Fabe
1. Marylyn Fabe attributes Sergei Eisenstein’s work as very much influenced by the works of D.W. Griffith, but instead of merely mimicking the style of Griffith, Eisenstein takes his fundamentals and enhances them to create a more shocking and jolting effect for the audience. Eisenstein was “adamantly opposed to films that slavishly tried to maintain the illusion of realistic theater by smoothly joining shots.” (27) This opposition resulted in films, most notably The Battleship Potemkin, engrossed in conflict on both the level of narrative and in the editing itself. He even went at lengths to create conflict within the detail of each frame. Throughout the passage, Fabe uses words such as clash, conflict, opposition, jerks, shocks, and discontinuity to both quote and emphasize Eisenstein’s work. What is interesting about the comparison between Eisenstein’s narrative work and what some mind consider classical narrative is that for the longest time, filmmaker’s began to believe that continuity and invisible editing was the best way to portray a story in film. I am not saying that it is not a decent way to illustrate the narrative, only that Eisenstein’s work is merely a different way of doing it. Fabe does not necessarily praise Eisenstein for his creative editing; the article is a description of an alternative film style.
2. Time and length of shots played a significant role in determining the realism of early film. Although The Battleship Potemkin is considered a realist film through the use of on location shooting and inexperienced actors, it conflicts heavily in the realm of time. Realism usually favors long takes and deep focus. Fabe claims “realist directors conceive of the frame as a window that only temporarily hides a part of the world, as opposed to a picture frame whose lines demarcate the limits of a carefully composed, patently artistic composition.”(51) The use of off screen space rather than extensive cutting gives the film more credibility as to its realism because time and space are not fragmented. The directors who try to achieve realism must remember that the world extends beyond the frame. There are different types of realism in film and each is identified in the films we watched Monday night. Potemkin is considered realist in the emotions the editing creates in the audience, but this differs from the realism Fabe claims is present in Charlie Chaplin films where the narrative unfolds before us in long takes.
3. To go more in depth on the Chaplin films, Fabe states that the main reason these films are realist even though they still flow continuously, in contrast with Potemkin’s conflict is that most of the narrative unfolds in real time. He claims, “Chaplin’s fims look artless in the sense that they do not call attention to the medium, (yet) the film medium does in fact play a large role in the success of Chaplin’s comic art.”(54) The way Chaplin used the camera and the world around him allowed him to portray his comic narratives at perfect angles and depth of focus. He was able to use different settings that might not be possible to create on the stage, therefore allowing him to explore and utilize different aspects of the mise-en-scene. Chaplin’s persona plays a large part in the comedy of his films, but the fact that each antic unfolds in real time over lengthy periods of time allows audiences to experience it in whole chunks making it more appealing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In response to paragraph 3, our current visual culture is so fortunate to have been brought up in a cinematic era that can balance montage techniques and a plot line. We have been conditioned to understand the directorial portrayal of time and space, but at the time of Chaplin and Griffith, extravagance in editing only led to confusion and unrealistic representation. Thus Chaplin used montage to magnify his comic art rather than using such techniques to make an underlying creative statement. All of the techniques used, like crosscutting, were effective not in building towards a climactic event, but instead to “give a quick comic pace to the action.” (56) This invisible editing allowed Chaplin’s humor to the main focus while allowing the smooth flow of the narrative.
In response to paragraph one, Eisenstein's style is unique compared to the other films we have watched. The havoc and juxtaposition of shots had me confused about his intention. Marilyn Fabe reveals Eisenstein's objective in his chaotic style of editing. Eisenstein believed film has a more dramatic and interactive affect if it is shocking and unexpected. "Eisenstein felt that a work of art would have more power if it was structured according to these same dialectical plrinciples, involving a continual clash of opposites"(28). I think it is interesting that the power of a film can be defined by the style of editing in which it is composed. But I cannot imagine this scene without the chaos I felt from the juxtaposition of shots. Eisenstein's editing does exactly what Fabe describes as, "Eisenstein compels us to watch in shock and fascination..."(25).
In response to paragraph 3, I agree with Joey about the way in which Chaplin's medium allows him to utilize different aspects of mise-en-scene. This is exactly what I found most appealing about his films in general, and why I found the first film "The Adventurer" so interesting. The way that he arranged the staircase in two stories in the frame allowed the viewer to witness different character's actions simultaneously. He used this same technique when he shot the action on the balcony and the action downstairs as well. The composition of each frame is very deliberate, and makes for a very "art-full" piece rather than a one-dimensional, comedic film.
In response to paragraph three, the author makes it seem like Charlie Chaplin's film did not manipulate time at all. I agree that he did not do it the same way as Eisenstein, who used different conflicting scenes to make the audience feel more emotion. However, in the Adventurer Chaplin speeds up the frame rate in the opening chase scene to give a franitc feeling to the scene. This editing makes the film leave "real" time, if just for the time the frame rate is accelerated, showing that Chaplin, like Eisenstein, had to use editing to entertain the audience to a higher degree during the film.
In response to paragraph one, I find it unbelievable that continuity and invisible editing were the only popular ways of portraying stories in film, when Eisenstein’s work turned out so well. It is good that it’s clarified “the article is a description of an alternative film style” because that is what makes the discussion interesting. In response to paragraph three, I agree that Chaplin’s persona was crucial to his success, because he knew to when to exaggerate movement and knew when it was not necessary. He was able to make things that normally would not be funny, somewhat comedic.
Joey Is really cool!!!!
Post a Comment