The model of such correspondences, he writes, is to be derived from “Man and the relations between his gestures and the intonations of his voice” and to seek to capture one’s “first and most spontaneous perceptions,” those “sharp, fresh, lively impressions invariably derive from the most variable fields” (71). Indeed, he quotes Byron’s suggestion that “the great art is effect, no matter how produced” (72) and advocates what he calls “polyphonic montage” (75), which brings to bear multiple elements in which correspondence is to be sought. This definition apparently seeks out unified thematic ends, but Eisenstein insists that there “be no arbitrary limits set on the variety of expressive means that can be drawn upon by the filmmaker” (70). Representation A and representation B must be so selected from all the possible features within the theme that is being developed, must be so sought for, that their juxtaposition – the juxtaposition of those very elements, and not of alternative ones – shall evoke in the perception and feelings of the spectator the most complete image of the theme itself (69). In film, this operation hinges upon the operations of juxtaposition and synchronization opened up by the development of the medium – operations described by Eisenstein in the chapter ‘Synchronization of the Senses.’ Eisenstein begins the chapter with a definition of montage that reaches towards his ideal synthesis: Later we will borrow from music and call it rhythm” (cited in Eisenstein 1975/1942: 68). We will borrow from painting first and call it pattern. Forster suggests, brings together different forms of art, and in turn redefines them: “…indeed the more the arts develop the more they depend on each other for definition. The historical development of the arts, as E.M. Eisenstein’s is a vision and practice deriving from the technological and socio-cultural resources available in a particular historic moment the ’film sense,’ as it were, exceeds the five senses via the exploration of such syntheses, pushing the bounds of art and experience in a fresh medium. To be clear, the tendency towards the kinds of sensuous correspondences (and possible syntheses) Eisenstein seeks to exploit is not fixed by nature. For Eisenstein, it seems, the artful production of montage both necessitates and facilitates a conceptualization of the world and a creative practice that traverse the traditional bounds of sensory perception. The experiential synthesis he describes entails a reverberation of these elements compiled in the composition of edited film. At the same time, Eisenstein’s ideas in Film Sense address – or indeed, require – a basis in perception and affect which entails a pre-existing tendency to connect corresponding elements – image, sound and color – and their arrangement, with particular emotional resonances. Film extends the human sensorium insofar as it makes possible the experience of audiovisual (re)combinations unavailable with prior media technologies, and unattainable in unaided everyday experience. The direction Eisenstein charts towards the synthesis of multiple images and perspectives (through a coordinated juxtaposition in montage) and the synthesis of these, in turn, with a soundtrack (drawing sound and image into a ‘common movement’ through different forms of synchronization) describes a particular sensory experience made possible via the creative deployment of the technologies of film production. Taken as a whole, Eisenstein’s arguments can be related to McLuhan’s insistence on conceptualizing media as extensions of our senses or faculties. In The Film Sense (1975/1942), Sergei Eisenstein, the Soviet filmmaker celebrated for work including Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Alexander Nevsky (1938), speaks to film’s potential to bring together otherwise disparate elements of human sensory (and emotional) experience in search of a representational synthesis which exceeds the sum of its parts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |