Dear Mike,
your comments are helpful -- strictly speaking I think you are right
that an intellectual montage as eisenstein conceived it was a situation
where a perceptual synthesis in terms of spatio-temporal continuity
could not resolve the "dialectic" of conflicting images and so the mind
is forced to effect the synthesis at an "intellectual" level. On the
other hand, I'm not sure it hurts to apply the concept of intellectual
montage to cases where a spatiotemporal synthesis "can" make sense but
falls short of explaining why the director/editor chose to juxtapose
just those elements of the situation, as in the Godfather scene --
where strictly speaking there is no guarantee and it is not even likely
that the murders took place exactly as Michael Corleone renounces the
works of Satan. There is something slightly implausible about the
implied timeline, but it doesn't feel jarring only because of the
suggestive and direct comparison between the Church and the mafia
(which supplies an additional motivation to the cut). Of course such
comparisons are made elsewhere in the film, but here is a case where
they feel "forced" or direct and implied in the cut itself rather than
as part of an overall narrative strategy that requires interpretation
and reflection. I think Dan's example may be even more helpful here:
the slaughter of a steer and then the slaughter of Brando/Kurtz.
Strictly speaking, one is not "forced" to draw a comparison here
because (unlike in Strike) there is a possible interpretation in terms
of spatiotemporal continuity: there is a kind of festival going on and
they are slaughtering the animal in order to eat it or sacrifice it,
and maybe these events just happen to coincide -- still I think the
spatiotemporal interpretation of a coincidence of events
underdetermines the motivation for the cut, and I think in such cases
the search for additional motivations becomes "forced" upon us. (I
would be tempted to go so far as to say that the motivation for almost
any cut is underdetermined by spatiotemporal continuity considerations
such that we are always "forced" as it were to be open to additional
motivations -- in that sense every frame is truly organic. Perhaps,
along these lines, the jump cut -- whether or not it originated in
economic exigencies -- is a cut motivated by a desire to suggest that
not every cut is motivated or that every cut is undermotivated.)
Just thinking out loud. I like this Sergei fellow (in part because he
didn't get too technical and remained fairly suggestive).
best,
Nathan Andersen
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:19:11 -0500
> From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 21 Feb 2006 - Special issue
> (#2006-60)
>
> This is a multipart message in MIME format.
> --=_alternative 0059C5918525711C_=
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> dear nathan--
>
> as your examples make abundantly clear, at least to me, even eisenstein
> himself probably was not entirely sure what he meant by intellectual
> montage -- but i take it that one of the foundations of this sort of
> editing
> was a violation of continuity, especially spatial continuity
>
> i take it that the key here can be found in your phrase
>
> there are no cues to suggest that the workers are being
> attacked near a slaughterhouse so the mind makes a kind of direct
> comparison;
>
> and that it is in the idea that there are "no cues" to allow the
> viewer to
>
> construct a coherent dramatic space that makes the cut an example of
> intellectual montage . . . in the godfather instance it is very easy
> indeed
> to read the whole thing as a simple instance of parallel montage, and
> thus the conceptual level does NOT develop directly from the perceptual
> level -- as you rightly suggest it should -- but develops rather from a
> hermeneutic impulse imposed upon an already absolutely coherent editing
> strategy
>
> that is, as you suggest, for eisenstein [as i read him] the essential
> conceptual
> move occurs because the perceptual level itself fails to accommodate
> the
> information provided by the cut, and the mind then IS FORCED to make
> another move in understanding . . . but if the perceptual level is
> "readable"
> within the protocols of continuity, then a different kind of
> interpretive
> move
> is required to get to the conceptual
>
> am i making sense??
>
> mike
> --
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
> --=_alternative 0059C5918525711C_=
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">dear nathan--</font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">as your examples make abundantly
> clear,
> at least to me, even eisenstein</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">himself probably was not entirely
> sure
> what he meant by intellectual</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">montage -- but i take it that one of
> the foundations of this sort of editing</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">was a violation of continuity,
> especially
> spatial continuity</font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">i take it that the key here can be
> found
> in your phrase</font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2><tt>there are no cues to suggest that the workers are
> being<br>
> attacked near a slaughterhouse so the mind makes a kind of direct
> comparison;</tt></font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">and that it is in the idea that
> there
> are "no cues" to allow the viewer to </font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">construct a coherent dramatic space
> that makes the cut an example of</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">intellectual montage . . . in the
> godfather
> instance it is very easy indeed</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">to read the whole thing as a simple
> instance of parallel montage, and</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">thus the conceptual level does NOT
> develop
> directly from the perceptual</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">level -- as you rightly suggest it
> should
> -- but develops rather from a</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">hermeneutic impulse imposed upon an
> already absolutely coherent editing</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">strategy</font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">that is, as you suggest, for
> eisenstein
> [as i read him] the essential conceptual</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">move occurs because the perceptual
> level
> itself fails to accommodate the</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">information provided by the cut, and
> the mind then IS FORCED to make</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">another move in understanding . . .
> but if the perceptual level is "readable"</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">within the protocols of continuity,
> then a different kind of interpretive move</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">is required to get to the
> conceptual</font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">am i making sense??</font>
> <br>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">mike</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">-- </font>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
> --=_alternative 0059C5918525711C_=--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:51:42 -0000
> From: Sutton - Damian Peter <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
> Woah there!
> I'm not sure what textbook this definition of jump cut comes from, but
> =
> it bears no resemblance at all to anything I have understood from =
> reading about the development of the jump cut.
> I was under the impression that the jump cut was simply an irrational =
> edit between shots (or even the same shot) where otherwise a sense of =
> continuity might be expected to pertain. The most famous early
> examples =
> are in Godard's A Bout de souffle. The material determinant to this is
> =
> far more practical and less political or poetic than one might expect.
> =
> Godard, filming on a budget, used bulk rolls of B&W photographic still
> =
> film (Ilford FP3 I believe) spliced together - the characteristic
> black =
> ends one gets from this process meant that shots would be truncated or
> =
> interrupted by an overexposed black film leader. The best example of =
> this is in the shot of Belmondo going to see his fence, in which the =
> camera follows him in and around the bank, and back out towards the =
> door. Rather than complete the shot with the police coming in, as they
> =
> enter the frame there is a jump cut to the policemen having entered
> the =
> bank (essentially the same shot but with the splice missing).=20
> =20
> It has nothing to do with rules of continuity except in how those
> rules =
> are applied after the jump cut became popular.
> =20
> I think.
> best
> Damian
> =20
> =20
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon on behalf of Henry Taylor
> Sent: Tue 21/02/2006 15:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
>
> Technically speaking, a jump cut is a violation of the 30-degree (or =
> 30-per-cent) rule which in classical Hollywood states that the =
> difference between two consecutive shots must be at least 30 degrees
> in =
> angle, or, more appropriately, 30 per cent in terms of image content
> (in =
> the literal sense of content). Otherwise the edit might seem
> accidental =
> rather than purposeful. Crossing the line - violating the 180-degree =
> rule - would be called just that, rather than jump cut. Mike is =
> absolutely right IMHO in calling the 2001 shot a graphic match; James =
> Monaco (How to Read a Film) calls it a "transcendental match cut." The
> =
> Tornatore example would be not so uncommon something like elliptical =
> contrast match, or maybe just elliptical match.
>
> Time to get out those textbooks on film analysis again...
