From Film to Architecture_1/3

計画系 660 号

【カテゴリーⅠ】

日本建築学会計画系論文集 第 巻 第

号，

，

年2月

A SEARCH FOR ARCHITECTONIC SPATIAL STRUCTURES AIN Search for Architectonic Structures in NarrativeARK” Film: NARRATIVE FILM : Spatial CASE STUDY OF“RUSSIAN From film to architecture : AnCase extended cinematic approach toArk ” architectural space design (Part 1) Study of “Russian From物語映画における建築的な空間構造の分析： Film to Architecture: An Extended Cinematic Approach to Architectural Space Design (part 1) 「エルミタージュ幻想」によるケーススタディ 映画から建築へ：建築空間デザインへの映画記号論的アプローチ（その１） ＊

＊＊

Richard DOUZJIAN Teruyuki内 MONNAI リチャード ドゥズジヤン，門 輝行 *,

**

In this paper, narrative film is defined according to structuralist semio-linguistics, and then its units of significance are laid out in a preliminary model of elementary units. Then, by applying this definition and segmentation process on the case study film of “Russian Ark ”, it was found that all its significant elements and organizational structures are dependent on, and function of, the denoted architectonic elements of the actual State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, where it was filmed. This dependency of the filmic structures on architectonic elements allowed the preliminary conclusions that their similarities with architectonic spatial structures are as follows: 1) architectural spatial units are similar to segments and syntagmas, 2) their organizational structure is similar to the diegetic spatial structure, and 3) architectonic programmatic and functional organizations are similar to the narrative organizational structures, or syuzhet.

Keywords: architecture, film, diegesis, narrative, spatial structure, semio-linguistics ,

,

,

,

,

-

1. Introduction Narrative film, as an artistic product is to this day and age one of the most powerful means to stimulate imagination, feelings and deep contemplations in its users (i.e. viewers). As architectural designers are in constant search for inspirational sources in order to produce newer and more exciting designs, we propose film as such a source. Although some architects have already used and are still using film in that purpose, their approaches remain more intuitive than pragmatic1.

The objective of this paper is to deepen the understanding of film on all its levels of significance in order to have a better manipulation of its elements. By doing so, architects would be able to design architectures more loyal in form and significance to their filmic source of inspiration, and add additional substantial and formal layers to their creations, resulting in objects having multiple readings, becoming more attractive and appealing to their users.

We also focus on the segmentation and the organizational structures of a case study narrative film, Russian Ark, by using structuralist semio-linguistics2 that allows us to analyze it from its smallest units of significance to the largest. We use semio-linguistics because it describes and clarifies how the filmic medium functions and how it proceeds to create meanings. Moreover, the growth of semiotic theory and the presence of its vocabulary in a variety of intellectual fields confirm the importance of the science of signs, sign systems and signifying practices as a tool for addressing the semantic riches of extremely diverse cultural forms, while semiotics ’ cross-disciplinary thrust constitutes an antidote to the fragmentation and compartmentalization of intellectual disciplines. Therefore structuralist semiolinguistics plays a bridging role between film and architecture in the search for their similarities.

2. Elementary Units of Film 2.1. Generalities In the breakdown of film into its elementary units, we largely base our model on the extensive studies conducted by the film theorist Christian Metz who is considered the reference in this field. Applying Saussurian semiology to define film language, Metz reached the ＊

* **

＊＊

京都大学大学院工学研究科建築学専攻 博士課程 Doctoral Course, Graduate Student, Dept of Architecture and Architectural 京都大学大学院工学研究科建築学専攻 教授・工博 Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University Professor, Doctor of Engineering, Graduate Student, Dept of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Graduate School of Engineering, Kyoto University

−

−

conclusion that most narrative films resemble one another in their principal syntagmatic figures (units which organize spatial and temporal relations in various combinations); and the true analogy between film and natural language operates not at the level of basic units, but rather in their common syntagmatic nature3. Metz structured film according to his Grande Syntagmatique model (Fig. 1) that constitutes a typology of the diverse ways time and space can be ordered through editing within the segments of the narrative film.

We use this model for the following reasons: 1) it is the first most developed “scientific ” attempt to analyze film language, 2) it is still widely used by film analysts and used as the starting point for many other syntagmatic analyses, 3) it can be useful even when inapplicable during a film analysis because it reveals to which degree the given film is far from the classical narrative ones, 4) it provides a clear example for an analytical methodology of film, and 5) it opens the door for further development and perfection.

In the addition to the syntagmatic structures of film, we learned of the crucial roles montage, narrative, diegesis and codes play in the construction process of film, and so, adding together all these elements we generated the preliminary model in Fig. 2. This model is not a final one, at this stage it is our own first attempt of understanding and representing film structures, and it is bound to change and adapt with the advancement of our research and the case studies we investigate.

