Montage continues to be one of those terms I think I understand until I dig a little deeper. Einstein’s view on montage has proved this point exactly; his view on the subject confirms the meaning is confusing to some, and maybe should be left to the readers or viewers interpretation.
However, I would like to understand montage somewhere in between the two definitions given in the reading, a sequence of shots that suggest an idea to the viewers while also utilizing visual, verbal and musical aspects to create a deeper meaning.
Something that was clearly explained though was the difference or definitions between semiotic and semantics. The need for semantics to create a semiotic kind of meaning. Their reference to what a word is to a sentence made total sense and was easy to understand.
Another idea i found to be interesting from the reading is the though of different people only grasping certain aspect of a film according to the their background or how each person specifically would interpret different things.
It makes me want to go back and see every movie i have ever seen with this though in mind, maybe with more awareness, i want to know if there is anything else the director wanted me to comprehend that i actually didn't.