Multimodal Analysis of Animated Hollywood Film Fantastic Mr. Fox

Authors
A. Shirini 1
M. Ghiasian 2
A. Afkhami 3
M. AhmadKhani 2
1 Ph.D. student in general linguistics, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, department of linguistics and foreign languages, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
3 Professor in general linguistics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Animations, one of the virtues of digital world, subjectively demonstrates anthropomorphic representations of fantasy worlds in which human and non-human identities are constantly being revalued. In this milieu, animators are heirs to aesthetic resources functioning a mediating force to re-conceptualize and reorganize the world’s spatial coordinates. This paper probes the nature of creeping ideologies about consumerism, globalized world and denigrated non-American local cultures propagated in popular, animated Hollywood film Fantastic Mr. Fox through a multimodal analysis. Multimodality, an interdisciplinary approach to the study of contemporary communication and representation, justifiably claims that there are intricate processes of meaning-making achieved not only through language but also through a variety of modes, including image, gaze, gesture, movement, music, speech and sound–effect, that simultaneously and in various degrees contribute to the gestation of semiotic landscape. Applying a multimodal approach, we try to answer these questions: In what ways is multimodality a repertoire for scaffolding cultural identity? How can multimodal representations help immerse interpreters in the life-worlds of fictional characters? What is the best way to study processes of remediation as they bear on issues of multimodality? The significance of current study is emphasized by the formation of an increasingly intimate association between children, consumer culture, and lucre-oriented media in the USA, as well as the increasingly dire information emerging about disparaged local traditions. This analysis grossly represents the dual, alienating and often conflicting messages that commercial film provides for its young audiences about promised American utopia and their vociferously alleged panacea for the audiences’ desperate situation.






Keywords

Subjects

• Baldry, A. & P. J. Thibault (2006). Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis. London: Equinox.
• Cohen, K. F. (2003). “Animated Propaganda during the cold war”. (I. Sharifi, Trans.). Farabi Journal. 62.Pp. 49-67. [In Persian].
• Connelly, J. (2008). Symbolic Constructions in Global Public Visuals: A Pedagogic Framework for Critical Visual Literacy. In Len Unsworth (ed.), Multimodal Semiotics Functional Analysis in Contexts of Education. (Pp. 159-171). London: Continuum.
• Ershad, F. & M. Dadgaran (2012). “Experts’ opinion on animation in Iran". Media Studies. 7(16). Pp. 107-122. [In Persian].
• Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
• Ghiasian, M. & A. Shirini (2016). “Anthropocentrism and its representation in Mo’in Monolingual Dictionary". Linguistic Research. 8(1). Pp. 53-70. [In Persian]
• Gibson, J. J. (1979/1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New Jersey: Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
• Giddens, A. (2007). Europe in the Global Age. (M. Jalayi Pur, Trans). (Fourth Ed.). Tehran: Tarhe Now. [In Persian].
• Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
• Halliday, M. A. K. & R. Hasan (1985). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3th edition). London: Edward Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning How To Mean. London: Arnold.
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Arnold.
• Hasan, R. (1984). “Coherence and cohesive harmony”. In J. Flood (ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension:Cognition, Language and the Structure of Prose. (Pp. 181–219). Delaware: International Reading Association.
• Hasan, R. (1989). The Texture of a Text. In M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan (eds.), Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. (Pp. 70–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jamadi, S. (2008). “The industry of culture and technical media”. Knowledge and Wisdom Monthly Journal. 4. Pp. 71-86. [In Persian].
• Kellner, D. (1995). Media Culture. New York: Routledge.
• Kress, G. & T. Van Leeuwen (1996). Reading Images – The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
• Kress, G. & T. Van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Hodder Arnold.
• Kress, G. (2000). “Multimodality: challenges to thinking about language”. TESOL Quarterly. 34 (3).Pp: 337–40.
• Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson, (1980), Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Lynskey, D. (2014, May 13). Frozen-mania: How Elsa, Anna and Olaf conquered the world. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.comfilm/2014/may /13/frozen-mania-elsa-annaolaf-disney-emo-princess-let-it-go
• Martin, M. (1968). Le Langage Cinématographique. Paris: Editions du Cerf.
• Marx, K. (1857-58/1978). The Marx Engels Reader. New York and London: WW Norton.
• McChesney, R. (2008). Political economy of the media. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
• McDonagh, P. & P. Brereton (2010). “Screening not greening: An ecological reading of the greatest business movies”. Journal of Macromarketing. 30(2). Pp. 133–146.
• McDonald, M. & S. Wearing (2013). Social Psychology and Theories of Consumer Culture. New York: Routledge.
• Mitchell, W. (1994). Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representations. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
• Moore, E. E. (2015). Green Screen or Smokescreen? Hollywood's Messages about Nature and the Environment. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 5-24.
• Nash Information Services (2017). 2016 Domestic Grosses. Retrieved fromhttp://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2016.
• Page, R. (2010).“Introduction”. In Page, R. (Ed.). New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. Pp. 1-13. London: Routledge.
• Petrikin, C.; A. Hindes & D. Cox (1999). Variety Power Players 2000: Movers and Shakers, Powerbrokers and Career Makers in Hollywood. New York: Perigee/Berkeley Publishing.
• Ra’oufi, M. (2007). “A brief history of culture and civilization in Iran and Islam: The first animation in Shahr-e- Sookhteh”. The Book of Science. 2(19). Pp. 76-77. [In Persian].
• Royce, T. (1999). Visual–verbal Intersemiotic Complementarity in the Economist Magazine. PhD Dissertation; Centre for Applied Language Studies: University of Reading.
• Ryan, M. L. (2004). “Introduction”. In Marie-Laure Ryan (ed.). Narrative Across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. (Pp. 1–40). London and Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
• Safa’ei, A. & B. Soltani (2017). “Critical discourse analysis of imam Ali’s (AS) letter to Muawiyah". Language Realated Research. 4(39). Pp. 47-70. [In Persian].
• Steffensen, S.V. & A. Fill (2013). Ecolinguistics: the state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences, 41 (2014). Pp. 6–25.
• Tavassoli, M. & E. Bashir (2013). “Hollywood and diplomacy in the USA: representation, hegemony and realization of goals”. International Politics Quarterly. 16. Pp.117-141. [In Persian].
• Uspensky, B. (1975). ‘Left and Right in Icon Painting’. Semiotica, 13(1), 33–41.
• Van Leeuwen, T. (2005a). Introducing Social Semiotics. New York: Routledeg.
• Vološinov, V. N. (1986 [1929]) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
• Wasko, J. (2003). How Hollywood works. London: Sage.
• Zahedi, K. (2005). "Chomskian Linguistics". Research in the Humanities. 6. Pp. 13-36. [In Persian].
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Serial Number 44
May and June 2018
Pages 35-61