In the Virtues and Limitations of Montage section of Bazin’s What is Cinema?, Bazin explains several issues with using a theatrical montage instead of an “all inclusive” shot, if you will. He begins by explaining that in order for a film to be visual satisfying, the viewer must be successfully convinced that what they are viewing is reality EVEN though they are knowingly being “tricked”. By this I believe Bazin is trying to say that even during a blatantly fictitious scene, we must be persuaded to believe it was actually filmed as reality. By breaking the film up into several shots, not including the same objects (i.e, a montage), the idea that this scene actually may have happened becomes less and less believable. In the film Children of Men a beautiful “anit-montage” scene is filmed from about the 1:19:00 mark to roughly 1:25:00. This long scene is done using one straight shot and many wonderful camera angles. This is when Theo is moving through the refugee streets during the war looking for Key. This almost gives the viewer the impression of a first person shooter game (Call of Duty), playing right along with Theo. By avoiding several different cuts and shots for this scene, one can truly place himself in the situation. Bazin also argues that by using a montage you “run the risk of threatening the very ontology of the cinematographic tale”. Here I believe Bazin is claiming that breaking up a film into several short shots disrupts the spatial flow of the film. This “choppiness” can be unpleasant to viewers as many of us desire to view films as if we were actually there. Think about it; if we were actually placed into the scene of a film it is highly unlikely that we would focus on one object, then another, etc. We are much more likely to view the scene as a whole which is why we find it more pleasurable to view a film this way. However, in my opinion, I believe that using montage can add an element of...