See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259833523

Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film by Seymour

Chatman

Article · January 1980

DOI: 10.2307/20687541

CITATIONS READS

0 4,917

1 author:

Frank P. Tomasulo
National University (California)
43 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Book Review: “Michelangelo Red Antonioni Blue” View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frank P. Tomasulo on 17 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film by Seymour Chatman
Review by: FRANK P. TOMASULO
Journal of the University Film Association, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Fall 1980), pp. 71-74
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687541 .
Accessed: 03/05/2014 20:53

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.

University of Illinois Press and University Film & Video Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of the University Film Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 198.17.145.39 on Sat, 3 May 2014 20:53:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEWS
DON Editor
FREDERICKSEN,

Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narra

- who are familiar with the "language of film"
tive Structure inFiction and Film. Ithaca: Cor debates of the past twentyyears are well aware of
nell University Press, 1978, 277 pp., $14.95. the speciousness of his argument.

Seymour Chapman's Story and Discourse: Narra

tive Structure in Fiction and Film makes more im Despite the numerous flaws in his argument when
he crosses over to film,Chatman provides many
portant contributions to contemporary film theo
retical discourse when it deals with fiction than valuable guides to film narratology through his
more general semiological methodology, detached
when it deals with film. Indeed (Consumers Be
fromspecificmedia and specific stories. For one, he
ware!), film is hardly dealt with at all, despite the treats narrative as a communication
label . . . . . . the subtitle. A (implying
ingredients
thereby both a sender and a receiver). Each pole
whoops!
statistical analysis of Chapman's Index reveals his
has three components; on the sending end: the real
literary prejudice: 118 books are cited, only 27
films.Of the filmsnoted, only fourmerit more than author, the implied author, and the narrator (op
one (usually fleeting) citation. Aside from the tional); on the receiving end: the real audience, the
quantitative treatmentof film,the qualitative level impliedaudience, and the narratee (also optional).
In this model of the narrative "contract", the audi
of analysis harkens back to Robert Richardson's
ence cannot help but participate in the transaction.
Literature and Film in its "grammar of film" taxon
omies. Chatman
This notion has importantramifications for the re
repeats many of the old film-liter
ature bromides?"description must be overtly ex cently raised question of spectator positioning and
the concomitant "Double Projection" archetype of
pressed by language in literary narrative, but in the film viewing experience. Unlike early struc
theater or cinema, we simplywitness the physical
turalist thinkers?they have since gravitated
appearance of the actor," "sometimes it can be dif
ficult to tell whether a given cut signals a flash toward Lacanian psychoanalysis in order to deal
a flashforward, or an
with the vexing problem of the Subject and to
back, simply ellipsis,"
. . .with con
avoid the closed system of a purely textual analy
"Intolerance (has) four story strands
no one
sis?Chatman posits a rather active Subject/Spec
stant crosscutting, with story having tator who must fill in the "gaps" in the narrative
temporal priority over the others," "story-time can
with his/her own knowledge from life and art.
be stretched by editing"?always to the detriment
of the cinema.
These phenomenological Unbestimmtheiten (^de
terminancies) are particularly common in cinema.

It is unfortunate that a volume which purports to

be the firstcomprehensive approach inEnglish to a Using the aforementioned communications model,
general theory of narrative should throw us back to Chatman notes thatwhat is communicated is story
the shop-worn "film as a (bastard) stepchild of (the formal content element) and that it is com
literature" view. There are important cinematic in municated by discourse (the formalexpressive ele
sights to be gained fromStory andDiscourse; how ment). Story, as definedby Chatman, exists only at
ever, they must be extrapolated from the material an abstract level; it cannot exist otherwise unless
on literary narrative. actualized by discourse in a given medium (litera
ture, theater, film, comic strip, etc.). He thus
Chatman sets his goal as the determination ofwhat denies treating story as an hypostatized object (al
narrative in itself is. His approach is both dualist though he can hardly deny treating story as an
and structuralist, in the tradition of Barthes, object), separate from the process by which it
Todorov, Genette, et al. He sets up a story emerges in the consciousness of the "reader."
Propp,
discourse dichotomy (parallelingMetz's "Histoire/
Discours" article and Beneveniste's terminology) Another important general issue raised by the
and tries to locate the necessary and ancillary com book (thoughnot ultimately resolved) is the ques
ponents of narrativity. In order to fit film into his tion:Why narrative? Chatman describes the para
schema, Chatman must posit stories as essentially meters of the problem?we seek structure and will
transposable, and independent of medium; yet, he provide it ourselves if a text does not; we're in
consistently fails to meaningfully analyze adapta herently (innately?)disposed to turn raw sensation
tions or other cross-media fertilization. In addition, intoperception (then conception?); some principle
he completely ignores the narrative functions of of coherence must operate which insures the con
various elements of cinematic articulation (light tinuityof existente?but does not ultimately go be
ing, composition, camera motility, optical effects, yond stating the question. Neither does he go be
etc.), consigning these stylistic and signifying yond this "need" or drive forstructure in art to the
codes to "the repertoire of cinematic manifesta question of structure in life in general. Recent
tions, not parts of narrative discourse," because in psychoanalytical/ideological writings have begun
themselves they have no specific meanings. Those to suggest answers to these problems.

JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION XXXII, 4 (Fall 1980) 71

This content downloaded from 198.17.145.39 on Sat, 3 May 2014 20:53:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An importantpoint ismade regarding the differ
ences in narrative structure. Chatman
guishes between the traditional "narrative of
resolution" and themodernist "plot of revelation."
His definitions and examples, however, betray a
teleologica! approach to the distinction. Teleology
aside, Chatman uncovers a trend in recent cinema
toward a narrative in which events don't get re
solved (tragicallyor comically) but, rather, a state
of affairs is revealed to the audience (Apocalypse
Now, Finnegans Wake, Waiting for Godot, etc.).
This can be true forboth plotmacrostructures and
character "development." Needless to
noted that the modernist novel ismore cinematic
than its predecessors, but Chatman refuses to
acknowledge a causal (or even influential) nexus
between the two.
When it comes to film,however, theRhetoric Pro
fessor makes several film-historical errors. He
makes the early 1970s assertion that "films are
cuttingmore radically as audience sophistication
grows." In point of fact, cutting styles have waxed
and waned over the years; we may now be going
througha less sophisticated editing epoch as televi
sion gradually deadens sensitivityand viewers' at
tention span. Recently, a spate of films have felt
compelled to show every step a character takes,
leaving nothing to the imagination.Even more un
likely isChatman's notion of the "public demand for
sequels and serials" (emphasis added). So, we've
been demandingJaws 77,Exorcist II, The Omen II,
Oliver's Story, More American Graffiti, ad infini
tum!The desire to extend illusionmay be psycho
logically compelling, but audiences have wisely
stayed away from these films indroves. The author
here reveals an incrediblenaivete about the work
ingsof themotion picture industryand themanipu
lation of taste.
The main thrustofChatman's argument is found in
his chapters on Story (subdivided into "Events"
and and Discourse
"Existents") ("Nonnarrated
Stories" and "Covert vs. Overt Narrators"). Here
his analysis is far-ranging and eclectic; allusions
multiply and imbricate. For instance, the Aristo
telian plot (mythos) isdefined as an arrangement of
incidents.This is then related to the Structuralist
thesis that this arrangement is precisely the opera
tionperformed by the discourse. Yet plot (that is:
story-as-discoursed) has an internal
qualitatively differentfrom any given individual
manifestation. This latter leap (a small step away
fromovert Platonismi is necessary to preserve the
thesis that narrative is a semiotic systemwhich is
independently meaningful in itself. When the
author furthernotes that "a narrative without a
plot is a logical impossibility"he reallymeans that
it's a definitional impossibility.
Chatman continues the Aristotelian line in his dis
cussion of topoi (commonplaces), which he links
with the likelihood or plausibility of narrative
events. He defines it (as do the Structuralists) as a
cultural phenomenon derivingfrom previous texts
("texts" of appropriate behavior) in the culture
which "go without saying." Here, the relationship
to recent ideological Structuralism (Althusser) is
unmistakable: the text functions as an "Ideologi
cal State Apparatus" by evincing the "ideology of
72 JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION XXXII, 4 (Fall 1980)
This content downloaded from 198.17.145.39 on Sat, 3 May 2014 20:53:18 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
common sense." Again, the spectator/audience
distin must fill inthe gaps by "naturalizing" the narrative
conventions by forgettingthem. The implications
of this analysis to cinematic codes, discourse, and
the positioning of the spectator may be profound
(and are dealt with by many Continental authors),
but Chatman s filmic example once again plunges
the discussion into the puerile. He chooses a scene
fromPatterns (1956) to illustrate that five shots
were used to move characters fromone locale to
anotherwhen a direct cutwould have sufficed.The
author's optimistic notion that such insults to an
say, it is audience's intelligence (in the service of "naturali
zation") have been discarded by the dominant
Hollywood cinema (and especially television) are
naive.
Continuing his semiological analysis of narrative it
self,Chatman utilizes Barthes's categories ofnoyeu
and catalyse, although his translations ("kernel"
and "satellite", respectively) omit the paronomasia
(noyeu refers to both kernels and drowning or in
undation). This aside, his division of plot elements
into major events (kernels) and minor events
(satellites) is part of a hermeneutic code (to use
Barthes's terms) which allows for plot advance
ment by the raising and answering of questions.
Taken alone, this is one possible mode of taxon
omy.However, Chatman later brings in notions of
general plot typologywhich include: 1) following
the fortunes of a protagonist, 2) the peripeteia of
classical tragedy (movement from one state of
affairs to its opposite), and 3) Aristotelian anag
norisis (the transitionfrom ignorance to knowledge
by the protagonist [or by the audience, for that
matter]). This third category, though ostensibly
contradictory to other notions posited by the
author, can be related to his earlier conception of
the "plot of revelation" to analyze those filmswhich
do notmanifest traditional resolution/closure. The
satellites?frequently the site of revelation in
modernist texts (resolution in the subplot rather
than themain story line )?exist, according to Chat
man, only in the domain of criticalmetalanguage
and paraphrase (not an entirely innocent activity,
as
the phrase Traduttorri traditori?Translators
are traitors?indicates). At the same time that he
posits his satellites on the level of paraphrase, the
author criticizes Todorov for reducing story to its
structure paraphrase and Propp forusing "functions" as the
basis for narrative
analysis.
The author goes on to exempt Propp on this count
because the latter explicity prescribed his method
ology only for large scale units (folklore, language
itself,etc.). Here another important contribution
to film discourse is evident. Chatman critiques
Formalist-Structuralist theories for reducing the
complexities of unique texts to the simplicity of
pr?existent formulas?"General categories can be
used not merely to explain plots, but to explain
them away." This critique can be applied to much
recent structuralist work (e.g., Will Wright's
Sixguns and Society, which forces unique West
erns such as Johnny Guitar into formulaic con
structs).
The other subdivision of Story?Existente?is
furtherdivided into characters and settings. Chat
man's dialectical definitionof character (character
as octant and character as personage) is.useful for
opposed to the "what", to the Story), that "other
filmstudy, althoughhis implicitcritique ofFormal half of the narrative dichotomy." The language
ism-Structuralism is several years too late. It's here is not innocent; the poles of narrative are in
true that Propp, L?vi-Strauss, Will Wright, tentionally polar opposites, homologous to nine
Barthes, and Todorov (following Aristotle) as teenth century notions of Content and Form (and
signed a predominately "functional" status to char never the twain shall meet). Although most
acters, but, as early as 1966,Barthes moved froma modernist texts and aestheticians see these os
narrow "product-of-plot" view of character to a tensible antipodes as congruent or, at best, in dia
more psychological description based on "traits" lectical interaction,Chatman separates them. To
and "personality." Chatman is correct in noting coin an aphorism, "What aestheticians have joined
that modern characters (Bloom, Marcel, Mrs. let no rhetorician tear asunder."
together,
Dalloway, Charles Foster Kane) cannot be pigeon The author establishes the expression plane as the
holed by ramifyingdichotomies; and his notion of
the "open" character has important set of narrative "statements", defined as the basic
consequences
for modernist texts. But, once again, when he gets component of the formof the expression [ate].This
down to specifics in film,he?like most interlopers is independentof, andmore abstract than, any par
from literature?bemoans the fact that movies
ticularmanifestation in a given medium. Chatman
"ruin" novels by the enforced visualization of their wisely notes that almost all discourse ismediated
well-known characters. He states that Oliver's by some formofnarrator (whetherovert or covert)
Heathcliff (WutheringHeights, circum and examines various literaryexamples to back up
1939)
scribes and literalizes Bronte's character
his contention.He posits an "implied author" in the
"open**
and thereby restricts the viewer's imagination (he text, separate and distinct from the real author,
who is reconstructed by the reader from the narra
saysmuch the same thingabout the settings of this
same film).Chatman allows that certain flat char tive. This entity, the implied author, is also not the
acters (Sherlock Holmes) can be portrayed on narrator but, rather, is the principle which (so to
screen without toomuch disservice to the original speak) invented the narrator (and the narrative).
How can one apply this to the narrative
text, but this condescending attitude to the visual '"contract"
medium permeates the book, even in passages in the cinema? It seems to be analogous to the
meant to laud cinema. For instance, he various "marks of enunciation" in a text which act
supposedly
notes that "filmsare particularly versatile in exhi to position the spectator. The "implied reader" may
then correspond toNick Browne's concept of "the
biting the unspoken inner lives of characters,"
citingAntonioni's protagonists as paradigms, yet Spectator-in-the-Text." It is this implied author
he notes that we have no direct access into the (the "camera eye") which, as a named convention,
minds of these film characters. In short, he says creates the illusion of mimesis noted by Bazin,
film is all surface, albeit fascinating surface, and Kracauer, and other classical film theorists. It is
manifests an ignorance of specific cinematic codes the principle which asserts/pretends that the
which do allow us to penetrate the consciousnesses events on the screen "just happened" in the pre
sence of a neutral
of filmpersonages (composition, lighting,music, recording instrument. Chatman
camera focus, color, etc.).
does not stop here. He notes that this does not
editing, motility,
Naturally, seen from a literary/theatrical perspec imply a limited third person, because that only
tive, based on dialogue (speech or internal stream specifies the point ofview and not the nature of the
of characters are narrative voice. Finally, Chatman arrives at some
consciousness), Antonioni's
rather opaque. But sophisticated filmviewers can issues relevant to contemporary film theory. He
"read out" the various cinematic codes and signs distinguishes between point of view, which is
in L'Avventura, L'Eclisse, and R Deserto within the story, and narrative voice, which is
implicit
Rosso (even though these films are neoteric in always outside the story, in the discourse. Thus,
when a film character observes (through sight
style) in much the same way that Pinter and
Robbe-Grillet can be puzzled out and understood. lines) something homodiegeticatty (within the
world of the text,? laGerard Genette), thismust be
Chatman reserves the same patronizing fate for differentiatedfromwhat a narrator (often covert)
settings and props as he does for film characters: "says" froma position outside the story (heterodie
it's all on the surface. The idea of non-human
getica?y). This noted, Chatman proceeds to use the
characters (WOTs HAL, The River's river, The standard, sophomoricanalysis of subjective camera
Rules of the Game's rabbits and mechanical toys, and voice-over inThe Lady in theLake.
etc.) is mentioned?though the preceding paren
thetical examples are not Chatman's?but no clear This simplistic example does not negate the
definitionsor definingcharacteristics are made. In
importanceof his distinction between literal point
deed, he dismisses sets/props in filmwith one brief of view (through someone's perceptions) and
paragraph which asserts that all their properties figurative p.o.v. (through someone's conceptions or
can be grasped as a whole. Thus, the film-historical
ideology). The ramifications of this distinction to
gallery of special objects (too numerous for even a current psychoanalytic/ideological/structuralist
few examples to suffice) and visual correlative is are worth
problems noting.
relegated tomere physicality.
Story and Discourse tiptoes around the issues of
Chapters Four and Five are the heart of the book's interior monologue and stream of consciousness in
argument and they contain the sections most rele film, noting that these discursive methodologies
vant to filmnarratology:Nonnarrated Stories, and are infrequentlyused. If one uses Chatman's strict
Covert and Overt Narrators. Both of these chapter definitions?interior monologue is only present
headings fallunder the general rubricofDiscourse, when a character's voice is heard over his/her
the expression plane, the "way" of narrative (as sealed lipsor throughwhispered voice-over?there

JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION XXXII, 4 (Fall1980) 73

This content downloaded from 198.17.145.39 on Sat, 3 May 2014 20:53:18 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 are still numerous examples of cinematic stream of
consciousness; in addition, ifone wishes to expand
the correlative to includevisual images in this cate
gory (Last Year atMarienbad, Juliet of theSpirits,
etc.), the list expands quantitatively as well as
qualitatively. Besides, the very fact that the
"monologue" is accessible suggests that some
mediation process is involved and, therefore, that
we are not getting a direct view of inner thoughts
in literature or infilm.
Chapter Five goes on to deal with the degrees of
"audibility" of narrators. Here we are in the realm
of indirect discourse, manipulation of the text's
surface for the purpose of covert narration, limi
tation of point of view, and the backgrounding and
foregrounding of various narrative
These are all familiar issues in contemporary film
discourse, especially since Metz's "Histoire/Dis
cours" article of 1975. The notion of effaced narra
tion in film is, by now, a common idea to film
scholars, yet Chatman again plunges inwith the
most obvious examples (CitizenKane, the "lying
flashback" in Stage Fright) to illustrate the dis
crepancy between the narrator's
"real story."These examples depend on the implied
author (seemingly equated with
p.o.v. by Chatman) setting up a sort of "secret
communication"with the implied viewer. The in
stances Chatman cites, however,
vious communications, whereas
Stagecoach analysis adds dimension to the problem
This content downloaded from 198.17.145.39 on Sat, 3 May 2014 20:53:18 PM
View publication stats
by tackling a more problematic text.
The author also cites the obvious examples in dis
cussing self-referentialworks, those which com
ment on theirown discourse: Sherlock, Jr. and The
Man with a Movie Camera. More difficulttexts?
Godard, narrative avant-garde films, Straub,
etc.?might not prove as "fitting" for Chatman's
researches.
Finally, the author has trouble reconciling his own
categorical construct, the narratee, into his cine
matic schema. He mentions frame stories and
rippling dissolves, but this seems to be an inade
quate treatmentof a neglected area of film scholar
ship. Even abstracting out fromthe literarymodel
elements. might be difficult.And, forall his lip service to the
real spectator, Chatman fails to deal with the
various mediations at work in filmviewing. One
notionwhich might help his argument is that of a
text-within-thespectator, that is: the positioning
of the text by the real viewer, actively involved in
the dialectic of double projection.
account and the Until filmscholars can carve out their own terrain
in the field of narratology, books like Story and
the camera-as Discourse will have to suffice,and the linguistic/
literarymodel will have to guide us through the
troublesome problem of narrative structure in film.
are rather ob
Nick Browne's FRANK P. TOMASULO
University ofCalifornia-Los Angeles
74 JOURNAL OF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION XXXII, 4 (Fall 1980)
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions