The whole criticism of Eisenstein’s montage theory leaves me very conflicted! However - I make my peace by taking from the aims that each of these esteemed filmmakers was pursuing: for Sergei I believe it was about finding how to distil meaning in the choice of the cut - audiences can and will populate editing choices with associations and there is huge satisfaction to be found in master editing.
For the Ghibli lads I adore that they wanted to root the work in something that is centred in some form of reality that we can be invested in.
I take peace in agreeing with both traditions because both are interested in finding vitality and truth that we can instinctively trust and therefore lean into it.
Great comment, and totally agreed. It just makes sense that master filmmakers would disagree with each other about filmmaking -- they've all thought about it and lived with it deeply for decades, and reached their own conclusions and convictions about it. That's part of what makes them masters, but it also tends to make them resistant to other approaches. There's a lot to be gained from their ideas about filmmaking even if you don't agree with all of them.
Really enjoyed this article, very thought provoking! Made me think of On Your Mark and how much of a challenge that must have been for Miyazaki to tell a story with such limited runtime.
Thinking about the video, it somehow doesn't feel like montage despite cutting across time and space so frequently. But then that is montage, so is it somehow a montage film without the montage feeling?
Your point about On Your Mark is a good one. Miyazaki definitely uses elements of montage filmmaking in it (something you see in a lot of music videos) but it doesn't have that much of a "montage feeling."
Revisiting it with this in mind, one of the secrets could be that a ton of the video is still made up of sequential shots -- way more than you'd find in a typical music video. Miyazaki adds montage, which gives On Your Mark a different feel from his other work. But he also consistently goes back to portraying events in a sequence (the scene when the bridge explodes, the laboratory break-in, the drive through the wasteland). So it's an unusual mishmash of styles, where he shifts between montage and continuity editing without warning.
Super thoughtful comment that's making us look at On Your Mark in a new light. Thank you!
I will give my thoughts but also state that I have not watched any Eisenstein films. I really enjoyed hearing more about Takahata and Miyazaki's thoughts on film making in this article because something I am drawn to more as I grow older are well constructed long takes. Scorsese and Kubrick both use long takes in their films to amazing effects and it draws me in to the sense of reality of the film. It seems like a good long take involves real thought, planning and work to construct well. I enjoy good montages and it was something that American films of the 1980's used in powerful ways for either comical or dramatic effect. Montage feels like a skill that if used poorly is a cheaper effect that takes me out of a film quicker than a poor long take. Poor long takes are boring but poor montages feel jarring. As a kid I think I enjoyed montage more and as an adult I enjoy long takes more. I see a similarity to this and what Miyazaki is getting at with some of the quotes in this article since he uses long takes in his films as part of that sense of time and space continuity.
Many thanks for this thoughtful comment! The power of a great long take is really something to witness. We recently read about a 6-minute unbroken shot that Andrei Tarkovsky filmed for his final movie -- they had to burn down a building for it (and there was a retake, so they had to rebuild it for the second try). But it's just got incredible energy; it feels like it's really happening. It's amazing what films can do.
A wonderful look at what makes these films special. It was so relaxing to watch The Boy and the Heron and immerse myself into a world without montage or other visual shortcuts to speed up the story.
I'm surprised Osamu Dezaki wasn't brought up, because I feel like Miyazaki's critique of elasticity of time was against how popular and revered Dezaki was in the anime industry for its complex storyboard blocking above all else approach to directing anime.
Dezaki was definitely someone Miyazaki and Takahata had in mind -- Ashita no Joe is mentioned by name in one of Miyazaki's pieces, even though Dezaki himself isn't. He was up there with the very best and most artful at this style back then. But it spread well beyond just Dezaki's shows: one of Miyazaki's biggest targets for decades was Kyojin no Hoshi, the baseball series he seems to have been referring to in his comment we quoted. At least based on what they wrote, it seems less like a professional beef with Dezaki in particular and more like a general philosophical difference with the TV anime style of direction.
Very interesting article, thanks for writing! Miyazaki is undeniably a brilliant filmmaker, but whenever he goes off like this it's so funny, like what are you talking about my man? I don't really see how the Horus fight scene is a repudiation of montage theory...
Like if we break this down into a shot list, you've got...
1. panning establishing shot across the cliffs. Horus enters, fighting the wolves; we get a closeup of his axe. He makes a spatially very dubious drop from the cliff to the foreground and exits to the left.
2. panning shot. Horus is being chased by wolves and swinging his little axe around.
3. a brief closeup of Horus's feet as a wolf snaps at them and Horus jumps.
4. low-angle shot of Horus in midair.
5. the wolves running up the cliff. The high angle suggests this is a reverse shot.
6. static shot of Horus landing on a rock.
7. reverse over-the-shoulder shot of the wolves running up towards him, one jumps.
8. reverse medium shot of Horus deflecting the attack.
9. wolf getting slashed and falling off camera.
10. Horus intercepting the next few wolves. Horus seems to be winning this fight.
11. really cool perspective shot with two grey wolves in the foreground looming over Horus in the background. maybe he's not winning after all...
12. closeup of Horus with his eyes moving between the targets.
13. closeup of the two wolves. after a moment of anticipation they jump.
14. long shot of Horus fending off the wolves. one of the wolves comes up behind him and knocks him off his rock. all the other wolves come right after.
15. long tracking shot. Horus disappears under a pile of wolves but escapes. He runs into the background where there is higher ground available.
16. reverse shot from that higher ground (represented by a 'book' layer).
17. reverse low angle shot of a wolf catching up and getting knocked away by Horus.
18. long shot. the action continues to move right to left. I'm running out of ways to describe 'Horus hits a wolf with his axe'
19. low angle. Horus climbs up a hill. There are three large rocks, two of them drawn on cel layers. Horus pushes one down, and moves to another, starting to push just before the cut.
20. reverse shot. the rocks come down, hitting the wolves. more wolves run past
21. very brief reverse shot of Horus throwing his axe
22. reverse shot again. the axe comes right through the camera (animation magic!) and hits a wolf. slightly confusingly, while the other shots of the wolves have been high angles, this one has the sky in the bg.
23. extreme long shot. Horus is in a follow-through pose having thrown his axe, and the wolves retreat a bit. Horus tugs on the line attaching him to his axe.
24. medium shot. Horus catches the axe and flings it again.
25. the axe flies through the air.
26. high angle. the axe goes into the crowd of wolves, stopping them in their tracks.
That's probably enough to make my point. Let's have a look at some of these edits in light of the Kuleshov effect/Soviet montage theory. Shots 3 and 4 for example combine to say: Horus narrowly dodged this attack. The midair shot of Horus only make sense in light of the preceding shot. The cut from shot 10 to 11 functions to add tension to the fight (mixing up the rhythm) and suggest Horus is not out of the woods yet, despite his successes so far. And generally the editing is full of shot/reverse shot cuts: we see an attack, and we see the result of the attack.
I'm not exactly sure where the line between basic 'continuity editing' and 'montage theory' lies exactly. It's definitely not making any particularly extreme juxtapositions of shots. But it is also, like nearly all film since the early 20th century, it's relying constantly on our ability to create meaning by seeing two subsequent shots as two parts of an ongoing story. When we cut to Horus's expression as the wolves snap at him, we are led to read it as defiant. When we cut to closeups of the wolves, we see it as menacing, but also we are put into the point of view of Horus anticipating an attack. When the axe flies through the air, we have been given context to know: the axe was thrown by Horus, it's a gambit to try and hold back the wolves. Without that it would be meaningless.
Anyway, contra Miyazaki, I think the elasticity of time in anime is one of the medium's real strengths. Drawing out a crucial moment, whether by editing tricks or (these days) using flashbacks and voiceovers, is such an effective device. But the old man does really love to be a contrarian...
Also shot 25 is totally a small example of the thing Miyazaki is complaining about. That shot is 'unnecessary', you could cut 24 to 26 without any loss of meaning. Showing the axe in midair only serves to add a bit of extra anticipation, drawing out the action a little bit to heighten the impact. Which is... good actually!
Thanks for these thoughtful comments! Takahata's remark about how the wolf fight contains little-to-no anime-style montage seems to tie into its focus on propulsion and movement. Elsewhere, if we're reading it right, he suggests that almost every shot depicts Horus or the wolves "entering" the frame.
For the most part, the scene portrays a series of actions in a strict sequence, with a focus on the spatial relationships between the characters, and time plays out pretty consistently/literally throughout. Like Takahata put it, it's done in a "play-by-play" style (meaning like a live sports broadcast), but with freely selected camera angles. We're watching the events play out, in some sense, in "real time."
When you contrast this against the malleable kind of time and space that Takahata (and Miyazaki) were discussing in the '80s, thinking of stuff like Ashita no Joe (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIR2q4yJtPM), the difference is clear. That Joe scene relies on atmosphere and emotion for continuity -- time and space are treated abstractly, and there are tons of extreme cutaways and insert shots to create an editing rhythm without clearly connecting back to the action. It's impossible to say how much time passes here, or how far Joe has traveled. There's no sense that this is a "play-by-play" recounting of events. It's an impactful scene (and Takahata may have agreed with that), but very different in style from the Horus battle.
The whole criticism of Eisenstein’s montage theory leaves me very conflicted! However - I make my peace by taking from the aims that each of these esteemed filmmakers was pursuing: for Sergei I believe it was about finding how to distil meaning in the choice of the cut - audiences can and will populate editing choices with associations and there is huge satisfaction to be found in master editing.
For the Ghibli lads I adore that they wanted to root the work in something that is centred in some form of reality that we can be invested in.
I take peace in agreeing with both traditions because both are interested in finding vitality and truth that we can instinctively trust and therefore lean into it.
Great comment, and totally agreed. It just makes sense that master filmmakers would disagree with each other about filmmaking -- they've all thought about it and lived with it deeply for decades, and reached their own conclusions and convictions about it. That's part of what makes them masters, but it also tends to make them resistant to other approaches. There's a lot to be gained from their ideas about filmmaking even if you don't agree with all of them.
Taiji Yabushita -> Yugo Serikawa -> Isao Takahata -> Hayao Miyazaki
Amazing to see Screecher's Reach getting its due for that glorious world design.
Such a good episode -- it deserves it for sure.
Excellent and informative as always
Thank you for the very kind words!
Really enjoyed this article, very thought provoking! Made me think of On Your Mark and how much of a challenge that must have been for Miyazaki to tell a story with such limited runtime.
Thinking about the video, it somehow doesn't feel like montage despite cutting across time and space so frequently. But then that is montage, so is it somehow a montage film without the montage feeling?
Thank you -- glad you liked the piece!
Your point about On Your Mark is a good one. Miyazaki definitely uses elements of montage filmmaking in it (something you see in a lot of music videos) but it doesn't have that much of a "montage feeling."
Revisiting it with this in mind, one of the secrets could be that a ton of the video is still made up of sequential shots -- way more than you'd find in a typical music video. Miyazaki adds montage, which gives On Your Mark a different feel from his other work. But he also consistently goes back to portraying events in a sequence (the scene when the bridge explodes, the laboratory break-in, the drive through the wasteland). So it's an unusual mishmash of styles, where he shifts between montage and continuity editing without warning.
Super thoughtful comment that's making us look at On Your Mark in a new light. Thank you!
I will give my thoughts but also state that I have not watched any Eisenstein films. I really enjoyed hearing more about Takahata and Miyazaki's thoughts on film making in this article because something I am drawn to more as I grow older are well constructed long takes. Scorsese and Kubrick both use long takes in their films to amazing effects and it draws me in to the sense of reality of the film. It seems like a good long take involves real thought, planning and work to construct well. I enjoy good montages and it was something that American films of the 1980's used in powerful ways for either comical or dramatic effect. Montage feels like a skill that if used poorly is a cheaper effect that takes me out of a film quicker than a poor long take. Poor long takes are boring but poor montages feel jarring. As a kid I think I enjoyed montage more and as an adult I enjoy long takes more. I see a similarity to this and what Miyazaki is getting at with some of the quotes in this article since he uses long takes in his films as part of that sense of time and space continuity.
Many thanks for this thoughtful comment! The power of a great long take is really something to witness. We recently read about a 6-minute unbroken shot that Andrei Tarkovsky filmed for his final movie -- they had to burn down a building for it (and there was a retake, so they had to rebuild it for the second try). But it's just got incredible energy; it feels like it's really happening. It's amazing what films can do.
A wonderful look at what makes these films special. It was so relaxing to watch The Boy and the Heron and immerse myself into a world without montage or other visual shortcuts to speed up the story.
Thank you, Thomas! We always appreciate these kind messages.
I'm surprised Osamu Dezaki wasn't brought up, because I feel like Miyazaki's critique of elasticity of time was against how popular and revered Dezaki was in the anime industry for its complex storyboard blocking above all else approach to directing anime.
Dezaki was definitely someone Miyazaki and Takahata had in mind -- Ashita no Joe is mentioned by name in one of Miyazaki's pieces, even though Dezaki himself isn't. He was up there with the very best and most artful at this style back then. But it spread well beyond just Dezaki's shows: one of Miyazaki's biggest targets for decades was Kyojin no Hoshi, the baseball series he seems to have been referring to in his comment we quoted. At least based on what they wrote, it seems less like a professional beef with Dezaki in particular and more like a general philosophical difference with the TV anime style of direction.
Very interesting article, thanks for writing! Miyazaki is undeniably a brilliant filmmaker, but whenever he goes off like this it's so funny, like what are you talking about my man? I don't really see how the Horus fight scene is a repudiation of montage theory...
Like if we break this down into a shot list, you've got...
1. panning establishing shot across the cliffs. Horus enters, fighting the wolves; we get a closeup of his axe. He makes a spatially very dubious drop from the cliff to the foreground and exits to the left.
2. panning shot. Horus is being chased by wolves and swinging his little axe around.
3. a brief closeup of Horus's feet as a wolf snaps at them and Horus jumps.
4. low-angle shot of Horus in midair.
5. the wolves running up the cliff. The high angle suggests this is a reverse shot.
6. static shot of Horus landing on a rock.
7. reverse over-the-shoulder shot of the wolves running up towards him, one jumps.
