Prince, S., and We Hensley. “THE KULESHOV-EFFECT + FILM EDITING AND RUSSIAN FILM HISTORY – RECREATING THE CLASSIC EXPERIMENT.” Cinema Journal 31.2 (1992): 59-75. Web.
2 thoughts on “Prince, S., and We Hensley. “THE KULESHOV-EFFECT + FILM EDITING AND RUSSIAN FILM HISTORY – RECREATING THE CLASSIC EXPERIMENT.” Cinema Journal 31.2 (1992): 59-75. Web.”
This article attempts to critique the well known ‘kuleshov effect’ as being finite and scientifically accurate and correct. It begins with a brief history and explanation of the effect, and how it has translated over to cinema theory and study, cited as ‘fact’ amongst the community.
Authors examine Kuleshov’s relationship with Formalists, and how that may have influenced his tests and theories in regards to the effect itself, and his views on montage and sequence within the frame.
This piece does a good job of seeking a more gruelling and sophisticated understanding of the realities of the Kuleshov effect, and how it functions for it’s own purpose, rather than the purpose of cinema and montage itself.
The articles begin by situating the original Kuleshov effect test within the tradition of soviet montage, analysing its effect as a function of the edited sequence rather than the individual shot. Alongside Eisenstein it is explained that Kuleshov understood cinematic structure as a kind of language. In this language shots could be understood as series of conventionalised meanings that could be combined to produce concepts. Discussion focus then shifted to the author’s results of their own Kuleshov experiment that yielded vastly different results. In their experiment audiences predominantly reported that the actor’s expression was neutral throughout regardless of the shot it was juxtaposed alongside of. The remainder of the article provides explanation for the potential ways that Kuleshov could have got the results he reported. One these reasons discussed in depth was that there is an enormous difference in the test audiences and that they reflect the environment they exist in. Article finishes by suggesting that regardless of the truth in his reportage, Kuleshov and his theory has become an important pillar in filmmaking and scholarship.
This article attempts to critique the well known ‘kuleshov effect’ as being finite and scientifically accurate and correct. It begins with a brief history and explanation of the effect, and how it has translated over to cinema theory and study, cited as ‘fact’ amongst the community.
Authors examine Kuleshov’s relationship with Formalists, and how that may have influenced his tests and theories in regards to the effect itself, and his views on montage and sequence within the frame.
This piece does a good job of seeking a more gruelling and sophisticated understanding of the realities of the Kuleshov effect, and how it functions for it’s own purpose, rather than the purpose of cinema and montage itself.
The articles begin by situating the original Kuleshov effect test within the tradition of soviet montage, analysing its effect as a function of the edited sequence rather than the individual shot. Alongside Eisenstein it is explained that Kuleshov understood cinematic structure as a kind of language. In this language shots could be understood as series of conventionalised meanings that could be combined to produce concepts. Discussion focus then shifted to the author’s results of their own Kuleshov experiment that yielded vastly different results. In their experiment audiences predominantly reported that the actor’s expression was neutral throughout regardless of the shot it was juxtaposed alongside of. The remainder of the article provides explanation for the potential ways that Kuleshov could have got the results he reported. One these reasons discussed in depth was that there is an enormous difference in the test audiences and that they reflect the environment they exist in. Article finishes by suggesting that regardless of the truth in his reportage, Kuleshov and his theory has become an important pillar in filmmaking and scholarship.