2003.02.10 - SLIDE 1IS246 - SPRING 2003

Lecture 07: Semiotic Media Theory

IS246Multimedia Information

(FILM 240, Section 4)

Prof. Marc DavisUC Berkeley SIMS

Monday and Wednesday 2:00 pm – 3:30 pmSpring 2003

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/academics/courses/is246/s03/

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 2IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 3IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 4IS246 - SPRING 2003

Assignment 1: Film Theory Application

• Analyze a short motion picture sequence

• Re-edit the sequence

• Analyze your re-edited sequence

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 5IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 6IS246 - SPRING 2003

The Sign

Concept

Sound-Image

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 7IS246 - SPRING 2003

The Linguistic Sign

“dog”

dog

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 8IS246 - SPRING 2003

The Video Sign

“dog”

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 9IS246 - SPRING 2003

Arbitrariness of the Video Sign

• Theories of video denotation– Iconic (i.e., onomatopoetic)

• Video is a mechanical replication of what it represents

– Arbitrary• Video constructs an arbitrary relationship between

signifier and signified

– Motivated• The relationship between the signifier and signified

is motivated, but by what?– A “natural” analogy between video and the world?– By the conventions of cinematic language?

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 10IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 11IS246 - SPRING 2003

Articulation

• Articulation– Any form of semiotic organization which produces

distinct combinable units

• Double articulation in natural language– First articulation

• Morphemes: smallest formal units of significance (e.g., “cow”)

• Constructed out of phonemes

– Second articulation• Phonemes: sound units which in and of themselves lack

significance (e.g., “c” “ow”)

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 12IS246 - SPRING 2003

Commutation

• Etymologically “change together”

• The substitution of one signifier for another produces a change of the signified

• Example in phonemes to morphemes– Different pronunciations of the “ow” in “cow”

will still be understood as “cow”– But we distinguish “cow” “caw” “quay” “coo”

“cal”

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 13IS246 - SPRING 2003

Cinematic Articulations

• Metz– Cinema has no double articulation because its

smallest units (“shots”) are significant– Based on Bazinian view of cinema as

reproduction of reality

• Eco– Cinema has three levels of articulation which

include sub-shot units– Similar to Eisensteinian view of cinema as

construction of representations

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 14IS246 - SPRING 2003

Eco’s Photographic Articulations

• Iconic semes– Example: “a dark-haired man stands here

wearing a patterned shirt”

• Iconic signs– Example: human nose, human eye, shirt, etc.

• Iconic figures– Example: angles, light contrasts, curves, etc.

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 15IS246 - SPRING 2003

Eco’s Cinematic Articulations

• Kinesic semes (kinemorphs)– Example: “I’m saying yes to the person on the

right”

• Kinesic signs (kines)– Example: Nod head yes

• Kinesic figures– Example: move head to right, move head up,

move head down

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 16IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 17IS246 - SPRING 2003

Metz’s Grand Syntagmatique

Autonomous Segments

Autonomous Shot

Syntagmas

Achronological Syntagmas

Chronological Syntagmas

Parallel Syntagma

Bracket Syntagma

Descriptive Syntagma

Narrative Syntagmas

Alternate (Narrative) Syntagma

Linear (Narrative) Syntagmas

Scene

Sequences

Episodic Sequence

Ordinary Sequence

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 18IS246 - SPRING 2003

Metz’s Grand Syntagmatique

• Autonomous Shot (single shot)– Single-Shot Sequence (complete unto itself)– Inserts (differentiated from shot context)

• Non-diegetic insert– A single shot which presents objects exterior to the story

world

• Displaced diegetic insert– Diegetic images temporally and/or spatially out of context

• Subjective insert– Memories, fears, dreams, etc. of character

• Explanatory insert– Single shots which clarify diegetic events

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 19IS246 - SPRING 2003

Metz’s Grand Syntagmatique

• Achronological Syntagmas– Parallel Syntagma (alternating)

• Two alternating motifs without clear spatial or temporal relationship

– Bracket Syntagma (non-alternating)• Brief scenes without temporal sequence but often organized

around a concept

• Chronological Syntagmas– Descriptive Syntagma (non-narrative)

• Objects shown to create spatial contiguity to situate action

– Narrative Syntagmas (narrative)

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 20IS246 - SPRING 2003

Metz’s Grand Syntagmatique

• Narrative Syntagmas– Alternate (Narrative) Syntagma

• Narrative crosscutting showing temporal simultaneity (“parallel action”)

