The problem with the term 'expression' is that it assumes particular theory
of film art - expressive theory, which some film analysts may not share.
But, there is already in use a term which is neutral to the concept of film
language and film code, and theirs particular theoretical background.
Basically, it is a term installed by Russian formalism (though not imbued by
their aesthetics) - 'FILM DEVICES'. It covers all the items usually counted
as 'film language' (shot, cut, shot scale, angles, camera movements,
composition, transitions etc), and may include also rhetorical devices
(inserts, flashbacks, rhetorical figures), but may be streched to include
also some narrative moves (POV, focalisation, narrative segments etc). Since
such devices are typically highly coordinated at any moment in film, it can
be spoken about the 'SYSTEM OF FILM DEVICES' instead of the generic term
'film language', or 'film code'.
Hrvoje
> Daniel Barnett wrote:
>
> < I think it's easily possible to construct a descriptive framework
> wherein the
>> same terms, used for film and for language would be very (maybe
>> equivalently)
>> illuminating about the meaning potentials for each - and which would
>> create
>> more clarity than confusion (if barely and only in certain minds.)
>> dan
>
> What do you think of the possibility to give the specific system of
> articulation employed in the film medium a proper name and call it let's
> say "CINEMATIC EXRPESSION ", rather than "FILM LANGUAGE". Thus avoid the
> metaphorical connection to verbal language and sever once and for all the
> confusion introduced by the allegorical simplistic connections between the
> two and repair the damage caused to film theory by Metz and other
> practitioners of the term.
>
> Haim
>
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|