Another Random Post

3. Soviet Montage and Formalism

1. Constructive editing was Pudovkin’s idea that it is the way the shots are put together is what gives meaning to a film. According to his ideas, the shots themselves do not matter. In addition, long shots were too realistic, and close ups, symbols, etc. were what really gave viewers understanding.
2. The Kuleshov effect is the idea that it is the position of shots in a film that gives us the emotion inherent in a film.
3. An Eisenstein Montage is a set of shots containing images that severely contrast one another in order to give it more emotional punch. Take the film “Odessa Steps” there is great deal of clashing color (well, just black and white) that suddenly switches shot to shot, giving it a very exciting feeling. This is also coupled with the amount of action in each shot, going from slow to fast instantly. 

Like this.

4. Andre Bazin and the Tradition of Realism

a. Bazin believed that those who edited shots were manipulating the meaning for their own reasons, and ignored the impact of realistic shots. He was also critical of the sole use of montages, insisting that there was more to film making then that one technique. The classical version of cutting took away from a viewer being able to interpret the film for his/herself. 

b. Realists strive to make works that allow the film goer to get their own meaning from the shots, and keep the continuity of real life, that it brought its own meaning as well without the need for editing.

c. Realist techniques include the use of long shots, lengthy scenes, in general moving the camera around instead of editing shots together. 

Analysis of "Arrival of a Train" and "Damsel in Distress"

Alright, so my assignment for today is to compare two short films and the style of film making involved in making them. These films are “Arrival of a Train” and “Damsel in Distress”. Both of these were made in the time where everything was funny, and everyone dressed way too heavily for the weather. But enough bad jokes, here comes the analysis of the two.

1. “Arrival of a Train” is shot from an angle that allows the viewer a good view of everything going on along the platform. This angle does not change, and there is no movement, so no one character is focused on and you are treated to a look at everyone at once. Captures the hustle and bustle of a train station very well this way. In “Damsel in Distress”, there is not much movement within shots, but the angles do change between them. Composition varies greatly between shots, compared to the “Arrival of a Train” where nothing changes camera-wise.

2. “Arrival of a Train” has no editing done to it, so it is just one long continuous shot. This makes us focus on the scene as a whole rather then on one specific character. However, everything going on in the shot is relevant to the plot (which is pretty much the title of the short film). The differences between the nonexistent editing in this film compared to “Damsel in Distress” are, well, drastic. In that film the plot is carried by parallel action, with the shots alternating between the woman and the dog. There are also a lot of associative cuts, where the dog’s actions are shown in relation to the woman’s position, showing us how it is affecting the situation and how its actions matter.

3. In “Arrival of a Train” you see the plot through just one view, with no specific character and no goal other than showcasing the train arriving and the reaction of those around it. Time is continuous and so is the setting. In “Damsel in Distress” there are set characters, a set obstacle/goal (the saving of the woman and the train/inability for her to escape), a suspenseful mood (the speed of the shots along with the constant alternating between train and character)…every theme is showcased in this film, compared to the first film where you only have a limited amount of information and no real plot. 

Step Outline

Character is at school, walking around in a suit with a silly gait, trying to attract attention but not getting the kind he’s looking for. He’s unaware of this.	Meet [generic name that makes you immediately think “who”], a kid who dresses in old fashion a lot and tries to act a gentlemen, for as of yet unknown reasons.
Scenes showing him with his friends for the first time, who tell him how stupid he looked (in a joking way, but also being honest). He responds with stubbornness.	Alright that’s not specific, but we get the impression that he really doesn't know how he looks to others. We don’t know exactly why still. Implies he’s been at this for a while.
He’s in class, he talks in a very refined accent but he doesn't look like he’s pulling it off, he gets snickers from those around him.	Closer look at what he tries to do at school, still not a very good idea of why he does this other than to supposedly look cool (without succeeding)
Cut to him at home, his room has a lot of 50’s paraphernalia and propaganda, wallpapers. Clothing in closet is mostly older clothing. Newer clothing is tucked in the back.	We now where he is influenced to do what he does. He is going through a phase where he is obsessed with the old days of dressing in suits every day, and where everyone looks and acts perfectly.
Back to school. Lunch time. He looks around at the lunch area, looks disgusted/non interested. Focus on others clothing.	We learn where his interests are directed. He treats other peoples’ dressing with disdain or at least disinterest, but we are still unsure.
Another scene of him with his friends. He’s discussing his dislike of other’s clothing, how unattractive it is, how rude people are, etc. His friends tell him to cool down, that’s the way it is, people will move on to another way of acting, he can’t start something.	Man this is long. This brings out the goal and obstacle. His goal is to get people to dress like him, act like him. He’s trying to impose his views on others. Obstacle: his own awkwardness and the fact that it takes a lot of effort to get something new in style. Not the way he’s doing it.
He reflects on his actions in a corridor, realizes what he’s been doing. Guy comes by and emphasizes this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8) EPIPHANY. SADNESS.	This is discovery. He finds out the truth of just how unsuccessful he’s been. He hasn't abandoned his goal but he sure as hell is questioning it. We don’t know how he will succeed, if at all. The climax.
Then, suddenly, interesting individuals! He comes upon others of his kind, who have had similar experiences. Mainly though, they want help organizing. One of them suggests an idea.	I know, it sounds a bit like a deus ex machina. But this is the solution, the final push. And it shows a slow going up from the pit he was in before. But here’s another unknown, we don’t know what they have in mind.
Then we have the group of suit aficionados going up to a teacher in charge of clubs. It’s unexpected. It’s revolutionary. It is...THE GENTLEMEN’S CLUB.	Oh my god I’m sorry I had to do this. It leaves a lot of ambiguity as to what will happen but we know the main character is satisfied with what he has accomplished. FIN.