With a relatively new medium, such as film, ideas behind its communication functions become the subject of many debates. The notion of film language is one such subject. Christian Metz tackles this concept in his work “On the Notion of Cinematographic Language”. Two areas which I found interesting within this text discussed the “langue” and cinematic codes. Below are some thoughts I had on each subject as well as some questions that came out of the reading.
In this text, it seems that though Metz recognizes aspects of film that contribute to the idea of cinematic language, he cannot separate out the lack of certain linguistics aspects, specifically the “langue” or language system. Though he does identify a similar system, perceptual analogy, this concept is so tied to language for him that he disregards theorist that have upheld film as a language because they do not reference linguistics and the langue at all. For Metz, acknowledging where film differs from linguistics is crucial in examining it as a language. The concept of the “langue”, which Metz describes as a system which places language into context and allows intercommunication, is not present due to, among other things, the inability for an immediate exchange. Though obviously a viewer cannot communicate immediately with a film, there are films and filmmakers which comment on one another all the time. Could this be considered a type of intercommunication? Or is an immediate exchange necessary?
Though Metz does have issues reconciling linguistics and cinema language, he does point out the use of codes in creating a language system unique to film. In a conversation or phonetic text, language is not the only aspect that relays messages; there are visual cues that also play a role. This is a big point for Metz as it relates directly to the concept of cinema systems. Additionally, Metz delves into the combination of signifiers, which in film include the image, music and sound, and how their combination and subsequent montage create codes that are recognized by all those familiar with cinema. The meanings of these montages, however, only become apparent when thought of in relation to other similar films from the same period. Specifically, Metz references a durative montage which depicts two men walking a great distance. The film’s montage expresses the long journey instead of showing every step the men take through easily identifiable film codes. Though the technology behind film could have easily recorded the entire journey, by creating a montage and placing the film into an expressional form, the viewer is able to recognize and interpret cinema language and its meaning.
Here are some questions that jumped out during my reading of Metz:
Does communication have to be bilateral? What do you make of Metz’s idea that film is “expression rather than communication”? Do film montages support this idea of expression over communication? Can you think of any films that can be considered communication tools? What about wartime movies?
Can you think of any examples of cinematic codes present in the films we have watched for class? Do these codes limit filmmakers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Additionally, Metz delves into the combination of signifiers, which in film include the image, music and sound, and how their combination and subsequent montage create codes that are recognized by all those familiar with cinema. The meanings of these montages, however, only become apparent when thought of in relation to other similar films from the same period.
ReplyDeleteIn Gender, Sex and the Body, we've been reading about Lacan. In relationship to this week's readings, this made me think of Lacan's conception of the way language works in society - it's not a tool over which we have complete control; it pre-exists us, and we must situate ourselves in relationship to it in order to relate to ourselves and to each other. Without going too far into that, it is interesting to think about visual literacy - and film literacy, which may differ from visual literacy in general - as a language. (Of course, even the use of the word "literacy" implies language, but I'm not sure I have a better one). I don't find the fact that the meaning of the sequence is only apparent to those who would be familiar with particular filmic tropes or motifs a compelling argument against it being a language. It just means, perhaps, that those people are more "literate." Language is always about context and about the ways in which things are defined by their differences, in opposition to each other - with words, of course, being more arbitrary than their visual counterparts. (By which I mean filmic or photographic representation). This distinction is one Metz makes when he emphasizes analogical versus arbitrary codifications, arguing that these codifications make communication more limited than what he calls signification or expression. You address his arguments about durative montage where he argues that "the modality becomes . . . "sub-assertive": the sequence does not pretend to present us the heroes' long walk with all the factuality of its upheaval of events, but rather, to offer us a plausible illustration of it" (588, emphasis in original). What is language but a particular way of formulating reality? He is arguing here that this illustration is not only not arbitrary, it is not analogical either; it's symbolic. Perhaps this is a fair argument, but I'm unconvinced that there's as strong a divide as Metz would have between expression and communication or that the different kinds of codifications are opposed to one another. I think films absolutely can communicate in much the way you say; they can communicate with (or to) their audiences and be used as tools with which film makers respond to each other. Perhaps this is unilateral "expression" and not bilateral communication; the audience can't talk back, but the audience is engaged in reading and interpreting and those readings are based on a pre-existing system which the audience enters into and must have prior knowledge of. The audience is not an inactive receiver. This doesn't necessarily mean film should be talked about as a language, but I don't buy it as a reason why it shouldn't be. Of course , even Metz himself admits to the usefulness of a "cinematographic language-system" (589) at the end of his paper when he is discussing the difference between studying a specific text and studying a code in its entirety, which would imply that his opinions are perhaps not, in all contexts, as absolute as they first seem.