On Memory and Imagination in The Cinema

On Memory and Imagination in the Cinema
Author(s): Martin Lefebvre

Source: New Literary History, Vol. 30, No. 2, Cultural Inquiries (Spring, 1999), pp. 479-498
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057547
Accessed: 22-03-2015 03:32 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
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.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Literary
History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.75.12.3 on Sun, 22 Mar 2015 03:32:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On Memory
in the Cinema*
and Imagination
Martin
Lefebvre
In animo
est
sit quidquid
in memoria1
Augustine
10.17)
(Confessions
and Imagination
Memory
is undeniable
in the larger sense of the term, plays
that memory,
a film).
an important role in the act of spectating (the act of watching
It
For
hend
the
places,
in order
example,
characters'
and
to
actions,
from
situations
a narrative
construct
the
one
must
spectator
of
segment
form
be
a film
and
to
able
compre
recall
to another.
faces,
Further,
has shown us how greatly

science
the understanding
of
on prior knowledge, memorized
such
forms depends
through
as frames, scripts, MOPs
structures
(Memory Organization
knowledge
and so on. As a result, it is becoming more and more difficult
Packets),
to conceive of memory
outside
the artificial intelligence
for semioticians
one
to
must
not
be
in its totality
careful
reduce
But
memory
paradigm.
to this model, which accounts only partially for the work done by human
or representational
function.
In fact,
memory and for its semiotic
cognitive
discursive
does
memory
computer
Information
stored
not
In contrast,
transformation.
is stable
memory
human
or
it re-presents
represent,
in computer
can
memory
data.
reproduces
and not
represent,
to
subject
that
is it can
into a semiotic system and, by the same token, transform it

more
It is
it
and render
(even if this implies some forgetting).
complex
a
to
in
other
memoria.
in
is
Seen
this
able,
words,
light, memory
produce
no longer duplication
but amplification, enrichment, complexification.
is not recent and has its roots in
This way of looking at memory
translate data
ancient philosophy
two faculties being
invention
role of
*I wish
translated
of
the
and
into English
New Literary History,
intimately
ars memoriae,
imagination
to thank
and rhetoric
where
connected.
as
told
and of mental
it blends with imagination,

In fact, the story behind
by Cicero,
clearly
imagery with
the work of Ted

acknowledge
the initial draft of this paper.
Kendris
the
demonstrates
regard
the
the
to memory.2
of Universit?
Laval
1999, 30: 479-498
who
480
NEW
the
Moreover,
author
anonymous
are
images in one's memory
we
to
wish
remember."
object
so as to stand
imagination
attempting
or
topos
to memorize.3
locus
of
Ad
Herennium
LITERARY
HISTORY
out
points
that
the
or portraits]
of the
"figure[s],
are
the
orator's
They
signs produced
by
in for the various
he is
things which
mark[s],
These
signs
are
in
situated
in a
space,
site,
memoriae.
As a result of the work done by the imagination,

the orator constructs
a memoria of the discourse
or of the notions which he is
trying to retain.
to
memoria
is
be
the
the
from
recollections
Consequently,
distinguished
For the memoria is not a simple
obtained by way of one's natural memory.
or even duplication
of "things" or "words," which might
transposition
then
themselves,
engrave
unchanged,
in one's
mind;
rather,
it results
a process of appropriation and integration which

is simultaneously
and
symbolic
imaginary.
At this point, one may wonder what benefit a semiotician
interested
in
the cinema and, more
in
film
from
may reap
specifically,
spectatorship
of memory
and from its association
this conception
with the imagina
tion. To put it simply, I believe the process described
by the rhetoricians
to the film spectator.
of antiquity to be equally applicable
It is not that
the latter tries actively to memorize
of a
what he is watching
by means
from
constructed
mnemonic
device, but rather that what he
consciously
an impression on him while
a
retains from a film, what makes
leaving
trace in the "soft wax" of his memory,
implies equally the work of the
and the creation of a memoria or as I call it, a figure. The
imagination
to that which
to
the spectator and, by extension,
figure corresponds
what
a culture
which
imaginary,
retains
involves
an
from
a film.
the integration
aspect
which
can
It relies
on
the
of the cinematic
be
referred
to as
of
aspect
spectating
text to the spectator's

a
"symbolic
process."4
the figure
is the result of an interaction
the
between
precisely,
on
one
the
and
the memory
and imagination
of the
film,
hand,
to the appropriation
of the film by the
spectator, on the other. It pertains
More
spectator
for
whom
certain
images,
certain
sounds
make
an
impression
out new
and bring
into a
themselves
(mental)
images which organize
us
a
sort
of
network within the sites of memory. We each possess
inside
imaginary museum of the cinema where we keep the various films and
us deeply
a
or made
film fragments
touched
that have
profound
on us. The figure is therefore what one retains from a film,
impression
onto
of signs that open
the
itself as a sign or group
manifesting
's
imaginary. In this sense, it is not without certain similarities to Eisenstein
idea of a generalized or global image (obraz), which he worked out during
the thirties.
AND
ON MEMORY
IN THE
IMAGINATION
481
CINEMA
Imaginicity
to remember
It is important
's theories
that, as a whole, Eisenstein
to
the
of
the
be
presuppose
spectator
susceptibility
impressed.5 The
is
In this sense,
the
"basic
of
the
he
material"
cinema.6
wrote,
spectator,
or
more
to
less
Eisenstein
what
I
refer
here as the
recognized
implicitly
most notably
of spectatorship,"
the ability of the
"symbolic process
to
to
create
for himself a genuinely
make associations,
internal
spectator
cinema. This idea, in fact, empirically justified his continued
research to
find those principles which would allow one to regulate and to predict
the
mental
spectator's
In
associations.
one
short,
. . . over
the audience's
"plough
psyche"7
without first acknowledging
the spectator's prerequisite
never ceased exploiting
Eisenstein
this fundamental
the
various
ideas
and
concepts which mark
throughout
of his
One
thought.
in
originates
the
that
production
first finds
it in the concept
director's
young
interest
presents
simultaneously
not
could
as Eisenstein
to
try
to say,
liked
faculties!
presupposition
the refinement
of attraction, which
in
the
circus?a
series
of
non-narrative
acts,
or
more
less
is
the attraction
separate, spread out under the big top. For Eisenstein,
what characterizes
the show and sets it apart at the same time; it is an
event
the main
moment?indeed
event, a privileged
(there can be
of the attraction
in
several) of the show. Thus, the primary characteristic
the theatre,
and later in the cinema,
is to be a sort of relatively
act (atraktsia), a high point in the show which must attract
autonomous
the
of
attention
from
Moving
the
and
spectator
to
attraction
somehow
an
make
the
attraction,
spectator,
impression
on
him.
to
according
links together mental

associations which end up constituting
Eisenstein,
the conceptual
and affective
network of the film.
thematic-ideological
is interesting here, as far as I am concerned,
What
is that the attraction
seems to be put in the service of a figurai
of
view based on the
point
as well as on his
or
to be moved
imagination
susceptibility
the
Eisenstein
's
full
attraction
impressed. Yet,
ignores
imaginative poten
tial of the spectator, since it involves the practice of finding methods
for
spectator's
the
spectator's
associative
from the very start, what

an area?that
of mental
I call here
controlling
logical) efficacy.
the late twenties
During
the
term
"attraction."8
indeed
process.
the figurai
associations?limited
He
and early
also
Hence,
thirties Eisenstein
abandoned
it appears
the
strictly
all but dropped

reflexological,
framework
of the theory of attraction,
while
two essential
of
the
attraction:
components
and the need for ideological
and psychological
efficiency.
biomechanical,
nevertheless
retaining
associationism
that,
for Eisenstein
constitutes
to the problem
of (ideo
482
NEW
LITERARY
HISTORY
and
adopted a more anthropological
And
of
it is with the doctrine
psychological
setting for his research.
in that period,
that Eisenstein
's think
imaginicity (obraznost), developed
ing most closely resembles what I call the figure.
In fact, one need only read through
1937," "Montage
"Montage
's general
1938," or the earlier "Torito" to see just how much Eisenstein
in the thirties,
Starting
Eisenstein
work of the imagination

the combined
(formation
a most
In
Eisenstein
and
offers
"Torito,"
memory.
image)
of
the
the
demonstration
compo
figurai experience. Analyzing
developed
seeks
sition of a single framing taken from Que Viva Mexico!, Eisenstein
to "untangle
and
the knot of secondary
associations,
early impressions
the
and
the facts of a previous experience"9
having inspired
composition
ized image
of a mental
requires
the "p?on with

determined
the assembly of a series of precise elements:
his straw hat and his white "sarape" the "torito" and, in the background,
the archway of a hacienda
where one finds vats full of "pulque" The
elements
and
of the experience
mentioned
associations,
by
impressions,
to
of
in
his
life
end
and
Eisenstein
different
up merging
stages
belong
the
St.
Venice
Mark's
the frame: childhood
of
Palace,
(the Doges
images
father had brought
back from his
lion) which Sergei Mikhailovitch's
seen
in
in 1930, a
Chirico
Paris
works
De
for
his
son,
young
by
trips
an
seen
in
in
the
window
of
book
Max
Ernst
surrealist montage
open
by
on the boulevard Montparnasse,
a bookstore
the cover of a book read
was a young
the opera
La
when
Eisenstein
(Nat Pinkerton),
boy
a
seen
where
Eisenstein
finds
chance
Khovanchtchina,
dictionary page
by
a childhood
related
of the word "candidate,"
the etymology
daydream
to
the
Dreyfus
Affair.
"In
any
notes
event,"
"these
Eisenstein,
composi
in form
associations,
they were
though
diametrically
opposed
In
Mexican
the
models."10
with
content, merged
quite seamlessly
tional
and
Eisenstein
short,
underlines
how
scattered
reconfigures
apparently
the
the
latter
memory,
playing
the
generalized
elements
which
role of framing
image
reunites
already belong
the work of
and
to
the
imagination.
As
one
essential
internal
memory.
can see, the generalized

several of the
image comprises
it is an
of the figure. Firstly, like the figure,
characteristics
contents
of
from
the
of
the
formed
imagination
image
by way
from the material
As such, it must be distinguished
image
calls izobrazhenie), which

by the film (what Eisenstein
to support it. Thus both figure and the generalized
content.
of cinematic
(or mental)
representations
image form internal
as
are
as
as
well
the
the generalized
perceived
figure
image
Secondly,
and
is
as
a
to
them
whoever
whole
totalities, appearing
experiences
on screen
depicted
serves nonetheless
or impressed
Eisenstein's
between
moved
by them. But
generalized
in spite of the obvious

relationship
to
I want
image and the figure,
AND
ON MEMORY
IMAGINATION
IN THE
483
CINEMA
a fundamental
results from a serious
which
divergence
emphasize
two.
the
gap between
conceptual
from the point of view of the act of
The idea of a figure is developed
For
the generalized
Eisenstein,
however,
image emerges
spectating.
a method
to elaborate
of film directing.
In effect,
from his attempts
to direct
is convinced
that it is up to the filmmaker
the
Eisenstein
his own images and mental
by transposing
imagination
to the screen. I believe, however, that the spectator is free to
left upon him by a film, without
it being
the impressions
reconfigure
to
to
filmmaker
the
the
these
for
necessary
grant
primary responsibility
spectator's
associations
internal
images.
a final clarification
to present
the connection
regarding
and
Eisenstein
's generalized
the
concept of figure. For
image
to the expression
the generalized
often
Eisenstein,
image
corresponds
I have already
of an affect. May one say the same about the figure?
that the figure emerges from what makes an impression on
mentioned
I wish
between
the spectator. It should be emphasized

that this implies, from the start,
of an affective process: to be impressed by something
is
the participation
in one way or another by it. As
also to be touched, affected, or moved
's thinking rests on the susceptibility
mentioned
earlier, all of Eisenstein
of the spectator to be impressed or affected. The figure, however,
is not the
a
an
a
or a
is
the
it
affect
also
form,
(but
segment,
meaning
affect:
on
as
a
the
of
within
takes
result
its
into
spectator
percept)
integration
sign systems (that is, the result of the symbolic process of the act of
in other words, follows the integration
The figure,
of the
spectating).
or
act
of
of
results
the
which
affect
partial
global
spectating?to
the
and
and
social
cultural
through
belongs?in
spheres by way of
shared presuppositions
The
in
involved
among
spectators.
imaginary
a
the figurai experience,
is
social
subjective,
although
equally
imaginary,
for the imagining
subject is not alone in the world and does not create
in a vacuum. The figure,
in this sense, is not so much
the
knowledge
other
of
expression
fers?as
its
imaginary
an
affect?to
"translation"
which
which
or
its
is simultaneously
Eisenstein
's
and
shared,
re
image
(retentissement)
"repercussion"
private
generalized
in
intimate
an
and
social.
A Case of Figure
to what the spectator retains from a film
corresponds
an
on him. It is not
film fragment which has made
impression
a
of
film. It is not something
that one may discover
property
the film frame by frame. The figure is a mental
examining
object,
The
figure
or
the
by
an
484
NEW
LITERARY
HISTORY
to the spectator
which
and whose
belongs
representation,
on
rests
to be
the spectator allows himself
the way in which
emergence
it and integrates
it into his imaginary
impressed by a film, appropriates
life and into the systems of signs he uses to interact with the world. Let
us now examine
this more closely with an example.
Some time ago as I was having dinner with a friend, the conversation
turned to my interest in Psycho (Hitchcock,
1960). At that point, and to
that it was after seeing this film
my amazement,
my friend mentioned
to become
a vegetarian.
I was struck by her
that she had decided
not so much because
I thought it strange, but rather because
comment,
In a flash I understood
of its coherence.
what she meant.
She had given
moreover
to
it
into
film
her
the
and
by integrating
meaning
imaginary
internal
memoria
her
of
was
Psycho
to mine.
close
very
In other
words,
we
shared
a similar figure; we had both seen the same thing in Psycho or, at least, an
aspect of the same thing. This iswhat, for lack of a better term, I call the
is far too great to be described
here in its
shower murder figure. Its expanse
an
a
is
of
and
film's
(the figure
content)
ever-open
entirety
structuring
to a single aspect of it in order to
so I will restrict its presentation
illustrate the figurai process.
To speak of the shower murder
the
figure
implies
recognizing
me
scene
on
this
from
has
made
(as on
Psycho
profound
impression
of
the
viewers
It
that
the
also
other
film11).
many
implies recognizing
scene in question
the film's richest element
for the imagina
constitutes
tion.
Yet
does
how
scene
this
me
touches
that
so
to
manage
organize
itself into my imaginary? What

does it integrate
its imaginary
insures for me
Of
network
of images
representation?
is familiar with the turn of events that underpin
course, almost everyone
on the run, is
Marion
this figurai experience:
Crane, a young woman
a
a
room.
in
of
shower
the
bathroom
motel
She
has
just decided
taking
me? How
itself within
to
return
a sum
she
of money
has
stolen
from
her
that Norman
day. It is at this very moment
enters
into
the
bathroom
manager,
disguised
the
approaches
curtain,
and
young
brutally
woman
in
stabs
her.
the
The
on
boss
the
previous
the young motel

Bates,
as his own mother.
He
shower,
pushes
network
figure's
aside
the
comes
shower
to me?
I try to understand
the moment
how this
emerges within me?from
as
me
a result
it
within
how
itself
touches
of
film
me,
reconfigures
piece
and imagination which
insures its semiotic
of the joint work of memory
the
of images thus become
The figure and its network
translation.
scene
and
of
the
shower
of
my integration of
my appropriation
symptom
remains of how one can describe
it into my imaginary. Yet the question
one
the different
has to examine
the figure and its network. Here
cinematic
traits
which,
as
the basis for the imaginary
they
are
grasped
representation
by
particular
spectator,
of the film.12
form
ON MEMORY
AND
IN THE
IMAGINATION
485
CINEMA
It is thus that while watching Psycho, I take notice of both the place of
a bathroom
and a
used by the murderer:
the crime and the weapon
is a kitchen knife. Already,
knife. The latter, and this must be emphasized,
with this detail, a first aspect of the figure emerges, which will guarantee,
I will thus start by
its imaginary cohesion.
the bathroom,
scene is not just any
the
in
shower
knife.
knife
used
the
The
considering
knife or some generic knife,13 rather it is a kitchen knife, that is, an object
of food and whose name indicates
the very
used for the preparation
consumes
one
finds
food:
the
kitchen.
One
and
where
prepares
place
an
or
a
sort
at
d?tournement
of
of
first
therefore,
misappropriation
glance,
a
an
meant
to
for
be
used
(the prepara
specific purpose
object
object:
takes on another function
tion of food) in a certain place (the kitchen)
with
along
(the commission
This
one
misuse,
of a murder)
may
in a different
not
does
note,
(the bathroom).
setting
on
function
the
formal,
argumen
tative, or narrative level where the value of the knife is only related to its
It follows
that narratological
role as a prop for the act of murder.
of
the
will
be
for
accounting
singularity of this
investigations
incapable
a
to
cut
in
is used here
of
used
food
instead
kitchen,
being
object which,
to cut the body of a young woman
in a bathroom. On the contrary, the
for the figurai
takes on great importance
singular nature of the weapon
thus appears under
and serves to enrich the murder which
experience
the guise of a culinary act. In fact, from the point of view of the figure,
to
knife retains its original
function
the kitchen
(culinary function)
two
the
functions
which
is added the murderous
function,
integrating
themselves on the imaginary level in the cannibalistic
practice: only a(n)
cannibal would commit a murder
and feed himself at the
(imaginary)
same
time!
(One
now
sponse to the film!)

The place in which
partly
understands
my
vegetarian
friend's
re
is situated is not excluded

from this
turn
in
further enriches
the figurai object
culinary reconfiguration
stems from
constructed
by the act of spectating. The new amplification
a relationship
a relation
the kitchen knife and the bathroom,
between
on
the part of the spectator only the most basic
ship which necessitates
In effect, by linking two distinct
and cultural knowledge.
physiological
a tool used for the
kitchen
and the bathroom?around
places?the
the murder
and
the tie which binds them

of food, I immediately
recognize
preparation
tract. On the one hand, therefore,
there
together, namely the digestive
is the kitchen where one prepares and consumes
food and, on the other,
the bathroom where one eleminates
from the body those organic wastes
related
to
the two, one finds

the
connection
between
the juxtaposition
of the kitchen
knife
to the culinary
dimension
additional
the consumption
of food.
or the belly, which
ensures
digestion,
mouth
and the anus. Hence,
and the bathroom
adds an
Between
the
486
NEW
LITERARY
HISTORY
of the shower murder

the set of organic
by mobilizing
are related to it while mutually
each other:
implicating
and
eating, digesting,
defecating.
But it is not only the screen presence
of the toilet which,
by its
association with purging or draining,
relates to the digestive
system: the
are
as
and
shower
all its plumbing
the body's
equally involved insofar
in them. The body, in effect, seen from
is reflected
interior plumbing
the inside, looks like an immense pipe. As Georg Groddeck
points out:
remains
in the empty space between
"On the inside, a connection
the
reconfiguration
functions which
of the head and the anal and urethral openings;

this empty
openings
space is covered by a sort of inverted skin; it is part of the overall human
the ability to be able to admit within
itself external
being, but possesses
to
return
to
and
the
outside.
The
resemblance
of the
objects
objects
a pipe with
a
to
human
is
thus
.to
or,
better,
walls,
being
bag,
rigid
The empty space is an essential part of the human being."14
produced.
An analogy between
this "body-pipe" and the shower concerns
in the
their spatial orientation:
in both cases, the entrance
is
first instance
and the exit below
located at the top (upper orifice)
(lower orifice).
is partially supported
which
This analogy
ties the
by the terminology
to the human being's
shower both to the body and to its verticality:
or
in French,
the bec de douche ("shower mouth")
mouth
corresponds,
the pomme de douche ("shower's apple" as in Adam's apple), and, of course,
the "shower
head" in English. As for the lower orifices,

it is true, the
not
does
the
support
analogy quite as well; one
corporeal
terminology
trou du bain ("bath
in
that
notice
the
French
nevertheless
syntagma
may
the drain hole and trou du cul ("ass hole")
hole") is often used to denote
to denote
the anus.- A similar connection
exists in English where one
uses
both
the
terms
"plughole"
the
employing
expressions
more
and,
same
familiarly,
radical.
"asshole"
Finally,
how
for
can
the
one
anus,
not
in The Raw
think at this point of certain myths analyzed by L?vi-Strauss
of opening
and
and the Cooked which all "belong to the same dialectic
on
two
levels:
that
of
orifices
which
the
upper
operates
shutting,
canal,
ear) and that of the lower orifices
(anus, urinary
(mouth,
vagina)."15
In
the
same
way,
the
shower
murder
moves
us
from
one
the lower and upper

by the constant cutting between
Such movement
orifices: shower head, Marion's
mouth,
open
plughole.
entails a concept of the "body" where the cavities are freely interchange
in
and the anus being, "among all the orifices engaged
able, the mouth
to
mutual
those most
the organic
adventure,
favourably
disposed
one
and complement
since they address
each other
substitution"16
orifice
to the other
in the digestive process.

another
the family names of the characters
In the same fashion,
traits.
Bellour17 has already
also become
figurai
Raymond
involved
can
pointed
out
AND
ON MEMORY
IN THE
IMAGINATION
487
CINEMA
to a bird since her last name, Crane,

