Obvious and the code

This reading focused on The Big Sleep and specifically the car scene. When I watched the film I did not pick up on the 12 shot scene and did not realize of vastly important it was. As he described each of the shots I read in awe because I would never pick up on these types of things and it shows how careful of an eye one must have when viewing a film to truly understand the intent of each movement. This article gave me a better understanding of how meaning can be constructed in editing. The most interesting point made in the article was that about Marlowe being the one to drive the car and how that shows that he is the driving force in the film. 

Eisenstein

Eisenstein’s definition of montage in films said that in the cinema, we combine shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content into intellectual contexts and series. Prior to this reading my only knowledge of the word montage was a montage of photos or videos done by an individual but after reading it is clear that all films have montage and it is inevitable. The history given of the culture of the Japanese throughout the reading was useful in showing how it is a process and ever evolving. So far in this course we haven't looked at an idea like this and I thought the comparison and contrast between film today and the Japanese was very useful and interesting. 

The Obvious and the Code

In his article “The Obvious and the Code,” Raymond Bellour discusses 12 shots within the sequence in The Big Sleep where Vivian and Marlowe are talking in a car. I thought Bellour’s analysis in terms of the 7 codes he develops, framing, static/moving, angle, characters on screen, speech, time, and narration, all greatly contribute to a heightened understanding of the film itself and a better knowledge of the underlying cinematic forces at work. Simply put, Bellour explains that the seemingly obvious or insignificant elements of a sequence, such as which character is shown while talking or how long they speak for is not entirely arbitrary, and actually serves as a kind of code, that is a purposefully made systematic combination of minute details to be subconsciously interpreted as a catalytic narrative expedient. I think it’s interesting that Bellour investigates the relationship between the editing patterns and mise-en-scene repetitions, and the overarching narrative. The two can be used to mirror each other and guide the audience towards accurate knowledge of what is occurring on-screen. The subtle differences between the shots are “powerful and discrete,” and lend additional information about the nature of Vivian and Marlowe’s relationship. 

The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram

Eisenstein’s “The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram,” elaborates on the production of meaning through visible editing as well as with the use of visual elements. While we have read about editing techniques and film concepts in past readings, Eisenstein’s reading is the first in which we decipher the way physical qualities of images and the ways in which they are edited convey various types of meaning. The use of Japanese script to represent meanings rather than the English use of letters alludes to the ways in which Japanese and English cultures produce film. Eisenstein elaborates on how Japan conveys meaning differently from many other cultures, evidently in both the writing of storytelling as well as in film. Eisenstein well establishes the difference between cinematography and cinema in relation to film production. Cinema, the conglomeration of shots producing different levels of meaning, strays from cinematography which is the montage of shots. Moreover, cinematography involves the combining of multiple shots to produce intended meaning. By differentiating between these two processes, Eisenstein offers readings a better understanding of all meaning produced in the film realm. While I somewhat understood the difference between these concepts prior to reading Eisenstein's thoughts, the film master actually addresses numerous interesting points to help readers differentiate between very similar ideas. 

Sergei Eisenstein

“Beyond the Shot” and “The Dramaturgy of Film Form” were very fascinating and I really enjoyed reading them. Throughout both of these articles, Eisenstein argued for the importance of montage in film language. The goal, in Eisenstein’s view, was to distinguish the films from the strict realism of other art forms such as painting, sculpture and theatre, recognizing the ability of a filmmaker to shape and change his art in a way a painter could not. Eisenstein took ideas further and argued that “Cinema is, first and foremost, montage” (Eisenstein 14).  In “Beyond the Shot,” Eisenstein writes about the cinema of Japan, a country that has no cinematography. He argues that although Japanese cinema has no montage, the idea of montage is in fact ingrained in the culture, such as in their writing, hieroglyph. I am very much intrigued by how Eisenstein gives a fascinating example of how the Japanese script is composed of different representations put together, which is really what happens in cinema. Overall, Einstein promoted the idea that not only was editing important, but the way the images were used and arranged were as well.

Sergei Eisenstein- David Katzman

I was excited to read Sergei Eisenstein’s article “Beyond the Shot [The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram]” because despite knowing much about Chinese and Taiwanese I had never studied Japanese Cinema.  Last year in my Chinese Cinema class I learned about the conventions and characteristics of Asian cinema, and was curious if Japanese cinema could be similar in form.  Eisenstein discusses various characteristics of Japanese culture and how it related to its national cinema.  The focus of much of the paper is on montage.  I was surprised to hear that Japanese cinema often disregards montage where American and European cinema has embraced it.  Also, if I recall correctly, Chinese cinema also rarely uses montage; instead, editing is often kept at a minimum.  I also really enjoyed how he described montage, as “an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots- shots even opposite to one another: the dramatic principle.” This technique was very clearly presented in The Battleship Potemkin.

The most interesting part of Eisenstein's essay is the part in which he compares Japanese and Chinese cultures to montage. Specifically, he notes that Chinese writing symbols/characters represent montage in that they are a series of individual words that together create sentences/meaning. Similarly, he relates Japanese haiku to montage in that each line of a haiku represents works together to create an overall meaning. I thought it was interesting to read about Japanese cinema, as it is something I am unfamiliar with. An important aspect to note is the emphasis Eisenstein places on the duration of shots, and the meaning and effect duration has. 

Eisentstein: The Cinematographic Principle

I found Eisenstein’s essay difficult to understand without the full knowledge of Japanese cinema. He does warn the reader in the beginning of the essay by saying that the Japanese “[have] no cinematography” but “its culture [has] an infinite number of cinematographic traits” (127). Eisenstein then interestingly compares the Japanese prints to different camera positions. He equivalents a drawing of eye twice as big as the man’s body to a “extreme close-up of bulging eyes” (131). It is interesting that the aspects of cinematography can exist outside the cinema realm. An audience can experience the same visual intensity from a close up shot in film than they can experience in a painting of bulging eyes. Eisenstein also parallels conflict of framing a shot to the framing of a drawing in Japan. He explains different cinematographic conflicts: “conflict of depths,” “pieces resolved in volume, pieces resolved in area” (134). Eisenstein then shows a Japanese drawing of a cherry-tree – using the same methods from cinema of construction a direction of his sequence (drawing) and the organization. This essay brought to light the aspects of cinematography that can be applied to all forms of art.

Eisenstein's Essay

Eisenstein's essay addresses cinema and cinematography over time, but most importantly, montage. For Eisenstein, cinematography is montage and he traces this back to Japanese representational culture and even to hieroglyphs. The signifier and the signified have no relation, according to Eisenstein, and this is what the cinema does. The cinema takes depictive shots that have a single meaning and have a neutral context, and gives them intellectual contexts and series. Eisenstein's essay also addresses other devices and concepts like laconism and ideograms. The historical context of this essay is also particularly interesting, considering that this era in Soviet history didn't have a film school of it's own, and the film school that did exist was largely theoretical. Eisenstein's focus on Japanese cinema is one way that different cinematic schools can learn from one another and move the art form forward.

The Obvious and the Code

This piece is interesting in the way that it focuses on a seemingly sparse shots and looks at the deeper meaning that lies in the composition of these shots. The composition of the shots, including the lighting, framing, camera movement, and cuts, all help to contribute to the greater storyline and have narrative value. This makes me think about how much thought the director puts into shots of "relative poverty", as the author puts it. Oftentimes, the viewer will miss this meticulous planning and only after re-watching the film or reading analysis (like this) can one have a finer appreciation for film analysis. Even seemingly "meaningless" or "empty" shots can carry a lot more meaning than many people may notice.

Eisenstein, The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram

Eisenstein notes that “cinematography is, first and foremost, montage” (127). I found it fascinating that he compared Chinese hieroglyphs to montage, as the symbols each have separate meanings, but when combined create meaning through montage. He then brings in an art form of traditional Japanese culture: the haiku, which he compares to “hieroglyphs transposed into phrases” (129). He then compares each line of a haiku to a montage phrase, or “shot lists” because of the psychological effect that is created from the “combination of two or three details of a material kind" (130). He explains that a montage, or combination of various shots put back to back, creates meaning, and therefore tells a story to the viewer without it being explicity verbalized. I think one strong aspect of Eisenstein’s essay is the clear way in which he articulates his ideas. Most of the other essays we have read are similar to this one in the sense that they go into specific technical elements of film and cinematography. However, this is the first reading that I feel like the author does this without losing focus on the broader point he is trying to make. For example, he identifies each shot of a montage as being a “cell” rather than an element of montage. He explains that the collision of multiple shots or “cells” is what characterizes a montage. He then examines how “conflict" within framing (ex: close shots and long shots, light vs. dark) is a form of cinematic expression that can be seen in the drawing techniques taught at Japanese schools. I found this comparison to be extremely unique, and he even included an example of a drawing of a cherry-tree in which students cut out compositional units from the whole of the image. He also uses this as an example of, what he identifies to be, “the two basic tendencies struggling within cinema today” (136). The first tendancy that struggles is the “expiring method of artificial spacial organization of an event in front of the lens” and the other is “organization by means of the camera” (136). I actually found this one part a bit hard to understand, because I do not see how these are current challenges in cinema today, therefore I could benefit from a more specific explanation. In general, however, this has been my favorite reading in this course so far due to it’s clarity and unique cultural references.  

Eisensteins Essay

Eisenstein’s essay was challenging to get through and understand but brings up some key points. Eisenstein starts by discussing Japanese cinema, how they have no cinematography, and therefore no montage. He then contradicts himself, saying that early hieroglyphs form montage, and that the Japanese poetry known as haiku is made up of shots, which also form montage. The article then describes Japanese theater at length. The Japanese method of “acting without transitions” describes the transitions between scenes being done by the actor simply halting his performance, concealing himself, and then reappearing as a different character. The Japanese make use of a super slow tempo in theater that is not used anywhere else in the world. He then concludes by saying that despite their originalities of their culture, the Japanese are behind the times in cinema and simply imitate American and European cinema. My feeling reading this is that it was a very long way to go about discussing Japanese cinema and their use or non-use of montage. The next section was easier to get through regarding the dialectic approach to film form. Eisenstein says that montage has been established as “the nerve of cinema” and that understanding the nature of montage is needed to understand cinema. What I get from this is that the editing of the shots is the key to the power of a film. In The Big Sleep we saw the scene with 12 shots and after reading about it, I can see how powerful each shot is in creating the montage.

Eisenstein's The Cinematographic Principle...

This article put the notion of film as language into a different perspective for me. Eisenstein begins by asserting that film is a montage. There, of course, can exist montage sequences within film, but a film is a series of cuts that makes us believe we are living out a time in the character's life whose duration is longer than the film itself. Much like the evolution of hieroglyphs, the film language has evolved over time. The final product, todays film, is a result of a history of trials and errors. My favorite quote from the article comes from pg 128. Eisenstein states, "The means of production... determined the form." This means to say that just as a brush and ink determine the form of hieroglyphs, film and its means of production are the director's tools to create his/her distinct artwork. Another point of interest for me in this article is that nothing in itself has an inherent meaning. We give objects meaning. This parallels what we have already discussed in class, but it was helpful to read about it with different context.

Eisenstein: Montage in Japanese Film

"The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram" Sergei Eisenstein


What stands out to me from Eisenstein's "The Cinematographic Principle and the Ideogram" is the distinction between cinema and cinematography in Japanese film, and how that relates to Japanese language. Cinema includes the actors, the drama, and the capital investment. Cinematography is the montage, or the combination of two simple forms to create a concept, not the sum of two things. Cinema is the combination of shots that are depictive, single in meaning, neutral in content, into intellectual contexts and series. Basically, cinema starts are separate entities and earns meaning based on how the director arranges and combines the shots. In this process, we relinquish normalcy to understand the combination of units that takes place in the theater. However, so many other elements of filming like camera position, transitions, and expression contributes to our understanding of a movie, or add meaning to the single shot unit. I appreciate this way of interpreting film, fabricating the smallest units into the overall significance, like the system of hieroglyphics. I am anxious to see how Japanese cinema functions in comparison to what I know. As Eisenstein said earlier, the means of production determine the form. The structure of Japanese language determines how Japanese directors think, and how they piece shots together to make a movie that is different from other countries. Overall, really interesting article on film language.

Film Language

Eisenstein had a way of describing montage and the way meaning is conveyed that I had never thought of before. In linguistics we talk about the arbitrariness of words, but what Eisenstein is trying to say is that language isn't ALWAYS without direct meaning. For example, hieroglyphics and Chinese characters are meant to somewhat look like the word they are conveying. For example, a mouth and a child means "screaming." Movies convey meaning in the same way. Without a character saying out loud "I'm scared," the movie can convey this by a closeup on shaking hands, bulging eyes, and lip biting. This is montage. And its powerful. If we show a blank face and cut to a happy situation we describe the person as happy and if we cut to a scene of a funeral instead, it means that the person is upset. Movies have so much power, we forget while we watch that they aren't real which is scary because we are so easily manipulated.

The Cinematographic Principle

It's so interesting that Eisenstein's article begins with talking about the simplest forms of writing, with analyzing hieroglyphs. This made me think about what we talked about on the very first day of class, how film is a language in itself, and the camera is a filmmaker's pen to make art. Even more specifically, this article argues for cinematography, the actual person holding the camera and the one allowing the art to be shown. This introduces the montage method, which allows us to infer thoughts based on images we see. The article also made me think about when we learned about the differences between on screen and off screen space, as cinematographers and artists frame shots while keeping in mind what is to be left on screen and what should be kept off.

3/10

The three examples I appreciated the most when comparing the countless numbers of cinematographic traits to the Japanese culture, a culture that does not use cinematography in its cinema according to the author of the pamphlet, is hieroglyphist, haikus and Sharaku’s sculpture. Eisenstein expressed how the combination of two simple hieroglyphics transforms an object into a concept. This was compared to montage by stating that shots have a single meaning but when combined they make a broader concept. When combining individual hieroglyphics a new meaning is created, just like when combining shots in order to create a montage. In Haikus, very few words are used, it’s laconic. As well, another beauty of the haiku is the calligraphy. A well-formed Haiku follows a bare formula, however when it is together, like a montage of shots, it pushes us to think conceptually of it. In Sharaku’s sculptures, he makes characteristics much larger or/and smaller than in reality casing a distortion in the figures. This is compared to cinema and how films often cause disturbance in the flow of a film by adding disproportions, for example having a close up. This can cause suspense or make the viewer have a different perception of the scene. Overall, this article was extremely interesting and made comparisons I would never think of putting together.

Eisenstein and Montage

This article really helped me to understand the concept of montage. I had been struggling to define the idea of montage, as the way it is used in film studies differs from my original understanding of the word. I now recognize montage as a collision of elements that make meaning. Conflict is a way in which montage can occur. There can be cinematographic conflicts as well as conflict arising from lighting differences. This kind of conflict is not used as tension between characters, rather it is tension derived from differences within a frame. Some kinds of conflicts arise from the idea of visual counterpoint in films. An example of this is conflicts within a thesis; this is a conflict of motivations. The comparisons with the Japanese cinema gave good examples of how films use montage. I think this quote from the article is the best summary of montage “It is exactly what we do in cinema, combining shots that are depictive, single in meaning neutral in content- into intellectual contexts and series.”(Pg. 129) I now have a better understanding of the word and can recognize its use in other films.