From the "Cinematic Suture" to Experience in Film Theory: Historical and Philosophical Aspect

Strugova Ekaterina Alexandrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-7688-0679 Assistant Professor; Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences; Saint Petersburg State University Postgraduate student; Institute of Philosophy; Saint Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Mendeleevskaya liniya, 5 ekaterina.strugova1997@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

Realism in modern film theory is assessed by how close non-fiction and feature films are to natural perception. The "cinematic seam", the impression and the effect of reality in the 20th century became not so much instruments of doubt in the absence of clear criteria of realism, as external factors of the specifics of cinema. Its realistic nature was explained by the "ontology of the cinematic image" ^{[1, p. 9-16]}, in connection with which its author Andre Bazin is most often mentioned.

Next, you should complete several tasks. First, we should consider the works published in the late 1950s and mid-1960s, which described the possibilities of film not as a collection of meanings or a mirror of director's intentions, but as a structure that repeats perception outside of cinema. The second task is to identify the conditions under which, in the 1960s and early 1970s, key arguments were put forward against the treatment of cinema reality as a representation. Thirdly, it should be proved that the turn of the XX-XXI centuries in the theory and philosophy of cinema is marked by criticism of the idea of the viewer as the one who, first of all, "reads" the film. At the early stage of the development of the "schwa system", such a literary-centric point of view on the status of the audience was considered no less normative than realism.

The theoretical basis of the research was the work of opponents of realism ^{[2; 3; 4]} and supporters of its "moderate" version. According to her, realism calls into question the authority of the viewer and translates ideology through film as text ^{[5; 6; 7]}. Despite the fact that concepts from the psychoanalytic theory of cinema, rather than from psychoanalysis, are less often applied to Russian-speaking directors, the history of studying their filmography has at least two aspects.

On the one hand, interpreting the tapes of A. A. Tarkovsky, A. Y. Herman, A. N. Sokurov, E. G. Klimov, theorists choose between psychoanalysis and psychoanalysis. Freud, J. Lacan and neo-psychoanalysis ^[8]. On the other hand, the "seam", the effect of reality ^{[9, p. 177]} and other metaphors for giving a film unity, even if imaginary, have been actively studied and are being studied ^{[10, p. 665]}, but the emphasis is on their technical, "editing" side ^{[11, p. 437]}. This does not mean that any field in which the meanings of a particular term from the history of film theory converge is vast, and the approach is interdisciplinary. Rather, the question arises: will the expansion of the context of concepts such as the "cinematic seam" lead to the loss of its theoretical framework (the history of psychoanalysis and structuralism in cinema)?

In order to find the reasons for the transition of the debate about realism in the 1950s and 1990s from criticism to the philosophy of cinema, it is worthwhile to apply analytical and comparative methods. The impression of reality as a historical and theoretical concept is hardly definable without reference to the psychoanalytic "seam" that precedes the effect of reality in the viewer's experience. It is necessary to analyze all three concepts from the film theory of the last century and compare them with the criticism of the "seam system".

The scientific novelty of the work consists in substantiating the relevance of the "seam" in modern cinema theory and in supplementing its aesthetic effect with the specifics of comedy. Soviet cinema was mentioned more than once in the French-language theory of the "seam" of the 1960s, in the works of Yu. M. Lotman ^[12], but the "editing" directors of the 1920s and 1930s (V. I. Pudovkin, S. M. Eisenstein) were the most fortunate with the depth of study ^{[2, p. 249]}. In the Soviet genre classics of the 1960s, there is also a place for the strategies of the reality effect and the "seam". And despite the fact that from this angle they were almost not considered abroad and in Russia, the second part of the article is devoted specifically to comedy gags.

