The concept of narrative space, coined by Stephen Heath remains so simple yet profound in terms of those who study film. At first glance one could deduce that this term, which clearly describes the space within a film in which a narrative is told. Mark Garret Cooper more eloquently states in his Narrative Spaces that the combining of narrative and space describes "cinema's unique contribution to modern representational form" (139). The intricacies however, come about once one focuses into a specific film and picks apart its "space". The narrative space within a film includes places, positions, movements, conditions, and vision. A perfect example of a film utilizing narrative space from the establishing shot to final scene is Sleepless in Seattle.
This particular film tells the story of how a lonely widower Sam Baldwin and a woman named Annie Reed are connected by the efforts of Sam's son Jonah, who broadcasts on the radio that he wants a new mom for himself and also to make is father happy again. Annie by chance happens to hear this radio show and feels an instant connection with Sam. It is there that the story begins of these two characters separated by thousands of miles of space come to find each other and the love that both had been missing. To (quite bluntly) depict their physical distance from one another the director points out throughout the film each characters placement on the United States map. In order to more poignantly establish the continuum of the narrative spaces the director subdivides "that abstract, putatively empty space into concrete, bounded places in which narrative events occur" (Cooper, 139).
One must pay close attention to the structure and shots of the scenes in Sleepless in Seattle. Within those scenes the harsh feelings of distance are portrayed so well. Einstein said it well in his statement that "'the shot is by no means an element of montage. The shot is a montage cell'" (142). What Einstein meant by this is that "the contents of the frame provide their own principles of division, conflict, and articulation" in such a way that the setting, objects within the shot, character movements and gaze, all combine to create a specific meaning. The assertion of separation by numerous circumstances are most readily noticeable when the two characters view each other throughout the film. When sam first sees Annie, in a close slow motion shot in the airport, she is quickly immersed in the bustle of people people walking, until finally she is lost in the crowd. One of the most significant scenes that further illustrates their continuous separation by means of implying "relations of depth apart from perspectival codes" is the scene where the two first see each other across a highway (Cooper, 146). This scene shifts back and forth between Annie and Sam's perspectives. Their gazes towards one another are halted by the shots of oncoming traffic.
Both the rush of people in the airport, and the dangerous oncoming of traffic are actions within the film that intensify the prolonged disconnection between Sam and Annie. Their gaze here clearly becomes the key factor of the movie. This film utilizes the "character looks to establish a dialectic between form and content" (Cooper, 147). Therefore it is clear that their not articulated feelings for one another will only become aware when the two are involved in a mutual gaze within an uninterrupted setting. This "utopian space" for lovers in Sleepless in Seattle happens to occur on top of the Empire State building. It is here that for the first time Sam and Annie are depicted in a space devoid of people and interruptions. This unique space provides the best setting for the characters to be involved in such an intense bond that their line of eyesight is hardly ever broken. It's "as if an invisible thread connects them and draws them together across the space" (Cooper,149). This narrative space is the perfect culmination of the film's story of lovers separated by immense distance, circumstances, and situations, finally uniting with one another.
What you refer to as narrative space-"places, positions, movements, conditions, and vision" and "the setting, objects within the shot, character movements and gaze, [that] all combine to create a specific meaning"-falls into the larger category of the movie's mise-en-scène, which Graeme Turner in the book Film as Social Practice IV as "a theory about film grammar, a shooting and production style and a shorthand term for 'everything that is in the frame' of a shot" (you can see my wiki entry on the course's Blackboard site if you want to examine the term in more detail). The framing and matching lighting in many scenes also contribute to the mise-en-scène, furthering the development of narrative space. And you are absolutely right when you suggest that Sleepless in Seattle uses its narrative space to help convey meaning.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Stephen Heath in his book Questions of Cinema, "space, constructed alongside and sometimes against the cause/effect sequence, becomes "foregrounded" to a degree that renders it at times the primary structural level of the film.” Space is definitely the driving narrative structure. It is the concept of space that drives this film–even though Sam (Tom Hanks) and Annie (Meg Ryan) are separated by the entire continental United States, their eyelines match and they are linked together visually. In the final scene, they are finally linked physically as well, and we all get the happily ever after ending we knew was coming.
I like your assertion that gaze is what links the two characters in the film (Sam and Annie) despite the geographic, narrative, and cinematographic distances between them. As Negar mentioned in her lecture on Monday, "gaze" is what cues the viewer to the intrusion or allusion to something that is occurring or entering from outside the frame's shot.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Maltese Falcon" the client looks outside of the frame towards what the viewer assumes to be the source of the knocking sound, which cues them to the impending entrance of the second detective. This "power of the gaze" shows how critical the gaze is in building a narrative understanding of a film's action, not to mention maintaining a steady flow of continuity between takes and scenes.
If you'll notice in the first scenes of Sleepless in Seattle (in which Annie is listening to the radio), Annie never looks directly at the camera, and actually favors looking to the left of the frame. In fact, even though she is centered in the shot (more or less), she is slightly OFF-center to the right (logically, because she is driving and is in America).
