1. 2003.02.10 - SLIDE 1IS246 - SPRING 2003 Lecture 07: Semiotic Media Theory IS246 Multimedia Information (FILM 240, Section 4) Prof. Marc Davis UC Berkeley SIMS Monday and Wednesday 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm Spring 2003 http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/academics/courses/is246/s03/

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 2003.02.10 - SLIDE 6IS246 - SPRING 2003 The Sign Concept Sound-Image

7. 2003.02.10 - SLIDE 7IS246 - SPRING 2003 The Linguistic Sign “dog” dog

8. 2003.02.10 - SLIDE 8IS246 - SPRING 2003 The Video Sign “dog”

9. 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?

10. 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

11. 2003.02.10 - SLIDE 11IS246 - SPRING 2003 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”)

12. 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”

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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

22. 2003.02.10 - SLIDE 22IS246 - SPRING 2003 Burch’s Transitions Spatial transitions –Continuous –Discontinuous Proximal Radically discontinuous

23. 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)

24. 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

25. 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?

26. 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?

27. 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?

28. 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?

29. 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?

30. 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

31. 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