is also that
the relation of Marion
hands birds are
of a bird. This connection
seals her fate: in Norman's
is no doubt
is filled
that the Psycho universe
killed and stuffed. There
lives in Phoenix
is
with birds: Marion
and, as it should, her death
a
the
downfall
of
bird:
Marion's
marked
dead
upon
symbolic
by
seeing
unhooks
from the wall the framed
horrified,
accidentally
body, Norman,
room
a
is
full
of
of
bird
which falls at his feet.
them)
(Marion's
image
And
can
how
one
not
see
also
in
the
name
woman's
the
of
anagram
last
carne, the Latin word for meat? Further, why not cut up Norman's
name in the following way: B-ate-s,
in order to highlight
the action's
nature
(let's not forget the kitchen knife . . .)?
culinary and devouring
mother
fits into this imaginary network. Many have
Even Norman's
nature o? Psycho: Marion's murder
is presented
referred to the Oedipal
as being caused by Norman's
unresolved Oedipal
it is
conflict. However,
one constructed
in fact the "mother"?the
Norman
in
his
by
insanity?
who
commits
cinematic
the
a new
argument,18
coherence
rests
of which
soon
As
murder.
once
as
one
on
again
this
considers
dimension
of
the figure
the murder
of
aspect
the
the
appears,
from
Thus,
weapon.
the relationship
between
the kitchen knife and the "mother" emerges
an image which
is so common
from one culture to another and from
one
to
so
in the history of art and so deeply
another,
permanent
period
one believes
in everyone's
anchored
it constitutes?if
that
experience,
a
true
of
and
his
followers?the
In effect,
Jung
representation
archetype.
who could not identify, through
these figurai
traits consisting
of the
kitchen
knife?a
tool
used
in
the
of
preparation
food?and
"mother,"
the primordial
mother?
image of the nourishing
was
For the Greeks,
this maternal
in the three great
incarnated
image
to
linked
the
earth
and
mythological
goddesses
fertility: Ga?a, Rhea, and
the
of
mother
the mother
the
of the
Demeter,
respectively
gods,
the maternal
of the Earth;
three telluric
goddess
of the Great Mother. Now, each of these goddess-mothers
is
both simultaneously
incar
"good" and "terrible." The most
interesting
nation for my purpose here is Demeter,
to whom
the goddess of wheat,
is attributed,
in the distribution
of roles of the Greek Great Mother,
the
Olympians,
incarnations
and
of the Earth-Mother.
dimension
The legends which accom
nourishing
into the mysteries
of Eleusis clearly demonstrate
the
pany the initiation
dual
other
and
aspect?positive
things,
that
Demeter
negative?of
can
refuse
the
to
goddess.
out
carry
One
her
learns,
divine
among
functions
the fertility of the earth and the abundance

(which consist in ensuring
of the harvests);
this results in sterility, famine, and death.19 This is the
terrible aspect of the Great Mother,
the image of a mother who refuses
to nourish and thus kills. This terrible aspect of the
mother
nourishing
is particularly useful
in understanding
of the
the maternal
component
488
NEW
LITERARY
HISTORY
shower murder figure. For it is not with the good nourishing mother?
the one standing in the kitchen using her knife to prepare a meal?that
we are dealing
mother
here, but rather with the terrible, murderous
uses
who
her kitchen cutlery?that
is, her nourishing
power, her power
over
is, from the point

the bowels of the Earth who
kill. This
food?to
from
to nourish
Demeter
of
of view
kills Marion
a
the figure,
after having
(one recalls the words heard by Marion during

"
and "mother": Go tell her she'll not be appeasing
the fight between Norman
her ugly appetite with my food or my son!").
who comes down on
Finally, it is no longer just "Norman-the-mother"
Marion, but nature in its different guises: the storm which lets loose and
to find refuge in the Bates Motel;
forces the young woman
the water of
refused
her
the shower and of the infernal swamp which

around the motel
rural, nocturnal
countryside
Is
in
of
it
Phoenix.
not,
fact, with all the
images
of a storm (let us not forget that the sound
awaits her; the

patiently
which contrasts with the
suddenness
and violence
the
shower is
made
by
in the film, to the sound made by the falling rain) or of a
identical,
is of an irrational, natural, blind act?that
Marion will be
tempest?that
then are all the aspects of the Great Mother?
struck down? Here
image will be present up to the end of the film,
negative nature whose
from
with the revelation of the dry, blind cadaver, a veritable Demeter
the depths,
hidden
in the fruit
underground
cellar (food again!)
of the
house.
maternal
I could
continue
that
including
of
sexuality.
How
many
on several
the figure
and enriching
describing
for
commentators,
example,
levels,
have
as a sexual act (a rape, in fact)? Of course, it is

the shower murder
not difficult, at least from the point of view of the imaginary, to slip from
are
are "acts of the flesh" of sorts which
to sex. Both
cannibalism
acts
our
serious
forbidden
taboos:
in
Western
cultures,
forbidden,
by
have to do with
and those which
with death
(and murder)
dealing
to
witness
such
moreover,
by
relationships
gives
sexuality. Language,
things having to do with eating and with
tying together metaphorically
seen
sex
in such
one
not
say
ways
that
seem
that
lovers
one
"consummates"
no
more,
a
or
marriage
than
less,
or
that
cannibals.
someone
Does
has
the French will say that he

great "sexual appetite"? Of a beautiful person,
to eat"). Finally, isn't the
or she is beau or belle ? croquer ("good enough
sex act, just like the act of eating
all about
(followed by its evacuation)
excremental
I
the
could
also
discuss
and
orifices,
pipes?
flowing liquids,
fate as she finds her way to the murky swamp behind
aspect of Marion's
from carne to feces).
the motel20
(the young woman's
running
journey
name
not
of
America's
North
the
brand
is
Crane also
Moreover,
leading
I could just as easily
of toilets and plumbing
manufacturer
supplies?
AND
ON MEMORY
discuss
one
nature
the figurai
can
see,
IN THE
IMAGINATION
off
takes
in
of water,
several
489
CINEMA
and so on. The
of impurity,
as
figure,
directions.
at this point,
as a
if the figurai experience,
Lastly, one may wonder,
to an unbridled
and idiosyncratic
memoria, does not simply correspond
interpretative
a sort
practice,
of
or
"free-for-all"
interpretative
to the Semiotization
From Film Semiology
laisser-faire.
of Film
or not the
that remains to be debated here is whether
question
as
a
case
I
have
described
constitutes
of
For
it,
figure,
overinterpretation.
the figure to emerge
there is no doubt that the spectator must
interpret
the film he is watching
that which
and, more
specifically,
interpret
in the film. But what
is meant
him
here
impresses
exactly
by
The
interpretation?
Because most
structuralist)
reduced
the
semioticians
perspective,
if one
especially
and
much
of
have adopted
the continental
the work done
in this field
to a
interpretation
case,
tion
film
role.
secondary
a Peircean
adopts
This
of
of
point
course
view
need
on
(or
has
not
be
representa
interpretation.
to Peirce, interpretation
is that which ensures the relation
According
a
and its object (immediate
ship between
sign (representamen)
object).
And in this respect, Umberto
Eco sums up Peirce's
thinking when he
to the process of unlimited
writes: "According
and
semiosis founded
to establish
it is impossible
described
the signified
[sic] of a
by Peirce,
it into other signs
term, i.e. to interpret this term, without
translating
to the same semiotic system) in such a way
(whether or not they belong
as for the interpr?tant
to account for the interpreted
in some respect all
a
the while
better
thus
of it."21 Interpretation
enabling
knowledge
an essential aspect of all semiosis understood
more or less as
constitutes
an infinite process whereby
each interpreted
sign is in turn translated
into another system of signs and so on indefinitely.
(that is, interpreted)
For Eco, Peirce's unlimited
semiosis justifies
of an
the development
of meaning.22
model
Yet, while readily accepting
encyclopedia-like
fundamental
of such a model,
semiotic principle
Eco also raises
of
specter
late unlimited
growth"23 and
that
roots
of
alchemy,
According
his
well-known
attempts
to
the
regu
semiosis and avoid any "cancerous

