Lotman / Eisenstein Response

Sasseur's influence on Lotman's film theory is pretty significant. When reading this article I sort of considered it to be a no-brainer, but that was before really noticing that it was written before I was even born, and so now I look at it as a sort of foundation text for film theory. Lotman is basically making the claim for film being it's own language using 3 distinct levels of delivery (images, dialogue, and music). He goes on to claim that these levels are interpreted differently based on the social background and education/mental capacity of the viewer. He claims that things that we have no experience with, no concept of, and no language for are ignored, despite the fact that they are still present in the medium and are still communicating information.

Lotman goes on to pose the question of "how can we reconcile cinematography having great semiotic complexity with the requirements of accessibility and comprehension to a wide segment of viewers having varying degrees of preparation." which in simpler terms is asking how can we take these 3 distinct levels and make them easier to understand for everyone. I disagree with the idea behind this question on an artistic level, and agree with it on a business level. I think it makes good business sense to make a message as easily digestible to as many people as possible just to get them to subscribe to it. However one of the great enjoyments (at least that I derive) that comes from watching film is in discovering something new, or at least something typical that is seen in a totally new way, and to lean on Eisenstein's conflict theory a little, that avoids a lot of the conflict that "good art" generates. I don't want to confirm an idea or belief through art, we have religion for that, I want my ideas and belief's challenged by art... I want it to change me.

I agree with Eisenstein (talking about collision) in that "the basis of every art is conflict and this conflict generated ideas" (maybe not every art, but in film art for sure). In my personal experience conflict has always highlighted moments and forced me to really examine things. Like raising the stakes. If I don't like something initially, and I am level headed enough to get past my initial distaste, I will find there is a conflict, and that through examining that conflict I can come to understand many things about both myself and the world around me.

So back to Lotman, If you try to make things easily understood to everyone, then I would argue that you will lose the very edge in communicating that lends a unique perspective to your message (the thing that makes it worth listening to in the first place). Essentially that by homogenizing, we devalue our messages, because the value of the message comes from creating a conflict and forcing someone to achieve understanding. Sure you can do that with a "general" message, but it only has value so long as everyone subscribes to that generality, and the simple existence of different perspectives shows that simply doesn't happen in human nature.