美語狂人雜記

IV. Identification and Spectator: Cinematic Catharsis and Mimesis

As discussed in previous sections, the mirror phase serves as the prototype for all narcissistic identification with the object, leading to the problem of the film spectator. Christian Metz emphasizes that the cinematic institution encompasses not only the cinema industry but also the mental machinery internalized by spectators accustomed to cinema, adapting them to the consumption of film. Metz suggests that if the screen is a primordial mirror, a fundamental difference exists, as the image on the screen never reflects the actual body of the spectator (Aumont et al. 202). Within this context, cinematic identification with spectators can be understood through the neo-Aristotelian processes of catharsis and mimesis.

Catharsis, according to Aristotle, involves the tragic downfall of the protagonist arousing the pity and fear of the audience, with these emotions purged by the cathartic final outcome (Gray 54). To a certain degree, catharsis can be seen as a series of anti-alienation effects, akin to the Verfremdungseffekt (alienation effect) in German. It involves the mise-en-scène of Lacanian identification, staging self-identification. Post-screening, spectators tend to believe, through sympathy with characters, that they identified with a character's personality and behavior, even though they recognize the constructed nature of the film (Aumont et al. 215, 219).

Diegesis, in Aristotle and Plato's terms, refers to one of the modalities of "lexis" along with mimesis, a specific technique of narration. In its cinematic sense, mimesis in Aristotle combines the representation of a pre-existent reality with the work itself as an object, not merely a reflecting surface (Fowler 126). In cinema, montage, a formalistic process stressing that film creates an effect rather than reproduces reality, allows for diegetic identification, enabling spectators to identify with the subject of vision and the camera's eye. This capacity for identification is crucial, as without it, a film would be a succession of unidentifiable images on the screen (Aumont et al. 214).