International photographer (Jan-Dec 1934)

Two The INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER November, 1934 Monta By M. L. TAXDOX, Cawnpore, India We have great pleasure in printing this article by Mr. Tandon. He has worked in Hollywood. Unlike some other Indians, who just have a pleasure trip round, he hates personal publicity. He is very unassuming in his behavior and very sincere in talk. Of all the "foreign returned" Indians, he has impressed us as the most capable. — Editor of the Motion Picture Monthly, of Bombay, India. ^||URING the last few years the word Montage has caused more hewilderment than anything WA e'se since the days when Griffith introduced the close-ups. I shall try to explain as clearly and as simply as possible what is Montage. Montage is a French word meaning to mount or to assemble. It was first used by the Russians and is, in fact, the nerve of the Cinema. The commonest and the most mis-used definition of Montage is that it is quick cutting and building up on the mounting line of excitement. According to Pudovkin Montage is "the logic," the structural principle of film language — Film-grammar. According to Eisenstein, Montage is the mathematics of film-construction, the diabetical principles governing the dynamics of film-form — Film Dialectic. I have emphasized again and again that Montage does not mean and is not of necessity intrinsically identified with quick short-cut flashes of scenes pieced together in rapid succession. It is, rather, the forming principle that conditions and governs the final unity of the film "investing the whole structure of the picture with the logic of image association that the multiplicity of Montage-devices makes possible." But how does this work in parts and consequently in whole? Let us take an example. Dog -f Mouth = Bark. Heart -+ Dagger = Suicide. Mouth -\ Food = Eat. and so on. Here two independent shots placed in juxtaposition explode a new concept. Or to take another example : 1. A person looking at something. 2. A plate of food. 3. The same person holding his stomach. If these three shots are mounted together, they convey to us some meaning that the person ate the food and it did not agree with him. But these shots if taken isolated do not give us any meaning. This is Montage in its epic principle. But does it work this way in pictures? Only partially, because Montage of a film refers to its whole structure and not to parts only. The complete scenario has to be written with regard to the relation and interrelation of its parts. In other words, the whole stuff has to be reduced to a symphony, where everything runs in a logical order. Each shot has to fit perfectly into the scene, the scene into sequences, the sequences into episodes, creating a rhythmical unity. Why? Because image, shot and scene is only a word without a meaning. It conveys Please mention The International Photogra some meaning only by a series of shots preceding or following. Each sequence has thus a thought combination linked together in bigger sequences expressing ideas. How to put the shots together and where to emphasize by means of contrast, dissolves, cuts, suggestions, etc., is the task faced by the director. He may start the picture slowly and gradually work up to a bang, e.g., "Heir to Jengiz Khan," "Soil," etc. In a recent Soviet picture, "Shame," the action was gradually built up to such a stupefying climax that the whole screen seemed to shiver, so tremendous was the reaction of the machine being tested. The talkies have retarded the progress of Montage. It becomes impossible to cut in the middle of a dialogue. Moreover, no sooner the characters start their babel of dialogue the movement is stopped. Specially in our wonderful Indian pictures where songs take precedence over action. Moving camera is another drawback in Montage. Recently I have seen that our directors are very fond of using, rather mis-using, the dolly shots. They forget that no sooner they move the camera, they make us aware of its presence and the whole illusion is gone. No doubt, such a great director as Pabst uses it ; but in every one of his films down from the "Joyless Street" to the "Don Quixote," Pabst has never used the moving camera just for sheer pleasure or novelty. He has either used it on movement as in "Der Drei Groschenoeper" or only when it was necessary to bring out the mood of the scene as in "Kamaradschaft." Ekk has used Montage to a tremendous perfection in that brilliant film, "Road to Life." In one of the sequences he had to show the death of the hero. How did Ekk suggest it ? He showed the hero being attacked by his enemy in the dusk. He inter-cut a flash of a knife and cut back to the fighting scene. Here he added a groaning sound to the scene and faded out. We were in suspense and were never to know who of the two has been killed. In the next fade-in Ekk showed a groat of the hero's friend waiting for him to start the locomotive. They wait and wait. Suspense. Finally they themselves drive the locomotive and discover the body of the hero lying on the railroad. They pick him up and place it on the cow-catcher and the locomotive speeds on. Ekk's camera now shoots down on the body. On the other side are the friends and workers waiting for the arrival of the first locomotive in that region. The band is playing and they are rejoicing. Then the locomotive is seen and the band plays faster and louder. As the locomotive draws closer, throwing that sad escaping steam which makes a suppressed sad tone, all of them stop. Slowly they take their hats off one by one. They don't cry or go in hysterics. They solemnly watch the approaching locomotive, and the locomotive does all the sorrowing through its steam. I have written this at length because I believe that the indirect method of suggestion is the most effective in Cinema. The effect of this over-possessing film cannot be felt in describing. It has to be seen. This was Montage in its advanced form. Of course, there are many kinds of Montage. Timo pher when corresponding with advertisers.