It is noteworthy that the texts on the "seam system" by J.P. Udar, P. Bonitzer, N. Brown, K. Silverman, and S. Heath were published at the same time as the creation of "school", pioneer, and children's films made in the USSR in the 1960s and 70s.. Their originality is not limited to the fact that "Welcome, or No Trespassing" (directed by E. G. Klimov, 1964), "The Adventures of the Yellow Briefcase" (directed by I. A. Fraz, 1970), "The Weirdo from the fifth "B" (directed by I. A. Fraz, 1972) were considered "satirical" comedies. For example, in the drama by I. A. Averbakh and I. F. Maslennikov "The Personal Life of Valentin Kuzyaev" (1967) there was a lot of grotesque and parody.

Taking into account the existing approaches to cinema and comedies, in particular, in psychoanalysis, narratology, history and art theory, it is necessary to try to substantiate that the concept of "seam" is significant for modern studies of "spectatorship" ^{[13, p. 102]}. This will make it possible to complement the problems of aesthetics of sensuality with the historical aspect of cinematic experience.

The impression of reality in the theory of cinema in the second half of the 20th century

The impression of reality has gone through a long evolution in the continental philosophy of cinema. Jean Mitry, one of the followers of the filmological movement in France, which emphasized the psychology of the film expert ^{[14, pp. 33-34]}, suggested the following. The viewer, as a full-fledged participant in the film's life cycle, is free to judge it, and not to choose a point of view: "I cannot move inside the "film space" except when the director makes such a decision. <...> The image of reality is similar to the image of a movie. Obviously, however, this is only an impression. <...> He [the image] ceases to exist when I stop looking at him" ^{[15, p. 31]}. Thus, Mitri's thesis about the image as an "objectified perception" turns the question of realism to conventions and requirements in relation to the subject of cinematic experience.

In turn, the French theorist Christian Metz explained the impression of reality differently. The viewer, believing in the existence of the characters, can identify with them not as embodiments of his intentions, but with the impression of the actors' real bodies ^{[16, p. 4]}. K. Metz attributed the transfer of a fragment from reality to cinema to the fact that despite the fact that photography "describes" objects and moments of life, it destroys both: "Photography <...> cuts out a fragment (referent), a piece, a partial object, in order to embark on a long stationary one-way journey" ^{[17, p. 158]}. This makes it clear that the image is both the object of the director's intention and a reference to the referent.

Therefore, the gradation in the impression of reality and the gradualness of its receipt have two consequences at the level of theory. Firstly, a certain analogue of the real world is the reason and the main factor of the credibility of cinema. Secondly, visual figures are not a separate kind of reality, with whose autonomy the viewer agrees. Rather, the latter projects onto them the properties of the screen, which are independent of the fiction of the film. Even if it is based on real events, the impression of reality is far from being a mirror of subjective intentions.

J. Mitri's book, according to estimates in the 21st century, "did not belong to any school" ^{[18, p. 233]}, but it took up the thesis of filmology that reproducing motion in cinema means objectively reflecting reality, creating its appearance. K. Metz, even before semiology, found the criterion of "identification" of the viewer with a cinematic object: it must be correlated with the "impression", but represented as its reverse side. He doubted that the impression of reality is something apparent: "The viewer is called upon to take a stand in relation to the real actors themselves, rather than identify with the characters they embody" ^{[16, p. 9]}.

Of course, I would like to conduct a complete historiographical review of this concept: from its origins in the text of Jean-Jacques Rinieri, a member of the Institute of Filmology, "Impression of Reality: the Phenomenon of Faith" (1953) to the modern reception of a special period in the history of film thought ^{[14, pp. 33-34]}. However, it is incorrect to summarize all the achievements and conceptual depth of this movement by two "young filmologists". No matter how both concepts ("seam" and "impression of reality") inherit the filmological tradition, in order not to reduce it to basic provisions and avoid relativism, in the long run it is necessary to give the impression of reality a separate analysis. Otherwise, the subject of the article – the cinematic seam – could have receded into the background. Nevertheless, filmology (the Institute of Filmology was founded by Gilbert Cohen-Seah in 1947) began as the science of the viewer or, according to Etienne Souriot, "the spectator's fact" ^{[18, p. 187]}.

