Signos e Significação no Cinema

by Peter Wollen

This is a new and enlarged edition of Wollen's influential and highly-regarded work which explores the way in which a new approach to the cinema can be combined with a new approach to aesthetics. The book, a breakthrough in critical writing on the cinemas, is divided into three main sections. Throughout this richly illustrated book the relationship of the cinema to other arts is kept constantly before the reader.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Theory, Media Tie In, Art, Semiotics, Philosophy

175 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

Peter Wollen was an English film theorist and filmmaker. He studied English at Christ Church, Oxford. Both political journalist and film theorist, Wollen's Signs and Meaning in the Cinema (1969) helped to transform the discipline of film studies by incorporating the methodology of structuralism and semiotics. He taught film at a number of universities and was Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles, at the time of his retirement.

Reviews

[Φώτης Καραμπεσίνης · Rating 4 out of 5]

Δεν θυμάμαι και πολλά από το 1998 που το διάβασα, παρά μόνο πως με είχε ικανοποιήσει αρκετά ως άποψη. Και τώρα που το ξέθαψα από τα βάθη της βιβλιοθήκης, ίσως του ρίξω μια γρήγορη ματιά (αφού το ξεσκονίσω!).

[Adriana Scarpin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dividido em três capítulos em que o primeiro trata da trajetória de Eisenstein e o segundo da política dos autores aplicada pelos franceses na Hollywood clássica com ênfase em Ford e Hawks, mas Wollen só mostra a que veio mesmo no capítulo final sobre a semiologia no cinema, esta que estaria melhor revisada se nos moldes do signo tripartido de Peirce do que no de Saussure como o fazem Metz e Barthes. O livro encerra com uma conclusão que não constou na primeira edição do livro, mas que reitera Godard como aquele que atingiu todas as possibilidades do cinema.

[Tintarella]

در درام‌های پر ماجرا- هاکس اجتماع تماماً مردانه را در حد یک غایت می‌بیند؛ پیداست که این دید خیلی واپس‌نگر است. قهرمانان بی‌پیرایه هاکس در واقع به طرزبی‌رحمانه‌ای {در کمدی‌ها} از پیشروی باز داشته می‌شوند. اگر همین امر در او تاثیری نمی‌گذاشت و اگر درام‌های پر ماجرای او مجموع کارش را تشکیل می‌داد، کارگردان کوچک‌تری می‌بود. گواه واقعی مولف بودن هاکس وجود تصویر وارونه‌ی درام‌هایش، یعنی کمدی‌های دیوانه وار (اسلپ استیک) است. این کمدی‌ها جلوه‌ی عذاب کشیده‌ای از تنش‌های باطنی درام‌های قهرمانی است. دو مایه‌ی اصلی، دو قلمرو تنش وجود دارد. نخستین آن‌ها مایه‌ی بازگشت است، بازگشت به دوران کودکی (خوی کودکانه) یا مایه‌ی بازگشت به وحشی‌گری. دومین مایه‌ی اصلی کمدی مایه‌ی وارونه شدن موقعیت جنسی و وارونه شدن نقش است. کمدی های هاکس در اطراف زنان تحکم کننده و مردان کم‌رو و انعطاف‌پذیر کانون یافته‌اند.
درام‌های پر ماجرا نشان‌دهنده‌ی چیرگی جنس مذکربر طبیعت و زن و حیوان و خوی کودکانه است، حال آن‌که کمدی‌ها نشان‌دهنده‌ی جنس مذکر و بازگشت او به دوران کودکی است.

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

One the most influential books I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing.

[Martin Riexinger · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actually rather a collection of three essays than a monograph. One of them is solid, another one messy and he third one brilliant and groundbreaking. This most recent edition contains moreover a lot of additional material, the original conclusion, the conclusion of the 1972 edition (which now is the official one), essays by Lee Russell on various directors from the New Left Review, and an interview of Wollen by Russell. The importance of this book cannot be overrated as it reflects the efforts of the British Film Institute to transform Film Studies into a respectable academic discipline.

