What is it about?
Mueller and Kappelhoff claim that currently available models feeding into a full-blown theory of metaphor in film are for various reasons inadequate, and present their own model as a good alternative. Specifically, they criticize (1) Lakoff & Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory; (2) Cognitivist film scholarship; (3) Forceville's approach to metaphor in film. I consider their criticisms seriously misguided, and argue in this review paper why I think so. Although I see some strengths in their model, I am not convinced it works well.
Photo by jean wimmerlin on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The greatest challenge in metaphor scholarship these days is developing (better) models for identifying and interpreting in media and discourse genres that are not, or not exclusively, verbal in nature; that is for identifying and interpreting visual and multimodal metaphors.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Review Article: Multimodality, film, and cinematic metaphor: an evaluation of Müller and Kappelhoff (2018), Punctum International Journal of Semiotics, December 2018, Hellenic Semiotic Society, DOI: 10.18680/hss.2018.0021.
You can read the full text:
The following have contributed to this page