I found it interesting what Andre Bazin had to say about the introduction to sound in cinema. Like the introduction of any new technology, it was looked at with apprehension. People that are so used to one method of doing something are obviously going to have a tough time accepting a revolution of established technique. However, like Bazin said, sound did not come to destroy the established cinema, but to fulfill its prophecy. He refers later to how there is a dividing line that held cinema back from seeming realistic, and that was the barrier of sound. When this was introduced, cinema did not die, because the cinema in place wasn’t the sole representation of the art form. Art is an organic, living, breathing institution that builds upon what has been accomplished in the past through inspiration and technological innovation. The ultimate goal is to represent the world as we perceive to the best of our abilities, in order to convey messages or purely out of the desire to portray narrative. Sound allows narrative to become more complex and adds many stylistic options to the creation of a story. I would say that introduction of sound in cinema is tantamount to the introduction of color in its effect on progressing towards realism.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Sound in the Bazin Reading
Monday, October 12, 2009
PSYCHO
According to Antonin Artaud; "When we no longer find fulfilling meaning in either ourselves or in life itself, a painful cleavage is created: “the poetry which we no longer succeed in finding in the world around us or inside ourselves can then appear on the wrong side; consider the crimes whose perverse gratuitousness is explained only by our powerlessness to take complete possession of life”, Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). O’connor.
The hotel in which Bates ran is very similar to his fantasy world which he conducted. He was in complete power of both and therefore achieved somewhat of a Godliness power. It is made evident at the beginning of the film that he expressed his artistic creativity through his hobby of stuffing birds. In order to preserve the bird Norman took the necessary measures to maintain the external body. Norman also applied this concept when attempting to immortalize his mother. Stuffing the birds essentially immortalized them for their bodies truly never leave the world. Essentially, Norman does the same for his mother as he creates the illusion she is still alive. In doing so he gave a voice to his mother, authoring her every word and action believing this to be the solution to his repressed feelings and problems in reality. His artistic ability for creating the illusion of life was not only projected in his work, but onto the strategic murders of his victims.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Montage and the Reader
In Eisenstein's article about montage he talks about the use of montage throughout Japanese art and culture, while pointing out that the cinema is seemingly the only art form in Japanese culture that is lacking in montage. Eisenstein quotes Nobuchi and says, "it is the readers who make the haiku's imperfection a perfection of art." However, when quoting Nobuchi Eisenstein isn't just making a statement about the use of montage in haikus, but about the use of montage in all art forms. Montage works, and works powerfully, because of the art forms audience. People do not live in a vacuum, and it is our cultural expectations and the connotations of the images used in montage that audiences are aware of that makes montage an engaging and powerful way of presenting art.
In Battleship Potemkin Eisenstein uses montage editing to create tempo and rhythm to help tell the story and give the film meaning. For example, during the scene on the steps of Odessa, Eisenstein sticks quick shots of stone lions in with the action in order to convey to us the rising action and anger of the scene. It is our understanding as an audience of what a lion is (fierce, powerful, dangerous, brutal) that allows the shot to add meaning to the sequence. If the audience had never seen a lion, did not know what a lion was, or thought that lions were actually gentle creatures, this shot would not have made sense and may have detracted from the sequence instead of adding to it. Finally, montage editing adds to the experience of a film because it intellectually engages the audience and forces them to make connections, the same way the heiroglyphic language of the Japanese does.
In Battleship Potemkin Eisenstein uses montage editing to create tempo and rhythm to help tell the story and give the film meaning. For example, during the scene on the steps of Odessa, Eisenstein sticks quick shots of stone lions in with the action in order to convey to us the rising action and anger of the scene. It is our understanding as an audience of what a lion is (fierce, powerful, dangerous, brutal) that allows the shot to add meaning to the sequence. If the audience had never seen a lion, did not know what a lion was, or thought that lions were actually gentle creatures, this shot would not have made sense and may have detracted from the sequence instead of adding to it. Finally, montage editing adds to the experience of a film because it intellectually engages the audience and forces them to make connections, the same way the heiroglyphic language of the Japanese does.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Montage?
I really liked the article's beginning in that it traced the roots of Japanese culture as a means of unveiling modern Japanese cinema. That "timeline" was a great way of helping me to better understand how this has evolved over time and is a true process. Eisentstein begins by explaining how cinema is a montage. He spoke of its beginning form, the hieroglyph, which later morphed into brush and ink. This use of symbolism and representation was then compared to how we use montage within the context of the cinema: ".., combining shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content- into intellectual contexts and series."
He then transitions into the use of haikai, an ancient form of Japanese poetry, and explains how their use as an ideogram provides a means of uncovering an abstract concept. While referring to Japanese pictorial art, Eisentstein says, "Is not this process that of the ideogram, combining the independent "mouth" and the dissociated symbol of "child" to form the significance of "scream?"
Eisenstein later goes on to further analyze these montage sequences, particularly in specific shots from the film Potemkin. He explains that we as an audience combine these elements into one whole and uncover reasoning according to our own relations to the event. Eisentstein says, "Step by step, by a process of comparing each new image with the common denotation, power is accumulated behind a process that can be formally identified with that of logical deduction." That is motage.
He then transitions into the use of haikai, an ancient form of Japanese poetry, and explains how their use as an ideogram provides a means of uncovering an abstract concept. While referring to Japanese pictorial art, Eisentstein says, "Is not this process that of the ideogram, combining the independent "mouth" and the dissociated symbol of "child" to form the significance of "scream?"
Eisenstein later goes on to further analyze these montage sequences, particularly in specific shots from the film Potemkin. He explains that we as an audience combine these elements into one whole and uncover reasoning according to our own relations to the event. Eisentstein says, "Step by step, by a process of comparing each new image with the common denotation, power is accumulated behind a process that can be formally identified with that of logical deduction." That is motage.
Eisenstein readings
I consider this article hard to understand because he introduces many topics at once and confuses a little. What I got from the reading is that cinematography as the author introduces it, is montage. The author mentions what montage should be compared and "how the representation of objects in the actual (absolute) proportions proper to them is, merely a tribute to orthodox formal logic." (131). What I understood about this quote is how do we relate an object to its own logic and how we make sense of it. To put it more simple I relate cinematography to montage in the sense that cinematography is the decision making in the lighting and the camera when recording photographic images in films and montage is a technique that uses special effects including music to introduce compressed narrative information
Eisenstein reading
I thought it was a very enlightening statement when Eisenstein suggested that montage was an “…unrolling of an idea with a series of single shots…” rather than a stacking of shots like building blocks. This is an idea performed masterfully in his epic staging of the Cossacks vs. the people on the steps of Odessa. There are continual shots that switch from the people and then to the Cossacks, both from long shots and close-up. What is important that also has to do with the tempo of the sequence is the way the film takes its time to show the brutality of the Cossacks. The framing has everything to do with the feel of the sequence because it heightens emotions, leaning toward the people’s side.
The Shots of the Cossacks are never close-up; always from a wide shot, displaying them as a wall of unwavering force descending on the people. The quick shots to the civilian reactions show the fear, anger, and pain as they are brutalized one by one. All of these elements show what Eisenstein meant when he referred to the montage as “unrolling of ideas.” These are not simply pictures stacked on top of each other, but multiple points of view fitted together with a purpose to keep a steady tempo while heightening emotion and accomplishing its point. This is what I took from the article in relation to the film we screened, though I admit I found this reading very hard to follow.
Emotional Combinations in Montage
This article provides an overview of the multitude of ways montage can be used to create meaning and new images within film. Often times montage does not explicitly show an event, but rather it alludes to it. Through this process the viewer is often forced to create the story themselves and make connections implied through the film. The type of montage that stuck out to me most strongly when reading this article after seeing Battleship Potemkin was emotional. In this film strategy, the filmmaker creates a specific emotion within the shot not strictly relying on the image itself but the psychological reaction the viewer will have with the image.
