Friday, January 20, 2012
The Politics of Soviet Montage
Eisenstein believed that by juxtaposing disparate images in his editing process he could awake the masses from their ideological slumber and engage them to work for a progressive society. Recall the Odessa Steps sequence. The various jump cuts of horror and outrage are supposed to mobilize us to work to prevent such abuses in the future. How realistic is this theory? Does the technique of montage engage us emotionally? Does it mobilize us to action? Or perhaps could it lead to other reactions? Consider, for example, the montage a viewer may assemble by clicking various channels on one's television. Or consider a similar editing for an action or war movie. Or consider an even more radical application of this process (with images without any logical relation). Is montage always connected to radical politics or can it be used for other purposes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here’s the problem with montage: it doesn’t convey character. And here’s the problem with that problem: it takes fleshed-out characters for an audience to root for a film’s message. That doesn’t bode well for Eisenstein, who wanted nothing to do with movies driven by individuals, lest they become – gasp! – heroes. I think that people are mobilized to action by empathy; we donate to poor people and to dog shelters but not to orchid rescue centers, right? That’s because flowers don’t have the emotions or personality that spark kinship in us. We root for those with whom we can identify, and sadly montage provides too brief a glimpse into someone’s life for an audience to connect with him or her. Case in point: I would be much more outraged watching a movie that follows one family’s hardships during the Rwandan genocide than I would seeing a hundred faces with which I can associate no past or future flash before me in brief clips. So, no, montage does not engage us emotionally, and it takes emotional investment for people to mobilize to a cause. Montage can, however, serve to overwhelm us. For example, the Omaha Beach sequence in “Saving Private Ryan” is something of a montage, as it often jumps away from Tom Hanks’s character to unconnected scenes of carnage all across the beach. This is incredibly disturbing because it emphasizes the omnipresence of the horror, its terrifying proportions. So, while montage doesn’t allow for us to engage emotionally with characters, it can still create an emotional response in us.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read your reply, my initial reaction to this question was, "It doesn't "engage us emotionally" or "mobilize us to action" simply because it is hard to relate to." But now that I have thought about it (and read what you have to say), I agree that the lack of concrete characters is to blame for the...unrelatablity (is that even a word?).
DeleteBut to play devil's advocate with myself, isn't that the whole point? Isn't the point of montage to convey a message using "the masses?" Isn't this trying to promote the message that the people, the masses need to act together against repression? Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean it will work. I find it hard to believe that people will act as one together after being so thoroughly confused. If your audience is going: "Wait, what? Wasn't that guy just going down the stairs, but now he's going back up, but now hes at the bottom, but now that woman is...what?" I don't think it is an effective technique to get people to act if their brains explode beforehand.
But then the devil's advocate in me speaks again: "but you are a 21st century American, not an oppressed Russian in 1925." OK, devil's advocate, you make a good point. 21st century American culture is not early 1900s Russia. We are much more individualistic in our culture, and therefore it is simply us that cannot relate. But fundamentally, I believe that people are pretty similar, that naturally, we are empathetic towards others. We as humans want to have somebody to root for. In fictional writing and stories in general, the idea of Soviet Montage wouldn't work. I haven't heard of any stories without characters (if I'm wrong, please correct me).
Now to tackle another one of your points, the Omaha Beach sequence. Yes it is somewhat of a montage, but the overall story has a character with whom we can emphasize. This point you made serves to make a profound conclusion. If Soviet Montage is the thesis, continuity editing is the antithesis, then the use of montage, in moderation, such as the aforementioned Omaha Beach scene, is the synthesis.
I disagree with you Aiden, but I have seen the entire Battleship Potemkin, so forgive me for talking about other scenes in the movie that show the power of the montage. The movie actually centers around two sailors from the battleship who start the mutiny onboard the battleship. While they are the "heroes" of the movie, the montage style successfully manages to show the perspective of many different sailors on board. The net effect is that the audience understands the feelings of the whole ship and not just a few people. This is exactly Eisenstein's goal. The people are the true heroes. The people are a unified being that can achieve great things. I identified with the grand struggle presented in the movie.
DeleteStill, Eisenstein does not neglect the individual hero entirely. Here is an example:
WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The second act of Battleship Potemkin focuses on one of the sailors who started the mutiny. Unfortunately, the captain of the battleship shot the sailor at the end of act one. The second act takes place at a pier where the other sailors are holding a memorial service. At first, a few townsfolk come out to the pier to pay their respects. More and more people follow until the entire dock is filled up. The montage, in this case, cuts between the faces of the townsfolk as they pay homage to this brave man. Each face is unique and distinctly human in an emotional sense. It feels like Eisenstein uses the reactions on these faces to create a connection with the viewer and the briefly alive hero. In another way, it also feels like you are standing in the crowd of observers. Each cut is like turning your head to see who is next to you on the pier.
SPOILERS OVER
When I watched Battleship Potemkin, I thought that the montage style could have many different applications and is not only useful when the masses need awakening. The rapid frame changing of the montage is a fantastic art style in its own. The chaos of the Odessa steps scene is amplified by the rapid cuts and camera motion, while the many different frames in the scene that shows the townsfolk greeting the battleship gives the audience a view from many different perspectives. Overall, I felt that the montage style allowed for more emotions to be expressed in a short amount of time. The style would lend itself to the chaos of war movies or for a slightly more abstract take on other subjects.
I believe that the montage is successful in conveying a concept an audience. What Eisenstein tried to show with the Odessa Steps sequence was clear, that the people should oppose such tyrannical governments because they have no regard for any of the people. The juxtaposition of such dramatic images not only disoriented the viewer and created a sense of panic, but also created a feeling of volume; that atrocities were happening on such a large scale that it could not even be followed or fully comprehended. I feel that the juxtaposing of disparate images kept the viewer constantly trying to determine what is happening, which, in turn, leaves the viewer unable to question what they are seeing and only able to absorb their instinctive feelings. Why did everyone run in a straight line down the steps even when there were more soldiers at the bottom? Why did that woman think that those soldiers pointing guns at her would help her most likely dead son, or that those soldiers had any sort of medical training? Why did that one group of people leave their safe position to try and reason with the soldiers who were still shooting whoever they saw? Why were those soldiers at the top of the steps shooting right down to where their fellow soldiers were positioned? I have no answers for any of these questions, but I know they never crossed my mind when I watched the scene.
ReplyDeleteTo address Aden's point that an audience could not be emotionally engaged by the montage I would point out that while Eisenstein's characters are not relatable to us, they very well could have been for his intended audience. To demonstrate my point consider the emotions a photo of the 9/11 attacks, and think of the emotions just one photo of this incident can provoke. The majority of Americans did not lose someone they knew on 9/11, but I would bet most of them still would have a strong emotional response to such a picture. Now images numerous images with the same properties and throw them together in a way that also causes confusion. I think the outcome would have a definite emotional impact on the right viewer. The Odessa Steps sequence shows the common Russian citizen at the time, and I believe that the common Russian citizen watching the sequence would find it all too relatable.
"Soviet Montage is an innovative technique of conveying powerful messages using vivid scenes in a seemingly unsynchronized fashion." This is my definition of montage. Eisenstein understood the themes in his time and certainly knew who the audience to these themes were; the common people of Russia. With that said, it comes without saying that the theory of montage is true pertaining to the Russian people at that time. Is it effective to an outside audience who is not familiar with these themes? Of course not, and I am one of them.
ReplyDeleteThis is due to the fact that my time and place are not in sync with the themes that I identified in the movie. However, this is not the case with someone who is well aware of the themes via reality or through a substantial amount of vicarious experience. Therefore, soviet montage is really meant for the people who identify with the themes at a much more deeper level. In this way, it is effective and can potentially incite a movement for change.
One form of presentation that is not necessarily a film technique, but mirrors the ideologies of Soviet Montage is the Japanese Pechakucha (chit-chat). This is a three-minute presentation that the Japanese developed during the early relief-weeks of the 2011 Tsunami disaster. This short presentation touches on themes that already resonate with the audience. Effectively, they do not need time to relate with the characters or themes, but they instantly grasp the concepts and these ideologies become catalysts for change.
