Micronlms International 300 N

INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Pagc(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of cither blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Micronlms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8300340 Schaeferroeyer, Mark Jcflery THE RHETORIC OF FILM: A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO CRITICISM WITH A CASE STUDY OF STANLEY KUBRICK'S "2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY" The Ohio Stale University PH.D. 1982 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Rotd. Ann Aitoor, MI 48106 THE RHETORIC OF FILM": A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO CRITICISM WITH A CASE STUDY OF STANLEY KUBRICK’S 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Mark Jeffery Schaeferraeyer, B.A., M.A. The Ohio State University 1982 Reading Committee: William R. Brown James L. Golden Advisor Joseph J. Pilotta Department of Communication To my Mother and Father for their complete support of all my academic endeavors. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the members of my dissertation committee: Professors William R. Brown, James L. Golden, and Joseph J. Pilotta for their valuable input. Special thanks goes to my advisor, William R. Brown, for his continued support, guidance, and formative influence since I arrived at Ohio State. The completion of this dissertation would not mean half as much to me without his belief and confidence in my professional and academic abilities. Finally, for my wife, Lynne, eternal expressions of gratitude would pale in comparison to what she deserves for her assistance and patient support. This project would remain unfinished without her love, friendship, and counsel. iii VITA November 16, 1952 • • Born - Amarillo, Texas 1974................ B.A., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 1976................ M.A., University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 1977-1980 .......... Teaching Associate, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1981-1982 .......... Instructor, Department of Speech and Drama, Mount Union College, Alliance, Ohio PUBLICATIONS "Progress in Communication as a Social Science." Communica tion Yearbook. Vol. IV.. Dan Nimmo, Ed. (New Brunswick, toew Jersey: Transaction Books, 1980), pp. 37-47. (With William R. Brown) FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism Minor Field: Film Theory and Criticism TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................... iii VITA.................... iv LIST OF TABLES...................................... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION................................ I 1.1 Justification...................... 1 1.2 Artistic Intent.................... A 1.3 Review of Literature ......... 1A Footnotes.................................. A2 II. A RHETORICAL-SEMIOTIC BASIS FOR FILM CRITICISM 50 2.1 Semiotics and Rhetoric........... 50 2.2 Rhetorical Semiotic or Semiotic Rhetoric?............... •............ 56 2.3 A Rhetorical-Semiotic Method for the Criticism of Film.............. .60 2.3.1 Semantics, Pragmatics, and Syntactics....................... 60 2;3.2 Dimensions of Signification and Sign Usage....................... 61 2.A The Signs of Film: Designative and Formative..................... 68 2.5 Considerations on the Validity of a Rhetorical Semiotic of Film .. 86 Footnotes.................................. 96 III. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS...........................102 3.1 Justification of 2001: A Space Odyssey as Case Study. , 102 3.2 Analysis: Introductory Remarks, . , 105 3.2,1 Analysis of Sequence 1: "The Dawn of M a n " ...................... 108 v Page 3.2.2 Analysis of Sequence 2: "TMA-1" . 127 3.2.3 Analysis of Sequence 3: "Jupiter Mission"...... ................. 147 3.2.4 Analysis of Sequence 4: "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite"............... 172 3.3 Analysis: Conclusions ................ 182 Footnotes.................................... 189 XV. CONCLUSION. '................................ 193 4.1 Overview...............................193 4.2 Film-as-Rhetoric .................... 195 4.3 Assessment of the Rhetorical- Semiotic Method........................ 201 4.4 Outline of Program for Future Research.............................. 209 Footnotes.................................... 214 APPENDIXES A. Scene Synopsis of 2001: A Space Odyssey.................................. 216 B. Dialogue Transcript of 2001: A Space Odyssey .............. ...... 219 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................ 246 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 1: Comparison of the Levels of Semiotics with Dimensions of Signification and Types of Sign Usage....................... 67 Table 2: Correlation of Dimensions of Signifi cation and Types of Sign Usages with Basic Filmic Elements..................... 77 Table 3: Incidence of Filmic Variables within Shots and Types of Transitions in 2001: A Space Odyssey.................... 106 vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Justification Recent excursions into the rhetorical criticism of nonoratorical forms of public address in the last decade may or may not be significantly correlated with the recommendations of the scholars involved in the National Developmental Project on Rhetoric as reported in The Prospect of Rhetoric.1 Along with such notables as Lloyd Bitzer and Wayne Booth, the Committee on the Advancement and Refinement of Rhetorical Criticism, chaired by Thomas Sloan, called for the "illumination of contemporary rhetor ical transactions (i.e., mass media messages, informal conversations, picketing, sloganeering, chanting, singing, marching, gesturing, ritual, and institutional and cultural 2 symbols)." A sampling of articles from The Quarterly Journal of Speech indicates that, in the area of mass media, the call has been responded to by critics within our field. In scaling the category of mass media down, there seems to be a clear interest in the rhetorical criticism of film; to date, at least three separate analyses of The Exorcist have appeared. However, is this essay justified by recognition that other studies of film by other rhetorical critics 1 exist or by knowledge that distinguished critics within our field seek the "illumination" of mass media messages? Saying so does not make it so. I prefer to offer my own brief justification by addressing the larger question: Can art (poetic) be analyzed rhetorically? In MThe Senses of Rhetoric: A Topical System for Critics,” Thomas Benson outlines a series of nine topoi or critical uses of "rhetoric” by which rhetorical critics can approach a given nonoratorical form of discourse in order to ask the initial questions needed to unravel a novel/poem/ film as text.^ Of immediate interest is Benson's denial that a critic cannot analyze a poetic text from a rhetorical perspective. While Benson's treatment of the conflict involved, that rhetoric and poetic are distinct and separate forms, is admittedly brief, he does make the point, in the words of Kenneth Burke, that the critic may rightly be "interested in bringing the full resources of Poetics and Rhetorics docens to bear upon the study of a text than in trying to draw a strict line of demarcation between Rhetoric and Poetics.”^ Benson realistically acknowledges that if priority is given to the philosophical/theoretical dichotomy between rhetoric and poetic, critics may never get on to the examination of nonoratorical texts.^ More importantly, he states his case in favor of rhetorically criticizing poetic texts thus: "If rhetorical criticism can lead to the discovery of forms, processes, and effects that might 8 otherwise go unnoticed, then it has made its case." Thus, Benson has illuminated a philosophical stance which

Load more