two TheSiqnificqnce

of FifmForm

T H EC O N C E PO F F O R MI N F I I M T
If you are listening closely to a song on a record, and the record is abruptly switched off, you are likely to feel frustrated. If you start read rng a novel, become engrossedin it, and then misplacethe book, you will probably feel the same way. This is becauseour expcriencc of art'*'orks is patterned and structured; the minrl cravesform. For this reason,form is of central importance in an1,art\\'ork, regardlessof its medium. The enrire study of the nature of artistic form is the province of the aesthetician; is too large a it question for us to deal with extensivelyhere. (Seethe first part of the Notes and Queries to this chapter for pertinent readings.) But some ideas of aesthetic form are indispensablein analyzingfilms. Form os System Artistic form is best thought of in relation to a perceiver,the human being who watchesthe play, readsthe novel, listensto the piece of music, or views the film. Perception in all phasesof life rs an actit,it),.Asyou walk down the street, you scan your surroundings for salient aspects-a friend's face, a famrliar landmark, a sign of rain. The m,nd is never at rest; it is constantly seeking order ancl significance, testing the worlcl for breaks in the habitual pattern. Artworks rely on this dynamic, unifying quality of the human mind. They provide organized occasionsin which we exercise and develop our ability to pay attention, to anticipateupcoming events,to draw conclusions, and to construct a whole out of parts. Every novel leavessomething to the imagination;every song asksus to expect a certain melody; every film coaxes us to connect sequencesinto a larger whole. But how does this process wor k 2 H o w d o e s a n i n e rt o b j e c t, the poem on a pi ece of paper or the sculpture in the park, draw us into such activities? Some answers to this question are clearly inadequate. Our activity cannot be in the artwork itself. A poem is only words on paper; a song, just

23

2 4 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n co f F i l mF o r m e acousticvibrations; a fiim, merely patterns of light and dark on a screen. Objects do nothing. On the other hand, the experience of the artwork cannot be completely private, locked in the mind of each perceiver. Not only can we share the experience of the work with an audience, but we depend on the artwork to contribute to our experience. You cannot react to a poem unlessyou read it, or danceto a songwithout hearingit. Evidently, then, the artwork and the perceiver depend on one another.The best answer to our question would seem to be that the artwork c/./es to perform a vs specific activity. Sfithout the artwork's prompting, we could not start or maintain the process;without our piaying aiong, picking up the cues, rhe artwork remains only an anrfact. A painting uses color, line, and other techniques to invite us to imagine the space depicted, to hypothesize the moment before or after the one depicted, to compare color and texture, ro run our eye over the composition along a certain trajectory. A poem's words may guide us to imagine a scene, or ro create a metaphor, or to expect a rhyme. A piece of sculpture'sshape, volume, and materials prompt us ro move around it, anticipating and recalling how its mass may fill the space it occupies.In general, any work of an presentscues that can elicit a particular activity from the perceiver. We can go a little further. These cues are not simpiy random; they are organized into sltstems. The idea of a system is straightforward: it is any set of elementsthat depend on and affectone another.The human body is one such system;if one component, the heart, ceases function, all of the other to parts will be in danger as weii. Within the body there are individual, smaller systems,such as the nervous system or the optical system. A single small maifunction in a car'sworkings may bring the whole machine to a standstill; the other parts may not need repair, but the whole sysremdepends on the operation of each part. Other, more abstractsets of relationshipsalso constitute systems: a body of laws governing a counrry, for example, or rhe ecological baiance of the wildlife in a lake. As with each of these instances, film is not simply a random batch of a eiements. Like all artworks, a film has form. By film form, in its broadest sense,we mean the total system that the viewer perceives in the film. Form is the overall system of reiations that we perceive among the elements in the whole fiim. In this part of the book and in Part III (on film style), we shall be surveying the sorts of elements a film may contain. Since the viewer makes senseof the film by recognizingthese elementsand actingupon them, we shall aiso be considering how form and style involve the spectator's activity. This description of form is stiil very abstract,so let us draw our examples from one fiim that many people have seen. In T he Wizard of Oz the perceiver can notice many particular elements. There is, most obviously, a set of narratiue elements, which comprise the film's story. Dorothy dreams that a tornado blows her to Oz, where she encounterscertain characters, and the narrative continues to the point when Dorothy awakens from her dream to find herself home in Kansas.We can also perceive a set of stltlisticelements: the way the camefa moves, the patterns of color in the ftame, the use of music. and other devices. Because Tbe Wizard of Oz ts a system and not just a hodgepodge, the perceiver activeiy relates the elements within each set to one another. tVe link and compare narrative elements:we see the tornado as causingDorothy's trip to Oz; we identify the charactersin Oz as similar to charactersin Dorothy's Kansas life. The stylistic elements can aiso be connected. For

The C onceptof For m in Film/ 25 instance, we recognize the "\fe're Off to See the \Wizard" tune whenever Dorothy picks up a new companion. \7e attribute unity to the film by positing two subsystems-a narrative one and a stylistic qns-v/i1hin the larger system of the total film. Moreover, our minds seek to tie these subsystems one another. In to Tbe Vizard of Oz, the narrative subsystemcan be linked to the stylistic subsystem.Film colors identify prominent landmarks, such as Kansas (in black and white) and the Yellow Brick Road. Movements of the camerc call our attention to story action. And the music serves to describe certain charactersand actions. It is the overall pattern of relationshipsamong the various subsystemsof elements that makes up the form of Tbe Wizard of Oz,

" F or m v er s u s C o n fe n t" Very often people assume that "form" as a concept is the opposite of something called "content." This impiies that a poem or a musical piece or a6lm is like a jug an externai shape,the jug, contains something that couid just as easilybe held in a cup or a pail. Under this assumption, form becomes less important than whatever it is presumed to contain. \ilZe not acceptthis assumption.If form is the total systemwhich the do viewer attributes to the fiim, there is no inside or outside. Every component functionsu,itbin the overall pattern that is perceived.Thus we shall treat as formal elementsmany things that some people consider content. From our standpoint, subject matter and abstractideas all enter into the total system of the artwork. They may cue us to frame certain expectationsor draw certain inferences. The perceiver relateselementsto one another and makes them interact dynamically.Consequently,subject matter and ideas become somewhat different from what they might be outside the work. For exampie, consider a historical subject, such as the United States Civil War. The real Civil War may be studied, its causesand consequences disputed. But in a film-say, D.W. Griffith's Tbe Birth of a l{atiln-the Civil \War is not neutral "content." It enters into relationshipswith other elements: a story about two families, politicai ideas about Reconstruction, and the epic film styie of the battle scenes. The form of Griffith's film includes elements depicting the Civil War in a way that is coordinated with other elements in the film. A different {ilm by another filmmaker might draw on the same subject matter, the Civil $Var,but there the subject would play a different role in a different formal system. In Gone Vith tbe Wind the Civil War functions as a backdrop for the heroine's romance, but in T be Good, the Bad, and the Ugfu the war aids three cynical men in their search for goid. Thus subject matter is shapedby the film's formal context and our perception of it.

F or m ql E x p e c to ti o n s S7eare now in a better position to see how film form guides the audience's activity. An interrupted song or an uncompleted story brings frustration becauseof our urge for form; we realize that the system of relationships within the work has not yet been completed. Something more is needed to make the form whole and satisfying. We have been caught up in the interrelations among elementsand want to understandhow the patterns deveiop and complete themselves.

2 6 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n co f F i l mF o r m e How does form affect our experience of an artwork? For one thing, form createsthe senserhat "everything is there." Why is it satisfyingwhen a characterglimpsed early in a film reappearsan houl later or wlren a shape in the frame is balancedby another shape/ Becausesuch relations among parts suggest that the film has its own organizrng laws or rules-its own s y s re m . Moreover, form intensely involves the audience.The appeal of form can be very great. Usually we perceive things around us in a prcctical way. But in a film the things that happen on the screen serve no such practical end for us. We can see them differentiy. In iife if a person fell down on the street, we would probably hurry to help the person up. But in a film when Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin falls, we laugh. $7e shall see in Chapter 6 how even as basic an act of {ilmmaking as framing a shot creates a new way of seeing.$fle watch apattern which is no longer just "out there" in the everyday world, but which has become a calculated part within a selfcontainedwhole. Film form can even make us perceive things anew, shaking us out of our accustomedhabits and suggestingfresh ways of hearing, seeing, feeling, and thinking. Try the following experiment (suggestedby Barban Herrnstein Smith). Assume that "A" is the first letter of a series.What follows? 1. AB "A" was a cue, and on this basisyou made aformal hypothesis,probably that the letters would run in alphabeticalorder. Your expectation was confirmed. What follows AB? Most people say "C." But form does not always follow our initial expectation. 2, ABA Here form takes us by surprise, puzzles us. If we are puzzled by u formal development, we readjust our expectations and try agarn.\7hat follows ABA? 3. ABAC Here the possibilitieswere chiefly two: ABAB or ABAC. (Note that your expectationslimit possibilities as well as select them.) If you expectedABAC, your expectationwas gratified and you can confidently predict the next letter. If you expected ABAB, you still should be abie to make a strong hypothesisabout the next letter. 4 . A BA C A Simple as this g^me is, it illustratesthe involving power of form. You as a viewer or listener don't simply let the artwork parade past you. You enter into an activeparticipationwith it, proposing and readjusting expectationsabout form as the experiencedevelops. Now consider a story in a film. T he Vizard of Oz begins with Dorothy clutching her dog, Toto, and running down a road. Immediately, we form expectations:perhaps she will meet another chatacter,or afrive at her destination. Even such a simple action asksthat the audienceparticipateactively in the ongoing process by making certain hypotheses about "what will happen next" and readjustingexpectationsaccordingly. Expectationpervadesour experienceof art. In reading a mystery story, we expect that a solution will be offered at some point, usually the end. In listening to a piece of music, we expect repetition of a melody or a motif. (Many musical pieces, in fact, follow the ABACA pattern we have just outlined.) In looking at a painting, we searchfor what we expect to be the most significantfeatures,then scan the less prominent portions. From be-

The C onceptof For m in Film/ 27

ginning to end, our involvement with a work of art depends largely on expectations. This does not mean that the expectations must be immediately satislied. The satisfaction of our expectations may be dela1,ed. our alphabet exercise, In instead of presenting ABA we might have presented this:

48.... The series of periods postpones the revelation of the next letter, and you must wait to find it out. What we normally call su.rpense simply a delay in is fulfilling an establishedexpectation.As the name impiies, suspenseleaves something "suspenisd"-n6t only the next phasein the pattern of elements but also our urge for completion. Expectationsmay also be cheated, as when we expect ABC but get ABA. In general,surprise a result of an expectationthat is revealed to be is incorrect. We do not expect thar a gangsrer in 1930s Chicago will find a rocket ship in his garage;if he does, our reaction may require us to readjust oLlr assumptionsabout what can happen in this story. (The exampie suggests that comedy often depends on cheatingexpectations.) One more path of our expectations needstracing.Sometimesan artwork will cue us to hazardguessesabout what has come bdorethis point in the work. \7hen Dorothy runs down the road at the beginning of TheVizard of Oz, we wonder not only where she is going but where she has been and what she is fleeing from. Similarly, a painting or photograph may depict a scene that asks the viewer to speculateon some earlier event. Let us call this ability of the spectatorto frame hypothesesabout prior events curiosity. As Chapter 4 will show, curiosity is an important factor in narrative form. It should be evident that artistic form may cue us to make expectatibns and then may gratify them, either quickly or eventually-or form may work to disturb our expectations. We often associate with peace and serenity, art but many artworks offer us conflict, tension, and shock. A form may even strike us as unpleasantbecauseof its imbaiancesor contradictions.Many people find atonal music, abstract or surrealistpainting, and experimental writing highly disturbing. Simiiarly, there are many important directors whose {rlms jar rather than soothe us. As we shall see in examining the (Chapter 6) or the ambiguous narrative in editing of Eisenstein'sOctober Resnais'sLast Year at Marienbad (Chapter 10), a film may rely on contradictions and gaps. The point is not to condemn or wish away such films, but to understandthat in disturbing us, suchfilms still arous formalexpecrations. e Indeed, if we can adjuscour expectations a disturbing work, we may even to become more deeply involved in our viewing of it than we would be with a work that gratifies our expectations easily. Such disturbing artworks may dispiay new kinds of form to which we are not accustomed.Our initial disturbancemay diminish as we grasp the work's unique formal system.Or, some of these disturbing works may become less coherent than more traditional ones, but they reward analysispartly becausethey reveal to us our normai, implicit expectations about form. Conv ent i o n s q n d E x p e ri e n c e Our ABAC exampleillustratesstill another point. One guide to our hunches wasprior experience, knowledge of the alphabetmakes ABAX an unlikely Our alternative.This suggests that aestheticform is not a pure activity isolated from other experiences.Important implications for artist and spectator flow from this.

2 8 / T h e S i o n i { i c o n c e F i l mF o r m of Precisely because artworks are human artifacts and because the artist lives in history and society, he or she cannot avoid relating the work, in some way, to other works and to aspects the world in general.A tradition, of a dominant style, a popular form-some such elements will be common to severaldifferent artworks. Such common traits are usually called cotttentiott.r. For example,it is a convention of the musical film genre that characters sing and dance-a convention which (to return to our initial example) T he Wizard of Oz firmiy accepts. is one conventionof narrativeform that the narrative It solves the problems the charactersconfront, and the film likewise accepts this convention by ietting Dorothy return to Kansas.Bodies of conventions constitute nrrms of what is appropriateor expected in a particular tradition. Through obeying or violating norms, artists relate their works to other works. From the spectator'sstandpoint, the perception of ,artistic form will arise from both cues within the work and prior experiences.But although <>ur abi/ity to recognrze formal cues may be innate, the particularhabits and we expectations bring to the artwork will be guided by other experiencesexperiencesderived from everyday life and from other artworks. You were abie to piay the ABAC game becauseyou had iearned the English alphabet. You may have learned it in everyday iife (in a classroom,from your parents) or from an artwork (as some children now learn the alphabet from television cartoons).Simiiarly,w are able to recognize the "journey" pattern inTbe lVizard of Oz becausewe have taken trips and becausewe have seen other films organizedaround this pattern (e.g.,Stagecoacb I{ortb By I,Jortbu'est), or and becausethe pattern is to be found in other artworks, such as The Odlssel or Alice in Wonderland.Our ability to spot cues, to see them as forming systems,and to create expectationsare guided by our real-life experiences and our knowledge of formal conventions. In recognizing film form, then, the audience must be prepared to understandformal cues through knowledge of life and of other artworks. But what if the two principles come into conflicti In ordinary life people don't simply start to sing and dance, as they do in Tbe Wizard of Oz. Yery often conventions demarcate art from life, saying implicitly, "In artworks of this sort the laws of everyday reality don't operate. By the rules c>fthis game, 'unreal' something ctlt happen." All stylized art, from opera, ballet, and pantomime to comedy and other genres,depends on the audience's wiilingness to suspend the laws of ordinary experience and to accept particular conventions.It is simply beside the point to insist that such conventions are unreal or to ask why Tristan sings to Isolde or why Buster Keaton doesn't smile. Very often the most relevant prior experiencefor perceiving form is not everydayexperience,but previous encounterswith works having similar conventions. Genres,or typesof artworks, offer a persuasive set of examples. If we expect a mystery stofy to eventuallyreveal a solution, this is not becauseof life experience-many mysteries go unsolved-but becauseone "rule" of the mystery genre is that the puzzle will be solved at the end. Similarly, Tbe Vizard of Oz is a musical, and this genre utilizes the convention that characterswill sing and dance.Like other art media, film often asks us to adjust our expectatioosto the conventionswhich a particular genre uses. Finally,we must recognizethe extent to which artworks can create new conventions. A highly innovative work can at first seem odd because it refuses to conform to the rules we expect. Cubist painting, twelve-tone music, and the French "New Novel" of the 1910s seemed difficult initially

The C oncepto f For m in Film/ 29 becauseof their refusal to adhere to conventions. But a cioser look may show that the r'.nusualartwork has its own rules, an unorthodox formal system, which we can learn to recognize and respond to. Eventually, the new systemsof-fered such unusualworks.may themselvesbecome rnodels by or new conventionsand thus create new expectations. Form ond Feeling Certainly emotion plays a large role in our experience of form. To understand this role, let us distinguish between emotions represented the artwork in and an emotional response by the spectator.If an actor grimaces in agony, felt the emotion of pain is represented within the f.lnt. If, on the other hand, the viewer who seesthe painful expressionlaughs (as the viewer of a comedy might), the emotion of amusement is felt b1 tbe spectator. Both types of emotion have formal implications. Emotions representedwithin the film interact as parts of the film's total system. For example, that grimace of pain might be reaffirmed by the contortions of the comedian'sbody. A character's expressionmay prepare sly us for the later reveiation of that person's villainous side. Or, a cheerful scene might stand in contrast to a mournful one. A tragic event might be undercut by humorous editing or music. All emotions present in a film may be seen as systematicallyrelated to one another th.r:ough that film's form. The spectator's emotional response to the film is related to form as well. \X/e have just seen how cues in the artwork interact with our prior experience, especiallyour experience of artistic conventions. Often form in artworks appealsto ready-madereactions,already formulated emotions: fear of darkness or heights, or even stereotyped reactions to certain images (sexuality,race)socialclass).But form can create new responsesas easily as it can harp on old ones.Just as formal conventionsoften lead us tcl suspend our normal sense of real-life experience, so form may iead us to override our everyday emotional responses.People whom we would despisein iife may become spellbinding as charactersin a film. We can watch a film about a subject that normaliy repels us and find it fascinating. One causeof these experienceslies in the systematic way we become involved in form . In T be Vizard of Oz we might, for example, find the land of Oz far more attractive than Kansas.But becausethe film's form leads us to sympathizewith Dorothy in her desire to go home, we feel gre^t satisfactionwhen she finally retufns to Kansas. It is first and foremost the dynamic process of form that engagesour feelings.Expectation,for instance,spurs emotion. To make an expectation about "what happens next" is to invest some emotion in the situation. Delayed fulfillment of an expectation-suspense-may produce anxiety or sympathy. (\fi[ the detective find the criminal? Will boy get girl? \X/ill the melody return?) Cheatedexpectations and curiosity about past matertal may produce puzziementor keener interest. (So he isn't the detectiveTThis isn't a romance story? Has a second melody replaced the first one?) Gratified expectationsmay produce a feeling of satisfactionor relief. (The mystery is solved, boy does get girl, the melody returns one more time.) Note that ali of these possibilitres malt occur.There is no general recipe by which a novel or film can be concoctedto produce the "correct" emotional response.It is all a matter of context-that is, of the particular system that is each artwork's overall form. All we can say for certain is that the emotion felt by the spectator will emerge from the totality of formal relationships she or he

r
3 0 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n co f F i l mF o r m e perceivesin the work. This is one reasonwhy we should try to perceive as many formai relations as possibie in a fiim, for on this perception rests our reaction to that film. Taken in context, the relationsbetween che feelings representedin the film and those felt by the spectator can be duite complex. Many people believe that no more sorrowful evenr can occur than the death of a child. In most films this event would be represented so as to summon up the sadness would aiso feel in life. But the power of artistic form can alter we the emotional tenor of even this event. ln Jean Renoir's The Crinte of M. Langethe cynicalpublisher,Batala,rapesand abandonsthe young laundress, Estelie. After Batala disappears, Estelle becomes integrated into the courtyard community and returns to her former fianc6. But Estelle is pregnant by Batalaand bearshis child. The scenewhen Estelle'semployer, Valentine, announcesthat the child was born dead is one of the most emotionally complex in cinema. The first emotions representedare solemn sorrow: the characters display grief. Suddenly Batala'scousin remarks, "Too bad. It was a relative." In the film's contexr this is taken as a ioke, and the other charactersbreak out in smiles and laughter. The shift in the emotion represented in the film catches us off guard. Since these charactersare not heartless,we must readjust our reaction to the death and respond as they do-with relief. That Estelle has survived is far more important than the death of Batala's child. The film's formai development has rendered appro.prrate a reaction that might be perverse in ordinary life. This is a daring, extreme example,but it dramaticaliyillustrateshow both emotions onscreen and our responses are dependent on the context created by form. F o rm o n d M eoni ng Like emotion, meaning is important to our experience of artworks. As an active perceiver,the spectatoris constantlytesting the work for signihcance. The sorts of meanings that the spectator attributes to the work may vary considerably. us look at four assertions Let about the meaning of Tbe Wizard of Oz. 1. ln tbe Depression, cyclone takesa girlfrom berfamily's Kansas.farmto tbe a ntytbical land of Oz; after a seriesof aduentures, sbe retilrni bone. This is very concrete, close to a bare-bonesplot summary.Here the significancedepends on the spectator's ability to iclentify specificitems: a period of American history calledthe Depression,a place knovvnas Kansas,features of Midwestern ciimate. A viewer who was unacquaintedwith such information would miss some of the meaning cued by the lilm. We can call such rangible meanings referential,since the film refersto things or piaces already invested with signihcance.A hhn's subject matter-in The Wizard oJ'Oz, American Midwestern farm life in the 1930s-is often establishedthrough referentialmeaning.And, asone would expect,referentialmeaning functions within the film's overall form, in the way that we have argued that the subject of the Civil \War functions within Tbe Birth o/'a Natioz. Suppose that insteadof having Dorothy live in flat, spare,rural Kansas,the fiim made Dorothy a child living in Beverly Hills. When she got to Oz (transported there, perhaps,by a hillside llash flood), the contrast between the crowded opulence of Oz and her home would not be nearly so sharp. Here the referentiai meaningsof "Kansas" play a definite role in the overall contrast of settingsthat the film's form creates.

