Semiotics of Cinema and Film Theory - Term Paper Example

Film and Critical Theory Introduction: Cinema has come along an impressive way to become one of the most significant art forms of current time. With numerous research and development in film theory across entertainment industries of the world, cinema is now considered seriously as a structured platform like that of a language. That is to say, the notion of film language is already a familiar field in the writings of some of the earliest theories in cinema. Analogy between language and film is a much debated as well as researched topic in terms of developing poetic and linguistic qualities of cinema. It is significant to note that the horizon of cinema has expanded with multiple dimensions, leaving progressive room for subsequent investigation into the dynamics of cinema. In this context, the various types and sub-types of film theories are relevant resources to understand the broader peripheries of cinema. In order to understand the semiotics of cinema it is important to know the notion of film theory first. As Casetti (1999) puts it, a film theory can be characterised as “a set of assumptions, more or less organised, explicit, and binding, which serves as a reference for scholars so that they can understand and explain the nature of the phenomenon under investigation” (Casetti, 1999, p. 2). Over the years, cinema has witnessed the intellectual development of different theories and theoretical traditions. For instance, two of the dominating traditions shaping European film theory and cinema have been a) the intuitionist modernist emphasising aesthetic qualities of cinema and b) post-Saussurian tradition emphasising on film language (Aitken, 2001). Credit for conceptualising the notion of film language goes significantly to the work of the Russian Formalists that further inspired to articulate many normative grammars of cinema (Stam, Burgoyne and Flitterman, 1992). This paper briefly addresses the theories of cinema right from its beginning and developmental stage to contemporary scenario of film semiotics. It attempts to look precisely into the early theories of cinema in order to get a clear picture of the film semiotics. Critique of film semiotics: Before elaborating the historical background of film semiotics, it is relevant to understand the term ‘semiotics’ first that came into existence around the 1960s. Language is a semiotic system combining our thought processes with that of a linguistic system in terms of its various degrees and kinds of signs and signifiers. The concept of ‘film language’ incorporates a number of characteristic constituents like that of the linguistic system in a language. In place of words in language, a film uses different kinds of shots, angles and speeds. The arbitrariness of language is also featured in films. However, a film cannot constitute a linguistic system although it constitutes a language in order to express itself to its audience (Stam, 2000). In other words, there is a striking difference between the language of cinema and the language of literature mainly due to their different modes of expression. Concept of film language in the 1960s: Coming back to the notion of cinematic sign, the concept was explored extensively by the theorists of the 1960s who were inspired by the advent of structuralism and semiotics. With the theorists emphasising on the iconic signs of cinema in contrast to the arbitrary signs of language, theorisation of filmic image was initiated by Christian Metz and Roland Barthes (Stam et al, 1992). Some of the characteristic jargons of cinema developed by the early theorists are: polysemy (filmic image incorporates multiple significations including linguistic signs), anchorage (it disciplines polysemy by guiding audiences on different possible significations of a visual representation), studium (it denotes the cultural, linguistic and political interpretation of cinematography), punctum (it denotes the personal or emotional details establishing a direct relationship with the object or person in cinematography), and so on. It is important to state that the evolution of film theory is not subject to a description in a linear progress of phases. In fact, there are many ways to describe the history of film theory. Cinematic scholars have adopted multi-dimensional phenomena to explain and theorise film as music, painting or even as theatre. Different nations have experienced different theoretical styles at different period of time resulting in the progressive exercise of cinematic discourses such as theories of formalism, semiology, feminism, psychoanalysis, cognitivism, and postcolonial theory of cinema. Theories are a form of social knowledge (Casetti, 1999). Therefore, it can be argued appropriately that film theories testify the socio-cultural perceptions of cinema. In Casetti’s words, “film theories shed light on both the notion of cinema shared by a certain society and the reasons why this society tends to be interested in films, on both the phenomenon’s characteristics when it enters the collective scene and the awareness of it displayed by the collectivity” (Casetti, 1999, p. 4). In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of cinema, it is important to discuss briefly some of the significant film theories conceptualised and practiced over times. Russian Formalism and film theory: Formalism in cinema emphasises on theorising the formal or technical elements of a film - for instance, lighting, sound, use