CRITICAL REFLECTION – Breath

Introduction

This practice-as-research project investigates how breath, voice, and linguistic identity may be mobilised as cinematic material to explore the emotional and embodied dimensions of communication. The short film Breath (2025) emerged through an iterative process that examined how non-verbal sound, fragmented speech, and the physical act of breathing can reveal internal states that exceed linguistic meaning.

Although the project initially centred on an abstract interest in breath as cinematic rhythm, it evolved, through interviews, rehearsals, sensory exercises, and production challenges, into a deeper inquiry into multilingual identity, affect, vulnerability, and miscommunication among speakers of different native languages. This critical reflection outlines the project’s research questions, contextual framework, methodology, production reflections, findings, and contribution to experimental film practice.

Research Questions

The investigation was guided by two primary research questions:

1. How can breath function as a cinematic language capable of expressing communication gaps, emotional states, and intersubjective connection?

2. How does speaking across different native languages reveal affective, sonic, and rhythmic dimensions of identity that surpass semantic meaning?

As the process unfolded, subsidiary questions emerged:

1. What forms of communication surface when two speakers use only their native languages, without seeking semantic comprehension?

2. Can sound, its rhythm, tone, texture, and breath, become the primary site of interpersonal attunement?

Contextualisation

The project positions itself within the lineage of sensory ethnography, particularly the work of Harvard’s Sensory Ethnography Lab (SEL). Films such as Sweetgrass (Castaing-Taylor & Barbash, 2009), Leviathan (Castaing-Taylor & Paravel, 2012), and Manakamana (Spray & Velez, 2013) reject commentary and exposition, privileging immersion, embodiment, and textural attention. SEL scholarship emphasises “negative capability” (after Keats), sustaining uncertainty rather than resolving it. Such practices informed Breath’s emphasis on micro-rhythms, non-verbal expression, and the refusal to translate or explain.

The project also draws from poetic documentary and avant-garde cinema. Chantal Akerman’s durational framing, Tsai Ming-Liang’s signature use of breath and stillness (Tsai, 2013), and Stan Brakhage’s phenomenological close-ups (Brakhage, 1971) shaped the film’s minimalist and intimate aesthetic. These influences supported the decision to avoid narrative closure and to foreground sensorial experience over conventional meaning.

Michel Chion’s foundational sound theory in Audio-Vision (1994) provided an essential conceptual framework. Breath was treated as an acousmatic sound, intimate yet not always visually anchored. Chion’s concept of synchresis, the perceptual welding of sound and image, informed editing strategies that juxtaposed mismatched breaths and faces to create affective rather than literal coherence. Adam Basanta’s notion of varying “shades” of audiovisual relation further underpinned this approach.

Additionally, the project intersects with phenomenology and embodied spectatorship, aiming not only to depict breathing but to elicit in viewers an internal mirroring of its rhythm. Migration and sociolinguistic studies, particularly Kerswill’s (2006) work on linguistic embodiment and the emotional labour of second-language expression, framed participants’ testimonies about comfort, alienation, and identity within multilingual contexts.

Methodology

The research followed a practice-as-research methodology, using experimental cinematic techniques to investigate sound, embodiment, and interpersonal communication. Macro close-ups of breath, lips, throat tension, and micro-gestures framed the body as the primary expressive tool. The black-and-white aesthetic emphasised contrast, texture, and rhythm, stripping away colour to foreground the sensory qualities of the image. Sound guided the inquiry, isolated breathing sessions, repetitions, mispronunciations, and native-language expressions were recorded as sonic events rather than linguistic content. Interviews exploring difficult English sounds, untranslatable emotions, and self-perceptions of linguistic identity informed the conceptual direction.

Following the lecturer’s suggestion, the two participants, Ana (Portuguese) and Nell (French), were asked to communicate solely in their native languages. Their interaction was shaped by psychodramatic methods derived from my own study and practice of actor direction through psychodrama, as developed in Direção de Atores com Psicodrama (Oliver Andia, 2025). In this framework, the director creates an environment where emotional truth emerges through action rather than performance, a principle grounded in psychodrama’s emphasis on spontaneity, embodied memory, and relational encounter.

Rather than performing roles or responding to formal interview prompts, Ana and Nell engaged in guided exercises designed to activate presence, vulnerability, and authentic relational dynamics. These included breathing together, mirroring each other’s gestures, teaching and attempting unfamiliar sounds from their languages, repeating phrases incorrectly, and articulating emotions that they could not easily express in English. Such techniques draw directly from psychodrama’s core practices, revivência (lived re-experience), ação como transformação (action as transformation), and espontaneidade criadora (creative spontaneity), all of which emphasise truth emerging through embodied interaction rather than verbal explanation.

In this context, the exercises were not therapeutic but artistic: they provided a structured yet open relational field in which both participants could oscillate between self-awareness and shared presence. The goal was not to “extract” emotion but to create conditions in which genuine reactions, hesitation, laughter, tension, release, could surface naturally. This approach aligns with my broader psychodramatic philosophy that directing actors is not about manipulating emotion but about establishing a safe, ethical environment in which embodied truth becomes available to the camera.

The result was an interaction shaped not by performance conventions but by lived responses, making the recorded material richer, more intimate, and more aligned with the project’s exploration of breath, language, and embodied communication. The methodology thus prioritised relational presence over scripted performance, allowing meaning to arise from breath, hesitation, humour, and the subtle negotiations that occur when two people meet across linguistic distance.

Reflection on Production & Critical Evaluation

The project initially approached breath as a purely abstract cinematic rhythm. Early test footage emphasised fragmented close-ups, layered city noise, and unintelligible babbling. However, as the interviews accumulated, the project’s conceptual centre shifted. Participants shared intimate reflections about linguistic identity, memory, discomfort, and humour related to speaking English. These testimonies expanded the thematic scope, pushing the work toward a documentary-poetic hybrid.

The first major shoot produced visually compelling material but suffered from technically unusable audio. Given breath’s centrality, this failure demanded a methodological recalibration. The reshoot integrated psychodramatic exercises, resulting in richer emotional rhythms and more authentic interactions. Filming with two cameras enabled simultaneous capture of both participants’ reactions, deepening the relational dimension.

Neither participant had acting experience, psychodramatic tools such as guided breathing, mirroring, and repetition fostered states of presence rather than performance. Speaking exclusively in Portuguese and French unlocked spontaneity and vulnerability, allowing communication through rhythm, tone, and gesture rather than shared semantics.

The final film embraces sensory immersion and abstraction. Its strengths include textured imagery, intimate sound design, and a poetic structure aligning with the research questions. However, some thematic complexity remains implied rather than articulated, and the abstract form may challenge accessibility. Future iterations could further explore the intersubjective dynamic between participants and expand the linguistic range.

Discussion of Findings

Breath emerged throughout the project as a central non-verbal expressive tool, capable of conveying tension, hesitation, anticipation, vulnerability, and release in ways that spoken language could not. A particularly significant moment occurred when Ana and Nell began to synchronise their breathing spontaneously, without instruction. This moment functioned as a powerful cinematic articulation of connection beyond semantic understanding, offering a visceral demonstration of intersubjective attunement. The scene supports the project’s core hypothesis that breath can function as a primary cinematic language, communicating affective meaning directly through the body rather than through linguistic systems.

The project also revealed that native language is inseparable from emotional identity. When speaking Portuguese or French, participants accessed emotional and sensory registers associated with comfort, humour, memory, and a sense of authenticity. Their posture softened, breathing patterns became steadier, and speech flowed with greater rhythmic confidence. In contrast, speaking English introduced visible effort, self-surveillance, and moments of emotional distancing. Participants often paused to search for words, adjusted their breathing unconsciously, or laughed nervously at mispronunciations.

These observations resonate strongly with Kerswill’s (2006) work on migration and linguistic embodiment, which argues that second-language use alters not only communication but also one’s affective relationship to the self. The filmic material confirms that breath and vocal texture often reveal more about identity than lexical meaning alone, suggesting that language is embodied not only in syntax and vocabulary but in rhythm, breath control, and sonic presence.

Contrary to initial expectations, the restriction that participants speak only in their native languages did not lead to communicative failure. Instead, communication transformed into a different modality altogether. Without shared semantic understanding, tone, rhythm, breath, gesture, facial expression, and eye contact became the primary channels of exchange. A shared affective field emerged, shaped by attentiveness and mutual responsiveness rather than translation.

In this context, miscommunication became productive rather than obstructive. Meaning arose through sonic materiality and perceptual cues, aligning with Chion’s (1994) concept of synchresis, where sound and image fuse affectively rather than logically, and Basanta’s expanded understanding of perceptual binding beyond semantic clarity. The absence of translation opened space for ambiguity, allowing sound to operate poetically rather than informationally.

The use of psychodramatic methods proved essential in facilitating these outcomes. Exercises such as mirroring breath, teaching unfamiliar sounds, repeating phrases incorrectly, and sitting with moments of not-understanding encouraged vulnerability, playfulness, and embodied presence. These activities disrupted performative habits and reduced the pressure to “succeed” linguistically, allowing participants to respond more intuitively.  Moments of laughter, tension, hesitation, and emotional attunement emerged organically, producing material with a depth and immediacy rarely achieved through conventional interview techniques. As a result, the film’s emotional texture is grounded not in explanation or narrative clarity, but in lived, embodied interaction, reinforcing the project’s commitment to breath, sound, and relational presence as primary cinematic materials.

Conclusion

Breath demonstrates that breath, voice, and sonic texture offer powerful tools for exploring communication gaps, vulnerability, and emotional identity. By integrating experimental cinema, psychodramatic direction, and sensory ethnography, the project reveals that communication emerges not solely from linguistic meaning but from embodied rhythm and relational attunement.

Future research might expand the linguistic diversity of participants, explore group breath synchronisation, experiment with multi-channel installation (as in SEL’s gallery work), or deepen engagement with Chionian and post-human sound theory. Ultimately, the project confirms that the border between language and breath is a fertile site for sensorial inquiry and poetic expression.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Basanta, A. (2012) ‘Shades of Synchresis: A Proposed Framework for the Classification of Audiovisual Relations in Sound-and-Light Media Installations’, Electroacoustic Music Studies Conference (EMS).

Brakhage, S. (1971) ‘In Defense of Amateur’, University of Colorado Boulder.

Chion, M. (1994) Audio-Vision: Sound on Screen. Translated by C. Gorbman. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kerswill, P. (2006) Migration and Language. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Oliver Andia, D. (2025) Direção de Atores com Psicodrama.

Tsai Ming-Liang (2013) ‘Interview with Tsai Ming-Liang’

FILMOGRAPHY

Breath (2025) Directed by Oliver Andia, D. and Arshad. UK.

Leviathan (2012) Directed by Castaing-Taylor, L. and Paravel, V. USA/France/UK: Cinema Guild.

Manakamana (2013) Directed by Spray, S. and Velez, P. USA/Nepal: Cinema Guild.

Sweetgrass (2009) Directed by Castaing-Taylor, L. and Barbash, I. USA: Cinema Guild.