|
Arabic
Bengali
Chinese
English
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Malay
Polish
Portuguese
Spanish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese|
BOOKS AND ARTICLES Mounting language
The first difference of the assembly language is that all verbs in it exist only in the present tense. That is why this is the best way to use them in the script. On the screen, everything exists only "here and now". After all, the feelings and emotions of the viewer, to which, first of all, the screen appeals, it does not matter at all whether the material was filmed a week or a century ago, or is being broadcast live. He sees it now. And for feelings and emotions, in contrast to the intellect, "yesterday" does not happen. We cannot rejoice, resent, love or cry "yesterday" or "tomorrow". The second difference is that there is not a single abstract concept in this language. How to remove the concept of a "good book" and how will it differ from a "bad book"? Binding? Or the author's name and title? But for this, not only the director, but also the viewer must know the content of this book. In order to tell the viewer the phrase "He reads a lot of good books", we need to show in the frame an entire home library with very specific books, and even so that the viewer can read their titles or authors on the covers. Naturally, the concept of "good" in this case is also specified in those books that the director considers good. Those. instead of a simple literary phrase, we get a mounting construction: "he has a lot of books" (general area of shelves) - "these are books by Dostoevsky, Pushkin, Marquez", etc. (cr. square covers) - "he reads them" (a number of characteristic details, which show that these books not only decorate the interior, but are also read). We are free to imply the most abstract ideas, but we can only speak of and through very concrete objects. The screen does not make any general reasoning "about life and death." It will be a story only about life and death, love and hate of specific characters. Another thing is that this story can - or to be precise, it should - be constructed in such a way that behind these specific ups and downs of specific characters, the viewer feels the universality of the story being told and his personal involvement in it. It was felt, and not only understood by the intellect. By and large, the second is only a free and optional condiment. Therefore, the following rule - the editing language is designed to convey, first of all, sensual-emotional, and not intellectual information. The so-called "intellectual cinema", unless it connects the intellect with emotion and the sensual sphere, is a field of illustrated philosophy or didactics, rather than artistic creation. The same applies to attempts to create on the screen or illustrate situations of the so-called. "abstract images": metaphors invented by the director, abstract images of abstract concepts, etc. The action and attributes of an object in the editing language are inseparable from the object itself. In fact, try to capture the movement itself, without showing either the moving object or what it is moving past. You can shoot the evening sky, evening city or forest, but try to shoot the evening as such. Alas, Gogol's description of a quiet Ukrainian night is not available for the screen. Twilight on the screen is just a certain object in the appropriate lighting. And "Rus-troika" is only a trio of specific horses harnessed to a specific wagon of a certain shape and color, which ride along a clearly visible road surface, etc. The well-known "Vesti" screen saver is still the work of artists and has little to do with the everyday work on the screen. The qualities of an object on the screen can only be conveyed through comparison with other objects. How else can a viewer distinguish a "big house" from a "small house"? Counting floors? It will say something to his intellect, but nothing to his feelings. In order for the emotion to turn on, he must feel the enormity of the building, and this can only be achieved by giving a certain key for comparison: another house, a person, an insect ... If, at the same time, you still shoot the house from the point of view of a person, and the person from the point of view of the house - then the task will be performed more accurately, because the viewer will no longer receive only the concept of height, but also of the appearance of the object from the point of view of another. In general, the more compared properties will be presented, the more emotional the comparison will be. It is even better if the frames are not compared, but collided - their emotional impact in this case increases by orders of magnitude. Although, as elsewhere, here, too, there is a limit to sufficiency. In the general case, the logic of constructing a montage phrase does not copy, but is close to the logic of human speech. Agree that the gluing of frames "a hand takes a book" and "a man opens a book" corresponds to the normal logical norm "He took a book and opened it." But rearrange these frames and get "He opened the book and took it" - i.e. complete nonsense. Unfortunately, the violation of even this elementary rule is often found on the screen. For example, synchronizing the hero in the house; the hero gets up and leaves the frame; in the yard he takes an ax; cr. - an ax cuts wood; the hero of the house is a continuation of the synchronism. Excuse me, but who is chopping wood there? Why is this happening? Because with a contrasting and accentuated, hard change of scene, angle or size, the viewer perceives what is happening in the glued frames not as a sequence, but as a simultaneity of action, as the existence of a whole in time (transfer of gaze to another