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.
What you're saying about editing being the basis for the audience's impression of the characters, scene, and the world that is being built through the film (the diegesis) makes a lot of sense. It interests me that you mention the composition of the shot as that seems to have more to do with cinematography than editing, but of course both are important for Pudovkin and any filmmaker. When we relate that to Eisenstein, the combination of the two produces conflict that is more telling than either element would be on their own, much like combined hieroglyphics that he spoke about toward the beginning of Beyond the Shot.
ReplyDeleteThis article is really interesting because it did shed a light on what's happening behind the scene. Editing is really a way for directors to show the story in a much more impactful way. The lighting, different angles of the shots, and even the symbols really plays a crucial part in film making. It also says that directors use editing as a way to psychologically guide the viewers. I've always thought that dialogues and actions plays large roles, but little did I know that the editing elements are much more prominent in capturing the audience in.
ReplyDeleteHello Darby,
ReplyDeleteSymbolism is a fun area to explore isn't it? I too am quite familiar with the term considering I have been studying English the past three years in college. I must even admit, that as a writer, it is one of my favorite language tool to use.
In terms of how it relates to film, I was impressed with how editing choices themselves can be symbols. Although it comes as no surprise of course, it is interesting to me how it can manipulate the emotion of the viewers through lighting, angles, and distance, as I had never considered these decisions to be so essential to progressing the film.
Excellent work here, Darby, and connecting Pudovkin with our film vocabulary. Identifying the way in which the camera itself and can create meaning through its practice is precisely what we want to draw attention to in these early weeks. Collect all the ways that meaning is being made through form, even before anything at all gets said about content.
ReplyDelete