Thus, the ideas of J. Mitri and K. Metz, key authors for film studies in the 1960s, consolidated the differences between the technical factors of the impression of reality and the subject who is authoritative in this process. After all, it was never an axiom of the theory of cinema at that time that the cinematic experience was limited to the viewer, and, for example, not his role – to take an ideal point of view on the narrative as a text.

The "formula" of the cinematic seam

If we take the strength of the impression of reality as the basis, then the difference from the effect of reality is indeed nominal. Later, J.-L. Comolli ^[5], P. Bonitzer ^{[2, p. 250]} and J.-P. The second blow ^[19] began to mean the result of efforts to give continuity to the structure of cinema. At the same time, according to Comolli, if the cinematographic apparatus behaved autonomously, then there would be no question of the film as a "seamless fabric" ^{[5, p. 168-169]}.

In the second half of the 1960s and early 1970s, there was much criticism of realism in French film theory, which gave an immaterial, ideological dimension to the space of films. It's not that the latter, being "transparent", led the viewer astray, and he, in turn, believed that the strongest effect of reality, a surge of feelings would occur as in real life. Rather, according to J.A. Miller, realism is defined by roles hidden from the subject. According to his logic, everyone in the cinema is "in a figurative discourse", "in the text", "the signifying chain", where the signifier is a representative of the subject, which is "erased" in the discourse, repeating itself and becoming a "sediment" of the given signifier ^{[19, p. 26]}.

The meaning of the "seam" as a term introduced into psychoanalysis by J.-A. Miller and S. Leclair, and initially by J. Lacan, is that this imaginary mechanism helps to embed and fit the subject into the discourse. A seam is an element that is in short supply, in the "idle" mode ^{[19, p. 26]}. However, in connection with the seam, it is hardly possible to talk about emptiness. The subject, which is an "impossible object" that is not identical to itself, remains in "excess." His exclusion from discourse is a seam connected to the Other's field, the "place of truth." And only by being displaced from there does the subject reveal himself in alternating presence and absence.

In the philosophy of cinema, the situation of the "seam" becomes more complicated: for J.-P. Almost every field of the film resonates with the missing field, the place of the character whom the viewer in his imagination places there as Absent ("Absent One") ^{[4, p. 45-48]}. Initially, all the elements of a movie scene are together, acting as a signifier of the missing field (offscreen space). Then the "signifying absences" add up to a "Sum", which, separating from the place behind the scenes, acquires semantic independence from the narrative. According to Udar, this is a "floating amount of meaning" and, at the same time, the certainty of these images, which strive for independence from the film as a statement (énonciation) ^{[4, p. 46]}. At the third stage, there is a need for an element that, in order to avoid repetition of signifiers, could make the viewer notice a change of frame in the dialogue scene, but left the "seam" secondary to the signified. And such an intermediary is an Absent Person who was previously behind the scenes.

Consequently, for the Impact, the subject entering the film's discourse as a spectator is almost the same as the signifying object. The "seam" makes up for the lack of narrative connections where there are "nobody's" points of view, and gives the audience of the film a substantive character. The absent one is neither a character nor an on-screen alter ego of the viewer.

Anticipation as a criterion distinguishes the "schwa system" from its predecessors: realism, theories of impression and the effect of reality. It was this progressive mode of cinema experience that became the object of criticism of the "seam" as a whole, although still J.P. The impact distinguished the "reality effect" from both the impression and the "real effect". If the first one comes from perspective in Modern painting, then "representation suppresses the effect of production (the effect of the real), the metonymic trace of embedding the figure in the scenic structure through the metaphor of the performance" ^{[20, p. 205]}.

