To start answering the this question one must first define what is meant by semiotics. Simply put it is the study/science of signs. For myself the easiest explanantion I could arrive at was this; double (or more) meanings to how certain objests/systems/words/sounds can represent something else. This is the understanding at its most basic level. As with all the topics the more one dives into a conceot the more confusing it becomes. Saussure states that the basic elements of language is called semiotics. With this in mind it would seem that the core of semiotics is all inclusive, applicable to almost anything. Another way I understood semiotics is by looking towards the art world. Much of what is painted/drawn/created/molded has both a surface and another meaning. The Best modern examples are probably the Goldsmiths artist, Hirst and emins group.
Hirst’s Shark is a visual specticle. This is only a surface reading. When the artist, himself, comments on the piece “The physical impossiblity of Death in the Mind of Someone Living” he describes how the shark represents death. The semiotics are all their for the audience to see, the affect is clearly about death. The shark is dead though looks to be alive; how could it be it is motionless?
With this explained is semiotics enough to explain how cinema is understood. Film makers nd cinema itself are able to create concepts that are unable to be recognized by the normal signs. How can we understand signs when they are given their own reality and aethetic? Add to the complications by remembering that cinema can be motion/sound/light/language and special effects all at once and the simple semiotic arguement seems dated. To settle this film writers started to update the semiotic study by looking at “cognitive film theory” .
Rebecca E. Miller: ” Cognitive film theory seeks to explicate the mental processes and knowledge that underlie a viewer’s capacity to percieve and understand film. Cognitive film theory views film semiotics as an irrecondible and obsolete theory of how we understand film.”
Warren Buckland: “comnination with linguistics and semiotics to form… cognitive semiotics.”
With these definitions in mind it allows us to understand how limited semiotics was. Cognitive film theory seems to break down every aspect to its core to allow one to interpretate all signs. This allows us to explore more difficult subject matter; Time from last week. La Jetee doesn’t use any recognizable metaphor when showing the time travel; yet a chronological order of photographs followed with an voice overlay describing the unfolding events; yet these are symbols enough. There isn’t a need for a clock or an indication of time passing through obvious means.
Can we understand these surreal and conceptual ideas fully? Is cinema fully crafted or are their naturalistic elements able to create original conceptual thoughts? Are we slaves to the directors affect and merely told what to feel? Or in some cases is the affect able to inspire orginal critics/ideas/thoughts? I will try to answer these questions by using this weeks screening Melancholia(2011). Lars Von Trier is a very bold film maker that relys heavily on metaphor; Dogville (2003) is a film where the audience is taken inside an alternate reality yet one very familiar. The set is very odd; a metaphor as we the audeince are voyeurs in this world without walls. Nicole Kidman is turned into the town’s prisoner to devasting and almost unwatchable effect. Meloncholia is of a similar ilk in its pathos. One could argue that the symbols and semiotics used by Von Trier are contrived and obvious. The affect and aethetic created are baltent and thus the audience is led to his conclusions, I still believe there is merit here though. In some films it would seem a cliff hanger is little more than a lazy finish (my own personal opinion Shutter Island). Von Trier uses conflicting themes to highlight certain allergorys or double entundree. The boredom and depression of one sister (here we see the obviousiness of the title choice). while Kirsten dunst’s character is liberated. This liberation is short lived as her world of freedom is ended with an almost arranged marrige to Skarsgard. The planet Meloncholia is a symble of the impending boredom that will end their familar worlds.
Semiotcs: concept/affect/aethetic representation and thus interpretation.
rolloaiscott 