This weeks readings by Nowell-Smith (2000) and Ellis (1982) question whether Film and TV is a language. Both texts discuss how messages are communicated to the audience through these mediums, such as semiotics and narration, but Nowell-Smith also talks about why things have meaning in films specifically, and how representation and meaning differ (i.e. the way something is shown on-screen does not inevitably result in its intended meaning, but also depends on how the viewer makes sense of what they see). Alternatively, Ellis contrasts the ways that film creates meaning with the various techniques used in broadcast TV to give the viewer information (for instance, the use of segments to lead the narration).
Nowell-Smith talks about the difference between an artistic language - like reading music - and a natural language, like Spanish or French. Cinema presents many examples of artistic language that can be easily understood by the audience, e.g. a montage of different locations with the same characters communicates the passage of time. If ‘in language there are only differences’, then this would show the difference between standard narrative editing and a cinematic code to convey information (Nowell-Smith, 2000: 12). This idea of language codes links to Ellis' ideas about repetition. In cinema it is normal to see these codes used repetitively because it helps us to understand their use. However, he prefers the consistent use of codes in Television over cinema because in TV it is necessary to form a ‘groundbase’ for each episode of a series, but in film - where there is more opportunity for experimental and abstract techniques to be used - it creates a kind of standard form that films all take on (Ellis, 1982:147). This can be seen in genre conventions such as the absence of music before jump scares in horrors.
These readings reinforce the idea that film and TV are not just natural reflections of reality, they are constructed representations of it, which most viewers do not think about when enjoying these mediums. Thinking of film and TV as a language is an effective way of showing that their significance doesn’t end when they have been produced, but they are a method of communication between the intended meaning of the creator and how the viewer makes sense of it.
For my own research, I would want to look at how many different language codes that can be used to convey one piece of information in a film. For example, ‘What techniques are used to show fear in the film Arrival (2016) ?’, using a textual analysis to identify the methods being used and how often they occur.
Ellis, John (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, Routledge: London - pp. 127-159
Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (2000) ‘How films mean, or, from aesthetics to semiotics and half-way back again’ in Gledhill, C and Williams, L. (2000), Reinventing Film Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment