We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
exactly the kind of affectionately ironic overtone which characterises the whole of the film.
The unity between the two actions is further emphasised by smoothing over all the transitions between them. This is done either through the verbal links we have already mentioned or by making an actual sound carry over the cut : (see the laughter over 5-6, the sound of explosion over 9-10). In this way the two scenes are knit together so closely as to come over to the spectator as a complex but homogeneous continuity. In contrast with the Eisenstein approach to editing, the cuts do not so much make points themselves ; they switch the argument about and keep it going at different levels.
Clearly, the continuity of Diary for Timothy exemplifies an entirely different approach to the film of ideas from that employed in Song of Ceylon. The effects are not achieved by the collision of shot with shot, but through a deliberately smooth continuity. The sound is not physically independent of the picture. It is, instead, in each case the sound of the scene being played on the screen and the effect is achieved by inter-cutting the scenes themselves. But this is not a completely representative instance of Jennings' usual technique, for, in addition to actual sounds, Jennings employed a commentary in most of his films. Family Portrait, for instance, his last film, which is a personal essay on the genius of the British people, has a commentary throughout. Here Jennings is dealing with highly complex ideas which it would have been impossible to convey in pictures alone. His commentary does not so much describe what is happening on the screen, as speculate on the significance and ramifications of the images. It leads, in a sense, just as much a life of its own as does Wright's sound-track, but it does so in words. Unexpected visual associations— for which Jennings had a particular talent — which would be all but meaningless without comment are given point by a hint from the commentator. The words and images interweave, now the one, now the other becoming the dominant.
What Jennings seems to have realised was that, to express ideas of a certain complexity, it is not possible to rely on pictures alone. If an idea is to be raised, then it must be done in the first instance in words. He seems to have been well aware of Eisenstein's " fanciful montage structures arousing the fearsome eventuality of meaninglessness," and therefore guided his audience by using an economical and highly suggestive commentary. The point really is that Jennings' commentaries are always suggestive, never
162