Scribd
Upload
133 views20 pages

Monaco HowtoReadaFilm

Uploaded by

yu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
133 views20 pages

Monaco HowtoReadaFilm

Uploaded by

yu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 20
OTHER BOOKS BY JAMES MONACO Alain Resnais ‘American Film Now Who's Who in American Film Now HOV Le READ jogy Language History and Theory eda James ha New a Ox JX FORD for u NIVE! asi! TY PRESS 1981 Luter of Congress Calon in Pabeaton Dats Manic Jame ow to read ls. Biparh: p Feeder iden Tinga 1 Tile puishenesiseo T9LAors SOS ISBN @19-502802° ISBN O18 3008066 (9) Copyright © 1977, 1981 by James Monaco aevvnae fm Dene Levenav's “The Rig” hich, gems om wh 17-18 @ The rasa OM eT, rented by eran of City Light Books renee tom Dual! Bartel Sas satel vn, 32 ©, Darl Mens The pa fon Pape wih the permanon of Fart Sus S Go ‘Peri fae Aled Hnchcoks Pax ec on 148 Sout USS! The al fom A po: © Daten Tome ne 174 cued by Rela Brees fom tok [von Boks and Uniwene oak, New Yok Gs used ‘probe tangement th the publ, Dasien Hows, I Charman Mews “Genel Table of che Large Sragmatc Caen of 1 3 hvitan Me Oe Smet of he Cine by Chan Mas ana Trac a BEE by Ono Unvery hey In renined By ermicn are cheper ial appeared nS an Sad 45-1 (Winer 19781978 © Bars of Chain aac pte by permosion of Penelone Howson, elitr pent i ae To foratn,” naling HE ET pend as) ad mgr asl How and Whew Edom Tale Ore 9 ay apt © 17 James Menace and Unean Evibing Soy paar agmends and Arend Ft ne awe area in A Sere Soh Par rand Boke bent Pb: A Biomol hes bls by fo Fie Crt 08 Spyihe © James Monac, 1975, 1976 Revel by per west pearing on p45. 6,51 197,13: 165, 17,285,262 otarars ee gr che Arann Cllcctn of Se ee a ee ed, alin, and Berman, arable fom the Pe a Wek Beng Sia Ande est, 13006 Par, and comyieht © ene, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975 Printed in the United Stats of Amenict — oo For Susan With love CONTENTS I. FILM AS AN ART The Nature of Art The Spectrum of Art: Modes of Discourse Film, Recording, and the Orher Arts Fim, Photography, and Painting: Film and the Novel Film ri Theaters Fm and Music; Film and the Environmental Ans ‘The Structure of Art Il. TECHNOLOGY: IMAGE AND SOUND ‘Art and Technology Image Technology; Sound Technology The Lens The Camera ‘The Filmstock Negatives, Print, and Generations: Aspect Rati; Grain Gauge, and Speed: Contrast, Tone, and Color The Soundtrack Post-Production ting: Mixing and Looping: Special Effects: Opvicals and the Laboratory ‘The Uses of Video Projection Il, THE LANGUAGE OF FILM: SIGNS AND SYNTAX Signs “The Physiology of Perception; Denotative and Connotative Meaning; Reading the Image 8 4 49 59 70 8 98 103 ne ul n 2 ne vi HOW TO READ A FILM, Syntax ‘Codes; Mise en Scéne (The Framed Image); The Diachronic Shot; Sound; Montage; Reading the Narrative ‘THE SHAPE OF FILM HISTORY “The Movies": Economics he Birth of Film; The Silent Business; Sound: The Studios: Fim versus Television; The Conglomerates and Independents “The Film”: Politics ‘Ontological Leveli Mimetic Level; Inherent Level Psychopolites; Sociopolties “The Cinema’: Esthetics Creating an Art; Lumicre vorsus Melis; The Silene Feature: Realism versus Expressionism; Hollywood: Genre versus Auteur; Neorealism and After: Hollywood verss the World; The New Wave and the Third World: Entertainment versus Communication (The New Wave: ‘Avant Garde, Direct Cinema and Cinéma Vérités England; Italy; Sweden; Eastern Europe; The Third World; Japan and Asia; New French Cinema; Das Neve Kino; Swiss Cinema; American Film Now); The Eighties ‘and Beyond: Democracy and Technology: End of Cinema FILM THEORY: FORM AND FUNCTION, ‘The Poet and the Philosopher: Lindsay and Mansterberg. Expressionism and Realism: Amheim and Kracauer Montage: Pudovkin, Eisenstein, Baléss, and Formalism ‘Mise en Scéne: Neorealism, Barin, and Godard Film Speaks and Acts: Metz and Contemporary Theory MEDIA Print and Electronic Media ‘The Technology of Mechanical and Electronic Media Radio and Records Television and Video A Concluding Note: Media Democracy 140 193 199 27 307 312 315 322 328 338 347 351 361 374 380 4 ‘CONTENTS APPENDIX I: A STANDARD GLOSSARY FOR FILM ‘AND MEDIA CRITICISM APPENDIX II: READING ABOUT FILM AND MEDIA Part One: A Basic Library Part Two: Information APPENDIX III: FILM AND MEDIA: A CHRONOLOGY INDEX 4u7 463 466 488 495 513 130 HOW TOREAD A FILM. theater as beginning and