Man with a Movie Camera

     One thing that struck me about Man with a Movie Camera was the episodic element of the different parts. I kept trying to find a narrative arc or throughline, but didn't necessarily see one besides perhaps a very loose idea of the process of filming and editing. Chapter (if I can call them chapters) 3 seemed like it was all about the process of editing. 

    I found certain elements of the film surprising and pretty innovative for the time. Like the moments of stop motion as a way to anthropomorphize the film camera. I also thought the chattering crowd noises superimposed on the film were interesting. I wonder if those were added when the film was remastered or if that effect was attempted when the film first came out. It definitely did not feel diegetic, but I think that was the idea when this kind of sound was introduced. Also the moments of double exposure placing the filmmaker over buildings has some interesting messaging regarding the role of the filmmaker. The fact that he is the subject and also placed in this place of power is very telling. Through the whole montage of the film, the filmmaker is the only constant. His is the story we see, even though much of the film is through his lens. Perhaps that's what we can take away from this and apply to film in general, the subjectivity of it. 

   I'm curious what everyone else made of the meta elements in this film, which were many. I think that's what I'm looking forward to discussing most in class today.

 Kali Spencer

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342

09/29/20

Man With A Movie Camera

 Dziga Vertov’s Man With A Movie Camera is a testament to the importance and influence of editing in the filmmaking process. While it seems to reject the idea of staged cinema in the conventional sense- not using set characters or an established plot but rather taking images from everyday life- it is nonetheless aware of its precarious role in defining reality.

Man With A Movie Camera Man seems to me to be a metacommentary on the art of film construction. Vertov directs the viewer's attention to the film's purpose and positioning through the use of scenes such as the one where he cuts to the editor constructing the film. In doing this we are allowed to see the visual effects that are being employed and the strategy is revealed to the audience. This seems to be intentional as the film focuses on the editing techniques that are being utilized like stop motion, slow motion, superimposition, split-screen editing, and montage. Most films use continuity editing to guide the audience using techniques that the audience is unaware of. In Man With A Movie Camera however we are shown the editing process, they want to draw our attention to it. Through showing us the editing process they show the way that we draw meaning and interpretations from shots being spliced together. This juxtaposition of shots creates a new meaning and speaks to the power of montage. In watching the editor assemble the narrative we see how film of the objective truth can be transformed and given subjective meaning through the combining of images and their editing. 

While I think a lot of our past readings have grappled with the idea of reality and how it should be presented Vertov instead seems to have embraced the idea that reality in film is constructed. And rather than trying to hide this fact and present his film as the truth/reality, he lets the viewer in on the ways that editing can affect the meaning of a film.

What We Choose to Emphasize

 Shaelene G. Moler

Prof. Richard Simpson

History and Theory of Documentary Film

29 September 2020

What We Choose to Emphasize

When watching this week’s film Man with a Movie Camera, there was one frequent occurrence that caught my attention, and that was the selective emphasis that the filmmaker seemed to have on certain aspects of city life. In the first part of the film, I noticed the substantial emphasis on transportation, towards the middle there was a strong emphasis on female bodies, and the female experience, and as the film neared the end, it emphasized people’s reaction to film as well as the process of film production. In addition to this, there were aspects of this film that seemed to be staged, reproduced, and artistically edited, that all seemed to push for a representation of life rather than a documentation of it, making it a debatable piece of documentary film to begin with. So, what was the purpose of all this? 

This film brought me back to one of our earlier readings which was Comolli and Narboni’s Cinema/Ideology/Criticism, which thoroughly discussed the political atmosphere of film. In this reading, Comolli and Narboni state “Clearly, the cinema ‘reproduces’ reality: this is what a camera and film stock are for—so says the ideology. But the tools and techniques of filmmaking are a part of ‘reality’ themselves, and furthermore ‘reality’ is nothing but an expression of the prevailing ideology” (Comolli and Narboni 814- 815). Considering this, I personally see Man with a Movie Camera as a film that both challenges and accepts the common ideology, at least when it comes to women in the film. 

Although the film does explore the female experience in some ways as something beautiful and challenging (for example, when the woman is signing divorce papers, she shields her face, and the birthing scene), for the most part, there are many scenes showing women beautifying themselves (makeup, hair salons, etc.), and there is also a huge emphasis on the female body in the beach scene. So how does this apply to the dominant ideology? 

    Considering this film was filmed, created, and first published in the 1920’s, this is when women first truly started exploring more aspects of individual freedom, at least in the United States. Talks of “the new woman” were coming about as more women were seeking financial and social independence, and many people were against this, as well as many people were for it. This film, explores the female independence, without revealing too much about where the filmmakers personal belief on it presides, likely because of the society in which it took place, and instead, shows women in more of a stereotypical depiction, while also emphasizing their beauty as human beings. It ultimately left me questioning if this film could be considered progressional because of this, or if it can just be considered a commentary.

  

 

Jeff Holley

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342

September 29, 2020

 

Dziga Vertov

 

Vertov introduced Man with a Movie Camera in 1929, over a decade past the infamous Russian revolution.  He had been an accomplished film producer before this film, but his new film, void of actors, stages, and scripts (Nichols, 163), had been compromised upon or evolved significantly compared to his previous films. 

The Film-Truth series, which included several films but the most famous of those series being One Sixth of the World (Barnouw, 58), explained through his unique concept of cinema a larger truth through his camera's mechanical lens. 

Vertov collided with other filmmakers of his time, perhaps because his ideology stubbornly prevented him from "making films" that supported a staged or fictitious end. Neither did he correspond to the political efforts that Stalin had hoped for that would shape a narrative to feed the workings' minds classes.

The filmmaker describes his film brand as the "antidote" – he rejected the "opium for the people," as Karl Marks would have agreed to religion's likes. His vision aimed at the representation that would counter thought against Hollywood trends.  

Lenin's ideology saw that "of all the arts…film was the most important" (54). This political leader and revolutionary was probably more in tune with Vertov's who said, "I am cinema eye—I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you a world such as only I can see" (Barnouw, 58). Vertov eventually collided with other documentary filmmaking of the times because his ideals ultimately would be considered a filmmaker "with dangerous anti-planning views," probably because Stalin wanted a more potent, more controlled product that would shape the working class (61). 

Although visible throughout the film, Vertov and his cameraman counterpart, even one time on top angling downward onto the streets below or riding on a motorcycle camera mounted on the handlebars, displays a Russian landscape, predominantly urban of the early 20th century. The fantastic camera shots and angles cleverly crafted and sequenced depicted an industrial setting that included telephone operators, factory workers, and women getting her makeup done. Other shot sequences show a man getting a shave and another grinding an ax…all which in some chaotic form gives life to the scene as the cross from one frame to another. 

This film is about human interaction its machine repetition all, as Vertov suggests, "the new man, free of unwieldiness and clumsiness, will have the light, precise movement of machines and he will be the gratifying subject of our films (Vertov,8). It’s a story in a film about Soviet Russia through the lens of a camara but it’s the camara that actually tells the story. There is no doubt that Vertov understood that truth-making and filmmaking were synonymous and more appealing to the educated mind and Populus, but he was perhaps way ahead of his time.

 

 

                                                      Works Cited

 

 

El Lissitzky / MFAH, museum purchase with funds provided by the Caroline Wiess Law Accessions Endowment Fund, The Manfred Heiting Collection © 2011 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn

 

Erik Barnouw, Documenetary: A History of Non-Fiction Film, Oxford University Press, (1993) pp 51-71

 

Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary, Third Edition, (2017) Indiana University Press, pp 161-168

Banishing the Intruder

Shaelene G. Moler

Prof. Richard Simpson

History and Theory of Documentary Film

23 September 2020

Banishing the Intruder

As I was watching this week’s film Nanook of the North, I was mesmerized by the beauty of it, and was ultimately impressed by it’s craftsmanship. Never being much of a documentary film watcher myself, and having never seen this film before, I was impressed by the so clearly thought out composition of the film. To me, it was obvious that Flaherty put a lot of love, time, and dedication into making this film into what it became. That being said, it was also clear to me that the motivations of this film was strongly fueled by culture and cultural differences. According to the Barnouw chapter, Flaherty wrote in his journal about the goal of Nanook of the North by stating “I am not going to make films about what the white man has made of primitive peoples… What I want to show is the former majesty and character of these people, while it is still possible before the white man has destroyed not only their character, but the people as well. The urge that I had to make Nanook came from the way I felt about these people, my admiration for them; I wanted to tell others about them” (Barnouw 45). Although the film definitely displays this attitude of Flaherty’s by displaying happier, celebratory, fascinating aspects of these peoples’ lives, I could not help but feel there was at least a part or two where this film was prioritizing entertainment.

One of the best examples of this came from the seal hunting scene toward the end of the film. During this scene, Flaherty includes a subtitle that discusses how the smell of a fresh kill attracts wolves. While this is definitely true in real life, it does not feel genuine in this scene due to the fact actual wolves are never pictured, and the characters never display any sense of worry. To me, it feels as though this was made up to intensify the audiences experience when watching the film; especially when the only images of the “wolves” are the dogs used in the sledging which are clearly bound up by straps. In terms of documentary film, this almost cheapened the experience for me, and had me questioning exactly how much of the film was accurate to these people’s lived experiences.

One fascinating thing I had learned in the “How I filmed ‘Nanook of the North’” article was the initial motivations behind filming these people. According to the article, the film was supposed to serve as a way to provide valuable information that might be of enough value to “help in some way defray some of the costs of the explorations” (par. 2). While we know now that the film did bring in a significant amount of income during it’s final/official release in 1922, this fact did have me questioning if the original intent had ever been truly met. 

In closing, I think that Nanook of the North is a valuable cultural piece, and was certainly innovative for it’s time. Now more than ever, it may be culturally relevant as general society is more open to studying, discussing, and sharing differing cultures. That being said, I think that this film is more than worthy of it’s title as one of the best documentary films in history, because of it’s craftsmanship, and the beauty in which it has preserved. 

Nanook

Jeff Holley

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342

Reflection

 

Nanook of the North

 

If Robert Flaherty was the "father of documentary and cinematic ethnography" (Rony, 100), it's not hard to see why, with his poised and extroverted nature of framing work in a way that was fun for both the viewer and those he was filming. Flaherty might not have initially chosen to follow his father's footsteps as a mining engineer. Still, his career was reminiscent of exploring his father's job, who often took his son with him while searching for ore (Barnouw, 33). Naturally, the knowledge he gained as a child led him to evolve into his later profession as a filmmaker because of this background. Still, Flaherty was "a man of intense charm" (Barnouw, 39), which undoubtedly gave him more incredible opportunity to have the relationship he had with the culture he was immersed in. 

 

The film took years to make, probably because it had never been done before.  The "happy to lucky" attitudes of the Inuit Itivimuit Tribe, and primarily the "cuddly primitive man" known as Nanook and his immediate family (Barnouw, 35) became the purpose of the film. This film celebrated the life, the struggle, the harshness of the unforgiving nature of how this small group of Inuit who lived and showed to the world something never before seen. They took to the camera well, were aware of being filmed, and allowed for each activity patiently to assist in getting the shot. 

 

Whether it was navigating sea ice in a kayak with the entire family, as we see at the beginning of the film, each one exiting the boat one by one like magic.  This scene, leaving the kayak, even included the dog all one by one going the top hole like a magician pulling a rabbit out of it. Another scene Flaherty filmed when cutting an ice window to allow sunlight in the igloo, that took an hour to build, a fantastic feat in such a harsh environment was also incredible to watch. 

 

I was sad to learn his second film, "Moana" with the Somoan's, that took a different approach to what the Polynesians then had encountered with missionaries and traders, by filming them with their traditional "siagos" instead of their "white man clothes" (Barnouw, 45).  Unfortunately, that film was a "box office failure" (Barnouw, 48), and his career as a filmmaker gradually ended a decade after his "popular culture" phenomenon (Barnouw, 51).

 

 Kali Spencer

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342

09/22/20

Nanook of the North

In one of our readings from last week, Embarrassing Evidence: The Detective Camera and the Documentary Impulse, Tom Gunning states “I believe that tracing the origin of the hand camera does more than simply route the documentary impulse in pure noisiness (although it may be useful to recall the curiositas that underlies the documentary). This curiosity shapes a particular conception of the camera, whose technical design allows a certain way of seeing and gathering evidence. It is not simply the supposed neutrality of the camera that must be interrogated, but the historically specific fantasies of knowledge and power that this apparatus embodies and produces” (Gunning 61). While in this instance he is referring strictly to the use of the so-called “detective camera” I think this passage helps raise important questions for documentaries as a whole such as: In what ways do the documentary maker's interests impact the film?, In what ways do historically specific fantasies of knowledge and power impact what is recorded and embody pre-existing ideas of power and knowledge?, and What are some of the ethical questions we should take into account when filming documentaries?

In Robert J. Flaherty’s How I Filmed 'Nanook of the North' this first question of the film maker’s intent is immediately raised for me. Flaherty admits that his initial intentions when making the film were to “secure films of the North and Eskimo life, which might prove to be of enough value to help in some way to defray some of the costs of the explorations”. While he states that upon returning to the north his intentions were “wholly for the purpose of making films” I feel that it’s hard to ignore the precedent set during the first filming that viewed this as a money-making venture rather than based in genuine curiosity. 

This idea plays into our next two questions surrounding the ideas of historically specific fantasies of knowledge and power and their impacts upon a film and the ethics of filmmaking. I think when we view other cultures as something that we can simply record in order to monetize and commodify, we do the viewer and the subject a great disservice because we aren’t interested in presenting things the way they are. Because we don’t have a genuine interest in them, we feel the need to stage scenes that portray the subject in a way that is interesting (though not always realistic).

I think this last idea ties largely into Fatimah Tobing Rony’s Taxidermy and Romantic Ethnography. Just as Rony discussed in his writing, “in both cases, what is ignored is how Nanook emerges from the web of discourse which constructed the Inuit as Primitive man, and which considered cinema, and particularly Flaherty’s form of cinema, to be a mode of representation which could only be truthful” and focuses “not [on] whether or not Flaherty was an artist or a liar but [on] ethnography taxidermy, and how the discourse of authenticity has created the film”. These sentiments reflect my exact feelings surrounding the making of Nanook of the North. In the end, I feel the film stages interactions and presents the Inuit culture in a way that is easy to market but ultimately inauthentic. Just as one may pay to see a taxidermied lion in a museum that is posed in a way that reinforces our preexisting ideas of lions as fierce beasts, we are invited to view the Inuit people in a way that is very Westernized and paints them as simplistic and primitive. 

 Jeff Holley

Dr. Richard Simpson

Response Paper

September 9, 2020

 

What is cinema, its ideology or political stance, and the role of the critic? I thought it was interesting that the essay Cinema/Ideology/Criticism (Comolli and Narboni) delved into the ideological concept of film, which for me, was something most viewers are certainly less.  The reality of film, whether it is part of a current system, meaning whether or not it is part of a dominant political ideology or an alternative ideology, it expressed by the maker. That reality is promoted as natural or sort of a “bourgeois realism” allows for at least the period of the film a journey to that reality imposed by the film-maker. The object of the film is dependent upon this ideological platform also (814) and becomes the object of political form in contrast to the object of the political content. Some of those realities come to life through “blind faith” and other characteristics that portray such realities (815). 

 

 Kali Spencer

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342

09/08/20

Cinema/Ideology/Criticism

In “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism”, the authors Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Narboni begin to observe the world of film in a way that is comparable to that of which we do for scientific criticism. They begin by recognizing the need to define their field and methods in order to draw awareness to “its own historical and social situations”. In this undertaking, they seem to seek a Marxist approach to the critical analysis of cinema. They simultaneously recognize that the art being produced, though it may wish not to be, is still of this world, meaning that it is still in some ways tethered to and a product of existing systems of power, like capitalism. In acknowledging this, the pair is able to highlight the need for critics to identify and understand the economic and ideological determinations of films. This is important because it allows the audience to see the impacts of societal structures in a film rather than considering them as works of art that are somehow autonomous or separate from the broader social environment. This idea is perfectly summed up by their quote “every film is political". 

In order to successfully criticize films in this way, the authors seek to separate film production into groups. These groups range from those which praise the status-quo and are channels of capitalist ideology to those which Comolli and Narboni would classify as going “against the grain”. These films seem to fill a unique role in helping critique the dominant mode of representation while not relying on the stylistic conservatism found in films typically labeled as “political” . 

I think the ideas expressed in this passage are of utmost importance as they help bring to light the ways in which art can be influenced by its surrounding, political moment. It helps us to recognize that the tools and techniques of filmmaking are part of reality themselves and on a deeper level that “reality” is sometimes nothing more than an expression of the prevailing ideologies at a particular point in time. This relationship with art that acknowledges the impact of society upon it helps create a healthy environment in which we can question the prevailing ideas of a time and allow ourselves to critique and subvert these systems through artistic expression.

Film as a Discipline

Shaelene G. Moler

Professor Simpson

ENGL-342: History and Theory of Documentary Film

9 September 2020

Film as a Discipline

In The Means of Correct Training, which primarily focuses on the act of discipline as a general form, we can see some correlations between film ideology and form, and how discipline is achieved according to this chapter. As we know from the Cinema/ Ideology/ Criticism reading, film ideology can be known as a reproduction of reality. In relation to The Means of Correct Training essay, we observe that our realities is often a product of how we are trained in our society through organized institutions whether that be schools, hospitals, or businesses. 

Investigating further, there are a few statements in Cinema/ Ideology/ Criticism, that can be directly applied to film. One of these quotes being “in the perfect camp, all power would be exercised solely through exact observation; each gaze would form a part of the overall functioning of power” (Foucault 189). To me, this quote encompasses what the goal of every shot in film should be: to be organized in such a way that the observation the audience makes is exact and properly understood. This metaphor can be furthered by how the article describes the construction of a perfect camp which is “the old simple schema of confinement and enclosure- thick walls, a heat gate that prevents entering or leaving- began to be replaced by the calculation of openings, of filled and empty spaces, passages and transparencies” (Foucault 190). In many ways, this line is reminiscent of framing a shot: where the scenarist may consider how to guide a viewer’s attention by choosing what is in focus, and how much or how little is in frame. 

That being said, when we consider the depiction of our realities in film, or more particularly the ideologies in film, we often have to consider the composition of the film itself, and how much or how little this composition chooses to show. Film can be, and often is, a political form, as it represents the interest of the general public as described by Comolli and Narboni in Cinema/ Ideology/ Criticism. 

Caught in their Own Systems

 In reading Cinema/Ideology/Criticism by Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Narboni I found myself trying to classify popular films I knew by the template of different types of film they described based on both their execution and the way they interact with the status quo or the hegemonic principles that all films are subject to. Does Fight Club, for example, belong in the (a) category because in some ways it embraces the dominant ideology though its discourse if political or would it fall into the (e) category because it uses the medium of film to try to dismantle the system from within? I suppose the distinction between the two lies in how effectively the film accomplishes its goal, or at least that was my understanding. I am not familiar with many of the French titles Comolli and Narboni list as examples so I did my best to think critically about some of the more well known films I have seen and categorize them.

Comolli and Narboni say "We would stress that only action on both fronts, 'signified' and 'signifiers' has any hope of operating against the prevailing ideology. Economic/political and formal action have to be indissolubly wedded" (816). 

This was a particularly interesting paragraph to me. I do need to brush up on my Saussure, but my understanding of this is that in order for a film to actually go against the prevailing ideology (in my mind, that means hegemony) it has to "deal with" the political subject, this being the concept itself (the 'signified'). It also has to accomplish this through sound image, (the 'signifier'). I'm wondering if in film the sound image would be all the mechanics of editing, cinematography, narration and so forth that become the basis on which the concepts are attempted to be conveyed. This is the best way I can think to link the concept of 'signifier' and film, but I could be wrong and would be curious to discuss further if others have different concepts linking these two.

