Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies: Assignment 2 (27/11/10 – 05/12/10)

The University of Warwick Open Studies Certificate: ‘Introduction to Film and Cinema Studies’; Term 1 “1895-1950: The Birth and Development of Narrative Film"; (27/11/10)

Assignment 2: 2,000 Summative Essay

Title: Discuss the ways in which Battleship Potemkin demonstrates Eisenstein’s theory of montage: (Word count: 2, 181)

Despite personal opinions on Sergei Eisenstein’s merits as a filmmaker and a theorist, I find his oeuvre fascinating.  I hope I do not seem naïve in my choice of focus but I find his work exhibits an aesthetic style unto itself.  I first encountered Eisenstein prior to studying him during A’ Level Film Studies. Hopefully I can pursue this interest if I have the opportunity to attend university in 2011, though I’ve relished having this chance on the Open Studies certificate. 

At the end of each term on the Open Studies Certificate we are expected to write a 2,000 word summative essay on an aspect of Cinema we have studied in the previous sessions. Due to the time restraints within the lessons, this is the opportunity that allows us to do further research into an area that interests us. This research then contributes to a structured goal; writing a graded assignment. 

To be honest I was stumped with the suggested essay questions presented. I enjoyed many of the areas studied so I couldn’t make a decision. I eventually narrowed it down to these questions: 

‘How do The Cabinet of Dr Caligari and Nosferatu both show the influence of Expressionism. Refer to both the narrative and to the style of film making.’

‘Discuss the use of animal and insect imagery in Nosferatu.’

‘Discuss the ways in which Battleship Potemkin demonstrates Eisenstein's theory of montage.’

‘Compare and contrast the role of the individual in the work of Eisenstein and the work of an American film maker of your choosing.’

‘What does Film Noir owe to German Expressionism and where does it differ?’ 

I have previously studied German Expressionism and Soviet Montage cinema during A2 Film Studies. Apart from the Film Studies examination, I didn’t have the opportunity to write essays during A’ Level Film Studies. I felt that now this would be the perfect chance to develop my understanding of theses film movements.

After some consideration, I decided to choose to write about Eisenstein. I considered this the perfect opportunity to purchase some more material on him. Though, the problem was to choose either a comparative essay on ‘Typage’ or an application of his theoriesabout Montage to Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, Goskino, USSR, 1925).  I needed a challenge, and already having experienced Eisenstein’s fragmentary theoretical work, I picked the hard option: ‘Discuss the ways in which Battleship Potemkin demonstrates Eisenstein's theory of montage.’

Researching Eisenstein

Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein (Сергей Михайлович Эйзенштейн) (1898-1948)

Eisenstein is intimidating: the translations of his prose are not the easiest to digest and he has been tackled by many an academic. I don’t know whether I have been brave or have been very naïve, I’ll only know when I receive my feedback.

Going into my A2 Film Studies exam (Summer 2010) and having previously chosen to write about Soviet Montage cinema, I had previously invested research into this film movement. This assignment was aided because I had many of the key texts in my possession. 

It’s hard to know where to start with Eisenstein as he wrote such a wealth of theoretical work. Luckily, I devised an approach, with the question in mind, to figuring which essays where significant. Internet sources are problematic as online resources are not always appropriate, so instead I chose to focus on articles included in books. After re-screening Battleship Potemkin, I then happily trawled through Eisenstein’s essays in search of the key ideas about montage; these were then dutifully applied through examples to Potemkin. Key essays by Eisenstein analysed for use in the assignment:

 ‘Beyond the Shot’ (1929); ‘Dramaturgy of Film Form (The Dialectical Approach to Film Form)’ (1929); ‘The Fourth Dimension in Cinema’ (1929); ‘The Fourth Dimension in Cinema’ (Glenny & Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Towards a Theory of Montage (Selected Works Vol. 2)); ‘The Montage of Attractions’ (1923); ‘The Montage of Film Attractions’ (1924); ‘Nonindiffrent Nature’ (1945); ‘Our October: Beyond the Played and the Non-Played’(1928); ‘Perspectives’ (1929); ‘The Principles of New Russia Cinema’ (1930);  ‘The Problem of the Materialist Approach to Form’ (1925).

As montage was a trend in Soviet cinema in the 1920’s I also considered the theoretical work of Lev Kuleshov and Vsevolod Pudovkin.

Researching Film Essay Writing

The stone lions become animated. No, not at the sound of the guns of The Potemkin but instead that of my typing!

I’ll be completely honest. I still have no idea how I get through essay writing. I’m very passionate about my education but my schooling is not what anyone would consider the best. The autodidact inside gives me the drive to improve my essay writing. As I’ve never really being coached into the mechanics of essay writing, it’s an area that I’m self-motivated to work on. 

Apart from only writing essays on aspects of film studies during my A2 exam, I have previously developed research into a structured analysis. This was during my Small Scale Research Project, ‘Excess: An Investigation into Ken Russell’s Status as Auteur’, where I shaped my research into a sequence analysis of The Devils (Ken Russell, Russo Productions, UK, 1971). This was then used as academic evidence during the application to a specific University in 2010.  I chose to write an original academic piece of work, not just because I had no others to submit but I felt it demonstrates both effort and the commitment.

I presume at an undergraduate level, each separate academic discipline has a specific method of essay writing. Film Studies is no different. With the my question in mind (‘Discuss the ways in which Battleship Potemkin demonstrates Eisenstein's theory of montage.’), I investigated the relevant chapters of A Short Guide to Writing about Film (2004), The Film Experience (2009) and Film Art: An Introduction (2006).

It is difficult when there is the lack of an undergraduate external structure (i.e. lectures, seminars, tutorials, workshops and some sort of discussion with peer members) to improve your academic writing skill. It forces you to create an internal structure, through careful planning and research, which will inevitably improve my independent study in the future. 

I am in a tricky position between further and higher education, where it will only take self motivation and determination to improve my situation. I feel the need to develop this year before I attend university.  As my parent’s could not afford me to have a better education, it is only through my own hard work and time can I invest in my progress.  Essay writing is a key area that I will work on this year; only through practice and a sustained understanding of my subject area will I become a desirable academic student.

Conlcusion

Research is essential to anyone’s area of academic study and I wish to acquire an advanced knowledge of the resources and methods that are specific to Film Studies. I feel that through careful development I will improve these skills. This year it is up to me to progress in my abilities to both write and formant  academic work. This will only make me a more efficient student in the future.

This essay has not only strengthened my admiration for Eisenstein but has been significant in the rebuilding of academic confidence. In the future I wish to continue this interest in Eisenstein and Soviet cinema. Hopefully, I will get this chance when I attend a university. Though if not studied as an academic module, I am sure with the resources and facilities provided I will able to do this through private study.  

Bibliography

André Bazin. ‘The Evolution of the Language of Cinema’ in Gray (ed.) What is Cinema? Volume 1. 1967 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press), pp. 23-40.

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2006. Film Art: An Introduction. 8th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education) pp. 105-127.

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. ‘Appendix: Writing a Critical Analysis of a Film’. In Film Art: An Introduction. 2006. 8th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education) pp. 431-439.

Bordwell, David., Thompson, Kristin. 2009. Film History: An Introduction. 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education) pp. 453-456 .

Cook, Pam (Ed.) 2008. The Cinema Book. 4^th ed. (London: BFI).

Corrigan, Timothy J.  2007. A Short Guide to Writing About Film. 6^th edition. (New York: Longman, 2007).

Corrigan, Timothy J. and Patricia White. ‘Writing a Film Essay: Observations, Arguments, Research, and Analysis’. In The Film Experience, An Introduction. 2004. (Bedford: St Martins Press), pp. 476-506.

Doise, Eric. 2009. ‘Unorthodox Iconography: Russian Orthodox Icons in Battleship Potemkin’. Film Criticism. Vol. 33, No. 3, Spring, pp. 50-68. 

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1929. ‘Beyond the Shot’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 138-150.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1929. ‘Dramaturgy of Film Form (The Dialectical Approach to Film Form)’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 161-180.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1929. ‘The Fourth Dimension in Cinema’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 181-194.

Eisenstein, Sergei. ‘The Fourth Dimension in Cinema’ in Glenny & Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Towards a Theory of Montage (Selected Works Vol. 2), pp. 109-202.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1923. ‘The Montage of Attractions’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 33-38.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1924. ‘The Montage of Film Attractions’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 39-58.

Sergei Eisenstein. 1945. ‘Nonindiffrent Nature’ in Marshall (trans.), Nonindiffrent Nature and the Structure of Things (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 216-396.

Sergei Eisenstein. 1928. ‘Our October: Beyond the Played and the Non-Played’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1) (London: BFI), pp. 101-106.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1929. ‘Perspectives’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 151-161.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1930. ‘The Principles of New Russia Cinema’ in Taylor, Richard (ed.) Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 1695-202.

Eisenstein, Sergei. 1925. ‘The Problem of the Materialist Approach to Form’ in Taylor (ed.), Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1), pp. 59-64.

Gillespie, David (2000) Early Soviet Cinema: Innovation, Ideology and Propaganda. Short Cuts. (London: Wallflower Press).

Glenny, Michael. Taylor, Richard (Eds.). 1991. Sergei Eisenstein: Towards a Theory of Montage (Selected Works Vol. 2). (London: British Film Institute).

Gray, Hugh (Ed.). 1967. What is Cinema? (André Bazin: Volume 1). (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).

Hayward, Susan. 1996. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. (Abingdon: Routledge).

Hariharan, Krishnan. 1979. ‘Eisenstein and the Potemkin Revolution’. Social Scientist. Vol. 7, No. 6, Jan, pp. 54-6.

Joyce, Mark.  2007.  ‘The Soviet montage cinema of the 1920’s’ in Nelmes (ed.), Introduction to Film Studies (Abingdon: Routledge) p. 371.

Kiernan, Maureen. 1990.  ‘Making Films Politically: Marxism in Eisenstein and Godard’. Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, No. 10, Marxism and the Critical Discourse, pp. 93-113.

Kuhn, Annette.  2008. ‘Soviet Cinema’. In: P. Cook, ed. The Cinema Book. (London: BFI Publishing) pp. 244-247.

Leyda, Jay. 1960. Kino: History of Russian and Soviet Film. (New York: George Allen & Unwin).

Marshall, Herbert (Trans.). 1987. Nonindiffrent Nature and the Structure of Things (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Nelmes, Jill (Ed.). 2007. Introduction to Film Studies. 4^th ed. (Abingdon: Routledge).

Nilsen, Vladimir. 1972. The Cinema as a Graphic Art. (New York: Hill & Wang).

Nizhny, Vladimir. 1979. Lessons with Eisenstein. (New York: Da Capo Press).

Perkins, V.F. 1972.  Film as Film (London: Penguin Books), pp. 103-106.

Reid, Mark. 2005. ‘Cinema, poetry, pedagogy: Montage as metaphor’. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Vol. 4, No. 1, May, pp. 60-69.

Taylor, Richard (Ed.). 1988. Sergei Eisenstein: Writings 1922-1924 (Selected Works Vol. 1). (London: British Film Institute).

Wollen, Peter. 1969. ‘Eisenstein’s Aesthetics’. In: Signs and Meaning in the Cinema.1997. (London: BFI)

Wollen, Peter. 1997. Signs and Meaning in Cinema. 2^nd ed. (London: BFI)

Filmography

Bronyenosyets Potyomkin /Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, Goskino, USSR, 1925)

Image Source:

‘Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein (Сергей Михайлович Эйзенштейн) (1898-1948)' [online] Available at: http://www.filmint.nu/?q=node/96> [Accessed 12 December 2010]