Montages can be used in several different ways to portray an array of meanings. A montage could show a slew of various video clips that depict a characters emotions throughout a lengthy event. Another way to use montage is to have a slideshow of images showing the growth or change of a character over a significant amount of time. A montage could also be a way to fast-forward through an event or occurrence that is too complicated to cover in complete detail.

Montage is subjective to convey different meanings. Montage can show a sequence of the character’s reaction to a certain action. Another exemple of montage would images of a person or an object’s progression and a final exemple of montage would be to speed through a certain évent that is too difficult to cover in one shot

One example of a montage is using a series of clips to serve as a storyline that leads up to a climax (i.e. wrestling pay-per-view matches ). Another example is using still images with an accompanying score and no dialogue to illustrate a journey or trip across time as seen in movies. One other example would be to re-tell the story of significant events using clips with commentary (such as highlights from a previous sporting event).

Montages can create all sorts of meaning depending on how they are put together, speed of cuts, type of music used if any, etc. But more importantly montages are used for very specific reasons.

1) To advance a story/idea quicker, or faster than it would be to show the scenes individually at full length.
2) Used as an overview of a certain area/idea. Having a montage of a scene in Europe would tell the audience that they are in Europe.
3) To make the audience feel some type of emotion. A quick and effective way of making the audience feel sad or angry very quickly can ramp up a serious documentary.

A montage is generally a series of clips showcasing a situation or event. Fans of characters on a television series or movie commonly create a short timeline of events covering a specific storyline or storylines over time with music attached to help tell the story.

Another example of a montage includes a compilation of scenes from a movie that helps piece together a typical movie trailer.

A montage can also be used to recap situations in a short time frame from a movie, tv show or even something shown in a music video, just to name a few.

1. An example of a montage is a shot in which shows a character performing an action over and over again, which in turn creates the effect that the character is now skilled at this action

2. Another example can be still movements that highlight important portions of an event, such as highlights of a football game.

3. Montages can be used to show timing, for example a character on a mission or journey, that takes time to accomplish.

1) One example of montage is to show a difference in time. For example, you could show how the New York skyline changed from 1950 till now.
2) Another example of montage is to show a difference in place. If a person in a movie travels from New York to Amsterdam, different shots can show the viewer that the person is in New York, then on a plane, and in the next shot (that shows canals and houses in Amsterdam for example) arrived in Amsterdam.
3) A third example of montage would be to show what kind of emotions a person has. The example you used in the first class was with a shot of a sad guy, than a bowl of soup, than a shot of a happy guy, which suggests that the guy is happy because he wanted soup. The other way around (happy guy, bowl of soup, sad guy) would suggest that the person does not like the soup.

In short I would say that montage can make things clear in a very short amount of time and can also change the story telling.

A montage is a film editing technique in which a short series of shots are edited to save space. It can consist of the following techniques.

Still pictures
Sepia tone
Slow-paced editing
Orchestral music
No dialogue

By being slow in pace, usually with music in the background, montages aim to convey a message.

1. Tracks a journey from one country to another.

2. Through many pictures, show the progression from the infancy of something to its full development in order to deliver a message. (Passage of time).

3. Portrayal of a scene from different angles.

The new advancements that allowed for the moving pictures to be created allowed for a new art form to be created and developed. The aesthetics of the moving picture did just what it sounds it would do. With a whole new field of expression created, film makers began experimenting with different angles, lighting, and all the other styles we see today to develop their own individual style of aesthetics. Along with a new genre of aesthetics came a new set of morals to be tested as the previous arts could not have possibly captured such events.

Expanded technological resources made film makers able to focus on the points that were meaningful to them, creating different ways to tell the same story. The moral implications are that you can play with the storyline of a real event to make it fit within your point of view. This challenges the truth value of documentaries. From an aesthetic stand point, technological resources enhanced creativity within documentaries, offering new techniques within the field and turning film making into an art.

If the objective of a movie or documentary is to evoke some sort of emotion then of course the result of more advances in the industry will also demand an increase in morality and aesthetics. Cinematographers and actors have pretty much one job, make a scene look pretty and be pretty respectively.

There is also a high demand to shock and awe the audience with questionable types of film that either have excessive violence, realism, or nudity.

The aesthetic and moral result can be viewed in such a way that a film maker can control the effect that they wished to portray to their audience. It allowed for ideas to be presented in a different form, however, to create the same effect. Stimulation of the eye is the goal of cinematographers and this allows them to go in depth with these type of tactics.

Both aesthetically and morally I think film changed a lot. It made it possible to show images from different sides, thus creating different perspectives. For example, one filmmaker could show an event and made it look like it was very boring, while another one could use different footage that showed it was amazing. Shots that do not contribute to the story a certain filmmaker wants to tell, can be easily left out and thus create a different story.

Depending on how the editing is used by the film maker, it may or may not be used dishonestly. If the sequence is constructed in a way that the actual speeches and views of the individuals portrayed become changed or distorted then the film maker will lose credibility. But if the hypothetical conversation created does not change the intended reactions of the clips used, it can be to the editors advantage. Also playing a role in the honesty is the overall mood of the film itself because such a sequence may not be anything more than a device to mock those who the documentary is aimed at.

I don’t believe this is dishonest, but I do believe this has a chance to influence the viewer based on the phrases chosen. A Documentary is a form of reporting, and reporters often have opinions. It’s up to the viewer to understand that film makers may have an agenda. In order for the viewer to have an entire view of a person or event, one documentary often isn’t enough. Writing this made me second guess my answer, but I would have to watch this documentary to see the actual reason behind this false dialogue!

Whether dishonest or not dishonest really depends on the film maker and the purpose of the documentary. If it’s is a biographical documentary then it has to be factual or else thé credibility will questioned.

The dishonesty takes place as far as the dialogue being an illusion of a conversation between the speakers. The speakers words aren’t altered, their setting is. Putting the speakers altogether to create a false productive conversation expands the agenda of the documentary. However, their words are still fact in the sense that it is not hearsay (spoken from someone else). Therefore, changing the context of the supposed factual dialogue creates dishonesty and drama; instead, the documentary pushes an agenda instead of facts.

I think this is a tricky question to answer, however, I feel that they were honest in this film. I believe what they captured was genuine. There were two parts in the film where the narrator raised some questions for me. First off, it was discussed how people were aware of the camera and may have worked harder than they normally would have (i.e. the workers at the train station.) Really, I believe this would have happened any day in age. It does not mean that the film makers were dishonest. Also, it was also discussed that the factory workers exiting the factory were “directed” in exiting either left or right due to the placement of the camera. I do not view this as dishonesty because if everyone came out and walked directly towards the camera, there would have been no decent footage that would have been captured.

In my head I am imagining a supercut of every speaker saying like one word to convey a whole sentence like the edited Obama scenes to make him sing “Hotline Bling.” But I don’t think that this is dishonest if the scenes were played in full in the documentary. If they are not played in full later and the speakers are manipulated into saying something that they did say, then that is dishonest. You can edit someone to say anything if you have enough footage, and it would be dishonest to show the audience that.

Honesty vs. Dishonesty depends on the outcome of the completed sentence and whether the individuals agreed with the end result. If one says something negative and another says something positive, but the overall result is collectively positive as presented, or negative, there is definitely dishonesty since the actual results were skewed. This is dishonest.

If everyone said the same statement, but each line they said was pieced together as separate pieces, it’s fine. The comment remains intact.

Although the cinematogropher has complete control and influence of the view, i do not believe that this is dishonest. In a conversation, each and every individual may have an alternative way to explain the message that they are trying to convey, nevertheless; the message gets across. This can be compared with film makers. The nature of the work that they are in is to give out content that they see in their mind and wish to spill out to others. Opinions will be in abundance.

