Based on Juan Mayorga’s play “El chico de la última fila”, 2012 dated comedy-drama In the House offers the story of a writer and the process of writing. The way the story is offered, however, marks a larger problematization of fiction and reality. Within the scope of this article, I will be explaining how metafiction appears as the method, subject, and premise of the movie; and how in its exploration of the nature and the processes of fiction exploits the concept through several variations of metafiction, namely “author meta”, “addressee meta”, and “inter meta” techniques (Gemzøe, as cited in Madsen).
Metafictionality can be defined as ‘fiction about fiction’ that is self-conscious about and calls attention to its fictionality. Patricia Waugh defines metafiction as a “sustained exploration of the relationship between the world of the fiction and the world outside of the fiction” (LaRocca, 2). As a highly complex concept, it can be, most comprehensively characterized as a “narrative modus operandi” (Madsen). The movie’s structure of the narrative reflects one of the main parameters of metafictionality, that is, the structure of story-within-story. The main story of the movie is the everyday ‘real’ life where the characters of the movie exist: a suburban area in France where the main characters of Germain, Claude, Jeanne, and the Raphas live. And then there is the fictional world created by the continuing stories of Claude. While the former can be called the “embedding story”, the latter can be called the “embedded story”. This story-within-story structure gets more complex because the embedded story takes the embedding story as its subject matter, that is, Claude writes about people from the ‘real’ world of the movie. This technique proves extremely useful for Ozon’s problematization of the fiction-reality duality, since, during the trajectory of the movie’s plot, the embedded story gets increasingly intertwined with the embedding story.
One of the most remarkable devices that Ozon uses to ensure a metafictional narration is using Claude as the narrator of events during the times that he is depicted in the house. Ozon renders the visuals of the scene in the most realistic manner possible, to manipulate the viewer into believing that what is acted out in the scene is happening or that indeed it has happened, just to point out, later on, that a remarkable proportion of these ‘real’ phenomena is actually Claude’s fiction. Quite proficiently Ozon makes sure that the viewer can’t decide or know for sure whether they are watching the visual representations of Claude’s stories or are they witnessing the events as he experiences them. The dialectic of the realistic mise en scene and the metadiegetic narrative of Claude enable to give this effect of co-existence. And in turn, the simultaneous playing out of two different layers of representation (fiction and reality) in the same scene enables Ozon to make transitions between them swiftly. In such a situation Claude, as a character from the diegetic universe, gets “elevated from the space of the narrative by acting as an omniscient commentator of the narrative” (Madsen), which is called “author meta”. An evident example of this is the scene when Claude and the two Raphas are watching the game in the living room, Claude also comments on watching the game in the living room in between the dialogues of the other characters.
Therefore, the moments where Claude switches to narration mark a transgression from the diegetic universe (the world that is being told) to the metadiegetic universe (the world of the telling) (LaRocca, 3). In this way, the scenes become less about the domestic life of the Raphas and more about the way Claude narrates that domestic life. His talk with Esther about her earrings shows, for example, how Claude establishes the mood of his fictional character of Esther and how, as a writer, narrates that affect:
“my mom had the same earrings”
[I said, indicating her earrings]
“she left when I was nine. She couldn’t stand my dad. I guess she couldn’t stand me either”
[my words hit the bull’s eye. The story about my mom provokes sympathy]
Ozon takes transgression to a metadiegetic universe even a step further with the tutoring sessions of Germain. In these sessions, Germain and Claude talk about, among other things, how Claude the implied author “establishes the mood of his fictional character Esther and how, as a writer, narrates that affect” but also how he develops the ‘Claude the fictional character’ — because indeed, even though Claude uses first-person narration, it is not his ‘real’ self per se, but he develops a character of Claude.
