English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

One of the most problematic concepts in film theory, photogénie, refers to the dimension of “the Other,” which is not fully covered by the process of cultural signification, and obviously verges on a zone “beyond” the semiotics. Exactly in this site Epstein, Balazs, and Barthes ought to affirm the existence of the problematic “the Other” level of signification – an autonomous entity as a potential semiotic threat. Yuri Lotman’s view on cinema, in particular, his thought on “the mythological” essence of cinema, can provide productive insight into the question: how can the semiotics of cinema deal with this elusive and ineffable phenomenon, which is extremely difficult to manipulate? His thoughts on “the mythological” as another (asemiotic) level of semiosis, and his concepts of close-up as “proper name” can give us a chance to admit positively this essential “alterity” of cinematic signification, not just denying or transcendentalizing it as some mysterious “thing-in-itself.”

Photogénie as “the Other” of the semiotics of cinema: On Yuri Lotman’s concept of “the mythological”