Despite the fact that Rutman, D. Dayan and N. Brown gained fame by refuting the universality of the "schwa system", Udar himself doubted its applicability to all directors. For example, R. Bresson and J.-L. Godard distributed the roles of the viewer and the Absent so that there was no need for the frame itself-the reverse frame. In Bresson's film "At Random, Balthazar" (1966), the imaginary field is lengthened until it disappears "so that only the dead syntax of meaning is perceived", and the viewer finds himself in a situation where the previously derived "anticipation function" stops working ^{[4, p. 49]}. This is due to a decrease in the depth of the frame, the gap between the camera and the character, which in Hollywood cinema usually justifies a change in the shooting angle. Moreover, Udar did not mention such well-known examples of subjective narration as "The Lady in the Lake" (directed by R. Montgomery, 1948), shot in the first person.

It is worth emphasizing that the illustrative field in which the "classics" of the theory of the cinematic "seam" showed its effectiveness is extensive in the geographical and historical-genre sense: from silent and sound American films of the 1930s, westerns by J. Ford, dramas by W. Wyler, B. Keaton and F. Fellini, N. Oshima and the Taviani brothers before the films directed by Hungary (M. Yancho) and Latin America (G. Rocha). Perhaps the most sought-after film in the analysis of cinema through the concept of "seam" was the film by J. R.R. Tolkien. Ford's "Stagecoach" (1939) ^{[21, p. 26]}.

According to Nick Brown, one of the representatives of the second wave of the "schwa system", an interpreter and critic of Jean-Pierre Udar's ideas, in "Stagecoach" the director "erased himself for the sake of characters and action, reading frames as images of "states of consciousness"" ^{[13, p. 35]}. For N. Brown, unlike J.-P. Like his contemporaries, the images of cinema are not tied to the real or hidden creator, who controls the set design on the other side of the screen, but to his "masks" inside the cinema space.

From these counterexamples, from inside and outside the "seam" theory, it follows that for the sake of the reality effect, the camera is freed from the status of a technological intermediary and the human gaze associated with it. The result of this correlation between misunderstanding and the superiority of the viewer is his displeasure. Most of the neutral and positive attitude towards the "seam" concept was based on agreement with this disparity, but some did not attach importance to it. D. Dayan considered the assembly "eight" to be almost the same as the "seam" ^{[22, p. 28]}, and S. Heath believed that both of them were just particles of a global editing system that was full of other transitions from scene to scene ^{[3, p. 69]}.

At the same time, the thesis of the viewer's pleasure as compensation for the fact that he is included in the fiction of the film unconsciously has not been strongly revised. K. Silverman's innovation was that the view, far from being Absent, cannot be reduced and cannot become Different ^{[7, p. 202]}. The British film critic S. Heath, in turn, noted that the subject of the signifying chain enters the imaginary field of the film, but two conditions of the classic "seam" are not fulfilled. Firstly, the viewer is included in the discourse indirectly, and secondly, he does not identify with the characters along the "frame-reverse frame" chain. Despite the fact that film theorists referred to her most often, Heath recalled that "there is no discourse without a seam.", <...> but there is no seam that does not originate from the beginning of the discourse, defined in a specific system that gives it shape" ^{[3, p. 69]}. In other words, the audience remembers by default what kind of discourses are in front of it.

According to J.-L. Comolli, the subject also does not become a spectator indirectly, but participates in his own deception. On the other hand, he does not turn into a "passive" observer either because he follows the cinematic articulation and recognizes himself in the "Absent" ^{[5, p. 168]}. Recall that in the theory of J.-P. This signifier helped to ensure that the Absent Person was replaced by someone from the audience, since the sense of reality is derived from reproducing the conditions of the scene forming the film. While Comolli's theses reject that the viewer's activity is the sum of deciphering, reading, and accumulating knowledge about the order of representation. On the contrary, in order for the criterion of cognition to be satisfied in the case of the reality effect, the viewer must "remember" the discourses that are directed against him as discourses, and not as traces of a past rearrangement in reality ^{[5, p. 169]}.

It is interesting to note that in the above thesis of Jean-Louis Comolli, there is a formulation that is implicit in his work, but familiar from the writings of Andre Bazin. Despite the fact that for a basic acceptance of the illusion, it is necessary to put aside all signs of the opacity of the film scene, this imaginary integrity is a convention. The latter takes effect when imagination takes over, but not perception; the process of forming associations is triggered, and iconic signs are not recognized ^{[1, p. 48]}.

