Resume of "Study of denotation and connotation in the fiction film" Christian Metz
- Ksenia
- Jan 16, 2016
- 2 min read
Semiotics of the cinema can be concieved as a semiotics of connotation or as a semiotics of dennotation.
As a connotation system, cinema is a art (the seventh art). Details: in the first case - versification, composition, tropes (aesthetic orderings and constrains); in the second case - framing, camera movements and lighting. Connoted instance is superimposed over denoted instance. Connotation playes a major rople for all aesthetic languages. It's significate literary in the cinema "genre" (western, epic etc.), symbol (philisophical etc), poetic athmosphere.
The sum of the film's denotation is narratation itself, but also fictional space and time dimensions. In this case cinema is very different from photography. In photography denotation is a photochemical reproduction=visual transfer. Human intervantion (lighting, camera angle) is a connotation process.
PARADIGMATIC AND SYNTAGMATIC CATEGORIES
The shot is not comparable with word in lexicon. Rather it resembles one or more sentances (complete statement). - paradigmatic category. To speak cinematographic language is to a certain extent to invent it. The speakers of ordinary language constitute a group of users, the film-makers - group of creators. The movie spectators are group of users also. In my opinion and meaning paradigma is a every shot's effects which create necessary perception of spectator and syntagmatic category constited by montage and cutting (filmic narrativity). And syntagmatic narrativity can change but not by one person over night.
BASICS OF SEMOITICS
OTHER PROBLEMS
All of units the film - even the simplest like the dissolve or the wipe - are directly significant. The law of cinematographic language call for statement within narrative. Cinema is certainly is not a language system, but can be considered as a language. The shot is already complex unit. Loius Hielmslev compares shot with taxeme (or largest minimum segment). But there is other minimum segments - like optical devices: wipes, dissolves - is is visual but not a photographic elements.
In conclusion we can say that linguistics can not be applied for semiotics of the cinema (Metz said that can be with great caution), but methods of linguistics help it.
Comments