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.