Sam, on the other hand, is always looking to the right in every shot and cut (unless looking at his son, who is usually situated to his left). In this way, the viewer gets a sense of connection between the two sets of shots (and to a more subliminal extent, between the two characters), and is almost given the impression that the two characters are engaged in dialogue and conversing with one another. Don't believe me? Mute the audio of the entire scene, and you'll notice something interesting (but in hindsight, fairly obvious): it almost appears as if Sam is talking on the phone to Anny, and Annie is responding to him while in her car. The only reason for this is the continuity editing that places both of their shots next to one another, but ALSO the subtle hint that they appear to be looking at one another from beyond the frames.
The intensity of this film really does come from the changing proximity of the characters (especially when they make eye contact in public but don't sustain an interaction). It pulls everyone to the edge of their seats because we want to see them meet so badly. The cliché
ReplyDelete"so close, yet so far away" certainly applies.
The use of narrative space, as you discussed in your blog, creates and sustains the anticipation of their ultimate meeting. And it almost become unbearable. While Annie was having dinner in New York with her husband, did anyone else want to scream at the screen and tell her to get moving?
I'm glad Katrina mentioned the airport scene, since thats the one scene with Annie and Sam that I have a little difficulty putting into the Heath narrative spaces framework. Both characters are brought together physically in Seattle. Sam (Tom Hanks), actually sees Annie (Meg Ryan). The camera focuses on her, showing Annie from Sam's point of view. Of course, Annie does not see Sam, so the space between the characters is preserved. Still, Sam sees Annie, and some of the space between the characters is removed. Why do this prior to the highway scene? I agree with Katrina that the highway scene is a great example of interruptions that block the unimpeded gaze between the two characters. The airport scene seems to prematurely eliminate much of the distance between Sam and Annie. The crowds got in the way at the airport, but the camera had already closed the distance - we had a shot reverse shot of Annie and Sam, even though Annie was distracted and looking away.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I agree with Katrina that the film establishes the necessity of a "mutual gaze in an uninterrupted setting." The entire film is a setup for the final closing of space.
Great breakdown of Cooper's article. Very succinct.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that you bring up "the utopian space" for the lovers as a way for them to finally articulate what their gaze implies: they dig each other. Isn't it ironic that they finally achieve this in a space that is usually one of the most visited(and thus very crowded) in NYC?
Also, this idea of "the look" that Cooper asserts is the fueling of the narration is what I think makes the movie a bit boring. Although I do like the film (perhaps not as much as Ephron's other works), Ryan's far off "looks" become predictable and often sappy whenever she hears Hanks' comments about his deceased wife and she cannot stop bawling. In fact, when you say that Ryan and Hanks only gaze at each other across chaotic surroundings creating a disconnection for their characters thereby having us believe that they will connect when the chaos subsides is what makes it conventional and predictable to me.
I do love happy endings, but this disconnect and then sudden connection seems to me a bit unrealistic and that is what really bugs me. This absurdity is only reinforced when Ryan and Hanks are walking to the elevator and they can't take their eyes off each other. Hanks, presumably, leaves his girlfriend, and they both live happily ever after, right?
I really like your invocation of Einstein in your blog. The man understood life and love as well as he scienes. After all, it was he who said "gravity can not be held responsible for people falling in love." Again, he hits the nail on the head when he says that "the shot is a montage cell." Granted, this is true for certain shots more than others. But within each shot, there are numerous events occuring, each, as you say, combining with the others to create a distinct impression and effect. At some times, it is easy to notice this. Take, for example, Annie (Meg Ryan) in Sleepless in Seattle driving in her car listening to Sam (Tom Hanks) talk to the radio "therapist." The main aspects of that shot-Annie listening, emotional, not driving carefully; Sam speaking with candor; Annie and Sam saying the same things at the same times. Granted, there are certainly more things going on than the aforementioned three; however, with the medium and close-up shots of Annie driving, we as viewers are directed carefully to pay close attention to certain parts of that montage. At other times, the impression we should take from a shot is much harder to discern. I think immediately of Caché. The final scene of the film is indeed a montage--many children and parents meeting on the steps inside a gate after school. Children are moving everywhere, parents are waiting, then moving, then gone. The constant fluidity of the elements of the montage create a very feel effect, one that we would feel watching a school dismiss, not knowing which of the hundreds of people to watch. And because of the distractions in this montage, we miss the one crucial part of it--François and Pierrot meeting briefly. A small event whose implications are immense, the "montage" nature of this scene creates an environment that makes it easy to miss this event which, at any other point in the film, would not go unnoticed. Herein lies the brilliance of both Einstein and film.
ReplyDeleteCorrection. Katrinah's Einstein = Sergei. Mine = Albert. This same last name business is causing me much greif. But they're ideas, like their names, both work for this blog.
ReplyDeleteNot being snarky, but it's Eisenstein, not Einstein.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Eisenstein