This becomes an issue with what they call "live cinema" because one assumes that by altering the 'signifier' or the mechanics of the film, one is being subversive. This negates, according to Comolli and Narboni, the need to address the hegemonic political concepts (the signified) directly. It linked back well to the beginning of the article as these seemed to be examples of films that attempt to exist outside of or "parallel" to the hegemony and established systems. 

Close shots and long shots? What is editing???

Martin Lucas Reid

History and Theory of Documentary Film

Prof. Richard Simpson

9.1.2020

Vsevolod Pudovkin from Film Technique (On Editing)

    

    From movies to television shows, all of these films are collections of sequences, scenarios brought and sewed together as a whole. Behind the curtains of film making, the power of editing plays a crucial part in entailing the stories. Not only it has the ability to see each scene from various different angles, but it also has the ability to vividly show the character's external emotions, internal emotions, and organize everything to its place from beginning to end.

     Close-up and Long-shots, these two shots go hand in hand whenever the camera is rolling. With that in mind, Pudovkin mentions the importance of these shots. He says that not only they show the picture in a larger or longer perspective, but they also have a deeper meaning behind them. For example, close shots are meant to navigate the audience and zoom their lenses into an important action, object, motion, and etc. With close shots, this allows the director to say "here's an important piece of this scene. This plays a role in what's currently happening, and what's about to happen." Now with the long shot, this point of view allows the audience to see the characters, object, or whatever, from a much broader full perspective. Because of this, long shots have the ability to show the relationship between the characters in a scene, and also separates the object and the character in itself.

    Looking at movies with the understanding of different shots angles, I never really realize how much effort they put in one shot. In my head it made me realize, that close shots like Thor's hammer elevating off ground could affect the way the audience feel, and see the story. Imagine if that shot was taken in a long shot, the effects wouldn't be the same as if it was a close shot. Close shots really emphasizes the importance of an object, or character in films. 

    One of the lines in this article that really peaked my understanding of film making is that editing is not just a way to stitch scenes sequentially right after another, but "editing is a method that controls the psychological guidance of the spectator." Which means that they use editing to control what the audience feels during the viewing. Because of this, I now understand that although doing a 360 backflip captured on film looks cool, it's the shot that really makes it much more epic. 

    

Basic Concepts in Film

Jeff Holley

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342 

September 1, 2020

 

Response paper: “Basic Concepts”

 

Comparing an "embryo in the womb" to photographic film's evolution is that each film-making component has a separate element or DNA. Inspiration for capturing motion from photography resulted from inventions like the phenakistoscope or a short time later. The daguerreotypes popularized in the mid-nineteenth century used them in the civil war. 

To "understand the medium" properties of film-making are divided into two segments, "basic and technical properties" (144), and in its primary sense, much of photography is identical to film.  Film, however, is more revelatory, lending it more capable of featuring and recording events.

Broadly the technical properties lie in the editing process. For example, a film needs to be "meaningful" and lend "continuity" in contrast to still photography. Photography can be a catalyst into inspiring film making, and since the beginning of the medium, "formative tendencies" were simultaneously being born. On the one hand, there was the prototype style of Lumiere, who was a "strict realist," and on the other, Melies, whose films were more "imaginative" (145). 

In summary, the analytical sense of the "photographic approach" in either film genre exhibits a realization of "aesthetic principle." A cinematic quality comes from both the artistic approach to the more technical "educational" film that conveys a particular message or documentary film event. 

Intention

 Kali Spencer

Richard Simpson

ENGL 342

09/01/20

On Editing

While reading “On Editing” (1926) by Vsevolod Pudovkin I was struck by the importance of, and impact that editing can have on the overall outcome of a film. Early on in the reading, one of the sentiments that stuck with me was the idea that “the scenarist must be able to write his material on the paper exactly as it will appear upon the screen, thus giving exactly the content of each shot as well as its position in the sequence” (p. 6). I drew parallels between this and another art form: sculpting. Particularly, Constantin Brancusi, who went as far as to take up photography in an attempt to ensure that his work was presented the way that he intended it to be viewed. While some in the art community have condemned this behavior, calling it neurotic and controlling, I see it rather as a dedication to producing art that is intentional.

