NARRATION AND MONSTRATION IN THE CINEMA Author(s): ANDR 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: 20/06/2011 07:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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 support@jstor.org.

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

NARRATION AND MONSTRATION

ANDR? GAUDREAULT

IN THE CINEMA

scope of narratology has so greatly expanded of late that thosewho work with ithave sought towiden itsfield of applica bility. Film as narrative, however, poses for the rather serious problems narratologist whose conceptual tools for analysing works which liewell beyond the ken of that which can legitimately be called "literature" remain few in number. therefore, such already Consequently, The
ambivalent terms as

tion," or "narrator" pose problems when theyare used outside theirfield. Indeed, as soon as one leaves the realm of verbal nar rative (thatwhich is transmitted solely by words), it becomes difficult to locate or identifywith any degree of certainty the illocutionary origin of the narrative ?nonc?s. For, unlike most other narrative forms, the purely verbal narrative (novel, short story,tale, etc.) always presents itself (to a greater or lesser extent, which need not concern us immediately) as the pro duction of a "unified organizing con sciousness" which is responsible for the ?nonc?s. Whenever there is speech, some one is speaking. As soon as words are given the slightest organisation, they always already appear as the product of a particular speaker (whether s/hebe visible or not, anthropomorphic or not), and it is always relatively easy to identify with ANDR? GAUDREAULT is a professor in
of Litera Canada.

"narrative,"

"narra

Les Cahiers He has servedas special editorfor de la Cin?math?que (1979) and Iris (Paris,
devoted (Paris)

the film studies program, Department in Quebec, ture, at Laval University

(SUNY,

1984). He

will and narrativity be publishedbyKlincksieck

later this year.

to early cinema.

Purchase)

is co-director,

of a research project
His book on cinema

with

Tom

Gunning

some degree of certainty (or at least to name it, to give it a singluar name) the illocutionary origin of the narrative ?nonces. Such is notably the case for the scriptural narrative1 which always remains rooted in a "narrator" (in the strict sense: a basic function or agent responsible for conveying the narrative). This also gives rise to the numerous narratological problems which arise when ever a narrative seems to be produced by any of themany (sub)functions or agents such as the flesh and blood characters of the theatre or the "shadow and light" char move acters of the cinema which appear to about either on the stage or the screen quite autonomously (precisely because of their apparent "humanity"). Herein lies the origin of all the difficulties which emerge when the conceptual apparatus of narratology which has traditionally been devoted to thedescription of purely verbal (and more often than not of purely scrip tural) phenomena is transferred to the study of theatrical2 and filmic narrative. This iswhy it is of the utmost importance to distinguish clearly between the two basic means for conveying a storywhich can be called narration and monstration, as I have argued elsewhere (Gaudreault, In keeping with my Prol?gom?nes). hypotheses, scriptural narrative is con veyed only in the mode of narration (despite some quite spurious indicators of monstration) whereas theatrical narrative is conveyed of solely in the mode monstration3 (despite some equally spuri ous indicators of narration). But what exactly is the status offilmic nar rative? In which mode does the filmic narrative operate? Is it in a mode more akin to narration or to monstration? Or

? Copyright

1987 by Andr? Gaudreault

OF JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring 1987)

29

indeed isfilmic narrative not perhaps con veyed through a complex of narration and monstration? In their own way and in their own terms, many film theorists have answered this type of question, with dis tinctlydifferent results. It is quite obvious and quite undeniable that film "shows" things.But towhat extent (if at all) can it safely be assumed that film "narrates"? Consensus has yet to be reached. Indeed, the frequent hesitation between "narration" (to narrate) and "monstra tion" (to show) that occurs when it becomes necessary to identify the funda mental mode of film's story-telling func tion only serves to illustrate clearly that, initially,filmic temporality tends rather to situate itself on the side of theatre (of monstration) than on the side of scriptural narrative (of narration). Iuri Lotman states this in an almost peremptory man ner: "In every art related to sight and to iconic signs, only one time is possible: the present" (136). Of course, filmic narrative is based upon a kind of temporal manipu lation that is quite impossible in the theatre,but, as has often been noted, it still "does not possess (...) the temporal flexi bility of thewritten word" (Vanoye 179). It can undoubtedly perform certain tem poral feats (flashback, flashforward, etc.) which are for all intents and purposes for bidden to the theatre but, like the theatre, itdoes seem to be eternally "condemned" to being "the site of presence itself (Bellour 275). As Metz has pointed out, a middle of spectator arriving at a film in the a flashback could not possibly know that the pictures on the screen portray thepast, relative to some original time of "narra tion" (47). Indeed, ithas for all intents and purposes, become a common place to state that filmic narrative, like the theatre, knows only the present tense.4 Such a statement, which bears theweight of the obvious and which seems truly self-evident (indeed, so self-evident as to be suspect) represents, in

