THE PLATFORM FİLMİNİN GREIMAS’IN EYLEYENSEL MODELİ ÇERÇEVESİNDE GÖSTERGEBİLİMSEL ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu makale, Galder Gaztelu-Urrutia’nın 2019 yapımı The Platform filmini Greimas’ın eyleyensel modeliyle göstergebilimsel olarak inceler. Çalışma, filmde olup biteni yeniden özetlemek yerine, anlamın anlatı içi karşıtlıklar, dönüşümler ve işlevsel ilişkiler üzerinden nasıl kurulduğunu görünür kılar. Film, anlatısal kırılmaların yoğunlaştığı sahne ve sekanslara ayrılır karakterler, nesneler ve soyut olgular özne, nesne, gönderici, alıcı, yardımcı ve engelleyici konumlarına yerleştirilir. Eyleyen ilişkileri, isteyim, iletişim ve güç eksenlerinde karşılaştırmalı biçimde izlenir. Bulgular, nesnenin başlangıçtaki hayatta kalma hedefinden adil paylaşım ve etik bilinç değerlerine kaydığını dikey mekânın üst/alt, bolluk/kıtlık ve denetim/özgürlük karşıtlıklarını sürekli yeniden ürettiğini gösterir. Gönderici işlevi kimi kesitlerde yönetim, kimi kesitlerde vicdan ve idealizm tarafından üstlenilirken, engelleyici konum açlık, korku ve yapısal eşitsizlikte yoğunlaşır. Yeterlilik aşamasında belirginleşen kiplikler, öznenin isteme, bilme ve yapabilme kapasitesinin nasıl kurulduğunu açığa çıkarır. Sonuç olarak film, eyleyen konumlarının kayganlığı ve mesaj fikri üzerinden, toplumsal eşitsizliğe dair ideolojik bir eleştiriyi derin yapıda örgütler. Bu çerçeve, filmin toplumsal eleştirisini kişilere değil, ilişkilere ve dönüşüm mantığına bağlar anlam üretimini açığa çıkarır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anlatı
• The Platform
• Sinema
• Greimas
• Eyleyensel Modeli

Kaynakça

1. Alrøe, H. F. (2025). The six types of sign action. Semiotica (266). https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2024-0112
2. Atkin, A. (2023). Peirce’s Theory of Signs. E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Der.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/
3. Aygül Özdoğan, M. (2022). Dilbilimsel yapısalcılıktan yapısal antropolojiye: Ferdinand de Saussure ve Claude Lévi-Strauss. Disiplinler Arası Dil Araştırmaları, 5(5), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7422797
4. Badir, S. (2023). Hjelmslev and his semiotic legacy. L. Cigana & F. Gregersen (Der.), Structuralism as one - structuralism as many: studies in structuralisms (pp. 397-416). The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
5. Ball, C. (2017). Realisms and indexicalities of photographic propositions. Signs and Society, 5(S1), S154-S177. https://doi.org/10.1086/690032
6. Ball, C., Barker, M., Edwards, E., Kolich, T., Mitchell, W. J. T., Morgan, D., & Nakassis, C. V. (2020). Opening up the indexicality of the image, again: a virtual roundtable. Semiotic Review, (9). https://doi.org/10.71743/bejcr128
7. Barthes, R. (1977). Image music text (S. Heath, Çev.). Fontana Press.
8. Barthes, R. (1986). Elements of semiology (A. Lavers & C. Smith, Çev. 11. b.). Hill and Wang.

9. Barthes, R. (1991). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Der. & Çev.). The Moonday Press.
10. Barthes, R. (2002). S/Z (R. Miller, Çev.). Blackwell.
11. Barthes, R., & Duisit, L. (1975). An Introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 237-272. https://doi.org/10.2307/468419
12. Başoğlu, N. (2019). Reklam afişlerinde Peirce’ın görüntüsel gösterge, belirti ve simge kavramlarının kullanılması. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 12(63), 434-440. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2019.3240
13. Bateman, J. A. (2007). Towards a grande paradigmatique of film: Christian Metz reloaded. Semiotica, 2007(167), 13-64. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2007.070
14. Bennett, P., & McDougall, J. (2013). Barthes’ mythologies today: readings of contemporary culture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203568422
15. Bertrand, D. (2019). From narratology to narrativity, and back: assessment and perspectives of Greimassian theory. Pratiques, 181-182, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4000/pratiques.10348
16. Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film. University of Wisconsin Press. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=HhJb5Ks2PvEC
17. Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The Basics. Routledge.
18. Comolli, J.-L., & Narboni, P. (1971). Cinema/ldeology/criticism. Screen, 12(1), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/12.1.27
19. Cooren, F. (2001). Acting and organizing: How speech acts structure organizational interactions. concepts and transformation, 6(3), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.3.05coo
20. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2024). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (5. b.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
21. Culler, J. (2002). Barthes: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
22. Çiçek, M. (2016). Göstergebilim ve sinema ya da sinema göstergebilimi. Kesit Akademi, 2(3), 25-41. https://doi.org/10.18020/kesit.42
23. Danesi, M. (2022). Saussurean sign theory in the human sciences today. Language and Semiotic Studies, 8(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2022-080107
24. Dogra, S. (2017). The thirty-one functions in Vladimir Propp’s morphology of the folktale: an outline and recent trends in the applicability of the Proppian taxonomic model. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 9(2), 410-419. https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v9n2.41
25. Dundes, A. (2009). Introduction to the second edition (L. Scott, Çev.). V. Propp (Der.), Morphology of the folktale (2. b.). University of Texas Press.
26. Echeverría, C. I. (2022). Once again on the parallelism between expression and content. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 54(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2021.1886578
27. Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.
28. ffrench, P. (2021). Roland Barthes and film: myth, eroticism and poetics. Bloomsbury Publishing.
29. Fludernik, M. (2009). An introduction to narratology (P. Häusler-Greenfield & M. Fludernik, Çev.). Routledge.
30. Fowler, M. (2025). A taxonomy of the Greimas square. Axioms, 14(207), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms14030207
31. Gaztelu-Urrutia, G. (2019). The plarform C. Juárez Basque Films, Mr. Miyagi Films, Plataforma La Película, A.I.E.
32. Greimas, A. J. (1971). Narrative grammar: units and levels. MLN, 86(6), 793-806. https://doi.org/10.2307/2907443
33. Greimas, A. J. (1983). Structural semantics: an attempt at a method (D. McDowell, R. Schleifer, & A. Velie, Çev.). University of Nebraska Press.
34. Greimas, A. J. (1987). On meaning: selected writings in semiotic theory (P. J. Perron & F. H. Collins, Çev.). University of Minnesota Press.
35. Greimas, A. J., & Courtés, J. (1982). Semiotics and language: an analytical dictionary (L. Crist, D. Patte, J. Lee, E. McMahon II, G. Phillips, & M. Rengstorf, Çev.). Indiana University Press.
36. Greimas, A. J., & Porter, C. (1977). Elements of a narrative grammar. Diacritics, 7(1), 23-40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/464872
37. Groza, B., & Momanu, A. (2022). Plot patterns in manga based on Propp’s narratological elements. Journal of Anime and Manga Studies, 3, 34-61. https://doi.org/10.21900/j.jams.v3.945
38. Günay, V. D. (2002). Göstergebilim yazıları. Multilingual.
39. Hawkes, T. (2003). Structuralism and semiotics (2. b.). Routledge.
40. Hébert, L. (2011). An introduction to applied semiotics: tools for text and image analysis (J. Tabler, Çev.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329807
41. Hjelmslev, L. (1969). Prolegomena to a theory of language (F. J. Whitfield, Çev.). The University of Wisconsin Press.
42. Hobyane, R. (2015). Canonical narrative schema: a key to understanding the victory discourse in Judith: a Greimassian contribution. Journal for Semitics, 24(2), 638-656. https://doi.org/10.25159/1013-8471/3472
43. Johansson, N. E., Anikin, A., Carling, G., & Holmer, A. (2020). The typology of sound symbolism: Defining macro-concepts via their semantic and phonetic features. Linguistic Typology, 24(2), 253-310. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-2034
44. Joseph, J. E. (2015). Iconicity in Saussure’s linguistic work, and why it does not contradict the arbitrariness of the sign. Historiographia Linguistica, 42(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.42.1.05jos
45. Karaca, M. M. (2021). Saussure’ün ses ve anlam ilişkisine dair fikirleri üzerine bir değerlendirme. Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi, 14(36), 1414-1423. https://doi.org/10.12981/mahder.877208
46. Martin, B., & Ringham, F. (2000). Dictionary of semiotics. Cassell.
47. Metz, C. (1982). psychoanalysis and the cinema: the ımaginary signifier (C. Britton, A. Williams, B. Brewster, & A. Guzzetti, Çev.). MacMillan Press.
48. Metz, C. (1991). Film language: a semiotics of the cinema (M. Taylor, Çev.). The University of Chicago Press.
49. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (3. b.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
50. Nelles, W. (2005). Function (Propp). D. Herman, M. Jahn, & M.-L. Ryan (Der.), Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. Routledge.
