doi: 10.56294/sctconf20241009

 

Category: Arts and Humanities

 

ORIGINAL

 

Semiotic field of directing at the beginning of the XXI century

 

Campo semiótico de la dirección a principios del siglo XXI

 

Mykola Krypchuk1  *, Roman Nabokov2  *, Viktoriia Rozhkovska3  *, Kateryna Chepura3,4  *, Hanna Sukhomlyn3,4  *

 

1Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Department of Variety Art and Festivals Directing. Kyiv, Ukraine.

2Kharkiv State Academy of Culture. Department of Directing. Kharkiv, Ukraine.

3Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. Department of Directing and Acting Skills. Kyiv, Ukraine.

4Kyiv University of Culture. Department of Arts. Kyiv, Ukraine.

 

Cite as: Krypchuk M, Nabokov R, Rozhkovska V, Chepura K, Sukhomlyn H. Semiotic field of directing at the beginning of the XXI century.  Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología - Serie de Conferencias. 2024; 3:1009. https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf20241009     

 

Submitted: 17-02-2024          Revised: 22-04-2024          Accepted: 27-06-2024          Published: 28-06-2024

 

Editor: Dr. William Castillo-González  

 

ABSTRACT

 

We live in a time of amazing and astounding achievements in scientific and artistic thought. More and more new technologies are being developed in various fields, including information. Today it has become a common occurrence, and no one is surprised by the breadth and variety of forms of information transmission, the main tool of which are nothing but signs. We often perceive the meaning of signs as directly as we see images, hear sounds, smells, etc., in science this is called semiotics – a theory that explores the system of signs. The purpose of the study was to study the application of the sign system in art, namely in the field of directing at the present stage. The leading method of research was structural-semiotic analysis, with the help of which modern cinema was analysed for the use of semiotic means in it. In the course of the research, it was found that semiotics is inextricably linked with art, since the creators of their works often use signs and hidden symbols in creativity, thus giving the recipient the opportunity to independently interpret what he saw or heard. The field of directing is also no exception, most of them are theatrical productions and cinematic works. In cinema, the system of signs has become widespread, and a set of certain symbols is a distinctive feature of some directors. The research contributes to the development of the problems of using sign systems in various fields of activity, which expresses its practical significance.

 

Keywords: Sign System; Cinematography; Symbols; Art; Interpretation.

 

RESUMEN

 

Vivimos en una época de logros asombrosos y sorprendentes en el pensamiento científico y artístico. Cada vez son más las nuevas tecnologías que se desarrollan en diversos campos, incluido el de la información. Hoy en día se ha convertido en algo habitual, y a nadie sorprende la amplitud y variedad de formas de transmisión de la información, cuya principal herramienta no son sino los signos. A menudo percibimos el significado de los signos tan directamente como vemos imágenes, oímos sonidos, olores, etc., en ciencia esto se llama semiótica - una teoría que explora el sistema de signos. El objetivo del estudio era estudiar la aplicación del sistema de signos en el arte, concretamente en el campo de la dirección en la etapa actual. El método principal de investigación fue el análisis estructural-semiótico, con ayuda del cual se analizó el cine moderno en cuanto al uso de medios semióticos en él. En el transcurso de la investigación, se descubrió que la semiótica está inextricablemente unida al arte, ya que los creadores de sus obras suelen utilizar signos y símbolos ocultos en la creatividad, dando así al receptor la oportunidad de interpretar de forma independiente lo que ha visto u oído. El campo de la dirección tampoco es una excepción, ya que la mayoría

son producciones teatrales y obras cinematográficas. En el cine, el sistema de signos se ha generalizado, y un conjunto de determinados símbolos es un rasgo distintivo de algunos directores. La investigación contribuye al desarrollo de los problemas que plantea el uso de sistemas de signos en diversos campos de actividad, lo que expresa su importancia práctica.

 

Palabras clave: Sistema de Signos; Cinematografía; Símbolos; Arte; Interpretación.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

The life of any person is full of signs, they can be found literally everywhere. Consequently, there is a need to study them and study the nature of signs and sign systems.(1,2) This is what the science of semiotics is doing. Semiotics covers a truly vast field of knowledge. It studies the properties of signs in human society, natural and artificial signs and various phenomena in the field of art and culture, in people themselves (visual, olfactory, auditory perception, etc.), and in nature; studies communication in the animal kingdom. Now, more and more works and scientific studies are appearing in the field of semiotics of cinematography, which suggest that symbolism is a fundamental characteristic of all cinematography.(3,4,5)

The use of the term semiotics can be traced in the history of three fields of scientific knowledge: medicine, philosophy and linguistics. Thus, semiotics can be considered as a scientific discipline that studies the creation and functioning of various sign systems and their structure. Semiotics originated at the beginning of the 20th century, but the roots of this discipline go back much earlier (the teachings of Aristotle, the Stoics, Philo of Alexandria, etc.).(6,7) Nevertheless, one should begin to look at the science of signs from the standpoint of the works of Pierce and Saussure as the founders of the American and European schools of semiotic thought, respectively. From the very beginning of its existence, semiotics has been a meta-science, a kind of superstructure over a number of sciences operating with the concept of a sign. Despite the formal institutionalisation of semiotics, its status as a unified science is still controversial. Thus, the interests of semiotics extend to human communication (including the use of natural language), communication with animals, information and social processes, the functioning and development of culture, all kinds of art (including fiction) and much more.(1,8)

Accordingly, semiotics is also in art. Semiotics studies all cultural processes as communication processes. Thus, semiotics in art allows us to see a work of art as a text (a network of symbols) that requires interpretation, or a message that needs to be decoded, and aesthetic experience as a contact of the work with the viewer (the reader of the work), in which both influence each other, building a dialogue. Art is often defined tautologically or metaphysically (art is art, art expresses the inexpressible, art is poetry, art is a manifestation of the spirit, etc.). Semiotics in art does not use this type of concept, because it provides tools for analysing the levels of communication and the significance of objects that are implemented in a concrete way in artistic practice. Art, creatively using signs, becomes a very complex communicative phenomenon that stimulates interpretations and, consequently, encourages the recipient to analyse them.(9-11)

In fact, there is no single way of interpreting a work of art, because although each work establishes its own reading code (the idiolect of the work), it is the reader of the aesthetic text who completes the meaning of the work. This is where semiotics is of fundamental importance, since it operates on the premise that the image can be understood only from a certain standpoint: from the standpoint of the observer.(12,13) Through semiotics, the artist ceases to be the person giving interpretation to the object, and delegates this function to the observer of the work. One of the contributions of semiotics to art is that it allows us to see how any interpretation is necessarily mediated by political, economic, social and historical elements.

The purpose of the study is to study the features of the use of the semiotic system in art, namely in the field of the director’s activity.

 

METHOD

Semiotics is a science that studies the process by which signs are generated and developed until they acquire a certain meaning. Semiotics also includes information about how these signs are transmitted, received, and interpreted. Semiotic analytical methods originated in literary criticism are used in anthropology, in the study of popular culture (for example, advertising), geography, architecture, including the history of cinema and art. Therefore, in this study, semiotics and its tools are not only the subject of study, but also the means by which this was done. First of all, a semiotic approach to research was used, as well as one of its methods – structural semiotic analysis. The semiotic approach is widely used in research on art and culture, since it allows using the means of linguistics to study cultural phenomena and understand their meaning. With this approach, you can understand what the author intended when he created his work, what meaning he put into the symbols used, etc. However, semiotics, which is a system, explores the object in this way, presenting it as a sign system. Thus, it becomes possible to study the features of communication, the interaction of all the signs used, and in this system to recognise their true purpose.

As mentioned above, the study used a structural-semiotic analysis of films in which the director used a system of signs. Semiotics is a scientific discipline that studies the ways of creating, exchanging and interpreting communication in human society. Structural-semiotic analysis focuses on a detailed study of figures, words, shapes, colors and other elements that contribute to giving meaning and communicative value to the studied object. In this case, the following films served as objects for semiotic analysis: “Island of the Damned”, “Drive”, “Seven”, “Tommy the Bumpkin”, “Out of the Car”, “Shining”, “It”, “Witch” and the cartoon “Up!”.

Comparative historical analysis was also used to study the origin of the concept of semiotics and the stages of its formation to the present day. This method allows tracing the development of the object under study and compare the results of the stages of development with each other in order to identify the dynamics and its nature.

Any theoretical research is based on the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, respectively, this method has also been used to study the semiotic field of directing. The essence of the analysis is to divide the whole into parts, to represent the complex as a group of simpler components. But to know everything, you need a complex, reverse process – synthesis. The need to combine these types of cognition follows from the emerging properties of systems: during the analysis, the integrity of the system is violated, when the system disintegrates, not only the essential properties of the system itself are lost, but also the properties of its parts that began to separate from it. The result of the analysis is only to identify the composition of the components, to know how the system works, but not to understand why and why it works. Synthetic thinking explains the behavior of the system, why the system works that way. In this case, the system should be considered as part of a larger whole. These two methods logically complement each other, so they are used in tandem.

 

RESULTS

The problems of the information landscape of modernity cannot be considered without the participation of semiotics, but also outside philosophy, aesthetics, cultural studies, anthropology, hermeneutics, linguistics, phenomenology and other scientific disciplines with which the history of art is closely connected. A special place in the general theory of sign systems is occupied by the semiotics of art. Signs, forms, symbols and texts that allow people to communicate, navigate in the cultural space, the language of culture is formed as a product, condition, structural element. Cultural languages systematise and synthesise the most important aspects of human life – social, cultural, historical, psychological, aesthetic, etc. Meanwhile, the following generally accepted classification of languages has been developed:

•     natural languages are historically the most important means of cognition and communication, the languages spoken by the peoples of the world;

•     artificial languages are scientific languages and conventional signs containing specific information, the meaning of which is strictly defined and the application of which has clear boundaries;

•     secondary languages are communicative structures built at the level of natural language, secondary modeling systems; the most complex in structure, the most difficult to understand codes (myth, religion, art).(2,14)

The complexity of secondary languages is a consequence of the complexity of the information they transmit. The artistic structure makes it possible to convey in an elementary language such a volume of information that is not available for transmission. In the semantic field of the language of art, but also of culture as a whole, there is accumulation, formatting in the text, and then various methods of decoding information. In the semiotic space, theatricalisation is a text that is created by technical means of a special code – the technology of directing art. Then theatrical productions are closed sign systems; theatrical forms of society are open sign systems that come into contact with other open sign systems of culture: a) complex, such as a myth; b) simple – such as sports, etc.(15,16)

In works on the semiotics of art, Yu.M. Lotman pays great attention to the theater and emphasizes that in each language, considered in isolation, in each system of signs there are contradictory reasons that do not allow an adequate and comprehensive description of reality.(17,18) This requires a metalanguage that compensates for incompleteness. Often this function is taken over by a language from another sign system, hence the desire of the culture of the twentieth century for an integrative language. Such an intermediary language can be a language of direction, since it works with signs and symbols inherent in natural human behaviour and culture in the forms of life themselves, and, therefore, can serve as a metalanguage or intermediary translator, which is both a natural and artificial language. In a semiotic sense, art is an artistic text, and the methods and techniques of art are a cipher, a code of an artistic text.

The language and the text can be spoken only in the coordinates of the system analysis. Speaking about the “systemic and non-systemic”, Yu.M. Lotman warns that in the process of structural description, the object is not only simplified, but also reorganised, that is, organised more rigidly than it actually is. This means that the direction in the process of studying as a structure should appear clearer than before the study. Since the description entails an increase in the degree of organization, self-description of a particular semiotic system, the creation of the grammar itself is a powerful means of self-organization of the system. This happens at some point in the historical existence of a particular language and, more generally, a particular culture as a whole. A similar moment can be recorded at the turn of the XIX and XX centuries, when the directing profession emerged as the language of self-description of the theater. In the second half of the XX century, there is a change in the conditions of the information culture of society and in the depths of the semiotic system, a certain language is allocated, which is considered as a metalanguage for its description. Directing, finally, establishes itself as a metalanguage of theatricalisation – first in cases of artistic design of space-time in the theater, and then gradually outside the artistic texts of works of art. In this case, the description is self-description, the metalanguage is not borrowed from outside the system, but represents its subclass.(17,18)

An essential aspect of such a process of self-organisation is that in the course of an additional order, part of the material is transferred to the position of the non-systemic and through the prism of this self, so to speak, ceases to exist. This happens while studying art history in general and theater studies in particular. Increasing the degree of organisation of the semiotic system goes hand in hand with its narrowing, up to the extreme case when the metasystem becomes so rigid that it almost ceases to intersect with the real semiotic systems that it claims to describe. The sign of non-existence, that is, non-system, turns out to be both a sign of non-system material (from the internal point of view of the system) and a negative indicator of the signs of the system itself. This was the case with all theatrical phenomena that took place off the stage.

Therefore, the direction outside the work of art has not been included in the field of art for a long time. Since both the described object and its non-systemic environment are considered as structural phenomena, although far from their description, a metalanguage is required that would be so far removed from them that from their position they could also be considered homogeneous. It is the language of systematic semiotic analysis, the languages of anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, integrated into the methodology of system analysis. But it is impossible to use the self-description apparatus, developed, for example, by the cultures of classicism or Romanticism, as a research metalanguage. The development of a new cultural situation and a new system of self-description reorganizes its previous states, i.e. a new concept of history arises. Yu.M. Lotman investigated the laws that are universal for any system, and identified a number of organizational mechanisms responsible for self-organisation.(17,18)

One of the most important mechanisms of any structure is binary relations. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the presence of some wide band of structural neutralisation between the structural poles of the binary opposition. The structural elements that accumulate here are not clear, but are in ambivalent relations with respect to the surrounding constructive context. Therefore, the internal expressiveness (inexhaustibility of hidden possibilities) of the object is much higher than that of the same indicator in its descriptions. This fully concerns the facts of the obvious theatricalization of the social, but its content remains hidden from the point of view of traditional art history conditioned upon its non-systemic position.

One more aspect should be taken into account: the text itself is inevitably associated with some inaccuracy. This is not about inaccuracy caused by the speaker’s intentions or behaviour, but about his or her simple mistakes. The growth of internal ambivalence corresponds to the moment of transition of the system into a dynamic state in which uncertainty is structurally redistributed and already acquires a new, clear meaning within the new organisation. An increase in internal uniqueness can be considered as an increase in homeostatic tendencies, and an increase in ambivalence can be considered as an indicator of the approaching moment of a dynamic leap. Cinematography is an art form whose works are created in real life with the help of film adaptations, specially staged or reproduced through animation of reality events. In cinematography, the aesthetic properties of literature, theater and fine art, and music are synthesised on the basis of their own means of expression, the main of which is the photographic nature of the image, which allows recreating any images of reality with the highest reliability and installation. The mobility of the camera and the variety of optics used for recording make it possible, within large rooms and large crowds of people (general plan), small groups of people in their relationships (medium plan), a portrait of a person or a separate detail (close-up). As a result, the most significant, aesthetically significant aspects of the depicted object can be identified in the frame. The composition of images in the montage serves as an expression of the author’s thinking, creates continuity of the plot development, organises visual narration, makes it possible to metaphorically interpret the plot by comparing individual plans, creates the rhythm of the film.(4;18) The creation of a cinematic work, as a rule, is a complex creative and production process that combines the work of artists of different specialties: a screenwriter; a director who determines the interpretation and implementation of the idea and directs the work of other participants in the production; actors portraying characters; an operator who characterises the action through composition, tone and color interpretation of frames; an artist, finding the imagery of the setting of the plot and costumes of the characters (including animation and external features of the characters); composer, etc.

Semiotics shows us the “invisible and inaudible” of the audiovisual language. Semiotics draws our attention to perspective and composition, clothing and colour. It talks about the connotations of images that the viewer sees on the screen, about ideas, meanings and ideologies. All this is invisible and inaudible to the “realistic” (as opposed to the “discursive”) observer. Some researchers call television and cinema “the practice of meaning.” The signs of this are visual images, words and sounds, incluiding: assembly splicing, darkening and mixing, fast and accelerated movement, certain lighting and reduction, camera movement, actor makeup and scenery. All this serves to convey to the “reader” a certain meaning, a moral.

The results presented in this section underscore the intricate relationship between semiotics, art, and culture. It highlights the role of semiotics in understanding the complex web of signs, symbols, and texts that constitute human communication and cultural expression. The discussion delves into the classification of languages, distinguishing between natural, artificial, and secondary languages, and emphasizes the importance of cultural languages in synthesizing various aspects of human life. The emergence of directing as a metalanguage for self-description within the theater is explored, demonstrating how it gradually extends beyond artistic texts to influence other domains of cultural expression. The results underscore the multifaceted nature of semiotics in analyzing and interpreting cultural artifacts, shedding light on the underlying structures and mechanisms that govern human communication and expression.

 

DISCUSSION

Many researchers assume that in audiovisual art, the sign connection is very short. That is, the image of a rose and the idea of a rose are almost identical at the moment of cinematic perception. Therefore, it is necessary to take into account such a factor as the mental recognition of perceptions received by the brain. This process takes place with the obligatory participation of personal previous experience. The human brain tries to recognise each incoming perception, replacing it with an imaginative “equivalent” that already exists in experience, and sends it to a free memory cell already in this recognised form to fill in new possibilities – images of already known objects, phenomena, events, etc., a stock of mnemons (images and their concepts). At the same time, errors occur, even with a really new object (about which there is no information in memory), fundamental errors occur – it is “recognised” as already known in memory. It often happens that some perceptions in our memory are not recognised at all, i.e. only at the level of perception (for example, the face of a person in a crowd, apparently famous, but the brain fails to identify it).(19,20)

B. Surace explores the intricate layers of intentionality present in the documentary film “A Film Unfinished” by Israeli director Yael Hersonski. The film juxtaposes footage from “Das Ghetto,” a Nazi propaganda film shot in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1942, with additional footage discovered in 1998 that reveals the staged nature of many scenes. Through meticulous editing and inclusion of survivor testimonies and diary excerpts, Hersonski creates a complex narrative that challenges viewers to confront the manipulative intentions behind the original propaganda film. The author critically examines the dialectic of intentions embedded within “A Film Unfinished,” considering how Hersonski navigates the tension between the staged reality presented in “Das Ghetto” and the historical truths revealed by the additional footage. Surace argues that the film’s complexity arises from its multi-layered approach, which intertwines narrative, formal inquiry, and intentional analysis. Central to author ‘s analysis is the re-evaluation of the paradigm of “textual autonomy” in documentary filmmaking. By integrating semiotic analysis with historical research, “A Film Unfinished” becomes a potent tool for uncovering the deeper meanings and intentions behind historical events. The author suggests that this approach challenges traditional notions of documentary authenticity and highlights the importance of contextual understanding in interpreting visual texts.(13)

O. Alvarado et al. delve into the realm of algorithmic experience (AX) within the context of movie recommender algorithms, addressing the increasing influence of algorithms on our daily interactions with cultural content. The authors note that while existing frameworks, such as the AX design framework, offer guidance for designing user experiences with algorithms in social media platforms, there is a lack of similar frameworks tailored specifically for movie recommender algorithms. To fill this gap, the study employs a combination of semiotic inspection analysis of the Netflix interface, sensitized design workshops, and semi-structured interviews. Through these methods, the authors aim to explore the AX requirements unique to movie recommender algorithms and identify design opportunities to enhance user experiences in this domain. The findings of the study highlight the importance of algorithmic usefulness and algorithmic social practices in shaping AX within movie recommender systems. By linking their analysis with design opportunities, the authors provide insights into how AX can be tailored to better suit the needs and preferences of users engaging with movie recommendations.(14)

Mentioning this fact is important because it explains why we perceive the same film differently. This happens precisely because we replace different perceptions (which arise in our brain when viewing screen shots) with another personal life experience. That is, we recognise these perceptions in different ways (we turn them into inappropriate images in relation to others) and therefore too often understand individual visual and auditory elements of the film and, consequently, the film itself as a whole in different ways. Film and television codes cover genre and cinematography (frame size, camera movement, camera angle, composition) and editing, and soundtrack and only one way to tell a story. Shooting from the shoulder, on the run and the associated uncomfortable recording is, for example, a documentary code, and is deliberately used as a formal technique, especially when you can use a steadicam – a device that is attached to the operator around the camera while driving.

At first glance, the unit of teletext is broadcast, but broadcast is rather a term from the economics of television operations, and text is from the textual approach. Semiotics defines teletext as a broadcast along with advertisements, screensavers and ads. Some people refer to the entire viewer experience “in one sitting”, such as a television evening (or a television morning or afternoon), as teletext. Syntagma and paradigm – two concepts that explain the relationship between signs in semiotics, are also components of the semiotic field in cinematography. For cinema, syntagma is the development of the plot, the editing sequence, the paradigm – possible angles, ways of transition from one image to another, contenders for the main role. When we analyse a movie or a TV program, we conduct a paradigmatic analysis (comparing the chosen standpoint, character, actor with other possible ones) and syntagmatic (comparing the scene with the previous one) at the same time.

A. Santangelo explores the significance of faces in cinema, particularly focusing on how they represent cultural models and contribute to the construction of meaning in films. Drawing examples from both recent and older movies, such as “Blue Is the Warmest Colour,” “Jeune femme,” “Shrek,” and “Avatar,” Santangelo compares the portrayal of faces and argues that they reflect the narrative structures and cultural discourses of the characters they belong to. Author suggests that faces in cinema are not merely visual elements but carry symbolic significance deeply intertwined with the cultural models of young men and women. Through a sociosemiotic method rooted in a structuralist view of culture, the author aims to identify the most culturally significant faces on screen and beyond. The study aligns with existing discussions on semiotics, film studies, and cultural analysis, offering a unique perspective on the role of faces in cinema. It emphasizes the dynamic relationship between cinematic representation and cultural models, suggesting that changes in cultural models lead to shifts in the portrayal and significance of faces in films.(15)

A. McCardy and J. Matusitz conduct a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the 2016 movie “Hidden Figures,” focusing on the concept of power as it pertains to the experiences of African American women mathematicians working at NASA in the 1960s. The study aims to expose the racial and sexist discrimination faced by the main protagonists and to shed light on the broader inequalities encountered by Black women during the post-Second World War era. Through the lens of CDA, the authors examine various discursive power tools employed in the film, including word connotations, social semiotics, and suppression/lexical absence. They argue that these tools are instrumental in portraying the systemic discrimination and marginalization experienced by the characters in the movie. The research resonates with existing literature on race, gender, and power dynamics in media representations. By focusing on “Hidden Figures,” a film based on a true story, the authors provide valuable insights into the intersectional challenges faced by African American women in historically male-dominated fields. (19)

The authors agree with the findings of their own study as it aligns with the broader discourse on race, gender, and power dynamics in media representations. Through their critical discourse analysis of “Hidden Figures,” they aim to shed light on the systemic discrimination faced by African American women, a theme that resonates with the prevailing narratives of social justice and equality. By a methodological approach like CDA, which focuses on uncovering underlying power structures and inequalities, the authors demonstrate a commitment to critically examining media representations and advocating for social change. Their study contributes to the ongoing conversation about the importance of diverse and inclusive storytelling in challenging dominant narratives and promoting a more equitable society.

The recipient of the message is the viewer. The ability to interpret movie characters depends on the level of culture and social group. We can say that the signs follow the evolution of the beholder, some go out of fashion, others acquire a new meaning. This fact reflects “the heterogeneity of society and the variability of the processes of social interaction.” The main carriers of semiotics are costume, landscape, scenery, music, gestures. As the film progresses, the density of characters changes, the beginning can be considered as the most intense part of the film, since it performs an “intense explanatory function”, and the last frame is often also full of characters. The visual signifier is characterised by heterogeneity, since it can refer to different meanings, polyvalence, since the signifier can express several signifiers, and vice versa, combinatoricity, when signifiers merge with each other, are listed one after the other. The meaning of the film is conceptual, this is the main idea of the plot, the answer to the question “What did the author want to say?”. J. Lotman notes that cinema is a combination of excellent semiotic systems, visual and verbal, but non-visual elements of the film still occupy a secondary place. (17,18) Considering the semiotic field of directing of the 21st century, it is worth turning to such films as, for example:

1. In the movie “Island of the Damned”, water and fire symbolize two opposite worlds. Water is a symbol of the real world, and fire is a world of hallucinations, a distorted reality, a pseudo–truth that Teddy is trying to believe. It was no accident that in Teddy’s confused thoughts, his wife died in a fire. The truth is terrible, like the water in which Teddy’s wife drowned the children. The symbols of fire and water run through the whole picture like a red thread. There is a theory that the director used this symbolism so that the audience would not get lost in the intricacies of the plot, but the hint turned out to be too subtle, and not everyone understood it.

2. In the movie “Drive”, the main character, played by Ryan Gosling, wears a jacket with a scorpion. Director Nicolas Winding Refn used a transparent reference to the famous parable about a frog that carried a scorpion on its back across a river, and about a scorpion that nevertheless bit a frog, despite the promise of an oath and the danger to life – this is its nature. The hero considers himself a criminal by nature, but in the end it turns out to be this frog. Anyone who knows how to understand the language of symbols could have foreseen the outcome from the very beginning: after all, the hero carried a scorpion on his back from the very beginning.

3. The rain in John Fincher’s famous film “Seven” is a powerful religious symbol. The mad killer John Doe believes that he cleanses the earth of dirt, like the water of the great flood. When he commits another murder, it rains. And when Doe is finally caught, the rain finally stops and only starts again at the end of the image.

4. In the cartoon “Up!” Balloons embody Karl’s dreams and desires. In addition, this symbolism permeates the film from the first to the last image. When Carl first appears on the screen, he carries a blue ball and imagines how it flies. But when Ellie notices him, Carl loses the ball and is injured. That evening, Ellie returns the balloon to him, as if to show him that they are forever connected by dreams. But when Carl falls in love with Ellie, the balloon bursts. And this can also be explained symbolically: love is more important than dreams. But the dream balls have not gone away and still live in Karl’s life.

