Essay 1: Eisenstein and Dialectical Montage Soviet cinematographer Sergei Eisenstein argues that the basis of cinema is dialectical montage. In his article “A Dialectical Approach to Film Form”, Eisenstein explains dialectics as “a constant evolution from the interaction of two contradictory opposites” (45). These opposites synthesize and form a new thesis, which then may also be contradicted. Eisenstein employs dialectical montage in his films due to its ability to invoke change, an important goal in a revolutionary society. His film Battleship Potemkin is designed to display this theory and create a psychological change within his audience, corresponding to his revolutionist ideals. The popularity of the dialectical approach was fostered by the upheaval in Russia during the early 20th Century. As communism rose in popularity, Eisenstein believed a Marxist dialectical approach in regards to montage was the foundation of cinema, stating, “Cinematography is, first, and foremost, montage”. He expressed this idea in his films, such as in Battleship Potemkin. On a larger social scale, Eisenstein wished to use his …show more content…
dialectical montage theory in order to spur the masses into revolution. Stating that “Art is conflict”, he used this idea in his carefully orchestrated scenes in the revolutionary film Battleship Potemkin, designed to appeal to the audience’s defiant emotions. However, while changing the audience’s emotions was important, Eisenstein’s larger goal was to change the perspective and thought process of the audience. In “A Dialectical Approach to Film Form”, Eisenstein outright states that “while the conventional film directs the emotions, this suggests an opportunity to encourage and direct the whole thought process, as well”. This shows that while one of Eisenstein’s goals in film was to provoke his audiences, his primary goal was to change their very thought process. Based on his writings and Battleship Potemkin, it is clear that he desired his audiences to not only be outraged and provoked by the movie, but to continue to change their ideological beliefs based upon the revolutionist ideals in contains. Largely a vehicle for communist propaganda, Battleship Potemkin is the best example of Eisenstein’s belief in the use of dialectical montage to evoke emotion. In his writing “The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram”, Eisenstein states that the “combination of two or three details of a material kind yields a perfectly finished representation of another kind—psychological” (32). By constructing conflicting concepts and ideas, he believed new emotional changes could be fabricated within viewers, the very basis of the dialectical approach. He uses this idea almost continuously within the film, directing each shot and sequence to reflect this. He believed that by carefully controlling the sequence and timing of each shot, film could be used to manipulate the audiences into feeling particular emotions and potentially changing their thought processes. Within Battleship Potemkin, there are many scenes that display this belief.
However, it is most prominent within the famous “Odessa Steps” sequence. Throughout this sequence, contrasting images are shown rapidly. Images of faces of the public standing on the steps, the arrival of the soldiers and the beginning of the violence, and people escaping down the steps help support Eisenstein’s theory of how dialectical montage should be used. In a broad reading of the scene, this sequence directly supports his confidence in the idea of revolution. By showing the audience a forceful and overbearing military slaughtering innocent civilians, Eisenstein clearly shows the audience who he believes is in the wrong. By showing a realistic scene of brutal violence, it is obvious that Eisenstein wishes for the audience to identify with the civilians and become
outraged. Upon a closer reading of the scene, it is obvious that Eisenstein chose each shot very carefully. This agrees with what he writes in “The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram”, as he states that “the shot is by no means an element of montage. The shot is a montage cell” (37). In saying this, Eisenstein states that a shot is not merely a singular aspect of an overall idea, but by itself is representative of the idea. In the “Odessa Steps” sequence, this clearly shown many times. One such time is while the ship is leaving and the crowd is waving goodbye. In this part of the scene, many faces of the civilians are shown waving. Each civilian is depicted differently, some shown as higher class, others shown as disabled, some young and some old. In considering these shots as carefully selected “montage cells” it is clear that Eisenstein wants the audience to appreciate a sense of unity and respect between these people. By plainly showing their faces, Eisenstein personalizes these people and asks the audience to identify with them. This is in sharp contrast to the arrival of the tsarist soldiers, who are not shown on screen often. The soldiers are only shown from behind and are uniformed, not allowing the audience to personalize them. This further supports Battleship Potemkin’s role as propaganda, as it asks the audience to be disgusted by governmental use of the military in this instance. As the soldiers begin firing on the civilians, rapid scenes of people fleeing and being injured are shown. In “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form”, Eisenstein explicitly discusses his use of montage to create a violent image, saying that one such montage sequence was of a “woman with pince-nez. Followed immediately-without transition- by the same woman with shattered pince-nez and bleeding eye: impression of a shot hitting the eye” (56). Without a transition, this use of montage shows the immediacy of the problem, in this case a bullet wound. By using his approach to dialectical montage, Eisenstein was able to create this image of violence and many more throughout the sequence. Twice in the “Odessa Steps” sequence Eisenstein attempts to invoke emotion in the audience by depicting innocence as children and their mothers. The first time, a young boy is shot and trampled, presumably fatally, while he and his mother flee the stairs. As his mother takes him in her arms and approaches the encroaching guards, she pleads for help but is shot. This is clearly another attempt at psychological manipulation of the audience, as the majority of people would identify with this woman and her child. Eisenstein repeats this manipulation again, with another mother and a baby in a stroller. As the mother is shot, the stroller rolls down the steps and the baby presumably dies. It is in this second manipulation that makes it apparent that Eisenstein uses montage not only shot by shot, but also by concept. By repeating this concept of a mother and child’s death, he recreates and heightens the same emotion in the audience, furthering his goal of manipulating the audience’s emotion and beliefs. While there are many examples of Eisenstein’s use of dialectical montage within the sequence, possibly the most easily noticeable is that of the lion at the end of the scene. Three shots are shown rapidly, one of a sleeping lion, one of an awakening lion, and one of a lion standing up. Eisenstein also discusses this explicitly, calling it “pictorial symbolism… in protest against the bloodshed on the Odessa Steps” (56). The desired effect of this montage sequence is clear here; the lion represents the outrage against the violent actions of the military. In Eisenstein’s larger goal, it can be taken as a hopeful representation of the audience’s reaction as well. Overall, the “Odessa Steps” sequence represents the larger goals of Eisenstein’s theory of dialectical montage. Each shot of the sequence was designed to induce defiance and outrage in his audiences. This corresponded to some of the overall objectives of his on a larger scale, as he defended Marxist beliefs and the revolution within the Soviet Union.
In the film Red Dawn of 1984, it depicts both a work of art and propaganda for various of reasons. To start off, propaganda is used to imply a negative impact on both Russia and Russian troops. The way they are portrayed in the film, illustrates them as savages and corrupted people who are ruthless. In the film, the United States is portrayed as the victim because of the the strong brave soldiers, who are trying to survive and would fight any obstacle in their way. In fact, this film of Red Dawn can also be considered a work of art, because this film uniquely symbolizes the acceptance of thinking like a child. For example, in many scenes in the movie seeing the world from a children’s point of view was a way to help the soldiers forget about their present situation. In this case, the war battles between Russian troops. Most importantly, what I consider a work of art in this film, would be that a group of teenagers get together as a team to defend their country from Soviet invaders. In this essay I will explain different examples that prove that the film of 1984 Red Dawn can be considered both a work of art and a of propaganda.
This analysis will explore these cinematic techniques employed by Pontecorvo within a short sequence and examine their effects on our understanding of the issues and themes raised within the film.
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
The Alfred Hitchcock film; Vertigo is a narrative film that is a perfect example of a Hollywood Classical Film. I will be examining the following characteristics of the film Vertigo: 1)individual characters who act as casual agents, the main characters in Vertigo, 2)desire to reach to goals, 3)conflicts, 4)appointments, 5)deadlines, 6)James Stewart’s focus shifts and 7)Kim Novak’s characters drives the action in the film. Most of the film is viewed in the 3rd person, except for the reaction shots (point of view shot) which are seen through the eyes of the main character.(1st person) The film has a strong closure and uses continuity editing(180 degree rule). The stylistic (technical) film form of Vertigo makes the film much more enjoyable. The stylistic film form includes camera movements, editing, sound, mise-en-scene and props.
The 2006 film V for Vendetta, a cinematic remake of the classic graphic novel series by the same name, is the epitome of a Marxist fairy tale. The film is complete with a bourgeoisie government who spreads their ideology, via mass media, to a citizenry composed entirely of proletariats, and a hero who sets out to break said citizenry from the prison of false consciousness. If one examines the setting and environment of the film, and follows the main characters as they fight against, or break free from, false consciousness, evidence of Marxist themes are present throughout the film.
