Aumont, J, Bergala, A, Marie, M, Vernet, M, Trans. Neupert, R 1992, Aesthetics of Film, University of Texas Press, TX, pp. 37- 42.
One thought on “Aumont, J, Bergala, A, Marie, M, Vernet, M, Trans. Neupert, R 1992, Aesthetics of Film, University of Texas Press, TX, pp. 37- 42.”
This source explains that editing is central to montage; it is the driving force behind the displacement of time and space in a sequence. The excerpt in question takes a very traditional view on editing, discussing splicing and other techniques before the age of digital film; its explanation is that of tangibility, of literally sticking shots together to create meaning.
This source is unique in that it is the first piece of research that has spoken about montage in its physical stages; editing and the cut in a quite literal sense. It paints the picture of the montage actually being physically cut together to create meaning, and that makes this source unique compared to some of the others I’ve come across.
However this part of the source does not unpack the concept of montage, rather focusing on the physical cutting and editing element. Therefore its validity is increased when considered in conjunction with Eisenstein’s writings; while in Essays on Film Form, Eisenstein talks about the cut but not the effort put into creating said cut, and so this source puts much of Eisenstein’s theory into perspective.
This source explains that editing is central to montage; it is the driving force behind the displacement of time and space in a sequence. The excerpt in question takes a very traditional view on editing, discussing splicing and other techniques before the age of digital film; its explanation is that of tangibility, of literally sticking shots together to create meaning.
This source is unique in that it is the first piece of research that has spoken about montage in its physical stages; editing and the cut in a quite literal sense. It paints the picture of the montage actually being physically cut together to create meaning, and that makes this source unique compared to some of the others I’ve come across.
However this part of the source does not unpack the concept of montage, rather focusing on the physical cutting and editing element. Therefore its validity is increased when considered in conjunction with Eisenstein’s writings; while in Essays on Film Form, Eisenstein talks about the cut but not the effort put into creating said cut, and so this source puts much of Eisenstein’s theory into perspective.