We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
A Brief Discussion of Form in Cinema 11
ined the medium itself; the aesthetics of shot manipulation, of montage, of different kinds of cutting lay untouched.
2. Cinematic or aesthetic form — There were isolated but generally unsuccessful experiments in the early twenties by the avant-gardists who were dabbling with the formal problems of so-called "pure" cinema. But it remained for Eisenstein to realize the potentialities of the individual shot. He saw that the motion picture was like a mosaic, composed of small pieces of film which upon viewing in juxtaposition became meaningful. He did not use long takes and disapproved of the tracking camera which would follow actors around a set and be propelled from one room to another just so no cut would have to take place. This aspect of "naturalism" in which a director feels he is being more realistic by not cutting became even more popular with the advent of the wide screen. This kind of Cook's tour remains all too prevalent.
Eisenstein, on the other hand, advocated (as many silent directors did) that a scene be broken into components. But he went beyond his fellow directors by discovering different ways in which reality could be organized. He gave scenes a precision and crispness by using carefully cut short shots to create meaningful patterns. Frequently critics and audiences recognize montage only in its more flamboyant moments. It is not something inserted, but something inherent to the medium itself. It is a clear-cut way of rendering action. Just as Bach can give us both joy and deepest sorrow within form, so can the montage method of Eisenstein (which sees reality as a mosaic of pieces to be reconstructed on the editing table) be unobtrusive and reflect any mood, be it revolutionary or funereal. In Ivan the Terrible, which was accused of being "slow" and ""ponderous," every shot is carefully and crisply handled; the cutting is unobtrusive, perhaps unnoticed by the careless eye, but each shot is governed by the classical decorum, the sense of repose, that the great masterpieces of form have. In Ivan there is not only a tight control of the composition, placement, and editing of shots but also a stylization of movement, lighting, gesture, and make-up. In combining his sense of the camera with the German concern for the abstract, Eisenstein achieved the cinema's most formal work.
Hamlet says "Suit the word to the action" and Alexander Pope advises that "The sound must seem an echo to the sense." These procedures Eisenstein instinctively followed, for he suited the shots and tempo to the action and echoed the picture and the cutting to the sense. We may recall that Lang in Metropolis tried to show us a world of machines. The camera recorded the vast power station for us in a few long takes but did not echo the idea. In such a situation Eisenstein would have had a variety of shots of men, faces, machines, pistons, and dials cut to a rhythmic pattern because such a mechanical beat would have been the proper form for the content.
In Eisenstein's acute consciousness of form and in his awareness of film aesthetics he violates literal truth. He reconstructs reality from pieces, not by use of sets as did the Germans. In October a draw bridge rises.