مدخل إلى سيميائية الفيلم

by Yuri M. Lotman, نبيل الدبس (Translator), قيس الزبيدي (Editor)

السينما تخاطبنا، إنها تخاطبنا بأصوات متعددة تشكل طباقيات بالغة التعقيد. السينما تخاطبنا وتريدنا أن نفهمها.
هذا العمل البسيط لا يقدم عرضاً شاملاً ومنهجياً لعناصر اللغة السينمائية. وهو ليس مرجعاً لقواعد أو نحو السينما. لقد وضعنا نصب أعيننا هدفاً أكثر تواضعاً: أن يألف المتفرج فكرة وجود لغة سينمائية.
في الفن تختلف العلاقة بين لغة الرسائل المنقولة ومضمونها عما هي عليه في الأنظمة السيميائية الأخرى: اللغة هنا تغدو هي الأخرى مضموناً، بل وتتحول أحياناً لتصبح موضوع الرسالة. هذا ينطبق تماماً على اللغة السينمائية. لقد وجدت لغايات فنية وأيديولوجية محددة، وهي تخدم تلك الغايات وتتحد بها. إن فهم لغة الفيلم هو خطوة أولى نحو فهم الوظيفة الفنية والأيديولوجية للسينما.

Genres: Semiotics, Film, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Cultural Studies

150 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1973

About the author

Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman (Russian: Юрий Михайлович Лотман, Estonian: Juri Lotman) – a prominent Soviet formalist critic, semiotician, and culturologist. Member of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. He was the founder of structural semiotics in culturology and is considered as the first Soviet structuralist by writing his book On the Delimitation of Linguistic and Philological Concepts of Structure (1963). The number of his printed works exceeds 800 titles and the archive of his letters, now kept in the scientific library of the University of Tartu, and which includes his correspondence with a number of Russian intellectuals, is immense.

Reviews

[Marru]

XIV peatükk on väga hea Michelangelo Antonioni filmi “Blow-up” tuumepisoodi analüüs ja filmisemiootika probleemide seletus.

Ma arvan, et mul on sellest raamatust neljandal kursusel rohkem mida kaasa võtta.
Tnx Elen, et tõlkisid!

[Kati Vuks]

Ülevaatlik ja üsna lihtsasti jälgitav sissejuhatus filmikeele tundmaõppimiseks ja selle üle mõtisklemise harjutamiseks. Aluseks mõte, et "filmikunst räägib meiega ning tahab, et temast aru saadaks". Lotman ilmestab teoreetilist baasi näidetega tuntud filmiklassikast, mis aitab ilmselt isegi ka teooria-kaugel inimesel asja mõtet hoomata. Kõikide filmitudengite ja teiste filmientukate "must read".

[martha mia veelmaa]

50 aastat hiljem ning näib et filmikeele mallid on püsinud invariantsena😝soe soovitus

[Maria Helen]

Väga kasulik esseekogumik filmientusiastile. Lotmani mõtted on üldjoontes hästi arusaadavad, kuid on ilmne, et tema näited põhinevad juba vanadel filmidel, mille tegemisest alates on filmikunst kõvasti muutunud (ühes teiste kunstidega). Samuti armastab Lotman väga binaarseid jaotusi ja struktuure, kus üks element/ omadus on millegi teise antitees – ka see mõtteviis on ajas teisenenud ja mitmekesisemaks muutunud. Sellest hoolimata on teoses väga häid ja täpseid mõttearendusi, mis on aktuaalsed täna.

[Cindy Vargas]

Accurate information with a lot of good examples!

[Martin Riexinger]

Concise presentation of the author's ideas on the semiotics of film, partially an elaboration of theses he has already formulated in The Structure of the Artistic Text .

The main ideas of Lotman are that shots are the "words" of the filmic language which are combined in sequences which are the phrases. In this context he singles out montage as the decisive element of film language, not with the implication that all film use it or have to use it to be really artistic films, but in the sense that non using montage or means seen as its opposite (in depth shots) is choice of montage=0. Furthermore he differentiates between film using a "known", conventional "language" and films with create heir own "grammar" which the viewer has to learn while watching. Other aspects dealt with are time, space and the role of the actors in film as opposed to their role in theater.
Unlike in The Structure of the Artistic Text occasionally pays lip service to Marxism. Had he been reprimanded?

Given the importance of montage for his argument it is not surprising that the early Soviet classics make up for an important part of his source material. Another important part of it are Italian neorealist and auteur classics, Fellini and in particular Antonioni, which apparently were accessible to him. I wonder in how far that appears to the Soviet film audience in general. A third element are post-WW II Soviet films with an artistic ambition, including Tarkovskiy's Andrey Rublev. The director's work was apparently not yet considered openly dissident in 1973. That Tarkovskiy later took openly position against monatge as an instrument of ideological manipulation is of course not yet reflected in this treatise.
Unfortunately, the book has no illustrations.

Interestingly most other reviews are in Estonian. Nice to see that this eminent scholar is still appreciated at Tartu.

[Märten Hallismaa]

Okei, väga ei suutnud seda raamatut lugeda. Esiteks liiga keelespetsiifiline ja siis veel temaatika, mis küll huvitav aga minu jaoks mitte kõige-kõigem. Aga viimane peatükk!! See on geniaalne!!
“Teaduslikus tekstis tagab metakeele(antud teaduse omaette ja korrektselt ülesehitatud terminoloogia) olemasolu väljaspool jälgitavat objekti iseenesest uuriva positsiooni. Kunstis on selle jaoks hädavajalik veel kunstniku kõrge ideeline ja moraalne väärikus, (!!) kelles tihti seguneb nii kirjeldaja kui kirjeldatav, arst ja haige(!!).”

[Grete Kaio]

sossu!
pangem praktikaasse

[katya]

прочитано на русском

[znovuya]

засадничі інсайти зі світу кіноаналізу