SEMIOTICS AND THE

CINEMA:METZ AND WOLLEN

GILBERT HARMEN
• Semiotics means theory of signs
• Semiotics in cinema –theory film as a system
of signs.
• Film as a language –develop linguistics of
language of film.
 Christian Metz view on Semiotics
• Concerned with certain aspects of meaning
and significance it can create on spectators.
• Direct concern with relation btw sound and
image, nature of film image ,various kinds of
editing.
• Not concerned with camera
mechanism ,process of developing and
printing films.
Technological structure of film industry.
• Despite existence of variety of movie genre we
restrict our study to narrative films.
• Before narrative cinema ,it was just a recorder
of events , technological resource.
• It was after advent of narrative cinema
become a signifying system.
• First Denotation and then connotation
• Denotation is the various aspects in whivh plot
is presented
• Connotation is symbolic ,philosophical ,human
messages.
DENOTATION CONNOTATION

• Basic material • Partly indicated by

• Sounds and images denotation
constitute the plot. • What happens in a movie
• Denotation is primary has a certain significance.
• Sign is denotation • Connotation is secondary.
• Significance is connotation.
• What is signified by a sign
when it combines with
aspects of basic materials of
film &story
• How narrative films represent their plot?
• How does the cinema indicate successivity ,
precession, temporal breaks?
• Linguistic denotation is conventional.
• In order to interpret a sentence one should
know relevant conventions.
• A shot of a man on a horse has an immediate
natural interpretation ,which does not depend
on any conventions.
• Films does not have a syntax .
• No unit of film corrosponds to word in a
language.
• Even an image itself at the level of a sentence
• There is no room for being ungrammatical in
film language.
• There are certain rules and conventions called
“codes” narrative movies use to indicate their
denotations.
• Job of semiotics is to specify this code and say
how they work.
• Filmic punctuation like fade/dissolve.
• Films are made up of minimal sequences called
syntagmas.
• Syntagmas can be distinguished on the basis of
montage and what it signifies.
• Different views of a house is descriptive syntagma.
• Series of shots on war is a bracketed syntagma
–number of things grouped together because
of certain association among things.
• Alternating shots of different actions
indicating they are happening simultaneously.
• Eg. Telephone conversation at opposite ends.
• Metz now attemps to classify these codes
based on their generality.
• Some codes are related to narration,
depiction , some photo graphic images
correlated with sounds.
• Film semanticist concerned only with codes
that are specific to films.
• Eg. Film punctuation. various synagmas,
meaning of close ups, zoom shots.
• We can investigate style and genre by seeing
subcodes and codes used in that particular
genre.
• Based on the above given shots itself we can
characterize their genre.
• Metz idea of denotation and connotation have
many limitations.
• In order to understand a syntagma,we need to
know all denotative features of all shots.
• According to Harmen Metz analysis of film is
problematic , only significant contribution is
that of his classification of syntagmas. That
too only theoretical not practical
•
 Wollen’s idea of Semiotics
• Study o film should take the form of semiotics of
the cinema.
• Wollen wanted to develop semiotics in
accordance with theory of signs by American
philosopher C S Peirce.
• According to CS Peirce sign has 3 aspects
1. .Iconic
2. Indexical
3. Symbolic
• Sign as an icon—significance based on inner
nature-significance through structural
resemblances.eg. Paintings,diagrams
• Sign as index—real connection btw sign and
what it signify eg . Proper
names,demonstrative pronouns.
• Sign as symbol—significance through
convention or arbitrary decision
• Most signs have more than one aspect.
• A sentence in language may have iconic, indexical
and symbolic aspects.
• A photograph has indexical aspect.ie, there is a
connection between picture and the object it
photographed.
• Have iconic aspect too because of resemblances
• Symbolic aspect too may be there if it appeal to
some sort of convention
• According to Wollen , in cinema indexical and
iconic aspects are by far most powerful ,
symbolic aspect comes secondary.
• These submerged symbolic secondary aspects
assume importance.
• This submerged aspect is the poetry of
cinema ,which is more palpable.
• According to Wollen , Mets was wrong in
taking linguistic analogy to interpret cinema,
thus he overlooked the fact that film is
primarily iconic and indexical than symbolic.
• Conventional ymbols or codes in film is
different from its role in language.
• Relevent code in cinema is primarily
concerned with poetic rather than literal.
• The primary task of film semanticist is to
uncover uncover codes exploited in films
• Though signs are used to communicate
messages, in cinema it is not always so.
• A director is constructing signs in oreder to
see what are the implications of those signs
are.
• So Wollen completely rejects Metz idea of the
purpose of film semiotics is to study ordering and
functioning of the main signifying units used in
the filmic message.
• As an art film exploit and call attention to various
codes.
• Both Metz and Wollen believe theory of film
must become a part of semiotics.
• Mets believed methedology of linguistics could
be applied to cinema semiotics.
• But Wollen do not believe in it ,linguistic
signification is different from filmic signification.
• Wollen believes that we need to dissolve
cinema criticism and cinema aesthetics into a
special province of science of signs.
• Their difference is only in change of emphasis.
 Codes
• According to Metz and Wollen codes are used as
a means of standard as well as cipher.(to decode
means decipher)
• As a dress code and musical codes.
• Musical codes does not have meaning – when we
listen to that music it got a structure and
meaning.
• In case of dress code too we have to uncover the
code only then when can reach the meaning.
• Any system or structure might be called as a
code—in decoding we are uncovering that
structure and attains meaning.
• Any system of assumption , beliefs, ideology
or stereotypes that is relied on or alluded to in
a film or other work of art can be called a code.
• Harman completely denounces mets and
wollens use of the idea of code.
• To understand a movie we need not
appreciate something as sign.
• Metz and Wollen have no reason to give to
identify film theory with film semiotics.
• Cinema is not a system signs and film semiotic
s is not a science to analyze those signs.
• When we take Peirce’s interpretation of signs
there is no unitary way of explanation.
• Smoke means fire, combustion means fire but
meaning is not in the same sense.
• Smoke is just an indication ,sign or symptom
of fire
• People do not use ‘smoke’ to indicate fire.
• So Peirce sign need to have a theory of
intended meaning ,theory of evidence,theory
of pictorial depiction.
• Theory of representation
• in our aesthetic, scientific, practical thinking
we often think one thing stand for another .
Actually it is not true pictures do not what
they depict , words do not stand for their
meaning, evidence does not stand for what it
indicate
• A loose balloon cought in overhead wires
symbolize death of a girl who earlier saw holding
a balloon.
• earlier photo graphic images do not stand for girl
with a balloon.
• Capturing of balloon does not indicate capturing
of girl . The balloon stands for the girl in the
context.
• The capturing wires do not directly represent her
death---but capture which leads to her death.
• Some times we arbitrarily think one thing stand
for another.
• To conclude, Mets and Wollen advocate replace
film theory and criticism with cinema
• Harmen is dubious about this idea.
• Many aspects of film theory may seem part of
semiotics only because of the equivocation in the
use of the word code.
• In Peirce’s theory of signs does not have laws or
general principles
• Semiotics is a collection of 3 0r 4 disperate
subjects.
• We are not sure close study of any of these
subjects may do any good for the study of film.