Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
Uncategorized , Revisiting Intellectual Montage
Was Kuleshov right in claiming new meaning from the clash of unrelated images? To put it another way, does montage have any relevance to the contemporary filmmaker, scholar, or cinephile?
Rewind: Like other Russian formalists of the era, Lev Kuleshov was looking at unveiling the formal properties of the moving image. Okay! so you have heard this argument before. For most, intellectual montage is nothing but old Soviet skullduggery in its primal forms. Afterall, Kuleshov and co wanted to give big brother a leg up for the cause of the revolution (which the bosses in Kremlin, after much initial enthusiasm, gave a quiet burial). Many film and communications studies scholars in the West set up experiments to prove that Kuleshov was wrong after all. And so besides the usage of montage as stylisation device, its worth has more or less been reduced in film debates. We seem to have lost the appetite and interest in debating montage. Summing it up, is it possible to argue for Intellectual Montage?
My argument goes like this…
The human mind constantly seeks to make meaning of what it perceives. Would we only make sense of data (visual, textual, aural) we can relate to, or does unrelated data force us to think and come up with meanings? That, we could consider, a more appropriate interpretation of Kuleshov.
To prove this point let’s look at some evidence. Does Coppolla use montage to create new meaning in Godfather (Francis Ford Coppolla, 1972) during the baptism sequence in which, while Michael’s child is being baptised, parallely, rivals are being bumped-off.
——————
INT DAY: CHURCH
In the Church–the VIEW on MICHAEL. The PRIEST hands him the infant.
PRIEST: Michael Francis Ricci. Do you renounce Satan.
MICHAEL: I do renounce him.
PRIEST: And all his works?
MICHAEL: I do renounce them.
INT DAY: MOTEL MURDER (1955)
LAMPONE, backed up by two other MEN in his regime, runs down the iron-rail steps, and kicks in the door on Room 7F. PHILIP TATTAGLIA, old and wizened and naked, leaps up; a semi-nude young GIRL leans up.
They are riddled with gunfire.
——————
We go, aah! the diabolic Don Michael.
The point is, we never witnessed any causal actions that linked the two events. We indeed know that Michael is behind the killing, but did the juxtaposition create a third meaning of the evil, unforgiving, and decietful man in the house of god. Or was the parallel event a symbolic baptism into a life of crime.
Surely the “meanwhile” action in the sequence above is not a chain of unrelated sordid goings-on taking place in another space. The juxtaposition as a device helps the director nuance his narrative - retelling revenge-filled butchery as a rite of passage in gangland New York. Did it serve a purely visual pleasure or did the juxtaposition of shots spring a third meaning, i.e., the revealing of the sheer villainy behind the callow veneered Don Michael? Did the third meaning allude to the hackneyed conception of good and bad in terms of the aesthetically beautiful and ugly.
The sequence raises a philosophical point — can we spot the metaphorical devil in our midst?
Does this prove montage does have a third effect? Yes and no. Effects of Intellectual Montage cannot be a reductionist argument for all juxtaposed images. Not every human agency would be in a position to realise it. Even those who score the effects sometimes do so with the help of subtle suggestions that preclude the montage. As argued earlier the answer lies in examining the cognitive effects of random images.
Going back to the Godfather example, would somebody who hadn’t watched “the story so far”, make any meaning of the sequence watching it out of context? So, is “the story so far” a pre-requisite for intellectual montage to be realised? Wonder what Griffith would say to that. Too many questions. Over to continuity editing.
45 Responses to “Revisiting Intellectual Montage”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Raah Pe Rahte Hain - Gulzar turns a truck driver’s ditty into a song of life
- Rangeele Babu : Premchandian revolutionary character dares to challenge the God
- Manorama Six Feet Under (2007)
- Rock On is My Story and Yours
- Rock On… reviews begin
- Rock On Re
- Rock On is My Story and
- Rock On R
- Manorama Six Feet Under (
- Himesh Bhai ka
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
Interesting…sort of abstract.
Kishore, perhaps I am not experienced enough to judge this, but I’m thinking that the excellent Godfather example you provide is not the intellectual form of montage.
My main example of an intellectual montage (sometimes called symbolic editing) would be Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Camera. To me, this illustrates a sort of poetry where adjacent clips combine to convey a (perhaps political) message, but they aren’t really a story.
Your Godfather scene may be a perfect example of the Kuleshov experiment, which shows that by putting one thing next to another, the audience perceives a new meaning that the two things apart do not convey. In Kuleshov’s experiment, an actor with a single neutral expression is juxtaposed with three different scenes; I think its a baby, some food and something negative or scary. The viewing audience credits the man with being one of the greatest actors ever.
So, the Kuleshov theory probably dominates most of continuity editing, and perhaps even symbolic editing, too.
Evelyn: Thanks for the comments. I disagree. Eisenstein had defined intellectual montage after viewing Kuleshov’s work. Vertov promoted Cin
And Vertov talks about “Kino-Eye”:
He assigned the kino-eye several related meanings. It denoted a type of filmmaking: ”the union of science with news-reel to further the battle for the communist decoding of the world” (Kino-Eye 41-2). It signifies the camera’s vision: ”more perfect than the human eye for fathoming the chaos of those visual phenomena which evoke spatial dimension” (”Film” 52). And it describes a fusion of human being and machine: ”I am the kino-eye, I am a mechanical eye” (Kino-Eye 17)
References:
Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov. Ed. Annette Michelson and trans. Kevin O’Brien. Berkeley: U of California P.
‘Film Directors, A Revolution.” Screen 12.4: 52-58. (Reprinted from Lef, vol 3, 135-143).
‘Requiem For a Dream’ is a perfect example of this (I believe, correct me if I am wrong). Pleeeeeeease watch it…. :) although it’s verrrrry depressing. For a change, there’s some constructive discussion/criticism that’s taking place on this board motivating me to write. Otherwise, someone or the other is pulling some other director’s legs. Jealousy’s sprawled everywhere in many of the articles over here! That includes even those of noteworthy directors for whose movies I have a keen eye but their uncultured, sometimes on the verge of being offensive writing only sends home some wrong notions. Most of them contain personal attacks and hate statements. Why can’t there be constructive criticism of people’s work rather than that of the people themselves? And then the non-conformance to the ‘Our Comments Policy’ below the ‘Submit Comment’ tab only serves as an instance of ‘hypocrisy’ by the authors themselves, let alone the people who repugnantly respond to it ! SO MUCH FOR BEING HONEST?????
Suketu: Yes the opening sequence of “Requiem…” is an excellent example. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I will add it to my repository of thoughts…
Kishore sir,nice article and discussion, as intercutting and montages are always intractable terms but definitely are different.
atray: fantastic. I can see your point. you should develop these ideas further. I would be glad if you could elaborate on them please
Kishore, there seems to be a fuzzy line between intercutting and intellectual montage. Perhaps more modern directors and editors think in terms of intercutting sequences versus alternating between ostensibly unconnected shots.
Perhaps I was a little thrown off the trail because you wrote “Over to continuity editing” at the end of your article. To me, the converse of continuity editing is symbolic editing. Continuity editing basically means that the carefully matched flow from shot to shot makes the edits nearly invisible to the average viewer.
You can have continuity editing in a scene with intercutting but in montage I would expect the pairings of shots to be more noticeable.
With Dziga Vertov, his theory was called Kino-Pravda — Cinema-Truth — which inspired French filmmakers to later devise Cinema Verit
Evelyn: I agree with you entirely, a) the fuzziness between inter-cutting and montage; and b) your view that modern directors and editors perhaps fail to understand that distinction. “Apocalypse Now” makes excellent reference to intellectual montage — the scene where Kurtz is killed by Willard and we see intercuts of the buffalo sacrifice.
Another interesting example would be a sequence from Masculinf Feminin:
Shot 1: Two people talking to a woman about rascism, pop culture and music.
Shot 2: A man watching them talk.Camera distance minimal.2nd space
Shot 3: Paul (Jean Pierre Leaud) in 3rd space,loking out of the boundaries of the frame
Shot 4: Man in Shot 2.Sound of people in Shot 1 having a discussion
Shot 5: Close up of a gun
Shot 6: Close up of Paul saying ‘Watch out’
Shot 7: Wide shot of train.Sound:gunshot
Shot 8:Intertitle
Now while this does reference Kuleshov, one would see the (attempted) circular structure,also known now as Godardian montage.This contextualizes temporalities (Bresson) instead of approximating temporalities to space(Eisenstein).
This circular structure is played with in an interesting way in Close Up by Kiarostami.However there hasnt been an essay attempting to talk about this deconstructive montage or a montage which takes into account construction and deconstruction in Kiarostami’s work (more recently Apichatpong’s work)
I think that this is because of an inherent ignorance in film students/film makers today,of Bresson’s work.
Please respond
Well the thing is that once we take this temporality into account, film is no longer a visual medium.It becomes a medium of sound,rhythms and changes
Mani Kaul:’ The differences between things, are more important than the similarities’
Let us look at Godard:A shot is very similar to Rossellini’s way of balancing montage with deepfocus.(Bazin) However it is much more than this.So we would have to think of a crystalline image (Rossellini) as well as Bressonian temporality (Godard)
Devdutt: Thanks for the comments. This needs a carefully thought out response.
While we are talking about cinema verite,it was rouch who said that a camera being placed is an event in itself.Therefore most of the connections that we seek today are outdated.It is only through this removal of intention in an image that we can contextualize montage further.
Well the other thing is that i am looking for Mani Kaul’s film Satah Se Uthata Aadmi,unfortunately the only print is with the Madhya pradesh Film Devp Corp.It is a film in which he has gone to great effects to prove that the effects of montage can be void if only time is atken into account
correction-to great extents(apology)
Apropos de Monsieur Devdutt,
Correction:
For him, Pudovkin with the dual principal of quantity
Panini
Common sense? No i cant agree with that..Maybe i dont understand, but rouch on a creation of image as an event, therefore the removal (most importantly) of an intention .
Example:Kaul on the social films:The creation of a film is a social act.
Redundancies are operating around us.
Well Deleuze is always talking about a life force,but that too is within an image.I do not think he comments on the creation of an image,as much as he does on the image and its nature in duree (time,each image can be thought to have a time of its own).
Even the spres in the ratio essendi etc is talking about an image which is already present.One cannot think of the Bergson spiral to create an image.That i think is very important.
Now my reason for making this assumption ie one cannot create an image, is because an image is matter only when it is created.It does not exist as matter while a director thinks of it.(Even if it does in terms of economics,it may not in an infinite budget,infiite shoot)
But the creation of an image without an intention may create more interesting temporalities than Bresson’s repetition-ellipse or Ozu’s ellipse.If An ellipse is within an image,then the cut is redundant.
So from what i am trying to say,one important thing:the process of shooting a film is the most outstanding, it is more important even than the finished film
Therefore one would have to think of it as a work in progress (Godard), Hindustani classical performance (Mani Kaul), orchestration (Bresson)
However you may not agree with me.But i thankyou for your stimulating response.Lets please continue this discussion.
I havemuch more to say
@Panini - just curious: are you a film student?
“But the creation of an image without an intention may create more interesting temporalities” — I think that is a valid point and (for those who moan that this is too abstract an idea) can be applied creatively. This is akin to a Haiku approach to films where individual (unconnected) shots can exist (and add) to the temporality as well as meaning.
No. I am not a film student. I have nothing whatsoever to do with cinema as practionear.
Forgive me but my keyboard keeps jumping and letters assume unintended ‘intangible’ existence.
And as for Deleuze, we need to move beyond the first chapter of Movement-Image.
BTW, if there were film students like me, the state of Indian cinema could have been far worse than it is at present.
A statement by the maestro to fix tautology :
“Example:Kaul on the social films:The creation of a film is a social act. Redundancies are operating around us.”
comes across, alas, as cavalierly tautological.
No Pankaj dear, you have to expunge me with the iron hands of a neo-third reich!
:((
I had half the mind to write: This public service message is brought to you by Joseph Goebbels.
Seems like you have squared me.
Thanks! Am deply honoured and obliged!
Panini- do respond to the long post by me
“BTW, if there were film students like me, the state of Indian cinema could have been far worse than it is at present.” - Panini
Care to elaborate? :d Well you sound very, erm, ’scholarly’…
panini the fact that you have nothing to do with films a as a practitioner is very clear from your comments . a parctitioner would never talk like that.
sahi baat aj - uber-intellectualism + pretentiousness = |-)
Guys,
There is a virus called PP. He had made it a habit to crop up at every site that regards itself as the endpoint of intellectual discourse. He has a most offensive habit of pushing the limit of the discourse that one sets around oneself. In that sense he can be regarded as an enemy of complacency and hence a public nuisance. Guys like PP never do an anything in real life, of course you will all agree that doing something in real life is a quanitifiable pheonomena and is a real virtue. Let us therefore either ban him or ignore him. But before we do so I would like to see Sudhir Mishra and/or Anurag Kashyap, same-difference, respond to him. Will they dare, will the twain ever meet…
Best….
Who is this PP?
PP is a virus, as I said. A virulent virus I say. A cancer that, as Nana Patekar said apropos himself, eats into our innards.
PROLOGUE
MK seems to invest the cinematic image with an essential, teleological, idea of time. This is almost in complete disregard of how the various histories of the cinematic image
Khush raho ahle watan!!!
Apropos Panini and Devdutt for reminding us about the core “issue” of whether time can be captured on film. If Levinas is brought into the picture, can Heidegger be kept out?
I can think of only one filmmaker who captured time on film, the slow litheness of time, its true nature which we try to escape(courtesy quick cutting and short takes, and television which shape human behaviour) and that’s tarkovsky, remember ‘time pressure’?
Madhur: I disagree. Though Tarkovsky’s ideas of time are closer to Bazin’s — i.e, the supremacy of the recording apparatus in recording reality — his ideas remain at odds with Bazin’s. While Bazin calls for subservience of the filmmaker to the recording apparatus, Tarkovsky calls for the application of the filmmaker’s subjectivity. Many people make the mistake that because Tarkovsky critiqued Eisenstein, he is a realist. To quote Tarkovsky:
“The image in cinema is based on the ability to present as an observation one’s own perception of an object” (107).
I am afraid your reading of Tarkovsky is not entirely accurate.
Ref: Andrey Tarkovsky (1996) Sculpting in Time: Reflections on the Cinema (Translated by Kitty Hunter-Blair) Austin: University of Texas Press
neither a SOCIOLOGICAL nor an ANTHROPOLOGICAL thesis. It is (quite paradoxically??) an ONTOLOGICAL thesis.
I agree
This sense of ontology is definitively opposed to the REALISTS for in this conception of ontology the
Vidushak, I see what you mean ;)
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003911.html
http://www.kafila.org/2007/01/16/pal-do-pal-ka-shayar/
priceless PP! commenter #94 I applaud you!
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003443.html
even made it to midday eh? well done ole chap!
http://www.mid-day.com/columns/mahmood_farooqui/2007/january/150026.htm
Dear Devdutt,
Since I have withdrwan from PFC, I shall be grateful if you could write to me directly at . I find your’s and Kishore’s observations perceptive and challenging. Hope we can continue this exchange of view elsewhere.
panini.pot at the rate of gmail.com