As a country which offered an intellectual home to post-1968 spatial theory, and whose identity and frame of geopolitical influence is expressed in geometric terms (Hexagone, Francosphère), France offers a propitious, though potentially overdetermined, national context in which to explore questions of space and place. While a special issue of Yale French Studies entitled ‘New Spaces for French and Francophone Cinema’ (2009) helped carve out this field of enquiry in film studies, an impressive range of scholarship has continued apace. This review article discusses recent approaches to cinematic space in contemporary French film and documentary, before focusing on two site-specific studies, the first of which readdresses the France’s capital, and the latter concerning the more peripheral site of the beach. James S. Williams’s (2013) study, Space and Being in Contemporary French Cinema, offers an ambitious account of how cinematic space is crafted in the work of five contemporary auteurs: Bruno Dumont, Robert Guédiguian, Laurent Cantet, Abdellatif Kechiche and Claire Denis. This study skilfully navigates a broad conceptual territory, and ought to be a first point of call for those interested in the relationship between film and spatial theory. For Williams, cinematic space comprises many intraand extra-diegetic dimensions, including the formal constitution of the profilmic field (framing, depth of field), the hors champ, narrative space, landscape, soundscape and spectatorial space (a loose term encompassing both the corporeal site of affective engagement, and spaces of screening and reception). This latter dimension has been the subject of much recent Deleuzian and phenomenologically informed scholarship, but Williams takes care to balance his own appeal to film theory and philosophy with socio-cultural concerns. As he writes in his preface, Space and Being takes up the considerable methodological challenge of ‘develop[ing] a multi-levelled approach [to space,] sufficiently supple and capacious to register in close-up the shifting plays of cinematic form and consciousness [. . .] while at the same time taking into full account the film’s wider, cultural frame, i.e. its more socially, historically and politically defined landscapes’ (xiii). The second titular element, ‘being’, is therefore not simply shorthand for ontological concerns, but is extended in wider ethical, relational terms. Space and Being frequently adopts suggestively multivalent terms (e.g. ‘framing’, ‘in/ exclusion’) to address issues of form, structure and aesthetics, as well as more ostensibly political questions of difference and otherness. For example, Williams’s reading of Kechiche’s La Faute à Voltaire/Poetical Refugee (2000) discusses the filmmaker’s engagement with Republican avatars in urban space to broach questions of socio-symbolic

中文翻译：

---

改造法国电影的空间

法国是一个为1968年后的空间理论提供知识之家的国家，其地缘政治影响的身份和框架以几何术语表达（六边形，弗朗索斯菲尔），法国为探索问题提供了一个有利的，尽管可能被过度确定的国家背景空间和位置。耶鲁大学法国研究专刊题为“法国和法语电影的新空间”（2009年）帮助开辟了电影研究领域，但令人印象深刻的奖学金范围仍在继续。这篇评论文章讨论了当代法国电影和纪录片中电影空间的最新方法，然后重点研究了两个针对特定地点的研究，第一个研究重述了法国的首都，而第二个研究涉及了海滩的更外围地点。詹姆斯·威廉姆斯（2013）的研究，《当代法国电影中的空间与存在》，对五位当代作家：布鲁诺·杜蒙，罗伯特·圭迪安，洛朗·坎特，阿卜杜拉蒂夫·凯奇奇和克莱尔·丹尼斯的作品如何制作电影空间提出了雄心勃勃的说明。这项研究熟练地在广阔的概念领域中进行导航，应该成为对电影与空间理论之间的关系感兴趣的人们的第一关注点。对于威廉姆斯来说，电影空间包括许多内在和外在的维度，包括前电影领域的正式构成（取景，景深），开胃小故事，叙事空间，风景，声景和景象空间（一个松散的术语，涵盖了肉体情感参与的场所，以及放映和接待的空间）。后一个方面一直是最近德洛祖和现象学知识渊博的学者的主题，但是威廉姆斯小心翼翼地在他自己对电影理论和哲学的诉求与社会文化关注之间取得平衡。正如他在序言中所写，“空间与存在”面临着相当大的方法论挑战，即“发展[对空间]的多层次方法，要足够柔和，足够特写以记录电影形式和意识的变化” [。。]]，同时充分考虑了影片的更广泛的文化框架，即影片在社会，历史和政治上的定义（xiii）。因此，第二个名词元素“存在”不仅是本体论问题的简写，而且在更广泛的伦理，关系术语中得到了扩展。空间与存在经常采用暗示性的多价术语（例如“构架”，“包含/排除”）来解决形式，结构和美学问题，以及表面上看似不同和相异的政治问题。例如，威廉姆斯（Williams）对Kechiche的《 La FauteàVoltaire / Poetical Refugee / Poetical Refugee（2000）》的阅读，讨论了电影制片人与共和党化身在城市空间中的交往，以解决社会象征性问题。