This paper defines editing as having two approaches. The first being continuity editing, and the other being montage theory. The paper then analyses how both theories work and how they differently utilise the various techniques editing has to offer.
The paper is quite detailed in that it explains the ways in which continuity editing and montage theory differ. It basically stipulates that continuity editing is a form of editing whereby the physical cutting of shots is almost invisible, and does not draw attention to itself, thereby making the footage seem continuous. Montage theory, however, looks into how editing shots together can lead audiences to make assumptions and connections about the two shots, thus forming their own understanding.
This paper is insightful because it gives a basic description of the two different theories of editing. This paper is the first piece of literature I found that analysed the two separately and then collectively, allowing me to understand the different ways in which editing can be used, also allowing me to further investigate these two theories.
This source defines only two approaches to editing; continuity and montage. Specifically in terms of montage, it defines montage theory (or Soviet Montage) as the ‘most unique power of expression’. It also describes the Kuleshov effect as the tendency for viewers to ‘figure out how two shots go together,’ meaning montage creates its own meaning with the viewer.
The source is somewhat narrow in its view on editing. However its splitting of continuity editing and montage is interesting, as some montages employ continuity editing to create meaning, yet the source identifies them separately. Without continuity, montage seemingly would be an experience that would confuse the audience, rather than tell a coherent story.
In terms of my research, the source does not mention the long take as it is devoid of cuts and does not necessarily rely on editing. However it is useful in terms of its explanation of the Kuleshov effect, which is not necessarily a reliable description of the function of montage, but is an interesting perspective on the history of the concept of the relationship between shots.