• Journal of English Language & Literature
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.565-588
• /
• 2012

This paper aims at reconsidering 'suture,' a key concept in early Lacanian film criticism, with a view to narrowing a supposed gap between early Lacanian and later Lacanian film criticism. Early Lacanian film theorists, among whom Jean-Pierre Oudart, Jean-Louis Baudry, Laura Mulvey and Daniel Dayan, to name a few, are prominent, focus on cinematic signifying system as well as its ideological effects on shaping subjectivity of the audience. Initiated by Jacques-Alain Miller's article on suture as the logic of signifier and grafted into film as the logic of the cinematic by Oudart's writing, the concept of suture was established as a key word in early Lacanian film criticism. In their taxonomy, suture refers to the processes by which the audience are stitched into the story-world of a film. The audience are drawn into the film and take up positions as subjects-within-the-film such that they make sense of and respond to what the film represents as they are encouraged to do so by the film itself. On the other hand, later Lacanian film critics, who are much influenced by Lacan's later emphasis on the Real, focus on concepts such as gaze, petit objet a, fantasy, rather than suture. They are more concerned with the failure of suture and the disruption of the Symbolic than the ideological effects of suture and the consolidation of the Symbolic. They require a break from the previous approach of Lacanian film theory which centers around the Imaginary and the Symbolic. However, early Lacanian and later Lacanian film theory do not manifest as much disparity as they are supposed to do, for both are against the ideological manipulation of suture. Slavoj Žižek, a leading scholar of later Lacanian psychoanalysis, revives the concept of suture as a patch of the Symbolic which covers the gap, if not always successful.

• Trans-
• /
• v.3
• /
• pp.55-86
• /
• 2017

This study begins with the necessity of the concept of reincarnation of film media and the inclusion of specific tendencies of contemporary films as post - cinema comes. Variable movements around recent films Challenging and experimental films show aesthetics that are difficult to approach with the analysis of classical mise en scene and montage. In this way, I review the dispositif proposed by Martin in films that are puzzling to criticize with the classical conceptual framework. This is because the concept of dispositive is a conceptual pile that extends more than a mise en scene and a montage. Dispositif films tend to be non-reproducible and non-narrative, but not all non-narrativef tendencies are dispositif films. Only the dispositif film is included in the flow. Dispositif movement has increased dramatically in the modern environment on which digital technology is based, but it is not a tendency to be found in any particular age. The movement has been detected in classical films, and the dispositif tendency has continued to exist in avant-garde films in the 1920s and some modernist films. First, for clear conceptualization of cinematic dispositif, this study examines the sources of dispositif debates that are being introduced into film theory today. In this process, the theory of Jean Louis Baudry, Michel Foucault, Agamben, Flusser, and Deleuze will help. The concept of dispositif was discussed by several scholars, including Baudry and Foucault, and today the notion of dispositif is defined across all these definitions. However, these various discussions are distinctly different from the cinematic dispositif or dispositif films that Martin advocates. Martin's proposed concept reminds us of the fundamentals of cinematic aesthetics that have distinguished between the mise-en-scene and the montage. And it will be able to reconsider those concepts and make it possible to view a thing a new light or create new films. The basic implications of dispositif are apparatus as devices, disposition and arrangement, the combination of heterogeneity. Thus, if you define a dispositif film in a word, it is a new 'constraint' consisting of rearrangement and arrangement of the heterogeneous elements that make up the conditions of the classical film. In order for something to become a new design, changes must be made in the arrangement and arrangement of the elements, forces, and forces that make up it. Naturally, the elements encompass both internal and external factors. These dispositif films have a variety of possibilities, such as reflection on the archival possibilities and the role of supervision, the reestablishment of active and creative audience, the reason for the film medium, and the ideological reflection. films can also 'network' quickly and easily with other media faster than any medium and create a new 'devised' aesthetic style. And the dispositif film that makes use of this will be a key keyword in reading the films that present the new trend of modern film. Because dispositif are so comprehensive and have a broad implication, there are certainly areas that are difficult to sophisticate. However this will have a positive effect on the future activation of dispositif studies end for end. Dispositif is difficult to elaborate the concept clearly, so it can be accessed from a wide range of dimensions and has theoretically infinite extensibility. At the beginning and end of the 21st century film, the concept of cinematic dispositif will become a decisive factor to dismantle old film aesthetics.

• Trans-
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.1-27
• /
• 2018

What is 'analyzing a movie'? And, what is 'its role in film studies'? The question required a systematic and scholarly answer, and filmologie was making a clear place for itself. Through psychology, aesthetics, text theories and of course semiotics, the conceptualization of 'film' has been formed. Deleuze, who has been continually writing about 'movies' in his philosophical essays, ended the debate in defining the relationship between 'image and essence' when he released 《Movie 1, Movement-Image》 in 1983. 'Film' rapidly became the topic of the century and became a 'device' that leads the way of thinking. The reason why Jean-Louis Boissier labeled this 'film' as 'device (le dispositif)' was not part of film studies. What should be noted is that the mention of 'film' became a key part of the debate of 'reproduction', which was the most popular subject of philosophy and humanities. In the digital era, the film is once again questioned about its definition. In retrospect, themes of core debates of 'History of cinema' have always been driven by simple and superficial technological changes. With the emergence of CG (Computer Graphics), the question of 'cinema' in the 21st century is not only a philosophical discussion on the problem of 'reproduction', but also a crucial change that shifted the focus of the debate on the nature of the film from 'production' to 'distribution'.