This academic blog explores the topic of cinimatic landscapes in the context of film geography. It seeks to uncover whether or not landscape can be considered a character in film.
What comes to mind first when you think of a landscape? Descriptions of what constitutes a landscape may entail questions of authenticity and ‘realness’ regarding visual representations of locations that encapsulate the natural environment or symbols of human development. Scholars of human geography (Escher 2006, Lukinbeal 2005, R. Singh & S. Singh 2019, Sommerlad 2022) explore the role of landscapes beyond the limiting understanding of them as merely backdrops or settings to some greater agent of culture, establishing instead the cultural and social activity represented and produced by such geographies. A closer look at cinematic landscapes specifically, offers a better understanding of how landscapes in film are not just consisting of place but also space, spectacle, metaphor and identity (Lukinbeal 2005, R. Singh & S. Singh 2019). This blog explores how these dynamic components of cinematic landscapes can give geographical locations a character in and of themselves in a film.
Diagram from “Routledge Handbook of Media Geographies”, ‘Chapter 9: Film Geography’ (Sommerlad 2022, 120)
Film Geography
First, an introduction to cinematic landscapes based in the greater context of film geography is necessary. Sommerlad (2022, 119) states that “film geographical studies approach an examination of film-related contents, aspects of film productions and the (inter-)effects of film and life-world contexts”, outlining the following six research areas of the field: “(1) geography in film, (2) geography of film, (3) screen tourism, (4) cinematic cartography, (5) didactics of geography and critical film geography, (6) film as a methodological instrument and medium of communication in research” (119). Cinematic landscapes falls under the second category, geography in film, which seeks to comprehend ‘cinematic space’ through “theoretical examinations of forms of cinematographic design and questions of how an audiovisual continuity emerges, providing the spectator with a cohesive spatial impression of what is seen” (Sommerlad 2022, 120 citing Escher 2006; Clark 2008). Therefore, cinematic landscapes from a geographical perspective are evaluated for the larger cultural context they contribute to.
Landscapes As...
Lukinbeal (2005) states that “cinematic landscapes are not mere representations but are working landscapes involved with cultural production and reproduction” (17). He goes on to outline four components to cinematic landscapes: landscape as space, place, spectacle and metaphor (Lukinbeal 2005). “As space, landscape provides an area in which the drama of the film can unfold. As such, landscape is constantly turned into a space of action” (Lukinbeal 2005, 6). This idea takes landscape from the background to the foreground as an actor in the development of the story being told on screen.
“Landscape as place is closely associated with the geographic expression ‘sense of place’ and refers to the location where the narrative is supposedly set” (Lukinbeal 2005, 6). Establishment of landscape as place offers structure to the narrative and mediates interpretation through visual cues achieved by cinematography that establishes a sense of place (Lukinbeal 2005). Landscape as a spectacle refers to showing “something beautiful and visually pleasant”; it “encodes power relations within the gaze. Determination of what constitutes beauty, who is gazing and what we are gazing upon” (Lukinbeal 2005, 11). The function of place is often combined with the spectacle of landscape, as certain images of place in and of themselves can be captivating enough to entertain an audience, thus transforming place into dynamic space. Lastly, landscape as metaphor also works to evolve place into space by appropriating meaning and ideology “into landscape, the most common example of which is the attribution of human or social characteristics to landscape” (Lukinbeal 2005, 13). The way in which landscapes can be used as symbolism for human experience and emotions further develops cinematic landscapes into dynamic, cultural examples of space.
While Lukinbeal (2005) addresses the four factors of space, place, spectacle and metaphor of cinematic landscapes, R. Singh and S. Singh (2019) explore the element of identity. They uncover how cinematic landscapes are rife with place, space and cultural identity representation and development. “Landscapes are treasures of the past, frame contemporary everyday life, and affect future environmental, economic and cultural processes. As material custodians of both historical memory and the sense of place, landscapes encapsulate our attachments, emotions, perceptions and knowledge, as well as our interests, decisions and actions. Modern societies are marked by identity crises which, all too often, involve major landscape disruptions” (Roca et al. 2016, as cited in Singh and Singh 2019, 91). Place identity specifically derives from landscape based on the attachment one makes with the region they grew up in or spent a significant amount of their development in (Singh and Singh 2019). Spatial identity echoes similar features to Lukinbeal’s (2005) ‘landscape as metaphor’, as it explores how film can “characterize the landscape”, thus offering the appropriate space for the narrative to unfold (Singh and Singh 2019, 92). Lastly, cultural identity refers to the “values, signs, symbols, associations which is attached to a particular landscape” and thus explores how humans interact with certain landscapes (Singh and Singh 2019, 42). These cultural components to landscape can be implied and signified upon in cinema to further develop a narrative using visual cues (Singh and Singh 2019).
The aforementioned theories contextualizing cinematic landscapes in the greater context of film geography will be explored further in the following posts of this blog. Deeper analysis of these dynamic components to cinematic landscapes has led me to wonder if geographical locations can take on the role of a character in a cinematic narrative much like a human actor does.
"Another function that landscapes frequently perform in movies is the role of the actor or the role as (nature’s) spectacles. Landscape is presented in movies for its own sake. Uniqueness, beauty and aesthetics of landscape are of top priority without reference to the action of the movie."
When we think of characters in a film we often think of the living actors portrayed on screen who play a scripted role in the narrative. Characteristics are defined as “a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify them” (Oxford University Press 2022). If a place can have characteristics then it ought to also be considered a character in films. Certain developments in the cinematic world confirm this notion such as the well known global curated film streaming platform, production company and film distributor, MUBI, having an entire selection of 102 films categorized under the heading, ‘Landscape as Character’, where the “landscape/environment plays a central role” (MUBI 2022). A closer look at the way in which film geography scholars discuss cinematic landscapes also speak to a strongly emerging theme of places having their own personality on the screen, echoing many of the themes outlined in the previous post.
Screenshot of ‘Landscape as Character’ movie list on MUBI (https://mubi.com/lists/landscape-as-character)
Landscape as an Actor
The first way in which landscape acts as a character is in its function as an agent of story development. “Location is a character, not just a backdrop for the characters. The environment makes the story possible” (Prichard 2006, 1). Prichard (2006) discusses how there are entire genres of film that are landscape-driven, such as the American Western. This notion echoes Lukinbeal’s (2005) concept of landscape as space. “As space, landscape provides an area in which the drama of the film can unfold. As such, landscape is constantly turned into a space of action. Put another way, social space de-centers the importance of locational place allowing narratives to unfold'' (Lukinbeal 2005, 6). Characters in a film function as actors of change and development. Perhaps that is why the profession is called acting. If action is what constitutes a character, then landscape exhibiting properties of action gives it similar properties to human characters (Sharman 2020). “Landscape as place becomes a central component of the narrative in that it acts upon social space” (Lukinbeal 2005, 7).
Landscape as Metaphor
With landscape established as an agent of narration development, another way in which it acts as a character is by functioning as a vehicle of emotion, echoing Lukinbeal’s (2005) landscape as metaphor. “Small metaphors are rhetoric devices or literary tropes, for instance, a character is sad and it begins to rain” (Lukinbeal 2005, 13); or further “various physiographic features of earth is used for expressing human emotion such as green vegetation, snowy mountains and hills for romance, rain for sadness, love and sometimes to depict joyous atmosphere, rugged topography of desert to depict loneliness, breakups etc. (Singh and Singh 2019, 93). Filmmakers use landscape as metaphor to evoke emotion in much the same way they use plot or character development to achieve an emotive response. These landscape metaphors work as cues that “invented communities evolve with regard to cinematically transported symbols that are to be read and felt in a certain way and which are used to show us how we are supposed to feel, think and react” (Escher 2006, 310). A key component to this role of landscape in emotive response is the way in which it can evolve and develop throughout the narrative. Prichard (2006) describes the landscape of his own film, Where it Once Was: “The Delta, like many imagine it, is first presented as a harmless, if not charming, location, arid, yet quaint. It develops into something a bit more sinister as the film progresses'' (8). Landscape can evoke the process of character development much in the same way that a human character might (Sharman 2020).
Spatial Identity
The emotional function of landscape as metaphor also touches on R. Singh and S. Singh’s (2019) notion of spatial identity. The metaphors and symbols of landscape can evoke or confirm a sense of development either for the actors on screen or the viewers. “Each piece of land that the characters inhabit directly and intentionally reflect their demeanor and motives. One could draw the conclusion that they are merely extensions of the land” (Prichard 2006, 14). This idea implies that the landscape not only reflects but becomes a part of the character's identity. It is through this relationship between the protagonist and their environment that a sense of identity for both the person and the place is revealed (Prichard 2006). Prichard (2006) even speaks to the inverse of this relationship by suggesting “that artists in similar environments might produce art that would invoke similar feelings”, implying that landscapes influence the identity of an artist and their potential portrayal of that landscape in their art (Prichard 2006, 4).