51. Nöth, W. (2023). Semiotics. L. R. Waugh, M. Monville-Burston, & J. E. Joseph (Der.), The Cambridge History of Linguistics (pp. 859-884). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511842788.041
52. Nöth, W. (2024). Peirce’s iconicity and his image-diagram-metaphor triad revisited: complements to Stjernfelt’s sheets, diagrams, and realism. Semiotica, 2024(258), 143-167. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2023-0140
53. Onan, B. (2013). Dil eğitiminin dil bilimsel temelleri: Ferdinand de Saussure’ün genel dilbilim kuramında dil eğitimiyle ilgili bulgular. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(17), 219-243. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/mkusbed/article/208289
54. Özmakas, U. (2009). Charles Sanders Peirce’ın gösterge. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(1), 32-45. https://doi.org/10.12780/UUSBD44
55. Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Pierce: selected philosophical writings - volume-1 (1867-1893) (N. Houser & C. Kloesel, Der.). Indiana University Press.
56. Peirce, C. S. (1998). The essential Pierce: selected philosophical writings - volume-2 (1893-1913) (N. Houser, A. de Tienne, J. R. Eller, C. L. Clark, A. C. Lewis, & D. B. Davis, Der.). Indiana University Press.
57. Picciuolo Aresta, A. (2023). The role of the dispute about the nature of content-figurae in structural semantics in semiotics’ history: Hjelmslev, Jakobson, and Eco. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, 55(1), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2241281
58. Pop Stefanija, A. (2025). A narrative syntax for meaningful human agency - rereading Greimas in times of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 12(3), 20539517251368387. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517251368387
59. Popescu, V. D. (2022). Unlimited semiosis or endless redescriptions? Peirce, Eco, and Rorty on the limits of interpretation Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, 66(1), 85-103. https://www.institutuldefilosofie.ro/e107_files/downloads/Revue%20roumaine%20de%20philosophie/Tome%2066,%20Nr.%201%EF%BB%BF,%202022/VICTOR%20D.%20POPESCU,%20Unlimited%20semiosis%20or%20endless%20redescriptions.pdf
60. Propp, V. (2009). Morphology of the folktale (L. Scott, Çev. L. A. Wagner, Der. 2. b.). University of Texas Press.
61. Ricoeur, P., Collins, F., & Perron, P. (1989). Greimas’s narrative grammar. New Literary History, 20(3, Greimassian Semiotics), 581-608. https://www.jstor.org/stable/469355
62. Rifat, M. (2009). Göstergebilimin abc’si. Say Yayınları.
63. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: an ıntroduction to researching with visual materials (4. b.). SAGE Publications.
64. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications, Inc.
65. Sánchez-Ovcharov, C., & Suárez, M. (2024). Peirce’s pragmatism, semiotics, and physical representation. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, XVI(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/11p4t
66. Sanz-Aznar, J. (2025). An exploration of the editing cut as an articulator in film through frequency domain analysis of spectator EEGs. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2025.1489800
67. Sarar Kuzu, T. (2004). Greimas’ın eyleyenler modeli’nin, bir durum-kesit öyküsündeki işlerliğine ilişkin göstergebilimsel çözümleme denemesi. Dil Dergisi, (124), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000009
68. Saussure, F. d. (2011). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Çev. P. Meisel & H. Saussy, Der.). Columbia University Press.
69. Schmidt, J. A. (2022). Peirce’s evolving interpretants. Semiotica, 2022(246), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0115
70. Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498350
71. Sørensen, B., & Thellefsen, T. (2022). Ferdinand de Saussure in contemporary semiotics. Language and Semiotic Studies, 8(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1515/lass-2022-080101
72. Stam, R. (1992). New vocabularies in film semiotics: structuralism, post-structuralism and beyond. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203977194
73. Taverniers, M. (2008). Hjelmslev’s semiotic model of language: an exegesis. Semiotica, 171(1-4), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEMI.2008.082
74. Tröhler, M. (2018). Christian Metz and film semiology - dynamics within and on the edges of the model: an introduction. M. Tröhler & G. Kirsten (Der.), Christian Metz and the Codes of Cinema: Film Semiology and Beyond (pp. 15-66). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789089648921/CH01
75. Vardar, B. (1982). Dilbilimin temel kavram ve ilkeleri. Türk Dil Kurumu.
76. Willems, K. (2021). Saussure on synonymy. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, (74), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.47421/CFS74_115-134
77. Yakin, H. S. M., & Totu, A. (2014). The semiotic perspectives of peirce and saussure: a brief comparative study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 155, 4-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.247
78. Zhang, X., & Sheng, J. (2017). A Peircean semiotic interpretation of a social sign. Annals of To0075rism Research, 64, 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.04.002