The Following Language Has Been Approved For All Audiences

There are all kinds of terms used to describe repetition in film. "Archetype" signifies a steadfast character type, "cliche" describes plot and character elements that are so repetitious as to be contrite, and "genre" describes films which share similar elements and storylines. Could all of these terms, though, be suggestive of an overall cinematic language?

Metz would disagree. While he sees inherent codes that are repeated throughout cinema much like a language, he does not credit cinema with having a language per se, in that movies are not systematic in their communication with audiences in the way that speech is. However, Eco rightly points out that to believe so is to shortchange or underestimate how careful films often are to render themselves understandable to their audiences - a practice necessary to prevent "noise" (Eco, 592).

I would have to agree with Eco in this argument. While many different films are created, to an extent, they almost always follow some sort of code to get their message across. Films typically follow the intro-development-buildup-climax-conclusion format, feature a protagonist vs an antagonist, and are edited in sequence. Even films that deviate from this code often do so in ways that are still reminiscent of past codes. Take, for example, the film "Memento." The film broke groung by having the narration literally move backwards. However, it is in this backward narration that the typical mystery movie plot still unravels - the crime is revealed, the first suspect was incorrect, the femme fatale is exposed, and the real murderer is unveiled at the end (or, in this case of the diegesis, the "beginning"). While the typical narrative structure is broken to create an original film, it still relies on pre-existing codes just enough to make sense to viewers otherwise used to movies that usually move "forward."

This is almost reminiscent of Adorno/Horkheimer's assessments of one having to be aware of the culture in order to deviate from it. Films cannot go against a system until they are aware of a system to begin with. Furthermore, audiences that are more accustomed to this system must be met halfway by films wishing to deviate. In order to be made aware of difference, audiences must recognize the similarities inherent between this particular code and codes of the past. This is most apparent, I believe, in movie trailers, whose goal is to communicate a code very clearly so as to reach a target audience that is looking for this sort of film. The codes of trailers have become so apparent that almost anyone, not just semioticians, can detect them. Girly pop music, a lot of pink, a quirky girl falling over and a cute guy smiling? Romantic comedy. Eerie music, no voiceover, distorted faces and a creepy little kid? Horror movie, and one that's likely based on a Japanese film. A bunch of screens listing all the film festivals, critic raves, and awards associated with the film being advertised? Indie movie.

These codes are so prominent that they are even subject to mockery, or at least, toying around with audience perceptions. Take, for example, this preview for the 2005 film Red Eye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAFDHyH8buQ

The preview has all the trappings of a romantic comedy. Peppy music plays, and there are scenes of a sped-up airport, signifying fun, craziness, and/or frivolity. We see Rachel McAdams, who at the time was best known for starring in The Notebook, another romantic film. She talks all flirty with a young and attractive man (Cillian Murphy), and the title cards (for lack of a better term) talk about mutual attraction and destiny and whatnot. However, as the trailer precedes, the audience discovers that they, like McAdams in the film, have been deceived. The music gets creepier, Murphy's eye is cast in red, and then the title screen says, "From Director Wes Craven." Now the codes are in place telling the audience that this is in fact not a romantic movie, but a scary one. The trailer perfectly shows the binary of relying on old codes to create new messages, since it deliberately used the wrong codes to fool audiences into what kind of film this trailer was advertising.

While Metz makes good points about cinema communication not really relying on a language per se, I believe that all films are a part of a system, even when they are completely original. After all, the movie industry is so huge and expanding that I think movies cannot help but at least partially adhere to a certain constructed set of rules, even if it is just to perform trickery on the audience.

As a P.S., here is a very funny example for how previously established films and their codes can be drastically altered with just editing and the implementation of separate genre codes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfout_rgPSA