What do you think?
Ensayos sobre la significación en el cine (1964-1968), vol. I
La presente recopilación, aparecida en 1968 y objeto desde entonces de múltiples reediciones, reúne diez estudios de Christian Metz publicados entre 1964 y 1968 en diversas revistas –Communications, La Linguistique, Cahiers du cinéma...― y actualmente traducidos ya a doce idiomas. Este primer tomo de los Ensayos sobre la significación en el cine suponen una primera etapa en el esfuerzo de Christian Metz por fundamentar un enfoque semiológico del hecho cinematográ una tentativa que sigue abierta y que tuvo su continuidad en el segundo tomo de esta obra, originalmente editado en 1974 y también publicado por Paidós, y en Lenguaje y cine (1971). El presente volumen constituye el inicio de dicho itinerario, el primer encuentro entre modalidades de pensamiento inspiradas por la lingüística moderna y por la tradición estética de las reflexiones sobre la noción de “lenguaje cinematográfico”. Dice François Jost en el pró “Si tuviera que escoger algunos libros de cine entre los escritos teóricos producidos durante el siglo XX, escogería sin dudarlo los Ensayos sobre la significación en el cine, y los colocaría en el mismo estante de mi biblioteca en el que están Eisenstein o Bazin. Como ellos, Metz pertenece efectivamente a la especie rara de los “fundadores de discursividad”, que Foucault definía así: “Tienen esto en no son solamente los autores de sus obras, de sus libros. Han producido algo má la posibilidad y la regla de formación de otros textos””.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
August 28, 2008
A reading of Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics is a prerequisite for understanding Metz's book, or at least a basic understanding of structural linguistics and semiotics is. This is what makes Metz brilliant and at the same time a complete failure as far as film theorists go. The man's influence is widespread, but it may be in the sense that his writings offer us the sort of eclectic insight that was typical of the Cahiers du Cinema. And Film Language is basically a collection of his writings from that journal; essays that display a preoccupation with a structural analysis of film grammar and language.
Metz's basic theoretical aim is to apply the methods of structural linguistics to an image dependent medium. As is the case with structural linguistics, the whole of any one thing is broken down into its collection of units. With language, a sentence has meaning only after each unit of it is taken into consideration. Saussure once used the chess analogy; each piece's value is determined by its relationship to other pieces on the board. So letters and phonemes basically make up the single word forms (syntagmas) which compose the sentence, and a sequence of sentences make up a paragraph, etc. This of course, is a sort of crash-course explanation, but it gets the basic idea across. So the question then is; how can we apply these concepts to images? Not only that, but with the nature of the medium of cinema in mind; its stylistic evolution (which does not begin with sound, or any sort of phonetic language), how then can Metz apply this methodology in an adequate way?
He seems to consider a sequence within a scene to be the, more or less, smallest unit. It seems as though the single image or frame should be. This is where the english translation runs into difficulties with Metz. Sequence basically implies one shot or cut. Within the structure of any given cinematic narrative, these sequences, themselves part of single scenes, provide an entire film with a readable, image-based language. Therefore the cinematic medium provides the viewer with meaning or content (a word that Metz seems to dislike) through a language of images.
Of course, Metz's study is slightly more elaborate than this, especially when he discusses questions of semiotics in film. The thing is that, taken in a simplistic light, film language is really just another way of describing the intelligibility of montage. Film theory that is enslaved by a methodological application such as structural linguistics is bound to fail because its initial intention or use was for human language. The cinematic medium is basically too complex to be understood using Saussurian concepts. It's difficult to blame Metz too much though, and his tone is pretty self-effacing throughout this collection of essays. Which in a way, makes Film Language somewhat credulous, or if nothing else, yet another critical application that can be used and subsequently analyzed (itself) by generation after generation of film scholars and cinephiles.
Metz's basic theoretical aim is to apply the methods of structural linguistics to an image dependent medium. As is the case with structural linguistics, the whole of any one thing is broken down into its collection of units. With language, a sentence has meaning only after each unit of it is taken into consideration. Saussure once used the chess analogy; each piece's value is determined by its relationship to other pieces on the board. So letters and phonemes basically make up the single word forms (syntagmas) which compose the sentence, and a sequence of sentences make up a paragraph, etc. This of course, is a sort of crash-course explanation, but it gets the basic idea across. So the question then is; how can we apply these concepts to images? Not only that, but with the nature of the medium of cinema in mind; its stylistic evolution (which does not begin with sound, or any sort of phonetic language), how then can Metz apply this methodology in an adequate way?
He seems to consider a sequence within a scene to be the, more or less, smallest unit. It seems as though the single image or frame should be. This is where the english translation runs into difficulties with Metz. Sequence basically implies one shot or cut. Within the structure of any given cinematic narrative, these sequences, themselves part of single scenes, provide an entire film with a readable, image-based language. Therefore the cinematic medium provides the viewer with meaning or content (a word that Metz seems to dislike) through a language of images.
