One of this week’s topics is on editing; so I took the recommendation during the lectorial of watching the experimental film, “Man with the Movie Camera”, which was informed as “perhaps the first example of ‘observational documentary'”. I took my time, and watched the whole film as I tried to focus on the editing techniques, noticing the following points that intrigued me:
#1. I was first not struck by the editing, but the variety of the shots. There are close-ups of a woman’s eyes, wide shots of the square, some still shots and some tracking shots. The clips are manipulated quite differently either at a normal, fast or slow speed; and some clips are played backwards. Two shots are blended in, cut together in one shot(the trams). Shots of a chimney are completely tilted as we all now call them “Dutch angles”. One bit that I quite like is when the tripods itself alone is moving, having the camera put on it and just walking around. It is even now a fun to watch. The movie is like a catalogue for shots variety.
#2. As for editing, the editor was successful in making connections from shot to shot. For example, in the early part of the film, the girl who’s been sleeping wakes up to wash her face, then drying it. The shots of this is cut between her washing, drying and the things being washed, window being cleaned. Those are the same type of motions. Another example is in the middle. The moving pictures and still images of women in carriages and children, appears at times when a female film editor is shown looking through those films of women and kids. There is also one part which the window blinds and a woman’s eyes opening and closing are compared, edited together. Thus I think the editing style is about relations between shots that seem different but sharing the same nature, which consequently, has made the film continuous and interesting to watch even without an actual story line.
#3. Basically, the film is documenting the lives of Russians during Soviet government times. I think the unity for this documentary is assured by two elements. First one is the man with a movie camera who keeps appearing and disappearing in the film. I can see him shooting the shots that I saw earlier at the time. Another one is the theatre. It is first introduced at the start of the movie and reappears at almost the end of it. Two simple elements, without narration, is enough to put the random, messy shots together as a whole. Impressive:).
That’s all for the analysis. I enjoyed film and hopefully I am, bit by bit, getting the hang of writing film analysis.
