SYNTAX

• Film has no grammar. There are, however, some vaguely defined rules of usage
in cinematic language, and the syntax of film—its systematic arrangement—
orders these rules and indicates relationships among them. As with written and
spoken languages, it is important to remember that the syntax of film is a result
of its usage, not a determinant of it. There is nothing preordained about film
syntax.
• Rather, it evolved naturally as certain devices were found in practice to be both
workable and useful. Like the syntax of written and spoken language, the syntax
of film is an organic development, descriptive rather than prescriptive, and it
has changed considerably over the years.
• The "Hollywood Grammar" described below may sound laughable now, but
during the thirties, forties, and early fifties it was an accurate model of the way
Hollywood films were constructed.
• In written/spoken language systems, syntax deals only with what we
might call the linear aspect of construction: that is, the ways in which
words are put together in a chain to form phrases and sentences,
what in film we call the syn-tagmatic category. In film, however,
syntax can also include spatial composition, for which there is n o
parallel in language systems like English and French—we can't say or
write several things at the same time.
• So film syntax must include both development in time and
development in space. In film criticism, generally, the modification of
space is referred to as "mise-en-scene." The French phrase literally
means "putting in the scene." The modification of time is called
"montage" (from the French for "putting together").
• Over the years, theories of mise-en-scene have tended to be closely
associated with film realism, while montage has been seen as
essentially expressionistic, yet these pairings are deceptive. Certainly
it would seem that mise-en-scene would indicate a high regard for the
subject in front of the camera, while montage would give the
filmmaker more control over the manipulation of the subject, but
despite these natural tendencies, there are many occasions when
montage can be the more realistic of the two alternatives, and mise-
en-scene the more expressionistic.
• Take, for example, the problem of choosing between a pan from one
subject to another and a cut. Most people would say that the cut is more
manipulative, that it interrupts and remodels reality, and that therefore the
pan is the more realistic of the two alternatives, since it preserves the
integrity of the space. Yet, in fact, the reverse is true if we judge panning
and cutting from the point of view of the observer. When we redirect our
attention from one subject to another we seldom actually pan.
Psychologically, the cut is the truer approximation of our natural
perception. First one subject has our attention, then the other; we are
seldom interested in the intervening space, yet the cinematic pan draws
our attention to just that.*
• It was Andre Bazin, the influential French critic of the 1950s, who more
than anyone developed the connections between mise-en-scene and
realism on the one hand, and montage and expressionism on the other. At
about the same time, in the middle fifties, Jean-Luc Godard was working
out a synthesis of the twin notions of mise-en-scene and montage that was
considerably more sophisticated than Bazin's binary opposition. For
Godard, mise-en-scene and montage were divested of ethical and esthetic
connotations: montage simply did in time what mise-en-scene did in
space. Both are principles of organization, and to say that mise-en-scene
(space) is more "realistic" than montage (time) is illogical, according to
Godard. In his essay "Montage, mon beau souci" (1956) Godard redefined
montage as an integral part of mise-en-scene.
• Setting up a scene is as much an organizing of time as of space. The
aim of this is to discover in film a psychological reality that transcends
physical, plastic reality. There are two corollaries to Godard's
synthesis: first, mise-en-scene can therefore be every bit as
expressionistic as montage when a filmmaker uses it to distort reality;
second, psychological reality may be better served by a strategy that
allows montage to play a central role.
• In addition to the psychological complexities that enter into a
comparison of montage and mise-en-scene, there is a perceptual
factor that complicates matters. We have already noted that montage
can be mimicked within the shot. Likewise, montage can mimic mise-
en-scene. Hitchcock's notorious shower murder sequence in Psycho is
an outstanding example of this phenomenon. Seventy separate shots
in less than a minute of screen time are fused together
psychologically into a continuous experience: a frightening and
graphic knife attack. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts
 Codes
• The structure of cinema is defined by the codes in which it operates
and the codes that operate within it. Codes are critical
constructions—systems of logical relationship—derived after the fact
of film. They are not preexisting laws that the filmmaker consciously
observes. A great variety of codes combine to form the medium in
which film expresses meaning. There are culturally derived codes—
those that exist outside film and that filmmakers simply reproduce
(the way people eat, for example). There are a number of codes that
cinema shares with the other arts (for instance, gesture, which is a
code of theater as well as film). And there are those codes that are
unique to cinema. (Montage is the prime example.)
• The culturally derived codes and the shared artistic codes are vital to
cinema, naturally, but it is the unique codes, those that form the specific
syntax of film, that most concern us here. Perhaps "unique" is not a
completely accurate adjective. Not even the most specifically cinematic
codes, those of montage, are truly unique to cinema. Certainly, cinema
emphasizes them and utilizes them more than other arts do, yet something
like montage has always existed in the novel. Any storyteller is capable of
switching scenes in midstream. "Meanwhile, back at the ranch," is clearly
not an invention of cinema. More important, for nearly a century film art
has had its own strong influence on the older arts. Not only did something
like montage exist prior to 1900 in prose narrative, but also since that time,
novelists, increasingly influenced by film, have learned gradually to make
their narratives even more like cinema.
• The point is, simply, that codes are a critical convenience—nothing more—and it would
be wrong to give them so much weight that we were more concerned with the precise
definition of the code than with the perception of the film.
• Taking the shower scene in Psycho once again as an example, let's derive the codes
operating there. It is a simple scene (only two characters—one of whom is barely seen—
and two actions—taking a shower and murdering) and it is of short duration, yet all three
types of codes are evident. The culturally derived codes have to do with taking showers
and murdering people. The shower is, in Western culture, an activity that has elements
of privacy, sexuality, purgation, relaxation, openness, and regeneration. In other words,
Hitchcock could not have chosen a more ironic place to emphasize the elements of
violation and sexuality in the assault. Murder, on the other hand, fascinates us because
of motives. Yet the dimly perceived murderer of Psycho has no discernible motive. The
art seems gratuitous, almost absurd—which makes it even more striking. Historically,
Jack the Ripper may come to mind, and this redoubles our sense of the sexual
foundation of the murder.
• Since this particular scene is so highly cinematic and so short, shared codes are
relatively minor here. Acting codes hardfy play a part, for instance, since the
shots are so brief there isn't time to act in them, only to mime a simple
expression. The diagonals that are so important in establishing the sense of
disorientation and dynamism are shared with the other pictorial arts. The harsh
contrasts and backlighting that obscure the murderer are shared with
photography. The musical code of Bernard Herrmann's accompaniment also
exists outside film, of course.

