Journals / İDEALKENT / 2026 / Sayı: 51

Acoustic heterotopia: Conceptualizing auditory space in cinema through The Zone of Interest

Akustik heterotopya: The Zone of Interest örneği üzerinden sinemada işitsel mekân üzerine bir kavramsallaştırma denemesi

Evrim Nacar(Alanya Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2935-4609
Journal
İDEALKENT
Pages
1–13
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that acoustic heterotopia emerges only when sound constructs a spatial layer distinct from, yet simultaneous and continuous with, the visual frame.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study proposes the concept of acoustic heterotopia as a theoretical model to elucidate the space-constituting function of sound in cinema.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To contextualize this framework, Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest (2023) is examined through a qualitative, hermeneutic film analysis.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that acoustic heterotopia emerges only when sound constructs a spatial layer distinct from, yet simultaneous and continuous with, the visual frame.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2023 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Akustik heterotopya · akustik bölgeler · akusmatik ses

Abstract

This study proposes the concept of acoustic heterotopia as a theoretical model to elucidate the space-constituting function of sound in cinema. The concept is synthesized from Juhani Pallasmaa’s phenomenological approach to space, Michel Chion’s theory of acousmatic sound, Michel Foucault’s theory of heterotopia, and Brandon LaBelle’s notion of acoustic territories. It is defined by four core characteristics: the production of invisible space, the activation of off-screen space, the establishment of a simultaneous second spatiality, and the transcendence of physical boundaries. To contextualize this framework, Jonathan Glazer’s The Zone of Interest (2023) is examined through a qualitative, hermeneutic film analysis. The findings indicate that acoustic heterotopia emerges only when sound constructs a spatial layer distinct from, yet simultaneous and continuous with, the visual frame. In the film, the sounds of the camp form an uninterrupted auditory pattern that transforms the off-screen into a discrete space with its own internal relations, revealing that the visual frame is not the absolute boundary of cinematic space. The wall separating the house and the camp functions as a threshold that is visually divisive yet acoustically porous. Consequently, the two spaces coexist without merging, compelling the viewer to aurally experience the spatial proximity of violence. Ultimately, this study posits that cinematic sound is not merely a supportive narrative device, but an independent generative mechanism that constructs invisible spaces and reshapes spatial perception, thereby offering a novel conceptualization of the sound–space dynamic in cinema.

Özet

Bu çalışma, sinemada sesin mekân kurucu işlevini açıklamaya yönelik kuramsal bir model olarak akustik heterotopya kavramını önermektedir. Kavram, Juhani Pallasmaa'nın fenomenolojik mekân yaklaşımı, Michel Chion'un akusmatik ses kuramı, Michel Foucault'nun heterotopya teorisi ve Brandon LaBelle'in akustik bölgeler kavramından hareketle geliştirilmiş; görünmeyen mekân üretimi, kadraj dışı uzamın etkinleşmesi, eşzamanlı ikinci mekânsallığın kurulması ve fiziksel mekânın aşılmasından oluşan dört özellik etrafında tanımlanmıştır. Jonathan Glazer'ın The Zone of Interest (2023) filmi, hermenötik film çözümlemesine dayanan nitel bir yaklaşımla incelenmiştir. Bulgular, akustik heterotopyanın ancak sesin görüntüdeki mekândan farklı, ama onunla eşzamanlı ve kesintisiz bir mekânsal katman kurmasıyla ortaya çıktığını göstermektedir. Filmde kamp sesleri kesintisiz bir işitsel örüntü oluşturarak kadraj dışını kendi iç ilişkilerine sahip bir mekâna dönüştürür ve kadrajın sinemasal mekânın mutlak sınırı olmadığını ortaya koyar. Ev ile kamp arasındaki duvar görsel düzeyde ayırıcı, işitsel düzeyde geçirgen bir eşik işlevi görür. Böylece iki mekân birleşmeden eşzamanlı var olur ve izleyici şiddetin mekânsal yakınlığını işitsel olarak deneyimler. Bu bağlamda çalışma, sinemasal sesin anlatıyı destekleyen bir unsurun ötesinde, görünmeyen mekânları kuran ve mekânsal algıyı yeniden biçimlendiren bağımsız bir üretim mekanizması olduğunu ileri sürerek sinemada ses-mekân ilişkisine yönelik yeni bir kavramsallaştırma önerisi sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Aşçı, G., Nacar, E. (2026). Acoustic heterotopia: Conceptualizing auditory space in cinema through The Zone of Interest. İDEALKENT, Sayı: 51, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.2003819

