In this essay I intend to begin by discussing the nature of human understanding and perception outside the realm of television and film - that is in the ‘real world’. Through this discussion I intend to highlight some of the key concepts that arise in the process of understanding viewing of filmed images, and illuminate the way in which codes have come to be seen by some as a language.
In our earliest years of life we learn an amazing range of things. Language seems to be the most significant at first glance, as it gives expression to life itself, but it is also important to note that during these formative years, and throughout our lives, we learn some other very complicated ways of understanding. For instance we learn how to interpret basic body language (gestures, facial expressions), to make distinctions in power according to dress (tidy, smart uniforms, scruffy appearance), to understand accents different from our own and afford them specific classifications and meanings (northern, southern, ‘rough’, ‘posh’). We learn all these different ways of understanding because there are so many different ‘things’ in the world to understand. All these things can be broken down into signs. We see a sign and are able to identify its meaning within its specific context, we can identify implicit meanings and we can recognise and utilise its meanings connoted by different contexts. Encapsulated within the field of semiotics - the study of signs - is where we find these different ways of understanding, and so to make sense of how we understand, we must look closely at the field of semiotics: its origins and its applications.
The ideas of semiotics, or semiology as it is sometimes known, were first laid out by a linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1916). In his work he saw language as a system of signs where the meaning of a sign is derived from the physical word (which has been translated as and is commonly called the signifier) and the idea that the word creates the concept of the meaning, the signified. These two were seen to co-exist, and one could not be present without another. We can try this ourselves. If you read the word ‘boat’, you immediately think of the physical object of a boat. You recognised the word ‘boat’ (the signifier) and conjured the image of a boat (the signified) instantaneously. Interpretations of the type of boat may differ of course, and this is due to there being many different types of boats (many different signifieds for the signifier ‘boat’). In order to make clear what type of boat I was thinking of, I would have to introduce more signs. Now if I write ‘rowing boat’ you can conjure the same image as I have intended more or less because you can bring meaning to the type of boat by the description I have given. In terms of semiotics, you can determine the meaning of my sign by comparing the two signs ‘rowing’ and ‘boat’ in your mind and realising that these two signs together have a specific meaning. So, the exact meaning of a sign in any given context is determined by the comparison of it with other signs in the same context, which is an immediate process realised in the sub-conscious.
This is quite a complicated idea, and it is no surprise that it was first realised by a linguist. It is most easily understood when applied to the example of language as we all use language in our everyday lives and therefore have a good grasp, although this is not always apparent, of its use. The question of whether linguistics is a branch of semiotics or vice-versa is often posed because of the way they sit so comfortably together, and although I do not wish to discuss this directly, it is worth considering that much of the language that governs or describes semiotics is derived from the study of language and so it is easy to fall into believing that semiotics is part of language rather than the other way around.
Turning back to semiotics and its application in linguistics, we can note that the relationships between signs govern their meaning as I have said, and that these relationships can be put into categories themselves: syntagms and paradigms. The syntagmatic category is concerned with the relationship between one sign and another, while the paradigmatic is concerned with the selection of one sign over another.
This idea is particularly important when considering the way in which television producers construct a programme according to conventions that are made up of specific codes, which in turn, are made up of sign systems organised by syntagms and paradigms.
Having established that there are different ways to find meanings in a sign through the use of syntagms and paradigms, it is sensible to point out that there are also different relationships between these signs that have been designated as ‘modes’. These modes are the symbolic, iconic and indexical modes. James Monaco (1981:133) cites Peter Wollen
These modes appear in society, but have specific reference to television and film. A good example would be a shot of the sun representing the sweltering heat. It is in the indexical mode that this is established, and it is through our ability to recognise this sub-consciously that allows us to understand that the director is not just showing us the sun so we know it is a nice day. This would probably be emphasised by characters sweating (another indexical sign), and commenting on the heat (a meaning crafted through the conventional understanding of the signifier ‘heat’ to mean, within this context, the abstract idea of a warm temperature [the signified]).
Looking at how we understand and perceive television we can easily make use of semiotics, as the methods we use for understanding the real world are the methods we initially apply to understanding television and film.
The codes and conventions of behaviour, language, mode of dress, dialect are all things we are familiar with in the real world and therefore are applied in film and television because they already have meaning associated with them, but they are not the only codes and conventions at work when we watch. There are extra codes specific to television and film, codes of the camera and codes of sound. These types of conventions have defined themselves through their successful use in their respective areas. Take for example the ideas of genre, which are based upon conventions that have been defined by the moviemakers. Each film is directly related to the film before it in respects to how it represents the same genre. If a horror film is shot with eerie extra-diegetic music, and with low lighting and is successful and understood to be horror, then the next film attempting to find the niche horror audience will use the same conventions in order to maintain the ease with which their audience is able to understand and interpret their film.