2.2. Preliminary Model We establish that narrative, diegesis, one or more autonomous segments and codes (specific and non-specific to film) form the highest level of significance of the narrative film. The narrative is audio-visually materialized by the diegesis (the sum of the represented denotation4), which in turn is expressed, and cinematographically structured by means of autonomous segments. Narrative, diegesis, autonomous segments and their respective units and typologies are articulated together by means of different corresponding codes (Fig. 2).

The syntagmatic structures are simultaneously different and linked to the general narrative and diegetic structures: they are linked because some of the syntagmatic

Fig.1 Metz ’s Grande Syntagmatique model for film segmentation taken from Film Language: A

Semiotics of the Cinema

configurations that constitute it are only found in relation to the story and more generally in relation to the actions taking place in the world of the told story (i.e. in relation to the diegesis); different because these constructions don ’t have the level of abstraction of general narrative constructions. The latter constructions are completely independent from the signifiers5 that convey them, while the syntagmatic ones are founded on represented (figurative) elements that are visible on screen.

This means that the correlation between syntagmatic units, narrative and diegesis is quite fluid: segmentations can be applied and marked either by taking into consideration

the

combination

of

narrative/diegetic

elements (a deeper structure of narrative film) with types of punctuating montage units (the optical devices, elements of a more superficial structure) or by taking into consideration each of the narrative/ diegetic elements and optical devices exclusively by themselves.

2.3. Narrative The general definitions of Narrative can be summarized as the recounting of two or more events (or a situation or an event) that are logically connected, occur over time, and are linked by a consistent subject into a whole.

−

−

Fig.2 Preliminary Model of Elementary Units of Narrative Film

To further comprehend Narrative, we adopt the Russian Formalist approach6 because it considers film as a narrative art, and treats the narrative itself as an object that consists of form and substance. The concept of Form here is a very important motivator, as our goal is to use film to generate architectural Forms and Spaces; the Formalist approach therefore simplifies the task of narrative analysis on those levels.

According to Russian Formalists, Narrative is distinguished into two levels: the Fabula and the Syuzhet.

Fabula (or story) is understood as the basic outline or raw material of the story prior to its artistic organization. It is the logical and chronological cause and effects, and relationships between the characters and/or the events of the story.

Syuzhet (or plot) is summarized as the rearrangement of the basic elements of the fabula. This act can take place by using artistic narrative techniques such as parallel plots, ellipsis, retardation, reverse chronology, etc. Syuzhet can also be described as the formal manifestation of the fabula: it can be imagined in terms of form and organization, as it can also be referred to as the structure of the fabula. Structure in this case refers to the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex.

Fabula is therefore the content of the narrative in its absolute non-deformed state, as for the syuzhet, it represents the structure that re-organizes that content. And this is what interests us in our research and our analyses concerning the notion of narrative.

2.4. Diegesis The concept of Diegesis7 is very important to film, and is one of the notions that give it its particularities. This concept was introduced to cinema by Etienne Souriau and later expanded into film theory by Christian Metz who asserts that the diegesis “designates the film ’s

represented instance, that is to say, the sum of a film ’s denotation: the narration itself, but also the fictional space and time dimensions implied in and by the narrative, and consequently the characters, the landscapes, the events, and other narrative elements, in so far as they are considered in their denoted aspect ”8; Diegesis is then the audio-visually represented world where the narrative of the film is taking place in.

Intra-diegetic refers to any and all filmic elements (characters, sounds, music, objects, images, etc.) that exist in and affect the diegetic world. These elements are considered on-screen when in the visual field of the camera, and off-screen when outside its visual field. On the other hand, Extra-diegetic refers to any and all filmic elements that exist outside and do not affect the diegetic world; the most common examples of extra-diegetic elements are the musical soundtracks of almost all commercial narrative films, and the unseen narrator narrating/explaining events occurring on-screen.

2.5. Segments and Syntagmas Segments, according to Metz, are delimited, identified and defined based on the following three criteria: 1) unity of action (diegetic continuity), 2) the type of demarcation (i.e. the visible or invisible optical devices used to separate and articulate the major segments) and 3) syntagmatic structure (the principles of pertinence which identify the syntagmatic type).

Accordingly in narrative films, narrative segments are “blocks ” of syntagmas that are joined together containing information relevant to the understanding of the narrative of the film in total. In most narrative films, these segments are articulated with either optical devices and/or non-narrative segments (themselves constituted of syntagmas with no narrative significance).

However, the delimitation of segments is not always easy since their limits follow more the filmmaker ’s way of using/arranging the basic film elements than a clear general rule: for example, a fade-in/fade-out is sometimes used to simulate the view from an opening/shutting eye and not to delimit a segment. Moreover the limits of a segment are also relative to the way every viewer/analyst reads the film and what he is looking to extract from it.

