Eisenstein
res...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
Initially, I was looking for clarification--what this guy is about and how
he goes about communicating his message. If you look at the beginnings of
all this...no loaded language at all.
Not only have I found out nothing I don't know...the amount of hard fact
kicked back and forth has been close to nil. He's a god (that's GOD) who,
apparently, cannot be discussed, let alone criticized. Even mentioning
John M. Stahl's name in the same breath results in my instant dismissal to
Siberia...
I'd like that edification now, please. Who wants to be first?
1.) His form--what we see on screen--does not, fundamentally, come out of
Griffith? If not, how so? How does what he does differ, materially
differ, from what Griffith does? What is it about what he does with
his camera and editing that makes him so much better than most other
film makers?
2.) His writings are very specific about what is OK and what is not,
relative to what movies must be and yet, it seems to me--from what we see
on screen--that his own movies don't, remotely, meet his own criteria
(Nevsky and the Ivan's in particular), though he never recanted on the
theoretical level. How do you, who faint at the mention of horrible John
Stahl, reconcile what Eisenstein says with what Eisenstein does?
3.) His content is frequently contradictory...so, what is Eisenstein's
world view -- what is he saying through his movies? How can one reconcile
the differing ideological positions the various of his movies express?
4.) One of the more amusing views expressed in this mess was to the
effect that Eisenstein is about, or comments on the nature of state
brutality, or something like that. Is it morally possible for Eisenstein,
vis a vis his position as court film "artist" to Joseph Stalin & Co., to
express such a viewpoint? If so, how???
4.) Does then, this art have a moral dimension? If so, where does that
put Eisenstein, considering the extreme--on screen--formal and thematic
flip flops in his work and his life long collaboration with the Soviet
government? Of course he knew what was happening(mass murder and constant
terror) and yet he stayed and crawled for every opportunity to make
another movie and in the process lived an easy life. He was famous and
could easily have left (as Lang, Sirk, Pabst, Conrad Veit, Frances Lederer
and many others did leave Germany) and yet he did not leave.
5.) Finally, when it's all added up and divided, etc., where does he
belong, in film history and in the active teaching of same to young people
who are easily bored, particularly if they come to feel that what they are
being taught is bogus and perhaps, even wrong?
BobSmith
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
ChaneyFan
Bob has asked some very good questions and I think the Eisenstein fans owe
him a fair answer. (As an aside, I am not a great fan of Eisenstein's
silent films, but think that IVAN THE TERRIBLE I and II are terrific
films. I certainly rate Eisenstein way above von Stroheim, but way below
Borzage, Lang, Vidor, Murnau, and others.)
I tried to get the same kind of answers for von Stroheim a few months
back. I have discovered that when someone takes a position on a
film/director/actor, they support the position with non-arguments. When I
asked several posters to tell me *why* they thought GREED was one of the
great silent films, no one gave me an answer, they basically said, "Well,
it just is" and if I don't agree then I obviously am wrong.
We often hear that Welles, Eisenstein, von Stroheim, von Sternberg, Ford,
Griffith, Chaplin (among others) are Gods. I think I can articulate the
reasons why it's true for Griffith and Chaplin, and possibly for Welles
and Ford, but I'm not sure I could make the case for the others. Those of
you who disagree, state your evidence for all of us to hear. To do
otherwise is to revert to Jason's style of "Chaplin stinks because he
stinks."
=================================================
Jon Mirsalis
Chan...@aol.com
http://www.sri.com/stg/toxicology/jonfilm.html
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
FilmGene
<<Finally, when it's all added up and divided, etc., where does he
belong, in film history and in the active teaching of same to young people
who are easily bored, particularly if they come to feel that what they are
being taught is bogus and perhaps, even wrong?>>
I've addressed the other issues in a longer post.
Eisenstein is an important figure in the history of film. That is
undeniable. Whether my students "like" the films I show is rarely
important to me.
I always say that their telling me they didn't like a film has just as
much meaning as telling the algebra teacher you didn't like the equation.
We are there to educate them, not merely to confirm their prejudices. I
can't imagine how a familiarity with Eisenstein (or Stahl for that matter)
is going to hurt anyone.
