Page 92 - Decoding Culture
P. 92

SITUATIN G   SUBJECTS  85

           prominently both in translation and as a topic for discussion in the
           pages  of Screen  (see,  in  particular,  Screen,  14,  1/2,  1973;  14, 3,
           1973; 16, 2, 1975) and partly because the movement of his thought
           embodies  some  of the  same  shifts  apparent  in  Screen  theory.
           Roughly  speaking,  his  semiotics  of film falls into  three  phases,
           here referenced in relation to the English translations in collected
           form rather than the original essays: a first period in the early to
           mid-1960s (Metz, 1974a) when he is much exercised by the 'prob­
           lem' of film's status as a language without a langue; a second period
           culminating in the publication of Langage et cinema in 1971 (Metz,
           1974b)  in which those earlier reservations are left behind in a sys­
           tematic attempt to examine the units, codes and language system
           of cinema;  and a third period beginning in the  mid-1970s  (Metz,
           1982)  in which the semiotic project is recast in terms of a psycho­
           analytic attempt to conceptualize the cinematic apparatus. I shall
           briefly examine the characteristic features of each of those phases,
           my account of the first two deriving from the rather longer discus­
           sion in Tudor (1980).
             In  his  early  essays  Metz  adopts  a  similar  position  to  that
           advanced by Barthes  (1977c)  in relation to photography.  In what
           senses, he asks, can we talk about film as a 'language'? For us to
           develop a genuine  semiology of film we must be able to think in
           terms of a cinematic langue that provides the basis for intelligible
           film parole.  But,  Metz argues, film cannot meet the  criteria that
           would  allow us  to  accept it as  a fully fledged  language  complete
           with such a language system. To see it as thus systematized is, per­
           haps understandably,  to  be  misled by appearances:  'film  is  too
           obviously a message for one not to assume that it is coded' (Metz,
           1974a: 40). The problem is that film does exhibit certain 'syntacti­
           cal  procedures'  which,  as  a  result  of frequent  use,  appear to be
           aspects of a language system. But that is an illusion. It is not such
           procedures that allow us to understand the stories that the movies





                              Copyrighted Material
   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97