Syntagma ”is the general term used by Metz to designate the units of narrative autonomy (narrative segments), the pattern according to which individual shots can be grouped, reserving both sequence and scene to designate specific types of syntagmas ”9. Metz ’s eight preliminary types of syntagma are laid out and numbered in Fig. 1.

2.6. Shots and Optical Devices A Shot (single or autonomous) is a continuous flow of images uninterrupted by editing. A shot doesn ’t have any specific duration. It is only limited and defined by the beginning and ending of the capturing process of the camera (photographic, digital or other). It is also the largest minimal segment of a film, since at least one shot is required to make a film, or part of it. However, “if the shot is not the smallest unit of filmic significance, it is at least the smallest unit of the filmic chain ” (Metz)10.

The Optical Devices (OD) are series of optical signs used during the editing phase of filmmaking (e.g. fade to black, dissolve, fade-out, etc.). They are punctuating devices that separate, articulate and mark the beginning and ending of shots, syntagmas and major segments depending on their contextual use in the film by the filmmaker. And finally, they are elements that are film-specific, independent of any other system, well defined, easily distinguishable and isolated, punctual, unrelated to any specific film or cultural background, and are some sort of construction signs.

−

−

2.7. Codes Codes are by definition “constructions that establish a systematic correlation between two systems ”11. They are the set of widely accepted conventions that dictate the use of units/elements of a significant system of film within itself (e.g. intra-narrative) or the units/elements of a certain system in relation to another one (e.g. diegesis-segments).

Metz argues that like any artistic language, the cinema manifests a plurality of codes, and although these remain somewhat constant across all or most films, there is no single “master code ” shared by all. Metz considers that filmic texts form a structured network produced by the interweaving of specific cinematic codes and non-specific codes. The specific cinematic codes are codes that appear only in the cinema, that is to say codes linked to film ’s definition as deploying moving multiple images (e.g. codes of camera movement, montage and continuity editing); as for non-specific codes they are those that are either shared with other arts (e.g. narrative codes, shared with novels, or codes of visual analogy, shared with painting), or completely non-specific such as codes widely spread in society and culture (e.g. codes of gender roles).

3. Analysis of Russian Ark 3.1. About Russian Ark Russian Ark is a 95 minute12 long, single-shot Russian film directed by Alexander Sokurov in 2002. The story consists of the wandering of two figures inside the St Petersburg ’s State Hermitage Museum, Russia: the first figure, the “Stranger ”13, is seen by the spectators, while the other (the camera-figure as he will be further referred to) is unseen, while his voice (that of Sokurov himself), the camera movements (representing his own visual trajectory in space) and the “Stranger ” communicating with him being the only references to his existence. The wandering of these two figures takes them through more than 40 different spaces of the Hermitage Museum ’s Theater and Winter Palace (where most of our analysis is focused), while interacting with each other and other characters representing 200 years of selected Russian/Hermitage history (from Peter the Great to the last days of the Romanoff dynasty).

Russian Ark is considered a first person filmic experience as the viewer identifies himself directly with the camera-figure.

3.2. Reasons for choosing Russian Ark We have chosen Russian Ark (RA) as our case study in this paper because it is considered a revolutionary film on the technical level of cinematographic production, since it was the first ever feature-length film to be filmed entirely in a single continuous shot (95 minutes) without resorting to any montage14. The production of RA was made possible thanks to the high-definition digital steady-cam (with a portable hard-drive capable of registering around 100 minutes of uncompressed footage) that was specially developed for this film. The video images were later transferred to conventional 35mm film for cinema screen projection purposes.

Filming a feature-length film in a single-shot sequence constrained, or rather enabled Sokurov (the writer, director, visual concept and principal image designer of RA) to elaborate a film grammar unique to him and this film; by omitting a well-established specific cinematic code, Sokurov, in need of some sort of punctuation device to pace and structure his film, resorted to a non-specific code, i.e. the Architectural code, and more specifically the architectonic codes of the Hermitage Museum. This means that the cinematic code of montage in RA is replaced by the architectonic codes of spatial structuring. Thus the critical reason for our choice of RA is our hypothesis that this film could play an intermediary role between film and architecture.

3.3. Segmentation of Russian Ark Since RA is a single-shot sequence film, already “the smallest unit of the filmic chain ”, we find that although we cannot segment it directly following our elementary units of film model used to define “classic ” films, we can at least use it as a reference.

Therefore, as a starting point we make the following hypothesis: As defined earlier in Section 2.6, a single-shot sequence “is a continuous flow of images (and sounds) uninterrupted by editing ”. It means that the shot itself is made of smaller units. Therefore RA is made of audio-visual signifiers (images and sounds); and since it is a narrative film, some of these signifiers must unconditionally convey narrative significance. In our case study, we consider audio-visual signifiers to be narrative, those signifiers that denote characters and events that themselves denote specific historical time-periods. These signifiers are also filmed with a camera in constant movement. Consequently, the correlations between these different forms of significance (the audio-visual signifiers and camera movements) form syntagmatic relationships; and since in RA these narrative audiovisual signifiers and camera movements are grouped together according to common themes (each group represents a specific character, time-period and/or event), we consider these groups as narrative syntagmas (NS).