T h e C o n c e p o f F o r mi n F i l m/ 3 l t 2. A girl dreamsof leaaing bometo escape troubles;onlyafter sbeleaaes ber does she realize bou.,much her bomemeansto ber. This assertion is still faiily concrete in the meaning it attributes ro the film. If someone were to ask you the "point" of the film-whar it seems to be trying to "get 261s55"-you might answer with something like this. Perhaps you would alsomention Dorothy's closingline, "There's no piacelike home," as a summary of what she learns. Let us call this sort of openiy asserted meaning an explicil meaning. Like referentiai meanings,explicit meaningsfunction within the hlm's overall form; they are defined by context. For insrance,we are inclined tct take "There's no place like home" as a statement of the meaning of the entire film. But, first, tubl do we feel that as a strongly meaningfui iine? In ordinary conversationit is a clich6. In context, however, the line is uttered in close-up,it comes at the end of the film (a formally privileged momenr), and it refers back to all of Dorothy's desiresand ordeals,recalling the film's narrative development toward her achievementof her goal. It is the firm of the film that gives the farniliar saying an unfamiliar weight. This means that we must examine how explicit meanings in a film interact with other elements of the overali system.If "There's no place iike home" adequately and exhaustively summarizesthe rneaning of The Vizard of Oz, no one need ever see the film; the summary would suffice. But like feelings, meanings are formal entities; they play a part along with orher elements to make up the total system.We usualiy cannot isolate a particularly significant moment and declare it to be the meamng of the whole film. Even Dorothy's "There's no place iike home," however srrong as a summary of lne meaningful eiement in Tbe Vizard af Oz, must be placed in the conrexr of the film's entire beguiling Oz fantasy.If "There's no place like home" were the whole point of the film, why is there so much that is pleasantin Oz? The explicit meanings of a film are situated within the taholelilm and set in dynamic formai relation to one anorher. In trying to see the meaningful moments of a film as pams of a larger whoie, it is useful to set individually significant momenrs againsr one another. Thus Dorothy's final iine could be juxtaposedto the sceneof the characters getting spruced up after their arcwaIat the Emerald City. We can rry ro see the film as not "about" one or the other, but rather about the relation of the two-the risk and deiight of a fantasy world versus the comfort and stability of home. Thus the film's total system will be larger than any one expiicit meaning we find in it. Instead of asking,"\7har is this liim's point?" we can ask, "How do all the film's meaningsinterrelate formally?" rubo must soon 3. An adolescent face tbe adult uorld yearnr for a retllrn to tbe simpletaorld of childbood,but sbeeuentually accepts deruands adulthood. the of This is considerablymore abstractthan the first two statemenrs. assumes It something that goes beyond what is explicitly stated in the hlm: that T be Wizard of Oz is in some sense "about" the passagefrom childhood to adulthood. On this view, the film suggestsor intplies that in adolescence, people may desire to return to the apparenrly uncomplicated world of childhood. Dorothy's frustration with her aunt and uncle and her urge ro flee to a place "over the rainbow" are used to illustrate a generalconception of adoiescence.Let us call this suggestedmeaning an irnplicit one. When perceiversproduce implicit meaningsfrom an arrwork, they are usually said to be interpreting rt.

!'-.-

3 2 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n co f F i l m F o r m e Cleady,interpretationsvary. One viewer might propose thatTbeWizard of Oz is really.about adolescence; another might suggestthat it is reaily about courageand persistence; that it is a satire on the adult world. One of the or appealsof artworks is that they seem to ask us to interpret them, often in severai ways at once. Again, the artwork cues the specratof to perform certain activities-here, the teasing out of implicit meanings. But once agarn the importance of the artwork's overail form must qualify our urge to interpret. Some viewers approach a film expecting to learn great lessons about life. They may admire a film becauseit conveys a profound or relevant message. Important as meaning is, though, this attitude often errs by splitting the film into the content portion (the meaning) and the form (the vehicle for the content). The abstractquality of implicit meanings can lead to very broad concepts(often called tbemes): This film is about courage, that fiim is about love. Such descriptionshave some value, but they are very general; hundreds of films fit them. To summarrzeTbe lYizard of Oz as simply about the problems of adolescen'ce may not do justice to the specific qualities of the film as an experience.The searchfor implicit meanings should not leave behind the particular and concrete features of a film. This is not to say that we should not interpret films. But we should strive to make our interpretations precise by seeing how each film's thematic meanings are produced within the film's total form. In a film, both expiicit and implicit meanings depend closely on the relations among the elements of narrative and stylistic form. InTheVizard of Oz the visual eiement called "the Yellow Brick Road" has no meaning in and of itself. But if we examine the function it fulfills in relation to the narrative, the music, the colors, and so on, we can see that the Yellow Brick Road does indeed function meaningfully. Dorothy's strong desire to go home makes the Road represent that desire.We want Dorothy to be successful getting to the end of the Road, in as well as in getting back to Kansas;thus the Road participatesin the theme of the desirabiltyof home. But interpretation of meaning should not be an end in itself; it helps in understanding the overall form of the film. Nor does inrerpretation exhaust the possibilities of a device. We can say many things about the Yellow Brick Road other than how its meaning relates to the film's thematic material. Sfle could analyzehow the Road becomes the stage for dances and songs along the w'ay; we could see how it is narratively important because an indecision at a crossroadsdelays Dorothy long enough to meet the Scarecrow;we could work out a color scheme for the film, contrasting the yellow road, the red slippers, the green Emerald City, and so forth. From this standpoint,interpretation may be seen as one kind of formal analysis, one that seeks to analyze a film's implicit meanings. But those meanings should be constantlytested bv reimmersing them in the concrete texture of the whole film. 4. In a society ubere buman worth is measured money, by homeand family ma1 seem be tbe last refugeof burnan t,alaes.This belief is especially to strong in timesof ecomomic crisis,such as that in the United Statesin tbe 1930s. Like the third statement, this is abstract and general. It situates the film within a trend of thought which is assumedto be characteristic American of societyduring the 1930s.The claim could apply equally well to many other films, as well as to many novels, piays, poems, paintings, advertisemenrs, radio shows,political speeches, and a host of cultural products of the period. But there is something worth noticing beyond the sweep of the statemenr.

T h e C o n c e p o f F o r mi n F i l m/ 3 3 t It treats an explicit meaning in T'he rVizard of Oz ("There's no place like home") as a manifestationof a wicler set of values characteristic a whole of society. We could treat implicit meanings the same way. If we say the film implies somethingabout adolescence a crucial time of transition,we could as suggestthat this emphasison adolescence a specialperiod of life is also as a recurrent concern of Amerrcan society.In other words, it is possible to understand a film's explicit or implicit meanings as bearing traces of a particular set of social values.We can call this sort of meaning :yruptomatic meaning, and the set of vaiues that get revealed can be consideredto be a social ideologl. The possibility of noticing symptomatic meanings reminds us that all meaning, whether referential, explicit, or implicit, is a social phenomenon. The meanings in a film are ultimateiy ideological; that is, they spring from systems of culturally specific beliefs about the world. Religious beliefs, political opinions, conceptionsof race or sex or social ciass,even our most unconsciouslyheld, deep-seatednotions of life-all these constitute our ideological frame of reference. Although we live as if our beliefs were the only true and real explanationsof how the world is, we need only compare our own ideology with that of another group or culture or historical period to see how historically and socially shaped those views are. In other times or places,"Kansas" or "home" or "adolescence" not cafry the meanings do they carry in twentieth-centuryAmerica. Thus lilms, like other artworks, can be subject to viewers' searches for symptomatic meanings. Again, however, the abstract and general quality of such meaningscan lead us away from the concrete form of the film. Just as when analyzrngimplicit meanings,the viewer should strive to ground symptomatic meaning in the film's specificaspects. film enacts A ideologicalmeanings through its particuiar and unique formal system. We shall see in Part IV how the narrativeand stylisticsystemsof MeetMe in St. Louis, T be Crime 0f M. Lange, and Tout aa bien can be analyzedfor ideological implications. In short, films "have" meaning only becausewe attribute meanings to them. We cannot therefore regard meaning as a simple product to be extracted from the film. Our minds will probe an artwork for significance ar several levels, seeking referential meanings, explicit meanings, implicit meanings,and symptomatic meanings.The more absrracc and general our attributions of meaning, the more we risk ioosening our grasp on the film's specificformal system. As analysts,we must balance our concern for that concrete systemwith our urge to assignit wider significance.

