jobs on gunning

Annika Jobs
10/06/2004
Tom Gunning: Narrative Discourse and the Narrator System

In order to support that the term �narrative is not only applicable to literary texts but to film analysis as well, Gunning uses a slightly modified version of Gérard Genettes structuralist approach to narrative (that defines narrative as a) the means by which a content is communicated, which Gunning calls narrative discourse, b) the story conveyed and c) the act of enunciation) and applies it to film analysis. Claiming that those categories are universal aspects of narrative and that storytelling is always a combination of a specific discourse and a constructive mental response of the reader or spectator, Gunning sees no reason not to use Genettes model in a larger context. However, Gunning points out that although the basic concept is the same, one should take into consideration that there are major differences between the filmic and the literary narrative discourse. The main difference is that film inevitably possesses a plenitude of visual details and therefore has a unique ability of showing, whereas in literature the illusion of showing by mentioning many details is only one possibility of telling. Moreover, Gunning emphasises that the filmic showing can also become a way of telling, made possible by making narratively important aspects stand out from many details and by the arrangement of a certain selection for the spectator. This way of ensuring that mimesis receives a narrative function and becomes therefore bound to the story Gunning calls narrativization. In order to define more precisely how narrativization works Gunning mentions three elements: the pro-filmic that denotes everything that is placed in front of the camera, the enframed image referring to what is visible on the screen, and the editing. According to Gunning, these three elements taken together embody the filmic narrator.

When applying Gunnings considerations to M it becomes obvious that his theory concerning the films capability of telling through narrativization is plausible. Fritz Lang relies on the narrative power of images and creates highly symbolic spaces. Carefully chosen images like the empty shots of the stairwell when Elsies mother is waiting for her daughter or the close-up shot on Elsies empty place at the table are not only geometrically precise arrangements that simply show certain objects but in this context the emptiness tells the presence of death. Another example for turning objects into signs charged with narrative meaning are Elsies rolling ball and the balloon caught in the power lines. The motionless shot depicts what has happened off screen.

Gunning mentiones the enframed image as a major tool of narrativization. In M this possibility of giving meaning to images is often employed. Lang uses the frame as a device to conceal and reveal spaces and consequently develops spaces as a carrier of meaning. Gunning does not mention sound as a narrative device (probably because his article is an excerpt from his book on Griffith Biographical films, which are silent films). In M, however, sound and silence are major narrative devices. Apart from the fact that sound opens up off screen spaces it is one of the most important narrative means to convey Beckerts obsession and his inner pressure to kill (made clear by his whistling of the Peer Gynt melody). Silence in contrast to sound is used to signify death. This becomes obvious when Frau Beckmann is awaiting Elsie.

Gunnings opinion that editing is central to turn mimesis into narration can also be proven when analysing M. When Lang cuts from the clock in Frau Beckmanns kitchen to the school clock he shows the fragmented space of the city that is still somehow interconnected through certain patterns, thus giving meaning to the spatial arrangements. Another example for the creation of meaning through editing is Langs technique of intercutting. By intercutting between the meetings of the police and the criminals a certain equation is made and the mobilisation of different social groups is depicted. Moreover, there are several other sequences in which Lang cuts from one independent scene, which only have in common that they somehow revolve around the search for the child murderer. The characters in those scenes (e.g. police investigations in a couples home; men telling a girl the time) are never seen again. This kind of atomistic narrative approach shows once again the discontinuity and the fragmental nature of the city. However, as Gunning mentions, the constitution of meaning is not only dependent on the narrativization but goes hand in hand with the construction of meaning by the narratee (the spectator).

In the last part of his essay Gunning enlarges on the filmic narrator as theoretical entity and mentions theories that either deny or assert the necessity of a filmic narrator. How can we identify the narrator in M? How can that theoretical entity be described? Gunning claims that the narrators point of view is determined by choices made on the level of filmic discourse. M has no identifiable protagonist who organises the point of view. Instead, the camera is outside the consciousness of any character and observes the action with many topographical shots. Do we still find different points of view in M? Is there any predominant point of view (Lohmann? Schränker? The defence lawyer pleading against the death penalty for the insane Beckert?)? Or does Langs narrativization completely avoid to emphasize a certain point of view? Is there a connection between the narrative choices and the diversity of interpretations of M?