Review: SEMI-OPTICS: LOTMAN AND CINEMA Author(s): DAVID GROSSVOGEL and David I.

Grossvogel Source: Journal of the University Film Association, Vol. 32, No. 1/2, CINEVIDEO AND PSYCHOLOGY (Winter-Spring 1980), pp. 89-93 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the University Film & Video Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20687514 . Accessed: 10/02/2011 07:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Illinois Press and University Film & Video Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the University Film Association.

http://www.jstor.org

DON

FREDERICKSEN,

Editor

SEMI-OPTICS:

LOTMAN

AND CINEMA

Yuri Lotman. Semiotics of Cinema, Trans. Mark E. Suino. University of Michigan Slavic Con tributions, No. 5. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan, Graduate Slavic Studies, 1976.
Yuri the foremost exponent of Soviet literary is starting to gain acceptance in this structuralism, translation of country thanks in part to the sustained his works. Though he is a prolific writer, his reputa Lotman,

or other meanings on many levels: the "information" of the reader of a poetic text, for example, depends on more than simply elucidations the lexical many deciphering Film used of "natural" language.

drawn on semiotic and struc tural analysis primarily for an examination of poetic the poem demonstrates for him that writing. However, art is a as well as the evidence of a cultural "language" the signs of a specific system (for example "system": the words of a "natural" language?its everyday usage) can become of other and more complex "signifiers" within another system?every ("signified") meanings into the texture of a poem, for exam day words woven show that Lotman has ple, become something different. It is in this violation of "established" orders that Lotman locates the princi ple of "art."

Artistic Text (1970) and (1964), The Structureof the The Analysis of thePoetic Text (1972). These titles

tion rests largely on his Lectures

on Structural

Poetics

tends. Considering the complex and multiple deter minations that shape filmic "information," it is a re form. Lotman's Semiotics of Cinema popular markably that not only can the system be learned but suggests

is such a multi-systemic complexity and may be as a "model" for much more than the story it in

it requires a that, indeed, learning. Lotman applies semiotic analysis to assist in this understanding while, at the same time, the film furnishes him with further il lustrations of the semiotic process. Saussure, Lotman is able to settle on two

guiding principles: "everythingboils down to dif

Following

the idea of a structure?a com "system" supposes plex of fundamental units susceptible of combinational variations. In analyzing the constructive elements of his text, Lotman isolates through* binary oppositions distinctive these,

features of its constitutive elements. Among of the paradigmatic and special note is made of the text according syntagmatic axes?analysis to structural sets (paradigmatic) or according to a the text (syntagmatic? linking of diverse terms within the predominant functional aspect of lyric poetry, others).

levels of cinematic siderations, he analyzes language that have to do with types of shots or motion, montage the most extensive chapter for an es (not surprisingly, thetician working tradition), largely within the Russian func plot, the actor, etc. He also borrows Jakobsonian tions (in an abridged the nature of form) to analyze cinematic narration. And, as we have already noted, "differences" will account for the tension implicit in Lotman's definition of "art." can be those of real objects, Cinematographic "signs" or historical cultural patterns Lotman's knowledge. emphasis determines a cinematic language largely based on "our visual perception of the world" (p. 42). That statement raises certain critical difficulties: it supposes

ferences but also to groupings" (p. 31), and "every it image on the screen is a sign, that is, it has meaning, carries information" (p. 31). Determined by these con

among The

in a variety of systematic entity can be detected structures: for the sake of comprehension and analysis, a reduction or "model" may be In that sense, envisaged. "natural" be what Lotman terms a language would "primary" model of theworld within which the natural be a language develops, while poetic language would model "secondary" reflecting a more specific cultural system. (and as opposed is derived from numerous and language), forces that are historical, systems evidencing the word as Lotman uses

that the problems analyzed by Lotman result only from the relation of spectator to film (as the Jakobsonian models would that there is a suggest), while assuming

