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.

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.

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.

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.