The Man with a Movie Camera

I think that the movie was kind of weird since its my first silent documentary film. I did not really understand how different shots relate to each other. The music made the movie a little more easier to watch and I could relate more the music with the shots that was really going on. What I could understand about the film is that film can go anywhere, for example he films ordinary things like women doing her hair, people getting dressed to go out and people doing sports. I think what Vertov was going for is that cameras can go anywhere but yet they are noticed. The reading did explain certain aspects of the movie since I didn't really understand what was really going on in the entire film.

Really?? A Political Film??

By far, probably the weirdest film I've ever seen. Even from when it started I knew this would be a long screening: no dialogue, black-and-white, awkward sequence of random shots. My theory was reaffirmed after 70 minutes of total chaos- was this a documentary? If so, of what? Soviet Russian life? I could hardly keep up. One second orchestra music is playing as the camera lays wedged between two trains, and the next you hear a soft melody while a woman gets her hair done. Unusual sequence? I should say so.
Graham Robert's analysis of the film The Man with the Movie Camera definitely answered a few of my lingering questions (more like 200). For starters, Vertov made documentaries, claiming they were "the only valid form of film." I thought it interesting how he referred to this genre of non-fiction as "unplayed film;" in other words, clearly this was unscripted and not rehearsed. I can definitely agree with that- had a pretty hard time trying to uncover any sort of plot. But what really took me by surprise was this film's intent: politics. Rather than a whole lot of everyday life shots in 1920's Soviet Russia meshed into what we call a movie (as I had presumed it to be), this was a testament to "the history of the Soviet Union, of modernism and Constructivism- indeed of the cinema itself."
Wow! Who would have thought that so much political depth lay under the surface of a bunch of shots of people sleeping, elevator doors opening, and women packing cigarettes into tiny boxes? When put into the context of time, however, I can more easily understand how the political unrest and upheaval is mimicked by the chaos of what lies on-screen. All-in-all, knowing the director's intent, I get it now (and can see it from the viewing) that his film depicted "the Stalinist policies (which were) about to unfold: crush resistance in the countryside, urbanize, industrialize, purge opposition."

The Man with The Movie Camera

After watching the film and reading the book I found the book helped me understand the movie more. Robert's explanation of the time period and context and the fact that the film was actually political make some of the images we see in the movie (such as the coal miners) more significant.
One thing Roberts discusses in his textual analysis, although it is not related to the context of the film, is how the audience becomes a part of the audience on screen in the movie theater. "The viewer has been welcomed into the film's diegesis. We are invited to join the audience on screen," (48). I found this interesting in the film because it makes the audience feel as though they are included in the story, and that they are pulled out of whatever environment they are in and into this time period to watch a normal day in the Soviet Union.

Response to Man with a Movie Camera

Upon initial viewing, I perceived The Man with a Movie Camera as a film about the reflexive construction of a film and the creation of a narrative of the daily life in Soviet Russia as experienced by the title character (the man with the camera). As I watched it, I embraced it as a documentary, using the titles at the beginning of the film as a guide to lead me throughout its entirety.

Thus, I was appropriately surprised, after reading Graham Roberts novel, to find out that the film also functioned as a political tool used to enhance the power of the Stalinist regime. Graham explains:

"The Man with the Movie Camera, is the product of the state of crisis which led to the abandonment of the NEP and the reassertion of more clearly Bolshevik policies" (14).

Now thinking back, I do remember the confusion I experienced regarding the scenes involving agencies of the NEP. I only assumed that Vertov was highlighting their existence in a positive way instead of victimizing them in a greater agenda toward cultural revitalization.

After reading Grahams interpretation of the film, I now understand that the multiple scenes of industrialization (miners, machines, smoke stacks) were meant to instill a sense of impending economic change in contrast to the traditional agricultural sector. And, that the use of repetition is meant to leave a large impression on the viewer, regarding the role they should be playing in society. Additionally, scenes involving washing are symbolic of "cleansing" meant to signify a purge of of NEP political policy.

Ultimately, while Graham also comments on the way Vertov manipulates the film medium by using many different (and blatantly obvious) editing techniques, his analysis of the political message the film presents is not only necessary but also widely intriguing as it fully explains the function of the film and the way multiple formal elements have achieved this task.

Graham Robert's The Man with the Movie Camera

The Man with the Movie Camera was definitely a stranger than usual film for me. Not only did the film seemingly contain no plot, but the actual film was just a series of shots randomly put together. As I watched the movie, however, I knew there was something more to it. Even the first few “scenes” where an audience gathers into a theater to watch the film gave away the film’s intention to create a story, even if it seems convoluted or nonsensical. Graham Robert’s book about The Man with the Movie Camera helped me (sort of) discover what Vertov was thinking when he created this film. While viewing it, I thought that the repetition of people doing their daily activities was a huge part of the film’s message. Robert solidified my belief; he points out that the movie shows people sleeping, working, and performing leisurely activities, the three major tasks that we humans participate in. Robert also proves his point further, saying that Vertov’s intention was to portray a “perfect” society or a purely harmonized one where nothing is confusing. While certainly not as entertaining as Rushdie’s analysis of The Wizard of Oz was, Robert’s book about The Man with the Movie Camera answered the many questions I had for the film after viewing it.

The Man With the Movie Camera

After reading this book and watching the movie, I realized how much the book helps in understanding what is going on. Had I only watched the movie I would have just considered this a strange experimental film and probably not have given it much thought. However, after learning about what film and culture were like at this time in Russia the film began to make more sense. It was interesting to see how Vertov tied all of the elements together to make a political message. In the book they talk about how the scenes of the streets being washed followed by a cut of a woman cleaning is supposed to symbolize how the cinema needs "cleansing of old bourgeois narrative". Without reading the book ahead of time I would have not connected the two events, and it helped with my understanding of the narrative. Also in the book they quote Vertov talking about the movie, " a little man armed with a movie camera leaves the little fake world of the Film Factory and heads for life...unlike the film factory where the camera is almost stationary and where the whole of life is aimed at the camera's lens in a strictly determined order of shots and scenes, life here foes not wait for the film director or obey the instructions." Knowing that this film was intentionally made to break the typical film mold somehow makes it more intriguing. There is more than meets the eye, and instead of being told what we are seeing and how we should interpret it, the audience is left to figure things out for themselves. You never know what is going to happen next and you are constantly changing your expectations to try and match the film. Overall I enjoyed the book and found it very helpful in interpreting and understanding the film.

Bellour's "The Obvious and the Code"

Although Bellour's detailed analysis of the car scene in "The Big Sleep" was difficult for me to grasp on first reading, our in class analysis of the 12-shot scene along with viewing the shots again helped me to grasp his thoughts about how certain codes dictate meaning. On first viewing "The Big Sleep" in class, I didn't pick up on the subtle differences in the ways hat the two main characters profess their love for one another. However, the focus on the duration as well as the content and level of close-up of the different shots helped to highlight these differences. It was very interesting how when Viviene tells Marlowe that she loves him, she is caught in a close up and completely lit--both elements, which show her to be sincere. Conversely, when Marlowe professes his love for Vivienne, it is not a close-up shot and encompasses both of the main characters. As a result, we as viewers may not take Marlowe's claim as seriously. Bellour also points out how various repetitions in structure can create meaning. He specifically points to Marlowe being shown driving a car, which portrays Marlowe as the active driving force in the narrative. Through Bellour's article I was able to see how I had deduced specific meanings through formal structures of cinema and editing.