"real" world which those comparison through can be determined. The statement also ap problems pears to run counter to Lotman's belief in a human con stancy that attempts to transform graphic signs into verbal ones (p. 8). based "interpretation" on a comparison on our "visual of the visual perception"

Our "Language," to "natural"

depends

complex conventional, religious, artistic, etc. The more complex the "language," the more complex the "code" which must be learned in order to understand it. As com

increases code (as in art), a multi-systemic plexity comes into play that carries ideational, cultural, esthetic

image/icon in "real life," (image as imitation) to its correspondence comparison with other similar images, comparison with itself in a different time unit. This latter accounts for one of the assets of cinema art: comparison/repetition "of one and the same object on the screen creates a cer separate from its visual source. If the natural form has

tain rhythm, and the sign of the object begins to 89

JOURNALOF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION,

XXXII, 1 & 2 (Winter-Spring 1980)

some

tendency,

or

and empha the material meanings or associative" sizes abstract meanings?logical (p. 45). In moments such as these, Lotman's definition of art as norms or violation of communicative contradiction comes ceived close to a phenomenology (the art object is per as object, rather than as reminder) that raises a in following him further difficulties through based recall. The Lotman perforce on notions of imitation and is further confused if one con argument forwhat compensates in filmic art?the im an ab to become sign

'closedness/openness' repetition muffles

is marked by such or 'light/darkness/

features then

as the

tures" we narration

transfer onto (p. 62).

it the pattern

of verbal

The spectator contributes, of course, his own "reading" to the filmic message. His social, political, cultural and are an extra-textual constant that historical associations does not lie wholly within the control of the filmmaker. these same forces are at work at the other Paradoxically, end of the process, made.

semiotics

siders that comparison/repetition sees as a weakness for the iconic

before and while the film is being the work of an actor in "Semiotically speaking, cinema is a message coded on three levels: 1. directorial; 2. everyday behavior; 3. actor's acting" (p. 85).

possibility straction?as,

The

description is primordially abstraction"

for example, when language a metalanguage: "The becomes concrete, while (p. 44).

describing iconic sign it is impossible to see the

The

dress

tration for these contrasts: evolving his filmic image at the comic Max Linder had built his own the time when on elegance, Chaplin's mannerisms and parts of his reminded his viewers of the Linder the overall figure of the tramp parodied of heterogeneous juxtaposition out of their conflict, evolves, of art (p. 51).

material. Montage relationships language through a purposeful establishes system of structural relation of a pictorial or iconic sign ships through the making that a meaning has a single, inherent (which supposes in contrast to an imposed (non-normal) expression) creating an artistic rhythm that must be language, serves as an illus The duality of Chaplin "decoded."

of the of the language possibilities had Saussure depends on montage. already analyzed language as a system of structural re of those the expression speech was lationships, while orchestration cinematic sequence

actor into one series and views them as a text" (pp. 90 because of the cultural tradition within 91). However, which he writes, Lotman does not emphasize this semiotic force as much as might, for example, someone

actor as "sacred monster" carries with him a myth aura: "Such as 'Charlie Chaplin,' concepts ological are 'Jean Gabin,' 'Mastroianni,' (...) 'Anthony Quinn' a reality for the audience and are much more influ ential on audience perception of the role than is the case in the theater. The cinema audience and deliberately a common connects films having central consistently

him "analyzes" or deemphasizing his gestures.

films between both World Wars. examining Hollywood the extent to which the Instead, Lotman emphasizes as the camera down image of the actor breaks for scrutiny, magnifying, segments of his body, ? ? ? intensifying his "voice,"

ple of montage unity"

image, while it: this "princi in elements" the "higher

finds another important function inmontage: Lotman to reproduce, cinematic narration it is what allows an equivalence of within an otherwise inimical medium, freedom of the fictional hero. That the greater-than-life celluloid" be "film hero as shown by moving would otherwise "fixed within thematerial by the automatism of the relation 'object-strip of film'" (p. 75).

