CAV 401: Semiotics of Cinema

TEACHER: Dr. BESSOMO MVOGO M.C.A.

Course plan

INTRODUCTION
1. FROM SEMIOTICS TO THE SEMIOTICS OF
CINEMA
1.1. SEMIOTICS/SEMIOLGY: ATTEMPT AT DEFINITION
1.1.1.Definition of the sign
1.1.2. Approach of Ch. Sanders Pierce and the notion of triadic sign
1.1.3. Approach of Ferdinand de Saussure or the notion of dyadic sign
1.1.4. Hjelmslev's approach and the representation of the tetrahedral sign
1.1.5.Classification of signs
1.2. DEFINITION AND THEORIES OF A SEMIOTICS OF CINEMA
1.2.1. From the linguistic sign to the cinematic sign
1.2.2. Theoretical logics
1.2.2.1. Christian Metz
1.2.2.2.Umberto Eco
1.2.3. The reference framework: opposition film/cinema
1.2.3.1. Two-Term Combinatorics
1.2.3.2. Three-term combinatorics
2. OPERATION OF CINEMATIC LANGUAGE
2.1. Definition of the image and the imagistic discourse

2.1.1. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations

2.1.2. The coding systems of film and cinema;
2.1.2.1. The opposition code/system
2.1.2.2. The film codes
2.1.3. The structural analysis of the film

2.1.4.1. The great syntagmatic or the code of narrativity

2.1.4.1.1. The autonomous plan
2.1.4.1.2. The parallel phrase
2.1.4.1.3. The phrase in braces
 2.1.4.1.4. The descriptive phrase
2.1.4.1.5. The alternate phrase
2.1.4.1.6. The scene
2.1.4.1.7. The ordinary sequence and the episode sequence
3. SEMIOPRAGMATICS OF CINEMA OR THE STUDY OF RECEPTION OF
CINEMATIC PRODUCT
3.1. Theories of Metz and Odin
3.2. The analysis of film discourse/cinematic enunciation
3.3. The reception of cinema
3.3.1. Perception
3.3.1.1. The decryption of the message
3.3.1.2. Cinema; an art of emotion
3.3.2. The cinema room as an anthropological space
4. ELEMENTS OF SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF AUDIOVISUAL TEXT
4.1. Theoretical elements on the notion of audiovisual text
4.2. The place and importance of audiovisual productions
4.3. Elements of description of an audiovisual production
4.3.1. The pro-filmic situation
4.3.2. The diegetic universe
4.3.3. The filmic and visual plans

CONCLUSION

Bibliography
BACTILE, Yveline. Keys and Codes of Cinema. 2nd ed. Paris, Magnard, 1973.
MEDIA and SOCIETIES
The Semiological Adventure
ECO, Umberto. The absent structure: introduction to semiotic research.
By U. ESPOSITO –TORRIAGIANI, Paris, Mercure de France, 1972.
ECO, Umberto. The Interpreter in the Story or the interpretative cooperation in texts
narratives. Paris, Grasset, 1985.
 ECO, Umberto. The Limits of Interpretation. Paris, Ed. Grasset & Fasquelle, 1992
(for the French translation).
ECO, Umberto. Semiotics and Philosophy of Language. Paris, PUF, 1988.
HJEMSLEV, Louis, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language, Paris, Minuit Press, 1968
JAKOBSON, Roman. Essays on General Linguistics, Paris, Editions Minuit, 1963
LOTMAN Iouri. Aesthetics and Semiotics of Cinema. trans. Sabine Breuillard, Paris,
Social Editions, 1977 for the translation, 1973 for the original edition.
METZ, Christian. Essay on Meaning in Cinema. Paris, Klincksieck Editions.
1968.
METZ, Christian. The impersonal enunciation or the site of the film.
MéridiensKlincksieck, 1991.
METZ, Christian. Language and Cinema. Paris, Larousse, 1971.

METZ Christian. "On the Impression of Reality in Cinema," in Essay on the

Significance in Cinema, Volume 1. Paris, KLINCKSIECK Editions, 1965 (1968).
The Public Question. A Semiotic-Pragmatic Approach
"Cinema and Reception", No. 99, CENT/Hermès Science Publication, 2000. pp.: 51-72.
ODIN, Roger. "Phase alignment, phase shift, and performativity in The Tempest"
Jean Epstein » in Communications, no. 38, 1983 pp. : 213-238.
ODIN, Roger. "For a Semiotic-Pragmatics of Cinema" in Iris, vol 1, no 1, 1983
p.p. : 67-82.
PEIRCE, Charles Sanders. Writings on the Sign. Paris, Seuil, 1978.
SAUSSURE (de) Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Paris, Payot, 1916.

INTRODUCTION
In the field of interpersonal exchanges and social interaction, the
communication has undeniable importance. There is no society without communication. The
notions of language and speech appear in all their usefulness and justify the
resurgence of structuralist studies from the beginning of the 20th century. From this orientation
semiotics was born, which others recognize under the name of semiology, a science that
is interested in any communication system based on signs. Grounded in decoding
signs in every system of social communication, semiotics has extended to everything
media or form of communication based on a system of signs. Cinema being a
media and a mode of communication built on the basis of signs, talking about a semiotics
cinema involves an analysis viewed through the lens of production and that of
reception. Also, for a global understanding of the semiotics of cinema, it is important to
specify the outlines of a theoretical framework for this approach, to define its foundations and
to explain the functioning of cinematic language before bridging to
the pragmatic aspect of this discipline which will focus on the reception of cinema, without for
it is as well to omit establishing a relationship between the semiotics of cinema and the semiotics of

audiovisual.

FROM SEMIOTICS TO CINEMA SEMIOTICS

1.1. SEMIOTICS/SEMIOLGY: ATTEMPT AT DEFINITION
Etymologically, the word semiotics comes from the Greek séméion = "sign" and logia,
logos = discourse). It can be defined, at first approach, as the science of
signs. It tends to establish itself as a science of meaning whose objective is to
understand the process of producing meaning. One could find distant origins to
semiotics, tracing this term back to ancient Greece where one finds a
medical discipline (semiology or symptomatology) aimed at detecting symptoms by
which manifest a pathological state. But in the area of what we should
calling it later "the humanities", everything seems to indicate that the problem of the sign
was one of the themes of Stoic philosophy in the third century.
It is only during the period that covers the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.

century, that the advent of a 'science' of semiotics became possible. Conducted

independently in Europe and the United States, the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand DE
SAUSSURE (1857-1913), and the American philosopher Charles Sanders PEIRCE (1839-1914)
are considered as founders of semiotics, and the genesis of the theory of the sign.
According to him, semiotics is another name for logic: 'The almost necessary doctrine or
formal signs.
As for semiology, it developed in Europe under the impetus of
Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) around 1908-09. For him, the
Semiology is "a science that studies the life of signs within social life; it
would form part of social psychology.
 Semiotics (or semiology) is, to put it briefly, the discipline that studies signs.
and/or the meaning (process of meaning production).

