Primary Criticisms of American Cinema and Griffith's Montage by Sergei Eisenstein - Coursework Example

Primary criticisms of American Cinema and Griffiths montage by Sergei Eisenstein Introduction At the early development of film theories, D.W. Griffith has provided certain movies that defined the base grammar of cinema and editing. As the cinematic theories developed over the time, there had been various new experiments and innovations in cinematic techniques that gave ways to new ideas about cinema, its effect and implementations to generate various artistic, emotional and creative belongings. One of the most important filmmaker of early era, Russian filmmakers Sergei Eisenstein had belonged to Russian opinion of cinema which termed cinema as a mean of provoking the people to think (Shaw 2011). This view, however, had a contrasting stand with many American filmmakers who used to derive the idea of filmmaking from its ability to provide entertainment to public. At the core of their opinions, the ideas have come out of different philosophies asserting the importance of arts and esthetic medium to provide education or entertainment to people. In later age, as the American cinema was highly influenced with its industrial structure American Cinema tended more and more towards the entertainment which could provide good returns of investment in filmmaking. On the other hand, Russian cinema had devoted much to the ideas which regarding cinema as a medium of awareness and provoking. Due to such difference of opinions, Sergei Eisenstein, who was most profound of early Russian filmmakers had critiqued some of the concepts developed and defined by D.W. Griffith. One very important part of that criticism was Eisenstein’s criticism of Griffith’s theory of montage. In the modern day theory of montage Sergei Eisenstein’s assumption for montage are widely accepted for providing a ground for cinematic understanding for fast cutting and expression through montages. As followers to Griffith’s theories Sergei Eisenstein had developed Montage theory according to his philosophical set back based in Hegel and Marx. Although, developed over Griffithian grammar, Eisenstein’s theory to montage shows some contrasting difference as well. Utilization of montages in Griffithian Cinema In a modern day scenario, the term montage briefly suggest a number of small sized shots arranged in a manner to express a particular part of story or an effect. The montages are quite common is almost all the movies made nowadays. Depending on its use and requirement montage may be musical, action packed, blurred or deluding. A profound example of modern montages include David Fincher’s ‘Fight Club’ (Pitt 1999) using a sequence of shots expressing protagonist Jack’s nausea from its surrounding and further his remembrance of his own past that he had been unaware of. Another example contains Martin Scorsese’s depiction of police training in ‘The Departed’ (Nicholson 2006). D.W. Griffith’s earlier movies are supposed to set the basic grammar of cinema. There are number of occasions when Griffith has used sequencing shots without a direct connectivity of moment. Griffith’s montages were involved in compressing the happening of an event. However, without giving much for dialectical montages or other philosophical esthetical presentations, Griffith had designs the base for montage which could already establish montage as a different and particular approach to cinematic timeline. Anyways, the conceptualization and development of those theories is due to Sergei Einstein. How Eisenstein could identify power of Griffithian montage and could be motivated to enhance his own montage theory comes out in his quote I can’t recall who speaks with whom in one of the street scenes of the modern story of Intolerance. But I shall never forget the mask of the passer-by with nose pointed forward between spectacles and straggly beard, walking with hands behind his back as if he were manacled. As he passes he interrupts the most pathetic moment in the conversation of the suffering boy and girl. I can remember next to nothing of the couple, but this passer-by, who is visible in the shot for only a flashing of glimpse, stands alive before me now—and I haven’t seen the film for twenty years! (Eisenstein 1949) Those sequences are very similar to added shots of vehicles where some vehicle leaves out of one place and, in continuity, in the very next shot we find it arrived at its destination. D.W. Griffith’s movies were very accurate about maintaining the connection and movement between shots. His experiments with the continuity have paid much to establish most of the norms of modern day editing include maintaining the line of continuity and methods of jumping it. Russian Cinema and third perspective Out of his Dialectic theory of cinema, Sergei Eisenstein had different ideas about the utility and perspective to montages in cinema. However, Eisenstein owns much from Griffithian cinema, and he acknowledges it on various occasions where he indicates Griffith’s movies to be pioneer of film grammar: Griffith continuously cuts from one story to another, inviting the viewer to, at once, get caught up in each individual story and set of characters, and to draw thematic, moralistic connections between them. Because of this alternation between identification and intellectual distance, Eisenstein is reported to have been surprised to learn that Griffith was not a communist—so much did this approach mirror and influence his own. (D. W. Griffith Criticism 2011) As mentioned above, Russian cinema had a base theory of using cinema as medium of provoking people to think. This idea had been derived out of many important filmmakers and thinker that were mostly inspired from Hegelian dialectic (McGowan 2009). They had a dialectical theory of cinema which asserted that the impact of a cinematic cut does not lie in the connection of two shot, rather it lies in the impact that it creates. Out of this different theory of cut and cinematic rhythm, thinkers like Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov and Pudovkin had believed in a third meaning, or third perspective, that is not inherited in both of the connected shots rather it comes out of their connection itself. The same theory became the ground of different ideas over the use of montage in cinema. Sergei Eisenstein, along with other filmmaker and thinker, has argued that a montage does not involve a compression of time, which could be otherwise shown in longer length format; rather, it is a separate tale of events originating en entirely free effect of cinematic art that cannot be treated as an alternative to sequence. Eisenstein believed that film montage could create ideas or have an impact beyond the individual images. Two or more images edited together create a "tertium quid" (third thing) that makes the whole greater than the sum of its individual parts. (Johnson 2011) In a way, Sergei Eisenstein treated montage as a particular element of cinema which is unmatched. Further he has used various montages which have a very particular effect only because they are shown in a distinct patter. There are a number of montages used by Sergei Eisenstein in his movies The Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein 1926) and Ivan the terrible (Cherkasov 1944) which satisfy the equation perfectly and provide an impact to establish that the same effect cannot be established using other alternatives of telling the same story consisting of same events. Further development of film theories and montages Looking at film history, it comes out quite transparently that montage theory is still very much similar designed and formulated by those two leading filmmakers: Griffith and Eisenstein. Even after the studio era in Hollywood, French , German & Italian new wave, New Hollywood and Neo-Realism, it is still straight away evident that the film subjects have changed over time but base grammar had been almost similar with numerous experiment that actually suggests different patterns of similar grammar. This is one of the reasons why Griffith and Eisenstein are always considered as the greatest of film theorists. Also, various philosophical theories have made significant effect over cinema. Existentialism and deconstructive approaches have touched the norms of cinema but the theory of resultant new impact of a ‘cut’ is still ground for film editing. Looking at Eisenstein’s approach to cinema and his criticism to montage theory of D.W. Griffith, it comes out how it was a major part of film development when Eisenstein found out that Griffith has designed a new element of cinema (montage) that needs further study and theories to be developed into an accurate and concrete technique. This motivation of Eisenstein had forced him to rush for developing a complete theory of montage which has now become the foundation of all film techniques. Conclusion Motivated from Griffith’s use of montages in his pioneering movies, Eisenstein had developed his own approach that was also due very much to other Russian theorists like Pudovkin, Dziga Vertov who believed in Hegelian dialectic and its utility in cinema. The idea of third perspective has contributed much for all future development of cinema. When we look at the earlier stage of development, we find that Eisenstein’s criticism was quite accurate. However, it was not a rejection; rather, it was an acceptance of Griffith’s power to express through his montages which Eisenstein thought to develop and redefine. As a very important conflict of cinematic history, those contributions of D.W. Griffith and Sergei Eisenstein and their theories are widely still experimented, celebrated, dedicated and paid homage by all filmmakers around the world belonging to different philosophies, regions and era, approaches and specific stands towards cinema. Bibliography Ivan the Terrible. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein. Performed by Nikolai Cherkasov. 1944. "D. W. Griffith Criticism." eNotes. eNotes.Com. 2011. http://www.enotes.com/d-w-griffith-criticism/griffith-d-w. Eisenstein, Sergei. Fim Form. New York: Harcourt, 1949. The Battleship Potemkin. Directed by Sergei Eisenstein. 1926. Johnson, Glen. "Montage theory: Eisenstein, Vertov, & Hitchcock." faculty.cua.edu. 2011. http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/pages/montage/montage-1.html (accessed 10 9, 2011). McGowan, Todd. " Hegel and the Impossibility of the Future in Science Fiction Cinema ." Film-Philosophy, 2009. The Departed. Directed by Martin Scorsese. Performed by Jack Nicholson. 2006. Fight Club. Directed by David Fincher. Performed by Brad Pitt. 1999. Shaw, Dan. "Sergei Eisenstein." senses of cinema. 2011. http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2004/great-directors/eisenstein/ (accessed 10 9, 2011). Read More