Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Leipzig)
Seeing or Speaking:
Visual Narratology and Focalization, Literature to Film
Ever since Seymour Chatman proposed to analyze film with the help of nar-
ratological concepts (Chatman 1978), 1 narratology has become a widespread
F F
method of film analysis (see, e. g., Andringa et al. 2001; Bordwell 1985;
Branigan 1984; Chatman 1990; Lothe 2000; Nadel 2005). Chatman’s main
contribution to the field of film narratology remains his concept of the
“cinematic narrator,” which he defined as a non-human agent, “the compos-
ite of a large and complex variety of communicating devices” (Chatman
1990: 134). These include auditory (sound, voice, music) as well as visual
channels, for instance lighting, mise-en-scène, camera distance, angle and
movement, and editing (rhythm, cut etc). Chatman thereby contradicted
David Bordwell’s earlier contention that film has narration but no narrator,
and that notions of film narration are the construction of a spectator, not a
narrator (Bordwell 1985).
Referring to the opposition between fabula (story) and syuzhet (dis-
course) in Russian Formalism, Bordwell had defined film narration as “the
process whereby the film’s syuzhet and style interact in the course of cueing and channeling
the spectator’s construction of the fabula” (Bordwell 1985: 53). Bordwell allowed
for the possibility of an intradiegetic, voice-over (VO) narrator, whether
homodiegetic or heterodiegetic, but excluded the possibility of an extra-
diegetic film narrator. 2 However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that
F F
1 Following earlier suggestions from film theory to describe film as a ‘cinematic narrative’; see
e. g. Metz (1974).
2 A comparable argument is raised by Celestino Deleyto, who also seeks to restrict cinematic
narration to explicit on-screen narration through voice-over or intertitles (Deleyto 1991: 164).
Visual Narratology and Focalization 171
argues, surely “something gets ‘sent’”, and this sending presupposes a sender
of some kind (Chatman 1990: 127). 3 F F
3 A similar point had already been made by Albert Laffey (1964): the succession of images in a
film must, considered logically, have an originating agent beyond the screen (see esp. pp. 81f).
4 See, however, Deleyto (1991).
172 Silke Horstkotte
which the distinction between narrator and focalizer is much less clear-cut. It
will then, secondly, be interesting to see how the two film adaptations trans-
late this distinction (or lack of distinction) into a filmic narrative and film
focalization.
Franz Kafka’s third and last novel The Castle, written in 1922 and published
posthumously by Kafka’s close friend Max Brod in 1926, exemplifies that
combination of heterodiegetic narration with fixed internal focalization
which Franz Stanzel termed the “figural narrative situation” (Stanzel 1984).
As early as 1952, the Kafka scholar Friedrich Beißner referred to this form
of focalization as an “einsinniges Erzählen,” or narration from a single fixed
perspective (reprinted in Beißner 1983). Apart from the fact that Beißner’s
term unnecessarily confuses the positions of the impersonal narrator and the
character-focalizer K., it bears noting that K.’s focalization is not as consis-
tent as Beißner assumed but contains a number of breaks and oddities, espe-
cially at the beginning of the novel (see Müller 2008: 523; Sheppard 1977:
406).
It is significant for the later development of the narrative that Kafka
wrote two unfinished drafts of the novel’s beginning, employing different
narratorial positions, before finally coming up with a narrative situation
which enabled him to continue beyond the novel’s initial scenes (see Jahraus
2006: 397-402). The first of these fragmentary beginnings, the so-called
“Fürstenzimmer” fragment, uses a heterodiegetic narrator who tells of the
arrival of an unnamed “guest” at a country inn. This fragment already con-
tains the thematic kernel of the later novel plot, because the guest talks about
a “fight” in which he needs to engage (Jahraus 2006: 398). In the novel, K.
frequently imagines his relation to the castle in terms of a fight. The “Für-
stenzimmer” fragment, however, breaks off before this theme can be further
explored. Kafka’s second false start already contains the first two sentences
of The Castle, but employs a homodiegetic narrator, inasmuch as the pro-
tagonist K. here serves as a first-person narrator. This narrative situation
continues until the narrator-protagonist engages in amorous relations with
Frieda in the third chapter. At that point, the narrative abruptly reverts from
a first-person to a third-person perspective, as in the earlier fragment. Kafka
then writes a third beginning for his novel, this time employing a covert,
heterodiegetic narrator. That third start finally develops into the fragmentary
novel published in 1926 by Max Brod.
174 Silke Horstkotte
ously, the sentence suggests that although K. looks, time of day and weather
conditions prevent him from actually perceiving anything. The assertion that
there is, in fact, a castle on the mountain therefore has to be the narrator’s,
not K.’s, meaning that the initial statement is not internally focalized. 8 In F F
fact, K. is later surprised to hear that a castle perches above the village at all.
We are, then, from the beginning of the novel confronted with conflicting
statements about what is and what is not, what can and cannot be seen, set-
ting up an ironic distance between narrator and focalizer.
6 Dorrit Cohn similarly speculates that the implausible near-effacement of the narrating self in
Kafka’s second attempt motivated the shift towards third-person narration (Cohn 1978: 169-
171). Gérard Genette, on the other hand, remains unconvinced that “a rewriting of […] The
Castle into the first person would be such a catastrophe” (Genette 1988: 112).
7 “Vom Schloßberg war nichts zu sehn, Nebel und Finsternis umgaben ihn […]. Lange stand K.
auf der Holzbrücke die von der Landstraße zum Dorf führt und blickte in die scheinbare Leere
empor.” (Kafka 1994: 9)
8 Klaus-Detlef Müller (2007) offers a different interpretation: he argues that although the first
sentence could be “authorial”, the consistent narration “from K.’s perspective” suggests that K.
misses something (the castle) which he had expected (Müller 2007: 105). This is a circular, and
therefore unconvincing, argument: if the very first sentence suggests zero focalization, then in-
ternal focalization cannot be consistent.
Visual Narratology and Focalization 175
The disparity between what the narrator asserts could be seen and what
the focalizer actually perceives raises the question what, if anything, the nar-
rator can be said to see. The perceptual capacities of narrators are a hotly
contested narratological problem, with Seymour Chatman denying that the
narrator can see anything and asserting that he “is a reporter, not an ‘ob-
server’ of the story world in the sense of literally witnessing it” and that nar-
rating, therefore, “is not an act of perception but of presentation or repre-
sentation” (Chatman 1990: 142). At least as far as the beginning of The Castle
is concerned, however, the distinction between reporting something that is at
least potentially visible and actually seeing it does not appear highly useful.
Whether we call the narrator’s activity perception or presentation, he (I will
stick with the male pronoun for convention’s sake) suggests to the reader a
visual impression of the castle that can then be compared with the visual
impression (or lack thereof) that we receive through the focal character, K.
Rather than drawing an absolute distinction between the focalizer’s vis-
ual perception and the narrator’s reporting of visual phenomena, I would like
to refer to Manfred Jahn’s proposal to distinguish between different “win-
dows of focalization” in the house of fiction (1996), which allows for distinc-
tive forms of visual perception specific to both the narrator and the focalizer
and therefore enables me to talk about the narrator’s visual perception.
Jahn’s main point is that although narrators can, in principle, “see,” their
perception has a different ontological status from (while being at least partly
reliant on) that of the character-focalizer(s):
What the narrators actually see is determined by a number of factors: the shape of
the window […], the view afforded by it […], the ‘instrument’ used […], but above
all, the viewer’s ‘consciousness’ and its construction of reality. It is for this reason
that narrators see things differently even when they are ostensibly watching the
‘same show’ […]. Before this backdrop enters a special story-internal character […]
who sees the story events not, like the narrator, from a window ‘perched aloft’, but
from within the human scene itself. Wholly unaware of both his/her own intra-
diegetic status and the part s/he plays in the extradiegetic universe comprising nar-
rator and narratee, the reflector’s consciousness nonetheless mirrors the world for
these higher-level agents and thus metaphorically functions as a window him- or
herself. (Jahn 1996: 252)
In the opening passage of The Castle, however, we find the narrator reporting
on a potential visual perception that is not—indeed, that cannot be—
mirrored for him by the reflector. The first sentences of The Castle are there-
fore at odds with the ensuing fixed internal focalization. While the narrator’s
assurance of the castle’s actual existence—which K. cannot see in the dark-
ness—as well as the objective geographical detail of the bridge “that leads
[…] to the village” (Kafka 1998: 1) seem to suggest a zero focalization (the
narrator knows more than the characters), the following paragraphs make
increasing use of internal focalization, culminating in the use of FID two
176 Silke Horstkotte
pages later when we witness K. observing the village inn: “So there was even
a telephone in this village inn? They were certainly well equipped.” (3) 9 As F F
9 “Wie, auch ein Telephon war in diesem Dorfwirtshaus? Man war vorzüglich eingerichtet.”
(Kafka 1994: 11)
10 “K. horchte auf. Das Schloß hatte ihn also zum Landvermesser ernannt. Das war einerseits
ungünstig für ihn, denn es zeigte, daß man im Schloß alles Nötige über ihn wußte, die Kräfte-
verhältnisse abgewogen hatte und den Kampf lächelnd aufnahm. Es war aber andererseits auch
günstig […].” (Kafka 1994: 13)
11 “Nun sah er oben das Schloß deutlich umrissen in der klaren Luft und noch verdeutlicht durch
den alle Formen nachbildenden, in dünner Schicht überall liegenden Schnee. Übrigens schien
oben auf dem Berg viel weniger Schnee zu sein als hier im Dorf […]. Hier reichte der Schnee
bis zu den Fenstern der Hütten und lastete gleich wieder auf dem niedrigen Dach, aber oben
auf dem Berg ragte alles frei und leicht empor, wenigstens schien es so von hier aus.” (Kafka
1994: 16)
Visual Narratology and Focalization 177
these missives in their entirety, the reader can easily compare the letters
themselves with K.’s interpretation of them. For example, the first letter
which K. receives from the hands of the messenger Barnabas confirms that
he has been accepted into castle service, although it does not specify what
that service is. It then assigns K. to the “village chairman” (23; “Dorfvorste-
her”, 33) as his immediate superior, and asks him to convey messages to the
castle exclusively through Barnabas. K. interprets this rather vague message
as offering him a choice between two options: being a subordinate “village
worker” (24; “Dorfarbeiter”, 34) who is connected to the castle in appear-
ance only, or else being a village worker in appearance only, but in reality
entirely determined by the messages delivered by Barnabas. K. then decides
in favor of the second possibility, even though the letter had named no such
alternative (see Alt 2005: 598). In view of this and of other highly fanciful
interpretations of the castle’s messages and actions, the reader is led to
strongly doubt K.’s impression that while he is watching the castle, the castle
is actively watching back, thereby confirming his standing on equal terms.
K.’s character focalization in the latter parts of the novel, then, does not
constitute a perception of what is, but a model-building of what might be or
can be inferred from what is, corresponding to Manfred Jahn’s concept of
“imaginary perception” (Jahn 1996: 263). This has two possible conse-
quences. On the one hand, K. emerges as a highly unreliable focalizer and
quite a shady character to boot—we cannot even be sure that he is, indeed, a
surveyor at all. Since the decision to reproduce the castle letters verbatim is
the narrator’s, the contrast between the quoted letters and K.’s interpretation
suggests that the narrator aims to show us how unreliable K.’s focalization is.
On the other hand, as Peter-André Alt has pointed out, K.’s focalization also
has the opposite effect: the castle is constituted less as a real place with
clearly delineated contours than as a distanced focusing point for K.’s gaze,
whose main effect is to unsettle the statements that the narrator makes about
reality (Alt 2005: 592). Although the narrative situation is based on a combi-
nation of the narratorial and focalizing positions, an ironic distance is thus
created between the two. Bearing in mind the different ontological status of
the heterodiegetic narrator, however, it would appear that the ultimate irony
is the narrator’s, at the expense of the focalizer’s credibility.
Nevertheless, I will try to offer some insight into the differences between
film narration and focalization through a reading of well-known Austrian
film director Michael Haneke’s adaptation of The Castle.
The film script faithfully reproduces Kafka’s chapter division, although
the scenes themselves are often shortened so as to concentrate on the (per-
ceived) essence of a chapter. Scenes are frequently separated by cut to black,
giving the film a fragmentary and jerky appearance and subverting the sort of
identificatory and illusionistic viewing attitude promoted by mainstream Hol-
lywood cinema. A further disillusionment is effected by the film’s setting.
While Kafka’s novel was set in a claustrophobic universe bearing little or no
relation to any specific time and place, the film set suggests a setting close to
the present, and in an Alpine region. Props, interior furnishings and charac-
ters’ clothes seem to derive from the 1970s, but their used and dated look
suggests a later time, probably the 1990s when the film was made. On the
side of sound, we find repeated allusions to Alpine folk music, both canned
(from a radio at the inn) and live (peasants playing dance music in the inn).
And while most of the actors speak little to no dialect, a number of minor
characters such as Pepi (played by Birgit Linauer), Momus (Paulus Manker)
and the village chairman (Nikolaus Paryla) exhibit traces of Austrian intona-
tion, and Hans Brunswick (Conradin Blum) of Swiss dialect. However, these
hints remain vague and are of a generically Alpine rather than a specifically
regional nature. In the film, as in the novel, no precise location can be as-
signed to the village and castle, and this also serves to reflects K’s uncertain
social status and underdetermined identity (Alt 2005: 594).
