sarah drummondThe disintegration of montage theory
August 12th 2007 08:02
Have you heard the saying “I could care less”? Does that seem strange to you? A friend of mine – a linguist – tells me that language (especially English) is very fluid. It changes through time as is necessary for its use. So the saying “I could not care less” has become shorter (lazier) and although literally says the opposite, means the same thing.
Film language is developing too. I use to struggle with people throwing around the term “montage”, but I’m slowly coming to accept that the theory may have developed over time. Eisenstein developed his theory of film montage early last century, directly concerned with editing of juxtaposing images to create new meanings. In contrast, today the term ‘montage’ is used to describe almost any quickly-edited sequence.
“Montage” is a catchy tune from ‘Team America: World Police’ that describes exactly how montages are viewed today. When it comes to quickly detailing the improvement of a character and “show [us] a passage of time, we’re gonna need a montage!” As far as your average viewer is concerned, that’s exactly the definition. Quickly edited – usually to music – passage of time to develop the plot in a time-efficient way.
I am by no means a film theory purist. I accept that everyone who watches movies consider themselves to be as much of a media expert as someone with a doctorate in cinema studies. Because of this, I can’t quite put my finger on what riles me up so much about the use of the term ‘montage’. I think it must be the fact that I have a fair amount of respect for what Eisenstein did for film. His theories and practises influenced cinema in ways still evident today. His montage theory explored uses of semiotics, visual metaphor and editing that helped evolve 1920’s experimental film into the cinema we know today.
Although I probably could continue to cling to the old definition of montage. I could keep quietly telling myself that the masses of amateur film theorists (that vocalise their expertise in public forums at the top of their lungs for everyone to hear) don’t know what they’re talking about. The fact is: the definition has changed over time, the word ‘montage’ will mean whatever the majority wants it to mean. Sadly, what the word meant originally has no bearing over its use now. I will just have to accept that.
Film language is developing too. I use to struggle with people throwing around the term “montage”, but I’m slowly coming to accept that the theory may have developed over time. Eisenstein developed his theory of film montage early last century, directly concerned with editing of juxtaposing images to create new meanings. In contrast, today the term ‘montage’ is used to describe almost any quickly-edited sequence.
“Montage” is a catchy tune from ‘Team America: World Police’ that describes exactly how montages are viewed today. When it comes to quickly detailing the improvement of a character and “show [us] a passage of time, we’re gonna need a montage!” As far as your average viewer is concerned, that’s exactly the definition. Quickly edited – usually to music – passage of time to develop the plot in a time-efficient way.
I am by no means a film theory purist. I accept that everyone who watches movies consider themselves to be as much of a media expert as someone with a doctorate in cinema studies. Because of this, I can’t quite put my finger on what riles me up so much about the use of the term ‘montage’. I think it must be the fact that I have a fair amount of respect for what Eisenstein did for film. His theories and practises influenced cinema in ways still evident today. His montage theory explored uses of semiotics, visual metaphor and editing that helped evolve 1920’s experimental film into the cinema we know today.
Although I probably could continue to cling to the old definition of montage. I could keep quietly telling myself that the masses of amateur film theorists (that vocalise their expertise in public forums at the top of their lungs for everyone to hear) don’t know what they’re talking about. The fact is: the definition has changed over time, the word ‘montage’ will mean whatever the majority wants it to mean. Sadly, what the word meant originally has no bearing over its use now. I will just have to accept that.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Great post Film theorist, i look forward to reading your work.
Comment by Dustin
Last note: I was watching the special features of 'Crank' when I saw it (terrible film) and the directors talked about their quickly cut, sequential, action sequences as montages...just a quick example I saw recently of what you are talking about. How can guys like them get out of film school and not understand Eisenstein or mantage theory? (Maybe I'm wrong and they do....)
Comment by Dustin
-dustin