Moreover, the balance of power does not particularly change who is the first to advocate the transition of the perception of the plot into a sensory experience: the absent one, the subject of the viewing, or the entire film crew. It is important to keep in mind that identification with the character occurs after, it is secondary to convincing the viewer of a plausible frame change and is responsible for the ambivalence of his reaction. Regardless of whether she feels pleasure or displeasure, the misunderstood subject feels it.

At this stage, it can be summarized that realism goes beyond the plausibility of motion in cinema (as in the case of the impression of reality) and the belief in pre-camera events, because the symbolic support of the "seam" is the theory of both the experienced and the watched viewer. In the film studies and aesthetics of cinema of the last twenty years, the popularity of approaches with an emphasis on the fact that the cinematic experience has main and secondary parts has disappeared. The method can substantiate the centrality of the subject, the film as a media and the visual fabric of the narrative, belonging to a specific style of shooting. No matter how different theories are considered to be object-oriented and independent of the human factor in the person of the will or intentions of the screenwriter, more and more film philosophers prefer to reflect on experience from the perspective of "spectatorship" and sensuality ^{[13, p. 102-103]}.

Comedy gag as a "seam"

Contrary to the popular opinion in film criticism about "spectator" films as synonymous with commercial cinema, they also "hardwired" reflection on reality. Their aesthetic analysis may be hindered by a stereotype expressed neutrally ("light" cinema) or by criticism of entertainment art. The trend of the last five years to redefine the boundaries between "low, medium and high" art ^[23] echoes the ethical and aesthetic studies of comedy as a genre in cinema abroad ^{[24, p. 364]} and in Russia ^[25].

Sergei Eisenstein's editing, which the Schwa theorists called "structural", "a tool of dialectics and discourse" ^{[26, p. 24]}, was compared with the method of another iconic Soviet director, Vsevolod Pudovkin. Of course, S. Pierre's thesis that his films were secondary to Eisenstein's films, were "commercial" and were shot "for the sake of narrative", and also served as a "caricature of the "art of editing", surprises with its radicalism ^{[26, p. 31]}. However, J. Narboni clarified: "Pudovkin's work was aimed at fragmenting scenes, destroying the connection between frames, and never had any purpose other than reaching extreme points of analysis, shifting the situation in order to dramatize or draw attention to it" ^{[26, p. 31]}.

Recall that J.-P. The blow emphasized that in the chain of points of view in narrative cinema (for example, B. Keaton's "The General" (1926), F. Lang's "Nibelungenlied" (1924), Hollywood melodramas of the 1950s and 60s) there were many gaps and semantic gaps, which, being almost invisible in the dialogue scenes, all-They were "stitched" into the single fabric of the film ^{[4, p. 50]}. The program of the Soviet avant-garde of the 1920s, on the contrary, was highly appreciated in the neo-Marxist theory of cinema of the late sixties. While the so-called "narrative" cinema, with a clear correlation between the script and its adaptation, is still becoming the object of criticism and accusations of hiding the whole truth from the viewer.

Sometimes comedies become textbook and cult not immediately, but after years of release. "Welcome, or No Trespassing" (1964) by E. Klimov has more than half a century of history of studying using the terms of narratology ^{[27, p. 554]}, theory of art and literature ^{[28, p. 89]}. For a long time it was described as a "school" and children's cinema, a subgenre of satirical comedy ^{[29, p. 336]}. Last year, on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the birth of Elem Klimov, they started talking about his thesis again (retrospectives, lectures and film criticism materials).

The sequence of holes, messages, plaques, in other words, "peepholes" that dot the first frame of Klimov's film is replaced by a panorama of a wooden fence, a traditional attribute of provincial and "camp" life. It also shows locals who look more like street children from the adventure films "Dirk" (1973) and "The Bronze Bird" (1975), shot by N. A. Kalinin ten years later.