Quite significantly, their discussions on the theory of fiction take things even further and provide self-reflexivity to the film as a form of fiction. Germain’s statement “The reader is like Shahrazad’s Sultan. If you bore me, I’ll cut off your head!” applies not only to Claude but through him, also to the director of the film- the implied author of the plot of the movie. Just as Germain evaluates the plot of Claude’s fiction, we the reader, evaluate Ozon’s fiction on the same criteria. And so, the moment Germain remarks “now the reader wonders how the hero overcomes his difficulties and attain his objectives? That’s the key question, we must lodge it in the reader’s mind: what will happen?” the viewer becomes aware and curious of how Ozon is going to make the hero overcome his difficulties and attain his objectives. These tutoring scenes are, therefore, similar in their effect to Brecht’s Verfremdungseffekt, it provide awareness to the viewer regarding the fictional status of the film through self-reflexivity.
The same device -metalepsis- is put to use with the character of Germain, who is, in general, very useful for the establishment of the metafictive quality in the movie. Germain, a character from the world “outside” of Claude’s fiction (at least at the beginnings) pops up in one of the fictional scenes of Claude where he and Rapha are talking about Germain’s humiliation of Rapha in front of the whole class, but quite significantly not as a fictional character but as the ‘maestro’ who provides commentary on the fiction. This creates an absurd effect because the intrusion of Germain in one of the fictional scenes, and Claude’s discussion with him on how to render the scene in a way that ‘creates conflict’ just at the moment the scene is unfolding brings on the most evident instance of the overlap and co-existence of the identities of Claude: that of ‘Claude the author’ and ‘Claude the fictional character’. Germain, as the metadiegetic character converses with the metadiegetic character of Claude the writer, who in turn converses with both Germain and the diegetic character of Rapha.
The same thing happens in the scene where Claude gives Esther a poem and Germain criticizes him for diverting from his plot, accuses him of inconsistency because he shows feeling for the ‘middle class’ women whom he satirized in his stories. These unfold just at the actual moment of Claude giving a poem to Esther in the kitchen, all of a sudden Germain enters, Claude gets out of his role of “Claude the fictional character”, Esther is put on hold (she doesn’t talk or move). In the next shot, the scene continues to unfold, Esther starts talking with Claude, they start kissing and Germain watches them as they do so, adding that it’s like a bad comedy. In these scenes what is separated throughout the movie, that is the story of Claude and Germain’s criticism of it, merge in one scene. The plot and the criticism of the plot exist and unfold simultaneously. The more the transition between the embedded and embedding story through the characters happens swiftly and subtly the more the metafictional quality becomes overt. The story-within-story gets intertwined in a complex way. In short, figuratively, Ozon realizes the minotaur’s maze not in its actual space -the gallery- but in everything that is left out of it.
In contrast to most of the scenes of the movie composed in a realistic manner, a scene that communicates the metafictional quality stylistically and therefore most overtly is Claude’s explaining that “there’s no longer home” for him in the house, for he decided to quit writing. One of the most common ways of “Adresse meta” is the break of the wall, and it is what characterizes the scene. It is remarkable that Ozon makes his character break the fourth wall in the moment of the explanation of the ‘end’ of Claude’s story. Never at any point in the movie does this happen, and for a reason: Ozon always maintains the persuasiveness of Claude’s stories even though he casts a shadow on their ‘reality’. Now, in the declaration of the end, it is consistent to overtly point out to its being fiction. By making Claude directly address the viewer, Ozon exploits the addressee meta. It is the first and the last time that the author’s presence is felt so openly: Claude, without any ambiguity, appears as the author of the story and explains his motivations, and decisions regarding the story that we have been witnessing. By looking directly at the camera, Claude narrates:
“For a year I dreamt of entering this house. I got inside. I observed a perfect family up close. I even thought I could be one of them. Now there’s no home for me here”.