which my view, a blind spot of film theory is attributable yet again to "the most amazing magical apparatus there has ever been":5 the cinematograph. The question of the temporal modalities which filmic narrative sets into play is less simple than itmight appear and it is through it that I shall attempt to pose theproblem of film's
narrative modes.

The equivalence usually established between present time and monstration, on the one hand, and between past time and narration, on the other, seems hard to deny. Filmic narrative does appear to be inextricably linked to the contradiction this equivalence causes. This leads to con clusions with important consequences for the questions we are tryingto resolve. As a result, in a dissertation dealing mainly with the difficulties of adapting scriptural narrative for the screen, Michel Colin
states:

It appears therefore thatfilmic narra tive transforms novellistic narrative whose action is set in the past into a
narrative of the

forming "telling" into "showing". The novel "tells" what has happened whereas the file "shows" what is hap pening (...) [This] is determined by the fact that they result from two quite different "language acts", the novel "tells, the film shows" (156). Such a statement raises the crucial prob lem of thepossibility of film's access to the sphere of narration. The question of film's position in relation to the two modes of "telling" (or "narrating") and "showing" has often been raised. Unlike scriptural narrative, filmic narrative seems to fall under a form ofmimetic di?gesis,6 rather like the theatre.Would then the funda mental agent responsible for communicat ing the narrative of film therefore be a monstrator which, like the theatrical monstrator, would be deprived of the fac ulty of narration, despite some occasional

present,

by

trans

OF 30 JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring 1987)

manifestations of it? Would it be reason to say that this monstrator, able, however, as "grand image-maker," could carry out all thework ofmonstration without ever drawing upon the resources of narration? I thinknot. It seems tome that the instance which conveys filmic narrative is both a monstrator and a narrator, as I shall now attempt to demonstrate. main reasons why the theatrical One of the monstrator is unable to move beyond monstration lies in the fact that s/he (or, more accurately, it) is locked into a single temporal modality: the present. As Ivo Osolsobe has stated: "It could be said that the "grammar" of ostention knows only the indicative present tense"(417). is the present: in order to Monstration showwhat was, ithas to show it in thehere and now. The situation of the cinema is, however, quite different from that of the theatre "simply" because of the existence of editing, the activity which permits spatio-temporal segments to be articu lated together. Indeed, the theatre has no "... flashback, no fragmentation of the image seen at a glance, no framing and no breaking down of shots which, in the cin ema, lead the spectator by the hand" (Ubersfeld, L'Ecole 303-304). Indeed, the theatre and the cinema aremost often dis tinguished, at the narrative level, precisely by the fact that the instance responsible for filmic narrative can effectively direct the spectator. Without even pausing to consider the many temporal variations which it affords,we can agree that editing is theprivileged operations bywhich a cin
ematic "narrator"7 intervenes. This has in

ematic narrator. For, like the scriptural narrator, the filmic narrator imposes (or can impose) a look upon the spectator. This is to say, then, that the narrated world, of both filmic and scriptural narra tives, is the result of an intermediary look. And it is precisely this unavoidable pre supposition of an intermediary look8 which in turn implies the existence of a "time of reflection" on the part of the nar rating instance, a time which necessarily situates itself somewhere between the moment at which the events occurred (or are supposed to have occurred) and the moment at which they are perceived by the narratee.9 And this is not the case with "scenes" which have been produced by the monstrator, in the theatre or the cin
ema.

fact been indicated by all film theorists (Bal?sz, Mitry, Metz, etc.). It is therefore because of editing that the spectator gets the feeling that s/he does not watch the story which unfolds before him/her through his/her eyes alone. It is mainly through the successive positionings of the camera that the spectator comes to per ceive the role of this helper (who is sometimes an opponent!) which is the cin

rule of the game which theatre imposes upon itsmonstrator is to make "events appear to be happening in the present" (Van Rossum-Guyon 488). This is because the theatre "is a present which knows nothing of the past" (Thomas Mann quoted by Ubersfeld, Lire 243), "the (theatre) actor's work is an enuncia tion in thepresent which therefore forces the spectator to experience the fictional past physically, as though itwere in the present" (Ubersfeld, Lire 243). The physi cal presence of actors in the theatre produces in effect a "resurrection before which spectatorsmust forget that they are watching the past" (D. S. Likhatchev quoted by Lotman 136). Or as Michel Butor would say in his analysis of (scrip tural) narrative in the third person which lack any apparent narrator, "the distance between reported events and themoment at which they are reported obviously has no incidence" (77). The In the cinema as well (if,as I propose, the function of the monstrator is identified with theprocess of shooting thefilm) there isno possibility of opening a temporal gap, a breach within which the narrating

JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring OF 1987)

31

instance could allow itself to "reflect" upon theworld it narrates, conveying its substance through the filter of its view point. But this is not due to the immediacy of the spectator's vision, as in the theatre, nor, to say the same thing in other words, of the is it due to the coincidence spectator's visionwith the action which is the In the cinema, represented. shows something monstrator always which, in one way or another, has been. It is rather due to the coincidence between the action represented and the vision of the monstrator, that is to say of the camera, which can be said to have been delegated by themonstrator to occupy the place of the spectator during the period of the action to be recorded. the monstrator, any monstrator, clings so closely to the imme diacy of the "representation" that it is incapable of opening up this gap in the temporal continuum. That which I am shown nowmight verywell have been pro duced before it was shown tome;10 as a it remains a process of monstration It rigourously synchronous
"narration", to use

is because

fact a past made present, then certain edit ing operations (though clearly not all) allow for themastery of timewhich is one of the possibilities of all narrational activ the importance of Metz's ity.Whence reaction to the affirmation that "diegetic time is present time": "Is itnot rather the filmic image that is always in the present? And is the film, for itspart, like the novel, not always in the past?"(73) This observa tion, however, needs to be specified. The image, as a shot (as an uninterrupted flow of frames), is perceived as being in the present but editing allows for the irruption of a narrating instance which takes the spectator "by the hand" and makes him/ her undergo various temporal experi ences. Whence also the importance of distinguishing clearly between the time of action and the time of viewing, as Jean Paul Simon has suggested (58). It is through editing that the narrator can exercise its power over the narrated. And if it can be stated that editing is the opera tion which affords it the opportunity of abstracting itself from the present (the present itselfof the narrated), it isbecause this situation is entirely analogous to stan dard filmic practice outside of any narratological considerations. It is indeed the case that the editor (= the narrator) receives thematerial (= the shots) which have been recorded by the camera (= the monstrator); therefore he carries out his structuring activity only after the action "shown" has already reached an irrevoca ble end. And, just like the narrator of a scriptural narrative, this editor-narrator can henceforth become, to use Otto words (quoted by Kayser 81): Ludwig's ... the absolute master of time and space... He can do whatever thought can do, he represents without any of reality's fetters,he stages events with out a care for physical impossibility, he is endowed with all the powers of nature and of themind.

simultaneous
of Genette.

the words

(Fronti?res 158). Only the narrator can sweep us along on itsflying carpet through time. It is the intersection, themeeting, of two viewpoints, the viewpoint of the nar rator and the viewpoint of the narratee which opens up the gap allowing for tem poral "difference": I see now (indirectly in the case of scriptural narrative, "directly"11 in the case of filmic narrative) from without, that which the narrator adjutant saw before vat,from within. It is the narratorwho re-places before my eyes, in whatever order suits it, events which have already occurred. The conclusion which must be drawn from this cinematic situation is that it is the editing activity of the filmic narrator which allows for the inscription of a true narrative past.12 One must recognize that if the shot is in the present tense, if it is in

OF 32 JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring 1987)

In contrast, the cinematic monstrator is "caught" within the constrains of reality, of its reality: the camera, the reality of 24
frames

