فصل المونتاج ، المونتاج السوفياتي ٢-a .. كتاب فهم السينما

human activities, and as a result it relates to the nature of the universe itself. Needless to say, we can offer here only an abstract summary of the complex theories. Like the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, Eisenstein believed that the essential nature of existence depends on flow and continuous change. He believed that the eternal fluctuation of nature is the dialectical state, that is, the result of the struggle of opposites. What appears silent or unified in nature is only instantaneous, as all natural phenomena are in states different from becoming. (134) Energy alone is stable and energy is in a permanent state of transition to other forms. Each opposite contains the seed of its annihilation in time. Eisenstein believed that this struggle of opposites was the father of the movement and change.

The job of all artists is to capture the dynamic clash of opposites, and to introduce the principle of conflict not only into the subject matter but also into forms and techniques. Art, for Eisenstein, was an extension of nature itself. Art was a kind of microcosm. The artist's job is to give towards the eternal pulse of the great universe, and to arouse in it the same conflict that we observe in every place of life. It can combine the purely visual conflicts of painting, the dynamic conflicts of dance, the vocal conflicts of music, the verbal conflicts of language, and the conflicts of action and personality in drama and stories.

fictional.

4 - 13 AB The Mail Cart Directed by John Ford Eisenstein says that all arts aspire to movement, even painting and photography do not have stagnation, but rather each consists of a carefully composed series of eye stops above the surface of the image. Eisenstein was giving his students classroom exercises in fragmenting the shot By means of a photographic or oil photograph, their executive texts contained a complete breakdown of each snapshot with an explanation of the series of snapshots that is deduced from the method of building details in a unified space. This image, for example, can be broken down into at least six independent snapshots. The snapshots can be exploited depending on their sequence and visual importance to create different causal relationships completely.
Eisenstein believed that the film-maker should combine all these dialectical struggles in his techniques, but he was placing special emphasis on the art of montage. Like Pudovkin, Eisenstein believed that editing was the foundation of the art of film. He agreed with Pudovkin that each shot in a clip should be incomplete or a "contribution" and not self-contained. However, he criticized Pudovkin for his principle of "connecting" the footage and considered it too mechanical and inorganic. Eisenstein believed that montage should be dialectical. The conflict between two shots (the subtraction and the antithesis of the subtraction) produces a new idea (composition). Thus, the result of the conflict in film terms between shot A and shot B is not AB (according to Podvkin), but rather a qualitatively new factor i.e. C (according to Eisenstein). The transition between shots should not be fluid. As Pudovkin used to say, it had to be sharp, shaky, even violent. Editing, for Eisenstein, produced "rough crashes, not smooth connections. Smooth transitions were a missed opportunity," he claimed.

Editing, for Eisenstein, was almost a mysterious process. He likened it to the growth of organic cells. If each shoot represents a developing cell, then the cut is that "explosion" that occurs when a cell divides in two. The montage is that stage in which the shot “explodes”, that is, when the tension of the shot reaches its maximum expansion. The rhythm of montage in cinema should be like the explosions of an internal combustion engine, as Eisenstein says. As a great master of rhythm, his films are almost astounding in this regard. It contains shots of sizes, lengths, shapes, designs and intensity of lighting that actually collide with each other. But like things in a rushing river these quivering images plunge towards an inevitable settlement (4-14).

The difference between Pudovkin and Eisenstein may seem merely theoretical. However, the two attempts actually produced very different results. In Pudovkin's films shots tend to be additive and are geared towards creating an overall emotional effect. In Eisenstein's films disparate shots represent the series of batches of Mental regression is, in essence, directed towards a mostly abstract argument. The directors' choice of dialogue structures was also different, although both artists were direct Marxists. However, Pudovkin's stories did not differ radically from the type used by Crivith. Both shots are controlled by the narrative framework. However, Eisenstein's stories, on the other hand, were more flabby in construction, usually consisting of semi-tethered documentary events that he used as appropriate means to reveal ideas regardless of the literal time and place. series of who When Pudovkin wanted to express emotion, he communicated it through the physical image - the objective correlation coefficients - that were present on the site.