This made for YouTube video is a creatively assembled montage that communicates a variety of words through images instead of simply speech. The theme “words” unifies the shots, but each one is also decidedly different, a necessary trait of an effective montage. This short film uses dozens of different shot types, from extreme close-ups to long shots to in frame, out frames to tilts. The diversity of shots, and the many angles from which the shots are taken, contributes to the montage’s effectiveness. Each shot is short in length, between one and three seconds long.
The film’s premise is extremely engaging, the quick transitions from shot to shot draw the viewer in, inviting him or her to analyze the frames and figure out the word depicted before one image gives way to the next. Though the transitions are quick, the video frequently uses an inventive interpretation of cutting on action to lessen their abruptness. The subject of one shot begins moving, and the subject of the next shot seems to complete the action by doing something similar. For example, when the film depicts the word “run,” we see the back of a woman’s leg with a run in her tights. As she begins to walk, the shot transitions to the back of a man’s legs running, giving the illusion that his strides complete hers. Or, a falling piano transitions to a falling skydiver, again allowing one shot’s action to serve as the logical completion of another’s. The film’s ability to communicate with very minimal dialogue is also a strong point. Though it is entitled “Words,” it speaks powerfully to the communicative ability of the image. The emphasis placed on the use of different shots and angles to “speak” is both cleverly ironic and speaks to the importance of film as a medium.
Despite a variety of creative transition techniques, the short shots do become overwhelming at times. The film would have benefitted from placing more action shots that could create a flow together, or perhaps using slightly longer shots to convey the same ideas. While montages should draw on a variety of shots, the use of one still frame (the x-ray) seemed to contrast uncomfortably with the rest of the movement centered video shots. That shot could have been eliminated or set up differently, perhaps using footage of a cast being applied. In general, most of the shots could have been organized so that the movement from each appeared to flow into the next, getting rid of nearly all the abrasive transition problems.


