SECTION 1 - THE CUT AS CINEMATIC LANGUAGE

Montage acts as the quintessential device in modern cinema. Before editing, the film exists in the tangible – sets and actors occupy real spaces, however once the film is taken to the editing room and the cuts are made, the continuity and the flow of time is created and thus the film takes on something new – an image of time (Deleuze). Deleuze discusses cinema as two distinct periods: classic cinema, and post-war cinema. Classical cinema’s structure generally consists of what Deleuze calls ‘movement-images’, where the narrative follows a clear, straightforward timeline of events. This changes to what are described as ‘time-images’, where time is shown directly. It is not straightforward time as seen in the former era, where movement played by the actor, object or camera movement within the single frame or shot shows a one-to-one rate of time to our own world but shows the passing of time directly through montage.

This idea was first introduced by Lev Kuleshov who is widely regarded as the first aesthetic theorist of cinema. Kuleshov was responsible revolutionary experiments leading to the foundations of film editing. Kuleshov argued that meaning or ‘impact’ in cinema comes from the system of montage, of ‘alternating shots’ and not simply what is shown directly in the frame. He writes:

“…the source of filmic impact upon the viewer lies within the system of alternating shots, which comprise the motion picture …the joining of shots into a predetermined order from which a film is made is technically called montage”

In his essay, the Art of Cinema, Kuleshov first formally describes his idea of the Kuleshov effect - the idea that through montage, an image’s meaning can change based on what precede and follow it. The same shot of a character may change its meaning based on whether the next shot features a corpse, a family or car come after it. Perhaps the viewer associates the family and the man with a loving father, or with a corpse a murderer, etc. In The Principles of Montage, Kuleshov describes his idea of creative geography – the principle of how multiple shots shot at different locations and/or times can be brought together in visual continuity. An actor may walk into a restaurant, which has just been previously shot outside, but the inside of the restaurant may be a different space from what was shot outside. The viewer creates this mental continuity– although in actuality the film has been shot in different times and/or spaces.

Later, Eisenstein builds upon Kuleshov’s idea of montage, in Film Form, who describes montage in terms of collision, writing “Montage is the collision of independent shots – shots even opposite to one another – that generate a new concept.”. Eisenstein describes how montage should be used as a means of translating the directors or editors’ ideas and concepts, therefore montage becomes an intellectual tool. Differing greatly from Kuleshov, Eisenstein believed that montage should act as a disruptive tool and should be visible to the viewer: “the juxtaposition of shots is not or the sake of continuity; but for the sake of creating tension, shock, and new understanding”. Eisenstein’s writing in the Film Sense is also concerned with how montage is more than intellectual phenomena – “it is perceived not only by the eye, but by the entire nervous system.” Montage is no longer an intellectual endeavour – Eisenstein explains it that we experience cinema as if it were ourselves, declaring “Cinema has the power to influence the consciousness of the masses”, perhaps one of his most controversial assumptions.

Eisenstein’s collision theory is grounded in its ability to conceptualise how montage can generate meaning, organise perception and produce ideological clarity. However, Eisenstein’s theory is dependent on the assumption that when images are collided in film, they are different to the culture’s average media ‘shock’. For Eisenstein’s montage theory to (still) work, they must retain their capacity to generate meaning when two shots are joined. Under contemporary hyperreality, where constant image saturation dominates (either through advertising, social media or entertainment) images no longer hold their power. In this scenario montage can no longer produce meaning and instead is a product of the default cultural condition.

Much later in American cinema, Walter Murch, the editor of Apocalypse Now and The Godfather trilogy, montage evolves. In Murch’s in the Blink of an Eye, Murch explains that film is the closest of all the arts to thought, and that the perfect film is cut so that ‘it reveals behind your eyes’. There is little in our lives that prepares for the total displacement with one field of vision with another that happens during a cut, except whilst blinking. Blinking (or cutting) allows our minds to separate our thoughts discontinuous as better to understand the external world. We do this since perceived reality would render as a “completely incomprehensible string of vision without separation” (Murch, 2001). In this way cinema and thought are very alike, we cut from one thing to another to create mental narrative. The cut is a familiar experience – it is thought manifest.

Even Tarkovsky, who argued that "rhythm, not editing, is the main formative element of cinema," could not escape the cut. Tarkovsky’s films often focuses on one very long, almost tiresome shots that emphasised texture, worldbuilding and slowness. While he claimed time exists within the shot itself, his films still rely on editing to structure experience - Stalker and Mirror would be radically different without their cuts.

Cinematic logic can explain how reality itself – or hyperreality – is structured. For now, it is enough to establish that the cut is not simply a part of cinematic logic or language, but a method for viewing reality itself. Realising that the cut (and montage) renders time and space discontinuous in cinema, this essay proposes that other fields of reality can share the same anatomy. To investigate this, the next chapter turns to the cut as a metaphor in describing temporal reality. Montage is not different from reality but instead mirrors it. This is why perhaps cinema has such meaningful impact on us; it reflects entirely the way our own lives are structured within time. This has implications in contemporary spaces- either historical, commercial, architectural and even digital.