Indexicality and Film

Indexicality refers to the existential bond between copy and reality. It has been defined in terms of the camera producing a “footprint” of the profilmic event., whatever is placed before the camera is recorded and through a chemical process of registering light produces the resulting image. Advancing technology and the move towards a digital cinema has resulted in arguments that digital imagery is no longer indexical. Lev Manovich writes that “cinema is the art of the index; it is an attempt to make art out of a footprint.” (Manovich, 2001). This seems to be a falsified, although common, interpretation of film. Film always involves manipulation to some degree, and one argument against new technology is that it is now easier to manipulate the image. The issue of indexicality and manipulation seems blown out of proportion considering a fictional film, by its very nature, is a construct of reality, and things filmed are rarely represented exactly as they appear in the real world.What the image is meant to represent is of more importance than how it is accomplished. 

Lev Manovich has outlined some of the aspects of the indexicality argument in his article “Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image.”  He writes that with new technology it is possible to generate an image directly on a computer screen, without ever recording physical reality; digital cinema makes no distinction between what is live-action and what is animated, as everything is reduced to pixels; and digital cinema possesses a “plasticity” that was absent from earlier live-action films, as pixels are more easily manipulated than raw footage. These are concerns surrounding a fear that cinematic realism will be lost ,which has defined so much of film theory in the past. The basic concern is that cinema will lose its basic principle of simply recording the world in which we live, the live-action quality of film. 

  Computer-generated imagery has created concerns pertaining to established film concepts; arguments against its use rely on definitions and analysis provided by early film theorists. This seems to be an attempt to prevent change to the medium so as to hold on to established theories. Rudolf Arnheim, for example, classified cinema based on its limitations in representing reality, as well as outlining why cinema was different from other art forms such as painting and literature. Today, the arguments are being reversed, claiming the early period discussed by Arnheim was actually a more accurate representation of reality than is achieved in todays “digitized” cinema.  Many arguments seem based on defending realism and old film methods, rather than accepting and embracing the changes in the technology. The fact that early film theorists rarely mentioned special effects, and classified film as something separate and different from animation represents how film was perceived in the past. Today, because these aspects were left relatively untheorized, it seems to be producing concern of how to incorporate these elements into established and accepted film theories. However, the writings on the history of cinema often describe some of films precursors as modes of animation, such as the zoetrope. In this respect film began as animation, as well, special effects have been incorporated throughout film history, A Trip to the Moon (Georges Méliès, 1902) for example used both animation and special effects in its production in 1902. It was a decision on the part of many theorists to leave these aspects out of their writing as it often does not fit with their theories about film, or for realists like Bazin, they did not agree with its use.

What will become of film studies if all the theories of the past become obsolete? This may be the question on the minds of modern film theorists. Manovich describes the current film situation as “born from animation, cinema pushed animation to its periphery, only in the end to become one particular case of animation.” (Manovich, 2001).  Perhaps it is time for all of film theory to be redefined, which would provide an interesting and challenging opportunity for modern film theorists. What we now consider early film history was, at the time, defined in terms of its limitations in representing reality, while now we can see that this was perhaps the most “realistic” time for cinema if you consider its reliance on lens-based recordings of reality (Manovich, 2001). Cinema universally shared this live-action quality which can now be entirely absent from films with the use of CGI. Film theory could be more useful in analyzing modern films if framed in a different manner, perhaps more like theory pertaining to literature and paintings, rather than building theory around its differences from these art forms like Arnheim. These were ideas tried in the past, and while not insignificant, theories need to change with the times. Studies in all of these art forms have now been around long enough to stop legitimizing them as relevant texts for analysis and to move on and evolve the theories to pertain to the modern situation. While how the image is produced should not be absent from theory, the meaning and context of film sequences seems to be an aspect more relevant to analysis. Indexicality could be used to describe what a filmed object represents in reality, rather than literally being a copy of a physical object. This would provide rich basis for analysis.

Anne Friedberg wrote in her article “The End of Cinema: Multimedia and Technological Change” that, “Without the discourse of film history, films would lose their historical identity, would slip into the fog of uncertain temporality.” (Friedberg, 2000) This statement could sum up the cause of concern among film theorists about the changes occurring in the film medium. Academics fear that with all the technological changes surrounding the cinema, both in how  films are made and in new modes of viewing, film as a medium may become obsolete. There is a concern that cinema is losing its identity, and the long sought answer to the question “What is cinema?” becomes even farther from their reach. Friedberg also writes “with the speed of such rapid and radical transformations. our technological environments cannot be conclusively theorized.” (Friedberg, 2000). This can be viewed as simply another reason to move on from past theories, let them remain in the study of film history, as it is important to see the progression the medium has taken, but we are moving into a new era that requires new methods of analysis. Old theories may not apply even in the near future of cinema, and if theorists and academics do not want film studies to become obsolete they should not stall the progression of theories, but embrace the changes as they occur. The technological changes are not going to end any time soon, so rather than writing about fears of what is happening, it makes more sense to attempt to adapt concepts like indexicality to the current situation. 

Peter Wollen, in his article “The Semiology of the Cinema” defines cinematic imagery in terms of signs and says “A sign is either an icon, and index, or a symbol.” (Wollen, 1972). In his definition of index he describes how a man with a rolling gait would be a probable indication that he is a sailor. This seems to be a more useful implementation of the term indexical, as the term can be used to infer meaning from a representation. Regarding cinema in terms of signs provides a richer opportunity for analysis than limiting the discussion more literally around how the image is a physical “copy” of the real-world. This definition can incorporate CGI and what the image is representing rather than how it is doing so. The theory surrounding indexicality, like much of film theory, must evolve with the times, it can not stay stuck in rigid definitions of the past, but must adapt to changes in the medium. The notion of indexicality is not often used to describe computer generated images, but there is no reason it can’t be used to describe the phenomena. If film theory does not adapt with the times, then the fear theorists hold about “the end of cinema” will occur. it is useless at this stage to try and stop the change, special effects and animation have always been a part of cinema history, and as their influences grow the theories must evolve to incorporate them, it is too late to stop the change, and pointless to hold onto outdated theories.

Whether the image is generated from pixels or light should be of less concern than why it was done.  Most films regardless of how they are produced work to hide the traces of their own production. Sets are often constructed and arranged, whether in the real world or on a computer screen, to produce a setting that would otherwise not exist. Live-action films involve editing and techniques that separate the shot from its real world context, the actual time and space aspect of the shot is lost for the purpose of the plot. Films are edited, and shots are reordered out of their original context. For example, a set may have only three walls, which will go unnoticed in the actual film as the camera is placed where the forth wall would be. In this way indexicality of the shot in live-action films seems of less importance than the result, as people don’t accept the set for what it is (three walls in a studio), but rather what it is meant to represent. This is not so very different from other modes of producing false realities, such as the use of CGI. An interesting live-action example of this situation is Field of Dreams (Phil Alden Robinson, 1989). During filming Iowa was experiencing a drought and the grass for the baseball diamond died and turned brown, so the film crew literally painted the grass green. Today the grass could have easily been modified with computer technology (with less harm done to the land), and the result would seemingly be just as indexical, either way the grass on set was not naturally green.  No matter which process was used, the set would still represent what we perceive a green baseball diamond to look like, both methods would have a real world referent regardless of how they were achieved.

Computer technology can liberate a filmmaker to produce anything he can envision. The opening “life of a bullet” sequence of Lord of War (Andrew Niccol, 2005) would not be possible with current film apparatus, as the shot follows a bullet through its stages of production and machinery, into boxes as it is shipped to its destination, and into a gun where it is eventually fired. A filmmaker can envision a shot, which can occur in the real world, and can now accomplish it without concern for limitations of camera technology. Should a film involving a volcano eruption delay its release until the filmmakers can capture the real-life footage they need? Should they limit themselves to stock footage? Or should filmmakers limit themselves to films about everyday occurrences so there is no need for computer technology? A CG volcano eruption will still take its referent from the real world, it will attempt to make a sequence of what a real volcano eruption looks like, while keeping the film crew out of danger. Spectators today should be given enough credit to know that computer technology is being used in the films they watch, no one would have assumed there were real dinosaurs on the set of Jurassic Park (Steven Speilberg, 1993), although the film contains what one would expect a dinosaur to look like, and it seems fair to use the technology available to make a “believable” film about anything. 

A “copy” can now be produced on a computer screen and this has been occurring more frequently over the last thirty years since the generation of the first Star Wars film. Indexicality, and film theory in general, need to be extended to account for this development. Rather than following the path of many past film theorists, who tended to ignore aspects of film that did not fit with their explanation of film, modern film theorists should begin to rethink the relationship between copies and their referents. Film images are no longer mere “footprints” of the real world, but now require a new definition to account for the change in the technology, which has great artistic potential.  The opening “floating feather” sequence of Forrest Gump (Robert Zemeckis, 1994) would not be possible without the use of CGI, and its use does not merit the sequence any less worthy of theorizing, in fact it seems the opposite, a director can achieve virtually any vision he may have, bringing film theory closer to poetry or literature analysis than it was in the past. The meaning behind the shot can be more rich when the shot comes from a vision, free of limitations of technology. There is an even greater potential for meaningful, artistic productions as the technology moves to a more computer based process. There are several critics who have written about meaning behind the floating feather at the beginning and end of the film; it is an artistic sequence that benefitted the film as a whole.

As has been suggested, computer imagery challenges the notion of indexicality pertaining to photographic realism, as the line between what is real and what is not real becomes more blurred. Stephen Prince has suggested a correspondence-based model, in which links are made between fictional realities and our own visual and social “real-world.” As even “unreal” images can be perceptually realistic, this would involve a relationship between the film or image and the spectator, rather than a relationship between the filmed object and its origin. Viewers perceptually correspond the images they see on screen to the world they know (Prince, 1996). This is the type of theory that we can move into the future with, it is more appropriate to current films than some of the past theories and concepts.

The Thirteenth Floor (Josef Rusnack, 1999) which we watched in class, contains three different time frames, the year 1937, late 1990s and 2024. How the filmmakers achieved believable representations of past and future time periods (whether sets were built, or computer graphics were used) is of less importance than  the perceptual reality discussed by Stephen Prince, the depictions of past and future can be accepted by the spectator as believable within the plot of the film. The 1937 setting still holds a referent of what 1937 looked like, while the future is a manufactured reality of what the filmmaker thinks it will look like. Of greater importance is to analyze how spectators perceive the film in relation to the world in which they live. It is time for film theory to catch up to its evolving image technologies, and account for the special effects and animation qualities of cinema. Theories that leave these aspects out are simply incomplete. It seems more important and meaningful to closely examine the relationship between the spectator and how they interpret what they see, whether it has a physical referent or is created on a computer.

With an ever changing medium the theory too must adapt. While the idea of indexicality does merit discussion, the move to a digital technology should not be feared and delayed, it can in fact liberate filmmakers to produce something new and exciting that has never been done. Analysis of realism has existed since films birth, the time has come to embrace film in relation to the spectator, to look for deeper meaning, as is the general process for so many other art forms. The attempt to legitimize film as something worth studying can be laid to rest, the program is already offered in many universities, and theorists need to move on to larger, more relevant ideas. Indexicality does not need to become obsolete within discussions of current film, but it needs to either incorporate computer generated images, or we need a new similar concept in order to explain the indexicality of digital imagery and how the spectator perceives these referents.

References

Friedberg, Anne (2000). “The End of Cinema: Multimedia and Technological Change.” Reinventing Film Studies. Eds. Christine Gledhill and Linda Williams. London: Arnold, 438-452.

Furstenau, Marc. Digital Theory: Cinema and New Technology Lecture. March 18, 2008.

Manovich, Lev (2001). “Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image.” The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 293-308.

Prince, Stephen (1996). “True Lies: Perceptual Realism, Digital Images, and Film Theory.” Film Quarterly. Vol. 49, No. 3, 27-37.

Wollen, Peter (1972). “The Semiology of the Cinema.” Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 116-154.