Landscape as Spectacle
Lastly, beyond being an agent of emotions and action, landscape can function specifically as a main character due to its spectacular nature. Landscape as spectacle is developed through cinematography. Certain camera angles or tactics such as establishing shots and panning paired with choice editing of such footage can give landscape the main stage by captivating the attention of the viewer (Lukinbeal 2005). “For instance, both landscape and cinema are defined through the act of viewing and therefore all cinematic landscapes at some level function as spectacles” (Lukinbeal 2005, 15). This function can give landscape the limelight over other characters such as the case with Where it Once Was, as “the human characters are secondary to the landscape. The story development comes in terms of the landscape and not the characters”; “the film strives to use the landscape and camera as characters of their own” (Prichard 2006, 8-9). Making landscapes the main character of a film is a cinematic device that has existed for quite some time. Take well known director of American Westerns, John Ford, for example. “Ford used the landscape as a dramatic device for thrusting his Westerns into the realm of legend. ‘I think you can say that the real star of my Westerns has always been the land,’ he said” (Ford 1997, 102 cited in Prichard 2006, 10). As Prichard (2006) puts it in regard to his film: “Ultimately the landscapes take on a presence of their own and transcend from “set” to “lead”; “place” into “character” (19). After researching how filmmakers achieve this transformation of landscape from set to character, I wondered if I could achieve the same.
"The prerequisite is that the cinematic landscape is defined as a scene of action for actors and no longer serves as a backdrop. The symbolic function of a cinematic landscape unites people under a single symbol that stands for relationships, values and goals of a group of people, e.g. in the form of national attributes."
To understand these theories in practice, I chose to evaluate them in reference to a film with a strong presence of landscape, Beau Travail (1999), directed by Claire Denis. Denis is a French filmmaker who grew up in colonial French Africa. She worked closely with Wim Wenders, who is known for his affinity for the American landscape (Shambu 2020). This film follows the memory of French legionnaire officer Galoup, back to his service in the Gulf of Djibouti. The audience follows his recollection of the conflict between him and a young recruit, Sentain, brought on by jealousy and possible suppressed homosexuality that ultimtaly leads to his downfall and expulsion from the service due to his disciplinary actions taken against Setain resulting in serious physical harm (Shambu 2020). Much of Denis’s inspiration as a filmmaker stemmed from “wondering if there was such a thing as a landscape that she might call her own. Realizing it was neither America nor France but Africa” (Shambu 2020).
Galoup and Setain engage in a sort of duel
Cinematic Style - Landscape as Place and Spectacle
Landscape plays an important role in Beau Travail through the artistic cinematic style. “Denis and her longtime cinematographer, Agnès Godard, are masters of vivid and tactile image-making, capturing equally the elemental force of the sun-saturated East African landscape” (Shambu 2020). “Landscape as place is usually depicted in extreme long shots, long shots and deep focus shots” (Lukinbeal 2005, 8). Godard’s slow cinematic style includes many establishing and master shots of the bold, desolate, beautiful and intimidating landscape of the Djiboutian desert. Dialogue is kept to a minimum in the film and the visual blending of the actors as an extension of the landscape is what primarily captivates the audience. Landscape as place and spectacle is clearly established in this film through the sheer amount of long, diologless deep focus shots, but what does the landscape as a character contribute to the narrative? What message does it convey?
Volcanoes as Sentinels - Landscape as Metaphor
Critically considering the role of the landscape in Beau Travail brings to mind the following quotation by R. Singh and S. Singh’s (2019): “Though the cinema has its own events and narratives; but, without a specific landscape at the backdrop, all cinematic events go in vain as any cinematic narrative is meaningless without proper landscape representation in the backdrop” (98). This sentiment highlights how the narrative of this film couldn’t exist without this specific landscape. Cues from the script help contextualize this idea. About forty minutes into the film, Galoup is tasked with leading a group to set up camp at Ghoubbet-el-Kharab, a Djibouti cove that separates the African and Arabian continental plates known for its deep waters and violent currents (Shambu 2020). Recalling the location he says, “It was an arid plateau overlooking the sea, lined with the remains of workers’ barracks. We set up camp in this desolate terrain. The three volcanoes. Like sentinels” (Denis 1999, 47:47). This statement turns landscape into metaphor for Galoup. Equating the volcanoes to sentinels – watch guards – implies that the landscape serves to stand watch over Galoup and his actions, as if it is the land that turned him in and stood witness to the crimes he committed.
Much of the film depicts legionnaires conducting visually captivating training exercises in the Djibouti desert.
“Landscape is also used in movies to support moods or build up or strengthen the disposition of recipients with regard to spatial evaluation (Escher 2006, 310) The landscape reflects Galoup’s mood, as the “rugged topography of desert” can be used “to depict loneliness”, which proves to be a strong motif for this character throughout the film (Singh and Singh 2019, 93). “Specific themes, conflicts, processes, conclusions and feelings can be assigned to corresponding types of landscapes in movies” (Escher 2006, 310). Such conflicts and power processes are evident in Galoup feelings of being ostracized and judged by the landscape. He seems to blame the terrain for bringing him to his desperate actions. He says, “I looked at the desolate Ghoubbet, thinking my black thoughts. People tell me many stories about this wasteland – the devil…evil spirits, the evil eye” (Denis 1999, 1:04:47). It is a common cinematic device to use “the desert to represent a location of evil and/or the supernatural” (Lukinbeal 20015, 13). The truth of whether or not it is the landscape that caused him to act out is not what matters, but rather the understanding that the narrative and the setting are intertwined in such a way that the story would not exist without the role played by the landscape.
Rhine Kilometer 497 (2022) is a digital essay created by Sasha Ongley exploring the personality of a kilometer long section of the Rhine river between Mainz and Wiesbaden, Germany. It experiments with the concept of making a geographical landscape a main character of a film by implementing theories of cinematic landscape.
"Landscape is not just the commodity, it is a source for identity, an element of mediation, a part of individual or collective fantasy and imagination not just a part of cultural fabric for an ideology and spectacle but far too profound and prolific in both physical and virtual space of creativity"
Post 5: A River as a Character in ‘Rhine Kilometer 497′ (2022)
The purpose of seeking public input was to highlight the cultural identity attached to this landscape. “Cinema reflects the vision as well as reality of the society. The onscreen portrayal of value-based society forms the basis of cultural identity” (Singh and Singh 2019, 93). I collected most of my footage before collecting statements from people. I found that most of what individuals had to say about the Rhine was clearly represented in what the camera captured, so it was a matter of matching and organizing the words with the images. R. Singh and S. Singh (2019) say that “film in itself is a cultural entity which is created by human art after interacting with the nature” (98). This quotation brings to mind the historical and urban commentary of the river that Toyka-Seid (2020) contributes to the film. This shift in society’s commitment to care for and enjoy the river’s ambience is a part of today’s culture, but that was not always the case (Toyka-Seid 2020). The way in which cultural values change and have a direct impact on the natural environment and vice versa indicates that nature cannot be separated from culture and the role of cinematic landscapes in film embodies that sentiment.
Still from ‘Rhine Kilometer 497′ (Ongley 2022)
The Rhine as a Protagonist
Attempting to create a main character out of a river brought up questions of authenticity. As intrinsically valuable and alive a river may be, it still is not an entity that speaks the same verbal or physical language we are accustomed to seeing and comprehending in film. I went into this project wanting the river to guide me to exposing its truest self through capturing its essence. However, much like filming any other subject, it is impossible to remove the influence of those behind the camera. I turned towards embracing this point of view by offering my perspective of the Rhine as a protagonist, much like any filmmaker can only portray their perspective of a character, no matter how hard they try to keep their bias out of it (Sharman 2020)
Therefore, Rhine Kilometer 497 can be understood as capturing a certain perspective of the river at a certain time of the year, at a certain moment in its long history based on its interactions with certain people. By no means can a seven minute video essay offer a comprehensive insight into the entire character of a river, however, the same can be said for human characters (Sharman 2020). What is important to consider though, is how in these seven minutes, the Rhine takes the main stage by exemplifying a variety of the aforementioned components to cinematic landscape.
The Rhine Landscape as Place, Spectacle and Space
The film demonstrates landscape as place, which “is often established in the master shot or the establishing shot…usually a long shot that is panned or tracked…Landscape as place is usually depicted in extreme long shots, long shots and deep focus shots, using a bird's-eye view or high angle camera setup (the angle is usually situated in a position where the camera's eye can see a great distance)” (Lukinbeal 2005, 8). Rhine Kilometer 497 is essentially entirely made up of these shots, however, frequently crossing imagery borders between different angles, distances and focus points to maintain attention and develop the narrative (Escher 2006). The film also exhibits components of landscape as spectacle due to its elemental role in furthering the narrative. “Place is not simply on display in this case, but positions and authenticates the narrative. Through repetition these images reinforce and create a bond between narrative and place” (Lukinbeal 2005, 8). Such establishment of landscape as place and spectacle in Rhine Kilometer 497 gives way to other mechanisms such as landscape as space.