Meanwhile, from the very first scenes it becomes clear that we are talking on behalf of a character, which emphasizes both the mosaic of the narrative and the difficulty that will accompany the coverage of the full picture of what is happening. On a visual level, this is realized through subjective shooting, which would not surprise even a film neophyte. Although it is worth admitting that this is a rather inventive technique: the main protagonist not only looks at himself from the outside, but also introduces other characters into the narrative in a similar way – the caretaker, the gym teacher, the doctor and the "camp chief" Comrade Dynin.

At the same time, the discursive space of E. Klimov's film can hardly be called sparse or allowing for anything other than a deep reading. There are periodic "holes" in it, still waiting for their own: a character, a prototype, or an hour. In particular, almost until the very end, that is, parents' day, Comrade Mitrofanov, the uncle of one of the pioneers, who is called only by the surname of a famous relative, does not appear on the screen.

Despite the fact that the gags in "Welcome, or..." come from scratch, the caesurs embedded in the film work to exaggerate. After uttering an order, instruction, or phrase in a "cloth" language, the role of an assembly passage and even intra-frame intertitles is played by episodic characters (a snitch in sandals; workers erecting another fence; cleaners and nurses).

Moreover, "seams" and boundaries arise in the discursive and pictorial plan of Klimov's debut. At night, when the imaginary sound of a bugle and a drum roll fades away, the heroes continue to be chased by an invisible observer who beats off their every step on a xylophone. Even conversations about upcoming contests, attractions and other types of activity unfold against the background of warning posters "Don't play with the river!", "We don't have squishy people", "Quiet Games Sector".

"Welcome, or No Trespassing" (1964) by Elem Klimov is difficult to remove from the series of associations with the headliners of Soviet cinema. However, the genre affiliation of his first full meter according to the script by S. L. Lungin and I. I. Nusinov still allows for many possible interpretations and raises questions. After all, the novelty of techniques is not always evaluated by the most famous or shady works of the author's cinema. The length and close-up of the plans, adjusted with incredible accuracy, make the "live" installation glues almost invisible to the viewer and transfer what is happening to the realm of irony.

The reality effect and the "cinematic seam": equivalence or mutual exclusion

The aesthetic priority of the viewer, despite his lack of knowledge about the set design, and the "impersonal" narration took on a significant part of the impression of reality. It was K. Metz who became one of the first to bring the impression of reality from filmology as the science of the viewer into semiology, phenomenology and other fields of film research ^{[16, p. 8]}. While the theory of the "seam", which claimed to be a universal scheme of film experience, has changed greatly in the psychoanalytic theories of cinema of the late 20th century.

The first generation of Schwa critics (J.-L. Comolli, S. Heath, P. Bonitzer) I tended to understand it modestly and sometimes verbatim, responding to the original in J.P.'s texts. Udara and Zh. Lacan. However, later, T. McGowan ^{[30, p. 28]} and J. Nowell-Smith ^{[6, pp. 555-56]} suggested that psychoanalysis in cinema localizes the effect of reality as much as possible. Nowell-Smith emphasized that the theoretical consequences of both the "seam" and the "mirror stage" are characteristic of the viewing situation as such: "The so-called secondary identifications tend to break the pure speculative relationship of the viewer with the screen," and find a place for this pair already inside the text of the film" ^{[6, p. 555]}.

Probably, the psychoanalytic theory of cinema of the 1960s and 1970s and its English-language perception a decade later (especially in the Screen magazine) did not say that the viewer is just a look that cannot see the assembly joint in the dialogue scenes. The authors of the 21st century looked at the "seam" ^{[10, p. 665]} and the reality effect more skeptically ^{[31, p. 427]}. According to McGowan, it is precisely because of its focus on the Gaze that the traditional Lacanian theory of cinematic fantasy dealt only with the relationship between imagination and ideology (Symbolic), rather than the relationship between fantasy and Gaze (Real) ^{[30, p. 40]}.

