FILM STUDIES 1

FILM STUDIES

Subject : FILM STUDIES

(For undergraduate students)

Year : 1st

Paper No. & Title : 2A

Basic Aspects Of Cinematic Art
And Technology
(Group A: Film Technique)

Topic No. & Title : 1a

From Magic Lantern to Motion
Picture: Basic Of Film Language

Lecture No. & Title : 1

Language of Cinema

Video Programme Link: 2A.1a.1

SCRIPT

LANGUAGE OF CINEMA
IS CINEMSA A LANGUAGE?
Frank Capra, a noted Hollywood director once said,
‘Film is one of the three universal languages, the other
two are mathematics and music.’ We can easily sense
FILM STUDIES 2

that Capra cannot be entirely wrong because, from our

own experience as film viewers we all know that
cinema tells us delightful stories and communicates
with us as effortlessly and as easily as any human
language. Since its emergence as a popular form of
entertainment towards the end of 19th century and
through its formative years in the early 20th century,
silent cinema had successfully established itself as a
unique ‘story-telling’ medium, using moving images
and title cards to narrate stories. People all over the
globe enjoy the movies without having any formal
knowledge of visual story telling as such. A study of
the history of reception of cinema during the silent era
confirms that there had been something ‘universal’
about the cinematic mode of storytelling. There had
been no need to learn how to see films in order to
enjoy them. The untrained, uninitiated and mostly
illiterate audience of early silent cinema enjoyed the
movies spontaneously and freely without being fully
aware of the specificities of cinematic modes of
storytelling. Even to enjoy a dime novel one needed to
acquire the skills of reading – literacy is still a
FILM STUDIES 3

precondition of reading. But enjoying a film remains

astonishingly free from any such preconditions.
Learning the grammar of cinema has never been a
pre-condition of understanding and enjoying a movie.
This universality and immediacy in visual
communication that make cinema so unique (the audio
component was added later) was recognized by great
masters of world cinema like D. W. Griffith, Charles
Chaplin and many others who believed that cinema is
a language and the language of cinema is universal.
Yet, we must remind here what noted film theorist
Christian Metz, author of the much-acclaimed book
titled Film Language, once said, ‘Film is hard to
explain, because it is so easy to understand.’ Indeed
Metz has made ‘the crucial distinction between
knowing what a thing means and knowing how it
comes to have that meaning, between ‘tacit’ knowing
and the sort of knowledge that can be readily
articulated to others’. To understand the specificities of
cinematic language we must re-examine and reassess
the intrinsic relationship between language and
communication.
FILM STUDIES 4

LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION AND CINEMA

Human language has been defined as ‘a system of
communication used by a particular society or
community.’ We all agree that human language is a
very special system of communication because of its
complexity, which is governed by a rigid grammar. We
talk to others to communicate and we write on paper
to ‘record’ our thoughts and feelings for future
recalling and preservation of knowledge. Most
prominent languages consist of two components: the
oral and the textual. There are human languages that
were and still are purely oral without having their
textual component. In fact, all languages have
originated first as an ‘oral’ mode of communication and
later, through hundreds of years of practice, some of
these oral languages were evolved considerably to
have their written component as well. There are about
3000 oral or spoken languages in the world out of
which only 400 have some kind of written form. The
17th Century prescriptive grammarians studied
language with intension of controlling it – setting down
FILM STUDIES 5

rules for people, telling them how it ought to be used.

Grammar is the bible, the ‘sacred text’ that cannot and
should not be challenged by a speaker or practitioner.
Cinema definitely evokes a sense of communication.
Films tell stories through images and sounds and as
Metz has noted, it is a ‘system of images (and sounds)
aiming at describing, developing, narrating an event or
a sequence of events’. But a major difference between
human language and cinema is that the later violates
one of the fundamental components of language –
communication. When two or more people talk or take
part in a discussion they communicate with each
other, they share information, thoughts. They share,
question, comment, criticize. Human language is the
unique tool of inter-communication while cinema is a
medium of restricted communication. Cinematic
communication is ‘one-way’ communication where the
viewer remains a recipient throughout. The viewer has
neither the ability nor the tools to establish a direct
communication between the ‘speaker’ (the director of
the film) and the listener (viewer). The spectator
cannot effectively influence the ‘spoken narration’,
FILM STUDIES 6

which, in case of cinema, is the film itself. Viewing a

movie is to some extent more like reading a novel or a
story. The reader can get influenced by the act of
reading, but cannot alter or influence the written test.
We, as spectators, can and will respond to what we
see on screen, but cannot get a reaction through inter-
communication. We can safely conclude that film uses,
among other things, written and spoken language, but
as such it does not exactly function like verbal
language whose primary aim is to have open
communication or dialogue among the participants. If
cinema is a language then a film is a fixed ‘utterance’
or a speech. To understand film as ‘utterance’ we need
to approach and analyze cinema as a language.

LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO CINEMA

The Russian Formalists were the first to study the
relationship between human language and cinema.
They were the first to talk about the linguistic basis of
cinema and considered film as ‘internal speech’ and
compared it with ‘poetry’. In film they discovered
cinematic equivalent of poetic devices such as epithet,
FILM STUDIES 7

simile and metaphor and talked about the existence of

a cinematic syntax. In his essay ‘Film Form – New
Problems’ Sergei Eisenstein, the famous Soviet
filmmaker, discussed at length how cinema can render
the syntax of inner speech. Much later, in the 1960s
and 1970s, the French film theorists belonging to the
schools of Structuralism and Semiotics employed
linguistic theory to analyse film. Colin MacCabe
introduced the term ‘metalanguage’ to help us to
understand filmic discourses much like novelistic
discourses.
To make sense of the critical position that linguistics
has brought to cinema studies we must take a closer
look at the ways a language function. Human
language, any established language for that matter,
consists of
(1) A vocabulary
(2) A grammar and a
(3) Syntax. A vocabulary is made of words and
grammar and syntax are the tools or rules by which
words are arranged to make a sentence or an
utterance. The smallest units in any language are the
FILM STUDIES 8

letters of the alphabet – the collection of letters.

Letters are usually abstract signs or ideograms
originated from pictures or images. Each letter has two
components – the abstract sign and the associated
sound or the phoneme. Thus, when we read the
abstract sign ‘A’, we usually read it as a phoneme
having its designated sound ‘a’. Letters of the
alphabets are combined in various ways to create
meaningful words and words are combined to make
meaningful sentences. It appears that this process can
be compared to movie making process itself – shots
are combined together to create meaningful sequences
and sequences can be combined together to create
meaningful scenes. If cinema is a language, then what
are the similarities and dissimilarities between textual
and spoken languages and cinema? Well, if the
smallest unit in a language is the abstract letters, then
what is or are the smallest units in a film? The answer
is – the frame, which is a visual representation. The
problem is that in any given language the alphabets
have a rather limited number of letters. If compared,
and it is not difficult to understand, that number of
FILM STUDIES 9

frames or single images in a shot cannot be

predetermined or restricted at all. The camera can
shoot anything at any place and at any time and the
length of the shot can never be predetermined or
fixed. Robert Richardson has rightly drawn our
attention to the following:
‘In addition to the parallels between language and film
in matters of vocabulary and simple grammar, but
closely connected to the subject, is the use of imagery.
It can be argued that all words, even the most
abstract, began as images. ... Between the film’s use
of imagery and its literary uses there are both
significant similarities and differences. Imagery is used
both for vividness and for significance; and one might
say that literature often has the problem of making the
significant somehow visible, while film often find itself
trying to make the visible significant.’
The word ‘tree’ has a specific meaning and this ‘one’
meaning can be easily communicated to anyone
reading the written text ‘tree’. The meaning of the
word ‘tree’ is an abstract one since it does not refer to
any particular tree but the concept called ‘tree’.
FILM STUDIES 10

