Week 3

In reading about the film October, I was surprised to read on a few occasions that this film was not as successful or influential as Potemkin, and further that Eisenstein's film as its subsequent montage experiments met with disapproval because the film was considered unintelligible to the masses. I may have to consider myself as one of the confused masses. His montage seemed to smack me around, quickly going back and forth and I just felt confused and like I would eventually get a headache. While I recognized the basic premise of the movie, I felt quite removed from the subject matter which further led to my confusion. While I imagine the subject matter would be much more apparent to the original audience, my history of the October revolution was quite basic.

Describing the pieces of montage using Japanese characters was helpful on some levels, but then again could also be seen as trying to understand a foreign language. Should the masses be able to to understand film or did Eisenstein believe that only the intelligent and well cultured should be able to understand all aspects to a film, maybe the masses can understand film on the most basic of levels, while the intelligent can respect the work at a much higher level. Eisenstein created the term "Intellectual montage" -the editing together of shots of apparently unconnected objects in order to create and encourage intellectual comparisons between them. This idea once again contradicts his use of every day normal people for actors etc. and creating a film for the masses..."a stirring eye witness account of the revolution." I read in a few reviews that the film was not as successful or influential as Potemkin, a similar film for the time. While I am not sure, I would suspect Potemkin to have done a better job at appealing both the government and the unintelligible masses. And thus, one of the most helpful parts of this week's readings was "For art is always conflict...because of its social mission-to reveal the contradictions of being, its nature-conflict between natural and creative, its methodology-shot and montage" (24).

In my confusing babble to rectify what Eisenstein may or may not have meant, I found Benjamin's discussion or artifact and reproduction quire helpful. He begins by stating "In principal a work of art has always been reproducible. Man mad artifacts could always be imitated by men...above all, it enables the original to meet the beholder halfway, be it in the form of a photograph or a phonograph record" (793). I understand this to mean that Eisenstein's October tried to balance along the line of both remaining intelligent and artistic and meant to tell a story for the masses. The ability to reproduce emancipated the work of art and it was allowable to reproduce and make its something of its own. I enjoyed reading Katie's understanding of film and its separation from painting and sculpture in religious history and film is something a bit different. Well said Katie.

I further enjoyed picking up on aspects of film that we have previously discussed- the use of various camera angles, both close up and a variety of angles and the use of lighting, how stark and expressive it all was. Furthermore, I found it funny how the dead actors were obviously breathing, eyes flickering, not great acting which made it seemed in the end, less real. Removing myself briefly from modern day movie making, October is quite impressive. I have no idea how he managed to corral all of the extras and film so much in a living city, not a movie set. And while he was commissioned by the government, it still seems as though he was able to put in his own creative flavor to the film. As discussed in Benjamin "The film has not yet realized its true meaning, its real possibilities... these consist in its unique faculty to express by natural means and with incomparable persuasiveness all that is fairylike, marvelous, supernatural" (799) but October seems to be quite sophisticated for its day.