Magliano, Joseph P., and Jeffrey M. Zacks. “The impact of continuity editing in narrative film on event segmentation.” Cognitive Science 35.8 (2011): 1489-1517.
One thought on “Magliano, Joseph P., and Jeffrey M. Zacks. “The impact of continuity editing in narrative film on event segmentation.” Cognitive Science 35.8 (2011): 1489-1517.”
This article takes a hard-line, scientific approach to the effect of continuity editing on the viewer’s perception of a scene/film. Defining the basic premises of continuity editing, the article goes on to outline how a test might take place in terms of confirming or creating an explanation as to why continuity editing works, and why viewer’s aren’t thrown off by cuts within scenes. The testing revolves around using MRI’s to assess brain function during film viewing experiences, and attempts to attach the results to style’s of editing. The article then goes on to speak about previous experiments, and then outlines a scientific method approach to this specific case.
The conclusions generally support the hypothesis, however the entire approach seems to be a little blasé. Due to cinema being somewhat of an abstract and unpredictable art form, it is difficult to use science to attempt to justify a viewer’s response to a certain style of editing, however this piece of writing provided a fresh and rational response to an otherwise accepted premise.
This article takes a hard-line, scientific approach to the effect of continuity editing on the viewer’s perception of a scene/film. Defining the basic premises of continuity editing, the article goes on to outline how a test might take place in terms of confirming or creating an explanation as to why continuity editing works, and why viewer’s aren’t thrown off by cuts within scenes. The testing revolves around using MRI’s to assess brain function during film viewing experiences, and attempts to attach the results to style’s of editing. The article then goes on to speak about previous experiments, and then outlines a scientific method approach to this specific case.
The conclusions generally support the hypothesis, however the entire approach seems to be a little blasé. Due to cinema being somewhat of an abstract and unpredictable art form, it is difficult to use science to attempt to justify a viewer’s response to a certain style of editing, however this piece of writing provided a fresh and rational response to an otherwise accepted premise.