To perhaps better demonstrate the way conventionalised codes that have come to take on preferred meanings for the majority of society are used in television, I turn to realist drama. There are specific codes of the camera that we associate with realist drama on television. These codes have become the norm and although in some cases they are incredibly unreal, they are what an audience expects, and without them there is the chance they won’t accept what they see. Jimmy McGovern’s Hearts and Minds (1995) is a good example of a realist drama that showed all the required conventions in order to give its audience that real down to earth feel. The setting was that of a school on a Liverpool housing estate... this convention is ideological; there must be a working class feel to the situation. The run down area is shot with seemingly no extra lighting, in fact it is probable that the light was dulled to give a more downtrodden feel... this convention being that these areas of poverty should seem more depressing, and therefore, indexical signs such as bright lighting would be unacceptable as they connote happiness, and joy, and warmth. There are lots of long takes, and the narrative runs almost entirely in a linear fashion... towards the end our protagonist is thinking back over his time teaching at the school so a flashback and montage is used that goes against the convention of hiding the production process and thus maintaining the feel that the realist drama is a just a part of a real life story. Though here again there is the convention of first going for a close up on his face before only partly fading in the images so we can understand that he is remembering... even though this is against the conventions of other realist dramas, it is successful because it employs the correct procedure (convention) for creating the idea of a memory and it does so to heighten the emotional response of the audience. There is very little non-diegetic sound in the drama a convention widely accepted in realism.
In Ken Loach’s Land and Freedom (1995) there is a mix of extreme long shots in deep focus so that we feel we are observing the events in true realist fashion, but then there is a change to hand held close shots with extra diegetic music to heighten the emotion and hook the viewer into the narrative subverting the realist conventions but in a way that is commonly associated with other sorts of less realistic films, and that conforms to other given conventions and does not feel out of place in a scene of high emotion. Indeed the film needs this as it is based in a very serious political context, and without the use of emotion in the narrative, the director could well lose or bore his audience.
The codes of film and television are very useful to an audience in identifying what they wish to watch. Very recently, the Brasseye (broadcast 26/06/01) programme sparked controversy when a team who are recognised for their work in satire by a only a small section of British society ‘accidentally’ attracted the wrong audience by using the conventions of studio based factual debate programmes for a show and utilised the same conventions in their advertising campaign. A large proportion of the audience believed they were tuning in to see a factual debate on the problem of paedophilia, a very serious issue. In truth, it was their failure to distinguish from the clips they saw that this was not factual that caused the mistake, not underhand tactics on the part of the Brasseye team.
I have to admit that I take great pleasure in watching lowbrow made for TV movies, especially if they are ‘disaster’ movies. This is because I enjoy playing 'spot the cliché'. It amuses me greatly that in an attempt to cause some sort of emotional connection between the audience and the characters they force in all the stereotyped and easily recognisably conventional characters from society in a hope of reaching a wider audience and reflecting the great range of people in society that this disaster could affect. They try to say ‘this could happen to you’. For some people, these conventions may seem completely acceptable, but for me I find picking apart the ‘carefully constructed’ plot the real pleasure. This in fact is not that far from how we watch all television though. After all, it is in identifying the conventions, and in some respects predicting what can happen that makes watching enjoyable. It is the safety of knowing we can rely on the programme to conform to our expectations that is pleasurable. It would be most uncomfortable to tune into what was thought to be a serious news bulletin only to discover that it was the work of a satirical group, and that the past half an hour of reasonably believable if slightly shocking news had all been fiction. Potentially this confusion could be devastating if it were a news programme featuring fictitious rapes, murders, natural disasters etc.
I have shown that through language and living in society we learn how to understand and interpret conventions. Fiske and Hartley tell us
Our understanding of the way in which sign systems operate is fundamental to our interpretations, and it is clear that we do indeed learn these ways of understanding film and television as a direct result of learning to communicate. The choice to describe this process as ‘reading’ though is not one that I agree with. To me this suggests that a visual medium can be reduced to some sort of text that can be scanned and understood like a paragraph on a page. It also seems to suggest an active and fully conscious approach to understanding. I would prefer to say that we learn to interpret television and film. This description allows for the various different accounts that may arise from different people watching the same show, and to me suggests a more active and brain orientated (this suggesting in turn a more sub-conscious) role for us in our understanding of what we have seen on screen.
I began my essay stating that we see television as a way to relax. When we return from a long (and tiring) day at work we don’t want to watch an art film or a challenging science documentary that makes our minds work too hard. To relax we pick something that requires little conscious mental effort and so watching can be a seemingly passive event. However, we remain subconsciously active, applying processes we have learnt over many years... deciphering signs, interpreting and understanding meanings. The sub-conscious even shapes what we choose to watch as we know by convention what is mentally stimulating (for the conscious mind) and what is not.
Filmic and televisual codes are like a language, specifically in their construction and interpretation, but we mustn’t let this trick us into believing that this makes TV predictable. Language is in a state of constant evolution where for example the decision to ignore formal grammar and syntax in informal situations leads to the slow erosion of formal rules to a more relaxed state in formal situations. The language of codes that governs TV and film is also in a state of evolution as new genres emerge, and strange hybrids seep through into the mainstream docu-soaps, reality TV, faction documentaries - and while this goes on the technology is evolving too, and with that so are the codes of production. We continue to learn even as we grow older because signs in society come to take on new meanings, and therefore the meaning of signs within these media change to reflect this.
May 2002