Through factor analysis, the initial character oppositions were grouped into six factors, which were interpreted as artistic constructs according to the authors’ terminology:
• Factor 1
– “Passive obedience -> Inner independence and ability to act and fight”• Factor 2
– “Inherent Dignity -> Unprincipled”• Factor 3
– “Unbalanced Impulsiveness -> Common Sense”• Factor 4
– “Proud Superiority -> Pleading Dependency”• Factor 5
– “Openness to Diversity -> Inner Limitation”• Factor 6
– “Devotion to the idea -> Immersion in everyday life”These factors were used to construct the characters’ semantic spaces, as shown in Figure 2.
In Factor 3, Tolstoy emerges as the most prominent character, significantly differentiated from the others. Additionally, characters such as Tolstoy’s Mother, the Terrorist, and the Grand Duke exhibit traits that prevent them from asserting themselves and instead lead them to be immersed in an illusory world. Conversely, characters like Mokin, Dunyasha, Jane 1, Jane 2, and Andrew embody balanced practicality and common sense (Fig. 2).
On the other hand, Factor 4 highlights the most polar positions held by characters such as Dunyasha, Tolstoy’s Mother, McCracken, and the Terrorist, who possess lower social status. They contrast with characters like Alexander III, Radlov, Polievskyy, and the Grand Duke, who wield power and experience a sense of superiority over others.
By analyzing the semantic space, we gain valuable insights into the underlying meanings and interactions among the characters in “The Barber of Siberia,” shedding light on their roles and dynamics within the film. By identifying the main lines of opposition among the characters, the researchers formulated a system of constructs for the film. To gain a more precise understanding of how viewers perceive the personalities of the characters, an additional psychosemantic technique called “motive attribution” was employed (Petrenko, 2014).
The application of psychosemantics in cinema assumes a crucial role as it uncovers functioning of individual and collective systems of meanings portrayed in cinematic images.
The researchers carefully selected specific actions performed by the characters as behavioral indicators for motive attribution. For each character, they chose the actions and deeds that vividly characterized them. After viewing the movie, the respondents were presented with a list of 54 motives, including love, desire for approval, and acting out of a sense of duty. They were asked to rate the extent to which each motive from the provided list could serve as a reason for a particular action, on a scale of 1 through 6.
It is widely acknowledged that actions can be driven by multiple motives of varying significance. To capture this complexity, the respondents assigned points to complete a comprehensive matrix attributing motives to actions.
By employing factor analysis on the collected data, distinct motivational patterns emerged for each character. The strength of each motive cluster represents the prominence of specific groups of motives in shaping the characters’ behavior, as perceived by the participants. It is important to note that not all listed motives necessarily underpin the behavior of every character. For instance, in the case of Tolstoy, motives such as “material interest,” “career aspirations,” and “thirst for knowledge” do not align with his behavioral motives (Petrenko, 2014).
Equally promising are the avenues related to assessing the impact of cinematic works.