type of connotative
thus to distance himself from a usage of the text akin to
deconstruction
he
Hence,
overinterpretation.
the
and
reader-response
sees
as going
to medieval
back
doctrine
of
mysticism,
signatures,
to Eco,
overinterpretation
occurs
whose
fundamentalism,
hermetism
and so on).
when
the
(ars memoriae,
interpreter
uses
490
NEW
LITERARY
HISTORY
a text, that is, when the reader distances himself from the Model Reader
elaborated
the text's intention. Proper
by the text and which constitutes
for Eco, is a process whereby
the reader is constantly
interpretation,
of a plausible
There
guided by the text in the construction
explanation.
is no doubt that the epistemological
framework for such a conception
is
found in communication
is
(or Model Reader)
theory: Eco's interpreter
someone
who
wonders
text
the
what
wants
to
to him.
communicate
clear by now that what I am proposing

here
is rather
I have
from Eco's notion of interpretation.
And in all honesty
different
to say that thefigure is not an interpretation (in Eco's sense), even though
it is a representation
in the Peircean
(and therefore an interpretation
It must
be
sense). The fact is that I am not trying to explain Psycho nor to explain
some Model
construct
how Psycho and its shower murder
Spectator, nor
am I
or
to
film
how
the
it "communi
describe
how
signifies
attempting
in the study of
cates" its signification:
the figure does not participate
as a form
cinema
of
as a
communication,
as a semiotics
or
language,
(in
the Hjelmslevian
was, as we know, the project of structur
sense)?which
alist film semiology. The perspective
adopted here is rather that of the
semiotization of the cinematic object through the act of spectating. Thus,
in
structuralist
which Eco still belongs?persists
while
semiology?to
a
or
the
literature
cinema
from
view
of
of
communicative
point
studying
the bias adopted here is to examine rather how the spectator turns the
exchange,
see in it some meaning. We should
film into a sign in order to comprehend it and
in
that
mind
whose
semiotics,
object of study is semiosis, does not
keep
or language
acts: the symptoms
of a
deal solely with communicative
disease,
wind;
the smoke produced

by fire,
all are phenomena
susceptible
someone.
semiotized
by
contexts
in which
mentioned
phenomena.
To
human
be
more
beings
None
of
the weathercock
to being turned
we
precise,
use signs
these
can
which turns in the

into signs, to being
say
that
to interpret all of
phenomena
there
exist
the above
constitute
selves signs (nor do they literally communicate).

Similarly, what
said of everyday objects can also be said of a film, which does not
I am watching
for me, while
communicate
(it is impossible
communicate
with a film, or with its author!). Now, a corollary
in
them
can be
literally
it, to
to this
not everything
bias is that, from the point of view of the act of spectating,
in afilm is a sign, although
everything may become one. It is through the
act of spectating
that a film is translated or interpreted?a
process I call
mise en signe. The figure, in this respect, is only one of many aspects of
an aspect which
to the symbolic
the spectatorial
semiosis,
pertains
or
is
semiosic
Its
mentioned
above.
process
specificity
interpretative
the
found in the way it relies on the translation of that which
impresses
the emergence,
within
viewer into imaginary
terms, hence
enabling
a
a
not
is
mnemotechnic
of
memoria.
Thus
the
cinematic
him,
figure
AND
ON MEMORY
IN THE
IMAGINATION
491
CINEMA
device, as was the case with the memory

palaces or theatres of antiquity
it is not a tool for the willful remembering
of a
and the Renaissance:
to
is not necessarily
film
memorize
the
film, since the spectator
trying
an
it and does not choose
he is watching
what will make
while
impression
the
upon
the figure
him. However,
ars memoriae?that
(what
memory
one
implies
may
call
do
recognition?as
"cinematic
memory"
The figure is
in this instance) also implies the work of the imagination.
an imaginary
film
of
the
therefore
(initiated
representation
by the
act
in
of
which
stands
for
the
which
that
spectator
spectating),
through
in the strict or
has made an impression upon him. It is an interpretation
semiotic sense of the term: an imaginary representation of the content of
a film.
ask whether
such an imaginary representation
Of course, one might
a
constitutes
symbol
of
sorts,
or
usage
private
defines
the symbol as a plurivocal,
semantically
is blurred,
sign. Its signified
undecipherable
it constitutes
where
a veritable
"nebula
of
of
a film.
Eco,
for
one,
and
inexhaustible,
to the point
imprecise,
open,
content,"
that
is, a
series
of
to various aspects of a given cultural

properties
is
almost
whose
Thus
the inter
structuring
encyclopedia
impossible.
can react to a symbolic
it
with
those
preter
expression
by filling
most
with
which
there
without
semantic
him,
any
agree
being
properties
The symbolic use of a text
rule to regulate a "proper" interpretation.
a symbol of it,
in making
consists
therefore
precisely what the mystic
face
in
the
of
the
but
also
the hermeneut
whose
Sacred,
accomplishes
practice, as iswell known, finds its origin in the religious encounter with
the Sacred. To use a text symbolically
is thus to find in it that which one
which
semantic
refer
projects upon it (God, for example).

are
I readily accept
On the one hand,
that feeding
and digestion
In this, let me restate that the figure emerges from
of mine.
obsessions
the integration of the results of the act of spectating within
the imagina
tion of the spectator:
the
I
the film
then,
through
figure,
appropriate
a
it
construct
and
out
of
it.
On
the
own)
my
memory
(making
image
the figure possesses
certain characteristics
of the symbol (in
the open,
inexhaustible
in
sense), notably
aspect. The figure,
itself by means
of a potentially
of
unlimited
effect, defines
sequence
are only one aspect, one partial way
interpr?tants:
feeding and digestion
of describing
it. But, in spite of all of this, the shower murder figure does
not result from a symbolic
use of Psycho. And the reason
(or hermetic)
other
Eco's
hand,
for this is very simple: thefigure is not to be understood as thefilms

(proper)
is no attempt here to look for
meaning nor does itpretend to be such. There
some indirect, hidden, or concealed (by God, Hitchcock,
and so
Destiny,
a
which
would
then
be
the
film
itself:
the
of
on) signification
property
an
not
constitute
does
the
film's
figure
unravelingo?
Contrary
meaning.
492
to
NEW
the
symbolic
experience,
in whom
it emerges,
spectator
it "in,"
truth?be
or
HISTORY
is not, for the

the figurai
experience
that of finding an indirectly transmitted
"under"
the
immanent
text,
or
transcen
it be then that the figure, rather than being the result of a

of a film, simply relies on another?nondescript?form
of
dent.24 Could
symbolic usage
text
"behind,"
LITERARY
use?
When
we
use
text,
notes
Eco,
we
conceive
of
it as a
"stimulus
for
the
shown, this is a fundamental

aspect
imagination."25 As I have previously
of the figure; here then iswhere itmost closely relates to Eco's notion of
usage.
are
There
reader?or
make
texts,
films,
us dream.
the pursuit
which
touch
an
us?make
upon
impression
is simultaneously
the memory
figure
and
of
the
this
while
film
finds
dream,
(memoria)
meaning
within us. But in Lector infabula, where he first developed
the opposition
text interpretation
between
and text use, Eco characterized
the latter as
a sort of free-for-all where
is
the
prevents
anything
possible:
nothing
us?and
the
The
spectator?from
doing
what
he
wants
the
with
text.
Usage here differs from symbolic usage in that the reader is not trying, by
to find the intention
his reading,
of the text or of the author. For
as
a
can
I
read
The
Trial
detective
novel or do like Proust and
example,
names
"read a train schedule
in
the
of localities from the Valois
[to find]
in search for
of
Nerval's
the soft and labyrinthine
echoing
journey
a "reading"
as
as
But
I
that
avoid
such
long
Sylvie" (78).
believing
uncovers
of Kafka's novel or of the
the indirect, yet "truthful," meaning
train schedule, as long as I avoid seeing in it the intent of the text or of
the author, I also avoid the charge of symbolism
But,
(or hermetism).
such "readings" have little to do with
Eco maintains,
interpretation
novel is of
The Trial as though
it were a detective
Reading
altogether.
course
he
"but
it
textually speaking
explains,
produces
legally allowed,
poor results" (78). As for the "Proustian reading" of the train schedule,
to an interpretation
"it did not correspond
of the schedule,
itwas rather
one of its legitimate uses, almost psychedelic"
unlike
(78). However,
these examples?and
this cannot be stressed enough?the
figure is also
based on a "literal" understanding o? the film. It is in this that it requires
to previ
of spectating
alluded
the joint effort of the other processes
are
no
are
to
if
also
less
they
subject
sharing
ously26 which,
subjective,
to the type of knowledge
and skills which they bring into play.
according
is thus the cinematic text as it
from
which
the
The stuff
figure emerges
means
of the perceptual-cognitive-argumentative
also develops
pro
by
cesses which
ensure
the comprehension
of the film
(the spectator's
for example)
of a narrative,
and by the affective process
construction
on its spectator.
an impression,
a
or
film
makes
which
touches,
through
In this fashion,
the figure bases itself on the film's formal or "literal"
content
(information
segments,
narrative
developments,
and
so
on)
AND
ON MEMORY
construed
natural
edge
IN THE
IMAGINATION
through
(knowledge
structures).
and
subjective
structures)
493
CINEMA
individual
skills which
(the content
and socio-cultural
and
Segmentation
form
therefore
constitute
are
both
of knowl
a
con
in the same way that, with Eco, literal

straint for the figurai experience
a constraint
on interpretation.
constitutes
The figure,
in
signification
other words, must be "supported" by elements
of the film, what I have
"traits."
called
traits
These
act
as
for
representamen
the
figurai
semiosis.
series of interpr?tants
by an open and indefinite
They are interpreted
are provided
the figure and which
which
define
by an imagination
the
These
whose span is determined
by
spectator's memory.
interpr?tants
or topics, which are
in the form of memory
themselves
present
places
in order to interpret the various traits which
evoked by the imagination
text. Thus, as we have
the imaginary version of the cinematic
represent
are
evoked by the figure of the
seen, if the feeding and digestive
topics
it is because:
shower murder,
is a kitchen knife,
(a) the murder weapon
an
is to be used
that is,
function
for the
object whose
principle
a
of food; (b) the murder
takes place in a bathroom,
preparation
place
the organic waste related to the consumption
of
where one eliminates
food; (c) the name Crane is an anagram of carne, and so on. The filmic
traits (name of the victim, murder weapon,
place of action) find here an
coherence?a
imaginary
and
so on.
the
mnemonic
topics
can see, the literal content of the film leads the

to employ a more or less vast portion of his own
imagination
spectator's
corresponding
encyclopedia
the world. This knowledge
competence,
from
meaning?starting
that they evoke. As one
to both personal and cultural knowledge

of
that of knives, bathrooms,
linguistic
includes
It enables
the
development
of
one's
cinematic
in taking possession
of a film by
spectator
helps
a
to
in
of
it
himself
the
form
figure. Finally, there still
representing
of figuring out what portion of the encyclopedia
remains the question
memoria
the
the
and
spectator
should
use.
In principle,
there is absolutely no restriction. This iswhy the figure is
and why its expanse
is unlimited.
The only true
open
theoretically
is the extent to which the spectator actually uses the encyclo
restriction
to elaborate
his memoria of the film. In practice,
the
however,
pedia
the semiosis until he is satisfied with the results and
spectator pursues
I must emphasize
to interrupt
that there are no
it. Moreover,
decides
in using
the encyclopedia:
instructions to follow
only the spectator's
ensure
use
of
and
the figurai
control
the
it
and
memory
imagination
of this, the figure constantly wavers
of the film. Because
semiotization
of the spectator's memory
the intimate and private universe
and imagina
and the public universe of social memory
and imagination
the Barthesian
the figure
resembles
tion. When
it is very private,
between
punctum. Of
the punctum, Barthes
said that it is that "which rises from the
494
NEW
LITERARY
HISTORY
scene, shoots out of it like an arrow, and pierces me"

[photographed]
to give
of punctum is, in a certain fashion,
and that "to give examples
to
to
linked
all
be
the
evidence,
punctum seems, by
myself up."21Moreover,
Does
memory.28
this
imply
one
that
may
say whatever
one
wants
about
at all. Moreover,
that the
Barthes himself recognizes
photograph
on
on
text
must
in
this
the
first
itself
the
base
or,
case,
image:
punctum
or not it is triggered,
it is an
"Last thing about the punctum: whether
and what is nonetheless
it is what I add to the photograph
addition:
I add nothing with
retarded children,
already there. To Lewin Hi?e's
?Not
to the d?g?n?rescence
this
of the profile:
the code expresses
I do, takes my place, does not allow me to speak; what I add?and
is already in the image?is
the collar, the bandage."29
what, of course,
a notion
the
both replacing
such as the figure, we canbegin
Using
the
with
the
semiotization
spectator
of
of
film
film
semiology
and^trtinking
film relationship:
thus instead of the text producing its^fModel) spectator, we
now find the (real) spectator producing his text.Of course, there is no doubt
an "experimental"
to my mind
that the figure possesses
side. In effect,
to the act of spectating
from
there exists an "experimental"
dimension
in
the moment
the spectator lets his imagination work without knowing
regard
before
itwill lead him (but still knowing nonetheless

advance where
that itwill
not lead him to discover
the author's or the text's intention,
but his
it is, after
certain formal constraints:
own). Yet, the figure also possesses
or translation)
of the
all, an interpretation
(that is, a representation
ensure
film
coherence:
of
results
concomitant
parallel,
the
other
spectating
which
processes
the figure rests on a principle

of
Also,
comprehension.
to certain film traits (such as the ones
it gives a coherence
(albeit an imaginary
above) and offers itself as a structuring
mentioned
has impressed
the viewer:
"Mother's"
one) of that which
together,
a
new
to
kitchen
knife and the bathroom
coherence
the name
give
can draw
I
the anagrammatic
"Crane," and make plausible
meaning
from
it, and
so on.
a film exists in the mind of the

figure is one of the ways in which
a
as
of
work
done
result
the
and by his
spectator
mainly
by his memory
a
to
to
it
is
of
desire
situate
the act of
part
imagination.
Bringing
light
at
center
and
who
the
of the
the
it,
spectator
spectating,
performs
semiotic problematic.
this necessarily
the
entails abandoning
However,
a
and
it
with
semiotics
structuralist/communicative
epistemology
replacing
is currently on the decline
and since
of experience. Since its popularity
The
many
see
the
"semiotic
adventure"
as
pass?,
the
semiotics
of
the
cinema
can no longer avoid

addressing
semiosis
in both
its personal
semiotics must
now
examine
issues raised by the actual carrying out of

and subjective
aspects. A true applied
how a human being uses signs in order to
ON MEMORY
AND
IN THE
IMAGINATION
495
CINEMA
to examine how he translates the world

into signs, and how he represents
them to himself.
interact with
things
the world:
Concordia
University
and
its
(Montreal)
NOTES
1
"All that
is in memory
is also in the soul."
Cicero
a
relates
takes place during
Its main
is a
character
story which
banquet.
Asked by his host?a
rich and noble Thessalian
named
poet by the name of Simonides.
an ode in his honor,
Simonides
avails himself
of the situation
to sing,
compose
Scopas?to
in one passage,
the praise of Castor
and Pollux. As soon as the poem
is finished,
Scopas
informs
the poet
to pay for
that he intends
Simonides
only half the poem,
proposing
2
The
obtain
the other
half from Castor
and Pollux
whom he had also praised.