This comparison can be drawn out further as Pudovkin goes on to describe the different editing techniques. It becomes quite clear in his descriptions of scenes that can make an audience member’s heart race just through the use of building tension when switching to different locations in a scene that the editing technique used is often a purposeful and deliberate attempt to guide the viewer. If done right, the scenarist can begin to evoke and convey certain emotions within a viewer. Just as the lighting surrounding a sculpture and its placement in a gallery is important to convey the intent of a sculptor and what their work represents, editing is crucial and of paramount importance to scenarists. 

As someone who has never put much thought into the ways that the films I watch are constructed, this passage was cardinal to the way that I have now come to understand editing. In reading about the techniques used by scenarists, I can now reflect on the times I have seen them used in the past and the unconscious effect they may have had on me. Through this, I hope to become a more thoughtful and intentioned viewer. Just like the Möbius strip, the inside and the outside are sometimes the same and with this newfound knowledge, I hope to gain a better understanding of the way films watch me and aim to play off of my own emotions in order to enhance my viewing experience. Acknowledging this, I am still left with the question of how much of art and its interpretation are left up to the audience.

Examining How Symbolism is Formed Through Editing

 

Darby McMillan

September 1, 2020

“How to do a Short Analysis: Examining How Symbolism is Formed Through Editing”

          The use of symbolism is examined in Vsevolod Pudovkin’s work “On Editing”. Symbolism is often described as comparing two like things that seem to have little to no correlation. This is a term I remember vividly from my senior English class in high school. We would spend hours studying written material riddled with underlying meanings and symbols. I am not surprised that symbolism is an editing strategy used by those who create film just as other artists of many different medias.

Symbolism in this context is defined as introducing “an abstract concept into the consciousness of the spectator without the use of a title” (Pudovkin). A great example was given of this very idea by Pudovkin in his writing, but another like example could be a documentaries use of framing, lighting and other cinematic techniques to create symbols without pointing out or titling their relevance.

The framing of a short or scene can produce meaning through its level or cant. Say the level of a shot faces an adult male from a low level and at an angle pointing towards his face; this can produce a feeling of childishness or adolescence in the viewer which may then symbolize the adult man’s maturity or power over the scene. If a frame is canted and the horizon of the picture is at a tilted or uneven angle it could represent the unsteadiness of the situation.

Similarly, if the lighting of a shot comes from three separate points, highlighting a single figure and casting no shadows, it may symbolize the character’s importance of the scene. Another example of lighting creating symbolism in a scene is low-key lighting. For instance, if a scene appears of two figures approaching each other in little to no lighting, the watcher can infer many things given the scene. If they are lovers this light symbolizes their intimacy, if they are enemies or there’s conflict between the two characters the light represents their dissent for one another or prejudice.

I like the idea that editing is a way to create an impression on the audience. My favorite impressions I receive are those hidden in the symbols of everyday life as well as stories and cinematography. Editing gives producers the ability to sculpt stories and meanings out of the raw shots and scenes they film. By playing with framing and light and countless other editing techniques documentaries come to life and become a piece of art.

         

         

Conflict and Combination. A Marxist Reading of Film Editing.

      Upon reading Sergei Eisenstein's chapter "Beyond the Shot", I am struck by the implications of film as an extension of the montage and collision of meanings that has permeated human language and art. I saw the logic behind the argument his friend, Pudovkin, put forth about a montage being built brick by brick, but Eisenstein's point isn't about the shots themselves. It is about the relationship the shots have to one another, the conflict between them. We are looking at the space between shots and the spaces between them and where they overlap. 

