Dziga Vertov’s Man with a Movie Camera is a patronage of present day industrialized soviet society; a fine analysis of progressive class distinctions prevalent within the soviet society; and predominantly the recognition of technology as a cinematic language helpful in depicting social and ideological truth. Here, Vertov implicitly illustrates his emotional bond with realistic cinema that renders life unaware and whose elegance in depiction takes place predominantly during post production editing. On the contrary, when compared to mainstream cinema where every detail is carefully planned before and during production whereby the narrative structure of the film is firmly linear by depicting a conflict, its development, and resolution. In Man …show more content…
Here, Vertov dictates spectators to assume a participatory role in giving interpretation to the finished film. For instance, Vertov constantly uses stop-motion and substitution splicing. These techniques are used to make the chairs of the movie theater fold down supernaturally as if to greet his viewers. And even though the film does represent Soviet society positively in terms of being modern, growing, and advantageous to the proletarians whose labor is now accurately valued and compensated with beach trips organized by the government, the film does have room for interpretation and even components of social critique. For example, one might question why, in a progressive soviet society where there is a beneficial unification of technology and human labor seemingly at every turn, where there is an emphasis on public services (ambulances, fire brigades, medical services, health and hygiene in general), there are still homeless people young and old sleeping on park benches or the ground. In addition, Vertov illustrates these same industrial workers abusing the efficient mass production of consumer goods: during their leisure time, certain wayward workers drink champagne to excess in a bar where rows and rows of champagne bottles are shown being opened. While simultaneously, the viewers see a class hierarchy prevalent in the Soviet Union. For instance, a wealthy family in a car has a driver who carries their bags inside as a barefoot, probably homeless child crosses paths with them entering the building. We also see wealthy men and women satisfy themselves lazily in a salon being shaved and having their hair washed, while the proletarians work hard in the polluted and hazardous factories or mines for their own welfare. The inevitable summary is that for all its commendable characteristics and progress, Soviet society still has challenges to overcome before classless equality becomes a reality. The key to
...mes the Working Class supports and validates Karl Marx’s theory of the class system and the ideology of the base and superstructure. His theory is commonly displayed on television through the typical nineties American sitcom shows wanting to live the dream. According to the film, media has significant power towards the viewers which is able to exploit any common men in wanting to live a wealthy lifestyle and viewing the actors as role models. Therefore Karl Marx’s theory of the ruling class dominating the middle class only benefits the ruling class is indeed applied in the media and a true fact.
The Bolshevik Revolution was a defining turning point in Russian history. This overall revolution consisted of two individual revolutions in 1917 which resulted in the overthrow of the Tsarist government and the formation of a socialist society led by Vladimir Lenin’s radical Bolsheviks. For a moment with such enormous weight like the Bolshevik Revolution, there will be various interpretations on the true results of that moment and the meaning and value of these results. The film Man with a Movie Camera deals with the results of the Bolshevik Revolution and the early Soviet Society it birthed as it utilizes footage of one day in this early Soviet Union, thus making it worthy of examination. In the film Man With a Movie Camera, Vertov impressively
During the decades of Soviet rule in Russia the field of cinema was undeniably defined by the role that the state played in filmmaking, as the Soviet government had long used cinema as a means to expose the general public to Soviet ideology. However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the role of the state in filmmaking changed drastically, as filmmakers were now able to have true artistic freedom. As a result, many assumed that Russian cinema would be revolutionized, as some films evolved towards being more “American” in nature, with a higher tendency to be centered around action sequences or artistic statements by directors. One of the most notable of which is Aleksandr Sokurov’s 2002 classic Russian Ark, which re-enacted hundreds of years of Russian and Soviet history. And, as evidenced by the film’s glamorous portrayal of Russian history,
Appearing with a Hitler-like moustache, walking in a weird way, and acting hilariously were a few features that I characterized Charlie Chaplin when I was a kid. His acting as the Tramp remained as my most vivid and beautiful memory until this day. However, not until when I grew older, did I know that Charlie Chaplin used his hilarious act to criticize the current society and promote the idea of freedom and equality. According to an interview with Charlie Chaplin, Brian Eggert wrote “his concerns are humanity and its existence within a world where middle class citizens are dehumanized by the surrounding industrialization” (Brian Eggert). That was the reason why he decided to make Modern Times. This movie is his ironic illustration on how industrialization negatively affected the working class at that time. Specifically, the factory scene in Modern Times is his critique on the working condition in factory and the greed of the upper class. Using Ideological Criticism, I argue that Charlie used his humorous mind to criticize capitalism and social inequality, through symbol like the Tramp, the Feeding Machine, and the factory. First, I will analyze the rhetorical artifact to show it’s hidden meaning. Second, I will talk about why the meaning of the ideologies from the scene is a criticism the adverse effect of the industrialization. Third, I will talk about the impact of the factory scene of Modern Times to the society.
Classic narrative cinema is what Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson (The classic Hollywood Cinema, Columbia University press 1985) 1, calls “an excessively obvious cinema”1 in which cinematic style serves to explain and not to obscure the narrative. In this way it is made up of motivated events that lead the spectator to its inevitable conclusion. It causes the spectator to have an emotional investment in this conclusion coming to pass which in turn makes the predictable the most desirable outcome. The films are structured to create an atmosphere of verisimilitude, which is to give a perception of reality. On closer inspection it they are often far from realistic in a social sense but possibly portray a realism desired by the patriarchal and family value orientated society of the time. I feel that it is often the black and white representation of good and evil that creates such an atmosphere of predic...
...s appeared not so much to matter as the fact that he developed new techniques, devised camera approaches and sought always to bring out the potential of a still developing form. That he forgot--or overlooked--to bring the Marxist message to one of his films two years ago brought him that fatal kiss of all--the accusation from the authoritative Soviet magazine, Culture and Life, that his productions had been short on the prescribed Soviet requirement of art and interpretation of history” ("Sergei Eisenstein is Dead in Moscow”, New York Times, 1948) . In film, Eisenstein was known for his development of the montage sequence, his unusual juxtapositions, and his life-like imagery. In life he was known for his propaganda and belief in the plight of the working class. Eisenstein left an inevitable mark on his community, his time, the shape of a sub-culture, and his art.
He wanted to celebrate the crowd, machines and modern life, and the merge between these components. He wanted to create that using camera and editing, as he was aiming to prove that the kino eye (the camera) was able to present images that human eye would never be able to see them that way. Vertov saw the “kino eye” as a pure reform for the human eye. Through the film, he intended to depict the film production process itself, as he presented his brother carrying the camera to every nock of the city and taking shots from different angles and distances; in addition to presenting his wife cutting the film and creating the motion that we see. he wanted to show us how film is made, and as many critics argued, Vertov tried to celebrate the cinema itself and its cinematic apparatus, which were able to create a new visual language free from any spatial and temporal rules and as Vervone put it “city symphony alters our perceived ideas about the place and therefore establishes new modes of cognition and perception based on the images and the way they are selected and intended” (2012,
Oscar Wild once said, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple” and he is right. But no matter what the outcome is, or how complex the truth is, we will always strive for the truth. The concept of truth is no stranger to film documentaries, and one filmmaker that certainty was aware of that was Dziga Vertov. During the 1920’s Vertov created a newsreel series to promote the concept of ‘Kinopravda” which translated to English mean “Film truth.” Unfortunately, Vertov was ahead of his time, and this concept disappeared along the filmmakers’ path. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that other filmmakers around the world once again recognized the importance of the truth. Two movements with the purpose of revealing the truth of life, emerge in different parts of the world, Direct Cinema in North America and Cinema Vérité in France. Although, both had the same purpose, their approaches towards getting the truth make them completely different. Cinema Vérité’s approach gave the filmmakers a chance to manipulate and distort reality by participating and observing at the same time, while Direct Cinemas approach was strictly observational, and there is no better way to find out the truth than observing without interfering.