Rather than suggesting a precise time and location, the film’s setting cre-
ates allusions to a specific theater aesthetic that is associated with the well-
known Swiss director Christoph Marthaler and with stage designer Anna
Viebrock, with whom Marthaler frequently cooperates (for example in Die
Stunde Null oder die Kunst des Servierens, Deutsches Schauspielhaus Hamburg,
1995; Kasimir und Karoline, also Deutsches Schauspielhaus, 1996). Characteris-
tic for this aesthetic is the use of dated interiors, of Alpine folk music, and of
grotesque acting. These elements unite to create an effect of spectatorial
distance and disillusionment in the tradition of Brechtian epic drama.
Haneke, too, introduces many grotesque and slapstick effects especially
through the comical and childish nature of the two “assistants” (“Gehilfen”).
The actors’ clothing, with the men’s long johns and Frieda’s wrinkled stock-
ings, is used to great comical effect in the film’s frequent dressing and un-
dressing scenes, which also serve to show off the actors’ pale and distinctly
unfit-looking physiques. Another source of humor can be found in the fre-
quent close-ups focusing on the actors’ highly expressive mimicry. This con-
cerns especially the assistants (played by Frank Giering and Felix Eitner),
Frieda (Susanne Lothar) or Barnabas (André Eisermann), whereas lead actor
Ulrich Mühe, who had already worked with Haneke in two earlier films
(Benny’s Video and Funny Games), plays K. with a markedly deadpan facial
expression that adds to the character’s enigmatic nature. Finally, the frequent
repetition of scenes showing K. walking, stumbling or running through the
snow-covered village emphasizes the cyclical nature of Kafka’s tale while
also adding to the slapstick effect of the film.
Together, all of these aspects—mise en scène, setting, lighting, sound—
constitute the cinematic narration. However, the film also employs a second-
level, overt VO narrator. The VO, spoken by Udo Samel, begins with the
novel’s first sentence and recurs throughout the film, faithfully quoting the
180 Silke Horstkotte
narrative usually one or two sentences at a time. Indirect speech and repre-
sentation of thought in the novel are sometimes translated into dialogue in
the film, but on the whole, the film is very faithful to the novel’s original
text, with Kafka’s language creating an estranging effect when combined
with the semi-contemporary visual setting. VO narration usually bridges
passages with little or no dialogue. Sometimes, however, VO also overlays
spoken dialogue and in one central scene entirely disrupts the cinematic nar-
ration. This concerns K.’s first love scene with Frieda on the floor of the
“Bridge Inn” (“Brückenhof”), which is rendered exclusively in VO narration
with almost no visual support—what is shown is not the couple making
love, but only a still image of Klamm’s illuminated window (one of the castle
bureaucrats residing at the inn).
Like the fragmentary novel, the film ends abruptly. In fact, Michael
Haneke was probably drawn to this fragmentary novel because of his own
“fragmentary aesthetics” (Metelmann 2003: 35). However, the visual compo-
sition closes with a repetition of K. walking through the snow that is at odds
with the VO narration describing a scene in one of the villagers’ houses.
Indeed, film scholar Jörg Metelmann points out that the “obvious and clearly
audible separation of sound and image” is frequently used in Haneke’s “aes-
thetics of deviation” as a “means of criticizing the characters and their ac-
tions” (2003: 154-156, my translation). In this and other aspects Haneke is
closely influenced by Brecht (Metelmann 2003: 156), a heritage which also
accounts for his visual similarities to Marthaler and Viebrock. Haneke’s ex-
plicit refusal to psychologically motivate his characters’ actions, which de-
rives from Brecht’s concept of epic theater (Metelmann 2003: 159), could
also account for his lack of attention to the focalizing FID passages in
Kafka’s novel.
The film’s VO narration mostly concerns those passages of the novel
that are not focalized (zero focalization, the narrator knows more than the
characters). Sometimes, the VO refers to K.’s auditory impressions, but
rarely to his visual perception. The novel’s many instances of FID, especially
the passages interpreting letters that are so central to the relation between
narration and focalization, are left out entirely. The film’s use of VO, then, is
not concerned with focalization, but with narration, and the other possible
techniques for rendering focalization described by Branigan and Andringa et
al.—POV shot, sound and lighting, and the insertion of image sequences
rendering thought—are also left unexploited. Ulrich Mühe’s deadpan acting
does not allow for the mimicking of point of view; the film’s sound and
lighting function as part of a Brechtian aesthetic which creates the furthest
possible distance between the audience and characters; no image sequences
occur. An alternative possible source of focalization is the focus on K. cre-
ated by the systematic use of shot/countershot between K. and his visual
Visual Narratology and Focalization 181
field. This may suggest some limited degree of internal focalization; surpris-
ingly, however, the castle is never shown in the film and its description is not
quoted in the VO narration. Focalization as a means of psychological insight
is thus switched off, and the psychologically or psychoanalytically motivated
conflict between K. and the castle is diminished. The limited use of internal
focalization is restricted to rendering literal point of view, and a small por-
tion of K.’s view at that, with the looming castle cut out completely.
