From: Jeanne LIOTTA (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jun 30 2009 - 07:59:58 PDT
I love this thread!
Agreed Esperanza, 'breed'. But re: the original query <Dr. Wees , on historical differences between cinematic montage and cinematic collage> it seems the ways in which the terms are different might be a richer vein to mine than the ways in which they are similar.
for ex: the excellent term 'montage' gets you higher, due to it's etymology already embedded with labor and furthering the revolutionary cause of artist-as-worker, re our good friend Eisenstein as beautifully cited by Esperanza.
Not that any of this fits the "solid academic reference" called for.
I for one am somewhat nervous about 'firsts' since I was properly admonished by Tom Gunning once after giving a talk on J.Cornell where I referred to Rose Hobart as the first intentional cinematic collage, and he gently suggested I amend that to, "perhaps among the first". Duly noted.
Am reminded of this by Bruce C's post in discussing the Hungarian artist heretofore unknown to me, it never ends...
I dont understand the part about how time is linear in film.
I really thought it was just the opposite--space is linear, time isn't.
your comrade and idiosyncratic scholar
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.