To demonstrate this, we watched and analyzed the training scene from the movie Rocky 4, trying to read all the subliminal messages the director implied by putting the shots side by side through montage editing. I was quite an active participant in this discussion, contributing ideas such as the black and white imagery and how different camera shots/angles that were used to capture the two different subjects/rivals/enemies might suggest how one is "good" and one is "evil". The open natural environment Rocky was in would suggest that he's a man fighting for freedom, for the "light" side when compared to the dark, enclosed, probably underground location his opponent was training in. Such a difference was literally as clear as black and white. The medium-close ups used to capture rocky made him more human when contrasted by the long shots that distanced us from the rival, allowing us to unconsciously determine that Rocky is the protagonist of the story while his opposite is the antagonist. My classmate also suggested that the parallel cutting between a past fighting match and Rocky felling a large tree may be illustrating Rocky's and the opponent's relationship: The opponent has beat him once before, but now Rocky can fell him - and the feat is all the more impressive, as in the match the opponent is clearly larger than Rocky, but Rocky is felling a tree at least 10 times his size! By actively participating in the discussion, I was able to receive feedback and comments from Ms. Wong and my peers as they built upon those ideas, and this allowed me to better understand Montage Editing and what it can do - even without watching the movie before, I was able to see that Rocky was the protagonist while the other was not.
The next topic was the Soviet Montage Theory, developed by Lev Kuleshov among others. The theory was that putting things next to each other would influence the audience's conclusion. By watching a video of the Kuleshov Effect, I was able to see first-hand how it might do this, and how it is not just about acting or the content that will influence our understanding, but how it is presented to us as well. I also realized that there are a lot of other contributing factors to a story than just a solid plot, and that if I wished to be a writer in the next unit, or even as a director or director of photographer, I would have to keep this information at the front of my mind.
Sergei Einstein proposed that the nature of montage was the answer to a specific problem of cinema - Time, and said that such a technique was the nerve of cinema. He took the Kuleshov effect a step further, suggesting that the shots did not have to be a linear original subject, point of view, back to subject and reaction; but instead that the shots could be smashed up. Einstein's Montage Thoery involved discontinuity editing - a violation of continuity editing rules where transitions between shots are deliberately obvious, less fluid, non-seamless. Creating a real-time film would be impossible, so we should stop trying; instead, we should draw attention to is and change. Following this logic, the Soviet Montage Theory was developed. This information may not necessarily be useful in our future productions, but as film students, it would be wrong not to know the history of these theories and key figures that developed them.
The last part of this lecture taught me the methods of montage, along with clips to demonstrate the related technique:
- Metric - Follows specific number of frames per clip, regardless of content (October-10 days...)
- Rhythmic - Focuses not on time between shot changes, but key movement: good for portraying opposing forces through a sequence of images (Rhythmic Montage)
- Tonal - Emotional meaning illustrated through tone, rhythm, images etc.
- Over-tonal - Putting all the above techniques together (Strike)
- Intellectual - Bringing outside clips and juxtaposing them to create parallels that evoke new emotions and ideas.
This, unlike the history and theory, will almost definitely be useful to keep in mind while creating our products, as being able to specifically say which technique was used will demonstrate our knowledge and understanding, as well as make clear to the audience what we are trying to do and say.
No comments:
Post a Comment