distinct, coincide in the same person. The same may, however, also be true
of non-retrospective homodiegetic narrative, for example in introspective
diary writing, where the writer may rely on his or her own focalization at a
time close to, or sometimes coinciding with, the time of writing. Phelan con-
cludes that a human narrator “cannot report a coherent sequence of events
without also revealing his or her perception of those events” (2001: 57); I
shall take this assertion as a starting point for my discussion of focalization
and narration in Institute Benjamenta. A second point to bear in mind when we
turn to Walser’s novel in diary format is James Phelan’s reminder that treat-
ing narrators as potential focalizers enables us to think about an important
aspect of narration, namely “the self-consciousness of the narrator” (ibid.:
52). Clearly, the presentation of self-consciousness is central to diary writing,
and I will therefore attempt to clarify the different aspects of narration and
of focalization involved in it.
The extremely rudimentary plot of Institute Benjamenta can be summarized
in few words. The novel is set in Benjamenta’s Boys’ School, a school for
aspiring domestics in which nothing is taught, where the teachers sleep as if
petrified all day and the students waste whole days smoking in bed. Almost
the only activity at the school is the pupils’ constant spying on each other
and on their teachers; occasionally the protagonist takes strolls through the
unnamed modern metropolis where the novel is set (presumably Berlin), a
city that overwhelms the spectator with its manifold impressions. A position
as a servant, for which the school is supposed to prepare Jakob and which
Mr Benjamenta repeatedly promises him, never materializes. When Miss
Benjamenta, the school principal’s sister, dies, all the pupils are suddenly
given positions; only Jakob remains behind as a traveling companion for Mr
Benjamenta.
Like K. in The Castle, Jakob is a non-entity, possessed by a need to com-
pletely efface himself. As Rochelle Tobias explains, Walser’s protagonists are
generally “incapable of forming attachments or returning the affection di-
rected at them since they have no defining traits save that they mirror the
characters they meet” (Tobias 2006: 293). The enigmatic setting in Benja-
menta’s school thus mirrors the impenetrable character of the protagonist-
narrator. As a result, Jakob’s diary focuses less on Jakob’s own personal de-
velopment than on his relationships with other characters: on his interactions
with the Institute’s reclusive director, which has distinctly homoerotic under-
tones (e. g. Walser 1995: 87f./Walser 1985: 105), his budding love affair with
the director’s sister, Lisa (ibid.: 99f./120), and his relations with Kraus, the
institute’s model student who serves not only as Jakob’s antithesis or an-
tagonist in his love affair with Lisa Benjamenta, but also as a kind of doppel-
ganger (see Grenz 1974: 141-142; Greven 1978: 173; Tobias 2006: 299).
Visual Narratology and Focalization 183
ever, Jakob’s fantasies about being rich (see also Walser 1995: 61-63 /
Walser 1985: 75-77), or about being a war lord in the year 1400 (Walser
1995: 108-110), also serve the function of creating an alternative reality to
the boredom and frustration that characterize student life at the Institute. In
contrast to the wealth fantasies, which are usually narrated in the subjunctive,
the warlord story—although initially designated “imaginings” (90)—is ren-
dered in the indicative, and it is interesting to dwell a little on the function of
focalization in this extended fantasy. Jakob’s impressions of the dealings he
has with his generals are rich in detail and frequently refer to sense percep-
tions, which makes the reader temporarily forget the different ontological
status of these descriptions from those relating to his fellow students. While
the beginning and end of the passage foreground Jakob in his narratorial
role—with comments on the unreal status of his imaginations—the central
part of the sequence, therefore, highlights his role as a focalizer, and one
with a highly imaginative and speculative perception of his surroundings. To
be sure, Jakob is still the agent relating these fantasies and impressions. But if
we treat focalization as an interpretative rather than a textual category, there
are good reasons why we should experience Jakob more as a focalizer and
less as a narrator, and these have to do with his complete lack of agency in
his own fate. Not only does he consistently confuse dream and reality, he
also lacks insight and understanding of his own inner life, thereby becoming
“a mystery to myself” (5).