5. In the movie “Tommy Bumpkin”, Richard’s car is a symbol of his relationship with Tommy. At the beginning of the picture, Richard literally blows dust particles out of his car and forbids Tommy to even eat in the cabin, so as not to accidentally dirty something. But the further it goes, the greater the relationship with Tommy for Richard – and the less attention he pays to his car, the more damage he causes to the car. In the end, the car ends up in the storytelling dump, and the relationship between the characters becomes really deep.

6. The symbol of structured chaos is present in almost every scene of “Out of the Car”. Each picture in the film is a demonstration of the ability to create pictures from seemingly random parts. The artificial intelligence in the film is similar to these pictures. Viewers are surprised by the difference between Ava, Caleb and them. Ava is a creation of human hands, but there may be more human qualities in her than in real people. Viewers think that Caleb is doing a Turing test on Ava, but in fact they are all experimenting with the Turing test on themselves.

7. “The Shining”, like all Stanley Kubrick films, is full of symbolism. The main symbol of truth is mirrors, which often show people the truth. The real word – “murder” – viewers see only in the mirror. Jack sees the real face of the woman from room 237 in the mirror and looks inside, communicating with the ghost.

8. Water is one of the most common symbols used in movies. In many paintings, water symbolises purity and innocence. But in “It” water is, first of all, a symbol of safety. The whole film is actually an allegory of the finiteness of life and the incessant appeal to death. Water as a symbol of impeccable youth is a safe environment on the way. On the contrary, the symbols of evil are associated with age: an old woman, a mother, an old man. The scene at the beginning of the film, in which the heroine lies in the pool, is a typical symbol of water: although when the neighborhood boys watch the heroine, she is not afraid of it, because they are young and therefore do not pose a threat.

9. The symbolism of the poisoned apple is likely to be read even by young children. But the symbolism of the apple in the “Witch” is much deeper and has distant religious roots. The family of the main characters is expelled from their own Eden, living in the forest. The seduction of Caleb by a witch disguised as a beauty is accompanied by the appearance of a poisoned apple, which is no longer associated with the “tale of the dead princess”, but with the biblical parable of Eve, who gave Adam a forbidden apple, which caused the expulsion of the first people from Paradise.

10. One of the first characters of “Forrest Gump” is a white bird feather. He appears at the beginning and at the end of the picture and symbolises fate. But the feather is a symbol associated with Forrest, and the birds are a symbol that always accompanies Jenny. As a child, she prayed that God would make a bird out of her so that she could fly “far, far away from here.” And at the end of the film, when Forrest leaves Jenny’s grave, a flock of birds hangs over him. This symbolism tells us about Jenny’s vulnerability, as well as about the continuity of the fate of the heroes.

Today, any stage work is a complex system that includes various “languages”, “codes”, “signs”. And understanding the sign language requires certain intellectual efforts. It turns out that being a real spectator is not so easy. The viewer can only be described as a person who understands the “literacy” of artistic creativity and has access to certain images, the language of theater and cinema. An artistically educated viewer can perceive a performance or an artist’s painting not only in terms of illustrating the action, but also in terms in which there are special expressive techniques. “Art education” should be understood not as the saturation of people with information about art, but as an introduction to the world of art through the development of the ability to holistic artistic perception and understanding.

 

CONCLUSIONS

Thus, semiotics is one of the key sciences in the communicative aspect, since semiotics has shown its ability for interdisciplinary dialogue with other disciplines from neighboring fields. This interdialogical function is important because it shows that semiotics is able to form a basic theory of signs, which can perform an integration function among linguists, literary critics, anthropologists, communicativists, mathematicians, biologists, physicists, artists, sociologists, philosophers, etc. in an integrating formula of the real, helping to plan the relationship between man and nature, between chaos and in order, in the crisis situation in which a person is today. Semiotics has also found its application in art, the content of which practically consists of symbols and signs that the creator of the work encrypted for the recipient. The subject of this study was the category of art, the creator of which is the director. Based on the results of the analysis of the selected number of modern cinematic works, it can be stated that the sign system is actively used in the directing profession. This is especially evident in cinematography, where it is possible to use signs not only in the form of any objects, but also using the functionality of a movie camera: various shooting plans, angle, light, etc. The use of the sign system in cinematography allows the viewer to independently interpret what he saw through the prism of his worldview. Sometimes not all director’s hints in the form of signs can be distinguished, so watching a movie is also an intellectual process.

It is important to consider each artistic manifestation in its cultural context, emphasizing its connections with other artistic manifestations, especially when they originate from other fields of art. Therefore, the study of the connection and interactivity between various artistic semiotics in the process of creating cinematic art is a promising direction for future research on the topic, since it can provide important information for understanding contemporary art in general and cinematic art in particular.