“The spatial organisation of the cinematic landscape is simply the spaces where the narrative of the story is unfolded. [A] filmmaker ascribes meaning to such spaces according to the narrative of the film. Cinematic landscapes are the space of actions where different shots of the camera from different angles are taken in order to limit viewers up to dialogue between the actors” (Singh and Singh 2019, 92). In the case of Rhine Kilometer 497, the narration didn’t unfold until the editing table. I wanted to collect the footage first without knowing what to say and then understand and articulate my perspective based on what I saw of the river through the computer screen. Filmmaker Catherine Gough-Brady underwent a similar process when creating a digital paper about the Murray-Darling River – “During the edit, she shifted from seeing the river as a field of external forces to seeing it as a habitus, a way of being. This was necessary for the river to become a character, rather than just a location” (Gough-Brady 2019). Similarly, my desire to captivate the essence of the river exposed its agency as an independent actor within our social network. With regards to cinematic landscapes facilitating the dialogue between actors, the narration and quotations in the film can be understood as dialogue with the river.
The Rhine Landscape as Cultural Identity
The purpose of seeking public input was to highlight the cultural identity attached to this landscape. “Cinema reflects the vision as well as reality of the society. The onscreen portrayal of value-based society forms the basis of cultural identity” (Singh and Singh 2019, 93). I collected most of my footage before collecting statements from people. I found that most of what individuals had to say about the Rhine was clearly represented in what the camera captured, so it was a matter of matching and organizing the words with the images. R. Singh and S. Singh (2019) say that “film in itself is a cultural entity which is created by human art after interacting with the nature” (98). This quotation brings to mind the historical and urban commentary of the river that Toyka-Seid (2020) contributes to the film. This shift in society’s commitment to care for and enjoy the river’s ambience is a part of today’s culture, but that was not always the case (Toyka-Seid 2020). The way in which cultural values change and have a direct impact on the natural environment and vice versa indicates that nature cannot be separated from culture and the role of cinematic landscapes in film embodies that sentiment.
Every perspective has value, therefore every film has value. Film is worth something to accademia, as it offers a visual medium for when certain sentiments can not be conveyed by text, spoken word or still imagery (Gough-Brady 2019). In fact, film can implement all of these forms of communicating knowledge within a single product. There are many ways to seek value in film. Blockbuster feature films offer a wealth of information on cultural representation, geopolitics and power dynamics and documentaries aim to engage while they educate. Arthouse cinema gives a voice to those who aren’t loudly heard in society and offers insight into the human condition (Sharman 2020). Film can be used as an explicit medium of accademia through digital papers. Speaking on this concept, filmmaker Cathrine Gough-Brady says:
“Digital papers grew out of my desire to use my art medium (audio-visual) to communicate academic research to an audience. The digital papers are neither traditional academic essays, nor are they traditional documentaries. They have emerged from the intersection of my film and TV industry practice with academic research. This intersection has resulted in works that are a subset of essay films: I have created an ‘essayist author’ who is the storyteller and reveals reflections, theory and explication. My intention is that the author will not explain everything, as Laura Rascaroli writes, ‘The essayist does not pretend to discover truths to which he holds the key but allows the answers to emerge somewhere else, precisely in the position occupied by the embodied spectator’ (2009, p. 36).” (Gough-Brady 2019)
Gough-Brady (2019) also highlights the space for dialogue created by digital papers. Exposure to a narrative communicated visually opens up space for varied and innovative interpretations (Gough-Brady 2019). “Visual representation of landscape in cinema provide an opportunity for a wider social discussion and act as a synergy between human and geography” (Singh and Singh 2019, 98). Such expansions on perspectives and understandings affords access to new and diverse knowledge and may break down barriers to knowledge access and production. As technology becomes more accessible and social media more ubiquitous, the more opportunity there is for individuals to share and connect with under-represented narratives. Loosening academia’s grip on what is considered real allows space for understanding what is. “A region’s cinematic landscape can never be realised but always leads to new taste, new context, and new configuration of meaningful exchange within an ongoing system of production” (Singh and Singh 2019, 93).
Film can be a knowledge mine for understanding identity and culture and cinematic landscapes play a crucial role in that. “Cinema has a mechanical ability to represent the world through moving images which shapes our perception of ourselves, as well as the world. Cinema generally takes us to the world of imagination or fantasy; at the same time, it shows the truth or reality of the world. Cinematic landscape representation and interpretation is mediated by one’s attitude, perception and culture” (Singh and Singh 2019, 90). Film has power, and that power can be harnessed, shared and understood through academic channels.
Lastly, film has the power to represent and communicate diverse narrative and identities. In order to achieve a just cinematic world, however, there must be further work on creating diverse representation in film production at all levels so as to include the cinematic landscapes currently underrepresented. Such work is necessary, as “Cinematic landscape extends far behind the silver screen to intersect how we narrate our identities in our landscapes and how we define the extent of ourselves within a global cinematic community” (Lukinbeal 2005, 17).