Of course, Metz's study is slightly more elaborate than this, especially when he discusses questions of semiotics in film. The thing is that, taken in a simplistic light, film language is really just another way of describing the intelligibility of montage. Film theory that is enslaved by a methodological application such as structural linguistics is bound to fail because its initial intention or use was for human language. The cinematic medium is basically too complex to be understood using Saussurian concepts. It's difficult to blame Metz too much though, and his tone is pretty self-effacing throughout this collection of essays. Which in a way, makes Film Language somewhat credulous, or if nothing else, yet another critical application that can be used and subsequently analyzed (itself) by generation after generation of film scholars and cinephiles.
July 31, 2026
I still don’t understand what semiotics is
Want to Read
August 13, 2014i haven't even read the book cuz i haven't been able to aces it thanks
May 6, 2024
This doesn’t work because structuralism doesn’t work. At least, not the way any structuralist wants it to. Still, he had some good stuff to say. But I like Barthes and Eco more. And I am much more on board with Stam and Deleuze.
I can’t wait to deconstruct the fuck out of this in my thesis paper.
I can’t wait to deconstruct the fuck out of this in my thesis paper.
July 30, 2011
The ideas are pretty much garbage. But it stimulated my thinking back when I first started taking film seriously.
December 21, 2024
It’s like the Bible of film theory
Read
July 9, 2026Why is it so hard for Metz to apply semiotics to cinema? Saving this question for my future self when Ursula asks me this for my qualifying exam.
December 27, 2025
La semiótica no es lo mío —y Metz no hace ningún esfuerzo por facilitarte el camino—, pero aun así este fue uno de los textos que más disfruté leer dentro del programa.
Es un libro exigente, a veces áspero, muy de su época, pero también profundamente honesto en su apuesta teórica: Metz no se queda en definiciones abstractas, sino que intenta hacer funcionar la semiótica sobre el cine. Y eso se nota.
El concepto de la gran sintagmática me resultó especialmente interesante: no tanto por su aplicabilidad inmediata, sino por el gesto intelectual que implica pensar el cine desde sus formas de encadenamiento, desde cómo el sentido se produce en la secuencia y no en unidades aisladas. Ahí Metz convence.
No es una lectura amable ni “disfrutable” en el sentido liviano del término, pero sí es un texto que deja algo: una forma de mirar el cine con más rigor, incluso cuando una no termina de estar de acuerdo con todo.
No le doy más estrellas porque hay momentos en los que la densidad pesa más que el placer. Pero, paradójicamente, es de esos libros que justifican por qué vale la pena leer teoría.
Es un libro exigente, a veces áspero, muy de su época, pero también profundamente honesto en su apuesta teórica: Metz no se queda en definiciones abstractas, sino que intenta hacer funcionar la semiótica sobre el cine. Y eso se nota.
El concepto de la gran sintagmática me resultó especialmente interesante: no tanto por su aplicabilidad inmediata, sino por el gesto intelectual que implica pensar el cine desde sus formas de encadenamiento, desde cómo el sentido se produce en la secuencia y no en unidades aisladas. Ahí Metz convence.
No es una lectura amable ni “disfrutable” en el sentido liviano del término, pero sí es un texto que deja algo: una forma de mirar el cine con más rigor, incluso cuando una no termina de estar de acuerdo con todo.
No le doy más estrellas porque hay momentos en los que la densidad pesa más que el placer. Pero, paradójicamente, es de esos libros que justifican por qué vale la pena leer teoría.
December 30, 2020
3,5
El título es suficientemente autoexplicativo como para no necesitar más comentario a ese respecto.
El enfoque técnico del libro hace que algunos pasajes resulten arduos debido a la terminología lingüística y a la forma de tratar ciertos temas. Sin embargo, esto no empaña el interés de los mismos ni de la obra en su conjunto.
El título es suficientemente autoexplicativo como para no necesitar más comentario a ese respecto.
El enfoque técnico del libro hace que algunos pasajes resulten arduos debido a la terminología lingüística y a la forma de tratar ciertos temas. Sin embargo, esto no empaña el interés de los mismos ni de la obra en su conjunto.
January 13, 2021
I saggi sono a volte complessi (tenere a portata di mano un buon dizionario per i termini di linguistica è necessario per i non iniziati) ma quasi tutti molto belli e, ancora oggi, spessl molto pertinenti per chi si voglia interessare al cinema e ai film come fatto di linguaggio.
October 27, 2012
Good book about language and semiotics of cinema.
Read
April 11, 20174.5 / 5
October 28, 2022
Attraverso il cinema. Semiologia, lessico e lettura del film.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews