Structuring a Flash Animation - Some Preliminary Theory.

You are currently being given an introduction to the practicalities of Flash; however, in order to design an effective animation using the 'real world' materials collected from a real place, it is necessary to think about the kind of story that we are going to tell. We already know how to draw a storyboard, and we can represent a simple story and some tree-structured sequences of information - but what kind of tools do we have to help us compose a complex message that we will then draw up in a storyboard? We need a framework which lies rather deeper than a simple standard for drawing a storyboard; we need to know how images can be put together to compose complex messages (and we might say the same thing of sounds or texts, but we'll stick to images for the time being). The general term for this kind of composition is montage, a term which is used in photography, the graphic arts, and in film. We'll borrow ideas from all of these domains.

Some Basic Definitions.

The term montage has a very general meaning. Literally, it means 'placing items one on top of another', and covers practices such as photomontage (assembling a photographic print from a number of negatives - old emulsion style - or compositing a number of separate digital images into a single image), artistic collage (creating a graphic art work from a range of materials assembled on a single surface), and cinematic editing (creating a film scene from a number of different shot segments). It also makes sense to speak of a sound montage or a literary montage, meaning - respectively - a mix or sequence of sounds, or a sequence of text fragments.

We can make a distinction between different kinds of montage. First, some formal distinctions:

• Simultaneous. In the case of an image, this will be a spatial montage - a set of images arranged together in a single space, juxtaposed or overlaid in various ways. We can further categorise this kind of montage by the kinds of spatial arrangement involved: grids, blends, horizontal and vertical arrangements, irregular zones, semi-transparent overlays, etc.
• Temporal. A succession of images following one another in the same space. We can further categorise this by the nature and timing of the succession - there are various kinds of transition possible (dissolve, wipe, etc.) and fast or slow tempo, etc.
• Hybrid. A mix of the above two - a blend of spatial and temporal, an arrangement of images succeeding an arrangement of images. Sub-categorising this can get rather difficult, as it is a combination of all the other possibilities noted above.

This gives us a whole range of formal design possibilities; but it leaves open the question of what sense an audience might make of the arrangements we choose. It is very easy to end up with a graphical equivalent of the kind of situation that contemporary classical music often finds itself in: a formally consistent musical language, but one that has parted company with all but a small minority audience.

Another couple of dimensions, relating more to meaning:

• Stylistic montage. A montage (whether simultaneous or temporal) of images of different styles - images taken from recognisably different genres. In the case of photographs, this might mean montaging gritty, hard-edged photographs of run-down urban environments with soft-focused and filtered images of pastoral landscapes, etc.
• Ontological montage. Montaging together images from different scales or planes of reality to make an impossible or unlikely arrangement; eg. montaging an extreme close-up with a long shot. [Ontology: philosophical reflection on what there is in the world, the constituents of reality]

These take on more of a significance when we think about montaging images, sounds and text - since we can create stylistic clashes between texts and images, sounds and images, etc., and similar ontological clashes. Think of the difference between montaging a street scene with sounds of footsteps and conversation, and montaging the same scene with the sound of a heartbeat (an ontological clash).

There is a further distinction recognised for kinds of montage:

• Intellectual montage. Montaging items (images, texts, sounds) together in a disruptive and surprising way to try and make people stop and think about something in a new way. This is also often known as dialectical montage. [Dialectical argument: thesis + antithesis leads to a new synthesis. Dialectical montage: A + B doesn't represent AB, but a new idea C.]
• Mundane montage. Montaging items together in accordance with established norms of representation so that an audience has an impression of a set of ideas or story being smoothly communicated.

This distinction is linked with differences between two theorists of film montage: Eisenstein and Pudovkin. Eisenstein was interested in using film for didactic, revolutionary purposes, while Pudovkin developed many of the mainstream narrative techniques discussed below.

Film Montage.

The most comprehensive account of the structural basis of film montage (temporal montage of shots - spatial montages can appear in films, and they can be analysed as above) is due to the theorist Metz. He created an exhaustive set of categories of the way in which shots can be combined:

• Autonomous shot. A shot that stands on its own, uncombined with any other, carrying its own message.
• Parallel syntagma. A sequence of shots that depict two subjects with no immediate connection, e.g. a sequence interleaving shots of two unconnected people, carrying on their lives in two different towns ('in parallel'). There is no chronological linkage between these shots.
• Bracket syntagma. A set of shots of similar subjects, but with no intrinsic connection, used to establish a general idea, eg. a set of shots of different people buying things in a range of different sorts of shop, to establish the general idea of shopping. Again, no chronological sequence.
• Descriptive syntagma. A sequence of shots that add up to a description of a place, person or thing, taken from different viewpoints. A classic establishing shot would be descriptive.
• Alternate (narrative) syntagma. Alternate shots of two linked entities (groups, people, things), e.g. a chase scene which keeps cutting from the chaser to the chased.
• Scene. A continuous linear narrative, seemingly in real time (unity of place, time and action).
• Episodic sequence. A discontinuous but organised linear narrative; a condensed narrative that collapses time, but has an organising common place or action.
• Ordinary sequence. A disorganised sequence that comprises a linear narrative, but hops about in terms of place and action.

These categories apply to the narrative film (mainstream film that tells a story) - but analogies can be taken from them and transplanted into non-narrative multimedia representations, at least of the first five. All of them are applicable to narrative, time-based multimedia representations without much modification.

These distinctions work at just one theoretical level: the cutting regime of a film sequence. It needs another level of analysis to look at the contents of the frame (the mise-en-scene) and how that enables shots to be related to one another and contribute to an overall sense of coherence.

Turning Theory Into Practice.

This is a matter of getting clear about what you are trying to communicate before you start to storyboard; to ask yourself what you are trying to say, and what ideas you want the audience to grasp. The framework above gives you one set of hooks on which to hang these thoughts ... but remember that they are only one set, concerning the structuring and sequencing of material. Other frameworks are needed for image content, colouring, perspective, scale, etc.

You also need to think about how the devices involved in montage - succession, dissolves, semi-transparency, arrangement in a visual space, timing, etc. (to just throw out a few devices in a chaotic order) - can be techically realised in Flash. There is no point in planning something you can't implement.