>
> Henry
>
>
>
>
> i'm not advocating a frame of reference for JUMP CUT . . . as i =
> suggested, it's come=20
> to be used whenever a radical juxtaposition -- in image and/or
> meaning =
> -- is=20
> created by the editing . . . and this no doubt is the source for the =
> appropriation=20
> of that term as the name of a cutting edge [pun intended] journal=20
> =09
> but -- technically and strictly -- a jump cut is nothing more than a =
> violation of=20
> the "rules" of continuity editing which is startling to the audience,
> =
> not in terms=20
> of meaning or significance, but MERELY IN TERMS OF HOW TO
> UNDERSTAND=20
> THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP OF TWO SHOTS REPRESENTING THE SAME=20
> DIEGETIC SPACE . . . thus a violation of the 180 degree rule that =
> leads an=20
> audience to lose track of where one character is in spatial =
> relationship to=20
> another is a jump cut . . .=20
> =09
> you can create your own jump cut easily enough . . . . take any =
> absolutely=20
> conventional shot from any absolutely conventional movie . . . then, =
> within=20
> that shot, cut out one second, and view the shot again . . . the
> point =
> at which=20
> one second of screen time is missing will almost always be a jump
> cut=20
> =09
> . . . note that in this usage a jump cut is simply a syntactical =
> solecism, not=20
> a unit of meaning=20
> =09
> mike=20
> =09
> .... * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting
> 'reply' =
> please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To =
> leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: =
> [log in to unmask] For help email: =
> [log in to unmask], not the salon. **=20
> =09
>
>
> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply'
> please =
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, =
> send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> For =
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:04:25 -0500
> From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
> This is a multipart message in MIME format.
> --=_alternative 005DE9CA8525711C_=
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> to me, at least, damian's post is VERY puzzling . . . that is, i think
> i
> agree with virtually all he says, but am startled by the claim that
> it has nothing to do with continuity editing, since it seems to me
> that what he has just described is precisely a violation of continuity
> editing . . . what else possible could he mean when he calls a jump
> cut
> " an irrational edit between shots (or even the same shot) where
> otherwise a sense of continuity might be expected" . . . .???
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
> --=_alternative 005DE9CA8525711C_=
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">to me, at least, damian's post is
> VERY
> puzzling . . . that is, i think i</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">agree with virtually all he says,
> but
> am startled by the claim that</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">it has nothing to do with continuity
> editing, since it seems to me</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">that what he has just described is
> precisely
> a violation of continuity</font>
> <br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">editing . . . what else
> possible could he mean when he calls a jump cut</font>
> <br><font size=2><tt>" an irrational edit between shots (or even
> the
> same shot) where </tt></font>
> <br><font size=2><tt>otherwise a sense of continuity might be
> expected"
> </tt></font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> . . . .???</font>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
> --=_alternative 005DE9CA8525711C_=--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:15:21 -0000
> From: Sutton - Damian Peter <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
> Yes, sorry, maybe I should clarify.
> =20
> I think the jump cut *is* a violation of continuity editing. However =
> that is not the same thing as saying that 'jump cuts' were originally =
> *intended* as disruptions to a practice of continuity, and certainly
> not =
> an open disavowal of the continuity system. I was under the impression
> =
> that the term 'jump cut' has a fairly precise meaning developed from =
> criticism and writing surrounding la nouvelle vague, writings which
> are =
> not entirely in agreement about its practical origins. The
> intellectual =
> origins of the jump cut in la nouvelle vague are contested, but I find
> =
> the serendipity story much more satisfying as a foundation of
> filmmaking =
> practice that led to something that could later be used for
> intellectual =
> effect. Also, my example of the jump cut was not a violation of =
> continuity editing, in the sense that it is the one shot with a big =
> whole in it. So I'm arguing that jump cuts *can* be a violation of =
> continuity, but that does not mean that the jump cut is a violation of
> =
> continuity editing and only that.=20
> =20
> best
> Damian
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon on behalf of Mike Frank
> Sent: Tue 21/02/2006 17:04
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
>
>
> to me, at least, damian's post is VERY puzzling . . . that is, i think
> i =
>
> agree with virtually all he says, but am startled by the claim that=20
> it has nothing to do with continuity editing, since it seems to me=20
> that what he has just described is precisely a violation of
> continuity=20
> editing . . . what else possible could he mean when he calls a jump =
> cut=20
> " an irrational edit between shots (or even the same shot) where=20
> otherwise a sense of continuity might be expected" . . . .??? * * =
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please =
> always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, =
> send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> For =
> help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:30:48 -0500
> From: "Shaw, Dan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema
>
> Let's consider another archetypal example of intellectual montage, at =
> the end of Apocalypse Now. We cut back and forth from the steer being
> =
> beheaded to Brando being killed by Martin Sheen. The point is that
> Col. =
> Kurtz is a sacrificial animal to the American war machine. A + B =3D
> C =
> According to Coppola, It is also an homage to the cattle at the =
> abbatoir sequence from Strike mentioned previously.
