Issue link: https://digital.copcomm.com/i/1512183
112 M PS E . O R G to the analysis of this same scene, our ears perceive sound of flies and our brain contextualises the sound with the location, in this case, public toilets, and our cultural associations with flies and public toilets complete the semiosis. Indices, says Tagg, are "Signs connected either by causality, or by spatial, temporal or cultural proximity, to what they stand for." (Tagg, 2013). In this instance, the triadic relationship between signifier, signified, and interpretant, would be this; the indexical signifier2 is sound of flies producing semiosis by causality, and by spatial, temporal, and cultural proximity. The signified is flies and the interpretant is filth. 1. Notice that I said, in this instance, because filth is the interpretant in our Western culture but it may not be universal. Or the interpretant could change over time, for instance, if flies were to become extinct. 2. Notice that in this shot, sound of flies passes from being an indexical signifier at [0:55:30] when it is occurring off-screen to being an indexical, as well as an iconic signifier at [0:55:34] when the fly appears on camera and it is de- acousmatized. Since film is a time- based artform, sound signifiers have the possibility to change their type or they can be indexical, iconic, and symbolic at the same time. Christian Metz, a pioneer in film semiotics, identified five channels of information in film which was a big step in helping to steer cinema's identity toward its audiovisual nature; Metz' definition of the cinema's matter of expression as consisting of five tracks—image, dialogue, noise, music, written materials— served to call attention to the soundtrack and thus to undercut the formulaic view of the cinema as an "essentially visual" medium which was "seen" (not heard) by "spectators" (not auditors)." (Stam, 2005). These channels are 1. The visual image, 2. Print and other graphics, 3. Speech, 4. Music, 5. Noise (Sound Effects). I would rename number 5 to just "Sound Effects" and include Foley under its umbrella. Noise in audio refers to an unwanted signal. And noise in film sound refers to unwanted sound. A sound effect is a wanted signal. But understandably, Metz was a film theorist and not a sound engineer, so we'll be lenient with him. I'm sure that had he'd known the difference when he wrote this in 1974, he wouldn't have used the word noise. Interestingly, three of the five channels proposed by Metz are audible. And correlate with the division of labour in film sound post-production which is divided into three primary activities or sub-departments; dialogue and ADR editors are in charge of speech, music is the responsibility of the music department; composer, music supervisor, musicians, music editors, etc., and sound effects in this case, encompasses the work of the Foley department and sound effects editors, as well as sound effects recordists. The soundtrack of the film is then a collective art undertaken with the purposes of storytelling, creating meaning and rendering the symbolic in the film with sound and with music. Each of the elements on the soundtrack are at its disposal. And it is ultimately the job of the director, the supervising sound editor, and the re-recording mixer to coalesce these three elements into a meaningful soundtrack. And creating meaning in cinema is often about rendering what's not visible in the frame. Alfonso Cuarón pointed out during a recent interview talk that "The narrative has to be at the service of the symbolic. The moment that the narrative is at the service of the symbolic, then, that is what counts." Alfonso Cuarón, in Monstruos y Silencios/Monsters and Silences, (2020). I find the Peircean model to be better equipped for film soundtrack analysis since it can be used for the analysis of all sign systems while the Saussurean model is more Frame from Nomadland (2020).