lgs asks whether all present approaches to semiotics are historical and
therefore of relatively little value for purposes of scripting and directing
a film?
 
For semiotics to be "useful", must we then find (or create) a standard visual
film language, in which particular physical objects have specific abstract
meanings-sort of a visual calligraphy? (e.g. a dove always equals a human
soul; two doves equal two souls.) If we do, won't the use of this "lanuguage"
limit the meanings we attach to films and make each use obvious and tedious?
(A dove could never stand for spirituality/immortality.)
 
Alternatively, we could create a standard set of general visual metaphors and
similes whose specific application depends on the "facts" of the film plot.
In this latter case, semiotics would be neither historical, nor a form of
visual calligraphy. A dove could stand for a  human
soul/spirituality/immortality depending on the context of the film.
 
Even this latter view of semiotics is subject to (at least) the objection
that it is tied to specific cultures, however. For example, the uses of the
dove set forth above might not be easily understood in a society which viewed
the dove as a symbol of war (which is true of some Oriental cultures).
 
Thanks for "listening."
 
Peter
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]