Bordwell, David. “The Idea of Montage in Soviet Art and Cinema.” Cinema Journal 11.2 (1972): 9. Web.
2 thoughts on “Bordwell, David. “The Idea of Montage in Soviet Art and Cinema.” Cinema Journal 11.2 (1972): 9. Web.”
This essay by Bordwell explores the relationship between montage in cinema, and other art forms. The writing attempts to justify Soviet theorists’ ideologies surrounding montage with contextual background as well as relations with other art forms.
Bordwell discusses key figures of the ‘montage era’ such as Vertov and Eisenstein and relates their artistic past to their potential for dismantling, critiquing and putting into practise, montage itself. The article serves as almost a history lesson in Soviet art, tied directly to film and montage in the early 20th century. Bordwell also goes on to discuss the demise of the Soviet montage in the 1930’s, pointing to beaurocratic pressure and other historical contexts in various art forms to justify such.
The piece seems to be quite independant compared to a lot of other writing about major Soviet theorists, allowing a rational look into why montage came about the way it did, making an impact on the cut/shot relationship forever.
In this article David Bordwell discusses the use of montage in Soviet Cinema and art. The author quickly explains the four uses of montage in film and outlines who are the most celebrated people that were involved. He then moves on to ask the readers, “why did these directors formulate a theory of montage and employ the montage style in their films at the precise time they did? And why did montage cease to become the characteristic strategy of Soviet film-making around 1930?” (page 2). These are interesting questions that Bordwell goes on to give an insightful response to. His ideas are clear and allow the readers to form their own beliefs afterwards.
This essay by Bordwell explores the relationship between montage in cinema, and other art forms. The writing attempts to justify Soviet theorists’ ideologies surrounding montage with contextual background as well as relations with other art forms.
Bordwell discusses key figures of the ‘montage era’ such as Vertov and Eisenstein and relates their artistic past to their potential for dismantling, critiquing and putting into practise, montage itself. The article serves as almost a history lesson in Soviet art, tied directly to film and montage in the early 20th century. Bordwell also goes on to discuss the demise of the Soviet montage in the 1930’s, pointing to beaurocratic pressure and other historical contexts in various art forms to justify such.
The piece seems to be quite independant compared to a lot of other writing about major Soviet theorists, allowing a rational look into why montage came about the way it did, making an impact on the cut/shot relationship forever.
In this article David Bordwell discusses the use of montage in Soviet Cinema and art. The author quickly explains the four uses of montage in film and outlines who are the most celebrated people that were involved. He then moves on to ask the readers, “why did these directors formulate a theory of montage and employ the montage style in their films at the precise time they did? And why did montage cease to become the characteristic strategy of Soviet film-making around 1930?” (page 2). These are interesting questions that Bordwell goes on to give an insightful response to. His ideas are clear and allow the readers to form their own beliefs afterwards.