Shaw, Dan. “Sergei Eisenstein” Senses of Cinema 30(Feb 2004) http://sensesofcinema.com/2004/great-directors/eisenstein/ (accessed Feb 26, 2013)
One thought on “Shaw, Dan. “Sergei Eisenstein” Senses of Cinema 30(Feb 2004) http://sensesofcinema.com/2004/great-directors/eisenstein/ (accessed Feb 26, 2013)”
In Dan Shaw’s article on Senses of Cinema titled Sergai Eisenstein, he discusses his method of creating a film. He believes that Eisenstein’s “technical innovation which he dubbed ‘intellectual montage’” resulted from his studies of Lev Kuleshov’s famous experiments (which demonstrated that the meaning of any shot is contextual) and of Japanese ideograms (where two separate symbols can be juxtaposed to create a third meaning, e.g child + mouth = scream, white bird + mouth = sing). This is an interesting view that not many of the other readings shared, therefore making this article stand out to me.
Later in the article Shaw introduces David Thomson’s belief that Eisenstein is not influential anymore, quoting, “…there are those who still acclaim him, but his influence is now very hard to detect.” However, Shaw is adamant that Eisenstein’s influence is still prominent in film making these days, giving examples of many different films in which Eisenstein’s method can be seen. This is an important part of the article as it allows the readers to have a wider understanding of the influence Eisenstein has had on film makers for years.
In Dan Shaw’s article on Senses of Cinema titled Sergai Eisenstein, he discusses his method of creating a film. He believes that Eisenstein’s “technical innovation which he dubbed ‘intellectual montage’” resulted from his studies of Lev Kuleshov’s famous experiments (which demonstrated that the meaning of any shot is contextual) and of Japanese ideograms (where two separate symbols can be juxtaposed to create a third meaning, e.g child + mouth = scream, white bird + mouth = sing). This is an interesting view that not many of the other readings shared, therefore making this article stand out to me.
Later in the article Shaw introduces David Thomson’s belief that Eisenstein is not influential anymore, quoting, “…there are those who still acclaim him, but his influence is now very hard to detect.” However, Shaw is adamant that Eisenstein’s influence is still prominent in film making these days, giving examples of many different films in which Eisenstein’s method can be seen. This is an important part of the article as it allows the readers to have a wider understanding of the influence Eisenstein has had on film makers for years.