However, in case of cinema, the representation of the

abstract concept ‘tree’ is more complicated. In literary
utterance the word ‘tree’ remains as an abstract
concept – it does not refer to any specific tree as such
unless a particular reference has been made in
advance. However, in cinema, a visual representation
of a ‘tree’ will always be the image of that ‘specific’
tree shot by the camera at a given moment. If two
different persons are asked to photograph a tree the
end result will always be images of two different trees.
The film frame is always a photographic representation
and can never communicate an abstract concept but a
specific or a particular one. Moreover, a frame carries
in itself more information than a single word. First and
foremost, a frame is always an image, which
represents light, colour, texture and object(s).
Moreover, the compositional characteristics of the
frame can use foreground, background and mid-
ground to emphasise on one or more elements present
in the image. In addition, camera angles often play a
greater role in manipulating the space, objects and
characters within the space of the frame. Carefully
FILM STUDIES 11

planned use of different lenses can further enhance

the depth and affect the look of the image, and, this
can be significantly influence the viewer’s emotion and
understanding of the content. If frames are the
alphabets of the cinematic language then the concept
of vocabulary in cinema should be an endless series of
photographic frames or shots. The grammar and
syntax of film language is based on the craft of editing
– both image and sound. Editing is nothing but the set
of conventions that tells us how to arrange the shots
to make a meaningful statement or a narration. It is
true that a single frame or a series of frames known as
a shot have meaning much as words. However, a pre-
planned arrangement of a number of shots conveys
meaning in a more complex manner than a sentence
or a phrase. Having noted that Metz concludes,
‘The cinema is a composite language at the very level
of its matter of expression. Not only has it several
codes, but several languages in some way, are already
contained in it. These languages are distinguished
among themselves by their very physical definition:
FILM STUDIES 12

moving pictures arranged in sequence, phonetic

sound, musical sound, noise’.

LANGUAGE OR LANGUAGE SYSTEM?

Linguistics is generally centred on speech while
semiotics, based Ferdinand Saussure’s model of
language, studies all kinds of significations except
speech – writing, architecture, food, fashion, television
and cinema to name a few. They are all different
systems of signification. We must recognize that unlike
human language cinema has an immense and virtually
unlimited vocabulary without having a dictionary of
film words and governing syntax as such. The greatest
challenge the cinematic medium has faced since it’s
beginning is that it has failed to evolve a perfect film
grammar. What is generally known as ‘film grammar’
is actually a set of cinematic conventions or ‘thumb
rules’ but definitely not a grammar. Grammar is the
rigid but invisible structuring of language and is almost
insurmountable. In case of cinema, the conventions
are there to break in order to make our film viewing
experience unique. Nevertheless, the conventions of
FILM STUDIES 13

cinema have been nearly perfected since the invention

of cinema to form a functional system of narration.
The complexity of cinematic narrative which employs
its own system of ‘telling’ or ‘narration’ has been
termed as a ‘signifying system’ by Metz.
For him cinema is a ‘means of expression rather than a
means of communication.’ The signifying system is
indeed a complex system of codes pertaining to
various means of expressions including verbal
language as used in cinema. Film uses images and
sounds, which become signs within the film itself. As
such images used in films are not signs themselves,
but through the process of narration—which is a
process of signification – makes the images function as
signs. According to Jean Mitry, the process of
signification happens in three stages:
1. Perception (identifying or recognizing the image
as it appears)
2. Comprehension (meaning of the image in the
context of the given narrative)
FILM STUDIES 14

3. New or added meaning as acquired by the image

through its relationship to other images or sequences
in the film.
For example, in Battleship Potemkin, we find this
image: the pince-nez (the spec) of Dr.Smirnov,
hanging from a rope. At the first level we recognize
the spec as a spec and not anything else. In the next
level, we recognize the spec as the particular spec
belonging to Dr. Smirnov – the person who used this
spec to examine and declare the rotten meat at edible
– the rotten meat that caused sailors’ agitation. At the
third and final level, we acquire the symbolic meaning
of the image of the spec hanging from the rope. Dr.
Smirnov has been thrown overboard after the sailors’
revolt. The spec represents the pince-nez wearing
class – the class that controlled ‘knowledge’ and
oppressed the working class. Now the sailors’ revolt
has eliminated the oppressing class, which now makes
the hanging spec an object of ridicule, a symbol of
powerless oppressor.
Metz proposes that to understand cinema we need to
have a semiological approach to cinema – the study of
FILM STUDIES 15

cinema as a system of signs and codes. He divides the

cinematic codes into two sections: (1) The Image
codes and (2) the Sound codes. Images codes are
those rooted in the image itself – so these are also
iconic codes. Sound codes are the sounds we find in
the movies and also the sounds that stand in montage
with picture or functions as a counterpoint. Metz
analysed the ‘image codes’ and ‘sound codes’ further
to emphasise on how a system of codes form the
language of cinema. However, Metz’s incomplete list of
image codes and sound codes makes it difficult to fully
comprehend his theory of cine-semiology. Metz
theoretical propositions have been most influential and
debated one – he remained a source of inspiration and
criticism. One of the most acclaimed post-Metzian
theories of film language comes from David Bordwell
who has proposed an alternative theory of narration.

PRINCIPLES OF NARRATIONS
In his seminal book titled Narration in Fiction Film
Bordwell proposes the following:
FILM STUDIES 16

‘We have seen theories of narration founded upon

superficial analogies between film and other media –
literature or theatre (the mimetic approach);
literature, speech, or writing (the diegetic approach).
The theory I propose see narration as a formal
activity, a notion comparable to Eisenstein’s rhetoric of
form. In keeping with a perceptual-cognitive approach
to the spectator’s work, the theory treats narration as
a process which is not in its basic aims specific to any
medium. As a dynamic process, narration deploys the
material and procedures of each medium for its ends.
Thinking of narration in this way yields considerable
scope for investigation while still allowing us to build in
the specific possibilities of the film medium. In
addition, a form-centred approach sets itself the task
of explaining how narration functions in the totality of
the film. Narrational patterning is a major part of the
process by which we grasp films more or less as
coherent wholes.’
The formalist approach of Bordwell sees films as
patterned systems that allow the viewers to construct
the story based on their experience of conventions of
FILM STUDIES 17

story-telling. Bordwell suggests that cinematic

narration is better understood as the organisation of a
set of cues for the construction of the story. He
focuses on the formal features of film medium in order
to comprehend the narrative process of cinematic
storytelling. Bordwell concentrates on four major
filmmaking traditions: Classical narration of Hollywood,
Art cinema narration styles (European school),
Historical-materialist narration (the Soviet School) and
parametric narration (style-centred or dialectical
films).
The complexity of cinematic narration however can
best be understood by analysing its different stylistic
approaches to visualization and mise-en-scene.
Consider, for example, a reading of last scene of Akira
Kurosawa’s Ikiru as described by Michael Roemer:
‘At the end of Ikiru the dying bureaucrat has
succeeded in building the playground. It is winter
night; the camera moves slowly past a jungle-gym;
beyond it we see the old man, swaying to and fro on a
child’s swing and singing to himself under the falling
snow. The various components of this scene are hard
FILM STUDIES 18

to separate: the hoarse, cracked voice of the dying

man; his happiness; the song itself. But the motion of
the camera, the falling snow, and the low movement
of the swing certainly contribute to the extraordinary
sense of peace and reconciliation that is communicated
by the image.’
The elements present in the last sequence of the
famous film are many and the cinematic treatment of
the visual and sound elements does create a profound
audio-visual experience in the mind of the viewer. The
winter night, slow movement of the camera which
indicates a continuous change in overall frame
composition, the movement of the swing or the
movement within the frame, the old man, the
snowing, the song, the cracked voice of the old man,
and the words of the song: the arrangement of these
sound and image elements is carefully designed and
controlled by the director / author. The mise-en-scene
has been carefully coordinated by the director to
create a ‘reality effect’ that is exclusively cinematic.
This is language of cinema at its best and most
expressive level.
FILM STUDIES 19

CONCLUSION
All the different approaches to our understanding
cinema as a language or language-system have one
thing in common: as one of the newest medium of
communication cinema has certain unique features
and characteristics that need to be examined and
explored again and again. The need to look at the
formalist properties of film is still valid and this should
form the basis of any future investigation of the
language of cinema. With Bordwell we have returned
to the study of the film form – we reinvestigate how a
film is constructed to create meaning and generate
pleasure. Most crucially, we must not forget that
cinema as a complex narrative art is still evolving and
it would be perhaps premature to conclude that it
would or would not develop as language proper. Film
is primarily an ever-evolving narrational process and it
will remain so in future. Perhaps French film director
Resnais was right when he said, ‘the cinema is far
from having found its syntax.’ However, he himself has
FILM STUDIES 20

proved that it is still possible to tell compelling

cinematic stories without one.