FILM 279 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Continuity Editing, Multiple Choice, Image Entertainment
30 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
FILM 279 Lecture and Worksheet Notes: Week 3
Montage Meets Mickey Mouse … In China
Classical Film Form and Animation-Attractions: 1930-1945
Quiz 1:
February 2
Approximately 30-60 mins
Multiple choice, true/false, fill-in-the-blank short answer
Materials covered
o Course lecture – review what is in the presentations and worksheets
o Readings – review the principal assigned readings; from the suggested readings,
you need only know the portions discussed in class
o Films – only general knowledge of the films shown in class
Action assures overall continuity and direction for editing the sequences of images
Overall, perception-images and affect-images are subordinated to action to assure
narrative continuity
Vernacular Modernism
Action does not smoothly and evenly advance toward a goal but goes astray, backtracks,
and turns in unexpected directions. Thus, moving images evoke the anxieties, tensions,
and contradictions implicit in the perceptual experience of modern life.
Montage Theory
A number of filmmakers and writers contributed to the montage theory of cinema,
especially in the Soviet Union. Montage theory becomes associated above all with
Sergei Eisenstein whose films and writings gradually dominated discussions of montage.
Montage, like continuity, takes editing to be the key factor in cinema. But, where
continuity editing centers on story and narrative, montage – especially Eisenstein’s
version – is concerned with attractions, shocks, and how to stage them. Recall that
Eisenstein is the source for Gunning’s use of the term attractions. Indeed, in 1923 and
1924, Eisenstein began to use the term “montage of attractions” to describe both his
theatrical productions and his film.
Eisenstein thought of attractions as powerful sensory stimuli operating independently of
narrative to shock spectators, evoking strong emotions or sparking new concepts, which
triggered an experience of ecstasy.
Recall that David Bordwell is rather critical of Eisenstein’s reliance on attractions.
Bordwell characterizes Eisenstein’s approach as mimetic (Showing). IN contrast,
Bordwell insists that filmmaking and theory needs to focus on the diegetic (telling).
From David Bordwel, “mimetic Theories of Narration.”
o … we see Eisenstein’s debt to the mimetic tradition. (…) But his vastly elaborate
scenography suggests that he pushed the mimetic position to an extreme.
o Eisenstein’s theory is ‘expressionist’ in that it regards narration as the process of
making manifest some essential emotional quality of the story.
o Very soon, expressivity became the basis of the concept of the ‘attraction,’ that
common denominator of theater which galvanizes the audience’s perception
and emotional shocks. These attractions… formed an effective whole through
‘montage,’ the judicious assemblage of shocks that would lead to spectator to
the proper ideological conclusion. (13)
o Eisenstein has little to say about plot construction.
o Editing, as the most palpable stage of montage construction, will often violate
verisimilitude for the sake of impact. (14)
o Eisenstein’s work, both early and late, presupposes overt narration – not the
speaking voice of language or literature, but an invisible master of ceremonies
who has staged this action, chosen these camera positions, and edited the
images in just this way.
o Eisenstein’s work, even in its late phase, does not constitute a theory of
narration. Scrappy, ad hoc, and idiosyncratic, the ideas are geared toward his
filmmaking practice. (15)
Eisenstein & Disney
Eisenstein’s passion for Disney cartoons follows from his interest in attractions.
In his notes on Disney written mostly between 1940 and 1941, for instance, he writes of
his cartoons: “Ecstasy is a sensing and experiencing of the primal ‘omnipotence’ – the
element of ‘coming into being’ – the ‘plasmaticness’ of existence from which everything
can arise.”
Although Eisenstein mentions Snow White and Bambi, he is clearly more interested in
attractions and thus the animated shorts. He draws his examples primarily from two
famous series of animated shorts.
Silly Symphony was a series of 75 films, with fanciful events synchronized close with
music, without (generally speaking) continuing characters, produced between 1929-
1939. His prime examples are Merbabies (1938) and The Moth and the Flame (1938)
Mickey Mouse Cartoons (produced between 1928-1953) was a series of 130 animated
short films, with recurring characters such as Mickey Mouse, Donald the Duck, Goofy
the Dog. His prime examples are Hawaiian Holiday (1937) and Lonesome Ghost (1937)
Eisenstein on Disney 1:
... Disney’s works seem to me just such a droplet of delight, of momentary relief, a
fleeting brush of lips in that hell of social burden, injustices and torments in which his
American views are hopelessly trapped. (9)
