## Martin Lefebvre, Marc Furstenau (2004). *Digital Editing and Montage: The Vanishing Celluloid and Beyond*. : . > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: Digital Editing and Montage: The Vanishing Celluloid and Beyond > Author(s): [[Authors/Martin Lefebvre, Marc Furstenau]] > Year:: 2004 > Tags:: > DOI:: 10.7202/007957ar > Citekey:: lefebvre_digital_2004 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Digital Editing and Montage: The Vanishing Celluloid and Beyond](zotero://select/items/@lefebvre_digital_2004) > ReviewedDate:: [[2022-09-30]] ## Citation ```latex [@lefebvre_digital_2004] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@lefebvre_digital_2004]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - 기본적으로 이 글은 아나로그 필름과 디지털의 에디팅 "cut"은 구별할 수 없다는 것을 전제로 한다. 그 증거로 이야기하는 것이 Gutenberg가 literature에 끼친 영향이 아무것도 없다는 것을 이야기한다. - [?] 하지만 저것은 잘못된 비교다. 실제로 비교하려면 펜과 타이프라이터를 비교했어야한다. - 디지털이 어떻게 에디팅에 영향을 끼쳤는가는 아직 너무 이를지도 모르지만 Moviolas (첫 영상을 보면서 편집할 수 있는 기기)가 나오고 나서 미국 영화에서 Average Shot Length (ASL)가 급격하게 짧아졌다. ^[Barry Salt, Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis, London, Starword, 1992, ] - 여러 필름 analysis 의 경우 Steenbeck (특히 Concordia Uni 70년대에서 80년대)을 사용했다. - 즉, 글쓴이들이 보기에 필름 분석은 이러한 VCR같은 도구들에 의해 많은 영향 ([[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce]]의 단어를 사용해서 interpretant (해석 경향) 을 받았다. [[André Bazin|Bazin]]에 따르면 두가지 분류의 감독이 있다. 리얼리티를 믿는 감독과 이미지를 믿는 감독, [[mise-en-scene]], [[Montage]] ## Other Comments - ### Annotation - “help of a digital system look exactly the same as cuts made by hand or with the help of a flatbed.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 70) - “After all, film viewers are unable to tell whether a given film has been edited by hand, with the help of a Moviola or a Steenbeck, or with the help of an Avid.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 70) - digital editing “has no clear, immediate and direct impact on editing patterns such as continuity editing or intellectual montage.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 70) “And it may equally be argued today that the quickening pace of many contemporary feature films (2506 shots in Ridley Scott’s 155 min. Gladiator, and over 2550 in David Fincher’s 139 min. Fight Club, for instance4)” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 71) “To start, then, we would like to briefly speculate on the way films are experienced and “conceived” through the interface of digital editing systems.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 72) “==Editors, it goes without saying, are no “ordinary” spectators,== though, of course, in order to edit a film they must screen” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 72) “==The editor is able to view the film in ways that disrupt its continuous forward movement==: the pace of the film can be quickened or slowed down, or even come to a dead halt.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 72) Most of the early “textual analyses” of Raymond Bellour, Thierry Kuntzel, Ben Brewster, Stephen Heath and others were made from prints screened using editing facilities. Other instances include the classroom: for example, at Concordia University during the late seventies and early eighties, film analysis seminars were taught with the use of a Steenbeck and, in large classes, with the help [sic] of an analytical stop- motion projector. (104, fn 8) “What 24 Hour Psycho represents, in a certain sense, is the sort of manipulation that can be achieved that make particular kinds of analyses possible, analyses that have sometimes been described as searches for a film’s “unconscious.”” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 75) “Just as the VCR may, as we’ve suggested, be understood as the domestic version of traditional editing systems, such as the Steenbeck or the Moviola, so the DVD player, we believe, may be understood in relation to new digital editing software and platforms, such as the Avid, FinalCut Pro, or Media 100.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 75) “It also gives the editor the ability to produce—quickly and at little cost—multiple versions of any given sequence (or section) of a film, and provides several on-screen (analog) display possibilities for the digitized data, including simultaneous visual display of unedited and edited material (showing up either as still or motion images in the source and record monitors), and corresponding timeline (i.e., a graphic—linear—representation of the duration of any given shot that indicates its temporal position with regards to the film’s temporal progression).” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 75) “For one thing, the non-linearity of digital editing systems that is reproduced in DVD players and other domestic technologies that allow viewers to view and manipulate images suggests the possibility of resurrecting other traditions of analysis, which are based on fragmentation and recombination.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 76) It is according to such technological inducements, then, that the very concept of a film may be seen to be undergoing a transformation, as films become less fixed, less determinate, as they are understood to be subject to ongoing and increasingly unrestrained alteration in both the editing room and the living room. (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 78) 샷 대 컷의 구조와 중요성에 대한 논란은 영화 이론의 토대를 형성한다. 특히 세르게이 아이젠슈타인과 앙드레 바진의 작품과 다양한 영화 제작자들의 작품에서, 한 요소가 다른 요소보다 우선한다는 믿음이 적어도 할리우드 밖에서 영화가 만들어지고 이해되는 방식을 결정해 왔다. Controversy over the structure and importance of the shot and the cut, of the shot versus the cut, forms the bedrock of film theory. In the writings of Sergei Eisenstein and André Bazin, especially, and the work of a variety of filmmakers, belief in the priority of one element over the other has determined the way films are made and understood, at least outside of Hollywood (Kolker 1998, p. 15, our emphasis). “Consequently, Bazin contends that the [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] superiority of the long take over montage lies in the fact that the presentation of an event in continuous space should lead us to believe in its “reality.”” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 81) “Filmmakers can therefore literally “edit” the contents of each image, by selecting and then deleting or importing pixels or groups of pixels.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 82) Of course, within the context of Bazin’s thought, the ambiguity of digitally composited shots seems to be that they can give viewers the impression of an event unfolding within a continuous and seamless space, when in fact the space in question is the product of digital editing (compositing or cloning). Let us consider an example Bazin uses. (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 83) 아이젠슈타인은 몽타주를 영화 구성의 기본 원리로 생각하기까지 했다. 그에게 있어 가장 높은 수준의 일반화 몽타주는 다름 아닌 바로 영화의 본질이었다. 그리고 진정한 유물론 정신으로, 그는 이 "본질"의 기원을 영화의 기본 물질 조건이나 기술적/광학적 기반 시설에서 정적인 프레임의 연속(또는 "충돌")을 통한 움직임의 생산으로 정했다. “Eisenstein went so far as to conceive of montage as the basic principle of film composition altogether. At its highest level of generalization montage for him represented nothing less than the very essence of cinema. And in true materialist spirit, he posited the origin of this “essence” in the basic material conditions or technical/optical infrastructure of film: the production of movement by way of the succession (or “collision”) of still frames on a strip of celluloid.” (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 89) 그러나 아이젠슈타인의 몽타주에 대한 많은 정의는 종종 형식적 고려(촬영에 국한되지 않고 포함)와 규범적 미적 요소(주어진 영화 요소가 아이젠스 내에서 관련이 있다고 여겨지는 특정 효과를 생산하기 위해 연관되어야 하는 원리) 사이에서 번갈아 나타난다.테인의 마르크스주의자와 모더니즘주의자는 충격, 비애, 황홀감, 상상력, 유기성 등과 같은 [[aesthetics|미학]]이다. Yet Eisenstein’s many definitions of montage often alternate between formal considerations (the process of associating filmic elements, including, but not limited to, shots) and prescriptive-[[aesthetics|aesthetic]] ones (the principles by which given filmic elements ought to be associated in the hope of producing certain effects considered relevant within Eisenstein’s Marxist—and modernist—aesthetic, e.g. shock, pathos, ecstasy, imaginicity, organicity, etc.). (Lefebvre and Furstenau, 2004, p. 89) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@lefebvre_digital_2004]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```