The cut

[twister!]

Montage? Surely, that's just good visual filmmaking. [img]confused.gif[/img]

There's more to the montage than training sequences in Karate Kid movies.

I'm sure you know this but I haven't posted for a while - so here goes...

As you know a montage is a sequence of seemingly unrelated juxta-posed images that when cut together in a sequence tell a story in the mind of the viewer.

It's commonly accepted that montage is the best way of telling a story visually. Otherwise you have as Hitchcock said '...just photographs of peoples' heads talking' or as has also been said 'just the director following the actor around' (this quote is sometimes used in conjuction with criticism of lazy use of the steadicam).

I realise that the examples quoted (the Rocky films etc as parodied in Team America) are just the 'cheesy musical style montages'. The worst kind of which for me is the kind where the main character is trying on lots of different clothes in front of the camera - I hate that (it's not been done for a while though)...

But there's much more to montage than that.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2005 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Justin M. ]</font>

[jb_617]

Hmmm, I take your point Justin. The montage I hate is the cheesy musical one. I also hate the "This is a montage because we can't write / don't have enough time to show this transitional period" style.

I agree that used correctly, the montage is a <u>very</u> good way of condensing some plot. For reference purposes, watch The Thomas Crown Affair (the orginal that is, not the re-make), the montages in that film are awesome.

But, mostly, I just see the badly executed ones and I have to say, I don't care for them.

As an aside, if you juxtapose <u>unrelated</u> images, it's not going to compare or contrast effectively. You need opposing yet related images otherwise your audience is not going to know what the hell is going on.


---------------------

I blame MTV. For <u>everything</u>.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2005 05:58 PM: Message edited by: jb. ]</font>

[Tasty Fish Lips]

Justin's right.

You won't truly understand what montage really is all about from watching a movie or even a dvd commentary.

But there are plenty of books that explore it.

I know a lot of great films have used the "M" word. But i still think that it's trite, lazy, and bad, bad, bad, bad, way of exposition.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nothing could be further from the truth.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2005 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

[emjen]

Yeah, you're talking about the '80's montage, it has pretty much dissapeared these days.

I havent seen Citizen Kane, but sopposedly one of the best montage sequences ever shows how Kane and his wife lose touch with each other by simply moving from window to window and seeing them eat farther and farther away from each other.

[MatJimMood]

There seems to be confusion over what is meant by montage.

Montage in the classical sense is just the creation of meaning through the juxtaposition of unconnected images - the connection is made in the viewers mind. This is pretty crucial to most films i guess.

Like Emjen says its been adopted to describe those 80's style sequences that show a passage of time or development in character. Team America rips the piss perfectly.

[Tasty Fish Lips]

If I sat through 2 hours of nothing but images fading in and out with no dialogue, story, plot, voice over, nothing, just fading images, I'm not sure I would enjoy it that much. And please, don't start banging on about silent movies or "this experimental film does exactly that..." because frankly, I couldn't care less.

But enough bitching and fighting. I agree with Justin that, used correctly, the montage is pretty cool. I just haven't seen anyone pull it off adequately for a long time.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Montage is a complex concept. There has been much written about it. "Images, fading in and out, no story, etc" Like others here have said, you are reacting to a certain kind of montage, one that doesnt really demonstrate what montage truly is and what it is capable of.

Off the top of my head - this is an example:

You have 2 different filmmakers. John and Mike. They both have to film the same scene. The scene is about a certain idea or event.

John decides to shoot the entire scene in one shot, shooting exactly what the idea or event is, presenting it literally as it happens.

Mike decides to shoot several different shots, none of which independently have any relation to the idea or event - until they are edited together in a montage. His shots are not "artsy". Some of them can be moving or still. There are no fades. The only consistent characteristic of each shot is that individually, they are not literally about the idea or event. It is only when edited together that the idea or event is apparent.

Now which method is easier? Which method is trite? Which method is lazy?

Any fool can just blatantly shoot an event as it happens. But spending time to come up with unrelated images that only mean something when edited together is hard work that demands intelligence and creativity and patience.

Of course, it's much easier said than done. And one of the tricks is to make sure that the audience will in fact "get" the meaning. You don't want it to be out of their reach - but at the same time, you don't want it to be too obvious.

But if you do it right, they will be engaged in the scene because they put the pieces together in their mind without being spoon-fed or hit over the head.

Montage. [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

I'm not saying this is the best approach to filmmaking. It may work for one scene but not another. It depends on the individual, of course.

Again, this and many other filmmaking concepts are not so easily learned just by watching films and dvd commentary.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2005 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Tasty Fish Lips ]</font>

[jb_617]

[quote]Originally posted by Tasty Fish Lips:

Mike decides to shoot several different shots, none of which independently have any relation to the idea or event - until they are edited together in a montage. His shots are not "artsy". Some of them can be moving or still. There are no fades. The only consistent characteristic of each shot is that individually, they are not literally about the idea or event. It is only when edited together that the idea or event is apparent.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, I see where you're going here. For me though, that is not what I would call montage, except in the dictionary definition sense. That is simply filmmaking. I know traditionaly that "Montage" actually means simply "A relatively rapid succession of different shots in a movie.", but that is not really how I read it anymore. I was originally having a comic pop at the baywatch-style montage, which I think we can all agree, is god-awful. I don't want to get into technical arguments about what does and doesn't constitute a montage. Or about adding "energy" or "tension" or "whatever" to a scene. I can see from the strikingly similar arguments by a few people on this thread that everyone is lifting from the same few texts, that's cool. I've read those books too, I know what you're all saying and I agree.


----------------------

Let's not let a joke get out of hands now.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2005 07:01 PM: Message edited by: jb. ]</font>

[Tasty Fish Lips]

[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img]

[jb_617]

Originally posted by Tasty Fish Lips:
Nothing could be further from the truth.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not really sure that it <u>is</u> commonly accepted that "It's commonly accepted that montage is the best way of telling a story visually." Isn't that just "making a film"?

Not being facetious here, but are we really talking about the same thing? If I sat through 2 hours of nothing but images fading in and out with no dialogue, story, plot, voice over, nothing, just fading images, I'm not sure I would enjoy it that much. And please, don't start banging on about silent movies or "this experimental film does exactly that..." because frankly, I couldn't care less.

And that Hitch quote is wildly out of context.

But enough bitching and fighting. I agree with Justin that, used correctly, the montage is pretty cool. I just haven't seen anyone pull it off adequately for a long time.

---------------------

Are you guys frantically searching your video collection for an example? I know I'm not.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ February 22, 2005 12:32 PM: Message edited by: jb. ]</font>

[eddie123456789]

jb wrote:
&gt; If I sat through 2 hours of nothing but images
&gt; fading in and out with no dialogue, story,
&gt;plot, voice over, nothing, just fading images,
&gt; I'm not sure I would enjoy it that much. And
&gt; please, don't start banging on about silent
&gt; movies or "this experimental film does exactly
&gt; that..." because frankly, I couldn't care less.

so you have seen part II of my film then?

This is a good discussion, thanks for doing it. Please dont suppose we've ALL READ these books though.
Justins comments about talking heads and steadicams are bang on I think. (I think I have read and agree with these.)
Maybe Im 10 minutes late with this, but cant a whole film be considered a montage of scenes?
perhaps Im labouring a point that doesnt matter anymore....
But I have to re-edit my film, and I know NUFFING about montages, there is so much to learn, and you guys are so clever :-)
Actually seriously can any of you recommend or suggest (if you have the time) a montage sequence that works well? And explain why?
Ive seen stuff that I dont care for too, and Im not sure why it didnt work.
There was a (norwegian I think) film on the other night called "Noi(?) The Albino" - which I saw about 10 minutes of. It was all montage as far as I could see. Hardly any speaking. One scene after another, and no music either. It worked for me, because it showed a sequence of events - him getting arrested, being locked up, and being released by his friend and them driving off.
It was linear, but disjoint.
I thought it was quietly claustrophobic.

Anyway....