The scene is self-conscious not only on the part of the protagonist breaking the fourth wall but also in terms of the tableau-like composition of the scene. The Rapha family is made to stop motionless, silent, and in a posing manner. As the author of the story talks about them, they don’t react in any way to his presence, which, creates a sharp contrast to all the other scenes where Claude, even though switches from time to time the narrative voice, exist as ultimately as another character among the family members. While in those scenes we hear his narrations as his thoughts or omniscient comments, here his character is seen in actually, physically talking as the narrator. All combined, a self-conscious scene is created.
In terms of the mise en scene, the device of the insertion of Claude to various scenes where it is very unlikely of him to be is used to point to his author status. When such composition is compared to a scene where the plot of his story unfolds without him being seen in it would lack the metafictional quality. That is why it is remarkable that not in all scenes where Claude has seen in the house he appears as ‘Claude the fictional character’ but rather as ‘Claude the author’ specially when he is seen as the voyeur who, sometimes figuratively and sometimes literally, peeps through the keyhole.
The intertextual communication established by the references to literature history constitutes the “inter meta” quality of the movie. This plays out, not only as substantial references of books given to Claude by Germain but more importantly, as contributors to the movie’s entire premise of metafictionality. The references made to Flaubert play out on two levels: in terms of the familiarities drawn between the characters (Madam Bovary- Esther- Jeanne) and in terms of fictional techniques.
The characterizations of Esther and Jeanne draw similarity to Madam Bovary in their lack of happiness and desire in their lives as well as their boredom. The movie displays these characters’ lives at a period when they’re drifting around: Esther dreams of a life for herself that’s different from her current one, she wants to redecorate the house, and become an architect. Her days are idle and neither the house nor Rapha senior satisfies her (even though her unsatisfaction is communicated subtly). Often, she is defined as the “world’s most bored woman” by Claude. Likewise, Jeanne appears in limbo: she can’t sustain her business and is ignored at home. Her husband, Germain, is completely absorbed in his job and no longer makes love with her. Even though she does not appear as bored as Esther, it is for sure that she too looks for difference, and therefore leaves the house and Germain at the end.
But what’s more central to the intertextuality of the movie is the parallel drawn between Flaubert and Claude and, between their ways of writing fiction. Flaubert is known for his meticulousness for writing fiction so perfected that it awakens real-life sensations, in all their intensity. A devotee of style, Flaubert’s writings mark a specific type of realism that is achieved through formal perfection, which is to be seen most clearly in his incredible Madame Bovary. Quite often Germain offers guidance to Claude by giving examples of Flaubert’s prose. More specifically how he strives for a realistic narrative that is created by scrupulous figuration and editing, as well as how he explores his characters without any judgment and presents them in all their complexity, without making caricatures out of them. This meticulous work of Flaubert on prose is mimicked in the plot of the movie. There are relentless sessions of Germain and Claude working on the stories, in which it is made apparent that Germain has gone through the texts thoroughly, detail by detail and explains the technics of perfection to Claude. Germain lectures Claude on a variety of styles and subject topics: construction of the plot, the intended effect on the reader, literary devices, genre, forming denouement, offering a plausible unity, to which each separate part relates and contribute perfectly and necessarily. And according to these criticisms, Claude remodels his text, even though not always successfully.
Alongside this function of intertextuality within the movie to determine the elements of the story, it also exists -metaphorically rather than substantially- in the center of Ozon’s exploration and questioning of fiction. In the movie, the image of the house has functions on both literal and figurative levels. Most obviously it is the setting for Claude’s story, as he explores different rooms of the house we get different parts to the story, that is, his ‘advancement’ in the house parallels the advancement of the film’s trajectory. On a figurative level ‘house’ is used as a reference to a metaphor for fiction, first used by Henry James who coined “the house of fiction”. In the preface of The Portrait of a Lady, H. James forms the analogy of a house, with the ‘million’ windows on it appearing as a body offering viewpoints and perspectives for telling stories. Through the analogy, he emphasizes that the windows do not “open straight upon life” but rather exist as potentials from which one can create unique fictions. For the most part, Ozon’s use of the house metaphor is what gives the implicit metafictional quality to the film.