8. reverse medium shot of Horus deflecting the attack.
9. wolf getting slashed and falling off camera.
10. Horus intercepting the next few wolves. Horus seems to be winning this fight.
11. really cool perspective shot with two grey wolves in the foreground looming over Horus in the background. maybe he's not winning after all...
12. closeup of Horus with his eyes moving between the targets.
13. closeup of the two wolves. after a moment of anticipation they jump.
14. long shot of Horus fending off the wolves. one of the wolves comes up behind him and knocks him off his rock. all the other wolves come right after.
15. long tracking shot. Horus disappears under a pile of wolves but escapes. He runs into the background where there is higher ground available.
16. reverse shot from that higher ground (represented by a 'book' layer).
17. reverse low angle shot of a wolf catching up and getting knocked away by Horus.
18. long shot. the action continues to move right to left. I'm running out of ways to describe 'Horus hits a wolf with his axe'
19. low angle. Horus climbs up a hill. There are three large rocks, two of them drawn on cel layers. Horus pushes one down, and moves to another, starting to push just before the cut.
20. reverse shot. the rocks come down, hitting the wolves. more wolves run past
21. very brief reverse shot of Horus throwing his axe
22. reverse shot again. the axe comes right through the camera (animation magic!) and hits a wolf. slightly confusingly, while the other shots of the wolves have been high angles, this one has the sky in the bg.
23. extreme long shot. Horus is in a follow-through pose having thrown his axe, and the wolves retreat a bit. Horus tugs on the line attaching him to his axe.
24. medium shot. Horus catches the axe and flings it again.
25. the axe flies through the air.
26. high angle. the axe goes into the crowd of wolves, stopping them in their tracks.
That's probably enough to make my point. Let's have a look at some of these edits in light of the Kuleshov effect/Soviet montage theory. Shots 3 and 4 for example combine to say: Horus narrowly dodged this attack. The midair shot of Horus only make sense in light of the preceding shot. The cut from shot 10 to 11 functions to add tension to the fight (mixing up the rhythm) and suggest Horus is not out of the woods yet, despite his successes so far. And generally the editing is full of shot/reverse shot cuts: we see an attack, and we see the result of the attack.
I'm not exactly sure where the line between basic 'continuity editing' and 'montage theory' lies exactly. It's definitely not making any particularly extreme juxtapositions of shots. But it is also, like nearly all film since the early 20th century, it's relying constantly on our ability to create meaning by seeing two subsequent shots as two parts of an ongoing story. When we cut to Horus's expression as the wolves snap at him, we are led to read it as defiant. When we cut to closeups of the wolves, we see it as menacing, but also we are put into the point of view of Horus anticipating an attack. When the axe flies through the air, we have been given context to know: the axe was thrown by Horus, it's a gambit to try and hold back the wolves. Without that it would be meaningless.
Anyway, contra Miyazaki, I think the elasticity of time in anime is one of the medium's real strengths. Drawing out a crucial moment, whether by editing tricks or (these days) using flashbacks and voiceovers, is such an effective device. But the old man does really love to be a contrarian...
Also shot 25 is totally a small example of the thing Miyazaki is complaining about. That shot is 'unnecessary', you could cut 24 to 26 without any loss of meaning. Showing the axe in midair only serves to add a bit of extra anticipation, drawing out the action a little bit to heighten the impact. Which is... good actually!
Thanks for these thoughtful comments! Takahata's remark about how the wolf fight contains little-to-no anime-style montage seems to tie into its focus on propulsion and movement. Elsewhere, if we're reading it right, he suggests that almost every shot depicts Horus or the wolves "entering" the frame.
For the most part, the scene portrays a series of actions in a strict sequence, with a focus on the spatial relationships between the characters, and time plays out pretty consistently/literally throughout. Like Takahata put it, it's done in a "play-by-play" style (meaning like a live sports broadcast), but with freely selected camera angles. We're watching the events play out, in some sense, in "real time."
When you contrast this against the malleable kind of time and space that Takahata (and Miyazaki) were discussing in the '80s, thinking of stuff like Ashita no Joe (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIR2q4yJtPM), the difference is clear. That Joe scene relies on atmosphere and emotion for continuity -- time and space are treated abstractly, and there are tons of extreme cutaways and insert shots to create an editing rhythm without clearly connecting back to the action. It's impossible to say how much time passes here, or how far Joe has traveled. There's no sense that this is a "play-by-play" recounting of events. It's an impactful scene (and Takahata may have agreed with that), but very different in style from the Horus battle.
Also: here’s hoping that when Xitter finally implodes you might consider Threads.
🤩😁
Happy you liked this one!
Thank you for introducing me to the Nigerian film! And I’ve been a longtime fan of Miyazaki so it’s wonderful to understand what his work is rooted in
We're happy to share all this! Thanks so much for the comment.