Film, Literature, and Adaptation — Week 2 Notes (Semiotics, Word/Image, and Adaptation)

Differences and Similarities Between Visual and Written Signs

• Week 2 lecture focuses on Part A (Differences and similarities between visual and written signs; key concepts in semiotics; relation between film and word) and Part B (Adaptation of written text to film via Brian McFarlane’s Reading Film and Literature).
• Central tension: Novel as words vs. Film as images vs. their interconnections and cross-overs in criticism.
• Kamilla Elliott encapsulates the paradox: novels and films are often treated as irreducible opposites yet are connected through formal, generic, stylistic, narrative, cultural, and historical links.
• Common demarcations persist: Word (novel) as conceptual/linguistic/discursive/symbolic with time as formative; Image (film) as perceptual/visual/presentational/literal with space as formative.
• Crossover and Purity: disciplines tend to claim their forms as verbally or imagistically “pure,” pressuring film into ‘wordless’ or novel into 'illustration-free' zones; critique often treats film and writing as separate semiotic systems rather than integrated practices.
• Core idea: See film and writing as two semiotic systems that interact, rather than a simple hierarchy of one over the other.

Key Concepts in Semiotics & the Word–Image Relation

• Semiotics is the study of signs and sign processes (semiosis) in culture.
• Saussurean foundation (from Page 6):
  • SIGN = [Referent] , where the Signifier is the sound-image and the Signified is the concept.
  • \text{Sign} = ([\text{Referent}], \text{Signifier}, \text{Signified})
  • Signifier (sound-image) and Signified (concept).
• Relations within and between signs are arbitrary and differ across languages and sign systems.
• Meaning arises from the differential relations among signs, not from any intrinsic correspondence between a sign and its referent.
• Language is a system of signs in relation to each other via differences.
• Other sign systems (visual, musical, etc.) operate similarly through differential relations.

Arbitrary Signs and Relations

• Meaning derives from sign relations, not from a one-to-one mapping to the world.
• Arbitrary nature of signs means that the link between form (sound-image, signifier) and meaning (concept, signified) is conventional and culturally learned.
• Binary oppositions, a Saussurean tool, illustrate differential relationships (e.g., sound vs. concept).
• Page 8 example: Binary oppositions show how Signifier (sound) and Signified (concept) relate in language:
  • Example pair: Sound (Phonic Signifier) e.g. Cat/Bat; Concept (Signified) e.g. Table/Not Table.

Iconic Sign and Visual Signs

• Iconic Sign: defined by likeness to its referent; presentation of something that resembles what it denotes.
• McFarlane (Reading Film and Literature) on ICONIC sign: On screen, a dog at rest communicates broadly “this is a dog” via likeness, whereas the word ‘dog’ on the page invites multiple perceptions of the signified.
• There is no direct film equivalent for a word: seeing a dog as an image constrains interpretation more tightly than the word allows.
• Taken together, visual signs tend to have a stronger immediate closeness to the referent than linguistic signs.

Reading Visual Signs: Direct Representation vs. Arbitrary Signs

• Key question: How should we read visual signs? As direct representation of reality or as arbitrary signs connected to other signs?
• Visual signs often carry both denotative (literal) content and connotative (cultural/ideological/emotional) meanings, sometimes simultaneously.

Barthes and the Photographic Message

• Barthes distinguishes between denotation and connotation in photographic media:
  • Denotation: the literal, obvious meaning of a sign (dictionary-like meaning).
  • Connotation: socio-cultural and personal associations (ideological, emotional, etc.) shaped by class, age, gender, ethnicity, etc.
• Quote from Barthes (The Photographic Message): All imitative arts convey two messages – the denoted message and the connoted message.
• The photographic image is paradoxically both objective (denotative) and coded (connotative).
• Apparent coexistence of two messages: one without a code (closeness to reality) and the other with a code (treatment or rhetoric of the image).

Barthes’ Denotation, Connotation, and Naturalization (Critique)

• Barthes later argues denotation is not the first meaning but often a late extraction of connotations; denotation can be seen as a product of naturalization – an illusion of transparent language.
• Denotation can be read as another form of connotation: naturalized meanings are ideological and not purely neutral.
• The sense that “denotation equals literal truth” is itself an ideological construction that masks underlying connotations.
• Daniel Chandler’s notes (Semiotics for Beginners) summarize the move from denotation to connotation and naturalization.

Part B: Film and Writing — Adaptation, Fidelity, and Two Semiotic Systems

• Part B introduces: adaptation and fidelity; two semiotic systems of writing and film; potential two-way effects; differences/similarities in narrative and narration.
• Fidelity in adaptation is not a reliable criterion for judging understanding or quality of adaptation.
  • McFarlane argues that fidelity to the original text is inappropriate as a measure of understanding or judgment.
  • Questions to ask: What is the ‘original text’? Every reading of a literary text is an act of cognition and interpretation; responses involve personal adaptation on to the screen as one reads.

Fidelity vs. Adaptation (McFarlane)

• Key idea: fidelity to a source is not the right metric for evaluating film adaptations.
• The ‘original text’ is itself a moving target, shaped by each reader’s imagination and interpretation.

Film and Audience Imagination

• Common misconceptions: film is less demanding on imagination than a book; the viewer’s experience is a form of critical perception.
• McFarlane cites arguments like Walter Benjamin’s, suggesting that readers (or viewers) engage in a form of distracted or active reading/seeing.
• The imagined world is co-created by the viewer in both media; neither medium guarantees a passive reception.