ending whenever a character entered of lef the stage, are more amorphous in film (as they ave in theater taliy) ‘The term scene is useful, no doubt, but not precise. Sequences are certainly longer than scenes, but the “sequence-shot," in which a single shot is coterminous with a Sequence, is an important concept and no smaller units within it ae sequential. Tr would seem that a real science of film would depend on out being able to define the smallest unie of construction. We can do that techni- cally, at least forthe image: it isthe single frame. But this is certainly not the smallest unie of meaning. The fact is that film, unlike written or spoken language, is not composed of units, as such, but is rather a continuum of meaning. A. shot contains as much information as we want to read in it, and whatever unies we define within the shot are axbitrary. Therefore, film presents us with a langauge (of sorts) that: 2) consists of short-circuit signs in which the signifier nearly equals the siguiied; and ') depends on a continuous, nondliscrete sytem in which we can’t ‘identify a basic unit and which therefore we can’t deseribe quantatively. The result is, as Christain Metz says, that: “An easy art, the cinema is in constant danger of falling vitim to this easiness." Film is too inteli- sible, whichis whae makes i dificult to analyze, "A fil is dificult ro explain because itis easy to under DENOTATIVE AND CONNOTATIVE MEANING Films do, however, manage to communicate meaning. They do this essentially in two different manners: denotatively and connotatively. Like written language, but to a greater degree, a film image or sound has a denotative meaning: it is what is and we don’t have to strive to recognize it. This factor may seem simplistic, but it should never be ‘underestimated: here lies the great strength of film. There is a substan- tial difference between a description in words (or even in still photo- graphs) of a person or event, and a cinematic record of che same Because film can give us such a close approximation of reality, it ean ‘communicate a precise knowledge chat written or spoken language sel- dom can, Language systems may be much better equipped to deal with the nonconcrete world of ideas and abstractions (imagine this book, for example, on film: without a complete narration i wowld he incompre- hhensible), but they are not nearly so capable of conveying precise infor- ‘mation about physical realities. By its very nature, written/spoken language analyzes. To write the ‘THE LANGUAGE OF FILM: SIGNS AND SYNTAX BI word “rove” is to generatize and abstract the iden of the rose. The real power of the Linguistic languages lies not with their denotative ability but in the connotative aspect of language: the wealth of meaning we can attach to @ word that surpasses its denotation. If denotation were the. only measure of the power of a language for example, then English—which has a vocabulary of a million or so words and is the largest language in history—would be over three times more powerful than French—which has only 300,000 or so words. But French makes up for its “limited” vocabulary with a noticeably greater use of connota tion. Film has connotative abilities as well. Considering the strongly denotative quality of film sounds and im- ages, itis surprising to discover that these connotative abilities are very much a partof the film language. In fact, many of chem stem from film’s denotative ability. As we have noted in Chapter 1, film can draw fon all the other arts for various effects simply because it can record them. Thus, all the connotative factors of spoken language can be accommodated on a film soundcrack while the connotations of written language can be included in ticles (to say nothing of the connotative factors of dance, music, painting, and so forth). Because film is a product of culture, it has resonances that go beyond what the semiolo- sist calls its diegesis (the sum of it denotation). An image of a rose is not simply that when it appears in a film of Richard Ill, for example, because we are aware of the connotations of the white rose and the red 1s symbols of the houses of York and Lancaster. These are culturally determined connotations. In addition to these influences ftom the general culture, film has its ‘own specific connotative ability. We know (even if we don't often remind ourselves of it consciously) that a filmmaker has made specific choices: the rose is filmed from a certain angle, the camera moves of does not move, the color is bright or dull, the rose is fresh of fading, the thotns apparent or hidden, the background clear (so that the rose is seen in context) or vague (so that itis isolated), the shot held for a long time or briefly, and so on. These are specific aids to cinematic connotation, and although we can approximate theit effect in. litera ture, we cannot accomplish it with cinematic precision or efficiency. A picture is, on occasion, worth a thousand words, as the adage has it. ‘When our sense of the connotation of a specific shot depends on its hhaving been chosen from a range of other possible shots, then we can say that this is, using che lanyuge of sewiology, a paradigmatic connora- tion. That is, the connotative sense we comprehend stems from the shot being compared, not necessarily consciously, with its unrealized companions in the paradigm, or general model, of this type of shot. A 12 HOW TOREAD A FILM low-angle shot of a rose, for example, conveys a sense that the flower is for some reason dominant, overpowering, because we consciously or unconsciously compare it with, say, an overhead shot of a rose, which would diminish is importance. Conversely, when the significance of the rose depends not on the shot compared with other potential shots, but rather on the shot com- pared with actual shots that precede or follow it, then we can speak of its syntagmatic connotation; that is, the meaning adheres to it because it is compared with other shots that we do see. These two different kinds of connotation have their equivalents in literature. A word alone on the page has no particular connotation, only denotation. We know What it means, we also know potentially what it connotes, but we can’t supply the particular connotation the author of the word has in mind until we see it in context. Then we know what particular connotative value it has because we judge its meaning by conscious or unconscious comparison of it with (a) all the words like it that might fit in this context but were not chosen, and (b) the words that precede or follow it. (See p. 341.) ‘These two axes of meaning—the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic— have real value as tools for understanding what film means. In fact, as an art, film depends almost entirely upon these two sets of choices ‘After a filmmaker has decided what to:shoot, the two obsessive ques- tions are how to shoot it (what choices to make: the paradigmatic) and how to present the shot (how to edit i: the syntagmatic). In literature, in contrast, the first question (how co say it) is paramount, while the second (how to present what is said) is quite secondary. Semiotics, 0 far, has concentrated on the syntagmatic aspect of film, for a very simple reason: it is here that film is most cleaty different from other arts, so that the syntagmatic category (editing, montage) is in a sense the most “cinematic.” Film draws on the other arts for much of its connotative power as well as generating its own, both paradigmatically and syntagmatically Bur there is also another source of connotative sense. Cinema is not strictly a medium of intercommunication. One seldom holds dialogues in film. Whereas spoken and written languages are used for incercom- munication, film, like the nonrepresentational arts in general (as well as language when it is used for artistic purposes), is a one-way com- munication. As a result, even the most utilitarian of films is artistic in some respect. Film speaks in neologisms. “When a ‘language’ does not already exist," Metz writes, “one must be something of an artist co speak it, however poorly. For to speak itis partly to invent it, whereas to speak the language of everyday is simply to use it.” So connotations THE LANGUAGE OF FILM: SIONS AND SYNTAX 133 attach co even the simplest statements in film. There is an old joke that illustrates the point: two philosophers meet; one says “Good Morning!” The other smiles in recognition, then walks on frowning and thinking to himself: "I wonder what he meant by that?” The question isa joke when spoken languaye is the subject; itis however, a perfectly legiti- mate question to ask of any statement in film. Is there any way we can further differentiate the various modes of enotation and connotation in film? Borrowing a “tichotomy” from the philosopher C.S. Peirce, Peter Wollen, in his highly influential book Signs and Meaning in the Cinema (1969), suggested that cinematic signs are of three onders ‘© The Icon: @ sign in which the signifier represents the signified mainly by its similarity to it, its likeness; © The Iridex: which measures a quality not because it is identical to it but because it has an inherent relationship to it; © The Symbol: an arbitrary sign in which the signifier has neither a direct or an indexical relationship to the signified, but rather represents it through convention Although Wollen doesn't fc them into the denotativelconnotative categories, Icon, Index, and Symbol ean be seen as mainly denotaive. Portraits are Icons, of course, but so are diagrams in the Peiree/Wollen system, Indexes are more difficult to define. Quoting Peirce, Wollen suggests two sorts of Indexes, one technical—medieal symptoms are Indexes of health, clocks and sundials are Indexes of time—and one ‘metaphorical: a rolling gait should indicate that a man is a sailor. (This is the one point where the Peirce/Wollen categories verge on the con- notative.) Symbols, the third category, are more easily defined. The way Pierce and Wollen use it, the word has a rather broad definition: words are Symbols (since the signifier represents the signified ehrough convention rather than resemblance). These three categories are not mutually exclusive. Especially in pho- tographic images, the Iconic factor i almost always a strong one. As we have noted, a ching is itself even if itis also an Index or a Symbol General semiological theory, especially as itis put forth in Christian Met's writings, covers the fist and last categories—Icon and Symbol— fairly well already. The Icon is the shor-circuit sign that isso charac teristic of cinema; the Symbol isthe arbitrary or conventional sign that is the basis of spoken and written language. It is the second eategory— the Index—that is most intriguing in Peirce and Wollen's system: st seems to be a third means, halfway between the cinematic Ieon and the literary Symbol, in which cinema can convey meaning. It is not an 134 HOW TOREAD A FM THE LANGUAGE OF FILM SIGNS AND SYNTAX 135 Figure 3-8 ICON. Liv Ullmann in Ingmar Bergman's Fae sae aubitrary sign, but neither is it identical. It suggests a third type of denotation chat points direcly toward connotation, and may in fact not be understandable without the dimension of connotation. The Index seems to be one very useful way in which cinema can deal directly with ideas, since it gives us concrete representations or measurements of them. How can we convey the idea of hotn matically for instance? In written language i's very easy, but on film? The image of a thermometer quickly comes to mind. Clearly that is an Index of temperature. But there are more subele Indexes, as wel: sweat is an Index, as are shimmering atmospheric waves and hot colors. It’s a truism of film esthetics that metaphors are dfficule in cinema, Compar. ing love with roses works well enough in ligeature, but its cinematic equivalent poses problems: the rose, the secondary element of the meta Phor, is too equivalent in cinema, too much present. As a result cinematic metaphors based on the literary model tend to be erude and static and forced. The Indexical sign may offer a way out of this di lemma, Ie is here chat film discovers its own, unique metaphorical Power, which it owes to the flexibility of the frame, its ability co say many things at once. a Figure 3-9, eX Liv Ullmann in Bergman's Shame (1968), The offer of money—the roll of cash on the pilow-—is an index of prostitution and, hence, of Eva's ham ‘The concept of the Index also leads us to some interesting ideas about connotation. It must be cleat from the above discussion that the line between denotation and connotation is not clearly defined: there is a continuum. In film, as in written and spoken language, connotations if they becme strong enough are eventually accepted as denotative ‘meanings. As it happens, much of the connotative power of film de- pends on devices that are Indexical; that is, they are not arbitrary signs, but neither are they identical Two terms from literary studies, closely associated with each other, to describe the main manner in which film conveys connotative ing. A metonymy is a figure of speech in which an associated ail or notion is used to invoke an idea or represent an object. Erymologically, the word means “substitute naming” (from the Greek ta, involving transfer, and onoma name). Thus, in literature we can speak of the king (and the idea of kingship) as “the crown.” A synec doche ie a figure of speech in which the pase staruls (or the whole or the or the part. An automobile can be referred to asa “motor” or a “set of wheels”; a policeman is “the law." Both of these forms recur constantly in cinema. The indexes of heat 136 HOW TO READ A FILM Fig 3-0, sragoL, Began ofen vse cos and compes a ymbol in i Sime ‘Here, Ullmann again in Face wo Face. " ‘mentioned above are clearly metonymical: associated details invoke an abstract idea. Many of the old clichés of Hollywood are synecdochie (close shots of marching feet to represent an army) and metonymic (the falling calendar pages, the driving wheels of the railroad engine). In. deed, bs ymical devices yield themselves so well to cine- ‘matic exploitation, cinema can be more efficient in this regard than literature can. Associated details can be compressed within the limits of the frame to present a statement of extraordinary richness. Metonymy is a kind of cinematic shorthand. Just as, in general, our sense of cinema's connotations depends on understood comparisons of the image with images that were not chosen, (paradigmatic) and images that came before and after (syntagmatic), so ur sense of the cultural connotations depend upon understood com: Parisons of the part with the whole (synecdoche) and associated details with ideas (metonymy). Cinema is an art and a medium of extensions and indexes. Much of its meaning comes not from what we see (or heat) but from what we don't see or, more accurately, from an ongoing process of comparison of what we see with what we don’t see. This is THE LANGUAGE OF FILM: SIGNS AND SYNTAX 37 igure 3-11, nd Max on Sydow in Hour ofthe Wolf (1966) onic, considering that cinema at first glance seems ¢o be an art that is all too evident, one that is often criticized for “leaving nothing to the Quite the contrary is true, In a film of strict denotation, images and sounds are quite easily and directly understood. But very few films are strictly denotative; they can’t help but be connotative, “for to speak [film] is partly to invent it.” The observer who adamantly resists, of course can choose to ignore the connotative power of film, but the observer who has leamed to read film has available a multitude of connotations. Alfred Hitchcock, for example, has made a number of very popular films during the past half-century. We could ascribe his critical and popular success to the subjects of his films—certainly the thriller strikes a deep responsive chord in audiences—but then how do we account for the failed thrillers of his imitators? In truth, the drama of film, its attraction, lies not so much in what is shot (that's the drama of the subject), but in how it is shot and how ic is presented. And as thousands of commentators have attested, Hitchcock was the master par excellence of these two critical tasks. The drama of filmmaking in large part lies in the brainwork of these closely associated sets of deci Figure 5-12, METONYMY, In Io Antonioni developed 2 Figue 3-14, SYNECEOCHE, Giuliana in Rel Deser, else metonjmss of color. Throughout mos of the fl, Gauls (Monica Viti it ‘eaty overwhelmed by indasial machinery “patches ‘ppresed pychologcally and politically by ray and deathly urban indus environ ban society fest this fctry, these particular machines, tment. When she manages to beak away from ie grip on several occas, Antonini larger seal they represen Slgnals her temporary independence (and rouble setucn to healt) with bright colors which isa detail asocated with health ‘and happiness not only in this fm but general cule as wel. In th scene, Giuliana attemprs to open her own shop. T splotches of bianco rape at feed the shapes th 2, daonganced, frightening (the relapse into meres) Tnall complicated set of metonyries. agun, tht time sounded and orthe "whale" of het ‘oppress her, but the eee meno man Mog il ed se a fe + and *rmetonymy"—Hike “eon,” “Index,” and “Syeabo" al constructs that may’ be useful a ais £9 i, might arey of ours, mp vy et we oy ate hor strict definitions. This particular syaeedoche, fr exam sepa Recs acoe ecb ru ee ea shove chance The agente cached vr bss. opel yy eas rahe th et uh