The Man With the Movie Camera - Coursework Example

The Man with the Movie Camera Introduction Nikolai Abramov led the critics who looked at Dziga Vertov’s avant-garde works with particular disdain. One of his most notorious commentaries involved a scathing criticism of the filmmaker’s The Man with the Movie Camera. His position was that the material was completely devoid of a correct interpretation of reality as the film bordered on the empty and fruitless, merely playing with form and the philosophy of rejection of an objective perception of the world. He promptly branded the opus as “pseudo-innovative film,” one that “failed to exert the slightest influence on the development of the expressive means of cinema” with its supposed “barren and underdeveloped characters and sensationalist visual imagery (Petric, 1987, pp.68). This position exemplified the attitude of a sector in the then Soviet Union that downplayed the role of Vertov in global cinema. Yet, there are those who admire the filmmaker’s work, finding something beautiful and truly innovative in the material. Artists such as Marinetti and Rouch considered it as a masterpiece and an important cinematic achievement (Stoller, 1992, pp.102). This bellied the claim that the film is inconsequential and lacking in substance. This paper investigates this premise and will demonstrate why Abramov’s analytical position cannot be sustained and that with The Man with the Movie Camera, Vertov was telling an effective and compelling story. Background The Man with a Movie Camera was released 1929 with Vertov’s wife, Elizaveta Svilova as the editor. The film was unique, particularly in comparison with its contemporaries, as it did not have a plot or actors. The original film was also intended to be silent although subsequent versions featured the addition of some auditory elements. Essentially, it presented the urban life of the former Soviet cities of Kiev, Moscow, Kharkov and Odessa. The semblance of direct narrative was in the form of depictions of the daily activities and operations of the citizens in the cities from dawn to dusk. The interaction of the people with machinery has also been featured in the film as a form of modernity. All the scenes in the film were shot separately in the span of three years and some were initially not intended to be included in the film (Winston, 2014). The content and the structure of the film led to its criticism and unpopularity among the Russian moviegoers, with critics branding it as “inaccessible” and “formalistic” (Petric, pp. 66). However, it won the praise of most of the audience abroad as the features were way too advanced for its time. To this day, it remains a classic, influencing modern filmmakers. The film continues to attract attention due to its uniqueness and historical relevance. Reflection of Change To consider The Man with the Movie Camera as formless and one that rejected a reflection of reality is difficult to defend. The material mainly took a different and unique cinematic approach in showing several aspects of the Soviet society particularly the changes that were transpiring in the country. And it was attacked because of it. The case is that film involved many sequences that demonstrate quality, ambition and boldness in filmmaking. For instance, there were the scenes involving traders and the seemingly unruly mob coming from the countryside. The shots were set to contrast with the scenes of the disciplined workers. The implications entailed an excellent diagesis, an important aspect of the film that mainly describes the objects, events, spaces, characters, actions and attitudes that are not included in the film but are inferred by the audience (Ryan & Lenos, 2012). The images indicated a transition of the attitude from among the government’s Bolshevik supporters, those who formed the foundation of the Stalinist campaign against the peasants in the latter part of the 1920s. According to Roberts (2000, pp.63), the film was an artifact that captured the Soviet policy that would later emerge in the 1930s. The policy was typified by a concerted effort “to crush resistance in the countryside, urbanize, industrialize and purge opposition.” Also, in the early part of the film where a shot of the theater was shown, the rows of seats represented the idea of order as a throng of spectators enter for a performance. Then conductor raised his baton and the band with its various instruments waited for the signal. When it finally came, music played and shots of the audience - silent, rapt and orderly - dominated the screen. There is a multitude of meanings present in this scene. Perhaps, what incensed critics was the outright disconnect in the narrative because the film did not have continuous diagesis or, at least, there was no obvious logical structure that was common to conventional cinematic materials, those based on literary and theatrical texts. This was immediately manifested in the first shots of the film that gave the audience a sense of bewilderment with the kind of visual narrative unraveling before them. The first shot showed a gigantic movie camera being mounted by a man carrying a normal looking camera on a tripod. There was an implication that whatever shot would come next would involve scenes taken from either of the tools shown. However, the second shot was taken from a low angle point of view of a building’s top floors. This transitioned to the third scene involving the man with the camera again (this time dismounting) and then followed by a shot of a flag pole against a stark dull sky. The lack of continuity appeared to undermine the achievement of effective diagesis. Consider: While the audience was expected to form their own ideas and conclusions based on the visuals shown, the seeming discontinuity appeared to jar or hinder the process of making sense of meanings. Throughout the film, this will be repeated over and over, leaving the audience overwhelmed with the sheer number of seemingly unconnected and incomprehensible shots as aggravated by the speed in which they were presented. It also did not help that interpretation was exclusive to each sequence and cannot be applied to the following or preceding one (Petric, pp.120). In addressing the above cited issue, it is important to understand the intention and purpose of the movie. It is critical to highlight that the material was Vertov’s interpretation of the life of the camera man with the ultimate purpose of depicting Soviet life in general. As the film progressed the seeming lack of structure and form began to be perceived as the preliminary episodes of a narrative that attempted to establish life as chaotic. In order to arrive at this perspective, the audience must recognize the relationship of the Cameraman’s position and the photographed object. According to Petric (pp.120), this was “the sole basis on which the viewer establishes his comprehension of the (cinematic) world shown.” Once the spectator was able to grasp the idea, there comes an understanding of the succeeding shots, that there were links and connections, at least in the messages and meanings expressed. Ultimately, the discerning spectator comes to realize a thread that bound all the implications that the shots and scenes revealed. There was the film’s thesis that amidst all the chaos and complexities, nothing in life is an accident. There are specific scenes that demonstrated the insistence on the part of Vertov to engage his audience to understand what he was trying to articulate either through the strongly persuasive visual shots that held the spectators’ attention or the manner by which the images ask questions. A case in point is the split screen shots of a street that intersected on one end not unlike the letter V in “episode 4”. Vertov made the camera move in the same way but the people from the streets were walking in different directions. These shots, along with several others, indicated meanings and metaphors that supported an overarching narrative that bound all the seemingly disparate or unconnected scenes: they collectively talked about life. Roberts (pp.65) contributed in highlighting this theme by pointing out that the whole film “clearly signaled as an educative process that needs to be worked at by looking, learning and utilizing previous experience.” There is therefore a requirement of spectator contribution to the narrative. Cinematic Orchestra As previously mentioned, one of the fundamental complaints against The Man with a Movie Camera, aside from supposed flawed narrative and the lack of substance, was the absence of structure or logical sequence. From this perspective, one of the expected culprits for critics to blame was editing. Editing is an important aspect of a film and it involves joining the different shorts in order to come up with the film. Needless to say, it plays an essential role in determining its quality. A poorly edited film may be difficult to understand as the different scenes may not flow (Caldwell, 2011). The visual narrative of The Man with a Movie Camera appears to oppose the very principle behind the editing process with its focus on the seamless flow of shots taken in order to achieve a coherent material, one that allows the audience to follow and understand what is being shown. Critics lament the seeming haphazard montage of images as put together by Vertov and the film’s editor. There were also those who complain about the density of edited shots, which was perceived to overwhelm the audience. Again, one can cite the outcome of the diagetic analysis to address this criticism. There was relevance to how the shots were put together as the material explored the filmmaker’s thesis. The film, however, and its editing went beyond these concerns. The process of editing contributed to the articulation of several concepts that supported the message of Vertov’s movie through the rhythm and the speed in which it presented visuals. In composing the scenes of labour, daily life, moviemaking and industrialization, the editing was used to create a sense of exhilaration not unlike one would feel when viewing a kaleidoscope. The audience was assaulted by a plethora of images in rapid succession. The essence and impact of Soviet industrialization, the twentieth century and urban living could only be captured effectively in this way. According to Carr (2002, pp.180), the sheer quantity of shots involved in the editing, along with the split screens and superimpositions, shock cuts and variable speed motion, all point to a celebration of the period and the achievement of the Soviet people. What the film achieved, hence – when viewed in the context of editing - was a visual rhyme composed of shots, frames, and sequences among other elements that allowed the audience not just to see but to feel the meanings presented in every scene. Mise-en-scene It is also easy to criticize The Man with the Movie Camera for its seeming lack of mise-en-scene. This, of course, involves all the components and physical realities in filmmaking, including the decor, lighting, performance, costumes and other elements that are contrived to produce a compelling narrative or scene (Gibbs, 2013, pp.34). The film did not have a plot or a narrative. The film was only composed of scenes that were shot directly from different cities of the former Soviet Union. But this aspect should not be considered as the reason to dismiss The Man with the Movie Camera as lacking or flawed in this particular area. Despite the variety of unconnected shots of people in their actual environment, Vertov exerted a high degree of control in order to manipulate the scenes towards desired visualizations of the messages he wanted to articulate. Petric (pp.79), for instance, explained that Vertov and Svilova spent long days and nights cutting out and adding shots, often arguing whether a shot should be longer or shorter. The length of the shots highlighted the emotion, the rhythm or the emphasis that contribute to the efficacy in which each scene engages the audience. Furthermore, the mise-en-scene was also palpable in the way Vertov and the film’s editor adopted a form of temporal continuity by segmenting the film into themed episodes such as those depicting labour or culture through shots of people, places and objects throughout the day, from morning to night. A closer inspection would reveal that each of these episodes include a coherent set of sequences and scenes set in a conventional narrative style that each began with an introduction and ended with an epilogue, with a climactic scene wedged in between. For this, Vertov chose shots that have unifying motifs, plots and other elements that