monstrator's activity is necessarily of a continuous nature (at least under normal conditions of shooting and exhibition). And this is so despite the fact that it is rooted initially indiscontinuity. The artic ulation between frames produces an intrinsic illusion of continuity which is founded on fundamentally discontinuous rawmaterial. Indeed, what could be more discontinuous than a succession of frames breaking down a movement? Between each pair of images, there is always and necessarily amissing interval, a gap,which even extreme slowmotion filming cannot eradicate. But during projection, the syn thetic operation thatbrings the pictures to "life", all discontinuity vanishes. And it is the lifebrought to the pictures which is (of necessity) in the present: the past is indeed rendered present. Ifwe return to Benveniste who states that thepresent is "the coincidence of the event described with the discursive instance describing it" (262) we must agree that the monstrator's product, the shot, is as tem porally ambiguous as could be. What exactly is the event described by the dis cursive instance which is themonstrator? Is it the event which occurs in frontof the camera during the recording process which is shooting?Or is it the event which occurs during the restitution process which is projection? As formyself, I have littledoubt that themonstrator's "speech act" occurs during projection but that the "event described" occurs at an earlier moment, during shooting. The illusion of thepresent provided by viewing the shot is then certainly nothing more than a simulacrum of the present. The fact remains, however, thatwhether past (as it is in realty) or present (as itpresents itself), the shot "shows with no distinction of temporal planes," as has stated Francis Vanoye (181), which has well understood

per

second.13

The

camera

that the film image "is not in the present even if for the spectator it unfolds in the present" (181). How then can this tem poral ambiguity be resolved? Quite easily if we consider the filmic monstrator's activity of monstration to be a type of quoting,14 regardless of whether one is dealing with a narrative of events or a nar rative inwords. Quite literally, the filmic monstrator quotes characters when they speak: it extracts a segment of linguistic reality and restores it linguistically (by means of the sound track).The same quot when it ing occurs, metaphorically, extracts from reality a segment of actions and gestures at the shooting stage and then restores them iconically on the filmic image. In a novel, the passage: "Then UP is said tobe in Pierre replied: / feel very the past, even though the sentence uttered by Pierre is in the present. The filmic monstrator does the same thingwhen it quotes (restores now what had occurred earlier) through the sound track the sen tencewhich Pierre had spoken and when it quotes in the present the gestures which Pierre had made.15 It remains the case, however, that the to which the "unipunctuality"16 monstrator is bound prevents it irreduci bly frommodulating the temporal flow of the narrative: it is an eternal past, which, even though it moves forward, can not be in any other terms. Only the conjugated narrator (= the editor) can inscribe, between two shots (bymeans of cuts and articulations) themark of its viewpoint, can introduce a guided reading and thereby transcend the temporal oneness which unavoidably constrains the dis course of monstration. Only through the articulations which it accomplishes can the filmic narrator become like the scrip tural narrator and "emphasize the tem poral distance between the present time of narration and the past time of the story" (Lintvelt 56). The narrator "speaks" through the articulations. As the "sover
eign speaker,"17 the narrator may choose

JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring OF 1987)

33

tomake its power over the temporal flow of the narrated more or less felt, and it enjoys nearly all the same powers of tem poral modulation as does the scriptural
narrator.

"narrate, it shows" (72). The fundamental instance responsible for communicating the filmic narrative is composed of two parts. Therein lies thenarrative originality and specificity of the cinema. The filmic
monstrator-narrator

It could thereforebe said that the cinema contains, each at a different level, two types of narrative. The shot is a sort of micro-narrative on whose basis is erected a second narrative at another, higher level. On thewhole, then, filmicnarrative is the result of the superimposition of two layers of narrativity, each of which belongs to one of the two "articulations"18 of thedou ble mobility characteristic of cinema: the articulation between frames and the artic ulation between shots, to use the terms set forth by Roman Gubern (8). These two layersof narrativity do not originate in the same type of semio-narrative operations and each ultimately presupposes the exis tence of two separate instances each responsible for their respective communi a In order to produce cation. filmic narrative, one "pluripunctual" must, firstof all, call upon a monstrator, which, during the shooting, records a mul titude of micro-narratives (the shots) which each possess, in the final analysis, a
certain narrative

syncretically the union, the merging of the two basic modes of narrative communica tion: narration and monstration. Translated from French by Paul Attallah and revised by Tom Gunning.
Notes

brings

about

Reference tural rather

quite simplytomark, within theverydesigna tion of the object of study, the necessary The expressionwrit and thevehicle (writing). too tennarrativelends itself easily to the idea of
coalescence between the product (the narrative)

will be made throughout than to written narrative

to scrip in order

a total autonomy of the two entities, with the too passive. At any first term being altogether rate, one also generally speaks of afilmic narra tive rather than of a filmed narrative. 2It should be noted narrative" rical

narratives are produced through the mode of monstration and cannot accede to the
status

autonomy.19

The

micro

that the expression "theat is used here to refer only to on stage and not to the play narrative produced under its written form which must be seen as a type of "scriptural narrative". 3This is a term which I have chosen in order to which is both avoid the use of "representation",