The most extended of Jakob’s dream sequences, and the one where
dream and reality most intermix, is the night scene in the darkened class-
room (81-85/97-103), in which he experiences being led by Miss Benjamenta
through “the vaults of poverty and deprivation” (83; “Gänge des Not-
Leidens und der furchtbaren Entbehrung”, 100) into the inner chambers of
the Institute, where the Benjamenta siblings reside and which only Kraus has
previously been allowed to penetrate. In contrast to Jakob’s impressions of
the metropolis and to his fantasies about being rich, this sequence is also
rendered in the indicative. However, Jakob stresses at the beginning that the
experience was “incomprehensible” and a “myster[y]” (81) and later sees it
dissolving into a “gluey and most unpleasant river of doubt” (85). After the
15 “Ich möchte gern reich sein, in Droschken fahren und Gelder verschwenden.” (Walser 1985: 7)
184 Silke Horstkotte
girl has disappeared, Jakob concludes that she was “the enchantress who had
conjured up all these visions and states” (ibid.). Afterwards, he expresses
regret over having given in to “wanton pleasures of easefulness” (ibid.;
“lüsterne Bequemlichkeit”, 103), belatedly suggesting that the dreamlike se-
quence may have been motivated by sexual desire for Miss Benjamenta. As
Rochelle Tobias correctly remarks, “[each] room is the translation of an alle-
gorical figure; each represents a particular phrase or mood as a physical envi-
ronment” (Tobias 2006: 302), and this suggests that the rooms materialize
Jakob’s feelings and emotions. Alternatively, however, the inner chambers
could equally be manifesting the Fräulein’s words, as Tobias also suggests
when she says: “Throughout the episode, the phrases that Fräulein Benja-
menta utters appear as diverse settings.” (Tobias 2006: 303) Because of its
dream logic, the passage lends itself to psychoanalytic interpretations focus-
ing either on Jakob’s attachment to the Benjamentas or on the use of birth
metaphors (see Tobias 2006: 304).
In this and other passages, Jakob functions as a narrator insofar as he is
the transmitting agent of the narrative, but since what he transmits is almost
exclusively concerned with dreams and fantasies, it would appear difficult if
not impossible to separate the two acts of narrating and focalizing. Indeed,
different aspects of narration and focalization constantly blend into one an-
other, with Jakob expressing doubts about what sort of perception he is de-
scribing: Is he reporting on the state of affairs in the Institute Benjamenta,
for instance, or are these rather memories from the prep school he attended
in his home town? It is, moreover, not at all clear whether Jakob is here re-
porting an earlier perception, or whether the styling of sense impressions as
dreams and fairytales does not occur in the act of composing his diary, in
which case it would belong to the order of narration. We might, then, turn
once again to Manfred Jahn’s suggestion that there are different “windows of
focalization” in the house of fiction and describe Jakob’s role as that of a
narratorial (rather than reflector-mode) focalizer (Jahn 1996: 256-7). Or we
could employ James Phelan’s (2001) terminology and describe Institute Benja-
menta as a combination of two types of narration: narrator’s focalization and
voice, and character’s focalization and narrator’s voice (with ‘character’ refer-
ring to Jakob-as-experiencer, and ‘narrator’ to Jakob the diary-writer).
Phelan’s proposal has the advantage of enabling us to differentiate be-
tween Jakob as a character and Jakob as a diary writer. As Manfred Jahn has
pointed out, Genette’s question “who speaks?” inadequately captures the
narratorial function because it buries the narratologically relevant distinction
between speaker and writer (and thinker, in interior monologue) (Jahn 1996:
246). Jakob, of course, poses as a diary writer; the novel’s subtitle designates
it as a diary, and Jakob’s narration relies heavily on irony and word play,
thereby calling attention to the diary’s composition (Tobias 2006: 299).
Visual Narratology and Focalization 185
lead us to conclude that other distorted views are also an effect of Jakob’s
focalization rather than of (cinematic) narration.
That Jakob functions as the film’s internal focalizer is also suggested by
the film’s use of VO. As in Haneke’s adaptation of The Castle, the VO pas-
sages in Institute Benjamenta are verbatim quotations from the novel. Unlike
the impersonal VO narration in Haneke’s film, however, the VO in Institute
Benjamenta is clearly attributable to the central character, Jakob: although the
words are spoken from the off, the camera circles around Jakob—an unusual
form of POV shot which suggests that he is to be identified as the source of
these words. However, the viewer does not at the same time see Jakob’s
mouth speaking these words. This creates the impression that the VO ex-
presses Jakob’s thoughts and is therefore an effect of focalization, whereas
the VO’s source—the written diary in Walser’s novel—belongs, of course, to
the order of narration.