collectively indicate subtle and excellent mise en scene. The contrived use of different scenes short from different places also played an important role in ensuring that the audience can experience the way of life of the people in different Soviet urban centers. The quantity of shots packed in one scene was critical in ensuring that the audience was able to understand and experience the intended context of the urban life such as how people interacted with machines. Reflection of Authentic Reality Finally, Abramov was adamant in pointing out Vertov’s alleged failure to depict what was real or refusal to ensure that the film reflected objective reality. It is easy to refute this on the grounds that the materials used were those of real people performing actual tasks and activities in their daily lives. There were no actors or inducement on the part of the filmmaker for the people to perform or act in a certain way. In the cinematography, mise-en-scene, editing and focus, there was the obvious authenticity in the actual existence of people, places and events. To illustrate: in the closing scene, which showed a high degree of manipulation, previous scenes were depicted again but, this time, they were interspersed with shots of audience watching them. Vertov ended the scene with the camera focused on the audience. It was staged to depict a kind of manufactured reality but one that still involved authentic elements. This was aligned with Petric’s view that held how such authenticity reminded the audience about reality and their environmental context as well as ensured that the film generated “a feeling of ‘estrangement’ (defamiliarization) by showing everyday objects and events from unusual perspectives, thereby making the viewers more consciously aware of them” (pp.119). What may be significant in this particular analytical theme for The Man with a Movie Camera is Vertov’s own interpretation of social and political reality. It must be underscored that he was positioning an interpretation of reality from the perspective of the Communist ideal or what Williams (1979, pp.16) called as utopian, one that attacks the trappings of the bourgeois. Evaluating the realism and authenticity of the film in this context is, of course, no longer material because this paper measures it from a fellow Russian’s perspective, with the same social and political values. Nevertheless, one could turn to Vertov’s stubborn adherence to his objective of capturing life unawares to address this issue. While he did exert control in orienting the film towards his own perception of socio-political reality, there still remains the fact that the film is not a scripted drama. Conclusion There is a reason why The Man with a Movie Camera is considered not just a remarkable classic but a work that was far ahead of its time. Abramov’s criticism can, therefore, be classified as an excellent case where the normality or the mediocrity of the masses reined in the genius of a visionary. Clearly, Abramov was severely hampered in his perspective. He was only exposed to the strictly controlled Russian cinema and he perhaps thought the norms were the standard. In addition, there were no materials quite like the film before not just in Russia but in the entire global cinema. Even today, the film remains a class of its own, an alternative to the mainstream Hollywood cinema. Abramov conveniently blamed his failure to understand Vetrov’s work on the filmmaker, which was unfortunate because it was obviously made arbitrarily. The film took time to understand. Had Abramov exerted an effort to do so, he would have appreciated it better. There could also be some political underpinnings to his criticisms since filmmaking in the Soviet Union was state sponsored and Vertov was widely documented to fall out of political favor (Roberts, 1999, pp.91; Henley, 2010, pp.149). This is, however, no longer relevant except to demonstrate another weakness to Abramov’s critical position. For filmmakers, The Man with a Movie Camera is influential because it is revolutionary and experimental but immensely effective at the same time. The strategy employed could be distilled in this point: Vertov had a message, a thesis about an ideal and futuristic Soviet community, one that is located at the heart of the country’s cities. He then created a documentary style of narration by taking shots of people, objects, buildings, space and industry and cleverly presented them in several montages that functioned as arguments that supported his message. Vertov must also be credited for letting in the audience understand the filmmaking process. In showing the Cameraman’s work, how a film is made through the movie camera, and how it must undergo several processes such as editing, people become aware of the creative methods such as Film-Eye or principles such as Film-Truth. They help the audience to understand filmmaking, its principles and the actual materials that they watch, allowing them to better create and interpret meanings, thereby becoming active and effective spectators in the process. References Caldwell, T., 2011. Film analysis handbook: Essential guide to understanding, analysing and writing on film. Insight Publications. Carr, J., 2002. The A List: The National Society of Film Critics 100 Essential Films. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Gibbs, J., 2013. Mise-en-scene: Film Style and Interpretation. Columbia University Press. Henley, P., 2010. The Adventure of the Real: Jean Rouch and the Craft of Ethnographic Cinema. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Petric, V., 1987. Constructivism in Film. The Man with the Movie Camera. A Cinematic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, G., 2000. The Man With the Movie Camera. London and New York: I.B. Tauris. Roberts, G, 1999. Forward Soviet!: History and Non-Fiction Film in the USSR. New York: I.B. Tauris. Ryan, M., and Lenos, M, 2012. An introduction to film analysis: technique and meaning in narrative film. New York: Continuum. Stoller, P., 1992. The Cinematic Griot: The Ethnography of Jean Rouch. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, A., 1979. The Camera-Eye and the Film: notes on Vertovs "Formalism." Wide Angle, 3(3), pp.12-17. Winston, B, 2014. Man with a movie camera: Dziga Vertov. Sight and Sound, 24(9), 38-39. Read More