In Film Studies, the concept of suture has long occupied a prominent position whenever questions about the relationships between narrative comprehension, the construction of diegetic worlds, and the spectator's experience are at issue.¹ It has served, for some theorists, as a fundamental part of their theoretical framework, while for others it represents a prime target for attack. The dominant understanding of suture – among both its proponents and detractors – has, however, paid much more attention to the account given by Daniel Dayan in 1974 than it has to the details of the version of suture initially proposed by Jean-Pierre Oudart in 1969 in a two-part article for Cahiers du cinéma, which subsequently appeared in an English translation in Screen in 1977. The present article aims, in a small way, to redress the balance. I hope to demonstrate that making use of Oudart's account does not require one to take a position on psychoanalytic theory, whether Lacanian or any other variety. Certainly, the origin of many of Oudart's ideas can be traced to Jacques-Alain Miller's Lacanian article “Suture (elements of the logic of the signifier)”, but Oudart's reworking of these ideas does not stand or fall on our acceptance of any wider psychoanalytic framework (see Miller, 1965/1977). Suture is independently valuable as a concept for the study of the complex forms of intersubjectivity that narrative cinema so readily and so richly dramatises. This article takes the opportunity of the recent fiftieth anniversary of Oudart's seminal article on cinematic suture (see Kügle, 2020), as well as of the fortieth anniversary of Ridley Scott's equally seminal film Alien (1979), to reconsider the concept of suture as it applies to film by means of a fresh close reading of some aspects of Alien and the ways that their formal operations of suture (and its corollary, rupture) relate to the diegetic procedures of rupture (and suture) that they (re)present.

中文翻译：

---

破裂，缝合，尼采：异形中不可能的主体间性

在电影研究中，每当涉及叙事理解、叙事世界的构建和观众体验之间的关系问题时，缝合的概念一直占据突出地位。¹对一些理论家来说，它是他们理论框架的基本组成部分，而对另一些理论家来说，它代表了攻击的主要目标。然而，在其支持者和反对者中，对缝合的主要理解对丹尼尔·达扬 (Daniel Dayan) 在 1974 年给出的解释的关注，比对让-皮埃尔·乌达 (Jean-Pierre Oudart) 最初于 1969 年提出的缝合版本细节的关注要多得多。在Cahiers du cinéma的两部分文章中，随后出现在Screen的英文翻译中1977 年。本文旨在在一个小方面纠正这种平衡。我希望证明使用 Oudart 的说明并不需要人们对精神分析理论采取立场，无论是拉康理论还是任何其他变体。当然，欧达特的许多思想的起源可以追溯到雅克-阿兰·米勒的拉康式文章“缝合线（能指逻辑的元素）”，但欧达特对这些思想的重新改造并不取决于我们对任何更广泛的精神分析的接受框架（见米勒，1965/1977）。缝合作为研究主体间性的复杂形式的概念具有独立的价值，叙事电影如此容易和如此丰富地戏剧化。本文以最近 Oudart 关于电影缝合的开创性文章五十周年为契机（参见 Kügle，2020），Alien (1979)，通过重新仔细阅读Alien的某些方面以及他们的正式缝合操作（及其推论，破裂）与电影叙事程序相关的方式，重新考虑缝合线的概念，因为它适用于电影。它们（重新）呈现的破裂（和缝合）。