> =20
> Intellectual montage is actually a rather heavy handed technique...why
> =
> do I like it so much then?
> =20
> "For beauty is the beginning of terror we are still able to bear, and =
> why we love it so is because it so serenely disdains to destroy us" =
> Rilke's First Duino Elegy
> =20
> Daniel Shaw
> Professor of Philosophy and Film
> Lock Haven University
> Managing Editor, Film and Philosophy
> website: www.lhup.edu/dshaw
> =20
>
> =20
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:36:36 +0100
> From: Henry Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
> You're jumping the gun, Damian (no pun intended). Whether intentional
> or not
> seems to be beside the point. I still don't see where what you're
> saying
> differs from my mainly technichical-aesthetic explanation of the
> phenomenon.
> Sure the (political etc.) theory of the jump cut came after the fact.
> And
> so?
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> on 21.2.2006 18:15 Uhr, Sutton - Damian Peter at [log in to unmask]
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, sorry, maybe I should clarify.
>>
>> I think the jump cut *is* a violation of continuity editing. However
>> that is
>> not the same thing as saying that 'jump cuts' were originally
>> *intended* as
>> disruptions to a practice of continuity, and certainly not an open
>> disavowal
>> of the continuity system. I was under the impression that the term
>> 'jump cut'
>> has a fairly precise meaning developed from criticism and writing
>> surrounding
>> la nouvelle vague, writings which are not entirely in agreement about
>> its
>> practical origins. The intellectual origins of the jump cut in la
>> nouvelle
>> vague are contested, but I find the serendipity story much more
>> satisfying as
>> a foundation of filmmaking practice that led to something that could
>> later be
>> used for intellectual effect. Also, my example of the jump cut was
>> not a
>> violation of continuity editing, in the sense that it is the one shot
>> with a
>> big whole in it. So I'm arguing that jump cuts *can* be a violation of
>> continuity, but that does not mean that the jump cut is a violation of
>> continuity editing and only that.
>>
>> best
>> Damian
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Film-Philosophy Salon on behalf of Mike Frank
>> Sent: Tue 21/02/2006 17:04
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>>
>>
>>
>> to me, at least, damian's post is VERY puzzling . . . that is, i
>> think i
>> agree with virtually all he says, but am startled by the claim that
>> it has nothing to do with continuity editing, since it seems to me
>> that what he has just described is precisely a violation of continuity
>> editing . . . what else possible could he mean when he calls a jump
>> cut
>> " an irrational edit between shots (or even the same shot) where
>> otherwise a sense of continuity might be expected" . . . .??? * *
>> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
>> always
>> delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the
>> message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help
>> email:
>> [log in to unmask], not the salon. **
>>
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>> you are
>> replying to.
>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
>> [log in to unmask]
>> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
>> **
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:45:32 -0500
> From: Mike Frank <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Intellectual Montage in Modern Cinema[Scanned]
>
> damian writes:
>
>> that is not the same thing as saying that 'jump cuts' were originally
>> *intended* as disruptions to a practice of continuity, and certainly
>> not an open disavowal of the continuity system
>
> demonstrating yet again that s the thread gets more serpentine we
> can easily lose sight of where the head is and where the tail is
>
> my point, for better or worse, was to distinguish the jump cut
> from intellectual montage, and to point out that the former is
> --as i said -- merely a syntactical solecism, while the latter was
> at least in part intended as a disruption of continuity if not
> a disavowal of it
>
> the head of this particular serpent was the issue of intellectual
> montage
> ,
> and it is that that i was trying to address
>
> mike
>
> ==
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
> are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 21 Feb 2006 (#2006-61)
> ******************************************************
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|