of colour, shot composition and editing. Russian Formalists strongly believed that cinema can actually represent reality or the concrete in considerable details by means of these technical constituents (Aitken, 2001). Formalism considers the synthesis of multiple elements in film production and the effects (emotional as well as intellectual) created by them as a representation of reality. As technical elements and effects are emphasised by the formal theorists, the language of such films is argued to be affected directly by the social, economic and political pressures rather than any individual pressure. However, technical representation is not the only way of expressing the language of a film. In this context, Arnheim’s aesthetic theory is relevant as it emphasises on both artistic techniques as well as aesthetic qualities as a means of expressing general truths (Aitken, 2001). In other words, Arnheim’s film theory advocates developing a mutual relationship between representation and reality in terms of expressing a film through technical excellence and at the same time, emphasising its aesthetic values. French New Wave and realistic cinema: While discussing the relationship between representation and reality, the contribution made by the French New Wave is specifically substantial. New Wave film critics’ debate on cinematic realism has developed some of the interesting metaphors of cinema: cinema as a window open on the world and cinema as a mirror of life (Casetti, 1999). Cinema is considered as the perfect instrument of knowledge as it has the original and innate ability to photograph the everyday reality of life. Cinema, as Neo-realists argue, is the means of looking at life in its true reflection. Therefore, it can also be reconsidered as the real shadowing of reality. This has been further developed by the realists to conceptualise the argument that cinema is indeed the mirror of life expressing it with every real detail. Casetti makes it simple yet appropriate, “cinema uncovers reality’s essence” (Casetti, 1999, p. 34). Developed first by the film critics of the film magazine Cahiers du cinema, the New Wave theorists added new creative energy to the tradition of narrative cinema. Emphasis on stylistics was one of the primary objectives behind the newly practiced film techniques, which was meant to constitute new film language to draw audience. These cinematic stylings of New Wave inevitably brought a fresh look to cinema along with the conceptualisation of film language while focusing on the technical elements of film production. Psychoanalysis and cinema: Development of film narration as well as the realised significance of film languages further encouraged theorists to shift their focus from linguistic discourse of cinematic style to psychoanalysis. That is to say, linguistically oriented semiology or film language has given way to a second semiology, that is, psychoanalysis or film structure (Stam, 2000). Earlier psychoanalytical research on cinema that began in the mid 1970s highlighted its capacity to overpower spectator. That means, the spectator does not just watch the film, but he or she lives it with a neurotic intensity. In other words, cinema allows its spectators to photograph their own movements, attitudes and desires along with a substantial amount of their sensibility and imagination, leading them to experience powerful emotions. Psychoanalytical theory of cinema has incorporated into cinema a number of psychoanalytic notions such as scopophilia, voyeurism, fetishism, and so on. The development of psychoanalytical theory of films is credited to the French psychoanalyst and writer Jacques Lacan, who developed the notion of the subject or the spectator. The subject constitutes its ‘desires’ by watching the object(s) in the film. This also includes the concept of identification by which the subject identifies itself with an image from the film that apparently allows it to constitute desires with a sense of completeness. Lacanian psychoanalysis can be articulated as a synthesis of the anthropology of Levi-Strauss, the philosophy of Heidegger and the linguistics of Saussure (Stam, 2000, p. 160). It also features the characteristics of European psychoanalysis in the form of art film that contrasts itself from its Hollywood counterpart of ego psychology representing ‘happy end’. Feminist film theory: Cinema analysis has many approaches in order to investigate its film elements and their theoretical underpinnings. Feminism came to exist in practice around the early 1970s in the United States, which was mainly based on sociological theory. Early feminist film theories were concerned with the function of women characters as well as of stereotypes in particular film narratives reflecting the society’s view of women. Whereas theorising feminism in England was based on various perspectives from psychoanalysis, semiotics and Marxism. These dimensions were incorporated in American cinema in the later 1970s and 1980s. One of the key concepts of feminist film theory is that of the female spectator. As many film critics have pointed out, ‘male gaze’ is predominant in classical Hollywood filmmaking. Feminine subjectivity has been of key concern for these theorists, and it has encompassed feminist studies within social and cultural discourses. The primary objective of recent feminist theories has been the definition of ‘woman’ and how it is produced while emphasising on the position of women in relation to femininity. Theories