Comparing multimodal film texts. The case of the movie Fame (1980) and its remake Fame (2009)
Anna Lisiecka
The Philological School of Higher Education, Wroclaw, PolandAnna Lisiecka is a graduate of The Philological School of Higher Education in Wroclaw. In 2001, she defended her Master’s thesis in the area of speech genres. Her current research interests focus on the multimodal analysis of texts and discourses.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1314-4332
Abstrakt
This paper focuses on the issue of comparison of two movies linked by the relationship of remaking. Its specific aim is to show that the complexity of multimodal texts, to which filmic texts and therefore remakes belong, does not prevent the analyst from examining the contrastive elements of such films and multimodal film texts in general. As a corollary, the present paper outlines a framework for a comparative multimodal analysis of two movies, the relevant illustrations coming from Fame (1980) and its remake Fame (2009). The basis of our comparative analysis is the narrative-compositional structure of filmic texts as discussed and amply illustrated in Post (2017). The sample multimodal comparative analysis presented in the last section of this paper relies on the selected instruments of Post’s (2017) proposal, Krzeszowski’s theory of contrastive analysis (1967, 1990) and Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2006) multimodal discourse analysis. This approach to film texts is compatible with Tabakowska’s (2001) theory of cognitive translation, the main theoretical concept of which is Langacker’s (1991) image schema, well fitting the aforementioned compositional level and the narrative-compositional of filmic texts. It is believed that with the instruments selected from the works enumerated above, it was possible to construct an interpretive model capable of revealing relevant differences and similarities between two multimodal filmic texts linked by the relationship of remaking.
Słowa kluczowe:
remake, film text, narrative-compositional structure, multimodality, multimodal text analysisBibliografia
Aristotle. 1983 [ca. 335]. Poetyka. Polish translation by Henryk Podbielski. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich (Biblioteka Narodowa, seria II, nr 209).
Bateman, J. A. 2014. Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. New York/London: Routledge.
Bateman, J. A. & Schmidt, K.-H. 2012. Multimodal Film Analysis: How Film Mean. New York/London: Routledge.
Burn, A. 2013. The kineikonic mode: Towards a multimodal approach to moving image media. NCRM Working Paper. NCRM, London, UK. (Unpublished).
Fisiak, J. 1991. On the present status of some metatheoretical and theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Further Insights into Contrastive Analysis, 3-22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gajda, S. 2008 [1993]. Gatunkowe wzorce wypowiedzi. In: J. Bartmiński (ed.), Encyklopedia kultury polskiej XX wieku. Tom 2: Współczesny język polski, 130-142.Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich.
Gillard, G. 2016. Film as Text. http://garrygillard.net/writing/filmastext.html (DW 13.10.2016).
Głowiński, M., Okopień-Sławińska, A., Sławiński, J. 1975. Zarys teorii literatury. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne.
Krajka, W. & Zgorzelski, A. 1974. O analizie tekstu literackiego. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Kress, G. R. & Van Leeuwen, T. 2006. Reading Images: The Grammar of Virtual Design. New York/London: Routledge.
Krzeszowski, T. P. 1967. Fundamental principles of structural contrastive studies. Glottodidactica II: 107-147.
Krzeszowski, T. P. 1990. Contrasting Languages. The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Concept, Image and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Morciniec, N. 2014. Gramatyka kontrastywna. Wprowadzenie do niemiecko-polskiej gramatyki kontrastywnej. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej we Wrocławiu.
Ostaszewska, D. & Cudak, R. (eds.) 2008. Polska genologia lingwistyczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Parker, A. (dir.) 1980. Fame. USA: Warner Home Video. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
Post, M. 2013. Speech Acts and Speech Genres. An Axiological Linguistics Perspective. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej we Wrocławiu.
Post, M. 2014. Akty i gatunki mowy. Próba wielopłaszczyznowego zbliżenia. In: P. Stelmaszczyk & P. Cap (eds.), 197-226. Pragmatyka, retoryka, argumentacja. Obraz języka i dyskursu w naukach humanistycznych. Kraków: Universitas.
Post, M. 2017. Film jako tekst multimodalny. Założenia i narzędzia jego analizy. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Filologicznej.
Skwarczyńska, S. 1965/1954–1965. Wstęp do nauki o literaturze. Vols. I-III. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting. Cambridge: CUP.
Tabakowska, E. 2001. Językoznawstwo kognitywne a poetyka przekładu. Kraków: Universitas.
Tancharoen, K. (dir.) 2009. Fame. USA: Lakeshore Entertainment. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. United Artists.
Witosz, B. 2005. Genologia lingwistyczna. Zarys problematyki. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Wildfeuer, J. 2014. Film Discourse Interpretation: Towards a New Paradigm for Multimodal Film Analysis. New York/London: Routledge.
The Philological School of Higher Education, Wroclaw, Poland
Anna Lisiecka is a graduate of The Philological School of Higher Education in Wroclaw. In 2001, she defended her Master’s thesis in the area of speech genres. Her current research interests focus on the multimodal analysis of texts and discourses.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1314-4332