Two Utterly Different Semiotic Systems

• McFarlane emphasizes that there are two distinct semiotic systems at issue, with significant stakes in interpreting codes specific to film (cinema-specific) and codes beyond the frame (extra-cinematic codes).
• The claim is that films should be read on their own textual terms rather than trying to replicate the effects of the literary text.

Narrative and Narration: Shared Ground, Distinct Methods

• Film and the novel both deal with narrative (a sequence of events involving characters).
• The two differ in narration, i.e., how the story is told and what information is foregrounded or withheld.

Narrative and Narration in McFarlane’s terms

• Narrative: a sequence of events linked by characters and causality.
• Narration: the means by which the narrative is presented to the audience (how events are conveyed).
• McFarlane suggests that narrative compatibility between film and novel exists, but the real divergence lies in narration, which governs how the story is experienced.

Barthes on Narrative Functions and Adaptation

• Barthes’ claim (from Page 19): "A narrative is never made up of anything other than functions; in differing degrees, everything in it signifies." This underscores how every element in a narrative can carry significance and purpose within the system of signs.

Differences of Narration in Adaptation

• Distinction between plot (information-driven events transferrable across media) and tone (characterization, atmosphere) that is more tightly tied to the literary mode and thus requires adaptation to film.
• In adaptation, some functions of the antecedent text transfer easily (e.g., pure information, plot) while others (tone, atmosphere) pose challenges requiring creative interpretation by filmmakers.

What Transfers in Adaptation?

• Elements of the novel most readily transferable at deeper levels include:
  • The events that reveal or are caused by the implications of characters.
  • The mythic resonances that the narrative may echo or set up.
  • Psychoanalytic patterns exemplified in the sequence of events.
  • The “character functions” such as villain, hero, helper, etc.
• McFarlane highlights these as the deeper layers of narrative that can be conveyed through film through careful adaptation.

Reality, Realism, and the Sign Sense in Film and Novel

• Both novel and film share a sense of the real, but this sense is constructed rather than inherent in the medium.
• Semiotics shows that the signifier-signified gap narrows in moving images compared to drama and poetry, contributing to a constructed sense of reality.

Film Codes and the Language of Cinema

• Films have their own codes beyond the textual source:
  • Lengths of shot
  • Distances of action from the camera
  • Angles from which action is viewed
  • Kinds of editing (ranging from a barely perceptible cut to a fade)
• These codes each have meaning and serve as part of film narration, not mere decoration.

Time, Tense, and Temporal Configuration

• Novels are often narrated in the past tense.
• Film operates in the present tense; it cannot literally represent “ran” or “walked” as verbs, instead showing running or walking as ongoing actions on screen.
• Film can indicate flashbacks but does so through specific cues (e.g., close-ups, dissolves, or sound bridging from the earlier period).
• Temporal shifts in film are a tool to alter the immediacy and continuity of the narrative.

Mise-en-scène, Setting, and the Signifying Power of Environment

• In novels, setting is conveyed through words and linguistic description, shaping relationships among characters and their environment.
• In film, mise-en-scène combines actors, environment, camera work (angle, distance, movement), lighting, editing, and sound to guide attention and convey meaning.
• The director’s design of space and movement is a key part of how reality is constructed on screen.

From Fidelity to Intertextuality

• A shift in critical approach from fidelity to the original text toward intertextuality.
• Intertextuality: the various relationships a text has with other texts; texts are seen to refer to other texts (or themselves as texts) rather than to an external reality.
• An intertext is a text drawn upon to compose another text.
• McFarlane emphasizes that when a film is adapted from literature, the anterior novel or play is only one element within the film’s broader intertextuality.
• Intertextuality foregrounds how films are products of multiple textual influences and references, not just faithful reproduction of a single source.

Intertextuality in Film Adaptations (Key Takeaways)

• Adaptation should acknowledge a text’s intertextual connections (other novels, plays, poems, films, cultural references) rather than treating fidelity as the sole measure of success.
• The film may incorporate its own textual references, cinematic conventions, and broader cultural cues that reframe or recontextualize the original source.
• This approach allows for a more productive analysis of how films “talk back” to their source material and to other texts within a shared cultural field.

Practical Implications for Analysis and Study

• When analyzing film adaptations, consider both the transfer of plot information and the adaptation of tone, atmosphere, and character portrayal.
• Assess how film codes (shot length, camera distances, angles, editing, sound) contribute to narration and meaning beyond the written text.
• Examine how intertextuality shapes a film’s meaning by identifying references to other texts and media.
• Reflect on the constructed nature of the “real” in film and how sign relations create a particular sense of authenticity.
• Be mindful of the two semiotic systems: do not force a film to replicate literary effects; study it on its own cinematographic terms while acknowledging its dialogue with the source material.

Key Terms to Remember

• Sign, Signifier, Signified (Saussure):
  • \text{Sign} = ([\text{Referent}], \text{Signifier}, \text{Signified})
• Iconic sign
• Denotation vs. Connotation (Barthes)
• Denotation as naturalization (Barthes; later view)
• Fidelity (adaptation) vs. Intertextuality
• Narrative vs. Narration
• Film codes: shot length, distance, angle, editing, sound
• Mise-en-scène
• Intertextuality