E v qluqt i o n In talking about an artwork, people often et'aluateit, that is, they make claims about its goodnessor badness.Reviews in popular magazrnes exist almost solely to tell us whether a frlm is worth seeing; our friends often urge us to go to their latest favorite. But all too often we discover that the film that someoneelse esteemedappearsonly mediocre to us. At that point we may bemoan the fact that most people evaluatelilms only on the basis of their own, often idiosyncratic,rasres. How, then, are we to evaluatefilms with any degree of objectivity?'We can start by realizrng that there is a difference between personal taste and evaluativeyudgment.To say "I like this film" or "I hated it" is not equal to saying "It's a good film" or "It's wretched." There are very few people in

e 3 4 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n co f F i l m F o r m the worid whose enjoyment is iimited only to the greatest works. Most people can enjoy a film they know is not particularlygood. This is perfectly reasonable-unless they start trying to convince people that these pleasant films actualiy rank among the undying masterpieces.At that point others will probably stop listening to their judgments at all. We may set aside, therefore, personal preference as the sole basis for judging a film's quality. Instead, the critic who wishes to make a reiatively objective evaluation will use specific criteria. A criterion is a standard which can be applied in the judgment of many works; in this way, the critic gains a basisfor comp arrng films for relative quality. There are many different criteria. Some people evaluate fiims on "realistic" criteria, that is, whether the film conforms to their view of reality. Aficionados of military history might judge a fiim entirely on whether the battle scenesuse historically accurateweaponry; the narrative, editing, charactenzation,sound, and visua.lstyle might be of little interest to thBm. Other people condemn films becausethey don't hnd the action piausible;they will dismissa sceneby saying,"\(/ho'd reaily believe that X would meet Y just at the right moment?" But we have already seen that artworks often violate laws of reality and operate by their own conventions and internal rules. Viewers can also use morai criteria to evaluate films. Most narrowly, aspectsof the film can be judged outside their context in the film's formal system. Some viewers might feel any film with nudity or profanity is bad, while other viewers might find just these aspectspraiseworthy. More broadly, viewers and critics may employ moral criteria to evaluate a film's overall signilicance, and here the film's complete formal systembecomespertinent. A film might be judged moral becauseof its overall view of life, its willingnessto show opposed points of view, or its emotional range. While "realistic" and moral criteria are well-suited to particular purposes,this book will suggestcriteria that assess films as artistic wholes. Such criteria should allow us to take each fiim's form into account as much as possible'we can seewhether the {ilm succeeds, its own terms, in creating on a set of formal relationships. One such criterion ts'compie:rity. can argue that complex films (not Ve simply complicated {rirns) are good insofar as they engage our perception on many levels, create a multipiicity of relations among many separateformal eiements, and tend to create interesting formal patterns. A second formal criterion might be originality. Originality for its own sake is pointless, of course; just becausesomething is different does not mean that it is good. But if an artist takes a famrlrar convention and uses it in a way that makes it fresh agarnor creates a new set of formal possibilities, then (all other things being equal) the resulting work may be considered good from an aestheticstandpoint. Coherence furnishesyet another criterion, as does intensityof ffict. Note that all these criteria are matters of degree.One film may be more complex than another, but the second film may be more complex than a third one. Moreover, there is often a give and take among the criterra. A film might be very complex but lacking in coherenceor intensity; ninety minutes of a black screen would make for an originai film, but not a very complex one; a "slasher"movie may ueate great intensity in certain scenesbut be whoily unoriginal, as weil as disorganized and simplistic. In applying the criteria, the analyst must often weigh one against another. Evaluation can serve many useful ends. It can call attention to neglected artworks or make us rethink our attitudestoward acceptedclassics. But just

P r i n c i p l eo f F i l m F o r m/ 3 5 s

\ as the discovery meenings not the end point of formal analysis, of is we

ought not to seeourselvesas primarily setting out to establish what the gr-eat films are. General statements("This is a masterpiece")seldom enlighten us very much. Usually an evaluationinterestsus insofar as it points to aspects of the fiim and shows us relations and qualities we have hitherto missed. Like interpretation, evaluationis most useful when it drives us back to the fiim itself as a formal system,helping us to understandthat system better. In reading this book, you will find that we have generally minimized evaluation. We think that most of the lilms and sequences we analyze are more or lessgood on the formal criteria we mentioned, but the purpose of this book is not to persuade you to accept a list of cinema masrerpieces. Rather, we believe that if we show in detail how films may be understood you will have an informed basisfor whatever evaluations as artistic systems, you wish to make.

Summory If one issue has governed our treatment of aestheticform, it might be said to be clncretenesr. Form is a specific system of patterned relationships we perceive in any artwork. Such a concept lets us see how even elements of what is normaily considefed "con1sn1"-5sbject matter, or abstractideastake on specificand unique functions within any artwork. Our experience of an artwork is also a concrete one. Picking up cues in the work, we create specificexpectationswhich are aroused,guided, delayed,cheated,satisfied, or disturbed. We undergo curiosity,suspense, and surprise.We compare the particular aspectsof the artwork with general conventionswhich we know from life and from art. Emotions and meaningsbecome specifiedand qualified through the concrete context of the artwork. And even when we apply general criteria in evaluatingartworks, we ought to use those criteria to help us discriminatemore, to penetrate more deeply into the particular aspects of the artwork. The rest of this book is devoted to studying these properties of aestheticform in cinema.

P R I N C I P LO F F I L MF O R M ES
Becausefilm form is a system-that is, a unified set of related, interdependent eiements-there must be some principles which help create the relationships among the parts. In disciplinesother than the arts, principles may . be sets of rules. In the physical sciencesprinciples may take the forrn of propositions.For example,the design of an airplanemust take mathematical into account principles of aerodynamics.Its designer needs to determine the plane's form in relation to his or her knowledge of these principles. In the arts, however, there are no absoluteprinciples of form which all artists must follow. Artworks are products of culture; hence many of the principies of artistic form are matters of convention. For example,films that foilow one particuiarset of formal principlesare widely recognizedas "\7ester ns . "T h e a rti s to b e y s (o r d i s o b e y s ) orms,bodi esof conventi ons, n not l aw s. But within these social conventions,each artwork tends to set up its own specific formai principles. The forms of different films can vary enormously. We can distinguish,howeveq hve generalprinciples which the spectator perceivesin a film's formal system:function; similarity and repetition; difference and vanation; development; and unity/disunity.

3 5 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n c e F i l mF o r m of F u n c ti o n If form in cinema is the overall interrelation among various systems of eiements, we assumethat evefy element in this totality has one of more functions. That is, every element will be seen as fuifilling one or more roles within the whole system. Of any element within a film we can ask: What are its functions? Recall our example of Tbe Vizard of Oz, Every element in the film fulfills one or more roles. For instance,Miss Gulch, the woman who wants to take Toto from Dorothy, reappearsin the Oz section as the Witch. In the opening portion of the fiim Miss Gulch causesDorothy to run away from home; in Oz the Witch seeks to prevent Dorothy from returning home by keeping her away from the Emeraid City and by trying to take the ruby slippers. Even an element as apparentlyminor as the dog Toto servesmany functions. The dispute over Toto causesDorothy to run away from home and to get back too late to take shelter from the cyclone; and later Toto's chasingof a cat makes Dorothy iump out of the ascendingballoon and miss her chance ro go back to Kansas.Even Toto's gray color, set off against the brightness of Oz, createsa link to the black and white of the Kansasepisodesat the film's beginning. Functions, then, are almost always multiple; both narrative and stylistic elements have functions. One useful way to grasp the function of an element is to ask what other elements demand that it be present. Thus the narrative requires that Dorothy run away from home, so Toto is made to fulfill this function. Or, to take another example, Dorothy must be distinguishedfrom the Wicked Witch, so costume, age, voice, and othet characteristicsfunction to contrast the two. Finally, the switch from black and white to color film functions to signal the arrival at the bright fantasy Iand of Oz. Note that the concept of function does not depend on the filmmaker's intention. Often discussions films get bogged dcwn in the question of of whether the filmmaker "knew what he or she was doing" in including this or that element. In asking about function, we do not ask for a production history. From the standpoint of intention, Dorothy may sing "Over the Rainbow" because singinga song was in J.,dy Garland'sMGM contract.But, from the standpoint of function, we can say that Dorothy's singing that song her desire to fulfills certain narrative and stylistic functions. (It establishes ieave home. its reference to the rainbow foreshadowsthe colored Oz sequences,etc.) In askingabout formal function, therefore, we ask not, "How did this element get there?" but rather, "\(/hat is this element doing there?" One way to notice the functions of an elemenc is to consider the Because films are human constructs,we can expect element's rnotiuation. that any one element in a fiim will have some logical justification for being there. This justification is the motivation for that element. For example, when Miss Gulch appearsas the Witch in Oz, we justify her new incarnation by appealing to the fact that early scenesin Kansas have established her as a threat to Dorothy. When Toto jumps from the balloon to chase a cat, we motivate his action by appealing to notions of how dogs are likely to act when cats are around. Sometimespeople use the word "motivation" to apply only to reasons for characters' actions, as when a murderer acts from motives such as hatred. Here, however,we will use "motivation" to apply to any element in the film which the viewer justifieson some grounds. A costume,for example, needs motivation. If we see a man in beggar'sclothes in the middle of an elegant society ball, we will ask why he is dressed in this way. He could be the

P r i n c i p l eo f F i l m F o r m/ 3 7 s victim of practical jokers who have deluded him into believing that this is a masquerade.He couid be an eccentric millionaire out to shock his friends. Such a scenedoes occur in My Man Godfrejl The motivation for the beggar's presenceat the ball is a scavenger hunt; the young societypeople have been assigned to bring back, among other things, a beggat An event, the hunt, rtotiaatesthe presence of an inappropriately dressed character. Motivation is so common in films that spectators tend to take it for granted. The presence of a candle in a room motivates the fact that we can (We may be aware that the source of the iight is actually see the characters. not just the candle, but the candle is the ostensible source and motivates the light.) The movement of a character across a room may motivate the moving of the cameia to foliow the action and keep the characterwithin the frame. \7hen we study principles of nonnarrative form (Chapter 3) and narrative form (Chapter 4), we will look more closely at how motivation works to give elements specific functions. S im ilor i ty o n d R e p e ti ti o n In our example of the ABAC pattern, we saw how we were able to predict the next steps in the series.One reason for this was that there was a regular pattern of repeated elements. Like beats in music or meter in poetry, the repetition of the A's in our pattern established and satisfied formal expectations. Similarity and repetition, then, comprise an important principle of film form. Repetition is basic to our understanding any film. For instance,we must be able to recall and identify characters and settings each time they reappear. More subtly, throughout any film we can observe repetitions of everything from lines of diaiogue and bits of music to camera positions, characters' b.ehavior, and scory action. It is useful to have a term to help describe formal repetitions, and the most common is the term motif. \We shaII caLlany signif.cant repeated elementin a Jf.lm a motif. A motif may be an object, a color, a place, a person, a sound, or even a character trait. \We may caII a pattern of lighting or cameraposition a motif if it is repeated through the course of a fiim. The form of Tbe Vizard of Oz utilizes all of these kinds of motifs, as we have seen. Even in such a relatively simple film, we can see the pervasive presence of similarity and repetition as formal principles. Film form utilizes general similarities as weii as exact duplication. To understan T be Vizard of Oz, we must see the similarities between the three d Kansas farmhands and the three figures Dorothy meets along the Yellow Brick Road; we must notice that the itinerant Kansas fortuneteller bears a striking resemblance to the oid charlatan posing as the \Wizard of Oz. The duplication is not perfect, but the similarity is very strong. This is an example of parallelisrn,the process whereby the film cues the spectator to compare two or more distinct elements by highiighting some similarity. Motifs can assist in creating parallelism. The viewer will notice, and even come to expect, that every time Dorothy meets a character in Oz, the scene is climaxed by the song, "$7e're Off to See the Wizard." Our recognition of parallelism provides part of our pleasure in watching a {ilm, much as the echo of rhymes contributes to the power of poetry. Difference qnd Voriotion The form of a film could hardly be comprisedonly of repetitions.AAAAAA is pretty boring. There must also be some changesor variations, however small. Thus difference is another fundamentai principle of film form.

3 8 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n c e F i l mF o r m of We already know the need for variety, contrast, and change in films. Charactersmust be distinguished,environments must be delineated, different times or activitiesmust be established. Even within the image, we musr distinguishdifferencesin tonaiity,texture, direction and speedof movement, and so on. Form needs its stable "background" of similarity and repetition, but it aiso demandsthe estabiishmentof differences. This means that although motifs (scenes,settings,acrions,objects, stylistic devices)may be repeated, those motifs will seldom be repeated exactfu. Variation will appear. In our chief example, Tbe Wizard of Oz, the rhree Kansas hired hands are not exactly the sarireas their "twins" rn Oz. (Parallelism, it shouid be evident, requiresa degreeof difference,as well as striking similarity.)The repeated motif of Toto's disruption of a situation does not always function in the same way either: in Kansas it disturbs Miss Gulch and induces Dorothy to take Toto away,but in Oz Toto's disruption preuents Dorothy from going away.Even though Dorothy's determination to rerurn home is a stableand recurrent motif, it expresses itself in varied ways because of the different obstaclesshe encounrers. Differences among the elements may often sharpen into downright opposition among them. We are most famrliar with formal oppositions as conflicts among characters. is true that characterconflict is an important It formal phenomenon, but we can situate it within the larger formal principle of difference.Thus not only characters but aiso settings,actions, and other elements may be opposed. In Tbe rVizard of Oz Dorothy's desires are opposed, at various points, by the differing desires of Aunt Em, Miss Gulch, the Wicked Witch, and the Nfizard, so that the film's formal system derives many dynamics from charactersin conflict. But there are aiso color oppositions: biack-and-whiteKansasversus colorful Oz, Dorothy in red-whiteand-blue versus the \fitch in black, and so on. Settings are opposed as well-not only Oz versusKansas,but also the various localeswithin Oz and especiallythe Emerald City versus the \X/itch'scastle.Voice quality, musical tunes, and a host of other elements play off againstone another, demonstrating that any motif may be opposed by any other motif. Not all differencesare simple oppositions, of course. Dorothy's three Oz friends-the Scarecrow, the Tin \Toodsman, and the Lion-are distinguished not only by external features but by means of a three-term comparison of what they lack (brains, heart, courage).Other films may rely on less sharp differences, suggestinga scaleof gradatrons among the characters, as in Jean Renoir's Rulesof the Gante. At the extreme, an abstract fiim may create minimal variations among its parts, such as in the very slight changes that accompanyeach return of the same footage in J. J. Murphy's Print Generation. Repetition and variation are two sides of the same coin. To notice one is to notice the other. In analyzing films we ought to look for similarities and differences. Constantlypoised between the two, we can point out motifs and contrast the changesthey undergo, recognize parallelismsas a reperition and still spot the crucial variations. D e v e l o p m ent One way to keep ourselves aware of how similarity and difference operate in film form is to look for principles of development from part to part of the film. Development wili constitute some patterning of similar and differing elements. Our pattern ABAC is based nor only on repetition (the recurring motif of A) and difference (the varied insertion of B and C), but

P r i n c i p l eo f F i l m F o r m/ 3 9 s aiso on a principle of progression which we could state as a rule (aiternate A with successive letters in alphabeticalorder). Though simple, this is a pringoverning the form of the whole series. ciple of det,elopment, Think of formal development as a progression rnoaing from X tbrougb Y to Z. For example, the story of The Vizard ttf Oz shows development in many ways. It is, first, a journey.' from Kansasthrough Oz to Kansas.Many films possesssuch a journey-pIot.'.fbe Wizard of Oz is not only a journey, but also a searcbbeginning with an initial separation from home, tracrng a seriesof efforts to find a way home (".g., to convince the Wizard to help), and ending with the object (Kansas,home) being found. Within the film there is also a pattern of mlstery,which usually has the samefrom-X-throughY-to-Z pattern: We begin with a question (Who is the \Tizard of Oz?), pass through attempts to answer it, and conclude with the question answered (The Wizard is a fraud). Thus even such an apparently simpie film is composed of severaidevelopmentalpatterns. In order to analyzea Iilm's pattern of development, it is usualiy a good idea to make a segmentation. segmentationis simply a written outline of A the film that breaks it into its major and minor parrs, with the parrs marked by consecutivenumbers or letters. If a narrative film has ten scenes,then we can label each scenewith a number running from one to ten. It may be useful to divide some parts further (e.g., scenes6a and 6b). Segmentinga film enablesus not only to notice similaritiesand differencesamong parts; a breakdown makes it easierto plot the overall progressionof the form. A diagram may be a further help. In Chapters 3 and 4 we will consider how to segmentdifferent types of films. , Another way to size up how a film develops formally is to compare tbe beginning tt'itb tbe ending. By looking at the similarities and differences between the beginning and ending, we can start to understand the overall pattern of the film. We can test this advice onThelVizard of Oz. A comparison of the beginning and ending on the level of narrative reveals that the journey on which Dorothy initially setsout ends with her return home; the journey has been a search for an ideal place "over the rainbow" and has turned into a searchfor a way back to Kansas.The final scenerepeats and deveiops the narrative elements of the opening. Styiistically, the beginning and ending are the only parts that use black-and-white film stock. This supports the contrast the narrative creates between the dreamland of Oz and the bleak landscapeof Kansas.The fortuneteller, Professor Marvel, comes to visit Dorothy, reversingthe situation of her visit to him when she had tried to run away.At the beginning he had convinced her to return home; then, as the Wizard in the Oz section, he had also represented her hopes to return home. Finally, when she recognizesProfessor Marvel and the farmhands as the basisof the charactersin her dream, she remembers how much she had wanted to come home from Oz. Earlier, we suggestedthat film form engagesour emotions and expectations in a dynamic way; now we are in a better position to see why. The constantinterplay between similarity and difference,repetition and variation, leads the viewer to an active, developing awarenessof the film's formal system. The film's development may be visualizedin static terms, but we ought not to forget that formal deveiopment rs a proces.r.

Unity/Disunity
All of the relationships among elements in a filrn create the total filmic system. Even if an element seems utterly out of place in relation to the rest

40 / Th e S ignif ic oncof F i l m F o rm e of the film, we cannot really say that it "isn't part of the fiim." At most, the unrelated element is enigmatic or incoherent; it may be a flaw in the otherwise integrated system of the film-but it does affect the whole film. When aII of the relationships we perceive within a hlm are clear and economically interwoven, we say that the film has unitj, We call a unified film "tight," becausethere seem to be no gaps in the formal relationships. Every element present has a specificset of functions, similaritiesand differences are determinable, the form develops iogically, and there are no superfluous elements.Now unity is a matter of degree. Almost no film is so tight as to leave no end dangling, but if a film large|y manages to creare clear relations throughout its form, we generally hnd it unified. But films may introduce a degree of disunity. Some films simply fail to achieveunity; such a film's formal systemintroduceselementsand then fails to create clear relationshipsbetween them and the rest of the film. Such disunities are particularly noticeable when the filmic system as a whole is striving for unity. At one point rnTheWizard of Oz, the Witch refers to her having attackedDorothy and her friends with bees, yet we have never seen them, and the mention becomes puzzltng. The sequence of the bee attack was shot but then cut from the finished film. The Witch's line now lacks motivation. More striking is a dangling element at the film's end. \7e never find out what happens to Miss Gulch; presumably she still has her legal order to take Toto away, but no one refers to this in the last scene. The viewer may be inclined to overlook this disunity, however, because Miss Gulch's parallel character,the Witch, has been killed off in the Oz fantasy and we do not expect to see her alive agarn. But supposewe saw a film in which severalcharacters die mysteriously, and we never find out how or why. This film leavesa number of loose ends, but the repetition suggests that the omission of clear explanationsis not just a mistake. Our impression of a deliberate disunity wouid be reinforced if other elements of the film also failed to relate clearly to one another. Some films, then, create disunity as a positive quality of their form. This does not mean that these 6lms become incoherent. Their disunity is slstematic,and it is brought so consistentlyto our attention as to constitute a basic feature of the film. Inevitabiy such films will be formally disunified only to a relative degree; they have less unity than we may be used to, but do not simply fall apafi before our eyes. Later we shall see how films such as Innocence Unprotected, Last Year at Marienbad, and Toat ua bien utilize formal disunitv. S u m m o ry We can summarize the principles of film form as a set of questions which you can ask about any film. 1. Of any eiement in the film, you can ask: rf{/hatare its functions in the overall form? How is it motivated?' 2. Are elementsor patterns repeated throughout the film? If so, how and at what points? Are motifs and parallelisms asking us to compare eleme n ts ? 3. How are elementscontrastedand differentiatedfrom one another?How are different elements opposed to one another? 4. What principles of progressionor deveiopment are at work throughout the form of the film? More specificaily,how does a comparison of the beginning and ending reveal the overaii form of the film? 5. \iZhat degree of unity is present in the film's overall form? Is disunity subordinateto the overall unitv. or does disunitv dominate?

N otesond Q uer ies/ 4l In this chapter we have examined some abstract and basicprincipies of film form. Armed with these general principies, we can press on to distinguish more specihc typesof form, the recognition of u'hich is central frrr understandingfilm art.

NOTES ND QUERIES A
Form in Vqrious Arts Many of the ideas in this chapter are based on ideas of form to be found in other arts. All of the following constitute helpful further reading: Monroe (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 19t8), espeBeardsley,Aesthetirs (Berkecially Chapters IV and V; Rudolf Arnheim , Art and Visual Perception ley: University of California Press, 7974), especiallyChapters II, III, and IX; Leonard Meyer, Emotionand Meaning in Music (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 19)6);Tzvetan Todorov, lntroduction to Poeticr(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1981); Thomas Munro, Form and Stylein tbe Arts: An Introduction to AestbeticMorphologt (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, I970); Rend Wellek and Austin Sfarren, Theorl of Literature (New York: Flarcourt Brace and \World, 19)6); Victor Erlich, Russian Forrnalism:History, Doctrine (The Hague: Mouton, 196); E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 196I l. The Concepf of Form in Film Some fiim theorists have addressedthemselvesto the probiem of defining form in the cinema. See, for example, Herb Eagle, ed., Russian Formalist Film Theory(Ann Arbor: Michigan Siavic Pubiications,1981). On the relation of form to the audience, see the book by Meyer mentioned above.The ABAC example is borrowed from BarbaraHerrnstein Smith's excellent study of literary form, PoeticClosure(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). Compare Kenneth Burke's claim: "Form is the creation of an appetite in the mind of the auditor and the adequate satisfying of that appetite." (See Kenneth Burke, "Psychology and Form l' CounterStatement lChicago: University of Chicago Press,I9t]), pp. 29-44.) Gestalt psychology posited that the mind has innate form-making capacities, and this has made Gestalt thinkers strong contributors to conceptions of film form that stressaudienceresponse.SeeRudolf Arnheim, Film asArt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957). For a more updated survey, see Julian Hochberg and Virginia Brooks, "The Perceptionof Motion Pictures," in Edward C. Carterette and Morton P. Freidman, eds., Handbookof Perception Vol. X: Perceptual Ecologj(New York: Academic Press, L978), pp. 219-304. Cognitive psychology, with its assumption that humans seek to make senseout of their environment by testinghypotheses and drawing inferences, offers many intriguing leads for an account of the spectator's activity. See Edward Branigan, Point of Vieu, in the Cinema (New York: Mouton, IC)84), Chapter 3, and David Bordweil,I,{arration in tbe Fiction Film (Madison: P Univ er s i ty o f \Wi s c o n s i n re s s ,1 9 8 1 ), C hapter 3. The dominant psychological paradigm for the spectator'sabsorption in the process of film form derives from Freudian psychoanalysisor its offshoots.A samplingof diverseapproaches would include Christian Metz, The Imaginarjt Signif er (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982); Robert T. Eberwein, Fi/m and tbe Dream Screen(Princeton: Princeton University