of female spectatorship admit on the common ground that “the woman is frequently the object of the voyeuristic or fetishistic gaze in the cinema” (Erens, 1990, p. 44). In terms of incorporating the elements of voyeurism or fetishism in a woman’s film, the notion of identification of the female spectator is included often in a de-eroticised form to direct to a female body without any signs of femininity. Dominant narrative cinema repetitively includes such voyeurism or the internalising of film-spectator relationship including films like Psycho, Rear Window and Peeping Tom (Erens, 1990). Postmodernism and beyond: It was the French structuralist and post-structuralist tradition along with Russian Formalism that influenced the emergence of modernist European art cinema and film culture (Aitken, 2001). Political modernism and documentary realism were also part of the young German cinema that introduced the growth of art-house film culture. Besides, visual signification was also dealt seriously by the filmmakers. For instance, Robert Bresson’s Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne made use of visual signification to minimise psychological realism and create formal compositions drawing the spectator’s attention to the materiality, gesture, movement and action in the film (Aitken, 2001, p. 144). This led to the theorising of postmodern attitudes to the meta narratives of Western thought that combined fascism, materialism and rationalism. Although postmodernism did not produce any particular school of theoretical analysis, it has substantially contributed to our understanding of the complex structure of contemporary film. Postmodernism is characterised by its emphasis on fragmentation or deconstruction influenced by the theories of Lyotard, Baudrillard and particularly Derrida whose works emphasised on the importance of textual analysis (Stam, 2000). Some of the relevant features of postmodern cinema are creativity, libertarianism and rejection of meta narratives. It erases the differences between high and low art while mixing styles and genres together in favour of irony, pastiche and parody (Aitken, 2001). Conclusion: The origin of the first film semiotics is credited to Saussurian tradition and structuralism. So far as the discussion on film theory proceeds in this paper, the beginning of theorising the conception of film language is dated back in the practice of structural linguistics in the 1960s. With the influence of structuralism and semiotics, film theorists started emphasising on the notion of cinematic sign (or the emphasis of image) that allowed them to describe the different significations of visual representation. This also included particular emphasis on all the relevant technical elements of filmmaking in an attempt to express film language to its spectators in a more familiar way. Emphasis on visual representation further led to Russian Formalism, which argued that synthesis of multiple elements (both technical and aesthetic) and its effects (emotional and intellectual) make way for a representation of reality in films. This argumentation was further adopted by the filmmakers of the French New Wave movement that supported the emphasis on filmmaking techniques in order to produce a better relationship between visual representation and reality. The notion of cinema as a mirror image of reality is thus a conception of the New wave filmmakers. In the meanwhile, the relationship between psychoanalysis and cinema, the second film semiology, also started growing around the mid of 1970s emphasising on the experience and emotional reaction of the spectator. Psychoanalytical theories of cinema argues that the spectator experiences his or her own life activities in the form of the subject(s) in the film while transforming the objects of the subject as his or her own desires with a sense of completeness. European psychoanalysis characteristically brought art-house film culture whereas the Hollywood psychoanalysis opted for the ego psychology resulting in happy ending in films. The issue of spectators, especially the role of female spectator has become the primary concern of feminist theorists in cinema. Feminist theories draw their issues from the perspectives of sociological theory, psychoanalysis, semiotics as well as Marxism while depicting the stereotypical and social view of women. Feminism also includes the notions of voyeurism, fetishism and most importantly, the notion of identification in accordance with socio-cultural discourses and femininity. The third semiology is said to be risen from the film theories of postmodernism influenced by the deconstructionism of Derrida. Thus, cinema now incorporates film language and psychoanalysis with textual analysis. Contemporary cinematic form comprises of mixed styles and techniques. There is more to art films as filmmakers emphasise on creativity while making cinema the mode of expressing reality. References: Aitken, I., 2001, European Film Theory and Cinema: A Critical Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Casetti, F., 1999, Theories of Cinema 1945-1995. Texas: University of Texas Press. Erens, P., 1990, Issues in Feminist Film Criticism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Stam, R., 2000, Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Stam, R., Burgoyne, R. and Flitterman-Lewis, S., 1992, New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics: Structuralism, Post-structuralism and Beyond. London: Routledge. Read More