This paper tries to bring into perspective certain aspects, which are deemed important in establishing the relation between the field of literature and that of film. There are three perspectives, which have been addressed in the field of film and literature. First is the study of interaction between...
This paper tries to bring into perspective certain aspects, which are deemed important in establishing the relation between the field of literature and that of film. There are three perspectives, which have been addressed in the field of film and literature. First is the study of interaction between the two arts by reviewing the historic process of the development of filmic style. Second is the definition of and evaluation of the similarities and differences between film and literature. Finally, and that which is the main subject of this paper, is the study of the systematic relevance between film and literature in terms of signification and the production of meaning. It is also important to note that studies in this field develop from the point of view from that of literature, which may be summarized as studies on texts such as narrative. In order to discuss the assertion that this category regards signs and methods of expression in film as literary patterns, the paper will try to develop the oppose the bases of narratives which has been the key in analyzing films. This paper, particularly, reviews the ideas that withstand the insistence that film text is a product of combination of various signs, therefore has the same function as a literary text. Critics who adhere strictly to the above mentioned viewpoint, showed that all the components of film do not only function for the purpose of generating meanings and narrations, but there are some other elements like figures or meaningless signs which serve other independent systems. In conclusion, film, unlike literature, is not a single textual system, and thus is not organized based on a single code. Rather, it is a mixture of complicated systems. Ropars called these two systems "linguistic signification" and "analogical figuration". She also insists that the two systems enjoy a paradoxical relationship in film. Reviewing film text in this context seems to undermine the basic relevance between film and literature by considering film text as a specialized field that somehow has no common characteristics with the literary text. However, in reviewing the theories that have been developed in textual studies in film, we found that the relevance between film and literature has changed. A film in which the two systems coexist performs the role of observing literature in a different order. Film, as an art, can be considered as a reader of literature that reflects the external conditions and the operations of the literary text.
This paper tries to bring into perspective certain aspects, which are deemed important in establishing the relation between the field of literature and that of film. There are three perspectives, which have been addressed in the field of film and literature. First is the study of interaction between the two arts by reviewing the historic process of the development of filmic style. Second is the definition of and evaluation of the similarities and differences between film and literature. Finally, and that which is the main subject of this paper, is the study of the systematic relevance between film and literature in terms of signification and the production of meaning. It is also important to note that studies in this field develop from the point of view from that of literature, which may be summarized as studies on texts such as narrative. In order to discuss the assertion that this category regards signs and methods of expression in film as literary patterns, the paper will try to develop the oppose the bases of narratives which has been the key in analyzing films. This paper, particularly, reviews the ideas that withstand the insistence that film text is a product of combination of various signs, therefore has the same function as a literary text. Critics who adhere strictly to the above mentioned viewpoint, showed that all the components of film do not only function for the purpose of generating meanings and narrations, but there are some other elements like figures or meaningless signs which serve other independent systems. In conclusion, film, unlike literature, is not a single textual system, and thus is not organized based on a single code. Rather, it is a mixture of complicated systems. Ropars called these two systems "linguistic signification" and "analogical figuration". She also insists that the two systems enjoy a paradoxical relationship in film. Reviewing film text in this context seems to undermine the basic relevance between film and literature by considering film text as a specialized field that somehow has no common characteristics with the literary text. However, in reviewing the theories that have been developed in textual studies in film, we found that the relevance between film and literature has changed. A film in which the two systems coexist performs the role of observing literature in a different order. Film, as an art, can be considered as a reader of literature that reflects the external conditions and the operations of the literary text.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.