Nothing besides a statue of a nude woman for a few seconds.


Film review:Translated by www.rabudo-ru.com


1、 Foreword

There are a large number of articles and works on the battleship Potemkin (hereinafter referred to as Potemkin). It can be said that this is a video that has been repeatedly analyzed a long time ago. It can be said that it is difficult to see the film from a new perspective. Then why should I make another analysis of the “Potemkin” here? I like “bojiangjin” very much, and I have watched this film many times. In the repeated watching, “bojiangjin” still bursts into new vitality again and again. The analysis of this film hopes not only to expound the greatness of “bojiangjin” again from the perspective of film aesthetics, but also to make a comparative study of “bojiangjin” and the film works closely related to it in various periods from the perspective of film history. It also hopes to excavate Eisenstein’s artistic ideas from the director Eisenstein’s own papers and works and in combination with “bojiangjin” itself.

2、 Eisenstein and montage

Before analyzing the “potgen king”, we must once again mention the film’s director Sergei M. Eisenstein. Eisenstein was not the inventor of montage, but he was definitely a filmmaker who carried forward montage theory. After kurishov’s experiment, Soviet filmmakers began to put forward the theory that montage was the basis of film. The classification of montages is a very interesting problem. For example, putovkin divides montages into five categories: contrast, parallel, analogy, simultaneous development and recurring themes. For the time being, I don’t want to talk about the similarities and differences of the theories of many Soviet filmmakers, including kurishov, podovkin and wiltov. Here, I only discuss Eisenstein’s classification. According to Eisenstein’s consistent style, the words and sentences of his classification are very difficult to understand. He said that Montage is divided into:

1. The earliest power – length montage (Metric), which is similar to the length of music, is based on the length of the lens.

2. The earliest appeal, rhythm montage, is based on the length of the lens and the internal motion of the picture.

3. Lyrical appeal – tonal, based on the infectious response of the lens.

4. Multi tone appeal – overtonal, based on the overall dominant emotion of the whole film.

5. Rational appeal – rational montage is the combination of rational response and the dominant appeal of conscience after thinking.

This classification method was proposed by Eisenstein in his 1929 book the method of montage. As for the sixth montage he added in the mid-1930s, we won’t talk about it for the time being. In his book film language, Marcel Martin pointed out that this classification method well summarizes all types of montages from simple to complex, and believes that this classification method is the best in the classification of Soviet filmmakers. And I think what Eisenstein and podovkin said is not the same thing at all. Eisenstein pays more attention to the macro pattern of montage, whether the montage is long or moving in the lens, or the appeal produced by the lens. He doesn’t care whether montage is the impact of comparison, and doesn’t even mention that montage is completed through splicing or scheduling. We can also find that Eisenstein’s Montage classification focuses on what we often call “ideological montage”. In many videos of Eisenstein, we can find that his montage tries to express his thoughts through conflict, but obviously does not make enough effort to pursue smooth narration, such as the general route in 1929, It is even ridiculous in the narration of many links, even including his masterpiece October. Although it has strong expressiveness, it still has loopholes in the narration.

This wave of filmmakers in the Soviet Union is called the montage school. More specifically, they are the ideological montage school, especially Eisenstein. Compared with the fluency pursued by Putin, he pays particular attention to conflict and has an almost paranoid pursuit of lens conflict expression. The montage we are talking about now even includes the simplest splicing, some narrative skills, and the attributes emphasized by the Soviet montage school.

Let’s review some film history. Let’s take a look at the northern European filmmaker Benjamin Christensen’s work the mystious X in 1913, which has a very clear last-minute rescue (it is inaccurate to say that Griffith invented the last-minute rescue), His 1922 work “the witch” (haxan) brought the visual language to the extreme. Let’s look at D.W. Griffith. Griffith’s films show some cats, dogs and trees, which were regarded by earlier filmmakers as things unrelated to the film, which is also a breakthrough in montage. There is also the magnificent push track lens in the Italian film Cabiria in 1914. And Fritz Lang’s smooth narrative clip in the 1922 video Dr. Mabuse, the gambler. There are also the general, 1926, dir. Buster Keaton and Nosferatu, 1922, dir. F.W. Murnau. We find that even before the kurishov experiment (1917), montage has experienced great development in narration. In intolerance, 1916, dir. D.W. Griffith and the gambler Dr. Mabus mentioned earlier, montage, at least narrative montage, is very mature.

If you have seen some classic films from 1913 to 1928, you can certainly find that “the bojankin” is different from any of the films mentioned in the previous paragraph. The reason lies in Eisenstein’s paranoid pursuit of ideological montage. In fact, Eisenstein disapproved of the last-minute rescue. Pauline Kael called “the Potemkin” a highly skilled but oversimplified “cartoon”. In fact, this was mentioned in a praising film review. My interpretation of Pauline Kyle’s view is that superb technology refers to the successful use of a large number of ideological montages, and over simplification does not mean that the story is simple or the politics is too correct (no one will accuse Robert Bresson’s film of being too simple), but its neglect of the narrative role of montages, “Cartoon” is the inevitable result of such a montage application.

3、 Structure and passion

Eisenstein’s works are very extensive, and his collection of papers and works reached as many as six volumes when it was published in the Soviet Union in the 1960s. If you have read Eisenstein’s thesis, it is not difficult to find that Eisenstein is a very erudite person, and his film theoretical research is very interdisciplinary. In on the structure of works, you greatly quote the composition of classical famous paintings, even use mathematical formulas to demonstrate, and quote the aesthetic principles of architecture. However, in my opinion, the core of Eisenstein’s works has always been structure and passion, which are taken from his works on the structure of works and passion. Many other works of Eisenstein, such as nature is not indifferent, the language of film, the method of montage and the dialectics of film form, are actually discussing the problem of structure and passion. In the chapter passion, Eisenstein believes that the film needs to make the audience enter a crazy state, which is the essence of passion. Although not explicitly written, I infer that Eisenstein believes that this madness is achieved through conflict. Most of the “conflict” we talk about now refers to the conflict in drama, as repeatedly emphasized in Robert McKee’s drama theory. However, Eisenstein refers to the “conflict” in vision and lens language. In the dialectics of film form, Eisenstein divides conflicts into ten categories: 1 Graphic conflict; 2. Plane conflict; 3. Volume conflict; 4. Conflict in space; 5. Conflict of light; 6. Rhythm conflict; 7. Conflict between material and viewpoint; 8. Conflict between matter and its spatial nature; 9. Conflict with its temporary nature; 10. Conflicts in audio-visual counterpoint. And believed that montage created conflict. (however, in fact, many of the above conflicts are realized by composition.)

We can find that just as Eisenstein has a strong paranoia about montage’s classification, he is also naive in the division of conflict, although this classification better summarizes the attributes of visual conflict and rational conflict to a certain extent.

Eisenstein’s pursuit of passion and conflict is clearly reflected in the Bo Jiang Jin.

In addition, Eisenstein is obviously influenced by Hegel in the structure of his works. Hegel put forward the syllogism dialectics of subject, antithesis and combination in the 19th century. Eisenstein adopted this method in his video.

In the following paragraphs, I will analyze the Potemkin in detail through the structure and passion, as well as the application of montage. Eisenstein divides the Bo Jiang Jin into five chapters: man and maggot; Deck storm; The cry of the dead; Odessa ladder; Victory assembly division. It tells the whole story of the mutiny of the warship bozejin in chronological order.