Consequently, in the way many authors envisioned the development of cinematic experience, fantasy served a negative function in a sense. It is worth separating from the on-screen reality not the misunderstood viewer, but the medial properties of cinema.

In addition to the criticism of the "schwa system" by the new psychoanalysis, it was revised in the line of Anglo-American film theory, where the cinematic experience was the center of attention. The point is that by choosing absence as the criterion that would become the viewer's "place" in the experience, one would have to find a starting point when it would arise in it, and predict through what stages the experience would go.

In the works of R. Allen ^{[32, p. 130]} and N. Carroll ^{[33, p. 36]}, such a turn to time was considered an argument by analogy, incorrectly mistaken for identity. Nevertheless, in modern cognitive science with an emphasis on attention, perception and other processes, one can also notice a return to the origins of psychoanalysis, to the idea of the viewer as a translator of the intentions and affects of the film. For example, J. Davidson believes that we begin to realize somatic movements in the light of cinema as a mounted event that works as a predictable narrative while the audience learns from the film ^{[31, p. 420]}.

The recent reception of the "seam" theory often echoes the original one. In order for the viewer to become a subject, he had to integrate into the cinematic chain of signifiers. In this way, communication with the Absent was simultaneously established. It is not surprising that already in the early 1990s, at the very beginning of the "post-theory", such an argument caused controversy among narratologists. In particular, N. Carroll explained the diversity of participants in the cinematic experience process by the fact that there is a logical error in the very identification of the viewer with the character ^{[33, p. 36]}. In other words, some authors in the context of psychoanalysis were more interested in the viewer as a "territorial" center of experience, rather than its author, responsible for the preconscious and conscious aspects of emotions in cinema.

Conclusions

Thus, against the background of the problems that worried theorists and affected such scenarios of describing the sensory experience of cinema as the effect, the impression of reality and the "cinematic seam", a certain question remained unchanged. It can be formulated as follows: why in the works of a number of authors of the last century was the viewer at the center not only as a character in theoretical texts and a subject of empirical experience, grasping the referent of an image outside of cinema, but also as someone who gives the film many meanings? Among them is spatial, or the place of experience; secondly, the mode of cognition; thirdly, the film as an instance that allows the viewer to believe in the reality of their own experience.

The continuity of the impression of reality with its later interpretation as a psychoanalytic "seam" is noticeable. In addition, in the 1970s and 80s, the authors who published in the Screen magazine, a kind of center for the British reception of Jean Lacan's psychoanalysis, did not deeply study the effects of "figurative production" themselves, which were described by Jean-Pierre. Hit. New principles of thinking about the viewer began to be developed from the perspective of a factor (social, ideological, anthropological) indirectly related to the representative situation of cinema.

As far as is known, J.-L. Baudry and J.-P. Udar did not write separate works on the impression of reality, and K. Metz did not write about the psychoanalytic "seam". In this article, it was important to emphasize the commonality of both concepts with the "cumulative" meaning of the reality effect, which the Blow made dependent on two types of experience – the "real effect" and reality. The gradual movement from the effect of reality to cinematic experience occurred under the influence of the "schwa system" on the philosophy of cinema of the XX-XXI centuries. On the one hand, it contains the heterogeneity of the film experience, even without the question of whether cinema is art. On the other hand, sensuality was associated with knowing the intentions of the "author" of the film to change roles in screen reality.

In addition to criticizing the illusionism of cinema, which challenged the authority of the text, revisions of the classical concept of the "seam" made it possible to see the viewer as a subject of sensory experience. While comedy, and even more so, "satirical comedy", has established itself as one of the tools of acute social utterance, the on-screen version of which was justified by J.-P. Udar and other neo-Marxists in 20th century cinema theory.

Among the prospects for further research is the problem of describing aesthetic experience and evaluating audience expectations, expressed in the discourse of film criticism by such concepts as experience, watching, and intonation of the film. Their analysis will help to avoid bias in the analysis of cinematic experience and explain the inextricable link between aesthetics of sensuality and axiology.