본 고는 영화미디어가 내러티브 미디어로서 자리매김하면서 배경으로 사라져간 영화미디어의 자기반영성과 성찰성 문제를 독일 표현주의 영화를 예시로 살펴보고 있다. 내러티브 미디어로서 영화는 영화가 기술적 미디어로서 초기에 지녔던 자기반영적 특징보다는 현실재현과 관객동일시를 통한 주체효과에 집중하면서 성찰성과는 거리를 둔다. 하지만 표현주의 영화는 소재로 다루는 인간의 내면적인 모습이나 몽환적이며 환상적인 세계, 그리고 독특한 형식스타일로 인하여 영화미디어의 반환영주의적인 면모와 자기반영적 성찰성을 제기하기도 한다.예를 들어서 대표적인 표현주의 영화로 꼽히는 <칼리가리 박사의 밀실>(1919)과 <노스페라투>(1922)는 관객동일시와 주체효과를 만들어내며 내러티브 영화의 전형적인 면모를 보여주지만, 동시에 이 두 표현주의 영화는 주체와 타자, 그리고 분열된 주체라는 담론을 전면으로 부각시키는 도플갱어 모티브를 다루면서 자기반영성과 성찰성을 보여준다. 도플갱어 모티브는 프로이트가 설명했듯이 자신의 것으로 친숙하지만 억압되고 소외되어 타자화된 스스로의 모습과 관계하는, 그렇기에 자기성찰과 관계하는 ‘두려운 낯설음’이라는 감정과 연결된다. <칼리가리 박사의 밀실>에서는 형식스타일과 플롯을 통해서 생겨나는 주체효과와 주체의 재구성 문제를 살펴볼 수 있다. 또, <노스페라투>의 경우에서는 노스페라투와 엘렌의 시선체계의 이중적 면모, 즉 엘렌의 응시를 통해서 영화미디어의 자기반영적 성찰성을 만들어내고 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 본고는 표현주의 영화가 내러티브 미디어로서 환영주의적 투명성을 관철한 시기의 주류 영화임에도 불구하고, 관객동일시라는 주체효과의 이면에서 자기반영적이고 성찰적인 미디어성을 보여주면서, 영화미디어의 새로운 가능성을 모색한 영화들이었음을 확인하고 있다.

This paper is focused on the rather esoteric search wondering if the two masters of letters across the recent West would communicate with each other in that they commonly lived in marginal countries, were schooled in English-speaking cultures and interested in the ultimate and overwhelming themes on 'maximalism' that mainly tends to put value on life and death, eternity and transcendence. This moment that the sublime mission of critics practices concreteness of obscurity recurs to us. Yeats tries to represent the motives stemming from myths and legends, while Borges pursues the representation of fantastic states missing in library, labyrinth and maze, which means their sympathetic embodiment of 'bricolage' on permanence. And through doubt of inertia realized in use of language and creation of works, Yeats practices 'automatic writing' and 'theory of mask' for the objectification of his works which results in construction of reality, while Borges does 'self-reflexivity' which shows us deconstruction of reality as broken mirror in favor of sarcastic criticism of writing. For the political positions of their biographies, the masters have something in common with their prominent careers and activities in which Yeats served the senate and resisted the British empire and Borges contributed to professor of a state-run university and stood against the Peron regime. Henceforth, some conjunctional and disjunctional points on intertextuality between the two masters can be inferred from their views on Buddhism and poems. In the respect that we, who can't be creators of texts but their agents, only drive violent 'assemblage' of code to camouflage Things, the suggestion that the immortal poem of Sowol's, "Azalea," imitated "He wishes for the cloths of heaven" and "The Lover Mourns for the Loss of Love" of Yeats's is reasonable and natural, and it can be deduced that Sowol didn't duplicate Yeats's poems but borrowed masochistic imagery from them, which reminds us of T. S. Eliot's declaration that only the first rank poet unnoticeably can steal other poets' works. On the other hand, Borges, through the parodized "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote," shows us the meanings of the text changeable with transitions of generations. Accordingly Sowol's poems tacitly responds to Yeats's poems, while Borges straightforwardly transcribes the original work in view of self-reflexivity. That Yeats's response to Shen-hsiu's and Hui-neng's Zen poems indicates that Zen can free people from the abstract mode of life fettering them is in contrast with Borges's reaction to Buddhism that 'a parable of arrow' and the high monk, Bodhidharma's insight de-constructing his pupil's faith of self-verification searching for his authentic mind only leads to meaningless groping of life. Although the masters's views seem different, virtually they are equal in the sense that life is nothing but some limited play in mood of 'tragic joy,' which is just like recognition of nothingness. Even if the entire works of Yeats's and Borges's can't be read, we can sense their themes converged under keynote of 'maximalism.' For pursuit of a Utopia, Yeats yearns for it, but Borges denies it. In recognition of reality and fantasy, Yeats tries to overcome reality through fantasy, while Borges thinks of reality as fantasy. Their positions on woman are extremely different in that Yeats exposes masochistic symptom, while Borges manifests 'carpe diem' mourning a beauty's fate finally encroached by the beast of time. For the ultimate theme of God, Yeats longs for unity with God, instead, Borges views God 'langue' as cultural and linguistic structure. Concerning cataclysm of civilization, the masters are of the same opinions in that Yeats asserts cyclic patterns of civilization to move from the one pole to the other pole and Borges songs a Nietzschean circulation. They show us considerably wide contrasts concerning recognition of eternity since Yeats yearns for immortal existence, while Borges views human beings ephemeral existences. In conclusion, intertextuality functioning an essential principle of life becomes the ground to deconstruct the boundary between authors and readers and shatters the absolute icons of authors and canons, since the moment we unfold texts before us, we often tend to indulge into illusion reading precisely them rather than 'misreading' them and recognizing reality caused by automaticity of linguistic structure. However, to avoid or lessen the contradiction or irony in the reading community, we can enjoy the horizon of split or inter-subjective meanings produced by diverse walks of readers with eradicating 'transcendental signified' of canon. After all, Intertextuality can be the background of De-construction, simultaneously serves the ideology of 'pragmatic theory' for texts not to be the origins or totalities of Things but to contribute to this and that aim of life.