke: if not the role of an agent, the role of an accomplice of the
director.
The modernist film is essentially self-reflexive, usually drawing attention to the medium of
narration, that is, to the way the story is told, such as graphics, aesthetics, subverting the
chronological order of the narrative. There is also a very influence of modernization,
rationality, technology, science and knowledge. But post-modernist film (as well as post-
modernism in a whole) has not a clear definition of what it is. Pluralist, a product of social,
political and cultural agendas, post-modern film is a vague concept
14
.
Under the light of Cach, however, we might think that the self-reflexive feature of
modernist film is turning the mirror to the audience: post-modernism seem to be, still,

13
Eco, Umberto. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Ed. Stefan Collini. New York: Cambridge UP,
1992. Pp. 76-77.
14
Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies, The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge, 2000. Pp. 232-242, 274-
285.
self-reflexive. Discussions about the media have never been so heated, but the element of
narcissism seems less present on its metalanguage.
)n Michael Winterbottoms 24 Hours Party People the main character speaks directly to the
camera, breaking the 4th wall
15
; or in Karel Reizss The French Lieutenant, a film where
actors and characters lives interconnect and overlap. Haneke himself has a wide use of
4th wall break and fictive universe subversion in Funny Games (Michael Haneke, Denmark,
1997, and USA, remake, 2007), where the characters speak and look at the audience and
even rewind the movie with a remote control in order to change the course of the
narrative.
We can see a prominent participation on the viewer here, not in the web . mode, but
one step closer to that participation and interaction seem a reality much closer from
these narrations than in previous types of narratives or attempts to interaction.


Figure 2. Pulp fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1995): focus on narrative subversion

15
Defined by art critic Vincent Canby, the 4
th
wall is that invisible screen that forever separates the
audience from the stage, and here, in this case, the wall that separates the audience from the film.
Film view: sex can spoil the scene review. Canby, Vincent. New York Times. Late Edition (East
Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Jun 28, 1987. p. A.17.

Figure 3. Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2007): focus on interaction with spectator

Figure 4. Funny Games (Michael Haneke, 2007): and with the medium devices
Something larger than the film
In Horse Feathers (Mark Z. McLeod, 1932), starred by the Marx Brothers
16
, one character
sits by a piano and another one turns to the audience, breaking the 4
th
wall, and states:
)'ve got to stay here, but there's no reason why you folks shouldn't go out into the lobby
until this thing blows over. That illustrates that the breakage of the 4
th
wall is not
something new. Woody Allen writes and directs an ode to this rupture with The Purple
Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen, 1985), telling the story of a waitress that goes to the movie
theater everyday and is surprised by the leading character getting out of the screen and
living an adventure with her in the real world
17
.
Those ruptures were, however, showing fictional characters relating to the audience. What
we see in (anekes Cach or Funny Games is a relation of interaction, as well, however with
different undertones: the relation to the audience does not come from the diegetic
universe the audience, in postmodern cinema, doesnt seem to be interested in talking to
the characters but rather in relating to the movie makers, almost as in a participatory way
it is not even necessary to say that this is what new media is increasingly providing, a
participatory culture. The audience seems to be demanding a different position in relation
to the film.
That is intimately in line with the way self-reflection happens in post-modern film. This
cinema is no longer allured with the possibilities of the device and the graphic effects it
might show, but the self-reflection is still present, in the sense of an awareness of the
movie, of the medium and not only awareness, but there is, in several filmmakers, an
attempt to reach the audience beyond film.
In Cach, Haneke himself enters the diegetic world as his own deus ex machina device. In
Funny Games, the characters are playing with a film, but the perpetrators of the torture are
not exactly part of that film, they are more of intruders, who break the 4
th
wall and relate
to the audience in some points, who even rewind the film when their plans get frustrated.
The magical illusion films can produce doesnt seem as alluring as the possibility of playing
actively with the viewer: we all know what can be reached in terms of special effects, but
can movies see the viewer? When Redacted (2007, by Brian DePalma) features YouTube
videos, when Funny People (2008, Judd Apatow) opens up with amateur footage and fills

