Eisenstein DVD's (1 Viewer)

[Daniel J.S.]

^^^Exactly. Simple cutting depicts the action, while montage conveys ideas behind the action. In "The Untouchables" the juxtaposition of violence with the innocence of the baby, we get a picture of the innocent being exposed for the first time to the corruption and violence of the real world.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Daniel - would it be possible for you to cut and paste the exact text of the email you received for us?

Thanks.

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

I have nothing really to add except that if you are on the fence debating whether or not to pick up Eisenstein: The Sound Years (featuring both Nevsky and Ivan) or Henry V, then I am here to push you off the fence. Both are worth every penny.

And Bruce Eder's commentary track on Henry V is the 2nd-Best ever recorded. Wonderful stuff!

Buy buy buy!!

 

[Daniel J.S.]

Sorry, I deleted it already, but the message said that nothing was scheduled for this year but they hoped they would have something for 2004. Given that an old Digital Bits interview said that they were looking at all the films, the message tells me that the silents are definitely being worked on. It's probably just taking a long time because the prints are in horrible shape.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Well, thanks for passing on the info anyway.

You rock.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

^^^I party every day too.

BTW, that's a great sig! Grace is a fine piece of tail, no doubt about it!

 

[David Tolsky]

The score from Nevsky is considered to be one of the greatest scores of all time..."

Interesting, and William's score for Jaws is considered to be one of the most popular scores of all time. Now listen to both scores together sometime and you'll see who was influenced by whom...

 

[Ben Motley]

I don't know Daniel. Your explanation of the montage effect of the Untouchables scene just seems to me to be symbolism. A new baby being brought into a life of violence? You have to logically stretch to come to that conclusion. It's more from exercising abstract thought than from visual cues that we take that meaning from the scene. The coronation scene however is much more visually definitive.

I'm not trying to get under your skin here, I just don't see it myself yet, and I obviously need to read up a little on the subject. I know I'm "wrong" about this, but I guess I'm just thick-skulled and stubborn. There's a pretty good looking Eisenstein bio up at Half Price Books I've been eying lately, so maybe I'll finally pick that up and grasp the concept a little more. I'm sure they go into it.

Or maybe you know of a good book, or even a link to a good site on the subject? I could just Google montage for sure, but it sounds like you'd be able to point me in the right direction and cut out some of my legwork. I'd appreciate it.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

I realize I'm not providing the best explanation as I'm trying to create one from memory of what I read. If you're looking for books, "The Cinema of Eisenstein" by David Bordwell is really good. He doesn't give a textbook definition of montage as far as I read, but he does describe the use of montage well enough that you can pick up what it's all about.

 

[Ben Motley]

Thanks Daniel! I'll keep my eye out for it. It looks like it may be out of print, but there're a bunch of used book stores around here - I'll put that on my hunt list.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

As far as I know, it's still in print, but it may be too esoteric for the big chains (what are the major chain bookstores in the States? I think Borders is one. What are the others?). You may have to try a specialty store or order on-line.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Here's what I think is good example of extreme use of montage: the films of Aronofsky- Pi and Requiem For A Dream. The latter, especially, uses montage and severe editing to create the paranoid and nervous feel of the film, portraying the emotions of the characters.

In the famous sequence of the guy taking heroin, all you see are flashes of images, none of which makes much sense by itself (the eye dilating, some bubbles, the needle, etc). These seemingly stand-alone pictures combine to create a narrative and idea above and beyond what's on the screen.

 

[Daniel J.S.]

^^^Yeah! That movie does have lots of montage in it. I can't believe I forgot about it, especially since I saw it about a week ago!

 

[Mike Broadman]

Of course Aronofsky uses it to an extreme, which defines his style, but an extreme example might help illustrate the point.

Also, I think if one is confused by "montage" and "symbolism," that's because montage is a technique or tool while symbolism can be the goal. That is, montage can be used to create symbolism.

 

[Ben Motley]

Hmmm, that bit about montage being the tool and symbolism being but one possible goal has me thinkin' Mike. I think that's helping me out of the box a bit.

Daniel, it looks like the book is still in print. I had only looked at Amazon, where they only had a few copies offerred by individuals, but I just checked Borders, and both the hardback and softback look to be available. Being a university book though, with a steep price, I'll still hit the second hand stores first.

As for Requiem, I love that movie, but have only watched it twice. It kinda sucks the life outa ya. Still, in my opinion, it's a great modern cinematic achievement.