I think that, even if a filmmaker does not falsify the footage, it could never be totally honest. It shows a truth but some form of the truth. As I said above, different footage can be used and create a whole different story. Both stories can show what really happened but have a different effect, although they are both kind of true. Still, it is not the whole truth. The viewer should keep in mind that it is always structured and subjective and can never show the whole truth. It is the same with newspapers or the news on the television I guess. Only by even choosing a certain word, you create a certain image. Shots do the same. They always show half of a story, structured by its maker. (I am not saying that this is wrong but I do think it is never totally honest and that a person should keep that in mind.)

More often than not filmmakers that undertake a documentary project, whether it be intentionally or unintentionally, produce projects that are dishonest in nature. This is done because they want to convey a message that ideally is the thesis of their documentary. However with most things when you have a point of view on something they is always points opposite yours which makes the filmmaker decide upon whether or not he wants to discredit his claims [reporting].

Documentaries tell a story by presenting a series of facts and descriptions in accordance with visual documents and evidence that complete the story. However, the film makers may choose to purposely leave out certain important points that are crucial to the structure of the actual event but would be detrimental to the point they are trying to make. This is why when watching documentaries we reserve some of our belief until individual research has been done.

Documentaries are presented with evidence to correlate to the visual aspect of the film. The documentary can be distorted when the film maker leaves out details that maybe important.

Many documentaries I’ve seen tend to provide the audience with a load of information, wether about a war, celebrity, or natural disaster, followed by personal experiences about that subject. Because those personal experiences, are told to us at face value, we, the audience, tend to automatically feel the connection that it is real and truthful. The data of the documentary (time/date of events, casualties, etc.) may be presented as fact, and even that can be false. But, the experiences of those involved cannot be defined as fact because they vary from subject to subject too much.

Documentaries can tell the written facts of an event or topic, but is usually presented based on what the producer deems as important facts of a story. Most documentaries seemed loaded with a specific motive as you are told a story through the thoughts of a filmmaker, who puts his opinion into the facts of the story. There are many sides to a story and most (if not all) documentaries fail to provide every perspective of a story. It is important to be wary of the fact-choosing that occurs within documentaries in an effort to alter your opinion and perceptions towards the filmmakers.

I believe that a documentary is a presentation of facts, however, that line can be blurred from time to time. Some things that we do not know when documentaries are presented, is the sequence of events. Is the film pieced together in the way that it was shot? Were comments showed before or after an event happened? I also believe that this can be inadequate in the sense that events of a film could be altered to look a certain way to fuel a certain outcome. This can be done by a bias from the filmmaker. I believe that documentaries are mostly factual but can be misrepresented from time to time.

The idea that a documentary is factually based is a presumption on the part of people. When there is a person, subject or thing being covered by the director and presented in a format that isn’t scripted, the presumption is that whatever is being said is based on factual information by the person(s) discussing it.

The statements can be inadequate because they may not be telling the truth, and therefore the concept loses its relevance.

What you see in a documentary is true but sometimes they can be manipulated to create a misrepresentation of what truly has occurred. Certain parts and angle of the story can be left out which is why you almost always never get the full story in a documentary. They may try and organize the film in a way which would make you think one way as opposed to another. This why when watching documentaries it is vital to grasp them with a grain of salt.

This statement is inadequate because of how heavily influenced the film makers’ ideas are of the content. While the film maker can present facts, its the way that they go about presenting these facts. The way they are presented, or the way the film maker sees fit to present these “facts” can heavily influence their audience.

It is inadequate because a documentary filmmaker could never show the whole truth. Shots and images are always structured. Still, everything that is shown can be facts and the truth, but you always leave stuff out as well, thus creating a certain story and perspective. I think documentary filmmakers should know they can never fully capture a whole story but should always try to come as close to the truth as possible (so trying to stay as objective as possible).

In my opinion documentaries are a presentation of findings and not facts. When you say facts, these are statements that are supposed to be presented as they are for general consumption by the viewer. However more often than not filmmakers take these facts and manipulate them in a way that fits their story line in order to better portray their vision for their documentary.