ths age sxe eset C0 casi a lexical, th schiophreni charter. The mage th racked mori simple, logeal stony. She certainly element of the conic and Symbolic st 19 38 | M0 HOW TO READ A FILM sions. “Literate” filmgoers appreciate Hitchcock's superb cinematic in- telligence on a conscious level, illiterate filmgoers on an unconscious level, but the intelligence has its effect, nevertheless. One more element remains to be added to the lexicon of film semiol- gy: the trope. In literary theory, a trope is a “tum of phrase” of a “change of sense"—in other words, a logical twist that gives the ele ments of a sign—the signifier and the signified—a new relationship to each other. The trope is therefore the connecting element between denotation and connotation, When a tose is a rose is a rose it isn't anything else, and its meaning asa sign is strictly denotative. But when 4 tose is something else, a “turning” has been made and the sign is opened up to new meanings. The map of film semiology we have described so far has been static. The concept of the trope allows us to View it dynamically, as actions rather than facts ‘As we have noted in earlier chapters, one of the great sources of ower in filmi is thar it can reproduce the tropes of most of the other arts. There is also a set of tropes that it has made its own. We have described the way they operate in general in the first half of this chapter. Given an image of a rose, we at first have only its Iconic ot Symbolic denotative meaning, which is static. But when we begin to expand the possibilities through tropes of comparison, the image comes alive: as a connotative Index, in terms of the patadige of possible shots, in the syntagmatic context of its assocaitions in the film, as itis used metaphorically as a metonymy or a synecdoche. There are undoubtedly other categories of film semiology yet to be discovered, analyzed, propogated. In no sense is the system shown in the chart on pp. 144-45 meant to be either exhaustive or immutable Semiology is most definitely not a science in the sense that physics or biology is a science. But it is a logical, often illuminating system that helps to describe how film does what it does, Film is difficult to explain because itis easy to understand, The semiotics of film is easy to explain, because itis difficult to understand. Somewhere between lies the genius of film, SYNTAX Film has no grammar. There are, however, some vaguely defined rules ‘of usage in cinematic Language, and the syntax of flm-—its systematic arrangement—orders these rules and indicates relationships between them. As with written and spoken languages, itis important to remem- THE LANGUAGE OF FILM. SIGNS AND SYNTAX 41 gute 3-16 TROFE. An antcovered hand from Dali and Bufuels seal clic Un (Chen Andalou (1928). Another very complex image not easly enaljeed, Ince, fe dexial and Symbolic values are all present the image striking fort own sakes ea ‘measure of the infestation ofthe sul ofthe omner ofthe hands iti cerainly sya fs more peneral malaise, a wel Iti metanymic, boca the ants teat eed ‘kes, is alo syneedochic hecanse the hand fe pure that sands for the whole Finally, the source of the image seems co bea trope: verbal pun on the remeh hows ‘avoir des fourmis dans les mains" "eo have ant inthe hand,” am expresso enue lent tothe English *mny hand is asleep.” By ilsrating the tum of one brea’ Bet uel extended the trope so that common experience is tamed inte sakeng sign of decay, (Tam indebted to David Bomb for this alge, MOMAIESA) ber that the syntax of film is a result of its usuage, not a determinant of it, There is nothing preordained about film syntax. Rather, it evolved naturally as certain devices were found in practice w be both workable and useful. Like the syntax of written and spoken language, the syntax of film is an organic development, descriptive rather than preseriptive, and it has changed considerably over the years. The Hollywood Gram. in rrr cree 42 HOWTO READ A FILM 3:17. ETON GESTURE. Max von Sydow in Ingmar Bergman's Hou al (i960) mar described below may sound laughable now, but during the thirties, forties, and early fifties it was an accurate model of the way Hollywood films were constructed, In written/spoken languge systems, syntax might call the linear aspect of construction: that is, the ways in which words are put together in a chain to form phrases and sentences, what