For me, this was used successively but almost to an extreme in Battleship Potemkin. When the militia began to squash the protesters, the peasants and working class became dispensable. The scene itself is dramatic enough with the placement of images of the citizens running away in hoards cut with the militia walking in sync with guns down after them. Eisenstein takes this scene to a new level when he puts children in harm’s way. He uses two children and utilizes different techniques with each. First with the young boy stranded on the steps. His helplessness is included in a montage sequence where we then see hundreds of feet clambering down the steps. As a viewer, at this point my heart was racing in free for the little boys life. Einsenstein’s montage created an extreme feeling of fear and suspense as we awaited the little boys doom, which we eventually see of people stepping on him as they attempt to run to safety.
In the same scene, the baby carriage is to me even more emotionally jarring. We first see it teetering on the edge of a step as the guardian is shot and she looses her grip on the handle. Then we see it begin to roll down the stairs among a crowd of people who we already know as so focused on reaching their freedom that they stomped a child almost to death, so we assume they will be of no help to the baby. In this sequence however Einsenstein does not show us the baby’s fate as he does with the little boy. This leaves the viewer with an uncomfortable emotional feeling of uncertainty and sadness.
For me, this was used successively but almost to an extreme in Battleship Potemkin. When the militia began to squash the protesters, the peasants and working class became dispensable. The scene itself is dramatic enough with the placement of images of the citizens running away in hoards cut with the militia walking in sync with guns down after them. Eisenstein takes this scene to a new level when he puts children in harm’s way. He uses two children and utilizes different techniques with each. First with the young boy stranded on the steps. His helplessness is included in a montage sequence where we then see hundreds of feet clambering down the steps. As a viewer, at this point my heart was racing in free for the little boys life. Einsenstein’s montage created an extreme feeling of fear and suspense as we awaited the little boys doom, which we eventually see of people stepping on him as they attempt to run to safety.
In the same scene, the baby carriage is to me even more emotionally jarring. We first see it teetering on the edge of a step as the guardian is shot and she looses her grip on the handle. Then we see it begin to roll down the stairs among a crowd of people who we already know as so focused on reaching their freedom that they stomped a child almost to death, so we assume they will be of no help to the baby. In this sequence however Einsenstein does not show us the baby’s fate as he does with the little boy. This leaves the viewer with an uncomfortable emotional feeling of uncertainty and sadness.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Einsenstein Reading
I also had a difficult time trying to figure out what montage was. I found the article in general a little hard to follow. To me it seemed to jump from one thing to another and by the time I thought I knew what was going on he went on to another topic. From what I understood he seems to be comparing montage to cinematography. In the article he says "the shot is an element of montage. Montage is an assembly of these elements" (132). It's not a perfect comparison but in when discussing cinematography you think about the elements within a shot and how they are put together to form a larger meaning. Montage is an assembly of the elements like cinematography is an assembly of elements. However, montage seems to add a little more to this description. When discussing the methods of montage in the Japanese theater Eisenstein focuses on the acting style and how their acting ans transitioning effects the viewer. The same person may play many different characters, or the same character with different personalities. This causes the performance to be more emotional and have more meaning. So montage could deal with the technical aspects of film like cinematography, but it can also effect the emotional side of the story.
'Montage' in The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram
I found it interesting how Eisenstein used specific traits of Japanese culture (theater, language) to explain the multiple functions of cinematography which are completely absent from Japanese cinema. 'Montage' was the main element Eisenstein addressed which I found advantageous to my understanding of Potemkin as well as my understanding of the concept.
Though difficult to follow, I hope I perceived the article well enough to make my own sense of the word. Eisenstein explains, "The picture for water and the picture of an eye signifies "to weep"' the picture of an ear nearing the drawing of a dog = "to listen" (128). The list goes on and he explains, "It is exactly what we do in cinema, combining shots that are depictive , single in meaning, neutral in content - into intellectual contexts and series" (129).