The truth found in the Lumiere Brothers’ films is more of a sense of reality that a point proven truthful. The fact that their clips capture a busy street with people and transport moving around quickly shows a reality that people were accustomed to, which in turn made them believable.

The Lumiere brothers did their best to stay true to the event they were filming. Timing their shots created a sense of art as true as one can make through film, although the point brought up that a camera transforms reality is a valid one in the sense that people might act different when being filmed.

It was interesting to watch their documentary in regards to timing. A new scene in the documentary always seemed to show something coming to an end. For example, all the factory workers exiting the factory (their train coming to an end.) It also showed a train coming into the station (their ride coming to an end.) I think by filming at these times, they were able to capture the reactions of the people as best they could. For example, they were happy to leave work. Happy to be getting off the train, etc.

The Lumiere brothers goal was to record life in the new industrial era that took the world by storm. Even with little added effects, such as the horse and newly invented bicycle placed in front of the French factory, creates drama but, expresses another fact: evolution in transportation. Everyday life was exciting enough to film with the new changes of the world.

Everyone who has ever taken a decent photo or shot a great video has had timing to thank. Though some of their stuff seems a little staged, the fact that they were there and rolling at the same time are some crazy odds. If they weren’t trying to capture as much as they could with such a new device we might not have film as we know it today. They felt a need to document their everyday life experiences.

Timing is everything. When you are ahead of the curve you make breakthroughs. The Lumiere brothers being ahead of the game when it came to film allowed them to take credit long sought by others to make the moving image a reality.

I think the timing is the fact that they were capturing real footage of the working class people going about their everyday lives. The shots you are seeing are so straightforward, pure, and basic which gives them a strong degree of truth and honesty regardless if they are staged or not.

Timing is key. Timing ties in the visual aspect and the relevance of what the film maker is trying to say. As stated previously, the Lumiere Brothers’ films used timing to have their viewers relate immensely, simply because they portrayed a world that everyone was currently living in.

I think timing was everything in the Lumiere Brothers’ movie. It is structured (for instance when you see the people leaving the factory and all walking to the left or the right, not paying attention the the camera) but it still shows how everyday life went in these days I guess. To show all the people leaving the factory at the end of the day or showing how the wall collapsed (and showing it backwards as an extra effect and to emphasize it) has everything to do with timing. If they would have showed some footage of the factory while everybody was still working or when that wall would not have collapsed (or the train station but then without a train arriving, and so on), it would have been way less exiting to watch.

Whether it be filming the horses, workers coming out of the factory or the bicycle, if the shots were taken a particular way at a particular time it would portray a completely different message to the viewer. When the bicycle was in front of the factory, yes it portrays the advancement of transportation but what if it was in the floor and damaged? It would easily portray a message that this form of transportation is becoming obsolete.

Timing is very important. Even when facts are presented, the director must show them in timely and sensible manner to get the intentional message across. The applies to points in a documentary that we know are not facts or the ones we interpret as not true. But the work Lumiere Brothers have done here mirrors the truth of people’s lives but the set up was successful due to time considerations.

I was not bored although I can see why some might have been. The clips shown were merely of everyday happenings, though groundbreaking for the time and a view into what the great cities of the world used to look like there is no significant event occurring in the clips. With this in mind the angles at which the clips were captures created depth because of the various diagonal and angular paths used by the moving subjects. The respect is created through the fact that almost instantly the Lumiere Brothers grasped the art of the motion picture and slowly developed a guideline for filming subjects in the most aesthetically pleasing fashion.

With the advancements that we have made since the Lumiere brothers created this whole new category in the arts, I understand why someone who is not interested in the history film making might be bored watching their film. However, seeing the craft behind the pioneers of documentary, where it all started and how the Lumiere brothers went about it given the tools that they had creates this sense of respect.

I was honestly not bored while watching the film, but thé facture that it was a film from i’m guessing the 1800s, that the film was jumpy so i couldn’t totally focus. I was into thé film because it was thé start of innovation regarding film making.

I wouldn’t necessarily say I was bored watching the films as it was innovative for its time. Being able to see organic actions and movements for people on film is fascinating and refreshing, as it is always intriguing to see one being themselves rather than “acting” like themselves when everyone can see. The depth as mentioned came from the various angular views the Lumiere Brothers used to film the moving subjects, most notably shooting from the diagonal, which created reverse effects on screen. The respect of the Brothers’ mastery of filming in favorable ways for viewing.

While watching the documentary, I didn’t find myself bored, rather, having to watch it from a different point of view. I am used to watching documentaries in today’s format and watching it in the Lumiere’s format was different. I found myself watching more for the reactions and emotions of the people in the film. Also, since it was brought up in class, I found myself heavily focused on the angles they shot the scenes in. I cannot say that it is a documentary that I would watch to completion, but I found other aspects of the film interesting.

Some of their films are just very boring, it is in their nature. Seeing workers get off their shift in workmen clothes and then seeing them do the same in nice clothes is not very entertaining. Mainly because we are used to narratives and big explosions but some of their films are fascinating. Like the New York films where a hundred years ago there were horse and buggies still in the city. That is crazy to me to see how much has changed in such a small amount of time, NYC is unrecognizable.

We owe a lot of respect to the Lumiere Brothers because they brought film making to another level. They took something that was very new and scary to a lot of people and turned it into something that could be shown to a whole room of people. And even though it was so new to them, they were able to develop techniques that are still used today. Rule of thirds is a big part of their films to make each shot look dynamic. They also used a lot of diagonals to also make the shots more interesting.

Without some of these innovations film would be very different or nonexistent.

I was far from bored. It’s interesting seeing how the moving image began as a simple concept that could only be dreamt and compare it to today’s technology as we utilize video still not even imagined. Think of the evolution of television. Programming moved from audio only heard on radio and then with the advent of the moving image we were able to transition to TV. From TV, we now watch things on our computers, laptops, cell phones, etc.

The respect given is how much we’ve come along since the Lumiere brothers first brought their idea to fruition before others could get theirs to work.

The films that they were showing were simple actions that did not seek to entertain a viewer. Back then, the Lumiere brothers were simply trying open a new aspect of filming that was never seen before, which was the way they shot their pictures in odd, unique and different angles, that created a higher degree of depth in their films. Most people respect the creation of something new. However someone watching the films during that time period may have been amazed or really impressed by this new way of filming but to people today this is just not entertaining enough.

I was a little bit bored, however, I do believe I am biased. We live in a generation where technology is so advanced and images are seen clearly and with much more depth. These films were mainly about life during that era and so it is difficult to relate. It is fascinating to see how much film has advanced and the thought process the Lumiere Brothers’ were going through when trying to depict a picture.

I was not bored although I would probably be if they would make a film like this today. Since we are so used to special effects, a lot of action and great camerawork, we are kind of spoiled actually when it comes to film. But to know this was something totally new in that time and that we are still using a lot of things the Lumiere Brothers invented (people walking certain ways, the train arriving in a straight line, as also the lines from the bridge and stuff) makes it a really interesting film to watch.

It was mildly borrowing. Mainly probably because I had to watch it on my own in the library. None the less it can easily be borrowing because most people do not like watching other peoples lives unless it includes violence, drama or both. The Lumiere film depicts simple lives and starkly contrastive to the lives fulfilled by figures in our times such as the Kardashians.

The films were a breakthrough in a sense that it was an entirely new art form that could be used to show the range of human emotion and actions that had been recreated through arts and photography to that point. Today we may see these clips as boring but back then it was a way for people to see what other cities were like without going through the rigors of travel to visit them.

How we view ourselves and other societies was completely changed with this ability to document through movement and not only still frames. Humans are not sculptures, so how can a photograph or a painting accurately document an event that can’t be told in just one picture? The Lumiere brothers created an entirely new medium.