in film we call the syntagmatic category. In file, however, syntax can also include spatial composition, for which there is no parallel in lan ‘guage systems like English and French—we can’t say or write several things at the same time. So film syntax must include both development in time and develop ‘ment in space. In film criticism, generally, the modification of space is referred to as mise en scéne. The French phrase literally means "putting in the scene.” The modification of time is called montage (from the French for “putting together”). As we shall see in Chapter 4, tension between these twin concepts of mice en scene and mi been the engine of film esthetics ever since Lumiére and Mél explored the practical possiblities of each at the tum of the century ‘Over the years, theories of mise en scéne have tended to be closely Is only with what we ‘THE LANGUAGE OF FILM: SIONS AND SYNTAX 43 igure 3-18. and in che same directors Shame (1968). Gesture i one of the most ative facets of film signification. “Kinesis,” o “body language, is basally an Indenca, metonymie sytem of meaning. Here, von Sydow's pose convey the same basic meaning in each film: the hand covers the face, shields it fom the oude world the knees are piled up close almost the fetal position, eo protect the bays ego has shrunk nco a protective shell a sense further emphasized tn the shoe frm Shame by he framed box of the wooden stairway von Sydow is sitting on. Teste muppets femur in bath sos b rior, one inceior—ate rough, bate, trinviing. The meaning the sla ly more open, velakad: 9 is the pose. In Shan, the character (ae this point inthe native) is mottled a serve sed composition ofthe shoe associated with film realism, while montage has been seen as essentially expressionistic, yet this pairing is deceptive, Certainly it would seem would indicate a high regard for the subject in front of the camera, while montage would give the filmmaker more control over the manipulation of the subject, but despite these natural tenden- cies, montage can be the more realistic of the two altematives, and mise en scéne on occasion of the more expressionistic Take, for example, the problem of choosing between a pan from one subject to another and a cut. Most people would agree that the cut is ‘more manipulative, that it interrupts and remodels reality, and that therefore the pan is the more realistic of the two alternatives, since it at mise en sce 144 HOWTO READ A FILM ‘THE LANGUAGE OF FILM: SIGNS AND SYNTAX 145, . ‘optical gator Moral @epeince ‘The sion seconaifeaciog Sianiier Ay Signtieg cuts Yoeance ° © ie X ee ce a iets expat [UNOERSTANDING THE WAGE Parelgmate (catagora teoice) Ming Nay tear Symbol etonymy soy seg) ape tye READING THE IMAGE. The image i experienced as both an opicl and mental phenome- ron. The optieal patter i reed sccadicalys the mental experience ihe revit of the sum of elral determinants andi forms by Poth peal sal metal tllection combine in the coneepe of the sgh, whete sper (i elated to signed ("The Signifer smote optical than mental; the signed more mental then opecal All ce levels of teading—saceaic,semiolgical, and culeual~then combine with each other in various way to produce meaning, either esentlly denotative or exentlly conn preserves the integrity ofthe space. Yet, in fact, the revere is tue if we judge panning and cutting from the point of view of the observer. When we redirect our attention fiom one subject to another we seldom actually pan. Paychologically, the eu i the truer approximation of our natural perception, Fist one subject has our attention, then the other: wwe are seldom interested in the intervening space, yet the cinematic pan draws our attention to just that.” Te was André Bazin who, more chan anyone, developed the connec: tions between mise en scene and realism on the one hand, and montage and expressionism on the cther. At about the same time, in the middle “ic tas been sugested char the sip pan, in which the emetn sec so uiely aha dhe Image in berween the orginal subject and is succes is bluse, wh] e the mnt verisimilitudinous handling of che poble. But even this alterative draws attention to ielf which i preciely what does noe happen sm normal perception. Perhaps the perfect analogue with realty wowld be the dncee ct im whl teow sho Wee Separated by a single Hack frame (or beter yet,» netral gray frame), which would

You might also like