Embodied Cinematography in Mr. Robot

Ortiz, Maria J.

doi:10.2478/bsmr-2023-0006

Abstract

Mr. Robot is an American television series that conveys the alienating effects of technology through unusual composition patterns. These patterns do not constitute mere coatings but manifestations of embodied metaphors that serve as emotion markers, redundant elements to maintain the mood. The viewers are led to share the character’s emotions, due to perceptual and sensory-motor experiences that are activated through the metaphoric mise-en-scène. The unorthodox framing also appears to affect the attentional synchrony, helping to immerse viewers in the obscure fictional world. All in all, the cinematography seems to facilitate the connection between the minds of fictional characters and viewers through bodily experiences.

References

Albert, Mina V. 2018. Rompiendo las normas. Cameraman: Revista técnica cinematográfica.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arijon, Daniel. 1991. Grammar of the film language. Los Angeles: Silman-James Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1954. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1957. Film as Art. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bálint, Katalin; Tan Ed S. 2015. ‘It feels like there are hooks inside my chest: The construction of narrative absorption experiences using image schemata.’ − Projections: The Journal for Movies and Mind 9, 2, 63−88. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2015.090205
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Berliner, Todd.; Cohen, Dale J. 2011. ‘The illusion of continuity: Active perception and the classical editing system.’ − Journal of Film and Video 63, 1, 44−63. https://doi.org/10.5406/jfilmvideo.63.1.0044
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten. 2017. ‘Cinema and the Embodied Mind: Metaphor and Simulation in Understanding Meaning in Films.’ Palgrave Communications 3, 1, 1−15. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.67
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten. 2019. Film as Embodied Art: Bodily Meaning in the Cinema of Stanley Kubrick. Boston: Academic Studies Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten. 2020. ‘How motion shapes thought in cinema: the embodied film style of Éric Rohmer.’ Projections 14, 2, 26−47. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2020.140203
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten; Kravanja, Peter. 2012a. ‘Embodied Visual Meaning: Image Schemas in Film.’ − Projections 6,2, 84–101. https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2012.060206
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten; Kravanja, Peter. 2012b. ‘From Thought to Modality: A Theoretical Framework for Analysing Structural-Conceptual Metaphors and Image Metaphors in Film.’ − Image & Narrative 13, 96–113. https://www.imageandnarrative.be/index.php/imagenarrative/article/view/226
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten; Kravanja, Peter. 2014. ‘A study in cinematic subjectivity: Metaphors of perception in film.’ − Metaphor and the Social World 4, 2, 149−173. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.4.2.01coe.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts Maarte; Kravanja, Peter. 2015. ‘With the past in front of the character: Evidence for spatial-temporal metaphors in cinema.’ − Metaphor and Symbol 30, 3, 218–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1049508
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts Maarten; Kravanja, Peter. 2016a. ‘Perceiving causality in character perception: A metaphorical study of causation in film.’ − Metaphor and Symbol 31, 2, 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150762
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Coëgnarts, Maarten; Kravanja, Peter. 2016b. ‘The eyes for mind in cinema: A metaphorical study of the viewer’s experience.’ − K. Fahlenbrach (ed.), Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games: Cognitive Approaches. London/New York: Routledge, 129−144.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Collins, Sean T. 2015. ‘How Mr. Robot Became One of TV’s Most Visually Striking Shows’. Vulture. https://www.vulture.com/2015/09/mr-robot-visually-striking-cinematography.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cumming, Geoff. 2012. Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fahlenbrach, Kathrin. (ed.) 2016. Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games: Cognitive Approaches. London/New York: Routledge.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Forceville, Charles. 2016. ‘Visual and multimodal metaphor in film: charting the field.’ − K. Fahlenbrach (ed.), Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television and Video Games: Cognitive Approaches. London: Routledge, 17−32.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Forceville Charles; Jeulink, Marloes. 2011. ‘The flesh and blood of embodied understanding: The source-path-goal schema in animation film.’ − Pragmatics & Cognition 19, 1, 37−59. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19.1.02for
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Forceville Charles; Renckens Thijs. 2013. ‘The good is light and bad is darkness metaphors in feature films.’ − Metaphor and the Social World 3, 2, 160−179. https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.3.2.03for
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gallese, Vittorio; Guerra, Michelle. 2012. ‘Embodying movies: Embodied simulation and film studies.’ − Cinema: Journal of Philosophy and the Moving Image, 183−210.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giannetti, Louis. 2002. Understanding movies. New Jersey: Prentince Hall.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grady, Joseph E. 1997. Foundations of meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grady, Joseph E.; Ascoli, Giorgio A. 2017. ‘Sources and targets in primary metaphor theory: Looking back and thinking ahead.’ − B. Hampe (ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27−45.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grodal, Torben. 2009. Embodied Visions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heimann, Katrin S.; Uithol, Sebo; Calbi, Marta.; Umiltà, MariaA.; Guerra, Michelle; Gallese, Vittorio. 2016. ‘Cuts in Action: A High-Density EEG Study Investigating the Neural Correlates of Different Editing Techniques in Film.’ − Cognitive science 41, 6, 1555−1588. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12439
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Katz, Steven D. 1991. Film directing, shot by shot. Visualizing from concept to screen. California: Focal Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Maddock, Daniel. 2018. ‘Uncomposed: Unconventional cinematographic composition in cinema and television.’ − Australian art education 39, 2, 268−287.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magliano, Joseph P.; Zacks, Jeffrey. M. 2011. ‘The impact of continuity editing in narrative film on event segmentation.’ − Cognitive Science. A Multidisciplinary Journal 35, 1489–1517. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01202.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Martin, Adrian. 2014. Mise en Scène and Film Style. From Classical Hollywood to New Media Art. Palgrave Macmillan.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mascelli, Joseph V. 1965. The five C’s of cinematography.Motion Picture Filming Techniques. California: Silman-James Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Millerson, Gerald. 1985. The technique of television production. London: Focal Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mital, Parag K.; Smith, Tim J.; Hill, Robin L.; Henderson, John M. 2011. ‘Clustering of gaze during dynamic scene viewing is predicted by motion.’ − Cognitive Computation 3, 5−24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-010-9074-z
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Newman, Michael Z. 2006. ‘From beats to arcs: Toward a poetics of television narrative.’ − The velvet light trap 58, 1, 16−28. https://doi.org/10.1353/vlt.2006.0033
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Olk, Bettina; Kappas, Arvid. 2011. ‘Eye tracking as a tool for visual research’. − Eric Margolis, Luc Pauwels (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications, 433−451.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ortiz, María J. 2011. ‘Primary metaphors and monomodal visual metaphors.’ − Journal of Pragmatics 43, 6, 1568−1580. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.pragma.2010.12.003
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ortiz, María J. 2014. ‘Visual Manifestations of Primary Metaphors Through Mise-en-scène Techniques.’ – Image & Narrative 15, 1, 5−16. https://www.risejournal.eu/index.php/imagenarrative/article/view/454
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ortiz, María J. 2015. ‘Films and embodied metaphors of emotion.’ − M. Coëgnarts and P. Kravanja (eds.), Embodied cognition and cinema. Leuven University Press, 203−220.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schroeppel, Tom. 2015. The bare bones camera course for film and video. New York: Allworth Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, Greg M. 2003. Film structure and the emotion system. Cambridge: UP.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, Tim J. 2013. ‘Watching you watch movies: using eye tracking to inform film theory.’ − Arthur Shimamura (ed.), Psychocinematics: Exploring Cognition at the Movies, New York: Oxford University Press. 165−191.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, Tim J.; Henderson, John M. 2008. ‘Edit Blindness: The relationship between attention and global change blindness in dynamic scenes.’ − Journal of eye movement research 2, 1−17. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.2.2.6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, Tim J.; Levin, Daniel; Cutting, James E. 2012. ‘A window on reality: Perceiving edited moving images.’ − Current Directions in Psychological Science 21, 2: 107−113. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23213102https://www.jstor.org/stable/23213102
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tomaric, Jason J. 2013. Filmmaking. Direct your movie from script to screen using proven Hollywood techniques. New York: Focal Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Treuting, Jennifer. 2006. ‘Eye Tracking and the Cinema: A study of Film Theory and Visual Perception.’ – SMPTE Motion Imaging Journal 115, 1, 1−40, https://doi.org/10.5594/J11499
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Volmar, Daniel. 2017. ‘Far from the lonely crowd: the trenchant techno-cynicism of Mr. Robot.’ − Endeavour 41, 4, 208−210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2017.05.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Winter, Bodo. 2014. ‘Horror movies and the cognitive ecology of primary metaphors.’ − Metaphor and Symbol 29, 3, 151−170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.924280
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Winter, Bodo; Matlock, Teenie. 2017. ‘Primary metaphors are both cultural and embodied.’ − Beate. Hampe (ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99−115.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Embodied Cinematography in Mr. Robot

Abstract

Paradigm

My account