The Relationship Between [Montage] and [Editing Grammar]

In editing, there are two fundamental concepts that are constantly confused: montage and editing grammar.

Many textbook-level books do this as well: after a lot of talking, they still fail to clearly explain the difference between them. Some say editing itself is montage, or that editing grammar is one type of montage. These statements aren’t entirely wrong—they contain some truth—but they’re mainly imprecise.

Let’s clearly distinguish the two today. In fact, the principle is very simple.

① What is editing grammar?

Editing grammar is a technically oriented method of shot combination. It’s like the hard skills in software—established patterns and techniques of editing summed up by predecessors.

For example: “jump cut” / “match-on-action cutting” / “dissolve” / etc.

Montage is an emotionally oriented approach to editing. It can embellish an otherwise bland sequence.

It changes the original meaning of shots/sequences, enriching the narrative/emotion.

For example: “associative montage” / “accumulative montage” / “lyrical montage,” etc.

Editing grammar is the means used to achieve montage.

Take the following scene: the heroine experiences a series of events, then starts running wildly down the street. Because of the enormous psychological pressure, her “mental illness” breaks out. Various scenes from her past dreams and the words of different people start echoing in her ears; she’s in a state of being “haunted by evil spirits.”

This segment is a psychological montage. It’s used at the end of the scene to amplify the heroine’s emotional experience of “mental breakdown / confusion between reality and dream.”

The editing grammar that realizes this psychological montage is the combination of dissolves + distorted sound.

With that, it becomes easy to grasp.

It’s a bit like writing an essay:

Xiaoming sits on the grass, enjoying the breeze and looking at the blue sky. — This is what people call plain narration.

Revise it:

The sky is very blue, the breeze is very light, so gentle on the face it dares not make a sound. Xiaoming quietly savors this pleasant moment on the grass.

The grammatical structure of the sentence has been changed. The first one is in a declarative mood; the second, revised version is in a modifying/descriptive mood. This modification is like montage in editing—it alters the large-scale structure of the entire sentence and also “breaks and rebuilds” the smaller structure of each clause, while adding emotional color. In fact, whether Xiaoming is sitting or standing on the grass is unimportant here. The sentence can be removed directly, because that information doesn’t matter at all. The main point is simply to state that Xiaoming is on the grass. Using montage-like modification is to magnify the “environment” information.

During the “breaking and rebuilding of phrases,” we also have to consider what means we use to adjust details. For example, do we say “a very blue sky” or “the sky is very blue”? “The sky is very blue” is clearly more concise. This is somewhat like the function of editing grammar—it streamlines the meaning of each detail.

When beginners first understand montage, they often like to “complicate simple problems.” The second sentence above is like that. It is indeed modified, and beautifully so, but it’s overdone—like painting legs on a snake.

The sky is very blue, the breeze is very light, and Xiaoming sits on the grass, feeling this tranquility.

That is already enough. “The breeze is very light” and “so gentle on the face it dares not make a sound” overlap in meaning. The latter clearly feels like “showing off one’s writing.” So we just cut it.

This is also the “minimalism” that editing increasingly pursues as you progress: at first you feel you can do everything; then you know more and more; then you find your pursuit becomes increasingly showy; finally you look back and realize that the simplicity of editing is what’s worth thinking about and pursuing forever.

Eventually we also discover that it’s not that editing is like writing an essay; editing is writing an essay.

But not all text needs to be modified.

Xiaoming sits on the grass, enjoying the breeze and looking at the blue sky.

If this is the beginning of a very oppressive, serious revenge story, then this straightforward writing is actually the most appropriate.

So what method we ultimately use must be decided in a broader context, with reference to the whole: what is the style and thematic positioning of the finished work?

Just like not every scene needs montage to intervene.

Long takes and montage are two opposing schools throughout film history, but within a single film they can absolutely complement each other and support the theme.

All art forms are interconnected.

Good music seeks “sorrow without hurt”—too tragic is no good; a faint sadness is just right.

Good writing values a “tiger’s head, pig’s belly, and phoenix’s tail”—a strong beginning and ending, and a more restrained middle.

Editing is the same. Everything hinges on one thing: “balance.”