Diegesis, Mediation and Presence…

I sat in the movie theatre. I watched the TV show. I saw the film. I loved the movie. I felt  for the characters. I jumped in my seat. I cried at the end….

The process of applying a notion of diegesis to cinematic form, much as it has traditionally been understood – sound, narrative, the frame itself – allows for a fresh processing of cinema. One that questions the actualisation of the viewer themselves; questions their spatial, physical, even emotional engagement with the cinematic space and the simulated ‘eye’.

But in applying the diegetical astrolabe to cinematic perspective and positioning we begin a process of engagement that raises curious questions about the future bearing of not just cinematic spatiality but the emotional positioning of the viewer in the context of cinematic action. 

Here we may see three concentric circles of diegetic application that represent staggered levels of questioning. We begin with the practical, the tangible, the technology inspired; then, winding inward through the application of diegesis to established, but re-mediated cinematic elements, to finally arrive at a more ephemeral, but none the less conceptually compelling, idea that taps into the key cocnept of what it is to observe and the emotional engagement of observation.

At the surface level we apply a conceptual framework of diegesis to the camera. Just as we define a diegetic sound as one that has a tangible source and natural position within the frame, the scene, the depicted space; and, conversely a non-diegetic sound being one beyond, outside, transcending the space (the voice of an on-screen actor as opposed the sound of a voice-over narration), we might consider the camera in the same light.

A diegetic camera is one that is tangibly adherent to the spatiality of the scene; to its physicality, events and environment. A camera that moves around objects, travels up stairs, around corners, responds to kinetic engagement with events and positions itself with the characteristics of a scenic inhabitant, these are all traits that would indicate a diegetic nature.

Conversely, a camera that functions outside and beyond the spatiality of the scene, where the physics and physicality of the cinematic space do not impede, impact or confine the camera’s position or movement, where the camera freely occupies the scene as a point of observation but spatially transcends and is omnipotent to it, can be considered to be a non-diegetic camera. The construct of a non-diegetic camera is one that most readily arises, as part of the popular cinematic discourse, from the virtual-camera constructed in the synthetic environment of 3D graphics and virtual space but with relative ease can find insertion into live-action scenes through layered compositing.

This simple distinction of diegesis in the context of defining the positioning of the camera as an entity within a cinematic space, and subsequently the camera’s relationship to that space, invariably evokes the second tier diegetic application, that of the viewer them-selves.

The notion of the viewer having, or possessing, a particular diegetic mode (that is much derived from the diegesis of the camera as their ‘eye’ to the cinematic space and a simulation of self) crafts a new mode of conceptualisation concerning the viewer and their reception of cinematic meaning - their perception of narrative and dramatic cues.

A diegetic viewer shares the scene with the characters, occupies the space of the events, is positioned in a direct relationship with the kinetic dynamism of the narrative drama. Much as with the diegetic camera, the diegetic viewer is respondent to the scenes spatiality and physicality, with its objects and tangible elements. The diegetic viewer not only sees in context confined by the space but hears only that which is diegetically truthful to the space and their position within it. Understandably then the non-diegetic viewer occupies a very different perspective to the diegetic one…

The non-diegetic viewer, whilst none the less in the primary position of observation of the scene, is  rendered transcendent of it. The viewer’s mode of perception of the cinematic space is from the privileged position of abstraction where their viewership is not constrained by spatiality or physical elements. For the non-diegetic viewer not only do visual elements in space present no impediment to observation but similarly, sound and physics of distance are subverted to feed a God-like position of independent omnipotence, at once the abstracted entity and intimate observer.

These two simple ideas of a meta-physical internal and external diegetic positioning of camera and viewer, in the context of cinematic space, together prompt us into a new territory that  invokes more profound cultural and psychological modes of perception.

If we accept the notion that the viewer them-self can occupy a non-diegetic position in regard to cinematic space, largely delivered via the ethereal nature of the virtual and non-diegetic camera, then we must also re-consider the mediated nature of the cinematic form. As has been explored in many contexts of cinema theory, the (diegetic) camera, along with the medium of delivery - the screen (in various sizes and forms) - and the subsequent depicted space, construct a spatio-temporal experience that is by nature mediated. The viewer’s experience of the drama, narrative, events and actions of the cinematic construct are mediated by the intermediary nature of the camera and the depicted physicality of the space itself. The camera, as an entity, as an apparatus that conforms to the space and implements its own tangible elements of mechanics (lens aberrations, depth of field, shake and movements that are dictated by physical elements – stairs, walls, corridors and obstacles) is, as a result, a direct mediation of the cinematic experience for the viewer; it is the medium through which the experience passes to the viewer and subsequently the viewer is regulated to a position forever one-step removed from the scene and space.

This is a long established concept of cinematic reception but where the consideration of a non-diegetic viewer, via a non-diegetic camera, potentially prompts new thinking is the notion of a new and un-mediated position of cinematic viewership. A position whereby the absence of spatio-physical constraints and a transcendent, omnipotent positioning of perspective constructs a cinematic Presence of the viewer in the scene that is un-mediated, unrestricted, unconstrained. This can be seen as a substantial and even dramatic shift in cinematic awareness of experience whereby we move from a position of cinema as a scenic/spatial simulation of the ‘eye’ to a fundamentally new conceptualisation that is, in essence, and emulation of the ‘I’. The Presence of the viewer, the abstraction of the ‘I’ as scenic observer, divorced (possibly for the first time in cinema history) from apparent mechanical mediation of the cinematic apparatus, constructs an apparent purity of cinematic experience where engagement with cinematic space and cinematic depiction is total, un-regulated and intimate.

I sat in the movie theatre. I watched the TV show. I saw the film. I loved the movie. I felt  for the characters. I jumped in my seat. I cried at the end….