When it comes down to it 'montage' is like an explosion of images rolling one shot after another which cannot be contained within one frame. Though having been described as a series of shots which function as "building blocks" with a steady rhythm, Eisenstein argues the complete opposite explaining, "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots - shots even opposite to one another: the dramatic principle" (140).
Thus looking back to the steps scene in Potemkin, it is easy to see how the viewer understands a shot of a woman with a pince-nez immediately followed by another shot of the same woman with a bleeding eye signifies that she was shot in the eye. Although the process of her getting shot in the eye was not shown, the sequence of the shots and the images contained within the shots construct this appearance.
Ultimately, when seen separate from each other the images are abstract forms and act more like pieces of information; however, when sequenced together it is very easy to construct emotion and nonexistent space.
Though difficult to follow, I hope I perceived the article well enough to make my own sense of the word. Eisenstein explains, "The picture for water and the picture of an eye signifies "to weep"' the picture of an ear nearing the drawing of a dog = "to listen" (128). The list goes on and he explains, "It is exactly what we do in cinema, combining shots that are depictive , single in meaning, neutral in content - into intellectual contexts and series" (129).
When it comes down to it 'montage' is like an explosion of images rolling one shot after another which cannot be contained within one frame. Though having been described as a series of shots which function as "building blocks" with a steady rhythm, Eisenstein argues the complete opposite explaining, "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots - shots even opposite to one another: the dramatic principle" (140).
Thus looking back to the steps scene in Potemkin, it is easy to see how the viewer understands a shot of a woman with a pince-nez immediately followed by another shot of the same woman with a bleeding eye signifies that she was shot in the eye. Although the process of her getting shot in the eye was not shown, the sequence of the shots and the images contained within the shots construct this appearance.
Ultimately, when seen separate from each other the images are abstract forms and act more like pieces of information; however, when sequenced together it is very easy to construct emotion and nonexistent space.
Response to Arin's Post/Eisenstein Readings
I agree with Arin when it comes to aspects like tempo and color within films. Throughout my film watching career, I thought the most interesting and important parts of the film were changes in speed, color, or lighting. Each time there is a change in one of these aspects, I knew for sure that something plot changing would happen.
Tempo, as I would notice it, is incredibly important in depicting an action scene. It doesn't matter what exactly the action is, whether it is a fist fight, car chase, or a shootout, the way the camera moves (speed-wise) will change. One of my favorite instances of this is shown a lot in the film Fight Club. Whenever Edward Norton or Brad Pitt would be fighting one of the members, the camera often shakes, indicating a new sense of urgency or speed. The camera's movement reflects the intensity of the fight scene and really improves it.
Changes in lighting and color is just as important. In Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, the last scenes take place during a thunderstorm. Just before these scenes, the group of main characters are relatively peaceful, and of course, it is intensely light out. The thunderstorm indicates the arrival of death (who is in human form throughout the film), and his ambition to take the lives of the group of main characters.
This is precisely why the aspects to film that Arin listed are so interesting. They may seem simplistic to execute, but that just makes the meanings implied by them so much more magnificent.
Tempo, as I would notice it, is incredibly important in depicting an action scene. It doesn't matter what exactly the action is, whether it is a fist fight, car chase, or a shootout, the way the camera moves (speed-wise) will change. One of my favorite instances of this is shown a lot in the film Fight Club. Whenever Edward Norton or Brad Pitt would be fighting one of the members, the camera often shakes, indicating a new sense of urgency or speed. The camera's movement reflects the intensity of the fight scene and really improves it.
Changes in lighting and color is just as important. In Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal, the last scenes take place during a thunderstorm. Just before these scenes, the group of main characters are relatively peaceful, and of course, it is intensely light out. The thunderstorm indicates the arrival of death (who is in human form throughout the film), and his ambition to take the lives of the group of main characters.
This is precisely why the aspects to film that Arin listed are so interesting. They may seem simplistic to execute, but that just makes the meanings implied by them so much more magnificent.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Sergei Eisenstein-From Film Form
One thing that stood out to me that Sergei Eisenstein talked about was, the multiple aspects of film and how those can be related to convey meaning and feeling in film. One thing that I noticed that Arin touched base on was film frame in relation to "frame" of a drawing, and how that is similar to frame-by-frame work in films. I liked when he talked about how Japanese theater makes use of slow tempo, and compares that to nothing we are used to in US filming. He talks about the emphasis they use in particular scenes on "slowing down of all movement." One thing that also stood out to me was when Eisenstein talked about what Japanese most interesting link is in theater. I would have never guessed that it would have been sound. For some reason when I think of Japanese films, I think of animation cartoons. I would have thought to link Japanese theater to sound film etc. I think what Eisenstein was trying to get across was stressing the importance of fundamentals and technique that go along with cinematography.
I also had a difficult time understand what exactly he was trying to get at when talking about MONTAGE?! could someone explain that to me a little better?!
I also enjoyed reading about how silent films reached a new peak as people began to take on to them more and more.
I also had a difficult time understand what exactly he was trying to get at when talking about MONTAGE?! could someone explain that to me a little better?!
I also enjoyed reading about how silent films reached a new peak as people began to take on to them more and more.
Sergei Einstein from Film Form
Reading Einstein's description of different aspects of film and how they create the feeling and meaning of the film several points stuck out to me. The first was his description of the relation of the film frame to a "frame" of a drawing. He explains that drawing within the paper is similar to fitting film elements into the frame of the camera. Within the paper, one can create a composition any way they want as long as it stays within the edges, although pieces of a drawing can lead off the page, or in a painting a person can be looking outside the frame. Within the frame of a film itis the same idea of composing an "image" or a scene that fits into this frame, but can have off screen space that is not within the frame the audience sees.
I also found Einstein's descriptions of the changes in tempo and color interesting. With tempo, a director can change the speed of the film, such as making a scene that would in reality take about a single minute, last for several with "cuts" (which he also explains opens up the possibility for new methods that stage acting cannot allow) through the use of stop motion or slow motion. When reading this I actually thought about two scenes from The Royal Tenenbaums, (one related to tempo, and another related to color and tone). The scene when Margot gets off the bus and sees Richie, the slow motion makes the scene have a much stronger impact, and the audience takes notice that this is a scene we should pay attention to. It also makes the short time it would have taken her to walk to him seem infinitely long, and the cuts back and forth to their reactions creates an emotional connection that would not be possibile without the use of this method.
The way color and tone can affect a film is also seen in the scene in the Royal Tenenbaums when Richie is in the bathroom, shaving his head, right before he slits his wrists. When the lighting and color go to a blue tone, it gives the film a much more serious, almost eery feeling, and the audience is aware that something bad is about to come since the rest of the film has been full of bright colors and although drab settings, well lit places. The change in color and tone change the audiences perception of what is taking place in the film and catches our attention more so than just a simple cut to Richie in the bathroom doing the same motions in a different light.
I also found Einstein's descriptions of the changes in tempo and color interesting. With tempo, a director can change the speed of the film, such as making a scene that would in reality take about a single minute, last for several with "cuts" (which he also explains opens up the possibility for new methods that stage acting cannot allow) through the use of stop motion or slow motion. When reading this I actually thought about two scenes from The Royal Tenenbaums, (one related to tempo, and another related to color and tone). The scene when Margot gets off the bus and sees Richie, the slow motion makes the scene have a much stronger impact, and the audience takes notice that this is a scene we should pay attention to. It also makes the short time it would have taken her to walk to him seem infinitely long, and the cuts back and forth to their reactions creates an emotional connection that would not be possibile without the use of this method.
The way color and tone can affect a film is also seen in the scene in the Royal Tenenbaums when Richie is in the bathroom, shaving his head, right before he slits his wrists. When the lighting and color go to a blue tone, it gives the film a much more serious, almost eery feeling, and the audience is aware that something bad is about to come since the rest of the film has been full of bright colors and although drab settings, well lit places. The change in color and tone change the audiences perception of what is taking place in the film and catches our attention more so than just a simple cut to Richie in the bathroom doing the same motions in a different light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)