    Overlaying the shots that a film presents in one's mind creates a diegesis. It evokes a world and emotion that no one shot could accomplish by itself. Much like many artists coming together and painting different parts of a panoramic view, we get more from them combined than we do from any individual. This is an argument, in many ways for fragmentation, but not isolation of those fragments. Funnily enough, Pudovkin may have bolstered this argument in "On Editing" as while he claims that montage is built one shot on top of the other, he demonstrates that editing has an enormous influence on the audience's emotional response and impression. Is editing not the art of joining two shots in a combination that evokes a chosen response? Is it not the conflict that arises between the shots that tell as much or more about the story and the intention of the piece than the shots themselves?Both of these theorists speak of the importance of context.

    Eisenstein's description of montage as conflict reads as rather Marxist. Of course one thinks of conflict theory in sociological terms, the theory that social change only comes about through conflict between the classes. Perhaps true understanding of the diegesis is only obtainable through conflict within the montage. Conflict between shots has everything to do with editing and is a relational state between the shots. 

 Some questions I still have about the text are what significance Eisenstein places, if any, on realism? His preoccupation with kabuki suggests that he values that highly stylized artform over the realism of using the camera in the way Pudovkin suggests we should as a means to offer clear lines of sight and perspectives for the viewer. Though I would argue both live kabuki and edited film manipulate their audiences and, in Pudovkin’s words either “excite or soothe the spectator.”  

Shaelene Grace Moler

Professor Simpson

ENGL 342- History and Theory of Documentary Film

1 September 2020

Response Paper: “On Editing,” and “Basic Concepts”

Photoshop and Video Editing

Photography and film have always been related to one another, due to the fact that film derived out of photography back in the early 1900s. Although film certainly possesses creative opportunities that photography does not (audio, motion, etc.), for the most part, their visual composition incorporates many shared techniques between the two. Both media forms shape the perception of our realities, and share artistic interpretations of our world, through how they are visually composed and edited. That being said, editing in film, and the editing of photos (or photoshop as it is most widely known) may have very different approaches to their presentation, but are both meant to deliberately impress their audiences with their final product.

According to the Editing of the Sequence section in “On Editing,” Pudovkin claims that editing in film is simply the conscious guidance of the perceptions, and associations of the viewer by the filmmakers. Editing extends beyond cuts, and often involves everything from the lighting, to the angles of shots, which when compared to photography, utilizes many of the same techniques for engaging the audience. Say perhaps that you wanted the viewer to focus on one person in a film; In this situation, it would be optimal to choose a closeup shot which if witnessed in a still-frame would closely represent a portrait in photography. Although, it is safe to say that these techniques in both media forms are simply a result of the psychology behind visual focus; If we want the audience to feel fear, for example, we may darken the lighting, and withhold visual information, only hinting at the possibilities.

What does it take to impress an audience? Or, more importantly, how may impressing the audience affect the final product of film and/ or photography? One of the most important deciding factors to consider is the time that each form has to leave an impression. Consider this, a film may intend to leave an impression on the audience consistently over the course of several scenes, whereas, a photograph only has a single moment to depict what it wants the audiences impression to be. What this means is, while a film may layout various scenes or shots to build up a final product, a photograph’s entire meaning has to be composed in a single image. Relating to Pudovkins argument on Editing As An Instrument of Impression, editing usually involves developing a relation between the present visuals in a scene. This may mean through the use of parallelism, contrasting scenes, or symbolism. In the world of photoshop, this may mean taking out distracting images or objects In the background, adding additional visuals for emphasis, or combining two images to covey a message.

Like film, photography can also be considered a “reproductive medium” as Kracauer would describe it in the “Basic Concepts” reading. This, is a very broad description, as it can mean many things, but what I would perceive it to be is a sort of preservation of memory, thought, and/ or conversation. This all depends on the purpose of the film or picture, which may be politically driven, to record a moment in time, or provoke thoughts in the viewer; therefore “reproducing” the filmmakers or photographers vision through impression. 

Overall, the visual experience of each medium is driven by impressionism, and created through the editing of presentation. At each stage of creation, each medium is subject to interpretation by viewers, unless the creator carefully considers the impression his artistic choices may leave. With that in mind, although film and photography may only be related through visual technique, they both are important mediums for societal progression, because of the impact they may leave on viewers.