One must then call upon another narrating instance, the narrator, which will take and, charge of the micro-narratives depending on how "enamoured" with nar rative it is,will work upon their narrative substance in order to negate their auton material and omy. The narrator takes this inscribes its own viewpoint there, trans posing it into a continuous guided reading for the spectator. The cinema is, therefore, a complex of mimetic and non-mimetic dieg?sis di?g?sis, of monstration and narration, contrary to the conclusions of Francis Vanoye: "Strictly speaking, film does not

of narration,

as we

understand

it.

tle used, monstration does appear to be a more term. Without functional turning it into a nar rative mode, gave it recently a Betty Rojtman I adopted in my dissertation: which meaning to its "The theatre is mimetic and proposes of a lan the "monstration" audience-receiver guage articulated directly through the charac

toomarked and toopolys?mie.Though it is lit

cinema, that Xavier de France has also used this term with a somewhat different meaning. Con for the the basic agent responsible sequently, of a narrative of monstration communication such which stands as a theatre play is the "monstrator," as the narrator stands to monstration to narration. definitive

ters" (106). It shouldbe added, as regardsthe

an almost

4I myselfat one timesubscribedto thisidea as

5Ingmar Bergman, quoted fact. (Detours 47). without references

in the 1980 scheduleof the"Cin?matographe," thefilm societyof theColl?ge de Sainte-Foy in Qu?bec City. (TheRepublic, Book III) which is so named in
6This refers to Plato's concept of mimesis

34 JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring OF 1987)

It should be added, however, that imitation). mimetic diegesis here has a meaning somewhat different from the strict meaning Plato gave to his concept of mimesis which was worked out at a time when did not yet scriptural narrative really exist. See for further information my dis sertation 171) or my paper on (Prol?gom?nes

order to make its status as diegesis stand out. to general belief, Plato never opposed Contrary to diegesis. In his scheme, diegesis has mimesis two main forms: haple diegesis (simple narra tive) and diegesis dia m?meseos (narrative via

Wuileumier (19). 18"

view), we are dealing with composition through 83-84. montage". Quoted by Lotman 17I owe this to Ropars expression

pluripunctualcinema (withchanges inpoint of

are dealing

ema (single we point ofviewwithfixedcamera),

with pictural composition.

,6I have formed this noun from two terms put forward by Eisenstein: "In the unipunctual cin

In the

the subject (Mimesis).

7The inverted

not yet been resolved. 8As regards the cinema, the word "look" can I am not referring here to be rather confusing. era. I am referring rather to a "directed

has clearlythattheexistenceof sucha function

commas

should

indicate

matic

great that it tookabout 15years,from 1895 to were brought togetherinto 1910, before they the singlecontinuousflow and before thecine
narrator tence. On was thereby brought into exis this subject, see my articles dealing

Articulation" here bears no resemblance to its usage in linguistics. 19The autonomy of micro-narratives is so

the literallookwhich is a property thecam of

look"

with theoriginsof thecinema: (Detours, Theat and L'Arriv?e).See aswell ricality, Temporality
Tom

ments towhich I shall return) does notbind the

look to any particular guided read spectator's ing, as is true also of a scene in the theatre.

of shots. The "look" taposition with few exceptions (such as

world which is guided reading)at thenarrated obviouslypresupposedby the syntagmatic jux

of the camera, camera move

(a

birth of thefilmic narrator. It is furthermore probablyworth noting that theunderstanding was yearsof thecinema (at leastup until 1910), with consequences forthe which fraught way in
of the shot as an autonomous autonomous all narrative), unit (indeed, as an through the early

Gunning's

doctoral

dissertation,

on

the

9Iowe this idea to Michel Colin who said ina

conversation: "For there to be narration, there has to have been a narrator who stands outside the here and now of the ?nonce'. Likewise, if instance whose organizing after the filmed event." intervention occurs

film was understood at that time. Itwas because each shot was thought to be a kind of autono mous narrative that "temporal overlaps" were explains, inmy view, the essential particularity

so common in thefilms of theday. This also

thereisediting,there has tobe some necessarily

of almostall chasefilmsof theperiodwhichwas that any of the successive seriesof shotsonly

ended after all the pursuants had left the screen.

10In the theatre, it is assumed that the re events happened In the elsewhere. presented the same applies, with the additional cinema, to its re-presentation (therefore sentation) on the screen. 11 The inverted commas should this is in fact an illusion. its re-repre

thatthe work of theactors tookplace prior twist Works Cited

"L'instant du code". indicate that Bellour, Raymond.

