I must admit I’m only half way through Metz. It’s a fairly difficult book, full of technical language, and I keep having to re-read parts so I understand it. Nevertheless, it’s fascinating although he tends to repeat himself.

However, it is quite apparent to me now that film is not language. For one, it has no equivalent of ‘words’ – the shot being to complex and infinite in variety. Metz points out that shots are more like sentences, but for me this allusion is lacking too. Lone shots must be combined with others to make meaning; a shot alone caries very little meaning.

This, and other reasons have convinced me that I need to abandon the idea of film as a language. However, the question of filmic grammar continues to nag. Watch any two films coming out of Hollywood and you will see the director using similar camera techniques. The question now is how entrenched is this grammar? At what point do films cease to make sense?

This is a cool question, as it raises the prospect of doing some neat experiments.