Tatiana Postnikova: A Communication of the Cinema in a space of consumption
Postnikova T.V.,
Postgraduate student, Faculty of Philosophy,
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov
Communication characteristics of cinematography had been discussed at the works of semioticians of cinema in sixties-seventies of XX century. The idea of the communication was justified by cinema’s ideological influence on the masses. Today the ideology of politics has been replaced by the ideology of consumption.
Communicative function of cinema is illustrated by the simple scheme «the sender-message-addressee»1. The communicative act takes place in a context and is characterized by contact2. The idea of communicativeness of cinema is based on the classical literary concept of authorship when it was proposed that the author of film is "transmitting" to spectators some information which was coded and represented by signs, spectators in their turn should decode the messadge3. "Code", "coding" in this conception was not used in sense of "cipher", since the information should be clear, readable, and signs should be transparent for the ordinary spectator. The sense of the communicative concept consisted in supporting ideological function of a cinema.
The communications of cinema in modern consumer society does not belong to the area of ideology, but to the area of aesthetics. In past the communications reported the information, i.e. a film was used as a "transmitter" of messages, but in present cinema is used for achievement of pleasure. The mechanism of achievement of pleasure is based on memory, i.e. function of recognizability. The pleasure brings clear, well-known things and places a consumer into "a zone of comfort".
Consumption is dependent not on the theory of the information, but on achievement of pleasure, on satisfaction of desire. The desire consists on emotional experience. Nevertheless, the satisfaction of desire leans on semiotics. In fact maintenance of the scheme of the communicative act means availability of the information, and availability, in turn, conducts to satisfaction of desire. To consume means to satisfy a desire generated under somebody’s influence (as an example we can analyze films of German expressionism, Eisenstein, Hitchcock).
The consumer communication loses Author and Manager takes his place. Today a producer appears in a position of the author of the film, which "is transferring" the information to spectators. So, the communication is carried out between the producer serving commercial interest (and being an expert in the sphere of "pleasures", to be exact, in the income of "pleasures") and the spectator receiving in "output" his emotions. The director is not an author any more, however the spectator remains passive "receiver" (Bakhtin carried on polemics with such understanding of the communication4). The process of consumer’s interest forming does not depend on the information which must be communicate to society but from spectators’ desire to receive emotions (from special effects, elements of a thriller, etc.). Ethically consumption became useful. "To consume on advantage" means to use film as an information occasion for a society (for example, the art house films in intellectual community as a label of their participation in actual events).
Let us turn to author's cinema, noncommercial cinema. The noncommercial cinema is the kind of cinema which do not appeal to the consumer. The author remains in a appropriate role, but the communicative scheme is broken: such cinema do not communicate with spectator.
Films which are not intended for consumer have autocommunicative construction, here the narration is not public work, but a diary containing "codes", which inaccessible to the foreign sight, "ciphered" in inconspicuous, nothing to the form giving out. The inconsumable cinema contains the signs excluding breadth of the communications (for example, films of A.Sokurov, V.Kobrin). Signs in general mean only what value the spectator invest. Signs of author's cinema are first of all signs of the Author, and this vetos the communications.
1 Lotman U. in: Лотман Ю.М. Семиотика кино и проблемы киноэстетики. Таллин, 1973.
2 Jacobson R. in: Якобсон Р. Лингвистика и поэтика // Структурализм «за» и «против». М., 1975.
3 Eco U. in: Эко У. О членениях кинематографического кода // Строение фильма. Некоторые проблемы анализа произведений экрана. Под ред. Разлогова К. М., 1985.
4 Bahtin M. in: Бахтин М.М. Проблема речевых жанров // Бахтин М.М. Эстетика словесного творчества. М., 1979.
Postgraduate student, Faculty of Philosophy,
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov
Communication characteristics of cinematography had been discussed at the works of semioticians of cinema in sixties-seventies of XX century. The idea of the communication was justified by cinema’s ideological influence on the masses. Today the ideology of politics has been replaced by the ideology of consumption.
Communicative function of cinema is illustrated by the simple scheme «the sender-message-addressee»1. The communicative act takes place in a context and is characterized by contact2. The idea of communicativeness of cinema is based on the classical literary concept of authorship when it was proposed that the author of film is "transmitting" to spectators some information which was coded and represented by signs, spectators in their turn should decode the messadge3. "Code", "coding" in this conception was not used in sense of "cipher", since the information should be clear, readable, and signs should be transparent for the ordinary spectator. The sense of the communicative concept consisted in supporting ideological function of a cinema.
The communications of cinema in modern consumer society does not belong to the area of ideology, but to the area of aesthetics. In past the communications reported the information, i.e. a film was used as a "transmitter" of messages, but in present cinema is used for achievement of pleasure. The mechanism of achievement of pleasure is based on memory, i.e. function of recognizability. The pleasure brings clear, well-known things and places a consumer into "a zone of comfort".
Consumption is dependent not on the theory of the information, but on achievement of pleasure, on satisfaction of desire. The desire consists on emotional experience. Nevertheless, the satisfaction of desire leans on semiotics. In fact maintenance of the scheme of the communicative act means availability of the information, and availability, in turn, conducts to satisfaction of desire. To consume means to satisfy a desire generated under somebody’s influence (as an example we can analyze films of German expressionism, Eisenstein, Hitchcock).
The consumer communication loses Author and Manager takes his place. Today a producer appears in a position of the author of the film, which "is transferring" the information to spectators. So, the communication is carried out between the producer serving commercial interest (and being an expert in the sphere of "pleasures", to be exact, in the income of "pleasures") and the spectator receiving in "output" his emotions. The director is not an author any more, however the spectator remains passive "receiver" (Bakhtin carried on polemics with such understanding of the communication4). The process of consumer’s interest forming does not depend on the information which must be communicate to society but from spectators’ desire to receive emotions (from special effects, elements of a thriller, etc.). Ethically consumption became useful. "To consume on advantage" means to use film as an information occasion for a society (for example, the art house films in intellectual community as a label of their participation in actual events).
Let us turn to author's cinema, noncommercial cinema. The noncommercial cinema is the kind of cinema which do not appeal to the consumer. The author remains in a appropriate role, but the communicative scheme is broken: such cinema do not communicate with spectator.
Films which are not intended for consumer have autocommunicative construction, here the narration is not public work, but a diary containing "codes", which inaccessible to the foreign sight, "ciphered" in inconspicuous, nothing to the form giving out. The inconsumable cinema contains the signs excluding breadth of the communications (for example, films of A.Sokurov, V.Kobrin). Signs in general mean only what value the spectator invest. Signs of author's cinema are first of all signs of the Author, and this vetos the communications.
1 Lotman U. in: Лотман Ю.М. Семиотика кино и проблемы киноэстетики. Таллин, 1973.
2 Jacobson R. in: Якобсон Р. Лингвистика и поэтика // Структурализм «за» и «против». М., 1975.
3 Eco U. in: Эко У. О членениях кинематографического кода // Строение фильма. Некоторые проблемы анализа произведений экрана. Под ред. Разлогова К. М., 1985.
4 Bahtin M. in: Бахтин М.М. Проблема речевых жанров // Бахтин М.М. Эстетика словесного творчества. М., 1979.
posted by A. | 2:40 PM
<< Home