according to the script. Each shot, together with the accompanying soundtrack, contains narrative and graphic information that predetermines key editing decisions such as the length and order of the shots. This view of editing emphasizes the director’s and the writer’s roles in shaping the storytelling logic that provides the basis for any decision the editor
makes. Storytelling logic refers to the structure of the shots, sequences, and scenes. Structure controls the order in which the story information is given to the viewer. It is important to the storytelling process as the actual information being presented.
Sergei Eisenstein’s and Vsevold Pudovkin’s Montage
Film embody, communicate, enforce, and suggest meanings, film theorist often suggested that film constitutes a language, a “visual Esperanto.” They have spoken of film’s grammar, its vocabulary, and even its jargon. They have spoken of film’s grammar, its vocabulary, and even its jargon. The idea to consider is, in what sense is film a language and how did the theorist wrest with its language and convey its meaning. They thought about it in terms of its suggestive metaphorical language and subjected it to systematic scientific analysis. By what procedures does film generate meaning?
Those who consider the film to be a language often rely on the analogy between the word and the shot. Stinging words together doesn’t produce an intelligible discourse, and most theorists agree that stringing separate photographic shots together will not produce intelligible visual works of art. Both Eisenstein and Pudovkin asked what more can film can do beyond the ability to photograph reality. They were asking how to expand film language beyond the analogy between the word and the shot. Their answer was the montage. The art of combining pieces of film or shots into larger units —- first, the scene, then the sequence, and finally the complete film.
The soviet directors took examples of D.W. Griffith, the great American director of Birth of a Nation and Intolerance discovered the montage and fluid integration of the camera’s total range of shots, from extreme close-ups to distant panorama, in order to produce the most coherent narrative sequence, the most systematic meaning, and then most effective rhythmic pattern.
Eisenstein viewed montage as a collision or conflict between shots and its successor. His view was that each shot held potential energy that can be displayed itself in purely visual terms. The visuals included the direction of movements, the volume of its shapes, the intensity of its light, etc. He drew upon the principles of physics, as the potential energy became kinetic when the first shot collided with the succeeding ones. Two shots can produce a conflict in their emotional content (happy versus sad), in their use of illumination (dark versus light), in the rhythms (slow versus fast), in the objects (large versus small), in their directions of movement (right versus left), in their distance (close-up versus far shot), or in combination. In his films, this conflict produced the tense, violent rhythms that became an Eisenstein trademark. The conflict within Eisenstein’s films he took as an expression, in the realm of images, of the Marxist dialectical principle. Eisenstein maintained that just as meaning of a sentence arises from the interaction of its individual words, cinematic meaning is the result of the dialectical