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Altman, R. (Ed.). (1992). Sound theory, sound practice. Routledge.
  2. Bachelard, G. (2023). Mekânın poetikası (A. Tümertekin, Trans.). Minotor Kitap.
  3. Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2019). Film art: An introduction (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  4. Bruno, G. (2002). Atlas of emotion: Journeys in art, architecture, and film. Verso.
  5. Burch, N. (1981). Theory of film practice (H. R. Lane, Trans.). Princeton University Press.
  6. Casey, E. S. (1997). The fate of place: A philosophical history. University of California Press.
  7. Çavdar, R. Ç. (2018). Farklılığın mekânı: Foucault ve Lefebvre'deki heterotopya ve heterotopi ayrımı. İdealKent: Kent Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(25), 941–959. https://doi.org/10.31198/idealkent.458739
  8. Chion, M. (2019). Audio-vision: Sound on screen (2nd ed., C. Gorbman, Ed. & Trans.). Columbia University Press.
  9. Dehaene, M., & De Cauter, L. (Eds.). (2008). Heterotopia and the city: Public space in a postcivil society. Routledge.
  10. Deleuze, G. (1986). Cinema 1: The movement-image (H. Tomlinson & B. Habberjam, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
  11. Foucault, M. (1986). Of other spaces. Diacritics, 16(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/464648
  12. Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). Continuum. Glazer, J. (Director). (2023). The Zone of Interest [Film]. A24.
  13. Hetherington, K. (1997). The badlands of modernity: Heterotopia and social ordering. Routledge.
  14. Heynen, H. (2008). Heterotopia unfolded? In M. Dehaene & L. De Cauter (Eds.), Heterotopia and the city: Public space in a postcivil society (pp. 311–323). Routledge.
  15. Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Pérez-Gómez, A. (2006). Questions of perception: Phenomenology of architecture. William Stout Publishers.
  16. Johnson, P. (2006). Unravelling Foucault's ‘different spaces.’ History of the Human Sciences, 19(4), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695106069669
  17. Johnson, P. (2013). The geographies of heterotopia. Geography Compass, 7(11), 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12079
  18. LaBelle, B. (2010). Acoustic territories: Sound culture and everyday life. Continuum.
  19. Lefebvre, H. (2003). The urban revolution (R. Bononno, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1970)
  20. Liddell, H. G., & Scott, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon (H. S. Jones & R. McKenzie, Rev.; 9th ed., with a revised supplement). Clarendon Press.
  21. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Göz ve tin (A. Soysal, Trans.). Metis Yayınları.
  22. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2025). Algının fenomenolojisi (E. Sarıkartal & E. Hacımuratoğlu, Trans.). Minotor Kitap.
  23. Monaco, J. (2009). How to read a film: Movies, media, and beyond (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  24. More, T. (2003). Utopia (P. Turner, Trans.). Penguin Books.
  25. Pallasmaa, J. (2016). Tenin gözleri (A. U. Kılıç, Trans.). YEM Yayın.
  26. Penz, F., & Thomas, M. (Eds.). (1997). Cinema & architecture: Méliès, Mallet-Stevens, multimedia. British Film Institute.
  27. Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Texas Christian University Press.
  28. Rooney, K. K., Condia, R. J., & Loschky, L. C. (2017). Focal and ambient processing of built environments: Intellectual and atmospheric experiences of architecture. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00326
  29. Shonfield, K. (2000). Walls have feelings: Architecture, film and the city. Routledge.
  30. Soja, E. W. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Blackwell.