If you go back to early Russian constructivists like Vertov and
Eisenstein, they sometimes applied fairly rigorous numeric patterns to
their metrical montage -- and it certainly worked for them. I've never
tried it myself in such a formal way. I suspect it's probably better
suited to silent film (or silent film accompanied by a fairly
traditional score with a well-defined time-signature), since dialogue
and naturalistic sounds have their own rhythms that aren't necessarily
going to work with an arbitrary rhythmic structure that is more rigid.
(Probably see it used more in music video, even unconsciously, if the
tendency is to cut on the beat.)
Cheers,
--Michael
On 11-10-29 10:36 AM, Job ter Burg (L2B) wrote:
>
>
> No.
>
> I don't know how and why you would count. Would you count shot
> lengths, basically measuring cuts? Most rhythmical editing - to me -
> is about the flow of what is happening _inside_ the frame, more so
> than about the actual picture change.
>
> I sometimes find I'm sort of counting, but more like when dancing,
> mostly to a 'beat' within the shot/scene.
>
> On 29 okt. 2011, at 00:52, George Loch wrote:
>
> > Do any of you find that you tend to edit in numerical patterns?
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No comments:
Post a Comment