Köse 1

Zeynep Didem Köse

Zeynep Özek

ENG 102-016

23.03.2022

An Analysis of a Shot from In the Mood for Love Through Semiotics

There are usually two levels of meaning a movie scene has when it comes to

film studies. Semiotics is what provides a systemized look towards what is there and

what lies beneath, it studies signs by allowing them to have meaning. A sign can be

an object, a word, an image, and so on. Signs consist of two entities: signifier and

signified. Signifier is the tangible part that can be seen, observed and heard.

Signified, on the other hand, is what can be perceived from the signifier or sort of a

mental response to the signifier. For example, ‘a judge’s hammer’ might be a

 Köse 2

signifier, while ‘law and order’ might be what it signifies, making it the signified.

Therefore, ‘a judge’s hammer’ and ‘law and order’ form a sign as a whole. Especially

in movies, semiotics assists the viewer to have a deeper look at, not just the explicit,

but the implicit meanings behind what is there. The focus of this essay is to resurface

what may be secluded from one particular shot of In the Mood for Love, by Wong

Kar-wai, a film directed in the year 2000. The movie takes place in 1960s Hong Kong,

where two main characters move into apartments next to each other. However, they

soon find out their spouses are cheating with one another and this news leads them

to have a closer bond. The particular shot in question of the essay happens to take

place in one of the apartments where the viewer peaks at them from a corridor. There

are various scenes in Wong Kar-wai’s In the Mood for Love that are shot from the

doorway of the room that the action is taking place in. This specific shot here,

features both of the main characters: Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow. They appear to be

having a conversation. Mr. Chow is standing but leaning towards Mrs. Chan while

holding a drink in his left hand and putting his right hand on the side table for support.

He is wearing quite formal clothing: a white shirt, gray pants and a brown-orange tie.

The sleeves of his shirt are cuffed and he is not wearing a jacket to go with his pants.

Most probably he is back home from work. Mrs. Chan, however, is sitting on a wire

chair, cross-legged, showing her side profile to the camera. Her hair is in an up-do

and she is looking at some papers. Her posture and her clothes are very put-

together. The main light source in the scene is the lamp behind Mrs. Chan. The light

hits the white papers and reflects back to her face. The walls are a pale shade of

purple and most of the furniture is not very vibrant. Besides what the scene denotes,

what might not be evident in the signs, that spread across the scene, can be

resurfaced through the use of semiotics. The film still in question, awakens a sense
 Köse 3

of distance that both the characters and the viewer is incapable of reaching,

therefore, hints at a concept that may be hidden to one’s eye at first glance and

connotes: inability to surpass this distance, as it is prominent in the walls in the

foreground, the direction Mrs. Chan faces, the placement of the light source and the

drink in Mr. Chow's hand.

The foreground of the shot, that consists of the hallway of the apartment,

signify putting distance between the viewer and the action that is taking place. The

signifier, which are the walls, and the signified, which is being an obstacle to block

the viewer, arouses the feeling of incompetence inside the watcher, because even

though they watch two people speak, the conversation they are eavesdropping is

meant to be secret, something no one should hear. By putting an obstacle, such as

the walls, between the viewer and the characters, Wong Kar-wai manages to

distance the viewer from this unspeakable act, their forbidden love. This scene is not

the only shot that is shot from some sort of hindrance, in fact there are many. Wong,

the director, states that “the point of this technique was to include the spectator in the

scene, as though he or she were also a resident” and the editor of the film William

Chang suggests that “its purpose was to eliminate ‘direct contact with the characters

… [while] looking at things from afar’” (Brunette 92). So, the walls connote this idea of

elimination of first hand communication as if the viewer is peaking at the characters

rather than freely watching them interact. The darkness and the dullness of the color

of the walls awakens a pessimist aura around the characters, then, when the scene

is watched, the viewer has to quint their eyes to see what is going on. This adds

another layer of distance to the scene. Just like their relationship with each other, the

viewer is so close, yet so far from them. Thus, the foreground and the color palette of

the scene refers back to the concept that there is a distance that is impassable.
 Köse 4

Mrs. Chan’s face is turned away from the camera, making it out of reach from

the camera, therefore, adding a sense of separation between her and the viewer.

She is positioned in such a way in the composition that the expressions or mimics

she is doing are invisible. Yet, the lamp behind her shines on the papers she is

holding, and the papers are reflecting the light back to her face, as if it is something

desirable or alluring for the viewer. Her face is a thing that is unattainable. Again,

Wong Kar-wai is restricting the viewer, by putting a barrier, however, this time it is not

as clear of a barrier such as the walls, but, it is her hiding away her face. This fits into

the overall structure of the film, as Brunette claims: “An extended series of short

vignettes that have a cumulative effect aimed more at enhancing our emotional

relation to the principal characters than our involvement with the plot, while keeping

us distanced from them” (97). Therefore, the viewer is moved away from the action.

The movie acts out as if the viewer is secretly watching it and it is not for their

entertainment. The way Mrs. Chan sits further improves the significance of inability in

the shot by making the viewer feel incapable, similar to how the characters feel.

Thus, the position of the lamp highlighting her face while the viewer is unable to see

her, refers back to the idea of distancing and a sense of incapability in reaching.

The light’s function in the shot is to emphasize how Mr. Chow is incompetent

to use his brain for decision making. The light, in this scene, only shines down from

his neck, leaving his head to be in shadows. What this represents is, no matter how

unable he may be, his heart is the one that influences him. There is distance

between his logic and his emotions. “Lighting creates our sense of cinematic space

by illuminating people and things, creating highlights and shadows, and defining

shapes and textures” (Barsam & Monahan 219). So, the usage of lighting defines a

distance between his heart and his brain. By excluding his head in the scene through
 Köse 5

the use of shadows, the disappearance of logic, therefore, a lack of ability to make

sane decisions is what is defined in the shot. The underlying connotation here is that

their love is something that they will unlikely achieve. Therefore, the light helps to

improve the feeling of distance by accentuating the length between his decision

making and his feelings.

The inclusion of an alcoholic drink in Mr. Chow’s hand, also, symbolizes the

dismissal of reasoning and rationale. By drinking, he is giving up to his desires,

putting a distance between his reality and his longings. Him drinking, is a way for the

viewer to understand that the choices made here are made in a drunken state of

mind. He is distant from the moment. “Movies convey and imply smaller, more

specific doses of both kinds of meaning in virtually every scene” (Barsam & Monahan

12). So, even, the presence of alcohol underlines the notion of failure to act freely. In

conclusion, the drink portrays a crucial role in grasping the concept of distancing

himself, while serving as a depiction of irrationality.

To sum up, the film still in question signifies how a lack of ability is blatant in

the scene, via both simultaneously putting obstacles in front of the viewer and

illustrating how the characters have an absence of competence when it comes to

decision making. The argument to be made here is that through the use of semiotics,

the clarity of the concept of inability is undoubtedly evident. What the viewer sees on

the screen and what lies beneath it is an exquisite example of how restriction can be

perceived in cinema.
 Köse 6

Works Cited

Barsam, Richard M, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to

Film. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2010. Print.

Brunette, Peter. Wong Kar-wai. University of Illinois Press, 2005. Project

MUSE muse.jhu.edu/book/28875.