– Linear (Narrative) Syntagma• Scene (continuous)

– Spatial contiguity and temporal continuity across a series of shots

• Sequences (elliptical)– Episodic Sequence

» Symbolic summary of chronological progression usually to compress time (“montage sequence”)

– Ordinary Sequence

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 21IS246 - SPRING 2003

Burch’s Transitions

• Temporal transitions– Continuous– Discontinuous

• Temporal ellipsis– Measurable time ellipsis– Indefinite time ellipsis

• Temporal reversal (flashback, overlapping cut)

– Measurable time reversal– Indefinite time reversal

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 22IS246 - SPRING 2003

Burch’s Transitions

• Spatial transitions– Continuous

– Discontinuous• Proximal• Radically discontinuous

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 23IS246 - SPRING 2003

Barthes’ Action Sequences

• Consecutive– Temporal succession

• Consequential– Causal succession

• Volitive– Action results from an act of will

• Reactive– Causal succession based on stimulus-response

• Durative– Indicating the beginning, ending, or duration of an action

• Equipollent– Necessarily paired actions (e.g., asking a question and

answering a question)

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 24IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 25IS246 - SPRING 2003

Discussion Questions (Metz)

• Metz “Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema” (Angel Gonzalez)– What is the difference between “langage” and

“langue” according to Metz?– Metz's “grammar” is based on the semes developed

by the study of narrative film. Does the language of cinema according to Metz explain documentary film, whose “shots” may not necessarily involve as much choice (mise-en-scene) in the part of the author as fiction?

– Or maybe the producers of modern documentary (and reality TV) unconsciously select frames of reality that seem somehow mise-en-scene (or aestheticized), and are therefore more understandable by an audience accustomed to narrative film?

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 26IS246 - SPRING 2003

Discussion Questions (Metz)

• Metz “Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema” (Milos Ribic)– How are methods of linguistics, such as commutation,

the distinction between substance and form, etc., becoming more refined through time?

– How significant is verbal language to the “cinematographic language” and what are the other characteristics of “cinematographic language” that are greatly important?

– Could we apply the same methods when we study linguistics to the methods when we study cinema?

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 27IS246 - SPRING 2003

Discussion Questions (Eco)

• Metz “Articulations of the Cinematic Code” (Mahad Ibrahim)– Why do we need a language of cinema?  If such a

language exists, and is a reflection of convention and culture as Eco argues, then is it possible to have several languages of film (for example, the Hollywood vs. Bollywood languages)?

– Is the language of cinema a set of codes for describing “reality” or “nature”, or does it have some other purpose?

– Iconic codes seem to be one of the base units of Eco’s language of cinema.  How are these iconic codes represented in the films we have experienced?

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 28IS246 - SPRING 2003

Discussion Questions (Burch)

• Burch “Theory of Film Practice” (Lily Chen)– The author gives the same importance to

disorientation as well as to orientation. But will the disorientation (to some degree) have a negative impact on the audience's perception of the narrative structure, for it asks for more effort from the audience to reconstruct the narrative structure?

– Is there any qualitative or quantitative research about where the “right point” or a range for this “right point” for a match-cut between two shots is?

– What are the possible applications of these shot transition principles to the storytelling process of a non-fictional information record system?

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 29IS246 - SPRING 2003

Discussion Questions (Barthes)

• Barthes “Action Sequences” (Dilan Mahendran)– Does the “narrative” have free will separate from the

story and characters? How does Barthes’ insistence that “banal” actions versus novelesque actions lead him to see that the narrative is ultimately concerned with self preservation?

– According to Barthes the “classical” narrative can be measured and classified which implies a logic that is constructed rather than an innate structure of the human mind. What seems to be a natural sequence of actions in a narrative is an “irreversible order of logic and time.” Is it possible for narratives to approach “reversibility” or a reordering of the logic and time but remain readable in the classical sense?

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 30IS246 - SPRING 2003

Today’s Agenda

• Review of Last Time

– Assignment 1

• Semiotic Media Theory

– The Video Sign

– Cinematic Articulations

– Syntagmatic Structures

• Discussion

• Action Items for Next Time

2003.02.10 - SLIDE 31IS246 - SPRING 2003

Preparation for Next Week

• Come to class with– A new gesture you have invented– A reaction you can easily perform