More specifically, we define as NS those syntagmas in which 1) the “Stranger ” has meaningful conversations with other on-screen characters, or 2) on-screen characters are recognized to have historical significance, or 3) sufficient meaningful intra-diegetic audio-visual information is conveyed to the viewers in order to assimilate the represented time-period of the segment; thus the delimitation process of the NS is done following the on-screen appearance and disappearance of these significant characters or the significance conveying audio-

−

−

visual elements. Consequently, all syntagmas that do not fulfill one of the above criteria are considered as non-narrative syntagmas (NNS).

Table 1 Delimitation and Designation of the Narrative Syntagmas

In Table 1 we indicate each NS with a designation, historical period they refer to, and finally a

Narrative Syntagma Designation

Time limits on the Time-track (hh:mm:ss)

Referred Historical Period

description of their content. Then following the

NSA

00:05:52-00:07:44

17th Century

camera ’s on-screen movements inside the Hermitage

NSB

00:12:08-00:13:59

18th Century

Winter Palace, we trace its actual trajectory on the

NSC NSD

00:17:02-00:21:35 00:23:30-00:23:40

21st Century 19th Century

NSE

00:23:46-00:31:58

19th+21st Century

NSF

00:34:44-00:38:30

21st Century

NSG

00:40:24-00:42:36

21st Century

NSH

00:43:42-00:44:14

20th Century

World War II segment 1: marching soldiers and overhead airplanes

spaces that contain NS, and by Ex a particular space

NSI

00:46:46-00:48:14

20th Century

World War II segment 2: the siege of Stalingrad

that contains NSy, and so we have Ex

NSJ

00:49:36-00:52:10

18th Century

Old Catherine the Great

NSK

00:54:20-01:00:31

19th Century

Nicholas Romanoff I receiving the Persian ambassador

NSL

01:02:57-01:06:55

20th+ 21st Century

Discussion between 3 Generations of Hermitage Directors

NSM

01:08:29-01:10:35

20th Century

Nicholas Romanoff II & Family having dinner

cases where 1 NS occurs in a corresponding n

NSN

01:11:40-01:23:44

number of E (where n>1), and where an m number of

NSO

01:23:44-01:28:46

their position and limits on the time-track, the

floor plans of the museum in order to position the NS in the corresponding spaces they appear in and also in the order of their appearance.

Observing the distribution of the NS in the spaces of the Hermitage in Fig. 3 we notice that in addition

Description of Syntagma content

to their clear limitations in actual screening time, they are also well defined in and limited to particular spaces. We therefore designate by E the group of all NSy (x and y

indicate respectively the designation of a particular E and NS as specified in Fig. 3, e.g. E4 designate by

NSC); and we

the group of spaces that contain NNS.

We also notice that the relation between Ex and NSy is not always a “1 to 1 ” relation, as there are 6 cases where 1 NS occurs in 1 corresponding E, 5

20th+ 21st Century 20th Century

Peter the Great venting out his anger Young Catherine the Great admiring theater rehearsals Contemporary Figures Brief appearance of Pushkin Conversation with the Blind Woman in the presence of Russian Navy soldiers and museum clerks Conversation with “the Talented Boy ” Conversation with ex-ballerina Alla Osipenko

Last Dance Ball in the Palace Final Procession

NS occur in 1 E (where m>1). Therefore we conclude that in RA there are 3 types of syntagma-space relations: Type1 Ex Type 2: nEx Type3: Ex

NSy

(1 to 1 relations: 1 space includes 1 narrative syntagma)

NSy

(n to 1 relations: a number of spaces include the same narrative syntagma)

mNSy (1 to m relations: 1 space includes multiple syntagmas)

These types of syntagma-space relations in themselves constitute larger sets of syntagmas that we designate as narrative segments, or (where

z

would be a particular 1.

z(T1): Ex

2.

z

3.

z(T3): Ex

(T2): nEx

NSy

and z the designation of a (where

as indicated in Fig. 4) expressed in the following manner:

is a narrative segment composed of Type1 relations);

NSy (where

is a narrative segment composed of Type2 relations);

mNSy (where

is a narrative segment composed of Type3 relations).

Based on the typologies and expressions described above, we lay out the detailed compositions of

z

in Table 2, and then place them in

space on the floor plans of the Hermitage Winter Palace in Fig. 4; noting that the on-screen temporal delimitations of

z

are based on the

following 2 criteria: 1) Visual Limits (VL): start point is when Ex becomes on-screen even before being physically penetrated; end point is when Ex becomes off-screen. These limits are considered as the limits of the

z

.