thereafter
Shortly
two young men have asked to meet
him. The poet
the room where
the banquet
is being
goes out, but finds no one. At that very moment,
held
are killed.
and all the guests
are so mutilated
that their relatives,
collapses
They
to
to identify
the corpses. Only Simonides,
saved by the
wishing
bury them, are unable
can
the place occupied
Dioscuri,
them, having memorized
identify
by each of the guests
the meal.
Thus
the poet had invented
an art founded,
the "art of memory,"
as
during
Cicero notes, on images and
(Cicero, De oratore, Book II, tr. E. W. Sutton, completed
places
Mass.,
1976]).
by H. Rackham
[Cambridge,
is summoned
Simonides
Rhetorica
The
term
outside
where
Ad Herennium,
is used here
Book
III, ?29, tr. Harry Caplan
Mass.,
1954).
(Cambridge,
in reference
to Gilles Th?rien's
of the five processes
description
can also be
which
to the act of film
The other
applied
spectating.
the act of
reading,
are: the
four processes
the cognitive,
(called neurophysiological
perceptual
by Th?rien),
the argumentative,
and the affective. These processes
delimit
the boundaries
of spectatorial
between
the spectator
and the film. The symbolic
activity as such, that is, of the encounter
comes from the
of the partial or
results of the other processes
process
integration
global
or practical
with theoretical
with ideologies,
and with spectators'
In
knowledge,
imaginary.
other words,
it is in this way that the spectator
constructs
the cinematic
text by
integrating
it with other
uses and which
form
the whole
of his
systems of signs that he already
of
The latter are thus redirected

or
or
reinforced
presuppositions.
compromised,
text: for
a
can
film
a theory or
undermine
by the cinematic
example,
interrupt
a practice
or, on the contrary,
consolidate
a belief
and reaffirm
(about cinema,
life,
the unconscious,
and so on). The symbolic
accounts
for the fact that
capitalism,
process
the act of
is not an isolated and closed act and that
it a film is able to
spectating
through
a greater
achieve
itself with
or
the symbolic
life of a
by integrating
meaning
imaginary
and of a culture.
See Gilles Th?rien,
"Pour une s?miotique
de la lecture,"
in
spectator
Prot?e, vol. 18, no. 2 (1990), 67-80.
5
In this, Eisenstein's
is in agreement
with
that of Lev Kouleshov
who says, "to
thinking
meet
this or that demand
an art must have the power
to impress" (Lev Kouleshov,
Selected
Works: Fifty Years in Film [Moscow,
italics mine).
1987], pp. 54-55;
spectatorial
weakened
6
"The Montage
of Film Attractions,"
in Selected Works, vol. I,
Sergei M. Eisenstein,
ed. Richard
1922-34,
(London,
Writings,
1988), p. 39.
Taylor
7
"The Problem
of the Materialist
to Form,"
in Selected
Sergei M. Eisenstein,
Approach
Works, vol. I, p. 62.
8
to
According
principally
from
Jacques Aumont,
a tension between
the abandonment
its aggressive
and
of
the concept
of attraction
sides. This tension
functional
comes
would
NEW LITERARY HISTORY
496
have
a veritable
seemed
contradiction
in
the
context
Soviet
[Paris, 1979], p. 63). It isworth noting,

Montage Eisenstein
in his work during
the mid- and late thirties.
resurfaced
M.
in Selected Works, vol. IV, Beyond
9
"Torito,"
Eisenstein,
Sergei
ed. Richard
1995), p. 743.
(London,
Taylor
Sergd Eisenstein,
10 Eisenstein,
Selected Works, vol. IV, p. 751.
Aumont,
of
the period
(Jacques
that the word
however,
the Stars: The Memoirs
of
the opening
of the film in the spring of 1960, the shower murder
has
success. As stated in the New York Times at that time:
to its great financial
to see this movie
of teenagers
have gone
several
times over and the word
is
In fact, from
tied directly
11
been
"Any number
out in the suburbs
in the bathtub
scene'
is hot stuff
(cited in Robert A.
a
to the shower
1992], p. 60). Thanks
[Chicago,
of Reputation
the speed of a
for the most
took off with
part, the film, as is well known,
rapidly
it is reported,
for example,
social phenomenon:
that certain moviegoers
fainted
during
to see the film
and left the theater, while
others
returned
the film, others were repulsed
Kapsis,
scene,
times.
several
12
'the blood
that
The Making
Hitchcock:
the figure. These

traits are important
insofar as they
to the
call indices) with respect
(what Peirce would
which
await
traits is in itself a symptom
of the difficulties
traits support or document

as support and as evidence
The
serve both
role of the
figure. This double
to describe
someone
who wishes
in question
characteristics
the figure.
support
materially
and so on, which
the one
On
the figurai
determine
hand,
network;
in a way
one must
this is done
know
how
with
the
images,
the figurai
actions,
locales,
experience;
or representated.
On the other hand,
the
could not be activated
them, the figure
as such?that
of these characteristics
is, in what sets them apart from other
very existence
to the point where
to the activation
of the figure,
cinematic
they
components?attests
seizes certain
it is the imagination
which
the traces of this activation;
constitute
aspects of
sounds,
without
the film
to develop
the
itself from them while
itself and then to enrich
ensuring
is
But
is
which
which
of the complex
the
there
itself
nothing
by
object
figure.
a cinematic
The figure cannot
trait to play the role of a figurai characteristic.
are simultaneously
to characteristics
the catalyst
which
and the
be reduced
in order
emergence
predisposes
therefore
effect;
the
traits
serve
to identify
rather
those
places
where
the film
and
the
spectator's
meet.
imagination
It is difficult
13
even though
a
it is
knife in the cinema,
image of
generic
of
the
the
knife's
almost
about
any
image
given object:
possible
can make
to identify with certainty
it difficult
the type of knife which
shadow, for example,
not the case in Psycho.
is certainly
is used. This
to hide
14 Georg
"Lieux du
15
Claude
to envision
certain
Groddeck,
corps," no.
the
details
"Du ventre
humain
York, 1969), p. 135.

Ch?telet
16 No?lle
17
et de
3 (1971), 217; italics mine.

The Raw and the Cooked,
L?vi-Strauss,
son ?me,"
tr. John
Le corps ? corps culinaire (Paris, 1977),

Bellour,
Raymond
L'Analyse du film (Paris, 1979).
The spectator
is led to believe
that it is really Norman's
in Nouvelle
and Doreen
p. 95; my
revue de psychanalyse,
Weightman
(New
translation.
is responsible
for
who
mother
so as to delay the film's denouement
and insure the final shock.
to find her daughter
to legend, Demeter
had come down from Olympus
19 According
to the
Hades
and
taken
who
had
been
away
by him
by
kidnapped
Persephone,
as an old woman,
to stay
on the ground,
decided
the goddess,
Once
underworld.
disguised
18
Marion's
murder,
was returned.
Demeter's
until her daughter
and a compromise
Zeus had to intervene
and deadly.
to the sky,
once Demeter
returned
was reached
had
and Hades:
between
Demeter
The result is
and the underworld.
her
mother
between
divide
the
would
year
Persephone
the
ensures
the fertility of the earth in the spring and during
the cycle of seasons which
there
absence
and
to abdicate
rendered
her
the earth
divine
functions
sterile
ON MEMORY
summer
AND
(when
IMAGINATION
Persephone
IN THE
and Demeter
are
CINEMA
reunited),
497
and
sterility
during
the winter
months.
I am reminded
20
glossy
of the commentary
"the bathroom
scene, very
by Raymond
Durgnat:
to the theme of cleanliness,
and devoted
is followed
by a scene in which
into a black
Norman
has pulled
the chain"
disappears
sticky
cesspool.
The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock
In fact, Marion's
[London,
1974], p. 326).
and white,
everything
(Durgnat,
excremental
status
the film. First of all,

up in several incidents
spread out through
suffers the same fate as the stolen money:
the two are found
in the
trunk of a car at the bottom
of the excremental
and muddy waters of the swamp. Further,
out too far into the area of psychoanalysis,
without
it is agreed,
since Freud,
that
venturing
and feces can be related: money
for an adult what excrement
money
replaces
represents
to a child, an
of worth
and personal
The parallel
which
reveals
itself
object
property.
between Marion
and the money,
the destiny which
to
through
they share, serves therefore
reinforce
the connection
made
between
Marion
and excrement.
by the imagination
one
notices
shows
that Marion
the connection
allowed
the excremental
status
Finally, beyond
by psychoanalytic
insight,
of the young woman
is confirmed
later in the film by the discovery made
by her sister Lila
in the bathroom
room formerly
of the motel
by the victim. While
occupied
searching
the room in question
a piece of paper on which
with Sam, Lila discovers
can be
through
seen some numbers:
"Lila: 'Figuring!
It didn't
washed
down!
Look.
Some
get
figure has
to or subtracted
been added
from forty thousand!
was here!
That proves Marion
It'd be
too wild a coincidence.'"
of view of the development
From
the point
of the story, this
a clue about the presence
constitutes
of Marion
in the Bates Motel.
In effect, the
discovery
confirms
the
and sends
the action
off to its final
report of Detective
Arbogast
for the argument.
The figurai
of the deictic
"here" allows
capture
a slight diversion
nevertheless
of the meaning:
the referent
is no longer
the motel,
but
indeed
the bathroom
s passage
toilet! The piece of paper becomes the clue toMarion
through the
in its strictest
the
toilet, to the swamp behind the motel Taken
sense, given by the figure,
statement
"Marion was here" no longer
at the Bates
"Marion was here,
signifies
simply
Motel"
but more
"Marion was here, passing
the toilet bowl"!
specifically
through
21 Umberto
Eco, S?miotique et philosophie du langage (Paris, 1984), p. 109; my translation.
over semantic
22
The
of such a model
of in dictionary
models
conceived
advantage
are limited by term-to-term
fashion?which
correlation
between
and signified?is
signifier
that it includes within
the definition
of a term its various
(and interpreta
interpretations
tive contexts),
in return sanction
which
the relationship
between
the sign
interpretations
and its object. Thus,
the dictionary?unless
an
it is unwittingly
or
encyclopedia?cannot,
at least, does not intend to define
a term across its various contexts
of usage, even though
role in its signification
they may play an important
(one has only to think of the ironic use
of a term, which
its meaning).
This is why dictionary-type
are
semantics
obviously
changes
inconsistent
in short,
use. What
of limited
semantics
and,
encyclopedic
recognizes,
is that a term defines
itself by the usage (s) one makes
of it.
however,
finding
outcome.
23
So much
Umberto
I cite
Eco, Les Limites de l'interpr?tation
(Paris, 1992), p. 372; my translation.
text which
differs
from the English
version.
considerably
I am using Eco's formulation
24
when he writes:
"For he who lives through
the symbolic
the latter always
in one way or another
the experience
of a contact with
experience,
being
truth (whether
or immanent),
transcendent
it is the non-symbolic
as
appears
sign which
both
and useless
to
since
it always refers
else with
to
the
imperfect
something
regard
unlimited
the symbolic
seems different
flight of semiosis. On the other hand,
experience
to he who
lives it: it is the sensation
that what
is conveyed
as nebulous
by an expression,
and rich as it may be, is actually
itself.
living within the expression
Such is undoubtedly
the experience
of one who symbolically
a work of art, of
interprets
one who
lives a mystical
relation
form symbols appear
to him),
and of one
(in whatever
here
the French
498
who
NEW LITERARY HISTORY
a text in the symbolic mode"

(Eco, S?miotique et philosophie
engages
in original
text, my translation).
hereafter
Eco, Lector in fabula
(Paris, 1985), p. 76; my translation;
See n. 4 above.
du langage, p. 218;
italics
25
26
cited
in text.
tr. Richard Howard

Camera Lucida,
Roland
1981), pp. 26, 43.
Barthes,
(New York,
if sometimes,
its clarity,
the
As Barthes
then,
despite
"Nothing
suprising,
explains:
no longer in front
is
when
the
after
the
revealed
should
be
fact,
only
photograph
punctum
27
28
of me
and
I think
I am
back
looking
of description
Zee's photograph,
photograph
in an effort
a
on it. I may
know better
photograph
its language
at, as if direct vision oriented
its point of effect,
which will always miss
I remember
than
it
wrongly,
engaging
the punctum. Reading
me:
I had discovered
the strapped
I thought
what moved
der
has worked within me,
in her Sunday best; but this photograph
of the black woman
pumps
she was wearing;
for (no
that the real punctum was the necklace
and later on I realized
I had seen worn
of braided
itwas this same necklace
(a slender ribbon
doubt)
gold) which
once she died, remained
shut up in a family box
in my own family, and which,
by someone
as an old maid,
lived with her mother
of old jewelry
(this sister of my father never married,
I thought of her dreary life). I had just realized
whenever
and I had always been saddened
a certain
the punctum
accommodate
could
it was,
and incisive
immediate
that however
Van
Camera Lucida, p. 53).

(Barthes,
(but never any scrutiny)"
latency
that the process
this quote, Barthes
Camera Lucida, p. 55. Following
29
Barthes,
explains
it
to photography
and does not apply to film. In this respect,
is unique
he is describing
seems to me, he is wrong.

On Memory and Imagination in The Cinema - Marting Lefebvre PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

On Memory and Imagination in The Cinema - Marting Lefebvre PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author(s): Martin Lefebvre

has shown us how greatly

into a semiotic system and, by the same token, transform it

New Literary History,

it blends with imagination,

the work of Ted

1999, 30: 479-498

As a result of the work done by the imagination,

a process of appropriation and integration which

text to the spectator's

links together mental

from the very start, what

all but dropped

work of the imagination

the "p?on with

can see, the generalized

calls izobrazhenie), which

in spite of the obvious

the spectator. It should be emphasized

itself into my imaginary? What

the young motel

the basis for the imaginary

sponse to the film!)

is situated is not excluded

the tie which binds them

the two, one finds

of the shower murder

of the head and the anal and urethral openings;

head" in English. As for the lower orifices,

the lower and upper

in the digestive process.

to a bird since her last name, Crane,

the fertility of the earth and the abundance

is, from the point

(one recalls the words heard by Marion during

the shower and of the infernal swamp which

awaits her; the

cellar (food again!)

as a sexual act (a rape, in fact)? Of course, it is

the French will say that he

and so on. The

From Film Semiology

semiosis and avoid any "cancerous

clear by now that what I am proposing

the smoke produced

which turns in the

selves signs (nor do they literally communicate).

device, as was the case with the memory

to various aspects of a given cultural

projects upon it (God, for example).

for this is very simple: thefigure is not to be understood as thefilms

is not, for the

it be then that the figure, rather than being the result of a

shown, this is a fundamental

in the same way that, with Eco, literal

can see, the literal content of the film leads the

that they evoke. As one

to both personal and cultural knowledge

the punctum, Barthes

said that it is that "which rises from the

scene, shoots out of it like an arrow, and pierces me"