While the United States and the rest of the world focused on commercially pushing out films for profit, Russia used film to create an art form. Russian filmmakers took risks and created camera effects that had never been seen before. The Soviet Union influenced many films coming out of Russia during the 20’s. For example Dziga Vertov produced Man With A Movie Camera (1929). This film was wildly adventurous; Vertov made no effort to hide the fact that it was a film. He used editing techniques and music to create the scene, there was no plot to the film or characters. The film showed a day in the life of a Russian citizen, Vertov filmed Man With A Movie Camera over a span of four years. In the film the audience is introduced to “The man with
In this essay I will be analysing the use of cinematography in two films, using Peeping Tom (1960) directed by Michael Powell and Psycho (1960) directed by Alfred Hitchcock. The reason why I choose these two films is because although they are from the same genre, and from the same period, the methods both films use are similar and at the same time completely different.
Filmmaker and theorist, Lev Kuleshov, is known today as the grandfather of Soviet Montage theory. His works include The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks (1924), Death Ray (1925), The Great Consoler (1933) and We from the Urals (1943). Kuleshov’s life work has had a profound influence on the filmmakers around him and filmmakers today. One of his greatest triumphs was cofounding the Moskow Film School, the world’s first film school. In a time when filmmaking was still in its infancy, Kuleshov was perhaps the first to theorize about the power of this new story telling medium. These theories and experiments would pave the way for future Russian film giants like Pudovkin and Eisenstein (who briefly studied under him).
However, in stark contrast to The General, other films were being made around the world that did not follow a simple Hollywood structure, but rather were more experimental with what a movie could be. Man With a Movie Camera (1929), a very ahead of its time, utilized a completely different style of filmmaking that resonated strongly with the ideals of the Soviet Union. Thus, Man With a Movie Camera sought out to make the everyday people of the Soviet Union the stars of the film. This idea was completely revolutionary as well, and almost by necessity, introduced a new style of editing to fit the story—or rather the documentation—that director Dziga Vertov was trying to tell.
Most of the films that they were created in the Soviet Union, outside the school of montage, use topics of sitcoms and to a various literary adaptations. Conversely directors from school of montage decided on a topic related to the uprising, or other historically revolutionary movement. This was mainly the one that these topics offered filmmakers show any conflict, or also because they tried to point out the Communist ideology. Especially Sergei Eisenstein and Vsevolod Pudovkin used this style, in the films that remind the twentieth anniversary of the failed revolution of 1905.
The film Solaris directed by Andrei Tarkovsky is an important artifact of Russian culture, poetry, and art. The significance of poetry and art is deep rooted and reflective of Russia’s special place in the world. Depth and meaning come from where the uniqueness of Russian culture coincides with the messages Tarkovsky communicates through the film. More so than other films, Solaris deals with the existential questions of the period in a context that has remained relevant to this day. Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris is a philosophical work that -- in the context of Russian raw and unadulterated contradiction -- creates an environment conducive to deep introspection. Solaris should be appreciated as cinematic poetry, not just as a classic Russian film.
The postmodern cinema emerged in the 80s and 90s as a powerfully creative force in Hollywood film-making, helping to form the historic convergence of technology, media culture and consumerism. Departing from the modernist cultural tradition grounded in the faith in historical progress, the norms of industrial society and the Enlightenment, the postmodern film is defined by its disjointed narratives, images of chaos, random violence, a dark view of the human state, death of the hero and the emphasis on technique over content. The postmodernist film accomplishes that by acquiring forms and styles from the traditional methods and mixing them together or decorating them. Thus, the postmodern film challenges the “modern” and the modernist cinema along with its inclinations. It also attempts to transform the mainstream conventions of characterization, narrative and suppresses the audience suspension of disbelief. The postmodern cinema often rejects modernist conventions by manipulating and maneuvering with conventions such as space, time and story-telling. Furthermore, it rejects the traditional “grand-narratives” and totalizing forms such as war, history, love and utopian visions of reality. Instead, it is heavily aimed to create constructed fictions and subjective idealisms.
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...
‘Then came the films’; writes the German cultural theorist Walter Benjamin, evoking the arrival of a powerful new art form at the end of 19th century. By this statement, he tried to explain that films were not just another visual medium, but it has a clear differentiation from all previous mediums of visual culture.
As a practical sociologist, Charlie Chaplin film Modern times embodies the ideas of hyper-rationalization of Max Weber and the false consciousness of Karl Marx. His film critiques the structural evolution caused by modern society. Through satire, the film reflects the lived reality of modernity by showing how individual agency succumbs to ruthless pragmatism, and how false consciousness is taught to marginalized individuals.