Mike Frank comments:
"as a great [but not uncritical] admirer of bordwell, i agree with don larsson
that bordwell's four types of meaning are insightful, important, a useful
analytic tool for helping us to think about movies, and i'm grateful to don for
pointing out this useful perspective . . . but--unlike say pierce's
discrimination of symbol, index, and icon--there is really no way of knowing on
the face of it which meaning is operating at any given time . . . so it finally
cannot answer the question raised by the image of sarandon's comforting of penn
in DMW . . . it simply reconfigured the question into one which might be
formulated thus: which of bordwell's meanings is operating in that image?
the terms of inquiry change . . . the problem remains intact . . .
. . . plus ca change"
Actually, as Umberto Eco has pointed out, Peirce's categories aren't as
distinct as they seem either. Take for example the Statue of Liberty. It is
iconic (representation of a woman--and a specific woman [Mdme. Bartholdi] at
that); it is an index (of "New York City" or, more generally, "America"); and
it is an arbitrary symbol of Liberty (which, as far as I know, does not look
like a large green lady with a spikey crown, but which does have a long history
of being represented in that or similar forms). Which meaning is operating at
a specific time? Once again, it depends on a) context and b) perceiver.
(Moreover, the use of the statue in a film adds another layer--an iconic
representation of a sign which may be already perceived as iconic itself.
Think of the many ways the Statue can signify: 1) as an index of liberty and
(sorry, I meant a *symbol* of liberty) and an index of the Immigrant Experience
in the execrable 3rd version of THE JAZZ SINGER with Neil Diamond;
2) as an index of New York City (and *maybe* as a symbol of Liberty) at the
beginning of WORKING GIRL; 3) as an index of geographical location and (perhaps)
a symbolic and ironic representation of liberty during the gang assassination
in (I think) the first GODFATHER film.
It's probably safe to say that few viewers think of Mdme. Bartholdi when they
see the statue, but otherwise the entanglement of the different levels of
signification can get pretty knotty. A recent example I'm still musing on is
the current car commercial that has a ferry boat loaded with cars cruising
past the statue. It catches the Lady Liberty's eye, and she gets off her
pedestal, wades into the harbor, picks up one of the cars and examines it.
The commercial plays in part on the statue's iconic level--statues don't
normally wade into harbors and pick up cars. The indexical level here seems
to me to be mere background, but if we wanted to probe deeper, we might want
to make some assertions about the abstract concept of "
liberty" as applied to the "freedom of the road" or "free enterprise" or
"American automotive ingenuity". (I *think* it's an American car, but if
I'm wrong, then it gets even weirder.)
Not having seen DEAD MAN WALKING, I can't comment on that specific image, but
let me return to the Coke commercial that Mike cited earlier, using some
of Bordwell and Thompson's categories (referential, explicit, implicit and
symptomatic meaning). Like Peirce's categories, these too can be simultaneously
present. Indeed, referential meaning may often carry the weight of implicit
or even explicit meanings, and all the first three categories are likely to
be connected to symptomatic meaning in some way.
The commercial (the one with the secretaries ogling a construction worker)
certainly has an explicit meaning (as someone pointed out): "Drink Coke."
It is also involved in referential play of role reversal--the familiar
image of the construction worker ogling (to put it politely) women while on
break (and it is such "cleverness" that tends to show up in Clio-winning
commercials). But what does the ad *imply*? Here's where the debates
(if we're interested in them at all) are likely to get heated. Certainly,
the commerical seems to imply that there is a link between drinking Coke
and sexuality--but to whom is it addressed? Does it connect Coke and the
male body for the benefit of the voyeuristic female viewer? Or does it
play on male narcissisim by suggesting that drinking Coke will make you
an object of sexual desire (and give you tight abs as well)? Or does it
do both? And of what ideological realm of sexual politics is that a
symptom? There's a paper or two in this.
This is probably a much-too-long way of saying that Mike is right that we cannot
hope to pin down a specific implicit or symptomatic meaning in any "scientific"
way, but that we can proceed by working within general parameters of
agreement.
The rest is what keeps us busy (with apologies to Susan Sontag!)
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]
|
