This is a problematic book. He attempts to use psychoanalysis as a model for meaning making in film, and so brings with the apparatus of film viewing a whole slew of baggage from psychoanalysis.
Metz attempts partway to stabilize his meandering through some structural concepts like metaphor and metonymy or syntagm and paradigm as modalities of how to (place) displacement of meaning. These are rightly rhetorical and linguistic concepts, by which the basic "moves" of filmic experience can be classified and then within discourse utilized to support or analyze a film for a psychoanalytic process. In a sense, while the signifier in cinema is imaginary because it is a form of melding together, a unifying of the cinematic experience into coherency, so what Metz is doing is also largely imaginary as he struggles as many structuralists have struggled, to find a unity in experience. What is largely missing is the coherency itself, as various theories, concepts, metaphoric borrowings and so on have been suggested, utilized and then brought to light about what it is we are doing with this. So Metz continually digs a hole, so that eventually the cinematic experience itself is lost in a theorezation that has forgotten its own bounds. Like his ending on the analysand as a bound on discourse itself, so the psychoanalytic process has become overcoded onto cinema -- Metz has lost his way because there is no clear endgoal. While cinema and psychoanalysis seemed it should work, he ultimately ended up in the arms of semiotics and linguistics instead -- because the way cinema presents information is like the way psychoanalysis sought to examine patents. Needing clearer degrees to note deviation, Metz, like psychoanalysis turned to rhetoric and then somehow got lost in the mix.
There are some nice ideas here, but they are jumbled, mixed into the exploration so that the exploration becomes more about refining the theory than it is about how to explore film itself. I bet Metz teaches some brilliant classes, but as a theorist this book shows he has far to go because he isn't able to stand on the coherency of any particular grounding.
Instead like many who went into the arms of post-structuralism, Metz loses himself in the possibility of analysis, finding small bits of presentation which he then was unable to place, because at this resolution of his theory, they are empty concepts, only needing a film to activate them. I think Metz would have done better if he was able to focus on a genre or a even a single film, and use that to dive into what cinema means as a whole, instead of dissolving the entire field into another kind of semiotic/linguistic inquiry.