2) Physical Limits (PL): start point is when the camera actually enters Ex; end point is when the camera actually exits Ex. These are considered as the limits of the Ex. We illustrate how these VL and PL manifest themselves in RA in the examples in Fig. 5.

Finally, having laid out in detail the temporal and spatial limits of the narrative segments , what remains of the film as space and time falls in the category of non-narrative segments ( ) that are composed of non-narrative syntagmas.

are also positioned on the floor

plans of the Hermitage in Fig. 4.

We conclude this section by establishing the criteria (ref. Section 2.5), specific to RA, which delimit, identify and define its segments: 1) Unity of action: the on-screen, intra-diegetic manifestation of characters, events and sounds of narrative significance that represent a same historical time period in spaces Ex;

−

−

2) Type of Demarcation: The onscreen

limits

(VL-PL)

of

are

dependent on and in function of onscreen,

intra-diegetic

architectonic

elements such as doors and thresholds; 3) Syntagmatic Structure: T3): nEx

mNSy (where

z

z

(T1; T2;

is composed

of Type1 or Type2 or Type3 spacesyntagma relations, and where n 1 and m 1 but not simultaneously >1).

3.4. Analysis of Russian Ark ’s Diegetic Spatial Structure As defined in Section 2.4 of this paper, diegesis is the represented instance of the

narrative,

the

audio-visual

manifestation of its space and time dimensions.

Just

as

an

actual

architectural

spatial structure is composed of the total amount (addition) of all the spaces that constitute it, so is the Diegetic Spatial Structure (or Ds); which means that the Ds of RA is the accumulation of the group of spaces that contain narrative segments (i.e.

E), and the group of spaces that contain non-narrative segments (i.e. ), expressed as: Ds=E+ . Consequently, Ds is any and all Hermitage space

Fig.3 Narrative and Non-narrative Syntagmas Positioning and Camera Trajectory Original floor plans courtesy of Hermitagemuseum.org

Designations added by the author

captured by the camera, visible onscreen, and seen by the viewers (Fig. 6).

At this stage, following the camera ’s

Table 2 Detailed Composition and Space/Time Delimitations of Narrative Segments Narrative Segment Designation

trajectory that we traced in Fig. 3, and the result of placing the Ds on the floor plans, we begin to have a clearer view of the shape of RA ’s diegesis ’ spatial structure, which is linear. However

Visual Limits (hh:mm:ss)

Physical Limits (hh:mm:ss)

00:16:53

00:17:01 - 00:21:47

00:23:09 - 00:31:13

00:23:17 - 00:31:01

00:38:56

00:39:26 - 00:45:02

00:46:54 - 00:48:22

00:47:04 - 00:48:19

00:34:42 - 00:38:41

this is made possible because of the availability

of

Hermitage ’s

Winter

Palace floor plans, something that is not very common; which means that this method is not sufficiently general to describe the architectonics of a

00:49:03 - 00:52:36

Composition of the Narrative Segments (T2):(E4+E5)

NSC

(T2,T3):[(E7 ( NSD+ NSE)), ((E7+E8+E9) NSE)] (T1):E13

NSSF

(T3): E15 (NSG+NSH) (T1): E17

NSI

(T2):(E18+E19) NSJ

00:54:00 - 01:10:03

00:54:20 - 01:00:43

(T1):E22

NSK

01:03:03

01:03:07 - 01:07:07

(T1):E25

NSL

01:07:46

01:08:13 - 01:11:05

(T2):(E27+E28+E29)

01:11:06

01:11:51 - 01:23:58

(T1):E32

01:23:28

01:23:58 - 01:29:15

NSM

NSN

(T2):(E33+E34+E35+E36) NSO

film ’s diegetic structure.

We proceed then by following a relatively more generalized method of analysis, but keeping in mind the linear structure as a starting hypothesis. Since all films are made of syntagmas, or at least a single shot, we use our findings concerning the segmentation and syntagmas (Section 3.2) to demonstrate the above hypothesis. As previously discussed, the narrative and non-narrative segments of RA are in designate as Diegetic Progression Graph, or DPG (Fig. 7a).

−

−

The Abscissa (x axis) of the DPG represents the actual function of the screening

time,

and

completely

dependent of, in correlation with, and contained

in

the

spaces

of

the

Hermitage; furthermore, the on-screen (dis)appearance of the spaces being also in function of the screening time of the film,

we

place

interrelated

all

of

the

elements

above

(space-time-

segment) in a bi-axial function graph that we screening time (T) of RA (including opening and closing credits, a total of 1hour 35minutes 21seconds), and its units are hh:mm:ss. The values placed on it are the Physical Time Limits (PL) values from Table 1. The Ordinate (y axis) represents the group of all spaces filmed in the Winter Palace (Ds); the numbers on it are not values, but the designation of the spaces (Ex and

x

) in

Fig. 3, and they consist of ordinate segments and not points. As for the origin O, it represents the Threshold (Fig. 8, and E0 in Fig. 3) from which the camera enters the Winter Palace that occurs at t=00:14:17. And finally, the bold lines with the Kana designations on the

left

represent

Fig. 4 Narrative and Non-Narrative Segments Spatial Positioning

Original floor plans courtesy of Hermitagemuseum.org Hatches and letter designations added by the author

(narrative

z

segments) delimited in time and space, and as for

z

(non-narrative segments),

they are represented by the dotted lines with the Kana designations on the right (both designation based on Fig. 4). We observe in the DPG that Ds is in function of T, and function

of

z

and

their

z

advance in

corresponding

coordinates in time and space, giving us the following: Ds=f(T), and z

z

(Ex;t) and

( x;t).

We give the following two examples of

the actual space-time coordinates of a for further clarification: [(E4+ E5);(00:17:01,00:21:47)], and, [( 6);(00:21:47, 00:23:17)].

z

Fig.5 Examples of VL-PL (Visual Limits-Physical Limits) ’s VL start/end when its corresponding E becomes on-screen/off-screen (Fig. 6, starts in screenshot 2a when E7 becomes visible behind the threshold (left), and ends in screenshot 4b, when E8 is rendered off-screen behind the closed doors); as for its PL, the start/end is marked by the camera ’s physical entry/exit to/from its corresponding E (Fig. 6, screenshots 4a and 3b when the camera physically crosses the threshold).

Screenshots taken from Russian Ark

Now, applying a Regression Model on the DPG (Fig. 7b), it appears that Ds=f(T) where f is a Linear Function. Since the value of T can only be positive (before the origin O the film cannot exist), it is clear then that as time progresses positively (forward),

z

and

z

and their

corresponding spaces have to progress also forward. Using the model in Fig. 7b, we can also define the Spatial Velocity of RA as being the angle , where

[0 ;90 ]. A larger value for

implies a larger number of Ds,

and

seen in a smaller amount of screening time T (and

vice versa).

−

−

Based on the DPG we have demonstrated that the hypothesis proposed earlier in this section was correct: the properties of RA ’s diegetic spatial structure are in fact linear, and progressive. Moreover, this structure is expressed and regulated in relation to the

and

(spaces containing

narrative and non-narrative segments) put together.

3.5. Analysis of Russian Ark ’s Narrative Organizational Structure (Syuzhet) As explained earlier in Section 3.1 of this paper, the story of RA consists most importantly of conversations, interactions with, and appearances of characters and events referring with significance to different historical time-periods (Table 1); and as discussed in Section 3.3, these characters and events are considered in themselves the minimal narrative signifier, i.e. narrative syntagmas (NS), contained in architectural spaces and limited by architectonic elements. Moreover, as demonstrated in Section 3.4, the movement of the camera, and consequently the spatial structure of the diegesis are linear and progressive, which means that the NS themselves unfold linearly and progressively during the screening of the film.

However, the time-periods represented in their corresponding NS are not arranged chronologically in RA, and a quick observation of Table 1 confirms this: the NS in the table are classified in their order of

Fig.6 Totality of spaces that contain narrative and nonnarrative syntagmas/segments: spaces captured by the camera, visible on-screen, and seen by the viewers (Ds).

Original floor plans courtesy of Hermitagemuseum.org Shading added by the author

appearance (from top to bottom), and yet the historical periods they represent are non-chronological, and the number of narrative “timejumps ” (the change from one historical period to another in the narrative of the film) seems to exceed the number of actual NS since three

Fig.7a DPG (Diegetic Progression Graph) The progression of spaces (Ds), narrative and non-narrative segments ( and ) is in function of the progression of the time (T). The Kana designations of and are based on Fig. 4. The numbers on the x axis are designations of spaces containing narrative and non-narrative syntagmas Ex and x (Fig. 3). The values of T are expressed in hh:mm:ss based on the Physical Time Limits from Table 2.

−

−

Fig.7b Regression Model applied on the DPG Ds=f(T) is a linear function, and represents the Spatial Velocity Angle of Russian Ark. The Kana designations of the and are based on Fig. 4. The numbers on the ordinate axis are the designations of the spaces containing narrative and non-narrative syntagmas Ex and x (Fig. 3). The values of T are expressed in hh:mm:ss based on the Physical Time Limits from Table 2.

of them represent simultaneously 2 historical periods each (NSE, NSL and NSN).

In order to better understand these timejumps, specify their frequency and between which historical periods they occur, and since time-jumps are directional in theory, we use a directional graph that we call Narrative Time Digraph 1 or NTD1 (Fig. 9).