12And, in all likelihood, of all the other tem of language. Consequently, the poral modalities narrator can draw upon the resources of the and of the optative: for example, the "sequence of possibilities" inwhich the two heroes flee in a car in Pierrot le fou (Jean-Luc conditional

Godard, 1965).

longas it is projected at the same speed. is 14Quoting the name I give to the typeof which is the faithfulreproduction of showing dialogue presumably spokenby the characters
of a scriptural 15 Quoting ent" again. narrative is a way of making the past "pres is in fact a way of Any quotation a moment from the past. reactualizing

,3Or 16 f.p.s. as in silent films. Or, in fact, at any speed (greater than 10 f.p.s. below which the illusion of continuous movement ceases) so

(Gaudreault,Prol?gom?nes 154).

(-

reported

speech).

In Le cin?ema am?ricain, tome 2. Edited by Raymond Bellour. Paris: Flammarion, 1980. Emile. Probl?mes de Benveniste, linguistique g?n?rale, tome 1. Paris: Gallimard, 1966. Butor, Michel. Essais sur le roman. Paris: Gallimard, 1969. Colin, Michel. Film: la transformationdu texte du roman. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Paris: Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, 1974. de France, Xavier. El?ments de du cin?ma. Paris: sc?nographie Universit? de Paris X, 1982.

JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring OF 1987)

35

Gaudreault, Andr?. "De L'Arriv?e d'un train ? The Lonedale Operator: une trajectoire ? parcourir". InDavid Wark Paris: L'Harmattan/ Griffith. Publications de la Sorbonne, 1984. in Film Narrative: the _"Detours Development ofCross-Cutting". InCin ema Journal. Illinois, 1979. _"Mimesis, di?g?sis et cin?ma". In Recherches S?miotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, vol. 5, 1. Toronto, 1985. _R?cit scriptural r?cit th??tral, r?cit filmique: prol?gom?nes ? une th?orie narratologique du cin?ma. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Paris: Universit? de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1983. and Narrativity in -"Temporality In Film Early Cinema (1895-1908)". beforeGriffith.Edited by John Fell. San
Francisco: U.C.L.A.

raconte le "Qui Kayser, William, roman?". In Po?tique du r?cit. Paris: Seuil, 1977. Lintvelt, Jaap. Essai de typologie narra tive.Paris: Librairie Jos? Corti, 1981. Lotman, Iouri.Esth?tique et s?miotique du Paris: cin?ma. Editions Sociales, 1977. Metz, Christian. Essais sur la signification au cin?ma, tome 2. Paris: Klincksieck, 1972. Ivo. "Cours de th??tristique Osolsobe, g?n?rale". In Etudes litt?raires,vol. 13, No. 3. Qu?bec: Presses de l'Universit? 1983. Laval, December Rojtman, Betty. "D?sengagement du Je dans le discours indirect". In Po?tique 40, 1981. ration et signification". In Le cin?ma am?ricain, tome 2. Edited by Raymond Bellour. Paris: Flammarion, 1980. sur la Simon, Jean-Paul. "Remarques dans temporalit? cin?matographique les films di?g?tiques". In Cin?mas de la modernit?: films, ?A?ories. Paris: 1981. Klincksieck, Ubersfeld, Anne. LEcole du spectateur. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1981. -Lire le th??tre. Paris: Editions Sociales, 1978. Vanoye, Francis. R?cit ?crit, r?cit filmique. Paris: CEDIC, 1979.
Van Fran?oise. "Point Rossum-Guyon, vue ou narrative". perspective de In Ropars-Wuilleumier, Marie-Claire. "Nar

_"Theatricality" in theWork

and "Narrativity" In of Georges M?li?s". Working Paper Series. Montreal: McGill University, 1982. Genette, G?rard. "Fronti?res du r?cit". In Communications 8. Paris: Seuil, 1966. Gubern, Roman. "David Wark Griffith et l'articulation cin?matographique". In Les Cahiers de laCin?math?que, No 17. Perpignan, December 1975. Gunning, Tom. D. W. Griffith and the
Narrator-System: Narrative Structure

Press,

1983.

and Industry Organization inBiograph Films (1908-1909). Unpublished doc toral dissertation. New York: New York University, 1986.

Po?tique A, 1970.

36 JOURNAL FILM AND VIDEO XXXIX, (Spring OF 1987)