Literary language and similarities in the cinematographic world
Literary language works similar to cinematographic: reproduces mental creations through images whose relationship gives them meaning. The only thing that changes is the form of expression, that is, the word is to literature what the image is to the cinema.
This is evidence. This author equals linguistic disciplines such as syntax or morphology with the language of images.
On the one hand, in the field of morphology, the author starts from the basis that a plane – intended as the minimum unit of the film story – is the equivalent of the noun – the minimum unity of meaning – in language. Therefore, the different planes would correspond to certain peculiarities in the expression: the general plans tend to be descriptive;the media, narratives;while the first, expressive. On the other hand, in natural language, adjective is understood as what usually accompanies and modify the noun. Well, in the cinematographic language, this would have its equivalence with the angle of the framing. Therefore, an angle from the height of the eyes would indicate normality;the counterpred angle, which is the one taken below the eye, inclined up, denied idea of strength or triumph;the chopped – on top of the eye, inclined down – would express dwarfs;While the inclined would show restlessness or instability.
Regarding syntax – undermined as the discipline that studies the order and relationship of words with each other – equals the audiovisual assembly. Thus, if we trace a parallel with verbal language, the assembly is the way in which the plans are related to each other. Thus, the dry cutting technique would denote a great expressive load;The chain would show a spatial-temporal change;The effect of the curtain would express a locative change;While, finally, the fuse would express a change of space or time.
For his part, Ruiz explains in his article Cine and Teaching (1994) the way in which audiovisual language, as is the literary, also makes use of what we call rhetorical figures or tropos. According to the author, it is here where this close relationship that we have commented throughout the work between cinema and literature is most perceived, since both share terminology. In two languages, we call metaphor to the figure that applies the name from one object to a different one due to some characteristic they have in common and that allows them to group. Likewise, we refer to the synecdoque as a trope that designates the name of the whole by the part or the part;to hyperbole as a mechanism that exaggerates a fact, either by aggrandizement or decrease. These figures also exist in the syntactic order, with the ellipsis that omits words or plans – it depends on the language we use – or the hyperbaton, where the chronological or natural order of the words or planes of prayer or film is modified. Due to all these reasons, the author declares that the cinematographic language has a clear place in the subject that concerns us – Castilian Language and Literature – for “the study of signs, planning, syntactic codes, time, time,ellipsis, space, etc.»(Ruiz, 1994: 78).
However, beyond the terminological correspondence between both languages, it is also necessary to explain another type of relationship, that common imaginary that cinema and literature share. On this aspect, Sánchez (2001) affects, who says that cinema and literature are C
"Literature and cinema are condemned to coexist, fertilize each other, dialogue with each other and interwoven". Given these evidences, it is advisablethat we must influence is precisely the differences and coincidences of language. This difference in assessment, according to Sánchez Noriega (2001: 66) is given by two mischievous sustained over time: the first, that literature is made up of words and movies by moving images (when in reality in the latter they coincide a greater greatervariety of languages) and the second, that the subject of cinema is passive while that of a novel is active. Therefore, we believe that in the analysis of a literary work and its audiovisual correspondence, in the event that it is an adaptation, it cannot only deal with the plot differences, but that you have to stop on the specific features of each medium of each medium of each medium ofExpression and, from this, determine virtues and defects.
Final: This paradigm difference is what we should serve as teachers, we must take advantage of the enormous semantic amplitude of cinematographic discourse to enrich the literary discourse that the student receives through the traditional method.
Leave feedback