Reading Film (Fall 2011)

a qwriting blog for ENG 110

Reading Film (Fall 2011) header image

Response to Eisenstein

September 14th, 2011 by Erickson Bryan · 1 Comment · ¶4 Eisenstein

I really enjoyed Eisenstein essay from start to finish. Eisenstein form of structure is the ideal structure to me. I just love the idea of his multiplication method of putting his ideas together. He starts his essay off by an argument instead of starting with his introductory paragraph(second paragraph).  I feel this way of writing is better for the reader because he is making his conflict clear. Eisenstein way of writing is to make his conflict but at the same time to make you think. He states “At the basis of every art is conflict”.

Eisenstein style of writing is so convient because he introduces a word in a paragraph and follows that paragraph with the definition so we can understand what he is talking about. For an example on page 30 he says”For a cinema seeking a maximum laconism for the visual representation of abstract concepts”. Following that sentence he gives us the definition of Laconism. This made his  essay a little easier to read for me. His style also helped me understand his main point of his essay.

Eisenstein wants the reader  to understand “montages”. “Montages is cementing two ideas together” as Eisenstein tells us on pg.36. Eisenstein feels that writing shouldn’t just be obvious but we should be able to  combine two ideas to get the concept. Montages gives the reader the ability to think deeper about the read or film. He explains that montage is always greater than linkage because the product in and equation is always greater than the sum of an equation.

I honestly love the idea of montage in writing and film. This structure is great because it has logical order but gives us the ability to think. This is like when we watch a movie and they show two different scenes but they come together at the end. For an example they will go back and forth between a character child age problems and his current problem and bring it together at the end. Montage is a more exciting method because linkage is always predictable.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags:

One Comment so far ↓

  • martinvukaj

    I understand what you mean, and im not trying to preach here, but i feel like eisensteins “collision” montage may not always work in films. he makes it seem as if its the only way for films to be produced, being collided with scenes. ive seen plenty of films without this style of montage

You must log in to post a comment.