Pearlman, K. 2012. Cutting rhythms: shaping the film edit. CRC Press (pp.153-180)
5 thoughts on “Pearlman, K. 2012. Cutting rhythms: shaping the film edit. CRC Press (pp.153-180)”
In the chapter of “Style”, the author mainly discusses the distinction between montage and decoupage, collision and linkage. Montage means to form an “impression, an idea or effect” out of seemingly unrelated images and sound, so that the order of time and space can be built. Decoupage means to cut up in order to piece up together so that impression can be created and rhythm can be established accordingly. The author also points out that the “temporal ellipsis” is something between montage and decoupage. Collision is a concept suggested by Eisenstein, whom believed that the process of film editing should be more dialectical so that a brand new idea can be created through the conflict of shots. On top of that, Eisenstein’s view on montage is that montage is made out of collisions of individual shots and thus sense is created. Collision is all about difference and a process different from merely connecting shots, but to ultimately creating meanings and shaping ideas. Linkage manifests a style through the technique of continuity cutting. Linkage gives sense to the story-telling process of the film and gives the audience a better clue of what is going on with the story. Therefore, when sometimes the film is cut quickly, the audience can experience much of a collision before they are able to make sense a sort of linkage in the cut shots in between. In all, style is something that is situated between montage and decoupage, that creates collision or linkage in different degrees.
This chapter outlines the different concepts and functions of montage in different time and feature films. Originally montage is a French word of assemblage of things. In film making especially to English-speaking editor, it is a particular way of editing considered from technical and creative ways. Technically, it is the way of assembling pieces into a whole in editing. Creatively, it is a mash up of unrelated images, sounds in time and space that express and create impressions, ideas, effects, rhythms and experience as a whole. When it is applied to a film, there are two kinds, narration and non-narration. In the non-narration film, it is like what is written above, audience makes connections between unrelated images and sounds to reach an understanding of the entire composition of the film. In a narration film, the use of montage usually presents psychological and mental state of character that is unconscious and outside of ordinary time and space. The sense of montage is widely applied into advertisement and music videos. The rhythm in montage allows audience to surmise a message by making association.
Decoupage is the cutting up of things that could have unfolded in a single continuous time and space with the intension of putting back together. One editing choice of choosing some point between montage and decoupage on the spectrum is called temporal ellipsis-cutting our bits of time.
Temporal ellipsis is analyzed through few film examples. Casablance (Michael Curtiz, 1942), somewhere between montage and decoupage, ‘to make the sequence a somewhat discontinuous association of images and to make it also refer strongly to a continuous unfolding of time and space is a style choice’.
This chapter provides the basic concept of montage as a way of editing. It also explains that how it works differently in films and what it can do to audience. Another editing concept, decoupage is also well introduced. The connection between montage and decoupage is introduced as temporal ellipsis. Three different film examples are established to discuss temporal ellipsis as well. These examples investigate how montage and decoupage can work differently and together to make a stylistic choice of editing, to manipulate time and space in a creative way.
The findings in this chapter are useful for my research of montage as a way of editing. The concept, the way it works and the effects it brings on audience, different perspective of montage and the connection between itself and other editing approach are all addressed in this chapter. To sum up it is very useful and supportive for my research.
The variety of examples used in this reading were very useful at explaining some elusive concepts. One concept which was put really nicely was the correlation of shot-reverse shot and parallel action as akin to one another, in the sense that even a shot-reverse shot conversation in one place portrays parallel action.
In relation to my review, Pearlman appears to argue that there is a particular feminine, and therefore an opposing masculine, editing style. She makes no attempt to explain if this is heightened by the gender of the editor, suggesting that it perhaps has more to do with genre and audience expectations.
The author mainly illuminates the editing style from the four different aspects, which are
montage, decoupage and collision, linkage. In this article, the Montage refers different meaning
compare with the French one. It concludes the whole of editing operations. In other word, it makes images and sounds in unrelated time and space to create an effect, an idea, an impression. Also, the audience is able to get different message through their own experiences. On the contrary, the decoupage is different with the usage of montage, it is the cutting up of things that could have unfolded in a single continuous time and space. The theory of Collins mentioned by Eisenstein. He was inspired by associationism, so he believed that the conflict of two shots might create new idea depending on people’s imagination ability. However, Pudovkin mentioned the linkage theory. With linkage, editor prefers to edit shots in a smooth way.
In this chapter, Pearlman defines ‘editing style’ as a series of choices that sit between two spectrums; the first spectrum being montage and decoupage, and the second being collision and linkage. He highlights the fact that whilst montage and collision are generally considered to go hand in hand, this is not necessarily the case, and the same goes with decoupage and linkage. There are multiple case studies that Pearlman uses to highlight how these two spectrums work together to allow an editor to control a sequence’s time, space and energy.
Pearlman evaluates both spectrums individually, providing a detailed analysis of montage, decoupage, collision as both individual constructs and as a collective. The case studies demonstrate how the the two spectrums can work together to achieve completely unique outcomes, utilising editing techniques such as dissolves and ellipses to create different meanings in time, energy and space. Pearlman further explains that the relationship between elements such as lighting, camera angles and camera movement help create different rhythms in certain sequences.
This chapter is particularly useful because it explains how these different concepts can work together to shape how the time, energy and movement of a film are perceived by the audience. In regards to montage, the source’s deconstruction of the concept of montage in terms of the disruption of time was particularly useful; an interesting concept that does not exist in the long take, which is represented in real time.