• As we have already noted, the specifically cinematic codes in Hitchcock's one-

minute tour de force are exceptionally strong. In fact, it's hard to see how the
montage of the sequence could be duplicated in any other art. The rapid cutting
of the scene may indeed be a unique cinematic code.
• Hitchcock manipulates all these codes to achieve a desired effect. It is
because they are codes—because they have meaning for us outside
the narrow limits of that particular scene: in film, in the other arts, in
the general culture—that they affect us. The codes are the medium
through which the "message" of the scene is transmitted. The
specifically cinematic codes together with a number of shared codes
make up the syntax of film.
Mise-en-scene
• What to shoot?
• How to shoot?
• How to present what is shot?

• Mise en scène definition, the process of setting a stage, with regard

to placement of actors, scenery, properties, etc (in theatre)
• Mise en scène is the arrangement of scenery and stage properties in
a play. Translated from French, it means "setting the stage" but, in
film analysis, the term mise en scene refers to everything in front of
the camera, including the set design, lighting, and actors. Mise en
scene in film is the overall effect of how it all comes together for the
audience.
• Mise en scene elements include:
• Sets
• Props
• Lighting
• Costumes
• Actor blocking
• Shot composition
• Mise-en-scene is often regarded as static, montage as dynamic. This is
not the case. Because we read the shot, we are actively involved with
it. The codes of mise-en-scene are the tools with which the filmmaker
alters and modifies our reading of the shot. Since the shot is such a
large unit of meaning, it may be useful to separate a discussion of its
components into two parts.
THE FRAMED IMAGE
All the codes that operate within the frame,, are shared with the other pictorial
arts.
The number and range of these codes is great, and they have been developed
and refined in painting, sculpture, and photography over the course of thousands
of years. Basic texts in the visual arts examine the three determinants of color,
line, and form, and certainly each of the visual codes of film fits within one of
these rubrics.

Balance, Shape, Form, Growth, Space, Light, Color, Movement, Tension, and
Expression. Clearly, a full exposition of the codes operating in the film frame
would be a lengthy undertaking.

Two aspects of the framed image are most important: the limitations that the
frame imposes, and the composition of the image within the frame (and without
necessary regard to it).
Since the frame determines the limit of the image, the choice of an aspect ratio suggests the possibilities of
composition. With the self-justification that has been endemic to the elusive subject of film esthetics, early
theoreticians waxed eloquent over the value of the Academy aperture, the 1.33 ratio.

When widescreen ratios became popular in the 1950s, the classical estheticians bemoaned the destruction of the
symmetry they perceived in the Academy aperture, but, as we demonstrated in Chapter 2, there was nothing
sacred about the ratio of 4:3.

The question is not which ratio is "proper" but rather which codes yield themselves to exploitation in which ratios?
Before the mid-fifties, it seems, interiors and dialogue dominated American and foreign screens. After the
introduction of the widescreen formats in the 1950s, exteriors, location shooting, and action sequences grew in
importance. This is a crude generalization, but there is some useful truth to it. It's not important whether there
was a cause-and-effect relationship between the two historical developments, only that wide screens permitted
more efficient exploitation of action and landscape codes.
CinemaScope and Panavision width ratios (2.33 and above) do make it more difficult, as the old Hollywood
estheticians had suggested, to photograph intimate conversations. Whereas the classic two-shot of the 1.33
screen size tended to focus attention on speaker and listener, the very wide anamorphic ratios cannot
avoid also photographing the space either between them or beside them and therefore calling attention to
their relationship to the space surrounding them. This is neither "better" nor "worse"; it simply changes the
code of the two-shot.

The filmmaker can also change the dimensions of the frame during the course of the film , Nolan uses it in
many of his films.
Just as important as the actual frame size, although less easily perceived, is the filmmaker's
attitude toward the limit of the frame. If the image of the frame is self-sufficient, then we
can speak of it as a "closed form." Conversely, if the filmmaker has composed the shot in
such a way that we are always subliminally aware of the area outside the frame, then the
form is considered to be "open."

Open and closed forms are closely associated with the elements of movement in the frame.
If the camera tends to follow the subject faithfully, the form tends to be closed; if, on the
other hand, the filmmaker allows—even encourages—the subject to leave the frame and
reenter, the form is obviously open. The relationship between the movement within the
frame and the movement of the camera is one of the more sophisticated codes, and
specifically cinematic.
Just as important as the actual frame size, although less easily perceived, is the
filmmaker's attitude toward the limit of the frame. If the image of the frame is
self-sufficient, then we can speak of it as a "closed form." Conversely, if the
filmmaker has composed the shot in such a way that we are always subliminally
aware of the area outside the frame, then the form is considered to be "open."

Open and closed forms are closely associated with the elements of movement in
the frame. If the camera tends to follow the subject faithfully, the form tends to
be closed; if, on the other hand, the filmmaker allows—even encourages—the
subject to leave the frame and reenter, the form is obviously open. The
relationship between the movement within the frame and the movement of the
camera is one of the more sophisticated codes, and specifically cinematic.
THREE PLANES OF COMPOSITION
CONVENTION OF DEPTH PERCEPTION
Proximity and proportion are important subcodes. Stage actors are forever mindful of them.
Obviously, the closer the subject, the more important it seems. As a result, an actor in the theater is
always in danger of being "upstaged" by other members of the company. In film, of course, the
director has complete control over position, and reverse angles help to redress the balance.
Multiple images (split screen) and superimpositions (double exposures, et cetera), although they are seldom
used, can multiply the intrinsic weights by factors of two, three, four, or more. Texture, although it is not often
mentioned when speaking of film esthetics, is also important, not only in terms of the inherent texture of the
subject but also in terms of the texture—or grain—of the image.
USE OF COLOR
Aspect ratio; open and closed form; frame,
geographic, and depth planes; depth perception;
proximity and proportion; intrinsic interest of color,
form, and line; weight and direction; oblique versus
symmetric composition; texture; and lighting. These
are the major codes operating within the static film
frame.
The Diachronic Shot
• Filmmakers use a wealth of terminology in regard to the shot. The factors that
now come into play include distance, focus, angle, movement, and point of
view. Some of these elements also operate within the static frame, but all are
more appropriately discussed as dynamic qualities. Shot distance is the
simplest variable. So-called "normal" shots include the full shot, three-quarter
shot, medium shot (or mid-shot), and head-and-shoulders shot—all defined in
terms of the amount of subject viewed. Closeups, long shots, and extreme long
shots complete the range of distances.
• None of these terms has anything to do with the focal length of the lens used.
In addition to being defined in terms of the distance of the camera from the
subject, shots are also named for their lenses. One person's closeup is
another's "detail shot," and no Academy of film has sat in deep deliberation
deciding the precise point at which a medium shot becomes a long shot, or a
long shot metamorphoses into an extreme long shot. Nevertheless, within
limits, the concepts are valid.
SHOT SIZE/DISTANCE
21 GRAMS close up deprives us of setting and is therefore disorienting, claustrophobic. The effect
can be striking.
Film shot mainly in long shot— Secret Life of Walter Mitty—emphasizes context over
drama and dialectic over personality. The code of shot distance is simple, but to a large
extent it controls which of the many other codes of film we may use
 FOCUS
• Focus is the next most important variable in the syntax of the shot. There are two axes in the
determination of focus: the first choice is between deep focus, in which foreground, middle
ground, and background are all relatively sharp focus, and shallow focus, in which the focus
emphasizes one ground over the others. Shallow focus obviously allows the filmmaker greater
control over the image. Deep focus, on the other hand, is one of the prime esthetic hallmarks of
mise-en-scene. (It is much easier to "put things in the scene" when all three grounds are in focus,
since the scene is then much larger, more accommodating.)

• The second axis of focus is the continuum between sharp and soft focus. This aspect of the shot is
related to texture. Soft focus is generally associated with so-called romantic moods. Sharp focus is
more closely associated with verisimilitude. These are generalizations that specific instances
often contradict. (As always, the rales are made to be broken.) Soft focus is not so much romantic
as it is mollifying. It smoothes out the identifying details of an image and distances it.
SHOT ANGLE

• The third aspect of the diachronic shot—angle—also reaches back

toward static composition and forward toward the movement of the
shot. Because the relationship between camera and subject exists in
three-dimensional space, there are three sets of separate angles that
determine the shot.

• How do you want to show the viewer what is happening?

CAMERA MOVEMENT
 STATIC PAN WHIP PAN

TRACK IN/ TRACK OUT/

TILT
CHARGE CHARGE OUT

ZOOM CRASH WHIP PAN

ZOOM

CAMERA TRACKING TRUCKING

ROLL

ARC BOOM
HANDHELD
POINT OF VIEW
• Point of view is the perspective from which a story is told. There are
three major points of view that are used in writing: first person,
second person, and third person. Each perspective is used to achieve
a different creative end: first-person keeps the story intimate and
personal; second person creates a dialogue between the words of the
writer and the thoughts of the reader; third person presents the story
“as is” and gives a feeling of distance.
POINT OF VIEW

• Point of view is easier to describe in prose narrative: novels are either

narrated by someone in the story—the first-person narrator—or by
someone outside it— the omniscient narrator. The first-person
narrator may be either a major or a minor figure in the events; the
omniscient narrator is sometimes developed as a separate character,
sometimes characterless, except insofar as he represents the
character of the author. In its totality, film can fairly well duplicate
these fictional models.