Semiotics was a study that explored the concept of language as a series of signs. An audience reads imagery and technical devices as a series of signs. Focus will be made on these devices and the imagery in the clip, and how the influence of earlier practices effect audience’s interpretation, known as ‘trace’. Jacques Derrida developed the idea of ‘trace’ into ‘graft’. He believed that the interpretation of a sign is altered by its context. The use of the helicopter in the clip will be analysed with attention to its historical context. Finally, a study of Roland Barthes' theory of how a director has the intention to influence the audiences reading, and how individual interpretation makes this difficult.
Ferdinand De Saussare established two stages of signs, the signifier as the form the sign takes, and the signified stimulating a mental image. He believed that we develop a way of reading signs. Christian Metz applied the work of semiotics to film. Metz outlined ‘syntactical procedures that, after frequent use as speech, come to appear in later films as a language system’ (1974, p.41). The use of different conventions in film over time established a system of communication through interpretation.
In Apocalypse Now (Coppola, 1979) we are introduced to some of these devices, such as the montage and multiple exposures allowing Coppola to build up multiple layers of meaning. Keeping Willard’s face in the frame with the action of the burning jungle behind creates a link between Willard and the jungle. Willard is also linked to the jungle scene with smoke. At the beginning of the clip we see yellow smoke billowing up and while the forest burns the image of Willard smoking is also in the frame. The audience could translate the images as a flashback, something Willard has experienced in the past. However, whilst the use of double exposures and dissolves in this clip may seem innovative and new, Metz pointed out that the spectator cannot ‘clarify the plot of a film unless the spectator has already seen other films in which dissolves and double exposures were used intelligibly’ (1974, p.41). He used the term trace, as traces are left with the audiences of technical practices and imagery used in earlier films.
Jacques Derrida developed the theory of ‘trace’ into the post structualist term ‘graft’. Concerned with the idea that a signifier could create multiple signs, that the ‘signifier of the signifier describes (…) the movement of language’ (1976, p.7). He also believed that they could be altered according to their context. In the clip the audience is bombarded with the image and sound of the helicopter, even the blades of the ceiling fan recall the blades of the helicopter gunship, ‘the singular icon of the Vietnam War’ (2006, p.63). To understand the significance of the helicopter in this clip, the audience needs to place it in its historical context. The use of the helicopter for combat was a relatively new technology and was heavily deployed in Vietnam. Media coverage of the Vietnam War was highly televised. With this in mind it is not difficult to see why the helicopter became synonymous with the image of the Vietnam War. An audience watching Apocalypse Now would have seen the images of the war, and that would have informed their reading of the film, but the interpretation changes with the audience. An individual’s experience would influence their interpretation. For example, a Vietnam veteran would see the depiction of the napalming, in the clip, very differently than a peace protester. Interpretation also changes over time and this serves to illustrate Derridas’ idea that meaning is not fixed. Due to the clip’s place in popular culture it is possible people could come to associate the sound of the helicopter with the film, or the song ‘The End’ (Morrison, 1967, track 11) re-mixed and re-released with the film.
The chosen clip could be seen as an example of a ‘new richly metaphoric language of war’ (Westwell, 2006, p.63) in which established codes and conventions were altered to reflect the experiences of the individual Vietnam veteran. The close up requires the audience to empathise with Willard, but so does the position of his face. Having the face upside down draws the audience’s focus to Willard’s eyes. Turning Willard’s face upside down has a dizzying effect so as to mirror his psychological disorientation. A closer reading of the film could reflect the psychological state of Willard. As the camera pans across the burning tree line the silhouette of the trees fall across Willard’s face as if to represents bars, Willard imprisoned in his hallucinatory state. Overall the clip seems to suggest that images can no longer be placed in the ‘clear structure of the World War II combat movie’ and could represent ‘anxiety about the war’s legacy and by the expedient the Vietnam War is thoroughly psychologised’ (Westwell, 2006, p.64).
In the Le Plaisir du Texte (1975) Barthes described the text of ‘Jouissance’ as a text in which the author’s intentions were imposed on the reader. Metz gives an example of the close up to illustrate this. The close up ‘is one of the main ways in which an object is transformed into a sign ‘by selectively representing one part of the object, thereby choosing the meaning one wants to give it’ (1975, p.195). Coppola’s use of ‘The End’ (Morrison, 1967, track 11) by The Doors could be seen as an attempt to influence the audiences attention, juxtaposing the songs lyrics ‘I’ll never look into your eyes again’ as Willard’s face appears in the frame. However, Barthes also stated, that signs are ’motivated by the concepts which they represent, while not yet, by a long way, covering the sum of its possibilities of representation’ (1957, p.127), that the choice of interpretation lies with the audience, regardless of the filmmaker’s intention.
In conclusion, the director’s attempt to influence an audiences reading is made difficult by multiple interpretations of the audience, depending on their historical context and the audiences understanding of technical devices. In the clip we are introduced to technical devices that may seem innovative, but their use and meaning have been established in earlier films. It is through the use of the formal elements as standard practice that audiences and filmmakers alike build up a language of film. But as popular semiotic meaning is created through repeated use, so to can it alter.
No comments:
Post a Comment