 

REFERENCES

1.  De Luca Picione R. (2021). The dynamic nature of the human psyche and its three tenets: Normativity, liminality and Resistance-Semiotic advances in direction of modal articulation sensemaking. Human Aren. 4(2), 279-293.

 

2.  Jing Y. (2021). Visual affect in films: A semiotic approach. Semiot. 2021(239), 99-124.

 

3.  Wang Q, Zhang D. (2019). Branding city destinations: A comparative analysis of the multimodal discourse in Beijing and London publicity films. Chinese Semiot Stud. 15(3), 379-410.

 

4.  Marcelli M. (2020). Double articulation in linguistics, semiotics, theory of arts and philosophy. Jazykoved Casop. 71(2), 157-166.

 

5.  Gómez SR. (2019). An agential-narrative approach on art semiosis. Tech Art. 17(3), 281-295.

 

6.  Pua P, Hiramoto M. (2020). White hot heroes: Semiotics of race and sexuality in Hollywood ninja films. Lang Commun. 72, 56-67.

 

7.  Polidoro P. (2019). Image schemas in visual semiotics: Looking for an origin of plastic language. Cognit Semiot. 12(1), article number 20192006

 

8.  Ammer SMEI. (2020). Content analysis of lighting and color in the embodiment of fear concept in horror movies: A semiotic approach. Info Sci Letter. 9(2), 135-142.

 

9.  Yulianeta, Tami R. (2021). Social satire on higher education: A comparative structural semiotic study of the movies alangkah lucunya (negeri ini) and parasite. Indones J Appl Ling. 11(1), 245-253.

 

10.  Yıldırım B, Öcal E, Şahin-Topalcengiz E. (2021). Stem in movies: Female preservice teachers’ perspectives on movie “hidden figures”. J Baltic Sci Educ. 20(5), 740-758.

 

11.  Anusha VS, Balagopal G, Vinod L. (2019). Movie posters of Bollywood remakes: A semiotic analysis. Int J Innov Tech Explor Engineer. 8(7), 291-301.

 

12.  Noad B, Barton G. (2020). Emotion resonance and divergence: A semiotic analysis of music and sound in “The lost thing” an animated short film and “Elizabeth” a film trailer. Social Semiot. 30(2), 206-224.

 

13.  Surace B. (2019). The intentions of memory: Hypothesis for a semiotic teleology from das ghetto to a film unfinished. Lex. 29-30, 113-130.

 

14.  Alvarado O, Abeele VV, Geerts D, Verbert K. (2019). I really Don’t know what ‘Thumbs up’ means: Algorithmic experience in movie recommender algorithms. Lect Note Comp Sci (includ subser Lect Note Artific Intell Lect Note Bioinfo). 11748 LNCS, 521-541.

 

15.  Santangelo A. (2021). Symbolic faces: Towards a socio-semiotic theory of the face. Lex. 2021(37-38), 503-520.

 

16.  Fourati M, Jedidi A, Gargouri F. (2019). A combination between textual and visual modalities for knowledge extraction of movie documents. IC3K 2019 – Proceed 11th Int Joint Conf Knowl Discov, Knowl Engineer Knowl Manag. 2, 203-214.

 

17.  Lotman J. (1976). Semiotics of Cinema. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 

18.  Lotman J. (2005). On the semiosphere. Sign Syst Stud. 33(1), 205–229.

 

19.  McCardy A, Matusitz J. (2021). Power in hidden figures: A critical discourse analysis. Int J Media Cult Polit. 17(1), 3-17.

 

20.  Malícková M, Malícek J. (2020). Theatricality of film language in baz luhrmann’s films. Slovens Divad. 68(3), 209-228.

 

FINANCING

The authors did not receive financing for the development of this research.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

 

AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Mykola Krypchuk, Roman Nabokov.

Data curation: Viktoriia Rozhkovska.

Formal analysis: Viktoriia Rozhkovska.

Research: Mykola Krypchuk, Kateryna Chepura.

Methodology: Viktoriia Rozhkovska, Hanna Sukhomlyn.

Project management: Kateryna Chepura, Hanna Sukhomlyn.

Resources: Mykola Krypchuk, Kateryna Chepura.

Validation: Hanna Sukhomlyn.

Drafting - original draft: Roman Nabokov, Viktoriia Rozhkovska.

Writing - proofreading and editing: Mykola Krypchuk, Hanna Sukhomlyn.