Editing Film theory (section)

=== Early theory, before 1945 ===
French philosopher [[Henri Bergson]]'s ''[[Matter and Memory]]'' (1896) anticipated the development of film theory during the birth of cinema in the early twentieth century. Bergson commented on the need for new ways of thinking about movement, and coined the terms "the movement-image" and "the time-image". However, in his 1906 essay ''L'illusion cinématographique'' (in ''L'évolution créatrice''; English: ''The cinematic illusion'') he rejects film as an example of what he had in mind. Nonetheless, decades later, in ''[[Cinema 1|Cinéma I]] and [[Cinema 2: The Time-Image|Cinema II]]'' (1983–1985), the philosopher [[Gilles Deleuze]] took ''Matter and Memory'' as the basis of his [[philosophy of film]] and revisited Bergson's concepts, combining them with the [[semiotics]] of [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]. Early film theory arose in the [[silent era]] and was mostly concerned with defining the crucial elements of the medium. [[Ricciotto Canudo]] was an early Italian film theoretician who saw cinema as "''plastic art in motion''", and gave cinema the label "''the Sixth Art''", later changed to "''the Seventh Art''".

In 1915, [[Vachel Lindsay]] wrote a book on film, followed a year later by [[Hugo Münsterberg]]. Lindsay argued that films could be classified into three categories: ''action films'', ''intimate films'', as well as ''films of splendour''.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=McDonald |first=Kevin |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JhQuswEACAAJ |title=Film Theory: The Basics |date=2016 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-315-75719-3 |edition=Kindle |pages=12 |language=en}}</ref> According to him, the action film was ''sculpture-in-motion'', while the intimate film was ''painting-in-motion'', and splendour film ''architecture-in-motion''.<ref name=":0" /> He also argued against the contemporary notion of calling films ''photoplays'' and seen as filmed versions of theatre, instead seeing film with ''camera-born'' opportunities.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=13}} He also described cinema as ''hieroglyphic'' in the sense of containing symbols in its images.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=13}} He believed this visuality gave film the potential for universal accessibility.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=14}} Münsterberg in turn noted the analogies between cinematic techniques and certain mental processes.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=15}} For example, he compared the [[close-up]] to the mind paying attention.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=15}} The [[Flashback (narrative)|flashback]], in turn, was similar to [[Memory|remembering]].{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=16}} This was later followed by the [[Formalism (art)|''formalism'']] of [[Rudolf Arnheim]], who studied how techniques influenced film as art.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=18}}

Among early French theorists, [[Germaine Dulac]] brought the concept of ''[[French impressionist cinema|impressionism]]'' to film by describing cinema that explored the malleability of the border between internal experience and external reality, for example through [[superimposition]].{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=23}} ''[[Surrealism]]'' also had an influence on early French film culture.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=24}} The term ''photogénie'' was important to both, having been brought to use by [[Louis Delluc]] in 1919 and becoming widespread in its usage to capture the unique power of cinema.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=25}} [[Jean Epstein]] noted how filming gives a "personality" or a "spirit" to objects while also being able to reveal "the untrue, the unreal, the 'surreal'".{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=25}} This was similar to [[defamiliarization]] used by [[avant-garde]] artists to recreate the world.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=25}} He saw the close-up as the essence of ''photogénie''.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=26}} [[Béla Balázs]] also praised the close-up for similar reasons.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=26}} Arnheim also believed defamiliarization to be a critical element of film.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=27}}

After the [[Russian Revolution]], a chaotic situation in the country also created a sense of excitement at new possibilities.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=28}} This gave rise to montage theory in the work of [[Dziga Vertov]] and [[Sergei Eisenstein]].{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=28}} After the establishment of the [[Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography|Moscow Film School]], [[Lev Kuleshov]] set up a workshop to study the formal structure of film, focusing on editing as "the essence of cinematography".{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=29}} This produced findings on the [[Kuleshov effect]].{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=29}} Editing was also associated with the foundational [[Marxism|Marxist]] concept of [[dialectical materialism]].{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=29}} To this end, Eisenstein claimed that "montage is conflict".{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=30}} Eisenstein's theories were focused on montage having the ability create meaning transcending the sum of its parts with a ''thematic effect'' in a way that [[ideogram]]s turned graphics into abstract symbols.{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=33}} Multiple scenes could work to produce themes (''tonal montage''), while multiple themes could create even higher levels of meaning (''intellectual montage'').{{Sfn|McDonald|2016|p=33}} Vertov in turn focused on developing [[Kino-Pravda]], ''film truth,'' and the [[Kino-Eye]], which he claimed showed a deeper truth than could be seen with the naked eye.<ref name="leyda">{{Cite book |author=Jay Leyda |url=https://archive.org/stream/kinohistoryofrus00jayl#page/161/mode/2up/ |title=Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin|George Allen & Unwin]] |year=1960 |pages=161–162 |author-link=Jay Leyda}}</ref><ref name=":02">Bulgakowa, Oksana. 2008. "The Ear against the Eye: Vertov's symphony." ''Kieler Beiträge zur Filmmusikforschung'' (2): 142-158. p. 142</ref>