Introduction to Montage

Montage

It means cutting together or assembling, it is based on the principal that is the sum of parts is a whole.

The original meaning is only the first part of the visual statement, according to montage theory. It's open and -- incomplete. What is missing in the static world of images? You! What montage does -- the thought (action) in evolution with the next shot "throws the meaning" on the previous shot! (In primitive terms we call it a reaction shot). The second shot in its turn is incomplete also -- it asks for another shot! That's how we crave for continuity and can't take our eyes away from the screen! Well, montage theory doesn't look so simple anymore.

The great formula of montage:
1 + 1 > 2

(Following the logic of dialects (thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis), the sum of two parts is bigger, if they are connected.

Soviet montage theory is an approach to understanding and creating cinema that relies heavily upon editing (montage is French for "putting together"). Although Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s disagreed about how exactly to view montage, Sergei Eisenstein marked a note of accord in "A Dialectic Approach to Film Form" when he noted that montage is "the nerve of cinema," and that "to determine the nature of montage is to solve the specific problem of cinema."

While several Soviet filmmakers, such as Lev Kuleshov, Dziga Vertov, and Vsevolod Pudovkin put forth explanations of what constitutes the montage effect, Eisenstein's view that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not next to the other, but on top of the other" has become most widely accepted.

In formal terms, this style of editing offers discontinuity in graphic qualities, violations of the 180 degree rule, and the creation of impossible spatial matches. It is not concerned with the depiction of a comprehensible spatial or temporal continuity as is found in the classical Hollywood continuity system. It draws attention to temporal ellipses because changes between shots are obvious, less fluid, and non-seamless.

Eisenstein’s montage theories are based on the idea that montage originates in the "collision" between different shots in an illustration of the idea of thesis and antithesis. This basis allowed him to argue that montage is inherently dialectical, thus it should be considered a demonstration of Marxism and Hegelian philosophy. His collisions of shots were based on conflicts of scale, volume, rhythm, motion (speed, as well as direction of movement within the frame), as well as more conceptual values such as class.

Types of Montages

Analytical and Idea - Associative Montages are two major types of montages; the third is primarily concerned with the rhythm rather than juxtapositions. In Analytical Montage, an event is analyzed for its theme and construction. Essential shots are selected and these are synthesized into a precise series of shots that make up a intense event on screen.

• Analytical Montage: a). Sequential Analytical Montage, b). Sectional Analytical Montage.
• Idea Associative: a). Comparison Montage, b). Collision Montage.
• Metric Montage

In Montage an event is condensed into key developmental elements and put in a cause effect sequence. The main event is implied rather than shown. It requires the viewers to apply psychological closure to fill in gaps so than they feel more involved in the scene, the viewer becomes a participant.

The time order never changes - it can only be condensed and intensified. Such sequence helps in plot development and narrative continuity.

Three diagrams above illustrate the steps involved to make a sequential analytical montage. These types of montage represent the key developmental elements in a cause effect sequence of an event.

Diagram: The proposal, the engagement, the Birth of the first child followed by the birth of a second child:- The selected shots are sequenced in order of the actual event according to logic (Cause and Effect)

Illustration: The proposal, the birth of the first child, birth of a second followed by marriage:- If the proper sequence of the event is not maintained then the meaning changes (Change in Meaning)

Sectional Montage

• The event sections are not arranged along the horizontal time vector (event progression)
• But along the vertical vector (event intensity and complexity)
• It arrests one moment in the event. (subjective time, the vertical line)
• Stretching time duration - opposite to condensing time (cuts)

This shows an event from various view points. It does not follow any particular sequence. It thus shows the various complexities of a particular moment. Unlike the sequential montage, it stops the event from progression temporarily and examines a section of it. The basic order of the shots is still important to establish the point of view. However the shots are rhythmically precise.

It can stress the simultaneity of the event through the split screen or multiple screen montages.

In the first illustration the event is shown from the students point of view one feels bad for the students because they are subjected to a boring lecture this is because of the fact that shots of the students are shown first.

In the second the teacher is shown first hence it adopts a teacher’s point of view.

So the viewers sympathize with the teacher who is delivering a lecture because the students are not that interested.

Idea - Associative Montage

Here two unrelated events are juxtaposed to create a third meaning - developed in the days of silent film era to express ideas and concepts that that could not be shown in a narrative picture sequence. These fall under two categories:

Comparison montage

• These comprise of shots that are juxtaposed to thematically related events to reinforce a basic theme or idea.
• Silent films often would juxtapose a shot of a political leader with preening of a peacock’s shot to depict politician’s vanity.
• Comparison montage acts like an optical illusion to influence perception of the main event.

The Russian filmmaker, Kulshov, conducted several experiments on the aesthetics of montages: to show the impact of juxtaposition and context - he interspersed the expressionless face of an actor with unrelated shots of emotional value like a child playing, a plate of soup, and a dead woman – the viewers thought that they were seeing the actor’s reaction to the event.

The television advertisements often use this technique to send forth complex messages quickly across to the viewers, e.g. a running tiger dissolves into a car gliding on the road – a hyperbole signifying car having the strength, agility, and grace of a tiger.

Collision montage

Two events collide to enforce a concept feeling or idea. The conflict creates tension.

Comparison Montage: These comprise of shots that are juxtaposed to thematically related events to rein enforce a basic theme or idea. Thematic related events are compared to reinforce a general theme.

In olden days these were used in silent films for example they would show a shot of a political leader juxtaposed with a shot of preening of a peacock to show that the man was very vain.

In the following illustration the first picture is of a dog looking for food, it is juxtaposed with a homeless person doing the same. This shows that the poor are being neglected by the society.

What's wrong with this picture?

In comparison montages the multiple screens that contain simultaneous collision montages can be shown. This is done in news, various types of information is given on screen enough of care must be exercised otherwise inaccurate message may be given to a viewer.

Collision Montage: Two events are collided to enforce a concept feeling or idea. The conflict created tension it betters the experience of the viewers these type of montages should not be too obvious otherwise annoyed rather than involved.

In this montage makes the viewers aware of the plight of the homeless, insensitivity and social injustice.

The Visual Dialectical Principal

The aesthetics principal upon which the collision montage is based is called the visual dialectic this means opposing contradictory statements can be juxtaposed to resolve contradictions to a into universally true axioms.

Diadram

By juxtaposing a thesis or statement with its antithesis or counterstatement one arrives at a synthesis. In other words a thesis opposed by an thesis results in a new synthesis (a new thesis) in which two opposing conditions are resolved into a higher order statement.

• Russian film maker Eisenstein frequently used it in not only as a principle task of montage but as a basis for an entire film.

The Metric Montage

• Editing follows a specific number of frames (based purely on the physical nature of time), cutting to the next shot no matter what is happening within the image.
• This montage is used to elicit the most basal and emotional of reactions in the audience.
• This is a rhythmic structuring device a series of related or unrelated images are flashed across the screen at regular intervals.
• A metric montage is created by cutting a film into equal lengths regardless of colour, content or continuity of shots - one can actually clap the hands to the beat.
• A tiatery motion is created.
• Accelerated metric montage the shots become progressively faster it can punctuate a higher point.

'Invisible Editing'

This is the omniscient style of the realist feature films developed in Hollywood. The vast majority of narrative films are now edited in this way. The cuts are intended to be unobtrusive except for special dramatic shots. It supports rather than dominates the narrative: the story and the behaviour of its characters are the centre of attention. The technique gives the impression that the edits are always required are motivated by the events in the 'reality' that the camera is recording rather than the result of a desire to tell a story in a particular way. The editing isn't really 'invisible', but the conventions have become so familiar to visual literates that they no longer consciously notice them.

Devices

The dominant system of editing, handed down from the Hollywood tradition, is known as continuity editing, the cuts are invisible in to produce a seamless visual and narrative experience.

Continuity editing involves such techniques as:

• Continuity editing relies upon matching screen direction, position, and temporal relations from shot to shot.
• Motivated cuts - If a story is to be told the cuts have to be seamless. This can be achieved by ensuring that the content motivates the cut. For example if one hears a door open and a character turns his head, one expects to see a cut to the door.
• The 180 Degree Rule - Two characters in the same scene must maintain the same left/right relationship throughout the scene. In other words, if in a particular shot Character A is on the left facing right and Character B is on the right facing left; you should keep the camera positioned so the characters stay facing the same direction. If the camera “crosses the line” between the characters and shoots them from the other side, One end up with a reverse cut where the characters’ positions are switched. Even if you cut to a shot of Character B alone, he should still be on the left facing right. While it’s not essential that you follow the 180 degree rule, most directors do so in order to avoid disorienting the viewer.
• Shot-reverse-shot structuring that obeys the 180 degree rule -positing an artificial line which the camera cannot cross, thereby creating the illusion of a unified space across shots.
  Cuts on action -creating the illusion of continuous motion from one shot to the next. The reason behind this rule is that cutting on action distracts the audience less. People focus on the action occurring, not the cut, and thus are less likely to notice any mistakes like jump cuts. For example, if a woman turns her head to look at something, the cut to the object of interest should be made midway through the action of turning.
• Eye-line match -in which the look of a character is matched spatially to what he or she is looking at.
• Sound bridging-in which continuous music or sound is used to bridge the cuts between shots, among other techniques.

In this sequence from Neighbours (Buster Keaton, 1920), continuity is maintained by the spatial and temporal contiguity of the shots and the preservation of direction between world and screen. More importantly, the shots are matched on Keaton's actions as he shuttles across the courtyard from stairwell to stairwell.

In the Hollywood continuity editing system the angle of the camera axis to the axis of action usually changes by more than 30 ° between two shots, for example in a conversation scene rendered as a series of shot/reverse shots. The 180° line is not usually crossed unless the transition is smoothed by a POV shot or a re-establishing shot.

Visible Vs. Invisible Technique

• The majority primarily prefer the standard conventions of continuity editing.
• The classical narrative mode refers to the narrative style common in films of the classical Hollywood period from the 1940's to the 1960's. These films came from the studio system and its concern for commercial success. Despite the different conventions associated with each genre, these films were about escapism and therefore shared the narrative mode favouring the cause and effect linkage of events, there by keeping the audience engrossed in the story. The classical model used continuity editing which is covert, in order to create a unity of time and space, and tell the story without drawing attention the films as something that has been constructed.
• The invisible technique comes across as lacking knowledge and careless inexperienced crew.
• People generally believe that a character should be recognisable through out a film, images that evoke feelings of ambiguity and uncertainty in the minds of the viewer without character and plot irritates the viewing experience of the audiences.
• Certain filmmakers also assume that usage of an alternate language is a sign of ignorance on the part of the camera, as the conventions are not understood by them they feel it is safer to use the classical Hollywood style because it is a tried and tested method that ensures attracting and sustaining the audiences interest, it keeps them absorbed in the story.

The basic concept is to create an illusion of continuity while leaving out parts of the action that slow the film's pacing.

Each story has to have a beginning, middle and an end int the minds of the audience that is what they expect to se however in reality life is unpredictable and uncertain there is confusing activity that does not make sense at times thus while employing the visible technique the movie becomes more real.

