This paper aims at reconsidering ``suture,`` a key concept in early Lacanian film criticism, with a view to narrowing a supposed gap between early Lacanian and later Lacanian film criticism. Early Lacanian film theorists, among whom Jean-Pierre Oudart, Jean-Louis Baudry, Laura Mulvey and Daniel Dayan, to name a few, are prominent, focus on cinematic signifying system as well as its ideological effects on shaping subjectivity of the audience. Initiated by Jacques-Alain Miller`s article on suture as the logic of signifier and grafted into film as the logic of the cinematic by Oudart`s writing, the concept of suture was established as a key word in early Lacanian film criticism, In their taxonomy, suture refers to the processes by which the audience are stitched into the story-world of a film, The audience are drawn into the film and take up positions as subjects-within-the-film such that they make sense of and respond to what the film represents as they are encouraged to do so by the film itself. On the other hand, later Lacanian film critics, who are much influenced by Lacan`s later emphasis on the Real, focus on concepts such as gaze, petit objet a, fantasy, rather than suture. They are more concerned with the failure of suture and the disruption of the Symbolic than the ideological effects of suture and the consolidation of the Symbolic, They require a break from the previous approach of Lacanian film theory which centers around the Imaginary and the Symbolic, However, early Lacanian and later Lacanian film theory do not manifest as much disparity as they are supposed to do, for both are against the ideological manipulation of suture. Slavoj Zizek, a leading scholar of later Lacanian psychoanalysis, revives the concept of suture as a patch of the Symbolic which covers the gap, if not always successful.