In the chapter of “Style”, the author mainly discusses the distinction between montage and decoupage, collision and linkage. Montage means to form an “impression, an idea or effect” out of seemingly unrelated images and sound, so that the order of time and space can be built. Decoupage means to cut up in order to piece up together so that impression can be created and rhythm can be established accordingly. The author also points out that the “temporal ellipsis” is something between montage and decoupage. Collision is a concept suggested by Eisenstein, whom believed that the process of film editing should be more dialectical so that a brand new idea can be created through the conflict of shots. On top of that, Eisenstein’s view on montage is that montage is made out of collisions of individual shots and thus sense is created. Collision is all about difference and a process different from merely connecting shots, but to ultimately creating meanings and shaping ideas. Linkage manifests a style through the technique of continuity cutting. Linkage gives sense to the story-telling process of the film and gives the audience a better clue of what is going on with the story. Therefore, when sometimes the film is cut quickly, the audience can experience much of a collision before they are able to make sense a sort of linkage in the cut shots in between. In all, style is something that is situated between montage and decoupage, that creates collision or linkage in different degrees.
This chapter outlines the different concepts and functions of montage in different time and feature films. Originally montage is a French word of assemblage of things. In film making especially to English-speaking editor, it is a particular way of editing considered from technical and creative ways. Technically, it is the way of assembling pieces into a whole in editing. Creatively, it is a mash up of unrelated images, sounds in time and space that express and create impressions, ideas, effects, rhythms and experience as a whole. When it is applied to a film, there are two kinds, narration and non-narration. In the non-narration film, it is like what is written above, audience makes connections between unrelated images and sounds to reach an understanding of the entire composition of the film. In a narration film, the use of montage usually presents psychological and mental state of character that is unconscious and outside of ordinary time and space. The sense of montage is widely applied into advertisement and music videos. The rhythm in montage allows audience to surmise a message by making association.
Decoupage is the cutting up of things that could have unfolded in a single continuous time and space with the intension of putting back together. One editing choice of choosing some point between montage and decoupage on the spectrum is called temporal ellipsis-cutting our bits of time.
Temporal ellipsis is analyzed through few film examples. Casablance (Michael Curtiz, 1942), somewhere between montage and decoupage, ‘to make the sequence a somewhat discontinuous association of images and to make it also refer strongly to a continuous unfolding of time and space is a style choice’.
This chapter provides the basic concept of montage as a way of editing. It also explains that how it works differently in films and what it can do to audience. Another editing concept, decoupage is also well introduced. The connection between montage and decoupage is introduced as temporal ellipsis. Three different film examples are established to discuss temporal ellipsis as well. These examples investigate how montage and decoupage can work differently and together to make a stylistic choice of editing, to manipulate time and space in a creative way.
The findings in this chapter are useful for my research of montage as a way of editing. The concept, the way it works and the effects it brings on audience, different perspective of montage and the connection between itself and other editing approach are all addressed in this chapter. To sum up it is very useful and supportive for my research.
The variety of examples used in this reading were very useful at explaining some elusive concepts. One concept which was put really nicely was the correlation of shot-reverse shot and parallel action as akin to one another, in the sense that even a shot-reverse shot conversation in one place portrays parallel action.
In relation to my review, Pearlman appears to argue that there is a particular feminine, and therefore an opposing masculine, editing style. She makes no attempt to explain if this is heightened by the gender of the editor, suggesting that it perhaps has more to do with genre and audience expectations.
The author mainly illuminates the editing style from the four different aspects, which are
montage, decoupage and collision, linkage. In this article, the Montage refers different meaning
compare with the French one. It concludes the whole of editing operations. In other word, it makes images and sounds in unrelated time and space to create an effect, an idea, an impression. Also, the audience is able to get different message through their own experiences. On the contrary, the decoupage is different with the usage of montage, it is the cutting up of things that could have unfolded in a single continuous time and space. The theory of Collins mentioned by Eisenstein. He was inspired by associationism, so he believed that the conflict of two shots might create new idea depending on people’s imagination ability. However, Pudovkin mentioned the linkage theory. With linkage, editor prefers to edit shots in a smooth way.
In this chapter, Pearlman defines ‘editing style’ as a series of choices that sit between two spectrums; the first spectrum being montage and decoupage, and the second being collision and linkage. He highlights the fact that whilst montage and collision are generally considered to go hand in hand, this is not necessarily the case, and the same goes with decoupage and linkage. There are multiple case studies that Pearlman uses to highlight how these two spectrums work together to allow an editor to control a sequence’s time, space and energy.
Pearlman evaluates both spectrums individually, providing a detailed analysis of montage, decoupage, collision as both individual constructs and as a collective. The case studies demonstrate how the the two spectrums can work together to achieve completely unique outcomes, utilising editing techniques such as dissolves and ellipses to create different meanings in time, energy and space. Pearlman further explains that the relationship between elements such as lighting, camera angles and camera movement help create different rhythms in certain sequences.
This chapter is particularly useful because it explains how these different concepts can work together to shape how the time, energy and movement of a film are perceived by the audience. In regards to montage, the source’s deconstruction of the concept of montage in terms of the disruption of time was particularly useful; an interesting concept that does not exist in the long take, which is represented in real time.