Bike film

This sounds like a very 'thin' theory--are you sure that there isn't more to it? I can hardly imagine that this point of view is unique or original to Barthes, or even referenced as 'semiotics' most of the time.

Its been five years and several thousand pints of cider since my Masters, so I'm not going to do him justice. Maybe wikipedia can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes
I had to do a presentation using his theory to interpret a series of images, which were some Banksy stuff (back when he was cool). This was the book and interpretive structure we used:

"Barthes' many monthly contributions that made up Mythologies (1957) would often interrogate pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to assert its values upon others. For instance, portrayal of wine in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating). He found semitiotics, the study of signs, useful in these interrogations. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or significations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage - wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making ‘wine’ a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory"

What I took from it is that images are laden with layers of meaning and signs, and that even simple images cannot be taken merely at face value. Anyway I digress, and I probably only threw in Barthes to gain a little credibility. Bad James

Ain't. ;)

Your choice, and a worthy one

It helps if you know that history--I don't. I think films are always more valuable if they only reference things that everyone can understand from the reference without having to access data banks of culture-specific background material. Simple things, often the most important things. If I find value in a film that does important and simple things, that's usually enough for me, as that is what can be reliably shared and understood by as many people as possible. (Of course, no film is free of specific cultural references, but for me, the fewer the better.)

Complicated and recherché I think only works if you can point to full-on filmic evidence that it's there. I think here, obsession isn't--no collapsing in exhaustion, etc., as I said above. Uh, I'm getting obsessed with this now. ;)

I don't even think that the two kinds of activities, someone's car driving and his bike riding, necessarily share the gradual improvement thing. I agree that car driving is referenced in the tyre tracks, but of course these are not necessarily tyre tracks from record attempts (erm, do record breaking cars even use tyres? ;) ).

All of these things could be built in, of course, if the film-maker wanted to revise anything. As it is, I think any meaning beyond the bread-and-butter interpretation isn't clear. There are so few stylistic devices--e.g., no dialogue--that I think it would really be quite hard to nail more meaning down clearly. IMHO.

Which leaves us with the film-maker's intention ...

You haven't swayed me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats are the Jerusalem of the motoring world, iconic for its involvement in land speed records, but also regularly used for drag racing and speed events. Top Gear very recently went there (not a huge endorsement I know, but you'll take the point). There is a mythology and history about the place that people like me who grew up reading books about cars and even watched a documentary recently on those early speed attempts (and I don't have a car at all btw) instantly recognises and knows. I realise that recognition isn't going to be universal so accept that as a personal response if you wish. However the filmmaker makes a very explicit reference to this: a sign saying "Bonneville Speedway 1 mile". He also references tyre tracks later on. Whether you know of the history or not, these are laden signifiers. For me this creates an allegory of our experience of riding on the road: the cyclist is riding a place world famous for its association with cars, on even the 'speedway' itself. The environment is desolate, hostile. His exertions are parallel with the exertion of the cars over the decades seeking to go ever faster, set their own stones in the sand for someone to beat the next time. As I said, it becomes an allegory for our experience on the road, our daily efforts to deal with a hostile, deadly enviroment and ultimately survive.

I could go on, I literally could write and essay about this. I've just gone back and watched it for the second time and really loved it: it's beautiful but now I see the subtext (which I didn't look for until Crane asked for meaning) I think its very poignant too

[edit]Copy and paste fail