In the first chapter/ essay "Eisenstein's Aesthetics" Wollen sketches how the Soviet director developed his ideas on montage building on his discussions on the aesthetics of the theatre in late Czarist, early Soviet Russia, but integrating as well many aspect of his autodidactic studies of literature, the visual arts and Hegelian philosophy.
The second part "The Auteur Theory" is the least convincing one, as Wollen does not properly explain what auteur theory is, while he comes forth with a mass of brief description of he works of many, mostly Hollywood directors. In this respect less would have been more. Obviously I am not the only one who got his impression. Wollen seems to have received a lot of negative feedback due to which he elaborated on the topic again in the 1972 conclusion, where explains auteur theory more stringently as the attempt to analyze the common stylistic and thematic features in the work of one director.
Groundbreaking is the essay "The Semiology of the Cinema".* The main aspect is his adaption of the Peircean distinction between icon, index and symbol for the interpretation of the visual (and on screen sound) aspect of film, with the central aspect being that in film items represent themselves (ic0n) bu also hint at (index) or represent (symbol) something else. Wollen draws as well attention to Lessing** who reflected on the overdetermination of the image as opposed to the underdetermination of language, and he proposes Propp and Russian/ Soviet formalism in general as most promising approach to understand narrative in film (which then became central for David Bordwell). This chapter/ essay is as well dedicated to the rehabilitaion of Eisenstein, for whom the symbolic and indexical were of such importance (although he did not call them like that) while film theory was dominated by ideas about the image representing "reality". It concludes with a praise of Godard (expanded in the 1971 conclusion) who according to him combined the in an ingenious manner the documentary and the representational aspect of film. Fun aspect of that chapter: Wollen alerts to the writings of an hitherto rather Italian scholar hitherto only known to insiders: Umberto Eco.

Russell's essays on different directors are relevant to the whole book as they are a kind of empirical underpinning of Wollen's essay on auteur theory, while the interview gives an interesting insight into the discussion of British intellectuals in the 1960s which were decisive for the development of Film Studies as a serious discipline, which by the way implied not to discard "Hollywood" and other commercial productions outright.

* A simplified version of it can be found in James Moncao's deservedly popular textbook How to read a Film.
** Yes, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing that German guy from the 18th century.

[Amirhossein · Rating 3 out of 5]

ترجمه افتضاح بود.

[Nate D · Rating 3 out of 5]

Three essays, probably composed separately, with the collective aim of expanding film discourse, and pointing out the huge space that still deserves discourse within it, even now, 40 years later. Really this comes through most urgently in the third section, about how exactly (and of what kind) the filmed image conveys meaning. The second is mainly interesting in reminding me that a time exists before Auteur Theory ie the now seemingly natural assumption that the director is the prime creative force of any given film, and any film can be best understood as part of a director's body of work. Wollen of course is a proponent of this kind of understanding, but it's odd to think of even having to justify such an understanding. Wollen isn't just a theorist -- he also directed a number of experimental features with Laura Mulvey in the 70s. Riddles of the Sphinx is especially interesting and theoretically dense (though minimal).

[Sadra · Rating 4 out of 5]

وولن می‌گوید «اندیشیدن به شیوۀ نظری را نمی‌توان از اندیشیدن به شیوۀ تاریخی جدا کرد». این حرف به درستی در مورد کتاب صدق می‌کند. کتاب مطالبی تاریخی را بازگو می‌کند و به تحلیل سینمای آیزنشتاین می‌پردازد. سپس فصلی را به نظریۀ مؤلف اختصاص می‌دهد. آن موقع است که وارد بخش نظریۀ نشانه‌شناسی سینما می‌شود.
نکته‌ای جالب دربارۀ مؤخرۀ کتاب هست که چند سال پس از چاپ کتاب به آن افزوده و در آن با نگاهی انتقادی به مطالب خود، یک جمع‌بندی خوب دست می‌دهد و اذعان می‌کند که دربارۀ بعضی موضوعات نظرش فرق کرده است.
در انتها پیوست دیگری وجود دارد که مصاحبه‌ای جالب است با پیتر وولن پس از گذشت نزدیک به سه دهه از اولین چاپ کتاب.

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Books, like films, always teach you how to read them, and this is exemplified in the form this one takes: four short essays, back to back, increasing fairly drastically in difficulty and abstraction as you go along. There's a lot to learn here--and I'm not sure I got all I needed to on my first read-through. I'll be excited to delve back in at some point, though, particularly the closing essay on Wollen's evolved sense of Godard and film semiology.

