not as discourse. And yet it is a discourse, if we refer it back to the film-maker's intentions, the influence he wields over the general public, etc.; but the basic characteristic of this kind of discourse, and the very principle of its effectiveness as discourse, is precisely that it obliterates all traces of the enunciation, and masquerades as story. The tense of story is of course the 'past definite'; similarly, the narrative plenitude and transparency of this kind of film is based on a refusal to admit that anything is lacking, or that anything has to be sought for.« [21] Benveniste derived the distinction between «story» and «discourse» from that of the «said» and «speaking«: speaking as such, the way in which a «speaker» refers to himself in a specific situation and in which he makes his position to the said clear, is normally hidden in film, so that the «said» appears as an historical event, as something that is as «it is.« The withholding of a subject that positions and expresses itself is for Metz not the fault of an individual film, but is rather closely tied to the arrangement of the cinema itself. To alter this would mean to move towards a new concept of theater, a theater however unlike that, which is known. In the theater, Metz

explains, there is a direct correspondence between the exhibitionism of the actor on the stage and the voyeurism of the spectators. In the cinema, however, this is all temporally displaced; the event thus appears as «story»—not as «discourse»—and refers to a voyeurism which, rather than knowing an expressive subject that understands itself as part of a situation, requires an empty, absent subject, a mere ability to see or hallucinate. [22]

The dichotomy «story/discourse» or «said» and «saying» throws light on the arrangement of Graham’s «Cinema.» It presents itself as a «theatrical» context of situations, in which each observer—internal and external—is in every moment thrown back to him- or herself and his or her position as a subject that presents itself for others, expresses itself in the gaze, and the behavior which is based on a psychic disposition. In this way, the filmic concept of a «story,» told by nobody and thus understood as «history,» is transgressed by means of the concept of a discourse, which directly refers to the reception conditions of such a «story» or «history.» Deleuze’s «Theory of the Cinema«: The Crystal and the Time-Image Various