Editing Guidelines – Irrespective of the Technique

• Video professionals know that production techniques are best when they are transparent; i.e., when they go unnoticed by the average viewer.
• However, in music videos, commercials, and program introductions, we are in an era where production (primarily editing) techniques are being used as a kind of "eye candy" to mesmerize audiences.

Guideline #1: Edits work best when they are motivated.

• In making any cut or transition from one shot to another there is a risk of breaking audience concentration and subtly pulling attention away from the story or subject matter.
• When cuts or transitions are motivated by production content they are more apt to go unnoticed. For example, if someone glances to one side during a dramatic scene, we can use that as motivation to cut to whatever has caught the actor's attention.
• When one person stops talking and another starts that provides the motivation to make a cut from one person to the other.
• If we hear a door open, or someone calls out from off-camera, we generally expect to see a shot of whoever it is. If someone picks up a strange object to examine it, it's natural to cut to an insert shot of the object.

Guideline # 2: Whenever possible cut on subject movement.

If cuts are prompted by action, that action will divert attention from the cut, making the transition more fluid. Small jump cuts are also less noticeable because viewers are caught up in the action.

If a man is getting out of a chair, you can cut at the midpoint in the action. In this case some of the action will be included in both shots. In cutting, keep the 30-degree rule in mind.

Maintaining Consistency in Action and Detail

Editing for single-camera production requires great attention to detail. Directors will generally give the editor more than one take of each scene. Not only should the relative position of feet or hands, etc., in both shots match, but also the general energy level of voices and movements.

There is also the need to make sure nothing has changed in the scene -- hair, clothing, the placement of props, etc. and that the talent is doing the same thing in exactly the same way in each shot.

Note in the photos below that if we cut from the close-up of the woman talking to the four-shot on the right, that the angle of her face changes along with the lighting. (Because of the location of the window, we would assume the key light would be on our left.)

These things represent clear continuity problems -- made all the more apparent in this case because our eyes would be focused on the woman in red.

Part of the art of acting is in to maintain absolute consistency between takes.

This means that during each take talent must remember to synchronize moves and gestures with specific words in the dialogue. Otherwise, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to cut directly between these takes during editing.

It's the Continuity Director's job to see not only that the actor's clothes, jewelry, hair, make-up, etc., remain consistent between takes, but that props (movable objects on the set) also remain consistent.

It's easy for an object on the set to be picked up at the end of one scene or take and then be put down in a different place before the camera rolls on the next take. When the scenes are then edited together, the object will then seem to disappear, or instantly jump from one place to another.

Discounting the fact that one would not want to cut between two shots that are very similar, do you see any problem in cutting between the two shots above?

The obvious disappearance of her earrings and a difference in color balance, but did you notice the change in the direction of the key light and the position of the hair on her forehead?

Entering and Exiting the Frame

As an editor, you often must cut from one scene as someone exits the frame on the right and then cut to another scene as the person enters another shot from the left.

It's best to cut out of the first scene as the person's eyes pass the edge of the frame, and then cut to the second scene about six frames before the person's eyes enter the frame of the next scene.

The timing is significant.

It takes about a quarter of a second for viewers' eyes to switch from one side of the frame to the other. During this time, whatever is taking place on the screen becomes a bit scrambled and viewers need a bit of time to refocus on the new action. Otherwise, the lost interval can create a kind of subtle jump in the action.

Like a good magician that can take your attention off something they don't want you to see, an editor can use distractions in the scene to cover the slight mismatches in action that inevitably arise in single-camera production.

An editor knows that when someone in a scene is talking, attention is generally focused on the person's mouth or eyes, and a viewer will tend to miss inconsistencies in other parts of the scene.

Or, as we've seen, scenes can be added to divert attention. Remember the role insert shots and cutaways can play in covering jump cuts.

Guideline # 3: Keep in Mind the Strengths and Limitations of the Medium. Remember:

An editor must remember that a significant amount of picture detail is lost in video images, especially in the 525- and 625-line television systems.

• The only way to show needed details is through close-ups.

Except for establishing shots designed to momentarily orient the audience to subject placement, the director and the editor should emphasize medium shots and close-ups.

There are some things to keep in mind in this regard.

Close-ups on individuals are appropriate for interviews and dramas, but not as appropriate for light comedy. In comedy the use of medium shots keeps the mood light. You normally don't want to pull the audience into the actors' thoughts and emotions.

In contrast, in interviews and dramatic productions it's generally desirable to use close-ups to zero-in on a subject's reactions and provide clues to the person's general character.

• In dramatic productions a director often wants to communicate something of what's going on within the mind of an actor. In each of these instances, the judicious and revealing use of close-ups can be important.

A List of Contemporary Montage sequences

Many films are well known for their montage scenes. Examples include:

• The training regimen montages in Sylvester Stallone's Rocky series of movies and later, a parody by Budweiser in a 2008 Super Bowl commercial in which a Dalmatian coaches a Clydesdale horse.
• The Takashi Miike film Dead or Alive features a highly kinetic opening montage where several main characters are obliquely shown conducting various actions.
• Dirty Dancing
• Flashdance
• several of director Sam Raimi's films
• Ghostbusters
• the "Hakuna Matata" scene from The Lion King, where Simba grows from lion cub to adult
  Scarface's montage showing Tony Montana's rise to power, set to the song "Scarface (Push It to the Limit)"
• Several training montages in Chariots of Fire and Cool Runnings
• In one montage in Dave, presidential look alike Dave Kovic (Kevin Kline) learns the job of President; in another, he makes public appearances.
• In a montage in Legally Blonde, Elle (Reese Witherspoon) studies for the LSAT and, at the same time, the admissions committee of Harvard Law School views her admissions video essay. In another, she buckles down studying her law school subjects.
• In Prince of Tides, Nick Nolte coaches Jason Gould in football, set to the Minuet of the Symphony No. 104 in D major, London by Haydn.
• In Heaven Can Wait, Warren Beatty trains in football, set to the Sonata #3 of Handel.
• In Groundhog Day's repeated courtship sequence
• In the Director's Cut of The Abyss, the Non-terrestrial Intelligences justify their intended deluge of the human race by showing Bud a video montage of human atrocities.
• The film Good Morning Vietnam has a montage of violence, set, ironically, to What a Wonderful World, by Louis Armstrong. A similar montage is featured in Bowling for Columbine.
• Satirical self-referential montages in the South Park episode "Asspen" and the film Team America: World Police.
• Requiem for a Dream uses several montage sequences during portions of the film where the characters use drugs.
• In an episode of "Family Guy", the dog, Brian, goes through a montage training for a final exam by excercising (as a parody), with the background music saying, "Everybody needs a montage."
• In 1985's Real Genius, a montage is used to demonstrate the lapse of time as the students work on their laser and study for their classes.

In nearly all of these examples, the montages are used to compress narrative time and show the main character learning or improving skills that will help achieve the ultimate goal.

Recommendations

Web Resources

• http://pov.imv.au.dk/
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/
• http://www.russianarchives.com/
• http://www.videomaker.com/
• http://arts.monstersandcritics.com/
• http://www.britannica.com/
• http://www.doubletakeart.com/
• http://www.helium.com/
• http://www.mediacollege.com/
• http://www.filmreference.com/http://www.surrealism.org/
• http://www.keyframe.org/
• http://www.dvartdan.com/

Books

• Television Production Handbook by Herbert Zettl
• Television Production, Thirteenth Edition by Gerald Millerson
• Directing and Producing for Television, Third Edition: A Format Approach by Ivan Cury
• Fundamentals of Television Production (2nd Edition) by Ralph Donald, Riley Maynard, and Thomas D. Spann
• Montage (Cinema Aesthetics) by Sam Rohdie
• Modernist Montage: The Obscurity of Vision in Cinema and Literature by P. Adams. Sitney
• Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings by Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen
• Cinematic Storytelling: The 100 Most Powerful Film Conventions Every Filmmaker Must Know by Jennifer Van Sijll
• Sight, Sound, Motion: Applied Media Aesthetics by Herbert Zettl
• Picture Composition for Film and Television, Second Edition by PETER WARD
• Composition: The Anatomy of Picture Making by Harry Sternberg

Introduction to Six Basic Elements of Design

Not all of the highest-quality equipment in the world can guarantee that you take great pictures. Even knowing how to use the camera effectively, setting exposures, depth of field, etc., will not necessarily give your photos the description that all photographers strive for: art. Certainly, these things help, but capturing that elusive artistic quality requires special skills that every photographer worth his tripod must possess. For this, we turn to what are called the Elements and Principles of Design. These are a few basic concepts that anyone can learn and will allow you to lay out your photos in an eye-pleasing way, or even snare that rare beast we call art.

The six Elements of Design are the more basic set, so we will start with those. Within the Elements, we have Line, Shape, Form, Space, Value, and Texture. Remember, each of these, or several used together, can help improve your photos. Still, it requires an experienced eye to put these ideas to their best effect. Do not get discouraged if some photos you take, even those containing these concepts, still do not look quite right.

LINE - Line is one of the simplest concepts to describe. Basically, it is including things with strong, defined lines in your photo. Examples are things like the edge of buildings, train tracks, road lines, and sidewalks. Line is usually used to either portray a sense of Movement (One of the Principles of Design), or to lead the viewer's eye to the subject of the photo, though it can also imply Shape. It is not limited to simply solid objects like buildings, or even to straight lines. Light and shadow, with a clear edge between them, can create Line. Many photos have curved lines, such as roads as they bend to the right or left, or a footpath that winds between the roots of large trees, as well.

SHAPE - Shape refers to including things that appear two dimensional, and have a specific form to them. The most common Shape used is the circle. We can see that in tapestries, or in arched doorways. The wave is another strong shape, found in almost any coastal photograph. Other shapes include the triangle, and square, though those are less commonly used in photography. Shape can also lend to other Elements and Principles, just as line does. Usually, Shape is used to create a sense of Space (Again, arched doorways are a good example), though it works well with Form, Value, and Line.

FORM - Form is very similar to Shape, but different enough to create a different feeling in your photographs. This is also probably the least used of the Elements of Design. Basically, Form is a 3-dimensional object. Spheres, cubes, and cones are good examples. It's difficult to portray a 3-dimensional object with film, which is by nature 2-dimensional. Still, Form used well creates a very interesting photo. The idea behind Form is to show each indentation, each curve, each bulge, and each edge - the object's Form. Space is the most commonly used Element in conjunction with Form, allowing us as viewers to recognize the different objects as being in different places, instead of overlapped right on top of each other. Line and Value play a large part in Form, as well.

TEXTURE - Perhaps the most self-evident Element, Texture is simply the tactile quality of an object. This ranges from glass-smooth to as rough as sandpaper. Texture is an extremely good way to capture a viewer's interest, as it invokes more than simply their sense of sight. It appeals to the sense of touch very easily, thus adding another dimension of interest to the photo. Texture can also be easily used with Value and Repetition (A Principle of Design), with very good effect. When taking photos where Texture is the main concept, you should light the object from the side or from the back. These positions will emphasize the Texture. Axis lighting, or lighting the object from the front, will produce the least Texture. Some ideas of things to photograph with good Texture would be a wrinkled cloth, a piece of wood, the bark of a tree, or a pitted stone such as pumice.

SPACE - My personal favorite, Space refers to the area of unused or unoccupied area in a photo. Basically, the space between objects. In general, Space helps lend a sense of 3-dimensionality to a photo. By itself, Space can create beautiful photos, such as a photo of clouds, but its real strength lies with using it in combination with Line, Form, or Value. Perhaps the most stirring example of using Line or Value with Shape would be a photo looking down a long road, with tall buildings on either side. This is not to say Space must be a large, open expanse. A set of carefully arranged small objects, such as pebbles, can use both Space and Form very effectively.

VALUE - This element requires a somewhat practiced eye to implement successfully. Basically, Value is the organization and magnitude of light and dark in your photo. The deep shadow, the bright whites, and all the gray tones in between are what make up Value. It can be used to highlight certain aspects, such as a bright subject against a dark background, or to obscure unpleasant features in dark shadow. In most photos, the Value is roughly balanced. The number of strong white areas and strong dark areas are about equal. We do this by instinct. However, Value can be tipped out of balance in order to provide meaning and visual interest. A photo taken by Harry Callahan is a perfect example of this. It is simply a person standing at the bottom of a long well of bright light, while everything around them is near black.

That is it for the Elements of Design. Keeping these in mind while you take your photos will hopefully improve them quite a bit. Remember to examine your subject from every possible angle to find that fitting composition. Good luck, and I hope this article has been helpful. I will cover the Principles of Design in a future article. Have fun with your photos! --original article by Dan Farmer

Introduction to Elements of GAZE Theory

What is “GAZE”?

The term gaze is a technical term which was use in the film theory in the 1970’s but now it has been used by media theorists as it refers to the way people gaze at an image.

Gaze can be defined as the way people look at subjects or objects in a given text.

The concept of gaze (often also called the gaze or, in French, le regard), is in analyzing visual culture, is one that deals with how an audience views the people presented. The concept of the gaze became popular with the rise of postmodern philosophy and social theory and was first discussed by 1960s French intellectuals, namely Michel Foucault's description of the medical gaze and Lacan's analysis of the gaze's role in the mirror stage development of the human psyche. This concept is extended in the framework of feminist theory, where it can deal with how men look at women, how women look at themselves and other women, and the effects surrounding this.

Forms of Gaze

Several key forms of gaze can be identified in photographic, filmic or television texts, or in figurative graphic art. The most obvious typology is based on who is doing the looking, of which the following are the most commonly cited:

• the spectator’s gaze: the gaze of the viewer at an image of a person (or animal, or object) in the text;
• the intra-diegetic gaze: a gaze of one depicted person at another (or at an animal or an object) within the world of the text (typically depicted in filmic and televisual media by a subjective ‘point-of-view shot’);
• the direct [or extra-diegetic] address to the viewer: the gaze of a person (or quasi-human being) depicted in the text looking ‘out of the frame’ as if at the viewer, with associated gestures and postures (in some genres, direct address is studiously avoided);
• the look of the camera - the way that the camera itself appears to look at the people (or animals or objects) depicted; less metaphorically, the gaze of the film-maker or photographer.

In studying social interaction, Michael Watson (1970) found cultural variability in the intensity of gaze. He distinguished between three forms of gaze:

• Sharp: focusing on the other person's eyes.
• Clear: focusing about the other person's head and face.
• Peripheral: having the other person within the field of vision, but not focusing on his head or face.

Angles of Gaze

While taking about the angles of gaze, the most common ones are the front or the oblique angle wherein the subject or the person is in front of you or parallel to you. This comes under the category of horizontal angles. But the vertical angles are widely noted.

High angles (looking down on a depicted person from above) are interpreted as making that person look small and insignificant, and low angles (looking up at them from below) are said to make them look powerful and superior. Kress and van Leeuwen modify this standpoint slightly, arguing that a high angle depicts a relationship in which the producer of the image and the viewer have symbolic power over the person or thing represented, whilst a low angle depicts a relationship in which the depicted person has power over the image-producer and the viewer.

Apparent Proximity

We have learnt about the different forms of gaze. Now we are to discuss the look of the camera in detail. The look of the camera is the gaze which is done by the photographer or the film maker. While we gaze we tend to build up a certain relationship in the text. The relationship varied according to the kind of shot that has been taken. We have learnt about the different kinds of shot. In a long shot we hardly focus on one subject since there are more than one to focus upon. In the mid shot if you see the person in the picture , he is not looking at you. This looks as if the person doesn’t not know you. But in the close up shot the lady is looking at you. You then build up a personal relationship with the lady. The various kinds of shot give a different meaning when gazed upon.

When it comes to “gaze” there is certain relationship with the person in a text and the viewer.In relation to camerawork there are different kinds of shots.

1. Long shots
   · Extreme
   · Medium
2. Medium shots
   · Mid shots
   · Medium close shots
3. Close up shots
   · Medium close up
   · Big close up

Male and Female “GAZE”

Male “GAZE”

Before starting the topic MALE GAZE, let us first understand the concept of gaze. As I mentioned earlier gaze is used for analyzing visual culture that deals with how the audience views the people presented in a given text. The whole idea of male gaze was given by Laura Mulvey in her essay “narrative cinema and visual pleasures”, 1975. She says that narrative cinema manipulates visual pleasures. Mulvey also states that in film women are always portrayed as an object of gaze and not the possessors of the gaze because the control of the camera (gaze) comes for assumptions that men are the default targeted audience of film genres. Coming back to the definition of male gaze, it means how men look at women. The look can be decent or indecent. But in some societies women welcome male gaze. Models and actress have no problem with the male gaze. Male gaze is divided into:

1. Scopophilia: [pleasure in looking (Sigmund Freud 1905, in ‘Three Essays’)] This means the pleasure of looking or the love of looking at something. The term refers to the predominantly male gaze of the cinema which enjoys objectifying women into mere objects to be looked at. The most pleasurable looking is looking at the human form or the human face.
2. Fetishistic scopophila: This term revolves under the idea that female figure is represented simply as a beautiful object of display. This also represents women as powerless and insignificant. The best example of a male gaze film would be “FATAL ATTRACTIONS” (1987).

Female “GAZE”

The female gaze is similar to the male gaze. It deals with how women look at men. Their objectifications of men are done through advertisements and teenage magazines. Woman would be objectifying the man to the subject of their desires and pleasures of looking.

Effects of “GAZE”

When you look at an object, you are not only seeing the object itself but also building up a relationship with it. Gazing provides us with a lot of information about our relationship with the subject or the relationship between the subjects upon whom we gaze or the situation in which the subjects are doing the gazing. The mutuality of the gaze can reflect power structure or the nature of the relationship between the subjects. This is proposed by Catherin Lutz and Jane Collins. Gazing can often reflect emotions without speech. For examples in some culture continuous staring can be at times unsettling to the subject.

Although gaze is just merely looking at something Jonathan Schroeder states that “Gazing signifies a psychological relationship of power, in which the gazer is superior to the object of the gaze". The gaze characterizes and displays the relationships between the subjects by looking.

Aristotle's Unities

Greek and Latin plays were very different from the native traditions of drama that the young Shakespeare might have come across if he had seen a mystery cycle, or watched the travelling troupes of actors who came to Stratford, performing moralities or the various types of drama which developed from them. (Picture on Left-above: Roman theatre, Kermessos. Photograph Peter Smith.) 

The classical unities or three unities are rules for drama derived from a passage in Aristotle's Poetics. In their neoclassical form they are as follows:

Greek and Latin drama were strict in form. The stage represented a single place throughout the action; the plot recounted the events of a single day; and there was very little irrelevant by-play as the action developed. Aristotle described the drama of an earlier age in his important work On the Art of Poetry; those who followed his precepts called this disciplined structure the three "unities": unity of place, unity of time and unity of action.

The "Rules"

Neo-classical Renaissance critics codified Aristotle's discussion, claiming that all plays should follow these three precepts:

• Place. The setting of the play should be one location: in comedy often a street, in Oedipus Rex the steps before the palace.
• Time. The action of the play should represent the passage of no more than one day. Previous events leading up to the present situation were recounted on stage, as Prospero tells Miranda of the events which led to their abandonment on the island.
• Action. No action or scene in the play was to be a digression; all were to contribute directly in some way to the plot.

Compare this structure with the episodic, wide-ranging plots of romantic comedy like Shakespeare's Winter's Tale.

1. The unity of action: a play should have one main action that it follows, with no or few subplots.
2. The unity of place: a play should cover a single physical space and should not attempt to compress geography, nor should the stage represent more than one place.
3. The unity of time: the action in a play should take place over no more than 24 hours.

Aristotle dealt with the unity of action in some detail, under the general subject of "definition of tragedy", where he wrote:

Now, according to our definition, Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is complete, and whole, and of a certain magnitude(Aristotle's Poetics, XVII.) … As therefore, in the other imitative arts, the imitation is one when the object imitated is one, so the plot, being an imitation of an action, must imitate one action and that a whole, the structural union of the parts being such that, if any one of them is displaced or removed, the whole will be disjointed and disturbed. For a thing whose presence or absence makes no visible difference, is not an organic part of the whole.(Aristotle's Poetics, XVIII.)

His only reference to the time in the fictive world is in a distinction between the epic and tragic forms:

Epic poetry agrees with Tragedy in so far as it is an imitation in verse of characters of a higher type. They differ, in that Epic poetry admits but one kind of metre, and is narrative in form. They differ, again, in their length: for Tragedy endeavours, as far as possible, to confine itself to a single revolution of the sun, or but slightly to exceed this limit; whereas the Epic action has no limits of time.(Aristotle's Poetics, V.)

Unlike his prescriptive attitude regarding the plot (unity of action), Aristotle here merely remarks on the typical duration of a tragedy's action, and does not suggest any kind of imperative that it always ought to be so. He was writing after the golden age of Greek drama, and many Greek playwrights wrote plays that do not fit within these conventions.

Even more tellingly, Aristotle does not mention the neoclassical unity of place at all. So Aristotle suggested only one unity -- that of action -- but the prevalent interpretation of his Poetics during the Middle Ages already inclined toward interpreting his comment on time as another "unity".

The Aristotelian Unities © Ian Mandleberg, January-February 2000

Any discussion of Aristotle's Unities of Time, Place and Action must start from the acknowledgement that his Poetics from which we receive his ideas about the drama deals only with tragedy: we do not know whether he recommended the same canon of rules for comedy [1], or indeed for history plays, of which he would certainly have known at least one, namely The Persians by Aeschylus. I shall also be proposing that, as a man of his times, his concepts arose from, and pertained to, the Greek drama of the 5th-4th centuries BC, and accordingly they do not represent necessary and universally applicable rules. I shall argue moreover that the plays with which Aristotle was familiar, and on which he based his views, were themselves products of the performance conditions that prevailed in his era. His Unities, in short, are the unacknowledged children of ancient Greek economics and theatrical technology.