It is an experimental silent documentary film without any story or actors. The movie was directed by Dziga Vertov and edited by his wife Elizaveta Svilova. The movie was shot in 3 different cities namely Moscow, Kiev and Odessa. In this movie soviet citizens are shown at work as well as at play in a single day from dawn to dusk. They are shown interacting with the machinery of modern life. Since Vertov had invented many cinematic techniques and used in this movie it was voted as one of the best film ever made. He used fast motion, slow motion, double exposure, jump cuts, freeze frames, split screens, footage played backwards etc. so it was named as best documentary of all times.
The films of Andrey Arsen’evitch Tarkovsky fall into the separate genre of cinematic creations: they are more than drama or psychological thriller, more than philosophical cinema. Although Tarkovsky’s work has been deeply influenced with such prominent film directors as Kurosawa, Bunuel or Antonioni, the poetry of his father, Arseniy Tarkovsky, Boris Pasternak and many other Russian poets and writers, his films manage to form something completely unique to the mind of their director, convey a diaphanous psychological message. His cinematography is a celebration, a theatre of “imprinted time,” trapped with the skillful techniques of the plot-creating and camera usage of the director. As if in the ‘Zone’ of his Staler the art of Andrey Tarkovsky freezes the moment, the gasp of time, enclosed into almost sculpture-like solid creation that opens up to the viewer its nostalgic breeze. The time exists, it crystallizes in form of faerie, elfish arabesque figures and characters and yet it evaporates filling the space with a sense of solitude and sorrow for the past.
Art has been always seen as a form to express self emotions and ideas; an artist creates an idea and shapes it by culturally known objects and forms to send encrypted message. Through the times both, ideas and materials used, separates art in to different periods and movements. In late 40’s and late 50’s two art and culture movements emerged, one from another. The first one, Lettrism, was under the aspiration to rewrite all human knowledge. From it another movement, Situationism, appeared. It was an anti-art movement which sought for Cultural Revolution. Both of these movements belong to wide and difficulty defined movement of experiment, a movement whose field is endless. Many different people create experimental films because of the variety of reasons. Some wishes to express their viewpoints which are unconventional. But most of them have an enthusiasm for medium itself. They yearn to explore what prospects the medium has and wishes to open new opportunities to create and to explore, as well as to educate. Experimental filmmaker, differently from mainstream filmmakers, wishes to step out from the orthodox notions. The overall appreciation is not the aim that the experimental filmmakers would seek for. Experimenters usually work on the film alone or with a small group, without the big budget. They intend to challenge the traditional ideas. And with intention to do so Lettrism tries to narrow the distance between the poetry and people’s lives, while Situationism tries to transform world into one that would exist in constant state of newness. Both of these avant-garde movements root from similar sources and have similar foundations. Nonetheless, they have different intentions for the art and culture world and these movements...
Tarkovsky, Andrey. Sculpting in Time: The Great Russian Filmmaker Discusses His Art. Russia: Soviet State Film School. 1986. Print.
In this essay I will discussing how the theory of montage is used to construct meaning which results in a response from the audience to watching this specific sequence in Battleship Potemkin directed by Sergei Eisenstein in 1925. The theory of montage has 5 parts to it which I will discuss in detail further on with reference to the Odessa steps sequence. History also plays an important part as to how Pudovkin, Lev Kuleshov and D. W Griffiths influenced Eisenstein to look deeper into editing. Eisenstein gained the knowledge on how editing film could change the emotional impact on the audience through shot size, shot variation, tempos and lengths of a shot and more. All of this elements where studied, used by Eisenstein to produce new ideas and meaning to film but was it unnecessary in film as a whole?
The theme of wealth is much like a veil for A Doll's House and The Cherry Orchard. Although the audience may be inclined to believe that the lack of wealth is the main conflict, both plays refute this with their resolutions. Nora escapes from gender inequality, and Lopakhin destroys the only link to his serf heritage. Indeed, both Ibsen and Chekhov initially provided evidence that wealth is the dominant theme, but freedom was only achieved for Nora and Lopakhin by escaping from their respective social roles, a psychological freedom. This complies with the authors' original purposes - not to comment on wealth, but to promote feminism and examine Russia's class structure.
This paper will prove that the Marxist theories, division of class and class conscious are used in the film through the characters and their interactions. It will begin with identifying the class divisions present, and then mention how these different classes interact and how class consciousness is seen in the film.