Attack of the Montage!

October seems a confusing, or perhaps enigmatic, film. I found the scenes rather difficult to follow, perhaps out of my ignorance of the setting/timing/significance of it.

Eisenstein uses montage in so many ways...juxtaposing images of the “weak” people with the “strong” elite and rulers. He uses camera angles to make his characters appear in power or coming into power…or even powerless. In this respect, he is succesful.

However, my difficulty with this film is partly due to the, in my opinion, excessive use of montage. Everything moved so quickly, with the camera jumping from shot to shot, face to crowd, etc.. This was further exacerbated by my lack of cultural knowledge…I had no idea who the titles were referring to (although I had a sense they were loosely based on historical figures, as I recognized some of the names). Even so, the titles did help to point out when a deliberate change of scene or pace occurred. He mentions in his essay from Film Form that a Kuleshov graduate calls montage "a series of fragments" (19). Indeed, I felt as though many of his explanations seemed fragmented.

His film seems very symbolic as well, although I must admit I would need to watch it several more times before I could begin to break down his intended symbolism. He seemed to be making a statement about the upper class in several of his shots…he tended to portray them as brutal or maniacal.

I found myself connecting more with Benjamin's comments. On page 797, he says, "To an ever greater degree the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility." He is alluding to the idea that once we go down the path of non-originals, mere reproductions of the originals, then we in effect grow ever more distant from the original. He is a fan of the concept of "aura" when referring to art, and feels as though these reproductions (including that represented by film) lack this aura. So even though it may look and sound just like reality, it lacks the "presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be" (793). I think he and Eisenstein (and Warhol!) might have beef.