Moving Beyond The Classical Narrative

In Steven Shaviro’s article, “Post-Continuity: An Introduction,” he defines continuity as the basic technique Classical Hollywood Cinema (CHC) uses to orient the audience. He also explains continuity based on the connotation of the word itself, “homogeneity of space and time, and the coherent organization of narrative.” (5)

As we move along the decades of filmmaking, different types of continuity are established. Classical continuity, which is derived from CHC, intensified continuity, and post-continuity.

The primary goal of classical continuity is so that the audience is given the best viewpoint of a film’s story. This style constitutes various editing components such as the 180-degree rule, shot-reverse-shot, centered compositions, directional continuity, crosscutting, parallel editing, and so on, according to David Bordwell’s “The Classical Hollywood Style, 1917-1960.”

Intensified continuity, coined by Bordwell breaks through classical continuity whereby there is “more rapid editing…bipolar extremes of lens lengths…more close framings in dialogue scenes…[and] a free-ranging camera,” writes Shaviro (4). Yet, this new concept doesn’t stray too far away from its predecessor as the audience can still comprehend what’s taking place on the screen while allowing the film to express its creativity (6).

Post-continuity would best describe 21st-century films, especially action films, Shaviro argues. According to him, post-continuity is “a preoccupation with immediate effects trumps any concern for broader continuity—whether on the immediate shot-by-shot level or on that of the overall narrative.” (1) Filmmaking is in a post-continuity situation just as we are in a post-modern age, where the importance of continuity isn’t as strong as it once was (5).

On the other hand, Matthias Stork offers a different description for contemporary action films­--chaos cinema. The word ‘chaos’ indicates a negative connotation, and what comes to one’s mind when one thinks of that word is disruption, unorganized, frantic, wild. A summary of Stork’s description of chaos cinema is the modern filmmaker’s disregard for spatial clarity, driven by the desire to overwhelm the audience with excessive sound engineering and visuals. He calls chaos cinema a perversion of continuity. John Bailey characterizes chaos cinema as “spatial confusion” instead, as cited by Shaviro. (10)

However, Shaviro argues that Stork’s argument is too simplistic and only focuses on the negative aspects of the new style (3). Shaviro highlights that post-continuity editing reflects technological advancements, such as the rise of digital media and expression through social media platforms, and a more general socio-economic-political environment today, for example, “globalized neoliberal capitalism, and the intensified financialization associated with it.” (9)

To answer the question of “How post-continuity films do not entirely dispense with classical continuity,” we shall look at examples of post-continuity films at work. In Stork’s video essay on chaos cinema, Christopher Nolan’s Inception (2010) is presented as a chaos film. The audience sees the main characters being chased while moving past obstacles on a busy and narrow street as efficiently as possible. This scene is packed with shots of the characters moving through the crowd and sounds of gunshots and car honks. From Stork’s perspective, this scene would be hard for an audience to concentrate and keep up with what’s currently happening as there is no narrative cue to tell the viewer what’s happening.

With that said, Shaviro counters that “narrative is not abandoned, but it is articulated in a space and time that are no longer classical.” (7) He provides Adrian Martin’s account, citing that each film when creating its own context, will give us hints directly or indirectly on how to read the “emotional and thematic significance of its stylistic devices.” (8) Returning to our analysis of Inception, the chasing scene does provide continuity. The camera’s movement follows the main characters as they escape whoever that’s chasing them. The audience knows which direction the main characters are going, the soundtrack of the scene gives a realistic and intensified rendering of how being chased in a busy street might sound like.

As seen in this example, continuity is utilized, the audience is fully capable of orienting themselves in time and space of this scene. The filming of the same shots of the character being chased from different angles. On its basis, all good films will have spatial-temporal continuity. It’s not just action films that are classified as post-continuity films, Shaviro lists a few examples that are also considered post-continuity style: (1) Mumblecore slice-of-life films that are characterized by natural, realistic acting of characters going through a bad relationship or job experience; or (2) films that mix graphics, sound effects, and footage that mimic video games.

These are examples of post-continuity films moving beyond classical continuity. Unsurprisingly, Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin (1925) illustrates continuity as well, despite the film’s main concern of dialectical montage, which is the combination of two graphically presentable that results in a new, abstract concept that’s graphically undepictable (Eisenstein 30).

From 34’08” of Battleship Potemkin, passersby and residents came to Vakulinchuk’s resting place by the pier. This scene combines the two styles of montage and continuity. The camera stands inside Vakulinchuk’s tent and film passersby as more and more of them gather around to mourn over him. Tonal montage, which establishes the dominant emotional tone of the shot (Eisenstein 75), is shown through the faces of passersby as they stop at Vakulinchuk’s resting place. The sides of the tent from the inside act as a frame to center the audience’s focus on what the people feel. An elderly woman sits by Vakulinchuk’s body, gazing downwards at him. Passersby who came to the front to view Vakulinchuk’s body kept their gazes at him while they walked away. The silence of this scene also builds up the devastating tone. At the same time, continuity is shown in the next cut at 35’02” where more people came by and stood in front of the tent.

Ultimately, Eisenteinian montage seeks to evoke intellectual responses in the conscious viewer. It builds a wall between the audience and wants them to be conscious of what they’re viewing. On the flip side, a post-continuity film seeks to provide an experience to the viewer, first and foremost, while inviting them to participate in making hypotheses of the film’s progression through modern screenwriting.

Another crucial distinction between post-continuity films and Eisensteinian montage is the delivery of story events. Eisensteinian montage is characterized by its jumpy, sudden, purposeful cuts. This dramatic principle that Eisenstein follows is opposed to his opponents and post-continuity films where the story’s events are unfolded in a dramatic chain, brick by brick until the film reaches its apex.

Finally, an area where post-continuity differs from Eisensteinian montage is the use of actors to create a story. Present-day actors have the choice to select which film project they would like to join while most of the actors that are seen in Battleship Potemkin are ordinary people. Eisenstein uses recordings of people to sew his film together.

To conclude, post-continuity films do retain the basic elements of classical continuity, which is providing spatial orientation and regularizing the flow of time (6). Just as we are in unpredictable times, post-continuity films too seek to show the extremities that modern filmmaking can take us, with the human mind as its limits.