16
The Marx Brothers: Groucho, Chico and Harpo Marx, successful comediats of stage and motion
pictures. hico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo - The Marx Brothers. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.marx-brothers.org/index.htm>.
17
"The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089853/>.
the screen with YouTube videos, or when Distric 9 (2008, Neill Blomkamp) simulates a
documentary with several minutes of raw footage, those examples signal the real
interaction that has risen from new media. This interaction lies on culture, the culture
where the viewer finds himself immersed in; it is a matter of leveling film directors and
viewer to the same level: whats on the screen appears to be the same material that the
viewer himself handles or produces.
Considering the self-reflexive undertone of modernist film, we might think that in the
YOU era relevant to remember Time Magazines person of the year: You, with the
picture of a YouTube screen, on December 2006), the reality-TV era, the medium is still
self-reflexive but changing the mirror direction towards the audience and taking a step
forward.
In 2001, Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller created an art installation for the Canadian
Pavilion at the Venice Bienalle. Their aim was to deal with cinema language and
experience, therefore a small film theater was created showing an ordinary film (a
pastiche of genres) and different surrounding sounds, apart from the film narrative, with
whispered sentences as Did you check the stove before we left?
18
. This play with the
layers of experience on cinema is relevant to this discussion: the artwork is proposing that
the film experience proposes something bigger than the film; the film experience would
then be a sum of parts that may be exterior to the fictional film, and that result in
something that is beyond the ordinary reception. On Cardiff & Bure the elements were
material sound, in (anekes films, the narrative solution or the characters invading the
screen and using the remote control were responsible for the creation of a similar effect.
The possibilities, therefore, are plural and the question is not if these features are new, but
rather why they seem to make more sense at this point of media history, and how it would
be possible to enhance these attempts in order to fulfill the audiences expectations, that
seem to grow not only towards the direction of interaction, but rather to a position of
participation: by that, the key concept doesnt seem to be participation on voting or
choosing the protagonists actions, but rather sharing something with the characters, with
the film creator/creation, or even, ultimately, seeing themselves on the screen.

18
The Paradise Institute | 2001." Janet Cardiff & George Bures Miller. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.cardiffmiller.com/artworks/inst/paradise_institute.html>.

Figure 5. The Paradise Institute. Installation View, 2001.

If in future narrative constructions the viewer is willing to take part on what the directors
are proposing from breaking the 4
th
wall and narrative strategies to create agency, to,
lets say, virtual reality and active
st
person participation is on your behalf.
References
"| The Paradise Institute | 2001." Janet Cardiff & George Bures Miller. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.cardiffmiller.com/artworks/inst/paradise_institute.html>.
"Deus ex machina." Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063682?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=diege
sis&first=1&max_to_show=10>.
"Diegesis." Oxford English Dictionary. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50063682?single=1&query_type=word&querywor
d=diegesis&first=1&max_to_show=10>.
"Magnolia (1999)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0175880/>.
"The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 30 Sept.
2009. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089853/>.
Alfred Hitchcock - The Master of Suspense. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://hitchcock.tv/cam/cameos.html>.
Aristotle. Poetics. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, University of Copenhagen, 2001. Print.
Cach. Dir. Michael Haneke. Les Films du Losange / Studio Canal, 2005. Film.
Cach. Dir. Michael Haneke. Perf. Daniel Auteuil, Juliette Binoche. Film. 2005. "Cach."
International Movie Database. 2001. IMDB. 5 Dec. 2008
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387898/>.
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell U.P. 1978:150
Chico, Harpo, Groucho, Gummo, Zeppo - The Marx Brothers. Web. 30 Sept. 2009.
<http://www.marx-brothers.org/index.htm>.
District 9. Dir. Neill Blomkamp. TriStar Picture, 2009. DVD.
Eco, Umberto, and Richard McKay Rorty. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Ed. Stefan
Collini. New York: Cambridge UP, 1992.
Funny Games US. Dir. Michael Haneke. Warner Home Video, 2007. DVD.
Funny People. Dir. Judd Apatow. Universal Pictures, 2009. DVD.
Hayward, Susan. Cinema studies, the key concepts. New York: Routledge, 2000.
Magnolia. Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson. Warner Bros., 1999. Film.
McHale, Brian. Constructing Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Pulp Fiction. Dir. Quentin Tarantino. Miramax, 1994. DVD.
Redacted. Dir. Brian DePalma. HDNet Films. 2007. DVD.
Rosenfeld, Anatol. A Personagem de Ficcao [The Fictional Character]. Sao Paulo, SP:
Perspectiva, 2005.
The Purple Rose of Cairo. Dir. Woody Allen. Orion Pictures Corporation, 1985. DVD.
Todorov, Tzvetan. Pour une theorie du recit [For a Theory of Prose]. Sao Paulo, SP:
Perspectiva, 2001.