object). If we do not have a shot of the hero returning to the house, we will have to insert 1...3 shots in which this person will not be present - then the viewer will perceive this transition organically: while we were looking at the pigs, the birdhouse and the frozen well, the hero returned to the kitchen . Moreover, the more significant the change in place, time or situation, the less time you can keep your eyes on other objects. The space on the screen always includes the passage of time. And if the space is decided and filmed as everyday, then time, its flow can no longer be changed, cannot be pulled out of the everyday rhythm and speed. "With the everyday flow of time on the screen, the move into imagery is practically ordered." V. A. Latyshev. However, screen time is not adequate to real time, it is more compressed. The viewer also perceives each gluing as a temporary bill. Therefore, if you give three short shots, more screen time will pass than in one, even if it was twice as long. Moreover, time in the frame flows the faster, the richer it is with action. Therefore, where three observation frames are needed, one action frame may be sufficient. In our case, all three frames of looking at the yard can be replaced with one, for example, dogs fighting over a bone. As in verbal language, formal logic can be arbitrarily violated by the author in order to achieve a certain artistic effect. The only restriction is that the phrase, as in ordinary language, must always remain meaningful. An example of such a phrase: the hero’s story sounds behind the scenes, and we see him straightening his tie at the mirror, in the car, office, laboratory, library, again in the car, institute audience, again in the car and finally at the same mirror, taking off his tie. If this phrase is accurately built according to the sizes and compositions of frames, then we will never have to let the hero out of the frame or insert an "interruption". On the contrary, it is precisely such a construction that will convey a sense of the saturation of the hero’s working day, the density of his schedule, the variety of worries - i.e. a whole complex of sensations, for a convincing description of which Leo Tolstoy would need a whole chapter. We can spend less than a minute on it. The editing language is closer to English than to Russian, in the sense that the order of shots is of fundamental importance for understanding the meaning of the editing phrase. A rearrangement of shots can not only shift the accents, but also change the meaning of the editing phrase, up to the opposite. We take three frames of the same home library: 1. cf. pl., a person takes a book, opens it; 2. cr. pl., Poland on the spines of books on the shelves; 3. common pl., shelves with many books. Frames given in this order line up in the phrase "how many books they have already read." Now let's rearrange the frames in a different order: 3 - 2 - 1. The meaning of the phrase will also change to the opposite: "how much to read." Option 3 - 1 - 2 will say the same thing, but with an emphasis on what kind of books are waiting for him. And 2 - 3 - 1 will tell what books are here and that he reads them. Of course, the exact reading of the edited phrase will depend not only on the order of frames, but also on their content, angles, sizes, construction of compositions, lights, colors, human behavior, interframe and intraframe tempo-rhythms, etc. All these elements also affect the accuracy of construction and the adequacy of the emotional and semantic reading of the montage phrase. But you need to firmly remember one of the basic rules of editing: A + B is not equal to B + A. I strongly advise you to experiment with the montage material in this way and test all these provisions in practice, rearranging the frames of the montage phrase and trying to translate the literary phrase into the montage language. Just try to check each option on someone else - how the meaning of the phrase will be read by an unbiased viewer. The goal is to learn how to build a montage phrase adequately to the viewer's perception. In montage, there really is not only vocabulary and grammar, but also its own spelling and even punctuation. We are talking about a dot frame and an ellipsis frame, a question frame and an exclamation frame. But montage "punctuation marks" are just as inseparable from the object as are its actions and definitions. The montage language of cinema has been around for a century. Of course, compared with literary language, this period seems like an instant. But even over the century, using the experience of other arts, a considerable number of montage techniques have been accumulated that are similar to stylistic techniques in literature (and often reproduce them). Author: A. Kaminsky; Publication: v-montaj.narod.ru
▪ How to transfer a home movie to CD ▪ MPEG-2 capture to GoTView PCI DVD and burning to DVD discs
Artificial leather for touch emulation
15.04.2024 Petgugu Global cat litter
15.04.2024 The attractiveness of caring men
14.04.2024
▪ The MP3 format is officially free ▪ Tsunami pacified by mathematics ▪ Smart watch Timex Ironman R300 GPS
▪ section of the site Voltage stabilizers. Article selection ▪ article Cutting unnecessary fragments of an AVI file in VirtualDub. video art ▪ article What does Nigaz, founded with the participation of Gazprom, do? Detailed answer ▪ article Transport of the future. Personal transport ▪ article Five-band active tone control. Encyclopedia of radio electronics and electrical engineering
Home page | Library | Articles | Website map | Site Reviews
www.diagram.com.ua |
We recommend interesting articles Section 
See other articles Section 
Latest news of science and technology, new electronics:
All languages of this page