“Nuanced Montage” [Reflections on: Berger, John and Mohr, Jean, with help from Nicholas Philbert, Another Way of Telling, NY: Pantheon Books, 1982, 308p. – page 279-284)

“Expressiveness” (outpouring life),
Like Prager’s “milk from mom”, is light
Expressing “life as lived in here”,
Shed from inside – first point I hear.

Then John goes on to say that “quotes”
Are single-photos which some folks
Share with the global village (now)
About their lives as there’re allowed.

But fullness of such life expressed
Is best conveyed with more like sets
Of photos, and montages seen
From time to time in magazines.

So how’s a set (montage), laid out?
Are there some principles? No doubt
He will explore “rules for sets”
As he moves on – insights we’ll get.

Point two then is to think, “montage”,
Not “singles”, for each story has
Perspectives throughout place and time,
Arranged depicting nuance fine.

But journalists outside such scenes
Can’t show what inner-stories mean,
As they must faithful witness be,
Not mixing life “expressively”.

A world expressed as from within,
Has nuanced aspects – where life’s been,
Which all informs what people do –
(A “set” presents part of this view).

To circumvent this limit, words
Enlarge, expand, what can be heard
From witnesses there at such scenes,
Explaining “what such photos mean”.

The problem here is anything
Can be tacked on to “meaning” bring
To folks at home – “Here’s what it shows –
Take it as truth from one who knows”.

The problem’s “ambiguities”
Which plague all photos which we see;
If outside pix are not allowed,
Then words must clear obscuring clouds.

In cinema the future tense
Is dominant, so gaps make sense –
“Anticipation” fills each space;
“Ambiguous”, there, has a place.

But photos lean towards the past –
What happened? When? So there, these gaps
Are problematic to one’s view –
“Ambiguous” – so, what to do?

Film uses “flashbacks” for their “past” –
Such episodes indeed, just “flash”,
For filmic-world, to future leans –
Just snippets of the past are seen.

So, stills can’t use the flashback’s way;
They are the past we see today;
So what to do with questions here,
If words can’t make such meanings clear?

“Ambiguous” resolves, like “thought” –
Our memories are what we’ve got
Inside our heads, like photo-pix –
Kaleidoscopically they mix.

Our memories re-mix each day;
New entrants modify the way
We make montages of our past,
As “memories” which mix and match.

For John this is our key today –
Expressing stories in this way
Is possible – use mind’s technique –
“Ambiguous” is clue we seek!

For now the viewer is brought in;
“Participation” can begin;
Each viewer’s mental-set of pix
Is added to – their “gaps” get “fixed”.

But it’s a two-way street here, now –
The viewer’s set of pix allow
New content into stories, gaps –
“Ambiguous” resolves at last.

Montage, for John, like memories,
Are made by juxtaposing – leave
The ambiguities all there
And viewers all are active players.

Thanks Holy Spirit for this.

navigation