While the whole film can be seen as the metaphor of ‘house of fiction, more specifically, the concept gets to be embodied most obviously through the house of Raphas, and more generally and significantly in the discourses of Claude, who views houses as potentials for stories. Talking about the bench he has sat for all summer he says “I love how it’s surrounded by houses. You sit on a bench and look around. There’s so much going on”. The statement visualizes the house of fiction as the house(s) of fiction, with each having its unique potential for a story. Ozon, then, creates a house of fiction, in which fiction is made within houses. Claude — as the protagonist- first chooses Ralph’s house, and then Germain’s house as sources of inspiration. Likewise, figuratively speaking, Ozon chooses the house of Claude as he tells his story as the Writer. The denouement is an embodiment of the house of fiction, through each window Germain, Claude, and us, the viewer, see snippets of different lives, as materials for stories. That’s how, within the context of this film, the structure of metafictionality goes hand in hand with the image of the house and its intertextual quality.
Lastly, the gradual yet consistent intertwining of the embedded story with the embedding story creates an effect of mise en absyme, which offers similarities between Claude’s fiction and the story of the world outside it. The most explicit example of this is the mirroring between the two scenes where Esther and Jeanne are seen lying down on the sofa, next to Claude. What happens in this dialogue formed between these two scenes is the pointing towards the thin line between fiction and reality. Esther, who has been decidedly established as a fictional character from the beginning of the movie, gets to be mirrored with Jeanne, a character until the very end of the movie who has kept as a person outside the world of Claude’s fiction. This contrast between the two was even established in an earlier scene, where Jeanne asks ‘am I a fictional character too?’ to Germain as they were talking about the Raphas are being just fictional characters created by Claude. The question of Jeanne makes the viewer become most clearly aware that what the film displays as ‘reality’, i.e the world of Germain, Claude, Jeanne, etc., the world that is outside Claude’s stories, is just another work of fiction and for sure Jeanne just another fictional character. The idea finds its expression in the mirroring of the elements in Claude’s story (the embedded story) to the story outside of Claude’s (the embedding story): the anxious and neglected woman (Esther vs Jeanne), the workaholic male (Rapha senior vs Germain), and the houses of the two families that attracts the attention of Claude. Therefore, the structure of story-within-story that mirrors each other creates the meta-awareness of the viewer and decidedly integrates self-reflexivity to the film.
To sum up, the deconstruction of Claude’s stories calls the fictional nature of the film into question. The lack of distance between Claude’s story and the plot of the film makes the spectator view the film in the light of theoretical knowledge given, as a piece of artistic work. Ozon makes sure that the plot of the movie exploits the aesthetic theories that appear in the movie, and hence, while Germain talks about the construction of fiction, simultaneously, Ozon shows it. This is Ozon’s way of making use of implicit and explicit metafiction, as Germain says “No respite for the reader. Maintain suspense” to Claude, Ozon shows, with the plot of the film, that both Claude and himself took the advice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
French, Philip. “In the House — Review”. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/mar/31/in-the-house-review
Gemzøe, Anker. Metafiktion — selvrefleksionens retorik i moderne litteratur, teater, film og sprog Viborg, Forlaget Medusa, 2001. As cited in Madsen, Rune Bruun. “When Fiction Points the Finger — Metafiction in Films and TV Series”. 2015.
James, Henry. Preface. http://www.online-literature.com/henry_james/portrait_lady/0/
LaRocca, David. “Recursive Reflections: Types, Modes and Forms of Cinematic Reflexivity”. Oxford University Press, 2022.
https://nias.knaw.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/RECURSIVE-REFLECTIONS-EXCEPRTS-.pdf
Madsen, Rune Bruun. “When Fiction Points the Finger — Metafiction in Films and TV Series”. 2015. https://www.kosmorama.org/en/kosmorama/artikler/when-fiction-points-finger-metafiction-films-and-tv-series
Ozon, François. Dans la Maison. Film, 2012.
