In analysis of the early films originating from Russia, especially those of Sergei Eisenstein, one must have at least a surface level understanding on what the concept of soviet montage is. Soviet montage theory in essence is the idea that through the use of editing, meaning is constructed for the audience, the famous example being that of the Kuleshov effect, where images are cut together in order for the audience to interpret meaning.
This creation of meaning through editing is evident in Eisenstein's most well known work Battleship Potemkin (1925), and by extension, the film’s most well known sequence, The Odessa Steps. The use of Soviet montage style of editing is viewed from the shots of the pram intercut with the shots of the school-mistress character looking horrified at the situation. This is clearly using the typical ideology of the Kuleshov effect in order to create meaning, that being that the populace being attacked is a horrific act. The scene itself could arguably be breaking a convention of early Russian cinema, that being that the films themselves never solely focussed on a single character to be the protagonist. Rather, it was a community of people that are positioned to be the protagonist of the narrative, “This was the era of the film without a hero (unless that ‘hero’ were the masses)” (Youngblood, 1992, p. 4). However, in the Odessa Steps sequence, despite following mostly the masses, Eisenstein specifically constructed the scene in order to focus on these specific characters, those being the school-mistress and the baby. This may have been done in order for the audience at the time to be able to relate to, and truly see the horrors that the Russian sailors can cause, as if the audience are able to view the emotions of people who are experiencing the suffering, they are able to relate to the suffering better.
Despite the fact that actual suffering of the baby in the scene, is left up to the audience interpretation, which none of Eisenstein’s imitators ever did (Taylor, 2000, p. 48), it could be argued that this was far more effective in creating meaning, as the suffering the audience imagines would most likely be far worse than what Eisenstein could ever show on screen. However, the very much shocking and potentially anti-establishment ideology that Eisenstein may have been attempting to construct may not have actually been as shocking as it appears to a modern audience. “Unlike the modern spectator, the early viewer was very screen-conscious” (Tsivian, 1991, p. 154), so it may have been the case that the early Russian audience who watched this film were probably more aware of the fact that Eisenstein’s attempt of ideological positioning more than a modern audience would be.
In conclusion, it could be argued that a film can be used in order to potentially alter the political views of an audience. However, as stated previously, if the viewer is active enough to understand that what they are watching is a film, it may be unlikely in actually succeeding that goal of altering the ideologies of the audience, especially the early cinema audiences who were stated to have been aware of what they were watching being a construction.
Bibliography:
Eisenstein, S. (Director). Battleship Potemkin [Motion Picture]. Russia: Mosfilm
Taylor, R. (2000). The Battleship Potemkin. London: I. B. Tauris & Co.
Tsivian, Y. (1991). Early Cinema in Russia and its Cultural Reception. Riga: Zinānte Publishers
Youngblood, D. J. (1992). Movies for the Masses: Popular cinema and Soviet society in the 1920s. Cambridge : Cambridge U. P.
Comments
Post a Comment