The Art of Distraction

Oh, montage. I've had some experience with Eisenstein before - I don't think you can minor in film studies and not see the Odessa Steps sequence at least once. I've never seen a whole film of his, though; and October was about what I'd expect - crazy editing and a "Yay, Communism" message that's about as subtle as a hammer to the head. Still, this is not meant to be a criticism - based on his essay, Eisenstein knows full and well that he's not being subtle. It's not even what he is going for.

Eisenstein appropriately describes montage as a collision rather than a coherent piecing. The scenes, while making a point, seem to almost smack the viewers in the eyes as they dart back and forth throughout the film. I almost had a seizure during the scene where the guy with the machine gun keeps getting inserted into the bourgeois vs proletariat fight in the beginning. However, this mental seizure is what he was going for - after all, Eisenstein wants viewers to notice the collisions, notice the juxtaposition, and notice that this is indeed a film.

What struck me the most about this week's readings was their departure from theories past that film and photography are more realistic art forms. Eisenstein and Benjamin not only acknowledge the subjectivity of the camera, but promote it. Eisenstein does so in his promotion of montage editing, while Benjamin goes into all aspects of the art form, summarized nicely in his comparison between the magician and the surgeon, or the painter and the filmmaker. The former in both cases takes a "hands off" approach to creating and promoting; while the latter takes great care to piece together, create, and recreate by their own means. He also interestingly describes films as having audiences respond to the camera as opposed to the subject. However, I do not believe that this is attributed only to film. While paintings may not have a camera, the audience is responding to the paint as opposed to what has been painted.

Even so, what struck me most about Benjamin's assessment of film was his calling it an art form that is absorbed via distraction. This is an idea that Eisenstein seems to agree with, as his whole editing process can be seen as an absorbing distraction. After all, one is jolted by irregular editing and juxtaposed images - they are removed from the world onscreen, realizing it is constructed. However, in doing so, they are absorbed into the film and its message - absorption through distraction.

On a final note, Benjamin's comments on absorption through distraction reminded me of what I think is the total embodiment of this concept: the show Mystery Science Theater 3000. The show involves one man and two robots inserting themselves over a film and talking over it. This montage of sound, if you will, removes and distracts from the film they are watching; and yet draws their audience into the film with their jokes about its content. Also interesting is that it calls attention through distraction, but perhaps draws attention to aspects of the film that were not originally overt messages (such as the inherent sexism in many of the short films addressed to women in the 40s and 50s). Below is a clip of the MST3K guys mocking an old short film on grooming, which demonstrates this deconstruction very well (and is also funny):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLkOEBmi6po