Regarding Eisenstein's Methods of Montage, I found the writing to be quite educational in its deconstruction of montage techniques. Mainly, the thing I found most useful in the excerpt was the building of a vocabulary with which to analyze montage for the reader. Through the absorption of these sections vague terminology and guesses are replaced by reminders to pay attention to the the metric lengths of different cuts of film and the measurable value of the visual elements within. Personally, I've never been particularly fond of montage pieces and am generally under the impression that they are rather weak in getting a particular experience across to the viewer, but through Methods of Montage I have a slightly better idea of how they can be analyzed to discern a meaning.
Of particular notes I enjoyed Eisenstein's statement of how emotionally-based visual themes can be measured with a discernible metric to gauge the value of those elements.
As for the writings on the kino-eye...I much prefer the analytic and more plain approach to writing in Methods of Montage. While I enjoy the idea of freeing the media of filmed pieces from the traditional view of the human eye, it is difficult to truly grasp what this excerpt is about unless you already have a more intimate knowledge of montage as art compared to most. What I'll be taking away from it is the message of how film sections shot in completely different places and times can be combined into a meaningful conglomeration through the use of similar context, in either physical happenings or through means of ideals. I also approve of the revelation of the wonder of movement in everyday life, something that usually goes unseen by most.
However, I still think it reads like a radical manifesto and as such is hard to digest without having similar predilections prior to reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment