I had trouble coming up with examples in films although I am sure there are many splendid ones over the years. However, after a long period of reflection (too long), it dawned on me that we see montage in action every day. Think of adverts on TV. Think of film trailers. Time is precious in these media so traditional continuity editing cannot get the job done here. So what they use is a very fast and compact montage technique to get a message across or a set of values. The viewer’s brain is an active participant in this process.

In fact the development of montage in the area of advertising is very sophisticated. It uses the latest insights in psychology both individual and social and taps into various concerns that we have. It is actually very powerful and in many ways works at the sub conscious level. We can make sense of images quicker and better than text or audio so the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” is undeniably true. If certain pictures evoke a certain response in people then it follows that certain sequences of pictures can also evoke predictable responses in the viewer.

What is interesting in some film trailers nowadays, particularly thrillers, is that the montage of scenes is put together to deliberately wrong foot the viewer and keep them guessing. Some film trailers are actually better than the film they are promoting because the montage allows your brain to create its own imaginary film before you see it. Very clever stuff. A little bit worrying if you are worried about brain washing and mind control and that sort of thing.

But the real beauty of montage in films is that every viewer can potentially have a slightly different understanding of the film. It engages the viewer’s brain and from an artist’s point of view that must be a good thing. In genre, say a western, you know what the rules are and when they are being broken. In montage there are no hard and fast rules; it is inherently more creative. As a film maker you have to experiment with images and sequences until you hit upon the right combination to evoke the response or feeling that you are looking for. Not only that but the great film makers can come up with new ways of getting their message across merely by using a unique series of images in a unique sequence. By the same token viewers can be confused by poorly structured montage sequences.

Maybe that is why there are so many film directors currently working who cut their teeth on adverts and commercials. We have seen many thirty second films in the advert break between the real films. Just watch them and maybe analyse them. They tell a story and they have a message. And the images are laden with meaning and action. And the sequence will have a beginning, a middle and an end. And they can be wildly creative. Maybe this is the real home of montage although it still does have a place in films.

Kuleshev found out that if you linked several unrelated shots to the same facial gesture then different interpretations of the meaning of that gesture could be reached. The mind tries to make sense of the gesture in the context of the what it sees around the gesture. Perhaps, an example will clarify. If we see a person crying but we see a coffin beforehand then our mind will surmise that the tears are expressing sadness at a person dying. However, if we see the same crying gesture juxtaposed with a shot of a mother smiling with a new born baby then the mind is likely to interpret the crying as tears of joy. I hope that explains it better. As editing is the process of putting bits of film together in a particular sequence to convey meaning, this discovery lead to development of two strands of editing – Continuity and Montage editing.

Continuity editing is by far the most prevalent form of editing and is seen as being in the Western story telling tradition. Its whole purpose is to knit together scenes seamlessly in a chronological order in order to provide a continuity of narrative. There is a grammar within this for pauses, new chapters, action etc. Most Hollywood movies use continuity editing although some have montage type sequences within the film.

Montage editing was developed in the early Russian cinema and is based on discontinuity and has affected a lot of European cinema. Art House cinema thrives on it. It is more expressive and “arty” but is still used today. In many of the early Russian films you regularly see two very different short sequences of film followed by a third which leads you in the direction of the meaning. It makes you think (it’s designed to make you think) and is difficult to appreciate at first particularly for people brought up on the Hollywood style of continuity editing. The apparent clash of images brings about new meaning to the shots that follow. In the film Strike by Eisenstein, shots of a slaughterhouse which on the face of it seem out of context are used to depict the killing of strikers by soldiers. A couple of examples. In The Godfather a series of killings in different locations  are cut with scenes of the baptism of Michael Corleone’s child towards the end of the film. There is a sharp contrast betwen the pious religious context of the baptism and the business and culture of revenge. The continuity of the church service soundtrack over all the events gives the cue that the events are happening at the same time. Another example can be seen in Apocalypse Now (right) where the execution of the renegade Colnel Kurtz is cut with the slaughter of an ox by the tribesmen who follow him. Interesting that both examples feature in films by the same director, Francis Ford Coppolla. Even in the film Gladiator the early sequences where the muddy preparations for the battle in the forest and cut with and contrasted with Maximus’ hand serenely stroking the barley in a field.

Both types of editing can exist in the same movie and produce very satisfying results for the filmgoer.

Personally, I have no great love for the film. I find it hard to have empathy for the central characters and it leaves me rather cold. But I do have tons of admiration for it. Orson Welles’ film was ground-breaking in many senses of the word. Its greatest gift was that of a new grammar for film-makers.

There are so many technical and stylistic innovations in the film that any audience at the time of its release would have been wowed by the “special effects”. Do you remember seeing Star Wars or The Matrix for the first time? Something like that!

Just to list a few of the innovations (mainly cinematography):

• Camera Angles – upward and downward camera angles to help create moods and points of view
• Depth of field – camera shots that show the back and the foreground in focus to create space and depth between the characters
• Tracking shots – camera movement over buildings, through windows to follow the action
• Use of flashbacks – creative use to dramatise the narrative
• Editing – different types of editing to convey pace and time and place

I am sure that there are many more if you analyse the film in detail but the point to be made was that it provided film makers who followed a broader range of techniques to call on to enhance their story telling and set the mood of their films. Welles was pronounced a genius after the opening of the film but it is Greg Toland’s photography that sets it apart from the films of that time. Was it Welles or Toland that was the genius?

Citizen Kane has its rightful place in history because it moved the film community forward and lit the fire of imagination for many generations to come. And in that respect it is by far the most influential film of all time.