Montage Film Vertov
Two of the most celebrated filmmakers of the Montage era were Eisenstein and Vertov. Both understanding the revolutionary idea of the Montage film era, differed when it came to their writings. In this essay I am going to explore the similarities and differences in Vertovs and Eisensteins theories of Montage.
Vertov who came from a background of poetry and science fiction writing considered his films to be documentaries and records of actuality. He emphasized a concept of “Cine-eye” and “life as it is” which combined an aesthetic view of documentary with thoughts of art. Vertov thought of the camera as the “ideal eye” and that a cameraman could bring the audience into a filmic trance by use of the lense, camera settings, and light. Vertov believed that by doing this the viewer would perceive more than the human eye is capable. Vertov emphasized the shooting of “unawares” of real people undisturbed in their daily activities. It was important to him to make sure these people were not approached with the camera for fear that they may express dissatisfaction at being filmed, as he wanted his films to be authentic. With his completed films he hoped the viewer would perceive reality as they otherwise would never be able to. Vertov believed in precise movements and speed in space and time into an artistic whole in harmony with the characteristics and the interval rhythm of each object. Vertov thought that by the filmmaker calculating the differences between shots ie: light vs dark, slow vs. fast, skillful editing,and making sure that the film intervals were related to content would force the human eye to see the consecutive details of the film. Vertov believed that the tension created by the movements continuing or conflicting from one shot to another are the differences that will affect the viewer.
Eisenstein came from a much different background, in that he was schooled in engineering, however he was drawn to the arts and obsessed with spectacle so much that when he went into art he used similar processes of construction for art. Initially, Eisenstein, believed that the filmmaker should assemble a series of exciting moments to stimulate the viewers emotions, but later his priniples changed and he thought that shots should not be seen as simply linked, but rather as conflicting sharply with one another for maximum emotional effects. Eisenstein called this “attraction”, he wanted to use film to mold the audience in a desired direction or mood by creating a comparison of subjects for effect. Eisenstein wanted to enter and disrupt the viewers consciousness through literal rather than visual means and this depended upon the sequence in which the image ideas are assembled. “Attraction” as stated in “The Montage of Attractions” is “any aggressive movement in theatres, any element that subjects the audience to emotional or psychological influence, verified by experience and mathematically calculated to produce specific emotional shocks in the spectator in their proper order within the whole”. These shocks provide the only opportunity for perceiving the ideological aspect of what is being shown, or the final ideological conclusion. In addition, the speed of editing and the speed of the rythym makes the film extreme, it forces you to react to the shock. Eisenstein emphasized that attractions are not a signal for emotion but they are the emotion itself and by having an attraction or series of attractions was the only way to give the audience real satisfaction.
Despite the agreement on the foundation of Montage, Eisenstein and Vertov were not a united pair. It is apparent that significant aesthetic disagreements separated them. They both agreed that filmic meaning is built out of an succession of shots which creates an overall meaning that lies within the juxtaposition. Both of their films make metaphorical and rhetorical statements by means of Montage. However, Eisenstein claims that his theory forsaw the abstract concept without intermediary, while Vertov stressed that the newsreel can include ideological argument, of any political or economic pattern. Prior to film, Vertov and Eisenstein were both involved in the arts, before cinema Vertov wrote novels and poetry, Eisenstein was an engineer who had immense knowledge of the arts, particularly theatre and the graphic arts; he designed posters, stage sets and directed theatrical production. Eisensteins essays define an “attraction” as a primary element in the construction of film and sees in the montage of such “aggressive movements” used to guide the spectator should be the main task of functional theatre. Whereas Vertov's essays claim that the mechanical eye of the camera can perfect and fulfill human vision. And, like Eisenstein, Vertov insists that this world could be constructed out of fragments, and that it is all a matter of juxtaposition of one visual moment with another. However, Eisenstein developed his theatre style from his studies while Vertov's closeness to poetry helped him to gain a new respect for cinema.
There can be little doubt that Eisenstein and Vertov both influenced and were influenced by the montage by diplaying their different styles. There were apparent similarities and differences but those differences, especially in their artistic backgrounds helped to combine into the common art of cinema.
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