Theatre in Aristotle's day typically had a civic and/or religious significance: theatrical performances were presented to honour a god or a city or a city's god, and they were therefore state occasions. Everybody turned out for the day, even slaves and (for the tragedies at least) women. Moreover, entrance to the shows was by and large free, albeit it was possible to purchase or hire cushions from quick-off-the-mark entrepreneurs. Who paid for it all? Well, although the temples and city magistrates might put up prize money if plays were presented in competition, it was not generally the god or the city that financed the productions. On the contrary, each show was under-written by a single wealthy sponsor who hired a troupe of two (later on three) actors and also coughed up for the chorus, the choreographer, the singing teacher, the pit musicians, the costumes, the stage machinery and the set. With no prospect of getting his money back, the sponsor's motivation was 1) to accumulate heavenly brownie points, 2) to accrue some kudos as a devout and civic-minded patron of the arts, and 3) by so doing, to establish a lead over his rivals at the next election.

Besides the economic factors I have just described, other features of Greek production tradition also need to be taken into account when evaluating the origin and validity of Aristotle's Unities. Chief among these are the fact that plays were presented in the open air against a permanent architectural background, and were illuminated only by sun- or torchlight. I believe that these characteristics, taken together, are sufficient to explain Aristotle's stress on the Unities of Time, Place and Action.

Unity of Place is straightforward enough: there was only a single permanent set, and obviously it could not be subjected to the quick scene changes that are familiar to us in modern theatre. Equally obviously, it would have been impossible to suggest changes of locale by lighting changes (as we can do today), even if the script called for it. At this point in my argument, however, an astute critic will instantly object that Shakespeare too had to work with a fixed architectural background a limitation that did not prevent him from changing location from scene to scene. Clearly, a permanent set is by no means as inflexible as I seem to imply. To this objection I observe that Shakespeare could persuade us he had changed location by virtue of the fact that each new scene would begin with a new grouping of characters sweeping onto the stage. Ancient Greek casts, by contrast, were too tiny to allow that. And the size of the cast also accounts, I suspect, for Aristotle's stress on Unity of Action. With only two or three actors (who were in any case doubling up to play all the characters), there would not have been much energy left over for subplots.

In this connection it is not clear whether the small cast was merely a matter of convention, or whether it too was demanded by the economics of production. For my own part, I am inclined to suspect that money spoke as eloquently in the fourth century BC as it does in the twenty-first AD. I rather fancy that Greek sponsors simply balked and told the playwright, "We was pushed enough to pay for Aeschylus's Actor Number Three, there is no way we are going to pay for a fourth or a fifth or a sixth bleedin' poncy thespian, not even if you was bleedin' 'Omer 'imself, which you are not!" Impresarios of West End or Broadway productions will be familiar enough with the economics of mounting a show, and they too will go for a single set, small-cast plays over an epic any day contemporary capitalism's own bow in the direction of Aristotle's Unities.

Alternatively, the economic impetus may have come inadvertently from the actors themselves. Theatrical productions, as I've hinted, were seasonal, and were mounted to celebrate some local religious festival. So when the Athenian shows were over, the actors had to go on the road to cities that had different calendars of festive days. And since, however good the plays were, or however outstanding the cast, there was only the one performance (revivals apart), whatever fees the actors earned had to be stretched pretty thinly to cover the "resting" and rehearsal time (Actors Equity please note!). Under those conditions it's easier to keep a small troupe of two or three on the road than even a moderately sized repertory company [2].

We come at last to Unity of Time - an Aristotelian stricture that was almost always more honoured in the breach than the observance, even by the Greek tragedians themselves. I for one, at any rate, find it impossible to believe, for example, that the action of Aeschylus's Agamemnon can be compassed by a single span of twenty-four hours. The play opens in the early morning, with beacon fires announcing the end of the Trojan War in Asia Minor: it takes the most rigorous suspension of disbelief to accept that Agamemnon returns the 500-odd miles to Greece and gets himself bumped off in the bath before nightfall! No; what Aeschylus did was to create an illusion of Unity of Time a feat that was accomplished, as it is today, by focussing on the central story. The playwright does not show us the victorious Greeks embarking for home at the port of Tenedos, the gangplanks that collapsed, the horses and men that slipped and fell into the sea, the four or five days of tedious rowing, the squabbles at mealtimes, or Agamemnon's dusty ride up from the sea to Argos.

What I am saying, in effect, is that theatrical time was not then, and is not now, "real" time; on the contrary, it was and is "speeded up" time. But the illusion of Aristotelian Unity of Time was promoted then, as it is today, by the familiar technique of "cutting to the chase," i.e. omitting all distractions, which is another way of understanding Unity of Action. The illusion was perhaps also fostered by a dramatic structure in which five acts were punctuated by choral odes that implied the passage of time. Whether the passage of time represented by the choral interlude represented minutes or months was never stated, however [3].

Aristotle, it seems, further believed that observance by the playwright of the Dramatic Unities contributed to the intensity of the audience's experience and particularly to the strength of their cathartic response to the play. The spectator, in Aristotle's view, came away wrung out by the emotions of pity and fear he or she had undergone in the theatre - and they probably did. In fact you can get wrung out by a Greek tragedy in less than an hour, as I recently discovered at a stripped-down production of Euripides's Trojan Women, that ran a mere fifty-five minutes! But (pace Aristotle) who is to say that the intensity of feeling you experience at a classical Greek tragedy that obeys the Unities is greater than what you experience at a good production of the very un-classical Richard II that doesn't?

If there were any European plays in the thousand years after the Christians took over the Roman Empire, we don't know of them. Theatre, it seems, died out or went deep underground. It only began to re-emerge in the Middle Ages, when it took the form of small-scale religious dramas, and later developed into large-scale cycles of Mystery Plays. But a sequence of episodes that re-tell bible stories from the Creation to the Resurrection is not a form that lends itself to being structured by Aristotle's canon of Unities, and it was not until the rediscovery of ancient learning during the Renaissance that Aristotle's ideas began to influence playwrights once again. Even then, however, his impact remained indirect, via the tragedies of Seneca that became models for the earliest dramatists of the sixteenth century.

Then came a fork in the road. The most exciting drama of the Renaissance was undoubtedly the theatre that developed in England and Spain during the late sixteenth and early-to-mid seventeenth centuries and there, writers like Shakespeare, Marlowe, Webster, Tourneur, Jonson, Cervantes and Lope de Vega were busy disregarding the Unities all over the place. All that remained of the Greek tradition was the five-act structure. It was only in France where the drama was intended more for court than courtyard that Aristotle ruled supreme. For a brief, shining moment the Unities were rescued from oblivion by Corneille and Racine. Their tightly-structured five-act plays, their method of telling stories by means of scenes involving only two or three characters, and their elegant, formal alexandrines are still capable of delivering a powerful emotional punch to this very day as anyone who saw the recent productions of Phèdre and Britannicus with Diana Rigg will testify. But the new model English and Spanish drama was winning the day, and Lope de Vega and Cervantes were even abandoning the five-act structure in favour of three acts (the English didn't get round to that innovation till the Restoration).

It is, of course, still possible to write dramas that adhere to Aristotle's Unities [4], but developments since the Renaissance have completely put paid to any notion that it is obligatory to do so, while the evolution of a brand new dramatic narrative form in the shape of the motion picture has undermined the Unities still further. We have become so accomplished at telling and understanding stories visually that we could probably make a film of War and Peace that ran no longer than the 17 minutes of the 1812 Overture soundtrack, we could do an average 80,000-word novel in no more time that it takes to run an MTV video, and we routinely pack soap opera episodes into the 30 seconds of a TV commercial. This is so commonplace that it doesn't even register, but if you scrutinise a few good commercials with the eye of a playwright you'll see what I mean and you'll be astonished.

And yet, despite filmic narrative techniques (brief scenes, multiple locations, jump cuts, flashbacks, flashbacks within flashbacks, etc) techniques which are also impacting on writing for the stage there is no question but that we still experience even a non-Aristotelian movie or play as a unity. This phenomenon, which would doubtless have set the Greek philosopher scratching his head in perplexity, stems from the fact that the sense of unity does not arise from some set of Aristotelian rules imposed on the play from the outside, but from within ourselves. If we hadn't known this intuitively, we were persuaded of it by a number of ingenious experiments on visual perception that were carried out by Gestalt psychologists in the 20s and 30s of the last (i.e. twentieth!) century. Unities 'r' Us. And this means that the Aristotelian Unities, when we do encounter them in a play, do not create but only enhance the sense of a whole, complete experience.

Now all this has led me to ponder the question: If Aristotle is indeed wrong, what would a modern Theory of the Unities look like? My initial impulse was to attack this question negatively, by asking what factors created a sense that a play or film is incoherent and at sixes-and-sevens. To which the first answer that popped into my head was that a mixture of genres would be confusing in just this manner. On second thoughts and after a few heated arguments with friends, I hasten to add I have to confess to being in error. Shakespeare had his own genres “comical, tragical, historical and pastoral” but that didn't stop him mixing them sometimes. Plays like The Merchant of Venice, Measure for Measure and All's Well That Ends Well the so-called "problem" plays in other words are tragi-comedies, a mode that developed into a genre in its own right, in which "many come close to death, but none die [5]." Nowadays, what's more, we are familiar with comedy-thrillers, comedy-westerns, science fiction-noir, comical-historical-romantic-adventure (The Three Musketeers) etc, while one of the most glorious operas of the twentieth century Richard Strauss's Ariadne auf Naxos even succeeds in mixing tragi-romantic drama with high camp commedia del arte farce!

So if not mixed genres, then what? - for it is still the case that most dramatic productions, in the theatre as well as the cinema, carry a subliminal label, "Unities At Work". One factor contributing to the sense of unity, albeit a relatively minor one, is a coherently and consistently designed show: there is something very satisfying about a production that simply looks as if it's all of a piece. Far more important, however, is the contribution made to the sense of wholeness by the story arc. Call me old fashioned if you like, but I only respond fully to stories with a beginning, middle and an ending a sequence I experience as a unity. And more important still than the movement of the plot is the sense of unity that comes with a traditional emotional arc for the story. By this I mean that the drama should end with the resolution for the protagonist of some kind of internal conflict.

The elements sketched out in the last couple of paragraphs seem, if I'm not being unduly immodest, to constitute at least the beginnings of a modern Theory of the Unities. I would be interested to read other people's contributions to the topic.

Footnotes:

1. It will be recalled that the rediscovery and subsequent destruction of Aristotle's lost book on comedy forms the background to the monastic murders in Umberto Eco's novel, The Name of the Rose.
2. Those interested in a lively fictional account of the Greek actor's life can do no better than turn to The Mask of Apollo by Mary Renault.
3. We reverse this illusion in our own practice of experiencing theatrical and cinematic spectacles in a darkened auditorium. The period "in the dark" exists outside normal time, and so can encompass years, if necessary, of dramatic time.
4. A play by Ian Mandleberg, Passover, posted to MontageShowcase is a case in point.
5. Still, not even Shakespeare mixed genres to the extent that the Players in Hamlet did, with their "tragical-comical, historical-pastoral, and comical-tragical-historical-pastoral."