While I do understand why the theory of Soviet Montage might sound fundamentally ludicrous, I do not have any qualms over it. It is not my cup of tea but I believe that it is effective towards its intended audience.
I will address each of the many questions in order:
ReplyDelete"How realistic is this theory?"
Sergei Eisenstein's theory of montage film does not seem to be particularly realistic given how very rarely movies are able to spur people into action, however, such is certainly possible. The ability to mobilize people is, of course, not restricted to only Eisenstein's Soviet Montage technique.
"Does the technique of montage engage us emotionally?"
It certainly can. If, for example, the murder of humans is shown in a montage, it will almost certainly evoke a strong emotional reaction in anyone watching. If instead, however, the color beige or a picture of a wall is shown, the montage is unlikely to evoke any significant emotional response among viewers except perhaps boredom or anger at paying to watch a wall.
"Does it mobilize us to action?"
Such is certainly possible but seems improbable. Any great movie can spur people to act, regardless of whether or not it is of the Soviet Montage form.
"Or perhaps could it lead to other reactions?"
Of course. Returning to the examples from my answer to the first question posed, if one were to watch a montage of pictures of the walls in the director's house, one would almost certainly be upset that they had paid money to see this. Another possible reaction to montage is one of distaste; if the different takes seem completely unrelated to the viewer they may rapidly lose interest in watching and criticize the director for the movie's lack of quality.
"Is montage always connected to radical politics or can it be used for other purposes?"
I would imagine that montage is not always connected to radical politics; this is assuming that there have been montages made that were not connected to radical politics. There could certainly be a montage related to things other than radical politics, such as dogs, math, houses, computers, or a plethora of other topics.
Although Eisenstein’s way of editing really was meant to move people to action, we cannot see the true effects of this since we are not in the same situation as most of the intended audience. For the most part, the intended audience would be Russian citizens, mostly of the lower and middle classes, who were annoyed with being subjected to Russian communist rule; a group of teenagers from Cleveland, Ohio definitely does not fall into this category. His theory, though, cannot be rejected because it may have had the effect on the viewers who originally saw the movie when it was released; we cannot see the impact on the intended audience. Although we do not know whether it had an effect politically speaking, it did engage us emotionally. For example, when the mother of the child in the stroller has been killed and the child is then rolling down the stairs quickly gaining speed, we almost want to jump out in front of the stroller in order to save the child from an almost certain death. The viewer can easily see the horror, thanks to the Eisenstein’s editing, on the faces of all of the characters around as the gruesome effects of the Russian soldiers are taking their toll on the innocent civilians. Seeing all of this could, in fact, mobilize people to action, especially in the case of the falling child. The parental instinct kicks in and it makes the viewer really want to save that child. But, it does not necessarily lead to us trying to overthrow the current government. Montage can be used in a variety of ways – typically anything that desires a certain reaction from the viewer; in order to get the desired reaction from the viewer, the director must truly take into consideration the intended audience. In conclusion, this montage could have had the desired effect, but we cannot be sure. And, even though we do not know the result, we can be sure that it can trigger emotion and move people to action.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don’t think that the use of montages have a symbiotic relationship with radical politics, it has shown to be a very powerful tool in creating empathy in large populations with only a short amount of time to work with. One of the reasons why the Anti-Vietnam War movement became so popular was because news stations aired graphic footage of what was actually happening. It was very uncommon for normal television viewers to experience in depth interviews with soldiers, (to get to know their empathetic heroes found in films.) Instead they watched real people shooting, real bombs exploding, and real dead bodies lying on the battlefield in a simple continuity edit. These short dramatic bursts of footage illustrated the carnage and horror war in an accessible medium that struck the hearts of many Americans.
ReplyDeleteThis tactic is used similarly today in infomercials that ask their viewers to send money to organizations that help the helpless that do not share any physical or emotional connections or to send money and adopt abandoned animals to save from euthanasia. These organizations gather a great deal of support around the world because they reflect two inherent qualities onto the viewer: the chance to support and be a part of a cause bigger than themselves and that whatever issue being depicted will only be resolved by widespread action.