In NTD1, based

on the classification in Table 1, we group together all the NS that represent a similar historical period. These groups are designated as Gn, where n is the century the contents of G

Fig. 8 Screenshots of the Threshold Point of entry to the Winter Palace section our research is focused in. The door in the dotted circle in screenshots 1 and 2 is the Threshold, which is E0 in Fig. 3, and the origin O for the Ds axis in Fig. 7a and 7b. The man heading towards is the “Stranger ”.

Screenshot 4 is the point where the camera is considered to physically enter the Winter Palace: this space is space E1 in Fig. 3, and Fig. 7a and 7b.

Screenshots taken from Russian Ark

represent (e.g. G19 is the group of NSy that represent the 19th Century), giving us the following 5 groups: G17 (where G17 G19

{NSA}), G18 (where G18

{NSD; NSE; NSK}), G20 (where G20

(where G21

{NSB; NSJ}), G19 (where

{NSH; NSI; NSL; NSM; NSN; NSO}), and G21

{NSC; NSE; NSF; NSG; NSL; NSN}). And so Gn become the vertices of the

graph, while the arcs represent the time-jumps, designated as TJ. Finally, the arcs are assigned numbers that represent the order of a time-jump ’s occurrence in RA. In NTD1 we therefore have the following relation: TJi= (Gn,Gn ’) where the arc TJi is directed from Gn to Gn ’ (i is the number assigned to the arc).

The non-chronological, non-linear nature of

the time-jumps that we observe in

Fig. 9 is further emphasized when represented in a second diagraph, Narrative Time Digraph 2 or NTD2 (Fig. 10), where the edges are weighted according to the number and direction of TJi that occur between two Gn (arcs in Fig. 9). NTD2 is also

Fig.9 NTD1: Narrative Time Digraph 1 G17 …G21: group of all the NS that represent the same historical period (the number represents the century). Numbers on arcs represent the order of a time-jump ’s occurrence.

organized based on the increase in the weight of the edges, from the smallest weight (left) to the largest (right).

In this section we placed groups Gn of NS in the chronological order they would have been in if they weren ’t rearranged by the film ’s syuzhet (or plot) (Fig. 9), while the time-jump connections (the arcs in the graph) distorted their progressive linearity; which means that this chronological organization represents the fabula (or story), while the organization of the Gn connected by the time-jumps that gave us NTD2, is one of the possible forms of the syuzhet, i.e. the structural organization of the narrative, which arrange the NS and consequently the

in RA.

4. Conclusions In Section 3.3, we concluded that the syntagmatic structure of the narrative segments (the structure of the smallest significant elements in RA) is defined as z

(T1; T2; T3): nEx

mNSy, where

z

is dependent on an actual architectural space Ex;

The demarcation of the segments is defined by the on-screen limits of

Fig.10 NTD2: Narrative Time Digraph 2 G17 …G21: group of all the NS that represent the same historical period (the number represents the century). Numbers on edges represent the number of directional jumps that occur between 2 groups.

(VL-PL) that are set in function of on-screen, intra-diegetic,

actual architectonic elements such as doors and thresholds; In Section 3.4, we found that the progressive linear form of the diegetic spatial structure of RA is expressed as a Linear Function of Ds=f(T), which led us to conclude that

z

and

z

having the respective coordinates (Ex;t) and ( x;t), are dependent and in function of

actual architectural spaces; And finally in Section 3.5, we found that the narrative spatial structure, or Syuzhet, the structure that gives form to, and rearranges the story and all of its contents, is non-linear with digraph properties.

The first three points lead us to conclude that actual architectonic elements (from Hermitage ’s Winter Palace), which are denoted instances in the film, regulate, structure and give shape to the segments and diegesis of RA; this means that actual architectural spatial units, depending on their arrangement, numbers and correlations could be considered similar to syntagmas and segments, while their organizational spatial structure becomes similar to the diegetic spatial structure.

−

−

As for the last point, it leads us to conclude that since narrative is the substantial dimension of narrative film, it could be similar to the substantial dimension of architecture, which means the program (or primary function), and consequently the narrative organizational structure (syuzhet) would become similar to the programmatic organizational structure of architecture.

From this point on, we will further deepen the findings of this paper concerning the conceptual similarities between segmentation, diegetic and narrative structures of narrative film on one hand, and the architectonic spatial and programmatic structures on the other, in order to develop a model of reference that can be used to understand and view films from an architectural perspective, and then translate or express them in actual architectonic means.

Notes 1 Many architects often refer to cinema and film as they use windows and openings “framing ” external views, or juxtaposing different functional or qualitative spaces in linear series and calling them “sequences ”.

2 Studies approaching the field of cinema from a semio-linguistic angle are studies mostly comparing it to the spoken and written languages. Semiolinguists and film theorists, such as, Christian Metz, Umberto Eco, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Gianfranco Bettetini, Roger Odin, Peter Wollen and Roland Barthes, defined film and its contents, while determining its different significative components from the smallest units to the largest.

3 Metz, Christian: Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, The University of Chicago Press, 1974 4 Denotation in film is the perceptual (audio-visual) similarity between the signifier and signified (Metz, Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, pp.108).

5 Signifier according to De Saussure is the sensible, material, acoustic or visual signal which triggers a mental concept, the Signified. The perceptible aspect of a sign is the Signifier; the absent mental representation evoked by it is the Signified, and the relationship between the two is Signification.

6 More specifically the original formulations of Victor Shklovsky (Eagle 1981) 7 “Diegesis ” is translated into Japanese as: 8 Metz, Christian: Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, The University of Chicago Press, 1974, pp.98 9 Stam Robert, Burgoyne Robert, and Flitterman-Lewis Sandy: New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics, Routledge, 1992, pp.40 10 Metz, Christian: Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, The University of Chicago Press, 1974, pp.106 11 Odin, Roger: Cinéma et Production de Sens, Armand Colin, 1990, pp.139 12 The actual time on the time-track on the Japanese version of the DVD registers 95minutes and 21seconds 13 Designation based on the name given to the character in the closing credits of Russian Ark 14 Alfred Hitchcock ’s The Rope was the most notable attempt in producing a single-shot sequence film without editing/montage. However, technically it cannot be considered as such, since Hitchcock used 3 film rolls to shoot the whole film (technical limitations of the celluloid films), and each roll of film is connected to the other by means of editing techniques. Moreover the opening sequence contains one more editing point as the camera moves from an external view to an internal one. Since these edits are hardly noticeable during the film, some analysts and theorists consider it as the first single-shot sequence film.

References 1) Alexander, Lily: Storytelling in Time and Space: Studies in the Chronotope and Narrative Logic on Screen, Journal of Narrative Theory, Vol. 37, No.1, pp. 27-64, Winter 2007 2) Aumont, Jacques, Marie Michel: L ’Analyse des Films, Nathan, 1988 3) Deleuze, Gilles: Cinéma, Tome 1. L ’Image-Mouvement, Broché, 1983 4) Deleuze, Gilles: Cinéma, Tome 2. L ’Image-Temps, Broché, 1985 5) Eco, Umberto: Lector in Fabula, Bompiani, 1979 6) Eco, Umberto: The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Indiana University Press, 1984 7) Eisenstein, Sergei M.: Montage and Architecture, Assemblage, No. 10, pp. 111-131, 1989 8) Gardies, André: L ’Espace au Cinéma, Meridiens Klincksieck, 1993 9) Hedges, Ines: Form and Meaning in the French Film I: Time and Space, The French Review, Vol. LIV, No.1, pp.28-36, 1980 10) Jowett, Gareth, M. Linton, James: Movies as Mass Communication, Sage Publications, 1989 11) Knapp, Bettina L.: Archetype, Architecture, and the Writer, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1986 12) Manly Hopkins, Gerard, Pater, Walter: Literary Architecture: Essays Toward a Tradition, University of California Press, 1983 13) Martin, Wallace: Recent Theories of Narrative, Cornell University Press, 1986 14) Mele ,Francesco, Calabrese, Anotnio, and Marseglia, Roberta: Interactive Analysis of Time in Film Stories, AI*IA 2007, LNAI 4733, pp. 765-772, 2007 15) Metz, Christian: Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, The University of Chicago Press, 1974 16) Neumann, Dietrich: Film Architecture: From Metropolis to Blade Runner, Prestel, 1999 17) Smitten, Jeffrey R., Daghistany, Ann: Spatial Form in Narrative, Cornell University Press, 1981 18) Odin, Roger: Cinéma et Production de Sens, Armand Colin, 1990 19) Sokurov, Alexander: Russian Ark, Hermitage Bridge Studio and Egoli Tossell Film AG production, 2002 20) Spottiswoode, Raymond: A Grammar of the Film, University of California Press, 1973 21) Stam, Robert, Burgoyne, Robert, and Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy: New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics, Routledge, 1992 22) Tudor, Deborah: The Eye of the Frog: Questions of Space in Films Using Digital Processes, Cinema Journal, Vol. 48, Number 1, pp. 90-110, Fall 2008 23) Vidler, Anthony: The Explosion of Space: Architecture and the Filmic Imaginary, Assemblage, No. 21, pp. 44-59, 1993 24) Winters, Ben: The Non-Diegetic Fallacy: Film, Music, and Narrative Space, Music & Letters, Vol. 91, No. 2, 2010 25) Wollen, Peter: Signs and Meaning in the Cinema, Indiana University Press, 1972

約

−

−

NS

NS

E

( ) Ex NSy ,

nEx NSy and

z

(T3): Ex mNSy

NS

z

(T2):

(VL)

(PL) (Ds)

(DPG)

Ds=E+ Ds

NTD1

（

NTD2

年 7 月 日原稿受理，

年 月 日採用決定）

−

−