Bazin on the Long Take Versus Montage, 2012, Online Video, Script Castle, Accessed 23/03/2016, .
One thought on “Bazin on the Long Take Versus Montage, 2012, Online Video, Script Castle, Accessed 23/03/2016, .”
This short video translates Andre Bazin’s views on the long take and its supposed superiority over montage in representing reality from his book, What is Cinema?. Bazin argues that the long take is more realistic in its representation of time (particularly chronology) and space than montage, and that it demands more viewing participation from the audience. He also describes a state of ‘metacognition’ in the audience for a long take, in which we are ‘not only thinking about film, but thinking about the way we think about film’.
This source was a great find in terms of the long take. It certainly does not consider the long take as a form of montage, and goes to great lengths to explain the difference between the two. There is also a very interesting insight into this notion of ‘metacognition’; that the long take makes us as an audience question what we’re viewing and follow details much more closely than we would with the often fast- paced cutting of montage (especially in the modern Hollywood era). It is an interesting idea that the long take as an institution, an accepted practice in film, is noticed so much by the audience that they begin to question their own experience of the film. Possibly my most revealing source to date.
This short video translates Andre Bazin’s views on the long take and its supposed superiority over montage in representing reality from his book, What is Cinema?. Bazin argues that the long take is more realistic in its representation of time (particularly chronology) and space than montage, and that it demands more viewing participation from the audience. He also describes a state of ‘metacognition’ in the audience for a long take, in which we are ‘not only thinking about film, but thinking about the way we think about film’.
This source was a great find in terms of the long take. It certainly does not consider the long take as a form of montage, and goes to great lengths to explain the difference between the two. There is also a very interesting insight into this notion of ‘metacognition’; that the long take makes us as an audience question what we’re viewing and follow details much more closely than we would with the often fast- paced cutting of montage (especially in the modern Hollywood era). It is an interesting idea that the long take as an institution, an accepted practice in film, is noticed so much by the audience that they begin to question their own experience of the film. Possibly my most revealing source to date.