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]

OCA: Project 10: The Society of the Spectacle – Guy Debord

The Open College of the Arts – Visual Studies 1: Understanding Visual Culture - Part 2: Ways of Seeing.

“The present age... prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence... for in these days illusion only is sacred, truth profane... the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness”

-          Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach, the Essence of Christianity (1843), Preface to Second Edition.

In The Society of the Spectacle (1967), Guy Debord, leader of the Situationist International, declared that “the entire life of societies in which modern conditions of production prevail announces itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles”.  The inseparability of spectacle from the state allows for the reproduction of social divisions and class formations.  Both state capitalism in the former Socialist Bloc and the market capitalism of the West alienated workers through the unity of passively consumed ‘spectacle’.

Debord’s ideas about contemporary society can be seen in context of the political and cultural movements of 1968, especially in France. While Situationist International challenged the art system itself – not wanting a “critique of revolutionary art” but rather a “revolutionary critique of all art” –, The Society of Spectacle  anticipates postmodernism, especially the work of  Baudrillard, through the idea that everything that had once been lived had in the contemporary world transmuted into a representation. Debord shifts away from Marxist Cultural theory’s attention on political economy and into the specturalisation of everyday life. 

Guy Debord

This project was to read Debord’s ‘Separation Perfected’ in the Visual Culture: The Reader (ed. Hall and Evans:  1999) and make notes relating to key themes within the text.

Debord initially addresses the Spectacle as a Weltanschauung; the image has become materially translated and objectified into a world view. The concept of Weltanschauung could be seen as a comprehensive philosophy of the world as it provides frameworks that contribute to a sense of existence through generating various dimensions of human perception and experience. As a paradigm it allows for the broadening of the concept of ideology, as it explains how people order their lives in accordance to their presuppositions about the nature of things. Though this would suggest cultural relativism due to cultural differences of perspective, it does help support the idea of the Spectacle being used an over encompassing state apparatus. This is used not just by national governments but also multinational conglomerates in an increasingly globalised world.  Would digitlisation and media convergence be an extension of this?

As Debord proposes that in modern society “all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into representation”, images become detached thus reality only partially unfolds.  The Specitcalisation of images leads to a world constructed of autonomous images. Spectacle inverts life, not just because it is a collection of images but it is a form of social mediation by images. As a product of the capitalist mode of production, Spectacle doesn’t supplement reality but is central to the unrealism within it.

I believe that the passage of time, since 1967, has confirmed Debord’s view. If the ‘mass media’ is Spectacle in its most limited sense, then would its dominance in modern society show the relevance of Debord’s concepts. Digitlisation is an ideal form which allows for the Society of Spectacle to choose its own technical content; evident in the accumulation and unilateral concentration of communication by conglomerates. Media convergence allows it to invade the function of everyday society, for example the correlation between social networking and corporate interests. Public relations involvement, through censorship and self-promotion, with objective news demonstrates Spectacles’ own aim of self-movement.

By seeing “the world by means of various specialised mediations” means that we have our view of the world controlled. Propaganda is evident in the converging of news and public relations, thus we are unable to distinguish it from reality and truth. This adds to its own subversive nature. Generally we don’t question the mediated representation of reality presented when we see it in the context of news. The stasis of dominant ideology is needed because of the over encompassing nature - strengthened by globalisation - of capitalism and the reciprocal dependence of the masses as consumers. It subjugates individuals to itself in extent of the economy subjugating them thus due to the mutual nature of the base and superstructure; the economic sector shapes image-objects. It is evident in the forms of Spectacle we experience – including advertisements and direct entertainment for consumption – contain elements of propaganda: to sell us objects we don’t really need to satisfy a desire. We are interpellated as the omnipresent affirmation of choices are already made and determined.

It demands passive acceptance because it has, through the consolidation of communication, the monopoly of appearance. As a product of modern production, Spectacle is artificial though its self presentation is positive and indisputable: “That which appears is good, that which is good appears”. Its construction may invades lived reality but spectators contemplate it with positive cohesiveness. Reality seeps through the Spectacle, resulting in this illusion being considered reality. Its perpetuation allows for the satisfied mediation of the social needs of this epoch. The form and content of the Spectacle is justified by the systems goal as our leisure time is occupied by Spectacle, we are never entirely separated from modern production.

Spectacle is related to the Marxist concept of Reification; a process of viewing the abstract as real. Spectacle is an extreme reification as concrete life degraded into speculative the universe, images are detached from their original meaning and social relations. Spectacle allows for when an image is placed in another context it lacks its original connections and is seen to have attributes which it does not. Independent representation allows Spectacle to reconstitutes itself. The fetishistic and purely objective appearance of the Spectacular thus conceals real social relations.

Ideas for Further Research:

• Guy Debord and the Situationist International.

• Postmodernism, Intertextuality and the Spectacle.

• Postmodernist form to facilitating Spectacle in both film and television. For example in ‘MTV’ aesthetics and High Concept films, especially through the use of intensified continuity. Further reading about action and spectacle in the Hollywood blockbuster include:

Jose Arroyo (ed.). 2000.  Action/Spectacle: A Sight and Sound Reader (BFI),   Introduction pp. vii-xv;
David Bordwell.  “Intensified Continuity: Visual Style in Contemporary American Film” in Film Quarterly, Vol 55, No. 3, Spring 2002, pp. 16-28;
Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale. 2010.  ‘Introduction’ In Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Wayne State UP), pp. 1-15;
Geoff King. 2000. ‘Introduction.’ In Spectacular Narratives: Hollywood in the Age of the Blockbuster (IB Tauris), pp. 1-18;
Janet Staiger, ‘Announcing Wares, Winning Patrons, Voicing Ideals: Thinking about the History and Theory of Film Advertising’ in Cinema Journal,  Vol 29, No. 3, Spring 1990, pp. 3-31.

• The cult of the personality and celebrity culture in the modern society. Could there be a correlation between glamour and the Spectacle?

• The relationship between propaganda and public relations. Separate perspectives explored through the work of Edward Bernays and extended through an investigation into the writings of Noam Chomsky.

• ‘Form and Discipline’ in V.F Perkins, 1972, Film as Film (London: Penguin), pp. 59-70.

Bibliography

D’Alleva, Anne. 2005. Methods & Theories of Art History. London: Laurence King Publishing.

Debord, Guy. 1967. ‘Separation perfected, taken from Society of Spectacle, Chapter 1’.  In: Jessica Evans and Stuart Hall (eds.)  London: Sage Publications.  1999, pp. 95-98.

Debord, Guy. 1992. Society of Spectacle. Rebel Press: London.

Packard, Vance. 1967. The Hidden Persuaders. London: Pelican.

Stam, Robert.  1999. Film Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell., Chapter: ‘1968 and the Leftish Turn’, pp. 130-139. ‘The Poetics and Politics of Postmodernism’, pp. 298-307.

Image Source

'Guy Debord’ [online] Available at: http://www.redemmas.org/event/1926/> [Accessed 11 December 2010]

A Selection of Cultural Activities (22/11/10 – 06/12/10)

Films

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (Terry Gilliam, Allied Filmmakers/Columbia Pictures Corporation/Laura Film, UK/West Germany, 1988)

Der Blaue Engel(‘The Blue Angel’) (Josef von Sternberg, Universum Film,  Germany, 1930)

Blanche Fury (Marc Allégret, Independent Producers, UK, 1948)

The Boy Friend (Ken Russell, MGM/Russflix, US/UK 1971)

Carmen Jones (Otto Preminger, Carlyle Productions, USA, 1954)

Carne trémula (‘Live Flesh) (Pedro Almodóvar, CiBy 2000/El Deseo S.A./France 3 Cinéma, France/Spain, 1997)

Il Casanova di Federico Fellini (‘Fellini’s Cassanova’) (Federico Fellini, Produzioni Europee Associati, Fast Film, Italy/USA, 1976)

Dèmoni (‘Demons’) (Lamberto Bava, DACFILM Rome, Italy, 1985)

Jubilee (Derek Jarman, Megalovision, Whaley-Malin Productions, USA, 1978)

A Kid for Two Farthings (Carol Reed, London Film Productions, UK, 1955)

Look Back in Anger (Tony Richardson, Orion/Woodfall Film Productions, UK, 1959)

Milk (Gus Van Sant, Focus Features/Axon Films/Groundswell Productions, USA, 2008)

Night of the Demon (Jacques Tourneur, Sabre Film Production, Columbia Pictures Corporation, UK, 1957)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Milos Forman, Fantasy Films, USA, 1975)

Propespero’s Books (Peter Greenaway, Allarts/Cinéa/Caméra One, Netherlands/France/UK/Italy/Japan, 1985)

Sabetour (Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Lloyd Productions/Universal Pictures, USA, 1942)

Sanatorium pod klepsydra (‘The Hour Glass Sanotorium’) (Wojciech Has, Zespól Filmowy "Silesia", Poland, 1973)

Song of Summer: Frederick Delius (Ken Russell, British Broadcasting Corporation, UK, 1968)

L'uccello dalle Piume di Cristallo (‘The Bird with the Crystal Plumage’) (Dario Argento, Central Cinema Company Film (CCC)/ Glazier/Seda Spettacoli, Italy/West Germany, 1970)

Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot (‘Monsieur Hulot’s Holiday) (Jacques Tati, Discina Film/Cady Films/Specta Films, France, 1953)

Les valseuses (Bertrand Blier, C.A.P.A.C./S.N. Prodis/ Universal Pictures France, France, 1974)

De Vierde Man (‘The Fourth man’) (Paul Verhoeven, Rob Houwer Productions, Verenigde Nederlandsche Filmcompagnie (VNF), Netherlands, 1983)

Les Yeux sans Visage (‘Eyes without a face’) (Georges Franju, Champs-Élysées Productions/Lux Film, Fance/Italy, 1960)

 

Television Programmes

‘A Dream Denied’, episode two, The American Dream, UK, BBC2, tx. 27.11.2010.

‘One Nation Under God’, episode three, The American Dream, UK, BBC2, tx. 04.11.2010.

‘The Engineering of Consent’, episode two, The Century of the Self, UK, BBC4, tx. 30.04.2002.

‘There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed’, episode three, The Century of the Self, UK, BBC4, tx. 02.05.2002.

Episode fifteen, The Culture Show, UK, BBC, tx. 25.11.2010

Episode Sixteen, The Culture Show, UK, BBC, tx. 02.12.2010

Film 2010, UK, BBCHD, tx. 24.11.2010.

Film 2010, UK, BBCHD, tx. 01.12.2010.

Episode five, Getting On, second series, UK, BBC4, tx. 23.11.2010.

Episode six, Getting On, second series, UK, BBC4, tx. 30.11.2010.

‘Ron Galella - Smash His Camera’, Imagine, UK, BBC1, tx. 23.11.2010

The Weird World of Edweard Muybridge’, Imagine, UK, BBC1 tx. 30.11.2010.

‘Blowing Smoke’, episode twelve, Mad Men, fourth series, USA, BBCHD, tx. 24.11.2010.

‘Tmorrowland’, episode thirteen, Mad Men, fourth series, USA, BBCHD, tx. 01.10.2010.

The Review Show, UK, BBC2, tx. 26.11.2010.

The Review Show, UK, BBC2, tx. 03.11.2010.

Radio Programmes

The Film Programme, 2010. [Radio programme] BBC, BBC Radio 4, 19 October 2010 16.30.

Coming attractions…

Once again it seems I have disappeared. I can assure you I haven’t. The Eisenstein essay coupled with a cold and another case of papilledema has meant I’ve been preoccupied. 

I’m just waiting to submit the essay so as soon as it’s done I won’t be continuing the Open Studies Certificate on January 15^th. That does not mean I am going to be inactive. This gives me time to focus on my OCA work while continuing my further reading and lets me revise my way through film form.  Hopefully, in the following week I will post:

• OCA Project 11: The Society and the Spectacle – Guy Debord

• OCA Project 12: The thorny subject of taste – Dick Hebdige

• Cultural Activities for 22/11/10 to 05/12/10

• Warwick Open Studies Certificate: Researching Eisenstein

• Amendments made to previous Open Studies and OCA posts.

Next I am looking forward to my visit to Southampton University and am anticipating to begin my further reading.  Though sometime in December I would like to post some analytical points about Brazil (Terry Gilliam, Embassy International Pictures, UK, 19985) and The Girl Can’t Help It (Frank Tashlin, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, USA, 1956).