Structuralism and Semiotics within Film
Abstract
Many works of film theory utilise the tools of structuralism and semiotics to imbue a work of art with meaning. Films in this paper will be defined broadly to include matter (celluloid), technique (from camera style, cutting, and editing choices), and final product (the end result which is a movie). Structuralism is the employment conventions, similar to the way language builds meaning in communication, to convey a purpose or meaning. The components of film that can be used in structuralist film theory include, but are certainly not limited to, lighting, cultural references, symbolism, angle and shot duration. Through using these elements, audience members are led on a path imbued with richness to convey a message and construct meaning. Semiotics in film may seem similar but is fundamentally different as it is the study of signs in films as they exist on a variety of levels, but does not necessarily mean that they are tied to a central purpose or one specific meaning. Semiotics originated in the 1920s in European film and has since expanded as a universally accepted theory. As both structuralism and semiotics stemmed from the early 1900s, their role in contemporary film studies is ever prominent and ever changing in the way language constructs meaning.
Film Theory: Structuralism and Semiotics
There are many branches of film theory but the two, which drive film studies analyses, are structuralism and semiotics. Structuralism is the employment of conventions and use of codes, similar to the way language builds meaning in communication, to convey a purpose or meaning. The components of film that can be used in structuralist film theory include, but are certainly not limited to, lighting, cultural references, symbology, angle and shot duration. Through using these elements, audience members are led on a path imbued with richness to convey a message and construct meaning. Semiotics in film may seem similar but is fundamentally different as it is the study of signs in films as they exist on a variety of levels, but does not necessarily mean that they are tied to a central purpose or one specific meaning. Semiotics originated in the 1920s in European film and has since expanded as a universally accepted theory. As both structuralism and semiotics stemmed from the early 1900s, their role in contemporary film studies is ever prominent and ever changing in the way language constructs meaning.
In order to understand structuralism and semiotics, one must consider the multiples level on which the representation of language exists. The first would be material which stands for something else, for example logos or graphic marks in marketing or advective disturbances of air in speech. Another would be the mental images associated or called up with the “meaning” or perceived material. Lastly, real world objects to which the first two parts of a word of phrase correspond or refer to. For Saussure, one of the expert linguists of semioticians who laid the foundations for these theories, considers the first (perceivable material) a “signifier” and the second (meaning), the “signified”. Of course, language is inherently complex and thus meanings must be sought at several levels.
A major turning point in film studies occurred in the 1960s, at the onset of the movement known as structuralism: a way to analyse the structures of logic and language of cultural products and practices. Structuralism hit its peak and became well-known very quickly in the mid-1960s in France when, according to Rosen (1986), there was extensive interest in understanding the structural phenomena in many distinct fields (e.g. anthropology, sociology, philosophy, literature, film) by analyzing the significance of seemingly meaningless objects or concepts through structures derived from parts of classical linguistic structures. This “linguistic approach” was a prominent movement in the study in cinema in which artifacts with obvious roots in verbal language or not-obvious roots, claimed a special spot in communicating messages to audiences. Structuralism became a lens of unraveling the hidden connections beneath surface appearances, from tribal cultures to fashion advertising, in order to understand the ways in which cultural practices engender significance and meaning.
Semiotics, the study of signs, signification, and systems of signification, emerged from a wide array of twentieth-century thinkers including Levi-Strauss, Merleau-Ponty, Cassirer, and Heidegger, although humans have been reflecting on language since its inception. Linguistic inquiry date back to classical Greek, Indian, and Chinese texts and cultures and arguably is an inherent form of all cultures rooted in oral histories. However, the traditional theory of semiotics is considered to be a western philosophical tradition and speculation between the relationships of words and things. One of the central questions of semiotics, according to Robert Stam relates to whether or not there is a direct and inherent link to words and the objects they describe or whether or not the relationship is “only socially determined and consensual.” (1992 p. 2)
In a philosophical query between Heraclitus and Democritus, a difference between names and signs where the link between a natural connection with objects or an arbitrary connection between words and things. This discussion took place in Plato’s Cratylus, which according to Stam was the “earliest record of any extended debate on linguistic questions revolving around this “correctness of names” (1992 p. 3). From these discussions stemmed the classical philosophy, Platonic Realism, or the belief that humanity and trust exist independently of our human experience in comparison to Aristotelian Realism that coins the viewpoint that universals only exist in physical objects in the outer world.
Although these texts discussed themes and questions inherent in the idea of semiotics, the first modern philosopher to actually use this term was John Locke who stated, “semiotike or the doctrine of signs which is the analysis and consideration of signs the minds makes use of in order to understand things and/or to convey its knowledge to others” (4.21.4), in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). The two true thinkers who founded contemporary semiotics were Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), an American pragmatic philosopher, and Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), a Swiss linguist. Although these founders rose to power around the same time, neither knew of each other, and two separate aspects of semiotics formed the science of “semiotics” was founded by Peirce whereas Saussure founded the science of “semiology”. The classic definition of semiology by Saussure is:
“A science that studies the life of signs within society is conceivable; it would be a part of social psychology and consequently of general psychology; I call it semiology (from Greek semeion ‘sign’). Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them. Since the science does not yet exist, no on eca say what it would be; but it has a right to existence, a place staked out in advance” (Saussure 1966:16).
Saussure still stands as the founding figure in the continuation of semiotics as well as structuralism in Europe, especially for much of film semiotics. A revolution spurted from Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics when he claimed that language is not a mere adjunct to our understanding of the world and reality but rather forms our view and perception of reality. The idea of synchronism or when things happen at the same time is a foundational idea of semiotics as many elements come into play in one moment to form a singular understanding of language. Another major point in Saussure’s structuralism theory is that one word’s meaning must be referenced and connected to the entire language structure, the deeper structure, where that word is placed rather than analysing the word independently.
According to Silvio Gaggi, a professor of Humanities at the University of South Florida and an expert on film and arts of the twentieth summarizes his views on Semiotics in the paper Semiotics, Marxism, and the Movies. Gaggi claims:
“Film is a dynamic analog system which can be a means of provoking a fundamental critique of world structures rooted in language. Certainly no film can be completely objective; but film can provide a view of reality which complements and criticizes that of articulated language. Whereas language, because of its digital nature, fractures reality and emphasizes the separation and individuality of things (including humans) and has the tendency to place those things into pre-established and stereotyped structures, relationships, and activities, film need submit to no such requirement. If used properly it can provide us with an experience which should inform, cause us to revise, and ultimately enrich our notion of what is.” (1978, p. 468)
In this notion of carrying on semiotics, he differentiates between film semiotics and reality and the importance of film is bringing one’s awareness to what is and the hidden messages behind what ones sees.
One example of structural analysis of film is in a scene from The Birds, a 1963 film by Alfred Hitchcock. In a six minute scene with little dialogue, the visual structures at work portray a message in accordance with the Oedipus complex, which underlies a romantic couples’ formation. The Oedipus complex, for those who are unfamiliar, is a theory formulated by Sigmund Freud, a founding father of the discipline of psychoanalysis, in which it is believed that men sometimes have an unconscious desire and love for his mother and hatred towards his father as he holds feelings of jealousy towards his father for sleeping with his mothers. It is believed that these feelings are dissolved once the boy realizes his father’s authority and accepts his father as the primary recipient of the mother’s love.
The visual structures used are not necessarily details that would be easily recognised by a viewer at the usual 24 frames per second. Instead they are underlying or hidden and thus, these intimate structures content with a deeper meaning and level of understanding that requires viewers to see beneath the explicit. It is the understanding of the scene at the micro-level and the relationship between shots and their meanings, that is in accordance with structuralist principles.
A sub-category of structuralism that this scene exemplifies is a system of editing called parallel montage (alternation). The differences between what the characters “see” and and them “seeing” and the alternations of these perspectives is what imbues meaning to the audience members. Moreover, each audience member’s understanding of the scene is derived from the character’s point-of-view, which changes depending on which aspect the director decided to focus on. This relationship between hidden imagery, relationship development, perspective and the underlying connection to the Oedipus complex, is what makes this scene a formative example of structuralism.
Arguably, an example of semiotics in film is the Disney Pixar animated movie, Shrek. To some, Shrek is a classic fairy tale with the language of good guy, damsel in distress, the evil ones (witch, knight, king) and weary parents and follows the predictable sequence: stability-disruption-stability. However, the ways in which Shrek becomes a memorable fairy tales are the ways in which it breaks the stereotypes and establishes a new parole as a comedy. In this way, the film’s semiotics can be analysed in three concepts: 1) language and parole 2) syntagms and paradigms and 3) paradigmatic analysis. The paradigmatic analysis falls in two parts, both the signifier and signified (through replacement) and binary opposition (in character portrayal). Shrek occupies a syntagmatic axis as a romantic fairytale with the typical parts: hero, heroine, evil, obstacle, helper, and paradigm. These paradigmatic axes have comedic and pathetic (pathos) aspects and break stereotypes known by the conventional fairy tale and thus the film emerges as an entirely unique parole. Therefore, the symbols of the film hold a unique value in both keeping the integrity of classical fairy tale components as well as breaking the mold and foraging a new type of fairy tale that is both shatters stereotypes and is highly comedic.
One of the most fundamental take-a-way messages of semiotics and structuralism in film is recognised the fundamental issue of subjectivity; the problem that no two viewers are identical and thus we can verify for certain or ascertain the same meaning of signage or symbology in film for any two people. There are great differences, however, in the ways that meaning can be presented either visually to viewers or through literary text. Films naturally narrow epistemological style toward visualisation and thus the senses that a viewer can imbue a scene with meaning is reduced in comparison to a literary work where a seer can imagine infinite possibilities for meaning. There is no question that films can communicate meaning, however there is a different kind of meaning portrayed in verbal art. As stated in Johnson’s Literature, Film, and the Evolution of Consciousness, J. R. R. Tolkien is a prolific writer who makes use of both visual and verbal mediums to get a message across and makes this point:
“The radical distinction between all art (including drama) that offers a visible presentation and true literature is that it imposes on visible form. Literature works from mind to mind and is thus more progentive. It is at once more universal and more poignantly particular. If it speaks of bread or wine or stone or tree, it appeals to the whole of these things to their ideas; yet each herar will give to them a peculiar personal embodiment in his imagination” (1979 p. 35).
This distinction between verbal and pictorial art is highly useful as it communicates the difference in a medium operating through “invisible form”, or literary text, versus a medium that works “progenitively” and communicates between minds through imagery. Johnsons uses Gerald Mast’s words to further clarifies this distinction:
“It is the sheer physical power of an effective cinema experience that separates the pleasure of cinema from of other forms of arts. Our apprehension of the experience is so much more immediate, direct, concrete. Cinema conducts us through the surrogate existence, which forms the basis of all the mimetic arts more concretely, more sensually than any other art. It is as close as the surrogate existence can be to life itself and yet not life at all. It is just as tactile and as concrete as a dream can get. It makes more demands on our senses and nerves and fewer demands on our imaginations than any other art.” (1979 p. 35)
In this sense, Mast considers a visual image to be more concrete than a verbal image through text while also introducing the differences in experiences of time and ages through literary and cinematic experiences. Whereas in a literary experience, the mind is open to all the possibilities of imagination, one goes through a sequence of images, in a formalised structure, within a linear chain that is controlled by “mechanical projection”. This is why structuralism can only exist in the form of films; whereas semiotics is relevant in both films and literature. Some film-goers may always prefer reading literary works rather than seeing them in the form of the film for this reason: through engaging with verbal art, the reader is always in control of the experience at this or her own rate and through his or her personal mnemonic composition of visual configurations. These visual configurations are entirely unique and up to one’s personal creativity which cannot be bounded by someone else’s “structuralist” objectives. Thus, through reading a literary work, their imaginative expectations become a part of the experience of imbuing meaning in the work, which is not at all possible in the film where the meanings are portrayed through physical forms and elements.
The study of signs and meanings in film, whether defined as structuralism and semiotics, does not obviate the study of how those theories extenuate or operate in human society. In order to understand how these endeavors play into our lives, it is necessary to recognise that there are distinct sign systems. Film is inherently unique as it is a medium that can provide a way of sign making suited to mimic reality and have viewers experience the world by which can provoke a critique of reality and social structures or constructs. These pathways to understanding the world and meanings in a new ways is rooted in that of articular language.
References
Ahern, M 2013, ‘An Invisible Cinema’, Millennium Film Journal, 58, pp. 94-99, Art Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost, viewed 10 June 2014.
Albera, F 2013, ‘Film, Culture, 1955-1996 Index. (English)’, 1895, 70, pp. 231-234, Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 June 2014.
Biemann C, 2002, ‘Semiotic Analysis of Films’, Web, mauschristoph.de/projekte/english-version/semiotic-analysis-of-films/index.php, viewed 10 June 2014.
Bordwell, D 2010, ‘The Part-Time Cognitivist: A View from Film Studies’, Projections: The Journal for Movies & Mind, 4, 2, pp. 1-18, Film & Television Literature Index with Full Text EBSCOhost, viewed 8 June 2014.
Gaggi, S 1978, ‘Semiology, Marxism, and the Movies’, Journal Of Aesthetics And Art Criticism, 36, pp. 461-469, Philosopher’s Index, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 June 2014.
Harries, DM 1995, ‘The Semi-Semiotics of Film’, Film Criticism, 20, 1/2, pp. 39-54, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 June 2014.
Johnson Jr., WC 1979 ‘Literature, Film, and the Evolution of Consciousness’, Journal Of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 38, 1, p. 29, Humanities International Index, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 June 2014.
Lanigan, R. L 1982, ‘Structuralism and Semiotics: The Foundations of Contemporary Film Theory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, McGraw Hill: UK, viewed 10 June 2014.
Rosen, P 1986, ‘The Saussurian Impulse and Cinema Studies’, Narrative Apparatus, Ideology, A Film Theory Reader, Columbia University Press, viewed 10 June 2014.
Stam, R, Burgoyne, R, & Flitterman-Lewis, S 1992, New Vocabularies In Film Semiotics: Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, And Beyond, n.p.: London; New York: Routledge, 1992., EBSCOhost, viewed 10 June 2014.
Wolfreys, J 1999, Literary Theories: A Reader And Guide, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 8 June 2014.