The Lumière brothers discovered the way to capture actions and émotions on film.

It is a breakthrough in the sense that it changed the perception of how people viewed themselves and the world around them. People would usually derive their own meaning from written words and photographs to determine how a place or person was like. But being able to capture movement on film and apply a visual to their interpretations allowed for people to relate more with ideas and concepts through a new medium.

I think this film was considered to be a breakthrough in many aspects. First off, I think it was great that they were able to film different aspects over the country. Being able to see what life was like in New York and then being able to see what it was like in Chicago was a breakthrough to be able to compare lifestyles. I also believe that there was a breakthrough in the sense that they were able to capture the emotion and actions of people rather than just fifty seconds of film. So, in my opinion, this film paved the way for a lot of innovations in the film industry.

Lots of their breakthroughs may have been on accident or intentional but what we know for sure is that they knew how to put together a shot. Their aesthetics for a scene and their timing really skyrocketed them into fame and notoriety.

Breakthrough means something new or never been done before. The documentary film done by the Lumiere brothers showed a new concept of visualization. Previously it was unheard of to have moving photography.

What the Lumiere Brothers’ accomplished is considered breakthrough simply because it was never done before. They found a way to convey emotions and actions of people to the public. They opened a lot of doors for future cinematographers.

The film was a breakthrough by showing things that have never been done before. As I have mentioned, the train arriving from far away and than coming closer to the screen is something which we still see today in a lot of movies. The people at the factory walking in certain ways, the lines from the bridge. The short scene with the kid standing on the hose was the first comedy, the people sitting outside in their garden with their baby at home the first home movie, the people laughing and drinking wine the first commercial, the wall collapsing and then showing it backwards the first special effects, and so on and so on. We can thank the Lumiere Brothers for a lot that we still see in films today and they made it possible for other filmmakers to continue with what they started.

For many flying was not possible, so in a sense, the same concept of being able to film the world instead of just having a still image was revolutionary. No longer would people have to be confined to expressing one emotion but now an entire array of emotions and figures can be included and expressed.

These films by the Lumiere brothers created an entirely new perspective on reality which concerned observing others. In these activities that were being filmed, normal daily activity was recorded. This made it unique to view considering other normal people (who performed daily activities themselves), would watch them. It’s like a double-vision on reality through a simple everyday lense.

Within those 50 seconds, the Lumiere saw a medium in which they can show whatever they wanted. They used film as a way to show different sides of society. The people coming out of the the factory. A guy watering plants A baby eating with its parents. Different aspects of society were captured.

The slow progression of camera techniques used begins with the straight on angle of the workers leaving the factory. Squared up with the building the camera capture the angular movement of all the workers moving throughout the frame. They then move to a wide shot of the busy street and to shots of train platforms with trains coming and going. They eventually begin to experiment with shots from the train while moving throughout the city. It is easy to see how this quick development of techniques can be described as a breakthrough

In the Lumiere Brothers’ films, they used a side angle of the workers leaving their jobs. This created a different effect when visualizing that allowed the audience to feel connected, as though we were front and center watching. They used the technique of moving the camera as the people moved as well.

You really see how the experimented with different shots and angles. They show people in their everyday lives and in different forms (at work, traveling, at home). The angles they used (people walking a certain way, the bridge) show that they did not just put the camera somewhere but were really thinking about it and even gave people instructions (do not walk towards the camera or look to it). Also the rewind of footage shows a technique. Not only do they want you to look at certain things (by placing the camera where they placed them) but also they want you to focus on some, by replaying it but in a different way. It is interesting because the film has been made so long ago but still has a lot of features of film as we know it today.

For their time, experimenting with something literally “new” and “out the box” they did an amazing job. By analyzing how they direct and take shots of everything shows how they were so intimate with their work. This dedication and intimacy shows even today as some of the shots and directions you can see in films since.