37
Figure 2.8: More than 12,000 frames from the Bodega Bay sequence of e Birds.
2.4.2 AUTOMATING THE SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF FILM
In 1981, lm theorist Bertrand Augst asked in a conversation, “Why can’t we use a computer to
measure and speak of lmic structure in the same way we can for verbal text?” Augst’s question
arose in a conversation on the diculties for lm studies that arise from the “literary metaphor.”
is is not to say there is no discourse mechanism at work in lms; it is that attempts at onetoone
correspondence between the frame and the word or the shot and the sentence or similar impositions
of the verbal form onto the image form failed. Films are not textual documents. Films do not have
a rigidly dened grammatical structure. Images are not words. Pryluck (1976) asserts that shots are
not sentences. Films are generally viewed at a set rate of presentation and linearity. e technol-
ogy used in the production and viewing of lm has changed considerably since Augst (Augst and
O’Connor, 1999) posed his original question; however, there has been little change or advancement
in lm theory as a result of better and more ecient technology.
2.4.3 THE STRUCTURE OF MOVING IMAGE DOCUMENTS
It has been common in both lm description and lm analysis to use the “shot” as the base or min-
imum unit. However, there is no denition of shot that species any specic set of parameters for
2.4 STORY FOUR: FUNCTIONAL ONTOLOGY
38 2. FIVE STORIES TO A MODEL OF VIDEO STRUCTURE
any particular attribute—no specic number of frames or type of content. Bonitzer (1977) refers
to denitions of shot as “endlessly bifurcated.” Similarly, the terms close up (CU), medium shot (MS),
and long shot (LS) are used in lm production textbooks and lm analyses; however, there is no
specication of how much frame real estate is occupied by some object or portion of object in the
frame to be a CU rather than MS, for example. We use the frame and measurable attributes of the
frame to speak specically and to avoid the diculties presented by “endless bifurcation.”
e signal or the information of a lm is presented in small units—frames—that are in
themselves selfcontained signals. In many instances they are even used as messages (e.g., an in-
dividual frame may become a movie poster). However, the lm and other time-varying signal sets
such as music and dance are signal sets of their given sort precisely because of their temporality. We
see or hear the signal set (document) as a set of changes over time.
One could stare at a painting or sculpture for an hour from diering viewpoints, thus mak-
ing the viewing a timevarying experience of the signal set. It could probably be argued that artists
of various sorts construct signal sets that demand attention for a long time in order to see all the
intended variations in the signal set. It can even be argued (and we have so argued) that the digital
environment gives viewers readerlike control over temporality and depth of penetration into lms.
However, it remains the case that the majority of lm produced for commercial consump-
tion assumes playback at a standard rate and linearity. Much of what is taught in lm schools and
much of what has transpired in lm analysis relates to variation in the temporal aspect of the lm.
Eisenstein (1969) and Vertov (1984) and some others spoke eloquently of time and its relation
to structure. Structural commentary from reviewers tends to be less precise. For example, LaSalle
(2005) describes e Legend of Zorro as a “130minute adventure movie that overstays its welcome
by about 80 minutes,” and Addiego (2005) describes Domino as “[a] psychedelic action picture that
hammers away at the audience with a barrage of editing tics and tricks.”
We are seeking a way to speak of the structure of a lm precisely in order to enable a more
productive examination of the meanings of the message for various viewers under various circum-
stances. In looking to previous work on the examination of the lmic message or signal set, we
noted Augst’s (1980b) comment on Bellour’s (1969) analysis of Hitchcock’s (2000) e Birds: “It
remains exemplary in the rigor and precision of the analysis performed and, to date, it is still the
best example of what a genuine structural analysis of a lmic text could attempt to do. One must
turn to Jakobson or Ruwet to nd anything comparable in literary studies.”
A comment by Augst (1980b) on Bellour’s response to criticism of his work as pseudosci-
entic and not suciently in touch with aesthetic aspects of lm analysis addressed our particular
concerns with devising an accurate and transferable means of describing the signal set: “[criticisms]
continue to be leveled at any procedure that in any way exposes the gratuitousness and arbitrariness
of impressionistic criticism.”
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.