a feeling of reality be conveyed to its audience" (p. 10). In a footnote, he refers to further studies by Christian on the nature of "reality" Metz (Essais sur la significa tion au cin?ma, 1968), but is not himself deterred by its nature: Later on we will fantastic, the role played by the in the films of M?li?s, into art. But the transforming cinematography con "feeling of reality" now under discussion starting with consider

is Lotman Confirmed antecedents, by non-formalist able to take for granted what other esthetics might find to be problematic. He opens his first chapter with the statement "Every art is concerned, to some extent, that

The

we

cinematic of derives, complexity language The from more than merely montage. however, syn tagmatic structure of a film sequence adds to visual nar ration verbal and audial narrations. This is an especially esthetics as for Lotman whose important consideration have noted already, emphasize act: of any communicative the verbal structure

sists in something else: no matter how fantastic an event taking place on the screen might be, the is a witness to it and, in a sense, a par audience

On

verbal culture, a culture inwhich human speech acts as the basis of the communicative system. invading all spheres of semiosis, it Aggressively It is them in its image and likeness. re-shapes with for communication verbal and intended are non individual. another Systems which or intended with for communication verbal themselves are to some extent repressed by the dominant even when type of "shaping communication. Therefore, a story with the aid of pic

are two types of narration this principle founded. Our thought structure, our customary impressions, many of which seem to be inherent in the very nature of man, have been formed by

ficulties connected with the transmission by means of the past and future cinematographic and other irreal tenses, as well as the subjunctive narration. in cinematic moods The cinema, because of the nature of itsmaterial, knows only the present tense just as, we might add, do other arts employing depictive signs (p. 10). illusionist

is ticipant in it.Therefore, although the audience conscious of the irreal nature of the event, it as it would reacts emotionally to a genuine event. As we shall see later, there are specific dif

was an M?li?s cinema extended

M?li?s',

in 1902, but may not have been possible its smiling planet as well as its mock with spaceships, was drawn from familiar lore: in that sense, the Moon

and a prestidigitator: the but did not change his purpose. The illusionist depends for his effects on a recognition of does not alter the familiar in an unfamiliar situation?he to the recognizable properties of his objects. Voyage

90 JOURNALOF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION,

XXXII, 1 & 2 (Winter-Spring 1980)

man and by the condoning of that feeling through

there are more drastic ways specific reminiscences), sever the spectator's link to those reminiscences. to

of M?li?s (and his very pur though the "fantastic" pose) required him to rely on familiar signs (allowing to react twice as to a genuine effect the spectator described by Lot through the feeling of participation

did not subvert?a familiar "reality." it subverted?and indeed subverting reality in those very (What was earliest years of cinematography was very likely the un on the screen.) But even canny nature of "motion"

the "leaping-out" effect "of four sides" (p. 81). Thus, it is impossible" the screen is effective because (p. 81). seem to be more fundamentally What would "impos

is spurious; though the imitative part of the "motion" is real is the expectation what of the frame's closure is constantly which the frame, subverted, not within but from frame to frame.

sense of the word) is not so much a sible" (in Lotman's for its effect on specific "leaping out" (which depends toward the audience," reminders, as "a train speeding itself. Here, once more, at p. 81), as the very "motion" to what happens in the frame even tention is drawn

Nor is the ascription of "tense" necessarily detrimental or germane to a relation of "art" to "reality." "Present its object intends the ness" may be a deficiency when the screen. But else beyond recall of something

? ? ? study of cinema with an Blow-up. He correctly sees the analysis of Antonioni's functions both movie as a study inwhich photography as document and text (specific system). (reproduction) has shown us in the The real-ness of what Antonioni text of his movie (the scenes we see in the park through Lotman ends his short semiotic when we see the scene of the photographer of through his stills. His analysis causes the "message" that scene to be "taken out of its context" (p. 99), and In this new makes it, therefore, "less comprehensible." to Lotman, from a analysis, we move, according a woman-bushes to relationship woman-photographer analysis will

neglects for any

the thingness of the art object?the possibility its own artifact to be at any given moment reference?a pos reality without phenomenological in the cinema by the medium's sibility emphasized necessary "presentness."

is no more than a self-evidence when it is "presentness" al given of a screen object that in the ph?nom?nologie tends to state only its own manifest presence. Lotman's that is largely imitative reference to an "information"

will be contrastedto the theeyes of thephotographer)

vs. Lotman when "myth analyzes and sees the camera ("poetry vs. document") history" as the climactic of a nineteenth-century expression that "truth" desire for "truth," he once again assumes resides ultimately beyond the camera and somehow Similarly, views "automatic as "art" primarily

one in which the but tational bondage, simply "automatic" reminder has been momentarily (but no more than momentarily) complicated. Lotman makers "thesis film of Soviet refers to the 1928 program Pudovkin) (Eisenstein, Alexandrov, stating as a and auditory of visual that the combination must not but automatic, be, artistically

for example, of the non-objective "authenticity"?that, image. In citing the example from Ballad of a Soldier in inverts his camera shot of a tank com which Chukhrai ing at the hero, Lotman does not furnish the instance of an image that has been sprung free from its represen

the camera's departure from an (p. 14) to one inwhich "ar representation" the image a "carrier of meaning" tistic" control makes (p. 14). So doing, Lotman still slights another kind of

enable us to see the (now unambiguous) gun in the bushes, "and we are shaken by the fact that we have been able to see both these versions!" (p. 100). to his premise that "art" requires the image to be a suc carrier of "meaning," Lotman views Antonioni's cess in that "The director has convinced the audience follows the following model:

now being absent): this (thephotographer relationship

True

must be deciphered" (p. 100). That deciphering thatlife

1. The of the scene in the spatial continuum is replaced by the two-dimensional plane of the photograph. park 2. The continuity of the scene is segmented into discrete units?frames of the film which sub further dissection sequently undergo during or enlargement of individual parts of one shot another. are seen as discrete units thus obtained For this pur signs which must be deciphered. pose they are arranged along two structural axes: should be Two a) Paradigmatic. operations noted here: removal of some element from the context (severing the context) and multi ple enlargement. b) Also realized in two ways? Syntagmatic. as a combination of elements synchroni and also following one cally co-existing after the other in temporal sequence (p. 101).

images is revealed by the and that the motivation motivated, as a use of displacement" (p. 15). Displacement, set up the contradiction of indeed strategy, does that Lotman deems fundamental "established orders" to the creation of "art," but it should be noted that it so while maintaining the discrete autonomy, each its own realm, of both stimuli. Displacement within the creation of an neither intends nor envisages or a autonomous object out of image, sound, motion, of these. combination/displacement does to grant the object of is unable It is not that Lotman status; he notes, for example, that "a phenomenological in contrast to a drawing, is not taken as an photograph, iconic sign of a thing, but as the thing itself, its visible of apper aspect" (p. 74). But even in such moments is still haunted by the presence of an ception, Lotman external model. This bias causes him to see "framing" a closure an in a specific way?as that establishes between all the spatial forms of reality "isomorphism is limited on and the flat surface of the screen which

3. The

And way

Lotman do

concludes, the data reveal

"Only when organized their secrets."

in this

Lotman's Thomas

analysis requires him to very nearly remove in from his considerations, (the photographer) two perceptual modes, order to deal primarily with rather than with a story that comments on, and il

JOURNALOF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION,

XXXII, 1 & 2 (Winter-Spring 1980)

91

ing to the former the traits and ideas of the latter" (p. the invidious wonders 103). One why Lotman uses word "sermon" when his whole analysis suggests that in this reality and illusion are indeed being discussed film. But portant

Lotman also desires to separate lustr?tes, those modes. in order not to be like "those out the character a sermon on rela critics (...) who saw in (Blow-up) error which frequently re tivism and illusionism,"?an the author to the hero and ascrib sults from "equating

in antique stores in search of that whose lasted its function.) The

form has out

London

is putting that Thomas book together about is to be a step in his fictional growth: the intends to move fashion photographer beyond what clothes and hides to a more naked truth. But at this mo

ment,

removal of the character removes also an im in which that "sermon" way proceeds?the is not being the nature of il told about spectator instead he is forced to become the hero up to lusionism; a point, to see (or mis-see) through the eyes of Thomas. reality that prevents him within the from locating that reality (as parafiction) of equating film: it is not a question (critically) the author and his character but of noting that at times the author (and the spectator) are that character. For Lotman, the hero ismerely a chronicler, "not sup by a construction of ideas" (p. 103), a photog rapher who desires to show London as it is and who, to Lotman's It is, paradoxically, the reminder of an external belief that all art acts as

as the film begins, Thomas still is drawn to the he photo aspect of the transients whom picturesque Center: he, and Reception graphs at the Camberwell is afforded only his eye, see sur the spectator who faces. The tonioni's distance between those surfaces and An them will locate of what underlies knowledge the explorative trajectory of the film and will mark also the trajectory of Thomas' development.

Dissatisfaction has

ported

that end, is able to "merge" with what he photographs (p. 101). When Thomas buys, for no apparent reason, a propeller, Lotman feels he is able to draw a clear dis tinction between character and author by introducing (critically) the author at the expense of the character: re the propeller, "tossed up from a different world

series of blow-ups of Jane as she appears on his stills. As the surfaces are progressively enlarged, their statement dissolves into grainy ambiguities: Thomas moves beyond the clear, external statement into a world zied

when the Jane he for Thomas begins in the park fails to come alive for photographed to know her better (his only intercourse him. Wanting so far has been, quite literally, with studio models, his single bed through the lens of his camera?and room encounter with Jane has failed), he begins a fren

minds

us that such a world existed and that the author, the hero, has not forgotten about it" (p. 104). once dismissed the hero, Lotman will not be Having sense of his other actions later: e.g., it is able to make unlike (p. 102) that Thomas again "without knowing why" will "fight" for the Yardbirds' broken guitar and then con toss it away. Etc. This dismissal blurs Lotman's clusion with its sudden resurrection of the hero:

of questioning. As he enlarges more and more, the grain less and deci reveals less that is unambiguously It reveals ultimately only what he reads into pherable. state it; at this point, still seeking an unambiguous he reads too hastily.

ment,

In fact, there is no longer sufficient evidence for any af or the spectator. The spec firmation by either Thomas tator, along with Thomas it), (who doesn't yet know has been freed from a world of unequivocal, superficial simple truths. The picture may require interpreta tion, as Lotman suggests, but interpretation will now it can no longer reveal that ithas become mystery?that whether there is a gun, a be securely interpreted: corpse, a murder, will remain speculative. and

Two clowns run onto the court and begin to play an tennis with invisible ball and invisible remainder follow the flight of the fictitious ball. At this moment the ball fictitious ly sails over the fence and one of the players, to throw it with a gesture, asks the photographer at the bare back. At first he looks perplexedly ground and then, going along with the game, he pretends to throw the ball. The game continues. rackets. The Then hears the photographer, terrified, distinctly the rackets striking the ball. The circle of the illusion has closed (pp. 102-103). can

While

still tries to find an incontrovertible Thomas in his blow-ups, he is no longer sure?he has to be (healthfully) anxious them. And about begun here, too, the spectator separates himself from Thomas (or should): once the esthetic moving picture has been stills of the overenlarged replaced by the analysis or the (genuine objects that are identical for Thomas' reading the very ambiguity of that object, spectator's vision), allows the spectator to see (to see, e.g., that he is unable to see) and therefore to measure the extent to which is still deluding himself.

There within, that,

is contained that Thomas be little doubt and projects, a part of Antonioni's vision, and a fictional as the film also describes inasmuch Thomas to understand be brought the of that vision and, in the process, to enlarge must

Thomas

Bildung, partialness it. The

that sees with the eyes of An part of Thomas tonioni is esthetic: his studio is hung with the brilliant walks hues of Antonioni's set; Thomas through a London of repainted fa?ades and lavish colors?a world the fasion of rich and interesting surfaces. Thomas, sees objects (and people) only as does his photographer, camera?at face value. The propeller which he buys is an objet trouv?: for Thomas, it is no longer functional; it is an object reduced to the harmonious lines of a helix. (For the same reason, Thomas spends much of his time

been his camera, whose Thomas, eye had previously camera had been his shield, must likewise and whose separate himself from his instrument. Its failure to dis to the park truth returns Thomas close a precise an unme in order to question his camera, without diated world.

has departed The extent towhich Thomas from his former self will soon be emphasized with force from his blow-ups by Antonioni: having disappeared sets out in search of Jane herself. his studio, Thomas Antonioni allows him to be briefly drawn back into his to show the extent of his present alien former world enters a rock hall where the ation from it: Thomas are performing; when one of the performers Yardbirds smashes crowd,

his guitar and throws the pieces out to the the cultists scramble for the pieces. A large piece

92 JOURNALOF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION,

1980) XXXII, 1 & 2 (Winter-Spring

of the broken instrument falls within reach of Thomas, who picks itup. But objets trouv?s, and the world from this one comes, no longer hold him. He throws which to emphasize his away the piece of the guitar. And has it picked up, once again, by a point, Antonioni to a different world and, un passer-by: he too belongs into the broken object, he too able to read any meaning throws it away?that symbol is now discarded once and for all.

with

the following: text the presence of a meta and correctly constructed (the unique terminology of a given branch of science) is suf ficient to guarantee that the investigator will be In a scientific language outside

students (whom Lotman calls clowns) Rag Week represent a different kind of illusion and bring the to a close. The Rag Week students morality/experience are made up and play games, but they are responsible even within the illusion which they create and control with a seen, previously, (they have been mingling group of anti-war demonstrators). When they cast an tennis ball at Thomas, his imaginary intentionally returning it may be read as a participatory gesture

The

the object of study. In order in art it is also necessary this position and for the artist to possess great ideological in his moral virtue, since he often combines, the person, both the describer and the described, In Antonioni's film the doctor and the patient. positioned to achieve

in all aspects of his conscious photographer, ness, belongs to the latter category and therefore cannot occupy the position of the describee or doctor. In order to be a doctor, a judge or an in vestigator of life a completely different hero is and Antonioni's film required, demonstrates this point (p. 105). convincingly

towards their world?an of the contrivance acceptance no longer abides within of illusion, since Thomas the security of shallowly esthetic surfaces, nor within other from the assurance equally facile truths. He has moved to the questioning of the fashion photographer of the artist.

It is interesting referent outside

that Lotman's

the film is what

need to posit an actual causes him to down

grade the hero since, with regard to specific referents, that hero, as that hero is poor indeed. It is only when is informed with the para hollow shell or as eyepiece, when,

when Thomas walks from the tennis Thus, away the sound of the courts, one may well wonder whether balls being struck by tennis rackets is not meant for the to likewise question?in order to determine spectator whether they belong to a reality that he informs or an image which he must now approach ? ? ? Lotman ends his comments on Blow-up, and his book, with caution.

fictional reality of the spectator and/or the filmmaker? his effort to see becomes the for example, but sensual sense of sur viewer's, or his photographic faces evidences functional

his

thenthat he is able toacquire,beyond fiction of thefilm

plenitude.

Antonioni's

photographing?it

is only

DAVID GROSSVOGEL
Cornell University

9thAnnual DANCE VIDEO/FILM FESTIVAL 18-19 April 1980 New York City
Contact: Dance Films

250West 57 Street,Room 2201 New York, NY 10019

Assn.,

Inc.

JOURNALOF THE UNIVERSITY FILM ASSOCIATION,

XXXII, 1 & 2 (Winter-Spring 1980)

93