Blog Response #3

Cinematographic Effects 

In the early 1900's there were several perspectives about Cinematic structure and effects that surfaced within the cinematic sphere of the Soviets. Lev Kuleshov, the founder of the Moscow Film School, argues that the organization, construction, and interrelationship of cinematic materials are cinematography. In a more narrow sense, he thinks that the shots are like the letters in a word. These letters, put together in a specific order, creates a third and separate meaning. Likewise, he thinks the shots in a sequence do the same, and, to a certain extent, create the potential reaction of the viewer. To defend his theory, Kuleshov did an experiment called the Kuleshov Effect. The result of this experiment creates a legitimate platform for Kuleshov argument. Kuleshov took three pictures of a man with the same expression and combined them with three different images. In each scenario Kuleshov the emotional response was different which lead him to believe that the emotional response of the audience is because of the cut itself and not the some of the images.

Pudovkin, a student of Kuleshov, argues that film is not shot but built. He thinks that the images or cinematic materials are lifeless until edited together; at this point they become alive. Sergei Eisenstein, also a student of Kuleshov, argues that cinema is a language of visual symbols, for example hieroglyphs, which creates a third symbol when juxtaposed. One may see that both students had two opposing ideas as Pudovkin see it as a series and Eisenstein sees it has a collision.

However, after watching the film, “Battleship Potemkin” (1925), I realize that Kuleshov argument reflected soundly. During the film, without sound, a series of cuts were made which created a series of response from me. At first a flag flowing high was intercut with a group of people waving which signifies pride. These two images being intercut may not have been related in any way but because of its organization they seem to be related. From a critical sense, these images may have been from a different scene but because they were juxtaposed that way I felt as though it symbolizes pride and dignity, the third meaning that it creates. In this film Pudovkin’s argument about series was also partially reflected. There was a shot of the people running down the stairs but then a shot of the men marching and firing at what appears to be the same people. These shots were constantly showed which not only directed my emotional response but also gave life to the scene. The scene would be soulless if there was only the people running down the steps but because of editing the scene was built from the lifeless cinematic material.

While Kuleshov’s and Pudovkin’s arguments seem logical, I find it hard to relate to Eisenstein argument. There is also Vertov, whose perspective is directly opposite from Eisenstein, which I have still not comprehended. Whether it's Montage, editing or the organization of cinematic material I find that the editor has the ability to create or direct the response he wants from his audience. As far as I am concerned, having such ability will help to make anyone a great film editor.

-Danangelowe Spencer