I personally believe that the language of film is both universal in some aspects but also culturally contingent in others. For example, there are established rules and norms in the language of film that everyone understands. Everyone, regardless of culture, understands that a film montage represents the quick passage of time. It’s also understood that in a reverse shot reverse sequence the two subjects that are in frame are looking at each other without having to show the both of them in the same frame. There are various film techniques that have been established that create the language of film and it allows for a universal viewing and understanding. However, when it comes to what the language of film represents and the interpretation of film it becomes more culturally contingent. Just how we discussed in class
film draws more on the signifier rather than the signified. The signifier varies greatly from culture to culture depending on the sign. For example, in America the female body is heavily sexualized and so when a nude female body is portrayed/signified in films the audience arrives at a sexual connotation. In Europe however the female body is seen more in an artistic fashion and there’s not such a heavy emphasis on sexuality, so European audiences tend to not be so fazed by the portrayal of nude females in film. This differentiation in signifier connotations across cultures is what causes many films to become censored in an attempt to better please the respective cultural norms.  Culture affects the reading of film and images because all cultures have various and differing meanings for film, icons, and images. The signifier changes from culture to culture.

I do not agree with Monaco, I believe that film in itself is a language. In its basic form film is used to communicate. Film expresses meaning, it expresses ideas and thoughts. Whether it’s a simple fictional tale or a hard pressing documentary, film has meaning and it communicates messages, just like writing.  Perhaps during the early days of film could it have been argued as not being a language, but film is much more advanced and complicated now that in its own respective way it is definitely a language. Maybe it is not a language when approached in the ways of conventional rhetorical analysis but film differs immensely from what has come before it. Images have meaning and they’re considered a language, film is simply a collection of fast moving images, therefore film should also be considered a language.

Just like the reading said, film is easy to understand, and that is precisely why it’s so difficult to explain. When we watch a film we know exactly what we’re seeing on screen. To some degree it’s very literal what we see. The reason why film is hard to explain isn’t because were explaining what we see, were attempting to explain what we feel, how we feel, and why exactly film makes us feel the emotions we feel. That’s always been the hardest part to explain about film. It invokes emotion that is extremely difficult to pinpoint and explain.

A filmmaker’s choice affects our connotative abilities because filmmakers choose what they want us to see and they guide our eyes. They present everything right in front of us and they leave it to us to interpret what they’re presenting. Filmmaker’s have more control over the signified and they leave the rest up to audience for interpretation.