Institute Benjamenta, then, expresses focalization in a number of ways, in-
cluding POV shot, VO, and the use of mindscreen sequences. However,
what does and does not constitute focalization in this film is in effect an
interpretative decision, as evidenced by the fact that the fairytale forest
scenes which I have read as mindscreen sequences (and therefore as focaliza-
tions) have been interpreted as the depiction of a strange parallel world in
the fantasy genre (and thus as narration) by most of the film’s reviewers.
6. Conclusion
rative. The identification of a film focalizer is, if anything, even more specu-
lative. The camera does not usually represent the visual perspective of a focal
character but that of the cinematic narrator; nor does film easily lend itself to
the representation of cognitive processes. So-called POV shots, which show
a focal character thinking or perceiving something, may be understood as
either narration or focalization. The use of VO, which has been suggested as
another source of focalization, remains at best an auxiliary construction and
one that can, again, be constructed either as narration or as focalization. Not
only is the identification of narrative agents in film narratives an interpreta-
tive act, it also has far-ranging consequences for how the fictional world is
interpreted. Thus, depending on whether we understand the POV shots in
Institute Benjamenta as narration or focalization, the fairytale forest can be as-
signed two ontologically distinct interpretations, either as a real forest in a
fantasy setting, or as Jakob’s subjective imagination within a more realistic
setting.
The application of narratological concepts to film thus remains some-
what speculative. Furthermore, it bears repeating that terms like ‘narration’
and ‘focalization’ describe distinctly different phenomena in film and in tex-
tual narrative. The great differences between literary and film narration and
focalization suggest that narratological concepts are not neutral categories,
but media-dependent; as Fotis Jannidis (2003: 50) has written, “narrative
should always be treated as something anchored in a medium,” making ‘nar-
ratology’ “a collective term for a series of specialized narratologies and not a
self-sufficient metascience of its own”.
Works Cited
Alt, Peter-André. 2005. Franz Kafka, der ewige Sohn. Eine Biographie. München: Beck.
Andringa, Els; Petra van Horssen, Astrid Jacobs and Ed Tan. 2001. “Point of View and
Viewer Empathy in Film”. In: Willie van Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New
Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 133-157.
Bal, Mieke. 1997 [1985]. Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Bal, Mieke. 1999. Quoting Caravaggio. Contemporary Art, Preposterous History. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Beißner, Friedrich. 1983. Der Erzähler Franz Kafka und andere Vorträge. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Bordwell, David. 1985. Narration in the Fiction Film. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bortolussi, Marisa and Peter Dixon. 2003. Psychonarratology. Foundations for the Empirical Study of
Literary Response. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Branigan, Edward. 1984. Point of View in the Cinema. A Theory of Narration and Subjectivity in
Classical Film. New York/Berlin: Mouton. (= Approaches to Semiotics 66)
Buchan, Suzanne H. 1998. “The Quay Brothers. Choreographed Chiaroscuro, Enigmatic and
Sublime”. In: Film Quarterly 51:3, p. 2-15.
Visual Narratology and Focalization 191
Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Chatman, Seymour. 1990. Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Cohn, Dorrit. 1978. Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fiction.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cohn, Dorrit. 1981. “The Encirclement of Narrative. On Franz Stanzel’s Theorie des Erzäh-
lens”. In: Poetics Today 2:2, p. 157-182.
Deleyto, Celestino. 1991. “Focalisation in Film Narrative”. In: Atlantis XIII (1-2), p. 159-177.
Fludernik, Monika. 1996. Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London/New York: Routledge.
Genette, Gérard. 1972. Figures III. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Genette, Gérard. 1980. Narrative Discourse. An Essay in Method. Transl. by J. E. Lewin. Itha-
ca/London: Cornell University Press.
Genette, Gérard. 1988. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Gößling, Andreas. 1992. Abendstern und Zauberstab. Studien und Interpretationen zu Robert Walsers
‘Der Gehülfe’ und ‘Jakob von Gunten’. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.
Grenz, Dagmar. 1974. Die Romane Robert Walsers. Weltbezug und Wirklichkeitsdarstellung. Munich:
Fink.
Greven, Jochen. 1978. “Figuren des Widerspruchs. Zeit und Kulturkritik im Werk Robert
Walsers”. In: Katharina Kerr (ed.). Über Robert Walser. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, p. 164-
193.
Haneke, Michael (dir.). 1997. Das Schloss. Kino International Corp.
Herman, David. 2002. Story Logic. Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Horstkotte, Silke. 2005. “The Double Dynamics of Focalization in W. G. Sebald’s The Rings of
Saturn”. In: Jan Christoph Meister (ed.). Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism. Medial-
ity, Disciplinarity. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, p. 25-44.
Jahn, Manfred. 1996. “Windows of Focalization. Deconstructing and Reconstructing a Narra-
tological Concept”. In: Style 30:2, p. 241-267.
Jahraus, Oliver. 2006. Kafka. Leben, Schreiben, Machtapparate. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Jannidis, Fotis. 2003. “Narrative and Narratology”. In: Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller
(eds.): What is Narratology? Berlin: de Gruyter, p. 35-54.
Kafka, Franz. 1994 [1926]. Das Schloß. Roman, in der Fassung der Handschrift. In: Hans-Gerd
Koch (ed.). Gesammelte Werke in zwölf Bänden. Nach der Kritischen Ausgabe. Vol. 4.
Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch.
Kafka, Franz. 1998. The Castle. Transl. by Mark Harman. New York: Schocken Books.
Kindt Tom and Hans-Harald Müller. 2003. “Narrative Theory and/or/as Theory of Interpre-
tation”. In: T. K. and H.-H. M. (eds.): What is Narratology? Berlin: de Gruyter, p.
205-219.
Kozloff, Sarah. 1988. Invisible Storytellers: Voice-over Narration in American Fiction Film. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Laffey, Albert. 1964 [1947]. “Le récit, le monde et le cinema”. In: A. L. Logique du cinema.
Paris: Masson, p. 51-90.
Lothe, Jakob. 2000. Narrative in Fiction and Film. An Introduction. Oxford/New York: Oxford
University Press.
Metelmann, Jörg. 2003. Zur Kritik der Kino-Gewalt. Die Filme von Michael Haneke. Munich: Fink.
192 Silke Horstkotte
Metz, Christian. 1974. Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema. New York, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miller, J. Hillis. 2005. “Henry James and ‘Focalization’ or Why James Loves Gyp”. In: James
Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds.). A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford:
Blackwell, p. 124-135.
Müller, Klaus-Detlef. 2007. Franz Kafka: Romane (Klassiker-Lektüren, 9). Berlin: Erich
Schmidt.
Müller, Michael. 2008. “Das Schloß”. In: Bettina von Jagow and Oliver Jahraus (eds.). Kafka-
Handbuch: Leben—Werk—Wirkung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, p. 518-
529.
Nadel, Alan. 2005. “Second Nature, Cinematic Narrative, the Historical Subject, and ‘Russian
Ark’”. In: James Phelan and Peter J. Rabinowitz (eds.). A Companion to Narrative
Theory. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 427-440.
Nünning, Ansgar. 2001. “On the Perspective Structure of Narrative Texts. Steps toward a
Constructivist Narratology”. In: Willie van Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New
Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany: SUNY Press, p. 207-223.
O’Neill, Patrick. 1994. Fictions of Discourse. Reading Narrative Theory. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Phelan, James. 2001. “Why Narrators Can Be Focalizers—and Why it Matters”. In: Willie van
Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany:
SUNY Press, p. 51-64.
Prince, Gerald. 2001. “A Point of View on Point of View or Refocusing Focalization”. In:
Willie van Peer and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective.
Albany: SUNY Press, p. 43-50.
Quay, Stephen and Timothy Quay (dirs.). 1995. Institute Benjamenta, or This Dream People Call
Human Life. Zeitgeist Films.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 2002 [1983]. Narrative Fiction. Contemporary Poetics. London/New
York: Routledge.
Sheppard, Richard. 1977. “The Trial/The Castle: Towards an Analytical Comparison”. In:
Angel Flores (ed.). The Kafka Debate. New York: Gordian Press, p. 396-417.
Stanzel, Franz K. 1984. A Theory of Narrative. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Tobias, Rochelle. 2006. “The Double Fiction in Rober Walser’s Jakob von Gunten”. In: The
German Quarterly 79:3, p. 293-307.
van Peer, Willie and Seymour Chatman (eds.). 2001. New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective.
Albany: SUNY Press.
Walser, Robert. 1985 [1909]. Jakob von Gunten. Ein Tagebuch. In: Jochen Greven (ed.). Robert
Walser. Sämtliche Werke in Einzelausgaben. Vol. 11. Zürich/Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Walser, Robert. 1995. Institute Benjamenta. Transl. by Christopher Middleton. London: Ser-
pent’s Tail.
Yacobi, Tamar. 2002. “Ekphrasis and Perspectival Structure”. In: Erik Hedling and Ulla Britta
Lagerroth (eds.). Cultural Functions of Intermedial Exploration. Amsterdam/New York:
Rodopi, p. 189-202.