And about being "wrong"? The best way to avoid that is not to try to sound
like a know-it-all. A little humility goes a long way.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
FilmGene
<<We often hear that Welles, Eisenstein, von Stroheim, von Sternberg,
Ford,
Griffith, Chaplin (among others) are Gods. I think I can articulate the
reasons why it's true for Griffith and Chaplin, and possibly for Welles
and Ford, but I'm not sure I could make the case for the others.>>
Jon:
"Men Are Not Gods". :-)
Seriously, I really mean it. All of these people were artists of varying
degrees. Their reputations ebb and flow with time and with new audiences.
All of them made great films and turkeys.
I thought I made a case for "Greed" when I said that it introduced a
European sensibility and a more mature "naturalism" to films than the
Victorian style of Griffith. Like it or not, such films can be defended.
You don't have to agree, of course. There are some who feel, for instance,
somewhat ambivalent about Lon Chaney (ever see "Mockery"? :-) ) But that's
the name of the game.
ChaneyFan
Gene Stavis said:
>>>I thought I made a case for "Greed" when I said that it introduced a
European sensibility and a more mature "naturalism" to films than the
Victorian style of Griffith. Like it or not, such films can be defended.
You don't have to agree, of course. There are some who feel, for instance,
somewhat ambivalent about Lon Chaney (ever see "Mockery"? :-) ) But that's
the name of the game.
I can probably cite more flaws about Chaney than most of his detractors!!
Yes, I have seen MOCKERY, and yes it is a stinker! To really appreciate
any artist is to know their weaknesses but to love them anyway! I have
never in this group made the claim that Chaney is a great actor, or
mandatory fare for film students. *I* find him interesting and have
numerous reasons for this interest. (Acting ability aside, what do you
find more interesting: a picture with (a) Reginald Denny, (b) Charles
Ray, (c) Conrad Nagel, or (d) Lon Chaney. Get the point?) I think what
gets my feathers ruffled is comments from several folks in this group who
say things like, "GREED is one of the greatest silent films ever made and
*must* be included in any serious study of silent film." Or "Eisenstein
is a major director and you *must* include him in any serious study of
silent film." I believe I could teach a very well rounded course on the
development of silent film without even mentioning von Stroheim or
Eisenstin, but I probably couldn't do one without discussing Griffith,
Chaplin, Lang, or Murnau.
I don't even want to get into the von Stroheim thing again, having
exhausted that months ago. Actually, I don't recall seeing your comments
on GREED...I might have missed that post. I agree that there are some
striking sequences...the Death Valley finale is fabulous, but I still
contend that von Stroheim had so many serious weaknesses in his
storytelling abilities that the impressive camera work doesn't make up for
it. But let's puh-leeze not start this discussion over again!
res...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
In article <19970221055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Dear Jon, Sincere thanks...I feel like I've been thrown into the Roman
Arena...and I'm not even a christian! It's all screaming and snorting
and no beef at all. That is so strange. I really don't have the
slightest idea, after this is all over, why, specifically why, Eisenstein
deserves the rep he has... And I don't think historical significance has
a real lot to do with long term reputations...it's what you produce.
Griffith's films LIVE... just watch them with any audience. Italian
spectacle films are historically important...but that's absolutely
it...they are Porter films blown up to50, 60, 90 endless, pointless,
meaningless minutes. Mention them (and perhaps Eisenstein as
historically relevant, but dead-ends) and show something alive. As to
Stroheim's camera work ... he almost never ever moves the camera, does
he? I do like his stuff and wonder how you can blame the bad story
telling on him considering what his producers--that producer in
particular-- did to so much of his work. I always think of Greed as if
it were one of those Castle films versions of Frankenstein or Duck
Soup...I know the originals well and it's still an awful experience. I
don't know the original of Greed and can't ever know what it would have
been like if they had just left it alone. Cukor's A Star is Born alwasy
gave me a headache in the WB recut version...it drags on endlessly, it is
almost nothign but a sereis of screaming matches right out of the earlier
version. Then I saw the longer restoration and was knocked on my ass. I
think it is one of Cukor's very greatest movies and that it zips along
fantastically... and watching what the director wanted me to watch, I'm
not at all aware of the running time. And the stupidity and barbarity of
producers, technicians, etc., in this field is frighteningly apparent in
the sublime things they hacked out. Maybe Greed would not be deadly bore
it is (and akin to a goodly dose of castor oil) if it were as intended.
The Merry Widow is a blast, don't you think? I think Reginald Denny is
quite charming, though I've not seen many of his silent films. What are
those boxing things like? Regards, Bob Smith
res...@uconnvm.uconn.edu
In article <19970221034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
But Gene, kids don't have any real prejudices at this point. Sure they
say they don't like silent films..but that only means they haven't seen
any good ones yet...one good movie presented in the right way, and that
view point goes right out the window. They don't like black and white...a
short talk on vision/rods and cones and the proper projection (35 if
possible, powerful lamp, good masking and pitch dark hall) and they oh
and ah most delightfully over Sternberg's lighting and Ford's
compositions and Borzage's angles and performances, etc. Liking...well,
you're quite right, it does't matter all that much if they like
something...though movies were meant to be liked (even Gertrud!) and I do
try to program things that I think will/can really engage them. Who
wants the movie world to become like that of classical music where the
audiences for great music becomes smaller and older with each passing
year? That kids don't seem to like Eisenstein's stuff isn't as important
as finding an answer to the question of why should they? And, I've never
been able to find an answer to it. I've always shown his movies because
1.) I kind of have to (masterpieces of world cinema, etc.) and 2.)
guilt...maybe I just don't see it from the right angle(s), which is why I
asked the question in the first place. But, honestly, I've not gotten any
answers that have helped at all. Humility... I didn't begin by talking
down to anyone Gene...I simply asked some questions. What I got was a
series of insults and absurdities that any first semester films student
would guffaw over. Some of these guys contridict themselves within the
same sentence. This bs is supposed to help a fellow professional out?
nonsense...it's just grandstanding and repeating, by rote, what a bunch
of totally subjective leftie critics said in the 1920's. Anyway, I
totally agree with your views on humility and am sorry for a smart ass
and condescending attitude (which, Gene, your own posts are not entirely
free of) but also ask you to take a look at some of the stuff that has
been directed my way...that perhaps provoked the worst of my theatrical
excesses. I respect those person's whose arguments deserve respect and
I'm polite (well...) as long as I'm treated in the same way. I don't
think being talked down to is polite...and when I am talked down to I
feel free to react in a way that is natural to me (despite the name, I'm
of Italian ancestry and with non political correctness have all those
fiery character traits that we don't can't believe in any more even if
they are true). This isn't the 1920's and Eisensteins' point of view and
the system he eagerly worked for have long been revealed as monstrous
lies masking monstrous actions. That world, thankfully, is dead and I
don't see how Eisenstein and his work, tied as they are so closely to
that world, aren't dead too, and rightfully so.
Constance Kuriyama
(res...@uconnvm.uconn.edu) writes:
> 1.) His form--what we see on screen--does not, fundamentally, come out of
> Griffith?
As I said before, I can't see how.
If not, how so?
As I said before, editing in Griffith is narrative-dominated. Granting that in
_Intolerence_ there is a "concept," the primary rationale of Griffith's editing
remains diagetic. The editing in _Potemkin_ operates on very different
principles. Substantial stretches of the film are spent in assemblage of
shots which do not advance the story at all. This is evident not only in the
Odessa steps sequence but in many other passages of the film, notably the
mutiny.
If you think this had no lasting influence, check out the ambush sequence in _The
Wild Bunch_, or the Chinese-puzzle editing in _JFK_ and parts of _Natural Born
Killers_.
What is it about what he does with
> his camera and editing that makes him so much better than most other
> film makers?
I don't know if it's "better," but I find such dazzling formalism a head trip.
It's also something that film neophytes often have to learn to enjoy.
No time for the rest. I'm not trying to insult you. Just coping with
the limitations of free-net posting. But concision CAN be a virtue.
If nothing else, there will be less to be annoyed by!
Connie K.
P.S. Helpful hint (I hope.) You will stand a better chance of getting
answers if you keep your posts short. This one, for example, could be
four posts.
> 2.) His writings are very specific about what is OK and what is not,
> relative to what movies must be and yet, it seems to me--from what we see
> on screen--that his own movies don't, remotely, meet his own criteria
> (Nevsky and the Ivan's in particular), though he never recanted on the
> theoretical level. How do you, who faint at the mention of horrible John
> Stahl, reconcile what Eisenstein says with what Eisenstein does?
> 3.) His content is frequently contradictory...so, what is Eisenstein's
> world view -- what is he saying through his movies? How can one reconcile
> the differing ideological positions the various of his movies express?
> 4.) One of the more amusing views expressed in this mess was to the
> effect that Eisenstein is about, or comments on the nature of state
> brutality, or something like that. Is it morally possible for Eisenstein,
> vis a vis his position as court film "artist" to Joseph Stalin & Co., to
> express such a viewpoint? If so, how???
> 4.) Does then, this art have a moral dimension? If so, where does that
> put Eisenstein, considering the extreme--on screen--formal and thematic
> flip flops in his work and his life long collaboration with the Soviet
> government? Of course he knew what was happening(mass murder and constant
> terror) and yet he stayed and crawled for every opportunity to make
> another movie and in the process lived an easy life. He was famous and
> could easily have left (as Lang, Sirk, Pabst, Conrad Veit, Frances Lederer
> and many others did leave Germany) and yet he did not leave.
> 5.) Finally, when it's all added up and divided, etc., where does he
Erik Stogo
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
June 1930
Hollywood
Dear Esther Ilinishna!
No time to write--so many things to do and impressions.
Instead of words, I'm sending you a number of images--pictures are
always more expressive than words!
I embrace you and urgently wait for letters about you, about cinema and
about me!
Always yours,
Eisenstein
Tom Moran
chan...@aol.com writes:
>Bob has asked some very good questions and I think the
>Eisenstein fans owe him a fair answer.
He *may* have asked some very good questions, but the impertinent,
obnoxious and homophobic way in which those questions were posed means
that *this* Eisenstein fan, for one, owes him nothing whatsoever.
>(As an aside, I am not a great fan of Eisenstein's silent films,
>but think that IVAN THE TERRIBLE I and II are terrific films.
>I certainly rate Eisenstein way above von Stroheim, but way
>below Borzage, Lang, Vidor, Murnau, and others.)
You seem to have a blind spot where Von Stroheim is concerned. :)
>I tried to get the same kind of answers for von Stroheim a few
>months back. I have discovered that when someone takes a
>position on a film/director/actor, they support the position with
>non-arguments.
Well, if you're dissing for the sake of dissing, a reasoned response may
not be called for.
>When I asked several posters to tell me *why* they thought
>GREED was one of the great silent films, no one gave me an
>answer, they basically said, "Well, it just is" and if I don't agree
>then I obviously am wrong.
I certainly never put it that way, and I doubt anyone else did.
"Greed" is one of the very few silent dramas that have not dated in the
least. It is as powerful today as it was on the day it was released. Now,
some of the *titles* may draw a snicker from a modern audience, but Von
Stroheim wasn't responsible for the titles that draw laughter.
"Greed" can leave a modern audience emotionally drained, just sitting
there in a stunned silence. Its emotional impact on an audience is in my
experience matched by very few silent films -- "Napoleon," "City Lights"
and maybe one or two others.
>We often hear that Welles, Eisenstein, von Stroheim,
>von Sternberg, Ford, Griffith, Chaplin (among others) are Gods.
Hardly Gods. They were filmmakers, and in each of the cases you cite I
can think of at least *one* godawful film directed by them.
>I think I can articulate the reasons why it's true for Griffith and
>Chaplin, and possibly for Welles and Ford, but I'm not sure I
>could make the case for the others. Those of you who disagree,
>state your evidence for all of us to hear. To do otherwise is to
>revert to Jason's style of "Chaplin stinks because he stinks."
To get back to Eisenstein, you can't discuss film history without
discussing him -- any more than you can discuss Elizabethan Drama without
discussing Christopher Marlowe. And I *still* contend that anyone who
would teach a history of film course without including Eisenstein has no
business teaching film.
I agree with Robin Wood that "October" and "Ivan the Terrible" are
Eisenstein's great films (I can do without "Potemkin" and "Alexander
Nevsky"). On the basis of those two films alone (taking Part II of "Ivan"
out of contention because it's a workprint and not a finished film), I
still believe that Eisenstein stands as one of the greatest artists on
the history of film.
Tom Moran
ChaneyFan
>>>Dear Jon, Sincere thanks...I feel like I've been thrown into the Roman
Arena...and I'm not even a christian!
This reminds me of the following anecdote:
While watching THE SIGN OF THE CROSS, when the lions were munching on
Christians there was a little boy in the audience crying. His mother
leaned over and said, "It's OK dear, it's only a movie."
He replied, "Yeh, but that little lion in the corner isn't getting any!"
Constance Kuriyama
Tom Moran (NEW...@prodigy.com) writes:
> chan...@aol.com writes:
>
>>Bob has asked some very good questions and I think the
>>Eisenstein fans owe him a fair answer.
>
> He *may* have asked some very good questions, but the impertinent,
> obnoxious and homophobic way in which those questions were posed means
> that *this* Eisenstein fan, for one, owes him nothing whatsoever.
Not to mention his even more impertinent and obnoxious responses when
anyone seemed to be disagreeing with him. Nevertheless, I have tried to
give a fair response (within the limits of electronic discourse) to ONE
of his questions. Not that I expect my views to be welcome. Gene seems
to have charmed the beast. What's your secret, Gene?
> To get back to Eisenstein, you can't discuss film history without
> discussing him -- any more than you can discuss Elizabethan Drama without
> discussing Christopher Marlowe. And I *still* contend that anyone who
> would teach a history of film course without including Eisenstein has no
> business teaching film.
Ah, yes, divine Kit. Some Shakespeare scholars would like to forget about
Marlowe, but Shakespeare knew what he owed to him--in spite of his
interest in pretty boys.
For the most part the judgments of history are just. It wouldn't do to
teach a RD course based on the works of John Day, Samuel Rowley, and
William Byrde, and someone who let his own whims utterly dominate such a course
might well have his qualifications questioned.
Connie K.
Robert Birchard
res...@uconnvm.uconn.edu wrote in part:
> As to
> Stroheim's camera work ... he almost never ever moves the camera, does
> he? I do like his stuff and wonder how you can blame the bad story
> telling on him considering what his producers--that producer in
> particular-- did to so much of his work. I always think of Greed as if
> it were one of those Castle films versions of Frankenstein or Duck
> Soup...I know the originals well and it's still an awful experience. I
> don't know the original of Greed and can't ever know what it would have
> been like if they had just left it alone. Cukor's A Star is Born alwasy
> gave me a headache in the WB recut version...it drags on endlessly, it is
> almost nothign but a sereis of screaming matches right out of the earlier
> version. Then I saw the longer restoration and was knocked on my ass. I
> think it is one of Cukor's very greatest movies and that it zips along
> fantastically... and watching what the director wanted me to watch, I'm
> not at all aware of the running time. And the stupidity and barbarity of
> producers, technicians, etc., in this field is frighteningly apparent in
> the sublime things they hacked out. Maybe Greed would not be deadly bore
> it is (and akin to a goodly dose of castor oil) if it were as intended.
> The Merry Widow is a blast, don't you think? I think Reginald Denny is
> quite charming, though I've not seen many of his silent films. What are
> those boxing things like? Regards, Bob Smith
studios did to his films. He had a heavy melodramatic streak--the fire
in Foolish Wives, for example that severly undercut the naturalistic
qualites that made his work unique.
Couldn't let the mention of the 1954 Star is Born go by without a
contrary reaction. I had read Cukor's comments about how the film had
been destroyed by the studio before I saw the standard release cut.
When I saw it I felt the film was a rather jumbled mess of great scenes
with little coherent continuity and I was ready to assume that Cukor was
right. But when I saw Ron Haver's restoration, for me the film was just
more of the same--still episodic, still disjointed and just a lot
longer. I could see why the studio cut much of what it did--the "Long
Face" musical number is easily the weakest number in the picture, and I
felt much the same about the rest of it--although I would havce kept the
proposal on the recording stage if I'd been cutting the picture. I can
understand the appeal of A Star is Born on many levels, and there are
some very good things in it but as a whole movie (in either version) it
just doesn't add up for me.
--
Bob Birchard
bbir...@earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
Robert Birchard
Tom Moran wrote in part:
>
> To get back to Eisenstein, you can't discuss film history without
> discussing him -- any more than you can discuss Elizabethan Drama without
> discussing Christopher Marlowe. And I *still* contend that anyone who
> would teach a history of film course without including Eisenstein has no
> business teaching film.
in his time--Hitchcock, for example, noted being impressed by Potemkin
at cinema club screenings. But it really is a debatable point whether
he has had any lasting impact. Eisenstein's critical reputation ebbed
and flowed with the ebbs and flows of Stalinist politics. His initial
impact was tied to the brief flowering of the arts in the early Soviet
Union. When he traveled to the West in 1930 after the English language
pulication of his early theortetical works it was largely an extension
of Soviet foreign policy and Eisenstein's reputation was promoted by
critics like Paul Rotha. As an aside, need I mention that virtually all
of Rotha's criticism is politically motivated--and almost invariably
soft-headed when one actully consideres what he likes and dislikes in
the cinema.
While Connie K. is right to point out the essential difference
between Griffith's and Eisenstein's editing styles--it would be a
mistake to suggest that Griffith was only interested in narrative in
editing. In Intolerance he introduces the Musketeer of the Slums with a
shot of details in his apartment--clearly designed to explore character
rather than narrative. Griffith's work is full of such things, as is
DeMille's and any number of other early directors. Such sequences do
not draw attention to themselves as do Eisenstein's non-narrative
sequences, however.
Eisenstein is noted (quite justifiably, I believe) for several
famous sequences--the Odessa Steps in Potemkin, and the battle on the
ice in Nevsky come to mind. However, there are precednts for both of
these sequences in earlier American films. Eisenstein himself
acknowledges Griffith's influence, and while Griffith's montage in the
murder of the Musketter of the slums or the boy's trial in Intolerance
may not be as refined or intellectual as Eisenstein's treatments in
Nevsky, I think one could ver well argue that Griffith's ability to keep
three story threads going simultaneously in the climactic moments of The
Birth of a Nation, for example, while at the same time increasing
dramatic tension and commenting on the other narrative threads
demonstrates a level of sophistication that Eisenstein was never able to
achieve.
Similarly the battle on the ice (from 1937-38) is not much
different in concept than a similar battle montage in Cecil B. DeMille's
The Crusades (1935) with ever shorter shots of the opposing armies
charging in opposite directions. Again, Eisenstein's sequence may be
more skillfully executed, but he was going over already plowed ground.
For myself, and I know many will disagree with me on this, I find
Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible to be a stylistic exercise in the service
of hateful political ideas. It an apologia for Stalin, and while it may
be great filmmaking it ranks with Triumph of the Will as an example of
state sposored propeganda for the party in power. I would not censor
either film, nor would I keep people from seeing The Birth of a Nation,
but I think films like Triumph of the Will and Ivan The Terrible and The
Birth of a Nation need to be discussed in terms of the political and
social contexts from which they arose.
As Eisenstein was reined in and kept from working by Stalin he
became a martyr--in the tradition of Stroheim--but again his critical
reputation had more to do with his political situation than it did with
his actual work. The most recent flowering of rehabilitation for
Eisenstein's reputation came with the publication of some of his
previously untranslated writings a few years ago. The new gimmick was
that Eisenstein really didn't collaborate with Stalin in order to get
back to making movies, and that he was critical of the regime (albeit in
a coded and circumspect manner). Again, this has more to do with the
Russian political climate than it does with any objective or measurable
influence or impact of Eisenstein's film work.
For better or worse it seems to me that the most truly influential
filmmakers in the history of the medium are Griffith, DeMille, Mack
Sennett, Stroheim, Lubitsch, Murnau, Rosselini, Hitchcock and George
Lucas--and I base this list not on whim, but on a genuine attempt to try
to select directors whose work have had lasting and ongoing impact on
the rest of the cinema. I'm sure others will have different opinions.
I do not include Chaplin because I believe he comes out of the Sennett
tradition, though admittedly his pictures are more refined. I do not
include Ford because he comes out of the Griffith/DeMille tradition,
just as I believe that Mamoulian and Rene Clair come out of the Lubitsch
tradition. George Lucas has had a tremendous imapct in the last twenty
years--not all of it good, perhaps. Spielberg, despite some earlier
successes, comes out of the Lucas tradition because his career was
turned around by Raiders of the Lost Ark after several fumbles.
Stroheim and Rosselini brought more realism to the screen, Murnau
brought camera movement. Again, there are any number of other directors
who may have done it better or with more finesse--but these handful are
the most influential. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Where does Eisenstein fit in? Who in the history of the cinema has
followed his ideas in any but fleeting moments? Recently, one might
argue that Oliver Stone has followed in the Eisentein tradition with JFK
and Natural Born Killers, but I think stones films owe just as much to
the neo-realism movement as they do to formal montage.
Eisenstein greatest influence, it seems to me, is a literary one.
The structuralist/post-modern writings of more recent film theorists
grow directly out of the critical tradition established in Eisenstein's
own writings. But I would argue that the current academic infatuation
with "Cinema Studies" has had little more impact than Sergei's writings
did in their time.
Tom Moran
bbir...@earthlink.net writes:
[A lot of interesting stuff, actually. I just want to deal with two tiny
parts of his post]:
>While Connie K. is right to point out the essential difference
>between Griffith's and Eisenstein's editing styles--it would be
>a mistake to suggest that Griffith was only interested in narrative
>in editing. In Intolerance he introduces the Musketeer of the Slums
>with a shot of details in his apartment--clearly designed to explore
>character rather than narrative.
If I remember correctly, several books credit this to suggestions by Von
Stroheim -- and it is keeping with several similar "touches" in Von
Stroheim's films (he introduces the character he plays in "The Wedding
March" in a similar manner).
>Similarly the battle on the ice (from 1937-38) is not much
>different in concept than a similar battle montage in Cecil B.
>DeMille's The Crusades (1935) with ever shorter shots of the
>opposing armies charging in opposite directions. Again,
>Eisenstein's sequence may be more skillfully executed, but he
>was going over already plowed ground.
Although "Alexander Nevsky" is far from being my favorite Eisenstein film,
it always amazes me that people don't see what Eisenstein is doing here.
Watch "The Birth of a Nation." Then watch "Alexander Nevsky." Watching
the two films back to back will show, quite forcefully, that "Nevsky" is
in many ways a Soviet answer to "The Birth of a Nation." The many
parallels are impossible to miss. Only in "Nevsky" the "Klan" get their
ass kicked.
>For myself, and I know many will disagree with me on this,
>I find Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible to be a stylistic exercise
>in the service of hateful political ideas. It an apologia for Stalin,
>and while it may be great filmmaking it ranks with Triumph of the
>Will as an example of state sposored propeganda for the party in
>power.
You're right -- I *do* disagree with you on this. :)
James Agee believed (according to Dwight Macdonald) that Eisenstein
intended "Ivan" to be an allegory -- most forcefully shown in the scene
at the end of Part II, with, as Agee argued, Vladimir Staritsky
symbolizing Eisenstein, and Ivan standing in for Stalin.
The obvious rebuttal, of course is -- if "Ivan" is nothing but a blatant
Stalinist apologia, why was the second part suppressed?
Tom Moran
Erik Stogo
Erik Stogo wrote:
>
>
> June 1930
> Hollywood
>
> Dear Esther Ilinishna!
>
> No time to write--so many things to do and impressions.
>
> Instead of words, I'm sending you a number of images--pictures are
> always more expressive than words!
>
> I embrace you and urgently wait for letters about you, about cinema and
> about me!
>
> Always yours,
>
> Eisenstein
I posted this quote from Eisenstein's correspondence to illustrate one
point. Eisenstein is more than Film Sense and Film Form and his other
arcane writings. He was more than Jay Leyda's translation of his
thoughts, and even more than the glorious works of art--his films that
still fascinate after 70+ years. I carefully use the term "fascinate"
as his films are not always enjoyable and can be maddening. Yet this is
the measure of great art--that he manages to invoke such controversy.
If you doubt this look once again at Rembrandt, Delacroix, and even
Warhol.
Eisenstein was an artist and man, with the heroism and frailties of
both. This somehow was lost in the tawdry academic diatribe that
dominated the posts for a few days.
I am positive that Eisenstein will continue to fascinate into the next
century--long after the pretensions of the theorists are forgotten and
the pundits are dust.
Erik Stogo
Constance Kuriyama
Robert Birchard writes in part:
When he traveled to the West in 1930 after the English language
> pulication of his early theortetical works it was largely an extension
> of Soviet foreign policy and Eisenstein's reputation was promoted by
> critics like Paul Rotha. As an aside, need I mention that virtually all
> of Rotha's criticism is politically motivated--and almost invariably
> soft-headed when one actully consideres what he likes and dislikes in
> the cinema.
Rotha's politics no doubt influenced some of his judgments, but he also
had very strong aesthetic preferences. He thoroughly disliked _Greed_ and
hated _The Salvation Hunters_--for no discernible political reasons.
> While Connie K. is right to point out the essential difference
> between Griffith's and Eisenstein's editing styles--it would be a
> mistake to suggest that Griffith was only interested in narrative in
> editing.
Oh sure. I did say narrative-DOMINATED. But the example you give of
describing the Musketeer's apartment has clear analogues in the novel.
Establishing character is essential to narrative.
