Question 2
Question 2
The ideas of Eisenstein on montage are that of a realist because they compliment the principles of reality. Thus, montage is a privilege way of showing the essence of reality. The essence of reality is equated to meaning in montage (Buro 2012). Eistenstein is of the opinion that meaning in film does not simply reveal itself, rather montage is needed to depict the meaning of something or its essence. Andre Bazin’s and Sergei Eisenstein’s ideas about film differ in some significant ways.
Bazin describes Eisensteins approach as one that asserts its “faith in the image” which through montage, creates a sense or meaning that is not objectively carried in the images themselves but extracted independently from their juxtaposition. Bazin critiques the essence of Eisentenstein’s reality by arguing that it does not add anything o the reality, nor deform it rather it forces it to expose its structural depth and reveal its preexisting relations. Instead, Bazin argues that its possible to reveal the essence – “structural depth” and “preexisting relations” – simply by bringing out reality without having to add anything. He thus holds that has to respect this essence of the facts and then strive to present them in accordance to their nature.
Bazin states that it is highly unnecessary to add anything to a factual character in film because it does more harm than good. In his view, therefore, films such as Paisa or Le Ballon Rouge (1956) do not “owe anything to montage”. Generally, Bazin does not perceive think of “realist” films as an objective documentary. He argues that film should essentially select what it shows (Buro 2012). On this, Bazin is in agreement with Eisenstein. Thus to do justice to reality, the entity of what is shown should be preserved and not broken apart. On this, the two are in agreement that product of the image at the end should be a whole. They differ in the sense that Eisenstein holds that the whole should be constructed using montage and juxtaposition; while Bazin believes the whole cannot be broken up rather a fact of reality must be valued as an end in itself. Krakauer’s ideas are blend of the two.
The ideas of Eisenstein on montage are that of a realist because they compliment the principles of reality. Thus, montage is a privilege way of showing the essence of reality. The essence of reality is equated to meaning in montage (Buro 2012). Eistenstein is of the opinion that meaning in film does not simply reveal itself, rather montage is needed to depict the meaning of something or its essence. Andre Bazin’s and Sergei Eisenstein’s ideas about film differ in some significant ways.
Bazin describes Eisensteins approach as one that asserts its “faith in the image” which through montage, creates a sense or meaning that is not objectively carried in the images themselves but extracted independently from their juxtaposition. Bazin critiques the essence of Eisentenstein’s reality by arguing that it does not add anything o the reality, nor deform it rather it forces it to expose its structural depth and reveal its preexisting relations. Instead, Bazin argues that its possible to reveal the essence – “structural depth” and “preexisting relations” – simply by bringing out reality without having to add anything. He thus holds that has to respect this essence of the facts and then strive to present them in accordance to their nature.
Bazin states that it is highly unnecessary to add anything to a factual character in film because it does more harm than good. In his view, therefore, films such as Paisa or Le Ballon Rouge (1956) do not “owe anything to montage”. Generally, Bazin does not perceive think of “realist” films as an objective documentary. He argues that film should essentially select what it shows (Buro 2012). On this, Bazin is in agreement with Eisenstein. Thus to do justice to reality, the entity of what is shown should be preserved and not broken apart. On this, the two are in agreement that product of the image at the end should be a whole. They differ in the sense that Eisenstein holds that the whole should be constructed using montage and juxtaposition; while Bazin believes the whole cannot be broken up rather a fact of reality must be valued as an end in itself. Krakauer’s ideas are blend of the two.
