The first thing we hear upon entering any film studies course is the theory (that is assumed by theorists to be about as much of a theory as the theory of evolution or relativity). Eisenstein was almost as obsessed with the film-as-language idea as he was about montage. It then makes sense that he would assume that montage was the answer to all the world’s communication problems: if all the world could learn the language of film, than we would have universal mutual understanding. According to him, this worked – at least in the “developed worlds.” At that point, though, film was strictly visual and the language would have to change with the introduction of sound:
“Sound used [as an unimaginative imitation of the “dramas of high culture”] will destroy the culture of montage, because every mere addition of sound to montage fragments increases their inertia as such and their independent significance; this is undoubtedly detrimental to montage which operates above all not with fragments but through the juxtaposition of fragments.” (Eisenstein, Pudovkin, and Alexandrov “Statement on Sound,” 316)
Eisenstein feared that adding this other dimension to our ability to process filmic language would create among the viewers a false expectation of reality from film as well as ruin the universalizing capabilities of film. Rather than easily exchangeable inter-titles (which he also disliked) separating montage sequences, there was now audible language to segregate audiences by their language. He was, of course, correct in these fears: the invention of sound and, later, color destroyed the film language as he knew it. Not only was it now easier to understand, that world looks at least a little like ours.
Experimental film does not play along with this game. If you will permit the comparison: Experimental film is to Hollywood what Jackson Pollock is to Michelangelo. What’s truly bizarre about film history (as apposed to art history) is that what you think of as typical film techniques are all conformed experiments from the art house cinema. Yet artists still turn to the experimental. In class, I hear a lot of people asking “Why would you try? I think it is because you can comprehend a completely different layer of meaning
Whether or not you understand the ideas, you do leave the theatre with a message – the same way you would understand the general message seeing a couple fight on the other side of the tracks in Grand Central Station with the sounds of the subway raging in your ears. If you become curious, you can easily glean more simply by paying more attention. As for narrative: the main difference is not the lack of narrative but the lack of a guide into, through, and out of a distilled story that is, in some sense, meant to be representative of real life. Rather than emulate life and provide commentary through the emulation, experimental film to examine pieces of film.
I think one main difference lies in the level of your ability to identify with what you are seeing. Because most experimental film does not take into account continuity conventions such as shot-reverse-shot sequences, the viewer does not become sutured into the film. Because of this lack of continuity, the viewer imagine itself to be lost in a twilight zone of film, where the idea of floating among clocks and doorways in space is just as good as any because you have no frame of reference.
I personally like the lack of an overt frame of reference. Though I often find narrative films comforting and beautiful and I like them very much, I find that they are too didactic for my taste. While no form of artistic expression can be void of some sort of guide – from basic compositional concerns to a straightforward narrative voice over – experimental film has the loosest of frameworks. You are then free to decide for yourself where you stand and how to look at the imagery yourself. No p.o.v. will attempt to force anything onto you, but rather, images will exist for your contemplation. On that note, I will leave you with a quote from Trinh Minh-ha’s interview “Framer Framed” about sound’s place in the lack of viewer placement.
Hmm, when you say that all film techniques we see are "conformed experiments," are you saying that what we view of as standard today were originally innovative creations of art house cinema? Is this separate from techniques developed by the studio system?
ReplyDeleteExperimental film is jarring, but it is not really creating a new way of looking at something. Trin Min-ha presents a critique of documentaries, by altering conventions on enunciation. But she is still operating within the context of these conventions. Like all experimental filmmakers, she is still working in reaction to traditional cinema. The effect her film produces is completely dependent on the fact that the audience has internalized film rules enough to be unsettled by her techniques. Silence in modern film is very different from silence in pre-1930s film - one is reactive and the other original. I wonder if there is any way to recapture an idea like montage for modern audiences. Eisenstein was in a unique position, with a blank slate audience to push his particular film language on.
Sarah, I think you're right in agreeing with Einstein that the incorporation of sound into film has not always been for the better. But I simply don't believe that all sound is bad. Certainly, some elements of it are abused and our emotions, perceptions, and senses become too depending on auditory clues to be autonomous. This is especially true for Disney and Hollywood films. The truth, however, is that many people need said clues. You can appreciate film without sound or diegetic sound because you are educated enough to appreciate (in art and in general) to appreciate such film, but you are the minority--this is hardly the case for the rest of the world. It's a chicken-and-egg problem of sorts, as I see it. Regardless of whose fault it is (viewer's or producer's), the reality is that we've passed a point of no return. We are rarely exposed and have never gone back to a time before sound (diegetic sound, montage sound). Films like Caché seek to do something of this sort, but they are only successful because they adhere, to some degree, to the "rules" of modern sound. Viewers have been conditioned to rely on sound in film to tell them what to expect. Take some of that away, and you've gone an unusual film that will interest its more educated audience. Take all of that away, and your film may speak to no one.
ReplyDelete"Experimental film is to Hollywood what Jackson Pollock is to Michelangelo." Haha. Great comparison.
ReplyDeleteI like how you expanded upon Eisenstein's point, Sarah, regarding sound in film. Both narrative and montage have their merits: experimental films, as you say, are fascinating in that you can generate your own opinions and about the images being through at you and narrative films provide a sense of comfort.
However, as much as I would like to say that I enjoy experimental films, I think I've been Westernized far too much. Like I mentioned in a previous blog, films are an escape for me and when I have to think too much, as is often the case in experimental films, I tune out. Sad, but true. As a medium for contemplation I think audiences understand film better in narrative form, generally speaking, of course.
I do love how they challenge our perceptions though, and maybe someday I, and perhaps more audiences, will appreciate them. Nevertheless, there is something about silence that speaks volumes...
I think that your discussion of Eisenstein's views on sound in film are very interesting--however, I would have to argue that it is necessary to accept the abuses of sound in film in order to continue to study it from a modern, relevant perspective. While the universal language of film may be lost due to the addition of a specific, restricting language, I would argue that just about anyone would still be able to understand and relate to the argument taking place in Grand Central even if they could hear the specific conversation taking place between the 2. The addition of sound certainly does limit the universality of the message as it forces us to limit the action to the specific, individual circumstances described, but it doesn't eliminate the basic underlying human experience.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I would argue that experimental film sends a kind of didactic message just in its basic attempt to dissociate itself from stereotypical narrative conventions. It advocates a rejection of these standards and foists that message of "uniqueness" upon its viewer in a way that cannot be ignored.
http://lkeeley.blogspot.com/2009/04/talk-to-me.html
ReplyDeleteThis meditation on silence is interesting Sarah. Especially in a moment in film industry in which many believe that sound is what keeps a view invested in a film. The connection that Min-ha makes between silence and darkness is interesting as well. As some of your classmates mention, Min-ha uses black screens with sound underneath in her films, what would Eisenstien have thought of that form of visual "silence"?
ReplyDelete