> Eisenstein is noted (quite justifiably, I believe) for several
> famous sequences--the Odessa Steps in Potemkin, and the battle on the
> ice in Nevsky come to mind. However, there are precednts for both of
> these sequences in earlier American films.
Ah, but precedence and influence are two different matters. It is
Eisenstein who is studied in film schools (or elsewhere)and imitated.
Laurence Olivier specifically based his strategy for filming the charge of the
French knights in Henry V on Nevsky.
As for _Natural Born Killers_, realism of any kind would be the last aesthetic
movement I would associate it with, though I could see that for _JFK_.
> Where does Eisenstein fit in? Who in the history of the cinema has
> followed his ideas in any but fleeting moments? Recently, one might
> argue that Oliver Stone has followed in the Eisentein tradition with JFK
> and Natural Born Killers, but I think stones films owe just as much to
> the neo-realism movement as they do to formal montage.
>
> Eisenstein greatest influence, it seems to me, is a literary one.
> The structuralist/post-modern writings of more recent film theorists
> grow directly out of the critical tradition established in Eisenstein's
> own writings. But I would argue that the current academic infatuation
> with "Cinema Studies" has had little more impact than Sergei's writings.
I hope you're right. I hate to see wholesale fraud triumph.
Connie K.
ChaneyFan
Tom Moran said:
>>.The obvious rebuttal, of course is -- if "Ivan" is nothing but a
blatant
Stalinist apologia, why was the second part suppressed?
I'm amazed to hear myself say this, but I think Tom is absolutely correct
and Bob Birchard is absolutely wrong. (Sorry Bob...let's still have lunch
at Cinefest!)
ChaneyFan
Bob Birchard said (in reference to the 1954 A STAR IS BORN):
>>>When I saw it I felt the film was a rather jumbled mess of great scenes
with little coherent continuity and I was ready to assume that Cukor was
right. But when I saw Ron Haver's restoration, for me the film was just
more of the same--still episodic, still disjointed and just a lot
longer.
I agree completely, and have never understood the hysteria film people
have over this film, which I consider an abortion of a remake of the
Gaynor/March version, but that's what makes horse races. This raises an
issue that may have relevance to GREED and other films where they were
heavily cut by those other than the director (and where original cuts are
no longer extant). Throughout cinema history, studios have taken over
rough cuts and edited them down and we bemoan the loss of great classics.
But my impression...at least based on the limited numbers of films where
both versions are available...is that sometimes a longer version is a bit
better, but it is usually only by slight degrees. A few more recent
examples recently cited are ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA and HEAVEN'S GATE.
OK, the cut versions really aren't very good...but can you say the uncut
"masterpieces" are?? Certainly studio tampering can hurt a film (e.g.,
the reissue of LOST HORIZON is a good film, the uncut version a great
one), and more recently, I thought the original release of THE ABYSS was a
pretty good (if problematic) film, whereas the original cut is a fabulous
one (and this was even cut down by the director!!). But let's get real
here. A great 4 hr film, in the hands of a competent editor (Bob
Birchard...want to comment on this?) can nearly always be made into a
pretty damn good film. If a 90-120 min cut of a 4 hr film is incoherent,
it is probably as good as the editor could do given the material at hand.
Tom Moran
chan...@aol.com writes:
>Tom Moran said:
>> The obvious rebuttal, of course is -- if "Ivan" is nothing
>> but a blatant Stalinist apologia, why was the second part
>> suppressed?
> I'm amazed to hear myself say this, but I think Tom is
> absolutely correct and Bob Birchard is absolutely wrong.
> (Sorry Bob...let's still have lunch at Cinefest!)
I don't think Bob is "absolutely" wrong. There's a lot of room here for
interpretation.
Eisenstein's relationship to the Soviet regime and to Stalin personally
deserves close study. It's a fascinating subject.
Eisenstein, like Pasternak, never went off to the camps, while seeing
friends and colleagues sent off to their deaths.
Eisenstein's friends and collaborators Meyerhold and Babel were both
imprisoned in the Lubayanka and then shot. Eisenstein preserved
Meyerhold's archive at great risk to himself.
I would suggest reading the recent book "Arrested Voices" by Vitaly
Shentalinsky. The Free Press published it last year. It contains parts of
the NKVD file on Isaac Babel (including his interrogation, which mentions
Eisenstein), and the horrifying account of Meyerhold's torture at the
hands of the NKVD.
Tom Moran