4、 Man and maggot

This is the first chapter of the Potemkin. At the beginning of the chapter, the fierce waves beat against the rocks and dams. There are five scenes, indicating the fierce bojiangjin mutiny and revolution. Then a long string of subtitles appeared to the effect that the torrent of revolution was coming. Then we cut to the dialogue between the two sailors on the USS Potemkin. The main idea of the dialogue is to hope that the sailors on the USS Potemkin will support the revolution. Then there is a group of eight scenes in which the sailors sleep very heavily. Generally, the scenes vary from far to near. Here they are cut very fast, and each lens takes about 2 seconds. Then the officer entered the cabin. After a few shots, the officer woke up a young sailor. Here, Eisenstein used what he called the first type of montage, that is, the earliest power, to show a comparison between the neat clothes of officers and the ragged clothes of sailors in the same picture, and to show a comparison between the arrogance of military officers and the anger and confusion of sailors through a close-up (or close-up) of sailors’ facial expressions, It clearly showed that the sailors were oppressed by the officers on the battleship Potemkin. The next group of scenes is very interesting. The sailor wakulinchuk we saw before began to call on his comrades in arms to actively participate in the revolution in the cabin. We saw him give an impassioned speech. With rich body movements, the subtitles showed the attributes of his speech, and then cut to other sailors. They seemed to be awakened by his speech, Then cut back to wakulinchuk to give an impassioned speech, and then cut back to other sailors. This time, they are not half asleep, but completely awake. It seems that they are communicating with wakulinchuk, and everyone has different reactions. From sleep, to half sleep and half wake, and then to wake up, a group of rhythm montages connected by wakulinchuk’s revolutionary speech seems to be wakulinchuk’s speech “awakening” the oppressed sailors. Sure enough, in the next set of shots, on the deck, the sailors said they would never eat rotten meat again: “this thing doesn’t even eat dogs. This meat can climb into the sea by itself.” Next, the ship doctor came to check the rotten meat. Through this close-up lens, the audience clearly saw that the meat was full of rushing. However, the ship doctor said that it was not maggots and the meat was no problem. At this time, the camera photographed the ship doctor from the direction of the sailors, indicating that the class opposition on the battleship bojiangjin had ignited the anger of the sailors. Sure enough, the sailors didn’t buy this set, and the contradiction completely arose, and the conflict was imminent. The struggle began. First we saw the senior officers start pushing the sailors. Then there are a series of shots of the sailors working, including a close-up shot of a gun barrel. We can clearly see that the sailors are complaining about their work. Eisenstein was also afraid that his image was not clear enough. He added a subtitle “helpless anger is spreading”. In fact, it is unnecessary, and the audience can see it clearly. In the early silent films, I mean that before 1925, such redundant explanatory subtitles were very common, just like the title of a comic book. Such subtitles were completely superfluous. Griffith seemed to want to mark everything with subtitles. At that time, even if the filmmakers were better than Griffith and the genius was like Eisenstein, Nor does it completely give the narrative to the picture. Let’s get back to the point. After this subtitle, Eisenstein arranged many scenes of the outbreak of conflict, mainly the sailors refusing to drink borscht. Then the sailor who washed the plates for the officers saw that “give me daily meal” was written on the plate. The more he looked, the more angry he became. The lens repeatedly switched between the close-up of the sailor’s face and the close-up of the plate. Each time he switched, the sailor’s anger increased a little. This group of rhythm montages has a strong traction effect. Until finally, he broke the plate. The scene of breaking the plate is very interesting. Eisenstein starts from nine (or eight?) The scene of the same plate falling is shot from different angles and edited together. Each sub mirror overlaps with each other, thus prolonging the time of the plate falling on the screen, This usage is similar to the scene in which John Travolta injected adrenaline into UMA Thurman in the pulp fiction directed by Quentin Tarantino in 1994. This concludes the first chapter.

The first chapter “man and maggot” did not have a bloody conflict, but showed that the sailors’ anger kept rising and reached the threshold at the end of the chapter, which naturally opened the second chapter “deck situation”. The overall use of montage in the whole first chapter can be said to be tonal, that is, what Eisenstein calls lyrical appeal. However, in the first chapter, Eisenstein rarely uses graphics, planes, light, etc. in composition to create visual Abstract conflict effects. At most, it is also the comparison between officers and soldiers, which does not contain more abstract conflict metaphors.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here