[Laney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paraphrasing the opening lines of the introduction, the general purpose of the book "Signs and meaning in the cinema" is to suggest the many ways in which cinema aesthetics can be approached. The author, Peter Wollen, starts by studying Eisenstein aesthetics and it's influences. Then he takes us to the french cinema and the auteur theory, stressing the importance of studying the work of individual directors. And finally, an easy-to-follow debate on semiotics and cinema. Signs and meaning in the cinema is indeed an essential book for anyone interested in cinema language/theory of image.

[Ted Morgan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Actually, I read the original edition, not this one.

[Spykje · Rating 3 out of 5]

a really engrossing read. the core of the book serves as a nice introduction to the philosophies and theories of thinkers like eisenstein and bazin in relation to the cinema, and countless others in relation to auxiliary fields, but it’d probably go down easier on a revisit once i’m more familiar with the ideas wollen’s bouncing between here. it's undeniably rewarding, but is even more so when you consider the extra materials. wollen’s own work as a critic from before the book's publication (or writing) gives a clear idea of where wollen started theoretically in relation to the actual films and auteurs, and how that transforms and changes when viewed under a more purely theoretical lens. the afterword, similarly shows how wollen’s thinking has changed and shifted over the decades; it's legitimately inspiring how much he wants (culture at large) to learn and grow in our relationship to art.

[Dany · Rating 5 out of 5]

“To go to the cinema, to read books or to listen to music is to be a partisan. Evaluation cannot be impartial. We cannot divorce the problem of codes from the problem of criteria. We cannot be passive consumers of films who then stand back to make judgments from above the fray. Judgments are made in the process of looking or reading. There is a sense in which to reject something as unintelligible is to make a judgment. It is to refuse to use a code. This may be right or wrong, but it is not the same thing as decoding a work before applying criteria. A valuable work, a powerful work at least, is one which challenges codes, overthrows established ways of reading or looking, not simply to establish new ones, but to compel an unending dialogue, not at random but productively.”

[Saeed abedi · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب شامل سه مقاله و یک موخره است در مقاله اول کتاب به سبک فرمالیسم روسی و ریشه های آن از طریق دنبال کردن آیزنشتاین در تئاتر و سینما می پردازد در مقاله دوم به نگره مولف و ماجرهای بازن کایه دو سینما و موج نو فرانسه می پردازد
و در فصل سوم به نشانه های استعاری در سینما پرداخته است
نکته جالب آینک در موخره که ظاهراً مدت ها بعد از سه مقاله اصلی نوشته است به نوشته های خود با دیده شک مینگرد
کتاب را بصورت رایگان و صوتی میتوانید از لینک زیر بشنوید

https://castbox.fm/va/5642221

[Amin Villalba · Rating 5 out of 5]

Muy buen libro, sobre todo como introducción a la teoría del cine. El capítulo sobre Eisenstein y el capítulo sobre la teoría del autor me parecen especialmente interesantes. El contenido adicional (artículos de Lee Russell, conclusión de Wollen y un par de pequeños artículos suyos y una entrevista larga) también me parecen enriquecedores.

[Srikanth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible essays on Eisenstein, the auteur theory and the semiology of cinema. Wollen qualifies all critical commonplaces with a historical perspective, which constantly reflects back to an ideology of watching films. Indispensable.

[Lydia · Rating 2 out of 5]

entirely too masculine

[Richard]

NY Times obit.

[Nate Bohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little dated but still very interesting

[Engin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Göstergebilim çok önemli değil ama sinema tarihine dair güzel bilgi ve okumalar içeriyor.

[GwenViolet · Rating 3 out of 5]

The NLR excerpts were pretty redundant, but there's some real gems in here. The first bit on Eisenstein being the stand out.

[Andrew Child · Rating 4 out of 5]

thoughtful and clear, eerily prescient and a (for me) needed delineation of what exactly is meant by "auteur cinema"

[Jed Doyle]

How does one rate a critical reexamination of the approach to cinema aesthetics from the late 60s?
Well if you’re that curious I wrote a whole essay on that unfortunately.
Cool book though.

[Terry Montlick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that will make you rethink the movies that you thought you knew.

[Anna]

Film class cannon.

[Rafael Pajaro - Rafa · Rating 3 out of 5]

the conclusion or revisit or whatever dismisses my favorite chapter