4 2 / T h e S i g n i f i c o n co f F i l mF o r m e Press, 1984); Stephen Heath, Questions Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana of U n i v e rs i ty Pre ss,1981);C hri sti neGl edhi l l , " R ecent D evel opmentsi n Feminist Film Theory," Quarterfu Reuieu of Filnt Stadies 3,4 (FalI IC)78):457493; Charles F. Altman, "Psychoanaiysis and Cinema; The Imaginary Disc o u rs e ,"Q u a rterfi R et,i eu.,of l m S tudi es Fi 2,3 (A ugust 1977):257-272; and Claucle Bailbi6, "Programming the Lookl' Screen Education 32133(Autumn/ Winter l979lB0):99-I3 1. Dudley Andrew provides a rapid overview of such theories in Concepts Film Tbeorl (New York: Oxford University Press, of

r98q. Form,Meoning,ond Feeling

Some psychoanalytical theories of the spectatorcharacterizethe emotional appeai of cinema as involving "pleasure" and "unpleasure": an example is Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasureand Narrative Cinema," Screen 16,3 (Autumn 1975):6-18. A somewhat different line of argument is pursued in Charles Affron, Cinema and Sentiment(Chrcago:University of Chicago Press 1982), , which concentrates how narrativestructurescreateidentilicationwith the on characters their situations. or Many critics concentrate upon ascribing implicit meanings to filmsthat is, interpreting them. (Indeed, critics sometimes do this so habitually that they forget that other things can be done too.) An instructive coliection of essaysaround Red Riaer rn Cinl-tracts 10 (Spring 1980):t4-87, shows how different critics can find varying implicit meanings in the same film. Other critics have objected to making interpretation the main goal of analysis. Susan Sontag'sessay "Against Interpretation," in a collection of the same titie (New York: Delta, 1966), pieads for "more attention to form in art" and "essayswhich reveal the sensuoussurfaceof art without mucking (Ithaca: Corabout in it" (pp. 12-13). Jonathan Culler's Structuralist Poetics nell University Press, I975) emphasizes studying the functions and effects of art without aiways interpreting ir. The classic exampleof symptomaticcriticism of a film is the I97 0 essay, 'John Ford's YoungMr. Linco/n,"by the editors of Cabiersdu cindma,avatlable in John Ellis, ed., Screen Reader1 (London: SEF! I977) and Bill Nichols, ed., Mouiesand Metbods(Berkeley: University of California Press, I976). Reiying heavily on psychoanalytic interpretation, the authors bring out aspects of the hlm which suggestlatent contradictionsin American ideologies of family roles, romance,and the iaw. A subtie recent example of symptom"Myth as the Phantasmagoria History: atic criticism is Thomas Eisaesser's of H. J. Syberberg,Cinema and Representation," I,lew GermanCritique 24-2) (Fall/Winter 198 I I 2):I0B-l) 4. "Aggressive" Forms Unusual as it may seem, many films seek to disturb the viewer, and we should try to understand how this happens.Our study must go beyond a form/content conception, e.g,, "graphic depiction of sex or violence," to examine how a lilm's total system may deeply affect the viewer. Surrealist cinema offers one alternative,and its conception of cinematic form is discussedin J. H. Matthews, Surrealism and Film (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, I9l I) and in the critical studies devoted to Luis Bufluel. The Surrealists' own writings on cinema arc avallabie in Paul Hammond, (London: British Film Institute, 1978). ed., Tbe Sbadow and lts Sbadoze Current avant-gardework has made displeasurean important goal; see An-

-----

/ N o t e so n d Q u e r i e s 4 3 nette Micheison, ed., Neta Formsin F ilm (Montreux, 1974) and Peter Gidal, ed., StructuralFilm Anthology(London: British Film Institute, I976). Some in current conceptionsof aggressive form are discussed Gregory Battcock, ed., The l,{ett,American Cinema (New York: Dutton, 1967) and in Susan of Sontag, "The Aesthetics of Siiencel' Styles RadicalVill (New York: Delta, form" 1970), pp. 3-34. More generally,the definitive study of "aggressive in film remains Chapters 7 and B of Noel Burch's Tbeory of Film Practice ( P r inc e to n ,N .J .: Pri n c e to nU n i v e rs i ty P ress,1981). S im ilor i ty q n d D i ffe re n c e No systematic study hasbeen made of how films may be basedon repetitions and variations, but most critics implicitly recognize the importance of the processes. valuable exercisewould be to read a critical essayon a film A you have seenand to ask how the critic points out similaritiesand differences crisscrossing whole film. the Some theorists have pointed out the play of similarity and difference much more explicitly. After an analysis one sequencefrom The BigSleep, of Raymond Bellour ("The Obvious and the Code," Sreen I5, 4 f\X/inter 197)l:7-17) concludes that a specificpattern of similaritiesand differences of shots makes the narrative intelligible to us. Stephen Heath attributes a great importance to the "rhyming" effect of certain scenesin Jau.ts("Jatus, Ideology and Film Theory," Times Higber Education Supplemenf, No. 23I fMarch 26, 19761:II). The strangeness some films may come from their playing up of of dffirences within their formal systems.Two theorists have devoted considerable attention to the functions of tension and conflict in cinematic form. See Sergei Eisenstein'sFilm Form (New York: Flarcourt, Brace, 1949) and mentioned above. Both theorists use Noel Burch's Theoryof Film Practice, the term dialectics form, but in different ways. How would you define the of differencesbetween these theorists? Lineor Se g me n fq ti o n o n d D i o g ro mmi ng Dividing a film into sequencesin order tcsanalyzeits form is usually cailed segmentation, is not difficult to do, though most often we do it intuitively. It Recent film theory has devoted some consideration to the principles by which we segment a film. See Raymond Bellour, "To Analyze, to Segment," of QuarterfuReaieru Film Studies1, 3 (August 1976):331-314. The most influential explanation of how to segment a narrative film has been Christian Metz's famous "Grand Syntagmatic of the Image Track." Metz suggeststhat there are eight basic sorts of sequences(with some trans. M. subdivisionsand exceptions).See Christian Metz, Film Language, Taylor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1914) and Stephen Heath, "Film/Cinetext/Text,'Screen 14, Il2 (Spring/Summer1973):I02-I21 . Usually a feature-length film will have no more than 40 sequencesand no fewer than 1, so if you find yourself dividing the film into tiny bits or huge chunks, you may want to shift to a different level of generality. Of course, sequencesand scenescan also be further subdivided into subsegments. In segmentingany film, an outline format or a linear diagram may help you visualizeformal relations (beginningsand endings, paralleis,patthe terns of development, etc.). \7e employ an outline format in discussing nonnarrativehlms in the next chapter and a thagramin discussingTbeBand ( \ Y agpn p . 8 1 ).