Film as Language

“Godard [. . .] is more concerned with ‘image –building’ as a kind of pictography, in which images are liberated from their role as elements of representation and given a semantic function within a genuine iconic code.”
While constructing films as something that can be read as a language, is an interesting idea, it is thoroughly problematic. Due to the innately subjective nature of vision, and processing images, it is highly difficult to create images that express the same thoughts to different people.
Wollen suggests that by “foregrounding” the equipment, the machination behind the film, one can create such a language. However, this does not remove the subjectivity in an images meaning. It acknowledges the image as an image, and something to be commented upon directly, more directly opening up the discussion of meaning, but does not provide a solid definition. More realistic, it seems to me, would be the construction of filmic language within individual films. Within a film, and image can grow to represent something through repetition. This, however, does not remove it from the construct of the film, and does not help with the construction of a language at larger, transferable to the readings of other films.