In a broad sense, semiotics (sometimes also called 'semiology') is a

bodies of theories, methodologies and applications produced or integrated within the framework of the
semiotic discipline, founded between the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and which is interested in

particularly to the meaningful product (text, image, etc.), that is to say which conveys meaning.
In this context, it is appropriate to distinguish general semiotics from other types of
semiotics. General semiotics allows, with the help of the same concepts and methods,
describe, in principle, any product and any system of signs: texts, images, productions
multimedia, road signs, modes, shows, daily life, architecture, etc.
specific or particular semiotics (of the text, of the literary text, of the image,
multimedia, etc.) take into account the specificities of each system of signs.
Applied semiotics is the application of an analysis method using concepts
semiotics in a specific field or mode of communication. Its field of action
concerns the interpretation of productions of all kinds; for example, the semiotics of
the static image as an analysis of the image using semiotic tools. This level concerns
specific social discourses based on the notion of sign. It is in this category that
we can organize the semiotics of cinema.
In the end, it is simply a study of signs. That's why it us
it is our duty to dwell on the semanteme of the word sign.

1.2. On the notion of sign

The sign can be recognized in several ways. There are functional definitions.
Thus, the most general definition, and one of the oldest, defines the sign as that which is put to
the place of something else. It is the index of a thing or a phenomenon that it expresses
more or less explicitly. It is an object that carries meaning. For example,
A green light means that one can go.
A sign has a materiality that we perceive with one or several of our senses.
(spoken language, scream, music, noise), the sense of it (various smells: perfume, smoke), one can it
to see (an object, a color, a gesture), to hear it, to touch it, or even to taste it. This thing
what we perceive serves as something else: this is the essential characteristic of the sign:
to be there, to designate or signal something else that is absent, concrete or abstract.
There are also definitions based on the presence of the constituent elements of
signs, which vary from one theory to another. We also distinguish the approaches of Pierce,
Saussure and that of Hjelmslev.
 1.2.1. Approach of Ferdinand de Saussure and the dyadic sign
Saussure begins by defining the sign as a 'psychic entity with two faces.'
which "unites a concept and an acoustic image." The sign is divided into signifier, the part
perceptible of the sign (for example, the letters v-a-i-s-s-e-a-u) and signified, the intelligible part
of the sign. The signifier and the signified are inseparable: they cannot be separated. The
significant is an association of letters forming sounds. It is, in a way, the
container. The signified is the meaning, the definition of the sign. It is the content. The word lion is a
sign because it is a form composed of letters (the l-i-o-n- etc.) and because it is endowed
of a meaning (a fierce wild animal considered the king of the jungle).
In summary, a sign is an association of letters with a meaning. Reason
for which this model of sign is said to be dyadic, since it includes two elements.

1.2.2. The approach of Ch. Sanders Pierce and the notion of the triadic sign
Peirce conceives semiotics in a more general way, not only the sign that
is no longer exclusively a linguistic object, but the semiotic theory of Peirce
also envisions, within this science, both emotional and practical life and
intellectual.
The sign according to Peirce consists of the relationship of three components that one can
bring closer to the triadic model. For him, a sign is 'something that stands in place of something else'
chosen for someone, in some respect, or under some title. This Peircean definition
highlights the relationship between the sign and its three poles: interpreter,
representamen and object (that is, a referent in the strict sense, fixed, without which the sign
would not exist). Its logic is based on a broader vision of semiotics, by
in relation to its objects, and its fields of research, it is just as interested in language as in
other languages and systems of meaning production such as cinema for example in
is part of

1.1.3. Hjelmslev's approach or the notion of the tetradic sign

In his main work, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (1646), Hjelmslev
proposes an approach influenced by formal logic (which aims to provide a description
abstracts from semiotic systems). It mirrors F. de Saussure's model by distinguishing, on
the plan of expression (the signifier) and content (the signified), the form—what structures—
and the substance—what is structured. In other words: the form of the expression corresponds
the phonological rules specific to each language. The form of the content corresponds to
rules according to which perceived reality is divided into units of meaning. The substance of
the expression corresponds to the actual phonemes that result from these parameters. The substance
The content is made up of these units. This sign model is said to be tetradic.
Nevertheless, these different approaches lead to a classification of signs that belongs to them.

is common.

1.1.4. Classification of signs

Among the proposed classifications of signs, Peirce's allows for understanding the
operation of the image perceived as a sign. Starting from the type of relationship that is established between

the "signifier" and the "referent", Peirce considers three main categories of signs
knowledge: the symbol, the index, and the icon.
- the symbol: (works by convention)
The symbol maintains an arbitrary or conventional relationship with what it represents.
It has a relative similarity to the reality it represents. For example, the balance symbol of the
justice. Symbol of pharmacies This means that the linguistic sign is according to the
piercian conception a symbol in that verbal language is conceived as "
system of conventional signs.
-the index or indicator: (contiguous to facts) it is a sign that maintains a physical link or
a causal link with the object it indicates; this is the case when a weather vane indicates the
wind direction, or smoke indicating the presence of fire. Example of the symptoms of a disease.

- The icon: (similarity) it resembles what it represents. It is a sign of which the

significant enters into an analogical relationship with what it represents, that is, with its referent:
a figurative drawing, a computer-generated image representing a tree or a house are
icons as long as they "resemble" a tree or a house." Therefore, the image
is classified under this category due to the analogy between the signifier and the
referent.
Cinema is considered a language composed of signs whose structuring
is similar to that of the linguistic sign, the signs that structure it are therefore analyzed at
the lens of linguistic theories of structuralism that it is important to invoke.

1.2. DEFINITION AND THEORIES OF A SEMIOTICS OF CINEMA

 Based on the concept of interdisciplinarity, semiotics is often used.
as an approach to analysis. It applies to many fields of science
humans, particularly communication. The Italian Umberto Eco was one of the first who
explicitly made the connection between semiotics and communication. From its
Numerous writings on semiotics, the author defines semiotics as the study 'of
cultural processes (that is to say those in which human agents intervene who enter into
contacts based on social conventions) as a communication process." It is
It is therefore clear that for Umberto Eco, the field of research of semiotics is foremost
culture. By culture, he means "all cultural phenomena."
To do this, Eco puts forward two hypotheses: "a) Culture must be studied as
what a communication phenomenon. b) All aspects of a culture can be studied
as contents of communication." The study of culture as a phenomenon
Cultural does not mean that culture is only communication, but it is not for
as much as culture could be better understood if viewed with a perspective
communicational. However, cinema is akin to an art that draws from culture. Beyond its
Cultural aspect, it is a medium and therefore a means of communication.
One of the major difficulties in defining cinema is the polysemy of the term. The
cinema is both a place, a technical process, but also the product of this technique.
The cinematographic film is the central element of any process related to cinema.
In terms of communication, the film is the message produced by this technique/source, transmitted.
on this technique/channel and intended for a receptive audience. In cinema, everything is to be studied: the
cinema as a social phenomenon, cinema perceived as an art, but also as
an industry, as André Malraux rightly noted in the 1950s. However, we have
tendency to forget that cinema is also, and above all, a means of communication
mass. Seen from this perspective, the semiotics of cinema gains all its legitimacy and meaning.
To this effect, one could define the semiotics of cinema as the study of signs and
coding systems that structure the language of cinema. It is a science that emerged around
1960s which starts from the postulate that cinema is a mode of communication
assimilable to language. Composed of signs such as those that structure verbal language, it
can be decrypted as a system of signs to deliver its message.

1.2.1. From the linguistic sign to the cinematic sign

 Starting from the Saussurean perspective which recognizes the linguistic sign as a signifier
and a signified, we can say that the cinematic sign also has two
components related to the signifier and the signified.
1.2.1.1. The signifier
In cinema, the notion of signifier is complex. It refers to a typical sign (sign
of a system that is defined by its substance, e.g., the verbal sign, the iconic sign, the sign
gestural, the sound sign...). We distinguish two typical categories of signs or two
systems or classes of cinematic signifiers
the iconic and non-verbal acoustic signifier (image, character, landscape, decor,
accessories, music, sound effects...
the verbal signifier (speech, word, writings)
The filmic signifier refers to the relevant unit of the image or sound materialized in
four specific elements:
a) the moving photographic image (figurative image, character, place, action)
corresponding also to the phonemes: minimal distinctive units constituted
by the different objects that make up a plan. To the monemes, significant units
minimal corresponds to the image or the plan because the latter is a combination of
cinemas
b) the noise,
the musical sound,
d) the phonetic sound.
And he adds that the notion of linguistic sentence corresponds to the notion of iconeme which has
the particularity of being a unit of cinematic discourse held by an author.

1.2.1.1. The signified

The signifier corresponds to the human and social substance of the cinematic discourse in
the occurrence, the thematic materialization in a film (terrorism, racism...). It refers to
any relevant unit endowed with meaning. It is any element examined in terms of meaning, that is to say
as an involuntary sociological testimony, as an expression of temperament
of a filmmaker or as a work of art.
From the notion of the cinematic sign, various theories of semiotics have emerged.
cinema based on the definition and structuring of cinematic language.
 1.2.2. Theoretical logics
Several theorists have looked into the issue of the semiotics of cinema, among others
the founders of this discipline include Christian Metz and Umberto Eco

1.2.2.1. Christian Metz

Founder of the semiotics of cinema since 1968, Metz establishes that cinema is not
a language but a speech because it does not have a second articulation. It seems
almost impossible for a signifier to be dissociated from its signified in cinema. For him: "the
cinema process by complete blocks of reality, which are actualized in the discourse with their
"global sense" (Metz, 1968: 68). Just like Bettetini, Metz considers that the significant unit
is assimilated to the statement. Thus, the iconeme is assimilated to the image or the plan in the logic of
metz.de as a result, it can be observed that the image or the plan shares 5 characteristics the sentence or
the statement:

Plans are in infinite number.

Plans are inventions of filmmakers.
The plan delivers an indefinite amount of information to the receiver.
The plan is an updated unit, a unit of discourse, an assertion.
The plan makes sense only to a small extent in a paradigmatic opposition.
with the other plans.
For our theorist, cinema can be categorized into denotative and connotative plans.
Relative to the semiotics of denotation, study cinema as a language
specific. It focuses on all the issues related to the diegesis or 'the represented instance'
of the film" (Metz; 1968: 10). This semiotics carries the process of codification
syntagmatic (association of different codes to produce the film or study of the grand
syntagmatic of the image-band), the distinction between paradigm/syntagm, the difference between
language and speech. Ultimately, we can remember that the semiology of denotation can be summarized as follows

three points :
denotation = literal meaning of the film;
representation of the figurative image present on the image strip; c) the meaning of the
Denotation is the diegesis (narration) of the story told and often brought to the screen.
The semiology of connotation aims to discuss the film as a work of art.
She therefore sets herself the mission of uncovering the aesthetic intention that underpinned this.

artistic production. The signifier of connotation = signifier and signified of denotation;

means connotation = cinematic style, the genre, the symbol embodies
 Example: denotation of an American noir film = fight for equality of rights
connotation = impression of anguish and hardness.

1.2.2. Umberto Eco

For this one, the cinematic language is triply articulated. It is composed of
figures, signs, and phrases. The figure is composed of shapes and structures of which
the association with signs (image, sound, character…). A set of signs gives
birth to a plan or a sequence, which are considered as phrases
cinematographic. Umberto eventually reduces these elements to two: the frame (which
allows switching from a fixed plan to a mobile plan) and the kinemorphèmes (which involve the
gestural elements. Thus, at the segmentation of 24 images/second are added the
kinemorphs that promote the materialization of movement, which allows for construction
a meaningful plan.
Umberto Eco also considers that the semiotics of cinema is based on a logic
denotation/connotation. There is therefore a denotative semiotics and a semiotics
connotative
a) the denotation focuses on the specific language of cinema, that is to say the codes and
the systems structuring cinema. This refers to the diegesis, or the represented instance of the film,
syntagmatic coding process, the large syntagmatic of the strip of images. The
Denotation thus refers to the literal meaning of the film, to the narration or the story told (signified)
whose signifier is the figurative image.
b) the connotation is cinema as an art. It is a matter of bringing out the intention.
aesthetic that lies behind the film product
From these theoretical logics emerges the frame of reference in which language is situated.
cinematographic.

1-2-3- The referential framework: opposition film/cinema

The reference framework is the framework in which cinema is situated; it is precisely about
what cinema is concerned with. To define it, Christian Metz proposes two meanings: one
combinatorial with two terms and a combinatorial with three terms.
a) the combinatorial logic with 2 terms: this logic establishes the opposition film/cinema in 3 points

:
1hereopposition: the film is a part of cinema. Everything that happens beforehand
economic production infrastructure, studios, financing, legislation, sociology of
decision-making environments, equipment status, biographies of filmmakers...), during the shooting of
film and after the film (social, political, ideological influence of the film on the audience), next to and
outside of him (ritual of the cinema session, reaction of the spectators, provoked feeling)
through the vision of the film, audience surveys, star mythology...) is part of cinema.
- 2eopposition: if cinema is an art, the film is the artwork or the product of that art;
if cinema is a medium, the film is the product of this medium and if cinema is a means of
communication, the film is the message conveyed by this means of communication.
-3eopposition: from an epistemological perspective, cinema is an ideal and the film is an object
real, the materialization of this ideal.
b) the combinatorics with 3 terms: it distinguishes
the non-filmic cinematographic (before and after the film)
- non-cinematic film: it is the film
the cinematic filmic: when certain codes of cinema are integrated into
the film (for example, the mise en abyme of certain codes in the film such as the sound or image recorder,
film of a movie actor on a film set
The reference framework being precise, it is important to describe the functioning of language.
cinematographic that is defined as the set of codes and systems that
intervene in the production of a film, particularly before, during, and after the process
of film production.

2- OPERATION OF CINEMATIC LANGUAGE

Considered as a language, cinema is based on the notion of image and discourse.
imagined
2-1- the image and the pictorial discourse

The image can be defined as the representation or imitation of reality through

various natural means or those invented by man. There are two types of images: the
fixed or non-sequential images and mobile or sequential images. Cinema employs
mainly moving images but does not exclude still images.
The image discourse refers to the language of the common, which is based on the
images. It is the one used in cinema. Understanding its functioning requires
to clarify the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships that the elements maintain
the constituent.
 Syntagmatic relationships: the syntagm is the set of co-manifested elements.
in a fragment of text; it refers to an organization of co-presence in the filmic text.
Syntagmatic relationships highlight the connections between several elements, of which
the association leads to a filmic image (shot, sequence, film). The syntagmatic aspect is
manifest on axes:
a) the axis of consequences (temporal): it is the axis in which the elements
they follow one after the other. This succession appears in 4 series:
the visual series (image strip)
(these 3 other elements belong to the soundtrack)
b) the axis of simultaneities: which refers to the screen and all spatial co-presences,
simultaneous phrases (e.g., image + heard phrase).
The paradigmatic relations: the paradigm and a class of elements of which only one
appears in the text. Paradigmatic relationships refer to the relationships between the
elements of the same set of which only one appears in the film. The types of paradigms
those who intervene in the filmic discourse are:
the paradigm of large units (narration/description)
the paradigm of staging processes (camera movements, structure
internal of the plan, optical processes such as zoom, blur, transitions or fades (fade
in black, Cut, crossfade)…
the paradigm of speech (relationship between speech/image, speech/soundtrack).

the differential paradigms: gender, style, 'works'...

cultural paradigms: symbolism of the human body, language of objects, system
colors, symbolism of clothing, landscape.
It is therefore within this logic of relationships that the different codes operate that
structure the cinematic language.

2-2- The coding systems of film and cinema

The semiotic analysis of cinema and its product is essentially based on
the identification and decryption of the different codes that structure language
cinematographic in order to construct a relevant meaning. It should be noted that the code is a
set of objects or elements of the manifestation of meaningful discourse in cinema or in the
film. It is an entity designed in semiotics to elucidate, explain the functioning of
syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in film texts. As a result, we distinguish
 A- the cinematographic or specific codes: these are the general codes [specific to
Christian Metz distinguishes 5 types of films:
The code of cinematic punctuation (fade, shutters, iris, curtains, transitions, etc.)
The code of camera movements (tracking, panning, crane trajectory,
camera in hand, optical traveling (zoom, pan cinor)
The code organizing the relationships between speech and image
The assembly codes
the codes organizing the relationships between music and image.
the codes organizing the relationships between music and image.
B) Extra-cinematic or non-specific codes
These are codes that do not specifically belong to cinema and that can
intervene in any semiotic analysis. It concerns:
Iconic code (all the elements that go into the composition of an image);
Code of perception (audiovisual in cinema but also of all other
perceptions. Example: a character who touches, smells, or tastes something.
Kinesic code/movement
Anthropological-cultural codes that govern the way to present and the different
anthropological and cultural elements that appear in the narrative. This code helps to
the interpretation of semiotic data. From anthropological-cultural codes arises the notion of
The great syntagmatic structure that constitutes the backbone of any filmic message.

N.B.: Integrate here all the imaging codes of Yveline Baticle

2-3-The great syntagmatic

It is a film segmentation tool proposed by Christian Metz in "Essays on the
meaning in cinema". It is an element of film analysis allowing it to be dissected.
to capture the readings/interpretations made of its sequences/scenes or shots. He presents
under the name of 'large syntagmatics', a precise typology of sequential arrangements
in the narrative fiction film; since it notes on one hand that the meaning in cinema is
always more or less motivated, never arbitrary and on the other hand that the narration of the film
responds to a codified arrangement. Linguist, Metz presents his typology in the form of a
table that he names: The great syntagmatic of the image band. In linguistics, the
A syntagma refers to a group of morphemes or words that follow each other with the same meaning; it
also designates this diagram;
 NB: One of the most recurring critiques made to Metz's syntagmatic model
comes from the fact that it only concerns the image strip and does not involve the sound element in
the delimitation of segments: the change of segment usually coincides with the
changes of plans, which is not always easy, for example when the sound of a
the sequence continues in the following sequence.

The syntagma is a group forming a unit in a hierarchical organization in

the phrase, Metz transposes this notion to the film where he considers it as a segment
autonomous, forming a unit of meaning, any passage from this film that is not interrupted "nor by a
major change in the course of the plot, neither by a punctuation mark, nor by
the abandonment of one syntagmatic type for another.
The role of the grand syntagmatic is to provide a tool for describing structure.
temporal aspect of a film and the schematization of how the narrative is structured. It is
also a tool for analyzing the reception of the film by the viewer. More than a
description tool, the great syntagmatic is a model of film analysis: in
Segmenting a film using this model, we are already in the analysis.

Christian Metz proposes, through the application of a series of successive dichotomies (see
The table above, based on spatiotemporal criteria, includes eight major types.
syntagmatic elements possibly identifiable in a narrative film:

2-4-1-The autonomous plan

It is a self-contained segment formed by a single plane that alone presents an 'episode'.
of the intrigue. This category of autonomous plans is very broad; it includes plans
isolated in the form of insert (four in number according to Metz, of which the most common form
is the explanatory insert: Enlarged detail, a close-up of a watch in a scene where a
character looks at the time for example) than single shots that can last several
minutes. For Metz, the autonomous plan in cinema is what the sentence-paragraph is to the
literature; "in literature, the sentence is a unit of lower rank than the paragraph, but
some paragraphs are made up of a single sentence.
Then, Metz distinguishes, by temporal criteria, between the phrases.
achronological and chronological phrases. In the former, the temporal relationship
the relationship between the facts presented by these phrases is not specified by the film; in the second one

In the a-chronological phrases, he counts two types:

2-4-1-1-The parallel phrase

Here, the editing brings together and intertwines two or more motifs that appear again
alternation and which have no precise temporal relation but rather a relation of order
symbolic (city/countryside, calm/agitation, life of the poor/life of the rich). This phrase
is the best example of connotation in cinema. Since each of the isolated shots in the
The parallel syntagma is only significant through its implication in the entity of the syntagma.

2-4-1-2- The phrase in braces

It is a series of vignettes (one or more brief scenes with a unity of meaning)
linked in braces. This phrase, like the parallel phrase, is significant in its
together and not in the unit of each short scene. This type of syntagma groups together on a level
symbolic events recounted in the skits. The difference, within the
a-chronological phrases, between parallel phrases and brace phrases, "it is
the presence or absence of a systematic alternation of images by series. [...] The
The phrase in braces directly groups the images; the parallel phrase consists of two.
or several series of several images each, and these series alternate on the screen (A B A B,
etc.) »3. The notion of a-chronological phrase means that it has no relationships
chronological markers between the different plans constituting the segment; the notion
chronological syntagma obviously implies the opposite. In this category, Metz
distincts once more, by the criterion of simultaneity, the descriptive phrase from the others
narrative phrases

2-4-1-3- The descriptive phrase

This is the only case where all the represented patterns are in a relationship of simultaneity.
Unable to present two events in the space of the screen (place of the signifier)
which occur simultaneously in the space of reality (place of the signified), it is presented in
syntagmatic succession, but of spatial coexistence relationship. Metz illustrates this type of
phrase with the example of describing a landscape (first) a tree, then a view
partial of this tree, then a small stream that is next to it, then a hill in the distance, etc.
The second type of chronological phrases is the set of narrative phrases.
which in turn are divided into alternating narrative phrases, and another set that groups the
linear narrative syntagms (scenes and sequences), that is to say the most common syntagm
in the narrative film.

2-4-1-4- The alternating phrase

Specifying that all chronological phrases other than the descriptive phrase are
narrative phrases, Metz describes the alternating (narrative) phrase as being the phrase
which generally corresponds to what we have agreed to call in modern cinema, the
alternating or parallel montage, the most relevant example of which is that of the segment of
course pursuits. The montage presents two or more series of events, of which the
the relationship between them is one of simultaneity, but the relationship between each motif in the same series is

of succession. A principle summarized by Metz in the expression: 'Alternation of images /

simultaneity of events." "The montage alternates between two or more series
possibly in such a way that within each series the temporal ratios are
consecution. Unlike the parallel syntagma (no. 2 in the table), the alternate syntagma
presents series where the patterns are governed by a chronological succession ratio.
It is also noted that in the alternating syntagm, the two series of shots belong to different
close spaces and this proximity reinforces the impression of simultaneity.
In the category of linear narrative phrases (as opposed to the phrase
alternating narrative) a new relevance allows to differentiate between two cases: the scene where the
consecution can be continuous and the sequence where the consecution is discontinuous.

2-4-1-5- The scene

It represents the most straightforward manifestation of the continuous linear syntagm thanks to its
effect of spatio-temporal continuity. Even if it has several layers (signifiers
(fragmentary), the signified remains perceived by the spectator in a unified and continuous way. The scene
is also characterized by the equality of narrative time and referential time: time of the
diegesis = time of events. The scene is the only syntagm in cinema 'that resembles to
a "scene" from a play, or a scene from everyday life, that is to say that presents a
spatio-temporal ensemble felt as flawless

In contrast to the scene, inherited from theatrical tradition, Christian Metz specifies that
the term 'sequence' has been established to designate a purely cinematic construction, where the
the temporal sequence of the presented facts is discontinuous. The sequence does not evolve through
continuity, but in successive jumps, Within the sequence, two cases arise:

2-4-1-6- The ordinary sequence and the episodic sequence

We skip the moments deemed uninteresting for the plot and the diegesis, although we
divine their unfolding in reality. Temporal discontinuity can remain disorganized and
scattered. This is undoubtedly the most common syntagmatic type in narrative films.
The sequence per episode: One of the novelties of Metz's work is that he identifies the
first this syntagmatic type: An alignment of a number of short sketches, separated by
more often by optical effects. They follow each other in chronological order and are
generally separated by a long diegetic duration. Unlike the sequence
Ordinary, "discontinuity can be organized and become the very principle of construction
and intelligibility of the sequence […] Each of the images that is involved in the
Consequence clearly appears as the symbolic summary of a stage in an evolution.
long enough that the overall sequence condenses
 Thus, the syntagmatic segmentation of a film can provide insights into the style.
of the film and its author. Filmmakers have these units of meaning at their disposal according to
their aesthetic intentions; "The absence of certain syntagmatics in a film is therefore to
to study on the same level as their presence in another"8. We can therefore conclude
that the grand syntagmatic is more than a transcription tool for the film, by its
definition of general but powerful criteria for delimitation between segments, it is a
first step of film analysis. The great syntagmatic allows to describe more
faithfully a film whose intention is to analyze its internal and partial systems of
meaning; it is also a powerful tool by which one accesses an interpretation
meaningful and verifiable of the cinematic work.

2.4 - The structural analysis of a film

The preparatory work for sequence analysis.

First, immerse yourself in the sequence by focusing on its tone, its

rhythm, its emotions, what it expresses, without delving into the relationship or trying to
understand how the sequence works.
use the appropriate terminology to proceed with the detailed description of
the sequence based on the technical elements deemed relevant and expressive. Respond
thus to the questions who? what? where? and how?

1. The elements related to the sequence as a whole.

Describe the elements related to the narrative. What happens in the sequence? What
What does it tell us? What is happening between the characters? What is the general tone of the
sequence (light, tragic, burlesque, distressing,...) ? What emotion(s) does it convey?
What is the format of the image? Is it a black and white film or in color? A
What period of film history does it belong to (silent film, quality cinema)?
French,...) ?
What is the rhythm, the tempo of the sequence (uniform, accelerating,...)? How?
is she
structured (in a symmetrical or asymmetrical way, in how many parts,...) ? How many
Does the plan count the sequence? Are the plans short or long? What is the relationship(s) between duration?

the sequence and number

 About plans?
At what point does the sequence occur in relation to the entire film? Is it, by
example, a beginning or an end of a movie?

2. The elements related to each of the plans.

- Describe the elements related to staging, to image analysis as much as to
that of sound. Describe, according to relevance in the sequence, the different information.
related to each shot: scale of shot, angle of view, camera movement,
composition, circulation between the on-screen space and the off-screen space, focal distance,

depth of field, light and lighting, colors, sound,…

Film analysis method.

introduction the title of the movie.

*the year of the film + introduce the

context (history, cultural

geographical) that may or may not have influenced the

film production.
the genre of the film (comedy, action,
thriller…)
nationality of the film.
success of the film (number of entries,
awards received.
First part: 1/ Locate the studied scene
At what point in the film (beginning,

A) Presentation of the elements of environment, end.)

the work. At what time period does it take place?

the action?
2/ The decor - place(s) where it takes place

the action natural(s) or made(s)

in studio? interior space(s) or
outside(s)? day or night.
3/ The characters
characterization: physical aspect,
 clothing, voice, interpretation, choice of
the actor
relationships between the characters: who
Are they? What do they want?…

B) Presentation of the staging.

(image and sound) 1/ the framing:
the field / off field
the scales of plan
the camera movements
the angles of view

2/ the light:
Contrasted or not
Realistic or not
the dominant colors

3/ the sound :
Diegetic or extra-diegetic music
diegetic
Various noises

The interest of the work.

Second part: The director's message.
the film fits into a continuity
Analysis of the work. or a break. Why?
The meaning of staging:
the colors (meaning)
the framing
the sound

conclusion Establish connections with other films

of the same kind or of a different kind.
 Personal judgment if possible.

3. SEMIOPRAGMATICS OF CINEMA OR THE STUDY OF RECEPTION

OF THE CINEMATOGRAPHIC PRODUCT

3.1. The theories of Casetti and Odin

Logic of CASETTI
Francesco CASETTI offers an original perspective on the question of the reception of the film by
his viewer. His analysis of semiotic literature on reception is based on a perspective
dichotomous about her. For him, semiotics is indeed a theoretical field divided into
two parts, one of which is a dividing line that separates the entire area of analysis into two zones.
On one hand, the viewer is considered as a decoder: that is to say, someone who
deciphers a set of images and sounds like a visitor who is content to recover the
sense of representation: like a transcriber who, at the end of the journey, translates a
encrypted message. On the other hand, the spectator is considered as a conversational partner, that is to say

to be someone to whom proposals can be made and from whom one can expect a
sign of intelligence; he is therefore in a logic of communication, where the speaker is
taken as speaker and the spectator as interlocutor. This completes the process of
communication through which meaning is born.
The meaning that CASETTI gives to 'text' and 'textual' is perhaps slightly
different from what is usually given to him. He hears it rather in the sense of a construction.
dynamic, of open and complex organization, of an object intended to be 'read'. One speaks
henceforth a 'filmic text' whereas previously one spoke of work or message.

Odin's Logic
Roger Odin proposes his own alternative model, opposing in his archaeology of
the literature of reception the Text-reader model to what he calls approaches
contextual.2
 But before that, Odin recalls, for him, the reasons for the quarantine.
the question of the audience in film theories. He presents three. Firstly, "the
the structuralist conviction of the sixties and seventies stifled for a long time
the embryo of any attempt to think outside of structuralist dogmatism. One can
note that, unlike Umberto ECO, Roger ODIN does not see, in the block
structuralist, the slightest opening towards the question of the public. The question of the public, in

cinematic semiotics was also set aside for methodological precautions (can-
to be afraid of a "sociologization" of the issue). Odin cites, for this purpose, the roadmap
the study program on the relationships between films and society by ROPARS, LAGNY and
SORLIN. They have chosen to focus on 'the film itself, without looking for
beyond his reason or his point of reference." 3 In the end, Odin believes that the conception of the
filmic communication by film semioticians, notably Christian METZ, has been
behind the parentheses of reception approaches. 'Cinema delivers texts
prepared in advance, established once and for all, unchangeable, completed before being presented
1 and who do not grant the viewer any possibility of modification.
What he considers relevant to the Text-reader model in cinema is
the approach that supports audience analysis through film. In this regard, we can
notice, without difficulty, that Roger ODIN does not distinguish hermeneutic theories from
notable advances of someone like CASETTI. He even cites the latter to illustrate
the thinking of the early ones: it is about studying how the film "builds its viewer,"
how he accounts for it, how he assigns it a place, how he makes it traverse
a certain route."2 Then, he goes on with his criticism when he notes that, despite a certain
pragmatic paradigm displayed, the text remains 'put in the control room' and directs the
lecture.
If ODIN critiques the text-reader model in this way, it is to better distinguish it from
contextual approaches, which aim to analyze the production of meaning by the audience
himself.
To these contextual approaches, Roder ODIN finds an origin in the writings of
the American ethnologist Sol WORTH. He believed that 'a film has no meaning'
in itself"3 and that this meaning is only possible within the context of a relationship with a subject
perceiving. This observation is all the more interesting as it helps to conceive an idea of
the process of meaning as a communication process, two-way
production of meaning, between two spaces, that of the speaker and that of the recipient and whose
the common point is the film proposed as text.
 Indeed, WORTH, in its pragmatic proposal, does not reverse the 'poles' of the model.
textually by giving the spectator full power; it is true that the spectator constructs the
sense, but he does it "under the pressure of determinations that run through him and build him"
without being most often aware of it. The viewer shares, with others, certain
constraints. This is the whole point of this approach: it takes into account
suggestions that can be associated with the works of sociological theories of reception
in the context of Cultural Studies such as physical, sociological, and
cultural influences in the reception process.

3.2. The analysis of filmic discourse/cinematic enunciation

3.2.1. The enunciative device of the cinematic film.
This device is one of the means that contributes to the reception of cinema. It is true
since the emergence of a certain cinema referred to as 'mental' initiated by 'the new
vague; and with attempts here and there in an "experimental cinema," where the film...
manifesting as "discourse", narratology tries to identify enunciative marks
in the film. She puts forward two tracks: 'the point of view' and 'the voice'
narrative.
In cinema, it is also the way we look. As a general rule, in narrative film,
what is the classic and most conventional form of cinematic film, the point of
the view is generally compared to someone: either the camera corresponds to the eye of a character,
we then speak of internal ocularization; either it seems to be placed outside of any character,
where we are dealing with a zero ocularisation. 1 This concept of ocularisation is twofold.
important, because in cinema the questions 'who sees?' and 'what do we see?' refer to the
question "who knows?". And by that, the positions of the external narrator (enunciator) and the
characters intertwine. To the question "who sees?", Francis VONOYE, in "Written Narrative,
film narrative" offers three possible answers/cases: "An omniscient narrator who
and this more than the characters know; A narrator who only says what such sees
character (story 'from a point of view' [...] ; a narrator who says less than what he knows)
character [...] »2.
Another point related to cinematic enunciation is that of the narrative voice, it is to say
discuss the relationship between the narrator and the story told: the position of the narration by
in relation to the story, is it anterior, posterior, or simultaneous? And also the degree of
presence of the narrator in the narrative. In one case, it happens that a film is narrated to the
first person, where the events are expressed by a character with a camera
subjective. The narration in this case is implicit. On the other hand, it is explicit when the
Events are presented with an objective camera, when one has the impression that the story
It is narrated in the third person by an external narrator.
This 'narratological thesis' of enunciative marks, based on the two only
principles of point of view on one hand, and narrative voice on the other, is strongly
debatable. Because it could simply be artistic choices or options.
dramatic (in the sense of dramaturgy) rather than enunciative markers.
However, there are processes, of technical origin but of artistic use and
expressive, made available to the author/speaker to produce their work and mark it
by its imprint and by its style. The linguistic origin of the concept of enunciation justifies
in some ways another parallel between linguistic text and cinematic film. If
The sentence is constructed with words, the film, on the other hand, is made up of images and sounds, of which the

composition is ensured by the speaker/author with the help of expressive tools. Among which,
there are expressive tools that are specific to cinema, and that differentiate it from others
arts and means of expression such as theater or photography. Yvelines BATICLE the
divided into three categories: spatial processes, kinesthetic processes, and finally processes
audiovisuals1
Spatial processes are used by the speaker to capture an image and the
show in a plan* limited in space and time. The change of scale of
shots or camera angles are significant here. A high-angle shot does not have the same
the value that a low-angle shot, information provided in a general shot is different from
this data in a close-up. It is the same for the framing: the speaker chooses to
put in the frame what he wants to show. Everything that is outside the frame, unless otherwise stated
the opposite does not exist in the movie.
The kinetic processes in this set, the assembly is perhaps the most important.
and the most expressive of elements. Editing is the work of putting the shots in order
planned in the editing, it also allows the director to imprint their personal mark.
The great Soviet director Sergei EISENSTEIN says that editing is "the art of expressing
or to signify in relation to two juxtaposed planes in such a way that this juxtaposition
bring to life the idea or express something that is not contained in either of the two taken plans
separately. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
In addition to these tools, there is a third category that groups the processes.
audiovisuals, among which music seems to be the main process. This allows
to establish the general atmosphere of the film and sometimes to express what the image alone struggles to convey

to climb.
3.2.2. The reception of cinema
In a study on the semiotics of reception, we chose to focus on
on two points that seem essential to us to understand 'the mechanics' of the
semiotic democracy. The first point concerns the notion of perception. A notion
often discussed but almost always within the framework of research work in
human and social sciences. We will try to shed light on this notion to
better understand the process of receiving the cinematic film in its phase of
decoding of the message. Then we will address a second point which deals with the room of
cinema, as a 'physical' element of this reception space.
3.2.2.1. The perception
3.2.2.1.1. The decryption of the message
It is interesting to describe the process of receiving the cinematic film.
in its phase of decoding the filmic message, a central phase of the process, to recall the
functioning of the human brain that allows the succession of the three stages of decoding
from the filmic message: Perception, understanding, and finally interpretation.
Starting from a cognitive approach, we can distinguish three parts of the human brain.
functioning successively: The reptilian brain, said to be archaic; the limbic brain or
visceral; and the cerebral cortex. The reptilian brain is the first gateway for the message,
he receives the message as a priority, with the help of five senses, and sorts it. This part of the hoop
ensures the individual's immediate attention capacity. It is the seat of instinct, of
ritual or imitative behavior and ensures the subject's reflexes. In the second part, we...
find the limbic brain which is the seat of affectivity and learning. The
emotional and subjective decryptions of the filmic message depend on this part of
brain, but also the referential reading that we will detail later, since the systems
of the individual's values, their perception of the world, and their psychological behavior
take place in the limbic brain. The interpretation of the film work, as we will see,
is essentially accomplished in this part. If this part is the seat of capabilities
Emotional aspects of the individual, the cerebral cortex, known as superior, is, in turn, the seat of faculties.

intellectual, spiritual, and artistic aspects of the individual. It is the space reserved for reasoning.
logic and conceptual, analytical, and creative abilities. It is only by overcoming
this third part, that the cinematic message is theoretically understood.
 As a result, the perception of a film is a final step in its decoding into
social psychology, whereas it is only the beginning of a decoding process in
neuropsychological. This adds, therefore, an additional difficulty to any attempt
to analyze the reception of the feature film. If the feature film is
generally perceived in its entirety, it is not obvious that it is always understood.
In effect, perception is measured by the film's ability to "attract" the viewer's attention.
for a beginning of the decryption process, while understanding lies in the faculty
of the viewer to correctly decipher the content of the film. Understanding is more than
never a semiotic process: We find in this process the notions of signifier
and signified addressed in the introductory chapter. The weaker the distance will be between the signifier of
filmic message, corresponding to the content intended by the speaker and the signified received by the
the film spectator, more understood can be the film message. In other words, "There is
understanding when there is a correspondence between the meaning of the message attributed by the source and

the one attributed by the audience." It is important therefore that the speaker uses signs
belonging to the cultural universe of its potential audience so that it can be properly understood.
Otherwise, the understanding of the content will be incorrect or the cinematic message will be object no

not an interpretation, as it should be, but an overinterpretation.

3.2.2.1.2. Cinema; an art of emotion

In cinema, the human spirit "not only gives reality its meaning, but even this
which gives it its physical characteristics: color, shape, size, contrast,
brightness, etc. (...) vision is a creative activity of the human mind. », a certain
the conception of cinema would see it as an art of the mind. It would be the art of attention, in the
sense in which it is "an organized recording" in a manner similar to that used by
the mind to make sense of reality; it is also the art of memory and imagination
through the device that allows traveling back in time, speeding up the pace, and creating
flash-back; and finally it is the art of emotion.
This question of cinema as an art of emotion, that is to say the ability of film to
cinema inducing emotions and influencing the viewer is important in the analysis of
reception of the cinema film. For a long time, among Soviet filmmakers, the
montage was considered responsible for evoking emotions. Even if the idea that
the way editing is a means to evoke emotion remains debatable, which is
the important thing remains above all the assertion that a film influences its spectator. It is to
to say that a movie is capable of shaping a viewer. The movie would intrinsically contain
the reasons for the emotion it will induce in the viewer. This emotional impact of the film was
known and established as an elementary truth, but it is only with the advent of the
filmology that began to be of interest as an analyzable phenomenon. Filmology
attempted to answer the questions 'how' and 'why' such an emotion after the
movie screenings?
Edgar MORIN is undoubtedly one of the most famous to have drawn inspiration from this movement.

filmology that dominated the forties and fifties. Although it claims to be from
anthropology, his book 'cinema or the imaginary man' remains strongly linked to the
Filmology. Moreover, a first draft of the essay was initially published in an issue
from the international journal of filmology. In this book, to which several have already been dedicated
In his thesis, Morin believes that cinematic perception has the same aspects as the
magical perception. The magic of cinema would therefore not just be a catchphrase in
the media since filmic perception is determined "by the belief in the double, to the
metamorphoses and to ubiquity, to universal fluidity, to the reciprocal analogy of
microcosm and macrocosm. The spectator does not project themselves into the world or into the
film, but absorbs them into himself. A few years later, Christian Metz, in an article
titled 'The Fiction Film and Its Viewer' attempted a distinction between perception
filmic and dreamlike when he noted that the first "is a real perception (is
actually a perception)"4 since it is not limited to an internal psychic process.
Like the global process of reception, the viewer does not create their perception entirely.
piece. Between the two visions, that of MORIN on one hand and that of METZ on the other hand, a
a just middle would impose itself. This middle would be a negotiation zone between the perceiving subject and

perceived object, all within the framework of a semiotic democracy.

3.2.2.1.3. The cinema as an anthropological space

The description of this 'physical' space of the reception is important for better
analyze the impact of his presence or absence in the experiences
cinematographic aspects that we will address on one hand and to better compare it with the others
"new" spaces of reception on the other hand. Having said that, this attempt at description,
as succinct as it is summary, will focus on the cinematic experience
classic" in its ritual dimension and on "the place" as a mediating space.
It should also be noted that the spectator is passive in a cinema hall. They undergo a flow.
of images, sounds, and emotions. It is not in a logic of control. Besides the choice
of the film and the schedule, the viewer in a theater has no other control tool except to
leave the room hastily. Unlike other spaces, the spectator can neither
to take a "pause" in a movie or to rewatch a sequence where a detail escaped him. In a
cinema room, the film is more "master" than any other space. Second observation of
Barthes is the state similar to hypnosis in which the spectator is plunged. The author of
Mythologies do not even take the precautions of relativization: see a movie
In a room is a hypnosis. You don't leave a room the way you entered it. Before
Even to go there, we prepare for it, we choose our film, our genre, our schedule, and even our theater.
We prepare for a "cinematic situation," a pre-hypnotic situation. Then we dive in.
in the dark of the room as one sinks into hypnosis. 'The cinema room (of the common type)'
To better grasp the intensity of the experience, it is enough to evoke the opposite experience, that is to say
to say watch a movie, perhaps even the same movie, in another presentation space, like
the TV. The fascination disappears, "the black is erased, the anonymity repressed; the space is
familiar, articulated (by the furniture, the known objects). In this text, Roland Barthes chooses
his camp, the cinematic experience necessarily involves the experience of going to the
cinema. The space and all the considerations it involves are part of the experience for
Barthes.
Watching a movie in another space is not a negation of the experience
cinematographic. It is an opening and a proposal for other conditions of
the cinematic experience where the viewer is more than ever a producer of meaning.
This quasi-fusion relationship in the room can only be understood in light of the activity.
ritual, which requires a mobilization of time and space. Certain conditions must
be gathered: "a physical place", a space of time, a mental presence, in addition to the
language conventions between the spectator in the case of cinema and the sender of the film. These
the established conditions will be the rules of the game of a mediation between the viewer and the film. It is
In this context of ritual activity, one must understand the experience of going to the cinema.
What differentiates the two experiences, however, are two fundamental aspects:
accessibility and sharing. By accessibility, we obviously mean mobility to
place of the screening: in the classic case, the spectator goes to the screening; in the others
That is, it is the projection that comes to the spectator. But another case of accessibility is all
as essential. To attend a screening - except in specific cases - the viewer
is required to pay for this. The level of satisfaction is conditioned by this act.
purchase. The other aspect concerns the sharing of the experience of going to the cinema.
In most cases, although the reception of the film is done individually, the framework...
is collective. Interpretation communities are formed unconsciously. The
value systems are more decisive. Alongside this, the appropriation of the film and
identification with experience becomes important. We derive as much satisfaction from the
reception of the film only due to going to see it. The genre of the film (art film or commercial),
its location (cinematheque, neighborhood cinema, or complex) becomes parameters
essential in the symbolism of the experience of going to the cinema and determine the degree of
its legitimacy as a cultural practice.
Each viewer interprets their activity of going to the cinema differently to make it
a meaningful act and give it a social significance. He goes into a room to watch an art film
because he wants to belong - or confirm this belonging - to a community of
film lovers. Like he goes to see a commercial movie because he is a fan of this or that actor. From
In general, this aspect of the experience of going to the cinema is unconscious. It is not the
the film itself, being a cultural object, gives meaning to this experience or determines the
status of cultural practice but what we do with this film. The same film, received in
Other circumstances will be the subject of another experience of appropriation.
As we can see, it is not so much the film as an object perceived and perceived.
which makes the difference compared to other reception areas. These are the conditions
physical aspects of this experience and the appropriation of the film that make the two experiences,
that of watching the movie in a cinema hall and watching it in your living room for example,
They are different. They are different but not opposed. Contest the status of experience.
cinematic in the act of watching a film in another space of reception, under
the pretext that the physical conditions of a traditional reception are not met or that
its appropriation is different, would be moderately acceptable on a theoretical level.

4. SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF AUDIOVISUAL TEXT (TPE)

CONCLUSION
Ultimately, the semiotics of cinema, as an approach method, equips the
cinematographic studies of a scientific tool for reading and analyzing productions
cinematographic. It comes to present cinema as a science, produced
thoughtfully designed and endowed with a wealth exploitable by cinema professionals and the
critiques of this practice. By relying on a structural analysis method that is the
linguistics, it makes the film a codified textual structure that can be constructed and
deconstructed by semioticians to extract the meaning. Moreover, it creates an opening
in the scientific exploration of all audiovisual productions.