Why and How did the Soviet Filmmakers place such a great emphasis on Montage as part of the production of meaning in films?
The term montage derives from the French language, in which it originally signified assembly. When given that first meaning, it is no surprise the Soviet filmmakers of the 1920s – S.M. Eiseinstein, Dziga Vertov, Lev Kuleshov, Vsevolod Pudovkin – used that word to describe the finding of their endless research for the essence of film.
André Bazin defines montage as “(…) the creation of a sense or meaning, not proper to the image themselves, but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition”. In other words, a shot alone will have no resonance while two shots, linked by a cut, will develop a meaning. This is indeed very close to the assembly line set-up. A screw on its own is useless, a thread as well. But if you joined them, you have a usable piece. This comparison goes even further as Lev Kuleshov suggests it: “(…) with montage it becomes possible both to break down and re-construct, and ultimately re-make the material”. This is similar to a way a product is created. It is a series of components broken down for the greatest efficiency, constructed to make an applicable object and whose very parts can be replaced, thus offering the possibility of a different function. Or, as the Soviet filmmakers saw it, a different meaning.
But, meaning doesn’t simply refer to a purely intellectual message conveyed through images. It goes much deeper than that and echoes a visceral feeling. Indeed, sensations such as joy, shock and awe would push the viewers out of their comfort zones and force them to critically think about their preconceived opinions and ideas.
To explain why montage was so emphasized, one must seek for the motives. And they go beyond cinema. As artists, the Soviet filmmakers were intricately connected to society. Their country was going through a political, social and economic revolution. And montage both echoed and influenced that. It showed their truth, their interpretation of Soviet society. And yet, the Kremlin used montage as propaganda. Why links to the substance of the montage: the historical context, the artistic search and vision.
To show how montage was highlighted refers to a technical and mechanical aspect of filmmaking. It led to breakthroughs that changed the film form. For instance, BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (Bronyenosyets Potyomkin, S.M. Eiseinstein, 1925) and THE MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA (Chelovek s kino-apparatom, Dziga Vertov, 1929) are considered by both film scholars and moviemakers landmarks in respectively fiction film and documentary.1
Before understanding why montage was so emphasized by the Soviet filmmakers, it is relevant to concisely explore the historical context of the USSR in the 1920s. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks – a party of Marxist ideology – seized power, therefore starting a socialist revolution. For the next six years, the Russian Civil War teared apart the country, concluded by the success of the Red Army against the opposition. In December 1922, Lenin legalized the USSR. There was a single party (Communist Party of the SU). The economy was under GOSPLAN’s strict plans. All companies were nationalized. But, there was also a social revolution. Every citizen of the USSR became a ‘comrade’, exposed to communist ideas. In 1924, Stalin became USSR’s leader, consolidating the country status as a dictatorship.
Soviet filmmakers lived in that context, as communist men but also as artists. Their work was directly influenced by the USSR, their montage created a meaning that played a key role in the revolution. As a soviet newspaper notoriously published: « The cinema is the only book that even the illiterate can read ». That thought was put into a legislation on December 1921 by the Congress which highlights the « tremendous agitational and educational significance which the cinema might and should have for the broad masses of the population ». The facts were simple: montage succeeded where the Pravda relatively failed. It reached an ever-growing audience of uneducated people. The aim was to mobilise the masses into active involvement with the Bolshevik cause. Montage was therefore a crucial part of communist’s propaganda as Lenin remarks it: « Of all the arts for us the cinema is the most important », us referring to the USSR. One can argue Lenin saw cinema as a communication medium rather than an art (though he called it art). A medium sole purpose is to efficiently convey ideas and agendas.
Nevertheless, montage was not just a mere propaganda tool. It was also an art within the seventh art, whose practitioners gladly used to display the communist thoughts they shared. And it made the audience react - at first on a very visceral level - to the action on screen, to the cut operated between two shots. As Kuleshov points it out in Art of the Cinema and The Principles of Montage, it created « spontaneous » responses and had « an extraordinary effect on the viewer ». Audience members would be impressed by the footage, forced to tackle issues. But montage would shock. Shocking would catapult the viewers into the reality of their own lives, thus enabling one’s introspection. There is an emotional link created by montage, wether it is joy, revenge or revolution. And it is that emotional component that allows access to propaganda. In STRIKE (Stachka, S.M. Eiseinstein, 1925), those characteristics are highlighted by a sequence (from 18:55 to 29:20). The workers are taking over the factory as a sign of defiance towards the direction. The ‘comrads’ are moving quickly as a united crowd. They are lifting their fists to express satisfaction and victory, shouting in rage. This all builds up to a quite violent climax (from 27:00 to 29:20), where the workers throw their superiors in the water. All shots have at least one human subject in them, allowing identification. The kinetic cutting between them creates a sense of dynamism and gets across the feelings of the different workers: the old woman, the young man and the crowd.
That type of montage creates an immediate reaction in the audience. The joys to see the workers doing justice. The pride to know one is part of that group. The shock of the violence and revenge felt by the characters. The viewer must think again about his world. That reasoning solidifies the constant ‘revolution of the people’: how are one’s co-workers? How is one’s boss? Does one honour the communist’s values? That scene is not simply about workers assaulting the hierarchy. It is also about communist values of comradery. This is about the fight of the people against capitalism; this is about the revolution of the people against injustice; the embodiment of Marx’s class conflict. History has showed that USSR was not an equal system but it did appear to be one. Through a single sequence, Eisenstein has used montage to product communist meaning, share an ideology and convey primal emotions. In other terms, Eisenstein’s montage plays on an emotional, psychological and ideological level. Thanks to the adequate juxtaposition of all the above shots, the audience – from Moscow to Omsk, from St. Petersburg to Magadan – did all that reading. Everything might not be conscious or a direct reaction to the montage but the strength of art as propaganda is to plant a seed in people’s mind and let the seed germ on its own.
Montage also educated people about USSR’s history, way of life and politics. It enabled one to discover its country, meet its co-citizens and be inspired by others’ stories. Most of Eiseinstein films were based on true events (modified on screen if necessary to suit the Kremlin). BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN shows a dramatized version of the Potemkin mutiny against the Tsarism in 1905. OCTOBER (Oktyabr’, S.M. Eiseinstein, 1928) celebrates the 10th anniversary of the Red Revolution.
Unlike Eiseinstein, Vertov used montage to show the world as truthfully as possible (not a fictionalized account of it). The KINO-PRAVDA newsreel series used montage to show a truth that could not be perceived otherwise and inform the viewers. One can argue Vertov thought the camera was a device to understand the world. Those reels were crafted to subtly inspire greater commitment and dedication to the USSR.
Even if Soviet filmmakers had slightly different visions of montage, it was equally emphasized to produce meaning (in different fashions but with the same end result: communist ideology). Nevertheless, there is another fundamental reason as to why montage was so much emphasized. In the 1920s, cinema was an extremely young art and critics, thinkers and practioners were looking for the ‘soul’ of film. For the Soviet filmmakers, it was editing that defined cinema and the creation of meaning. According to Kuleshov in The Principles of Montage, « (…) montage represents the essence of cinema technique ». It is through montage that the filmmaker presents the world around him as he interprets it. Every step leads to the montage. The popular “Shoot for the edit” motto could be applied to the Soviet filmmakers of the 1920s. Eisenstein stated that « Montage is conflict ». For him, it also represents the “Holy Graal” of cinema, creating content as « a series of shocks », put together in a particular order to create a precise emotion or thought. Eisenstein also used montage to build up metaphors. In STRIKE, he intercuts workers with cattle to suggest the former are treated like the latter. Montage was so emphasized because it impacts the audience on multiple levels and is the product of a tireless research for the essence of film. But, cinema is as much about content than it is about form. The Soviet filmmakers developed different rules in order to emphasize montage. One will understand how they precisely served the substance.
Kuleshov was a pioneer of montage, being the first to identify the dynamics of it (the meaning is created when two shots are juxtaposed). In The Principles of Montage, he recalls an experiment he conducted in 1916-1917. The emotionless face of a man was intercut with action shots. And depending on the action shot (a coffin, a bowl of soup, a woman), the reaction shot of the man seemed appropriate.
The audience would point him – though he had the exact same expression – as sad, hungry and happy.
The first step to create a montage that produces meaning is to play on the juxtaposition, thus creating a meaning that wouldn’t be present in the footage if edited in a continuous fashion.
Eisenstein is known for his five Methods of Montage. The first is metric. Each shot is the exact same length, building up tension and emotion in the scene. On the audience, it works almost as hypnosis.
The second is rhythmic. It goes further than a metric montage. Indeed, it is not only the rhythm of the shots but also the movement within the frame that affects the cutting. The most famous, unavoidable example is the Odessa steps in BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. One shall examine a small section of that montage piece, from 49:17 to 49:23 – composed of six shots. This is a dynamic part, where the carriage going down cut to the baby in distress. The next shot features soldiers at the top of the frame shooting at strikers in the low-hand side of the frame. In a way, it is metaphorically suggested the army is also shooting at the baby. The fourth frame is of a reaction shot of a man shouting in fear. It is followed by the carriage going down, but we are now looking at a complete frame with carriage and baby in the same space, which we did not see previously. This fall leads to the canon of the Potemkin moving to the left of the frame, as if the baby falling is the cataclysm and metaphor for the whole scene. It appears obvious the movement in the frame had an effect on the montage piece.
The third of Eisenstein’s method is tonal. It plays on the emotional and visceral layer of the shots and the montage. The aim is to suscitate the emotion the characters are feeling.
The fourth is called overtonal. It is the sum of the first three methods. It is a much more bold and experimental effect. It can be found in MOTHER (Mat, Vsevolod Pudovkin, 1926). The men are walking together towards a confrontation while icy and watery grounds are intercut, to show the fragile situation they are in.
The fifth and last is intellectual. The shots create a metaphor and convey a clear idea. It stresses its point heavily.
Dziga Vertov had much more of what would later be called a documentary-type approach. This is his “Cinema-Eye”, the camera eye being more perfect than a human eye. Montage is a tool for observation, to highlight by juxtapositions something that could not be seen by the typical man. The way the camera is placed is relevant to Vertov’s theory of montage. To him, the shots have to reflect the truth of the world. Famous shots and ‘tricks’ showed the world in a way it had never been seen before. They were directed thanks to wide-angle lens, shooting lens into lens as well very new techniques like the integration of two shots together.
As part of a montage, those shots came together to create a ‘magnum’ view of reality, as well as an empirical one: witnessing real-life events to see the truth.
Montage was so emphasized on the production of meaning by Soviet filmmakers of the 1920s because it served the political goals of their age. It also created strong audience reactions on emotional, psychological and ideological levels. Last but not least, montage consisted in the essence of cinema, where the juxtaposion of two shots creates a signification that is not present in the shots when seen separately. The moving image and editing is what makes cinema different from any other arts, such as literature or photography.
Montage was emphasized with the use of editing techniques and rules, most of it being the direct result of experimentations.
TZ,
May '11
Bibliography
Aumont, J. (2005), Montage Eisenstein, Images Modernes
Bernstein, S. Milza, P. (1997), Histoire du XXe siècle, Hatier
Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (2001), Film Art - An Introduction, The McGraw-Hill Companies
Eisenstein, S.M. (1949), The Film Form, Harcourt Brace and Company
Eisenstein, S.M. (1942), The Film Sense, Harcourt Brace and Company
Gillespie, D. (2000), Early Soviet Cinema: Innovation, Ideology and Propaganda, Wallflower Press
Kuleshov, L. (1974), Kuleshov on Film: Writings of Lev Kuleshov, University of California PressLeyda, J. (1983), Kino – A History of The Russian and Soviet Film, Princeton University Press
Taylor, R. ( 1979), The Politics of The Soviet Cinema, Cambridge University Press
Taylor, R. & Spring, D. (1993), Stalinism and Soviet Cinema, Routledge: London and New York
Bernstein, S. Milza, P. (1997), Histoire du XXe siècle, Hatier
Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (2001), Film Art - An Introduction, The McGraw-Hill Companies
Eisenstein, S.M. (1949), The Film Form, Harcourt Brace and Company
Eisenstein, S.M. (1942), The Film Sense, Harcourt Brace and Company
Gillespie, D. (2000), Early Soviet Cinema: Innovation, Ideology and Propaganda, Wallflower Press
Kuleshov, L. (1974), Kuleshov on Film: Writings of Lev Kuleshov, University of California PressLeyda, J. (1983), Kino – A History of The Russian and Soviet Film, Princeton University Press
Taylor, R. ( 1979), The Politics of The Soviet Cinema, Cambridge University Press
Taylor, R. & Spring, D. (1993), Stalinism and Soviet Cinema, Routledge: London and New York
