Film Form: Essays in Film Theory

by Sergei Eisenstein

Book Overview

From Sergei Eisenstein, a legendary pioneer in filmmaking and director of Battleship Potemkin, Film Form collects twelve essays written between 1928 and 1945 that demonstrate key points in the development of his film theory and in particular his analysis of the sound-film medium.

"By turns savagely polemical and whimsically humorous...Eisenstein's last book, like all his writings, is on fire with imagination...Jay Leyda, well-known...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0156309203
• ISBN13: 9780156309202
• Release Date: March 1969
• Publisher: Dey Street Books
• Length: 304 Pages
• Weight: 0.65 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.4" x 8.2"

Customer Reviews

Brilliant

Film Form is a fascinating examination of conflict in film (ie, the Soviet dogma of Dialectic applied artistically). Despite his detestable doctrinal foundations, which at times lead him to infuriatingly flawed conclusions, his methodology is thoroughly compelling. Film Form is proof that even an enthusiastic purveyor of totalitarian propaganda can be worthy of close and lengthy study. (Oddly enough, his theoretical writings are much more interesting than his actual films. I am not yet sure what to make of this.)

Theories on Cinema

This is not a how to for wannabe movie directors, the essays revolve around the cinematic medium and its creation, and not so much on its content. Not unlike McLuhan, Eisenstein proposes to understand cinema as an extension of our senses ( hence, his following book, Film Sense ), and retraces the evolution from theather to cinema to sound cinema with a focus on Japanese influence ( Kabuki ) and a revolutionary ( for its time ) approach to montage. Cryptic at times, but a goldmine of insights into the nature of the silver screen.

Film Form: Marxism, Montage and the Hegelian Dialectic

As many of the early film theorists, Eisenstein has a tendency to propose as universals the principles of a specific school. The Soviet school of montage, whose heyday was in the late 20s, finds its most brilliant auteur here expounding not only upon its philosophy of cinema, but on ways in which this philosophy is in fitting with Marxism, the Hegelian dialectic and science. As such, it is a brilliant manifesto, a seminal work of greater value than any of those by Kuleshov, Pudovkin, Vertov, Dovzhenko or other montagists. Nonetheless, it is problematic in several ways, and an understanding of the nature of its idiosyncrasies is extremely valuable. First, in an effort to "prove" his hypotheses, Eisenstein often attempts to reconcile film and physics in ways that are inappropriate and pseudo-scientific. He presents himself, in that sense, as both Eisenstein and amateur Einstein. Further, case studies are often chosen from his own work, in effect limiting the reader's freedom to disagree with his conclusions. Finally, the manner in which he expresses his thoughts is beyond elliptical. At times, it appears that one would have had to have been living in Russia at the time that these essays were written and to have been thinking about the same issues that Eisenstein was to comprehend what he is getting at. [On the other hand, for those who have had the joy of reading Wittgenstein, for example, this should be a good book to take to the beach.] As indicated above, these problems can be explained. Communists have always had a complex relationship with the Social Darwinists. On one hand, Marxism was born out of progressive, evolutionary thinking; on the other hand, Marxists dismiss the idea of "survival of the fittest" as primitive and untenable. Soviet biologists often found themselves in the unique position of having to reconcile their theories with the party line, supported by hand selected data. In the end, of course, the value of art and science were measured by the rigid slide rule of the Communist Party. Science that did not promote its agenda was considered "anti-revolutionary." Eisenstein is the Comrade Lysenko of cinema. He hoists high the myth of science (i.e., the systematic study of physical Truth), reduced essentially to propaganda, and borne along on the shoulders of dubious examples. The most convenient (and most incontrovertible) of these are taken from his own films, the full meanings of which belong to his own demesne. The language Eisenstein uses to construct his arguments is wisely selected: The more clearly one understands his propagandist averments and the less clearly the logic upon which they are based, the more likely one is to accept them as fact. Somewhat hypocritically, then, Eisenstein selects the voice of the intellectual elite to speak to the masses, hiding his true political intentions behind a veil of empty esotericism. Like the soothsayer, the illusionist and the ringleader, "Film Form" operates in the realm of baseless b

Montage, Marxism and the Hegelian Dialectic

As many of the early film theorists, Eisenstein has a tendency to propose as universals the principles of a specific school. The Soviet school of montage, whose heyday was in the late 20s, finds its most brilliant auteur here expounding not only upon its philosophy of cinema, but on ways in which this philosophy is in fitting with Marxism, the Hegelian dialectic and science. As such, it is a brilliant manifesto, a seminal work of greater value than any of those by Kuleshov, Pudovkin, Vertov, Dovzhenko or other montagists. Nonetheless, it is problematic in several ways, and an understanding of the nature of its idiosyncrasies is extremely valuable. First, in an effort to "prove" his hypotheses, Eisenstein often attempts to reconcile film and physics in ways that are inappropriate and pseudo-scientific. He presents himself, in that sense, as both Eisenstein and amateur Einstein. Further, case studies are often chosen from his own work, in effect limiting the reader's freedom to disagree with his conclusions. Finally, the manner in which he expresses his thoughts is beyond elliptical. At times, it appears that one would have had to have been living in Russia at the time that these essays were written and to have been thinking about the same issues that Eisenstein was to comprehend what he is getting at. [On the other hand, for those who have had the joy of reading Wittgenstein, for example, this should be a good book to take to the beach.]As indicated above, these problems can be explained. Communists have always had a complex relationship with the Social Darwinists. On one hand, Marxism was born out of progressive, evolutionary thinking; on the other hand, Marxists dismiss the idea of "survival of the fittest" as primitive and untenable. Soviet biologists often found themselves in the unique position of having to reconcile their theories with the party line, supported by hand selected data. In the end, of course, the value of art and science were measured by the rigid slide rule of the Communist Party. Science that did not promote its agenda was considered "anti-revolutionary." Eisenstein is the very Comrade Lysenko of cinema. He hoists high the myth of science (i.e., the systematic study of physical Truth), reduced essentially to propaganda, and borne along on the shoulders of dubious examples. The most convenient (most incontrovertible) of these are those taken from his own films, the full meaning of which belongs to his own demesne. The language Eisenstein uses to construct his arguments is wisely selected: The more clearly one understands his propagandist averments and the less clearly the logic upon which they are based, the more likely one is to accept them as fact. Somewhat hypocritically, then, Eisenstein selects the voice of the intellectual elite to speak to the masses, hiding his true political intentions behind a veil of empty esotericism. Like the soothsayer, the illusionist and the ringleader, "Film Form" operates

The montage explained

While it can be tough to read Film Form it is ultimately a more then worth while book to read. Eisenstein's theory of montage is a must read. Very inspiring and insightful