This document provides information on three influential Soviet filmmakers and theorists of montage: Vsevelod Pudovkin, Lev Kuleshov, and Dziga Vertov. It discusses their views and experiments with montage as an editing technique. Pudovkin argued that individual shots should be combined through linkage rather than collision to resemble how the human mind perceives information. Kuleshov studied American montage and conceived of an approach based on the "creative geography/anatomy" of editing. Vertov was a proponent of Marxist cinema who sought to use the camera to reveal the invisible and considered sound an important part of the dialectic power of cinema.

1. PUDOVKIN / KULESHOV / VERTOV
MONTAGE … AGAIN

2. VSEVELOD ILLARIONOVICH PUDOVKIN
• (1893-1953)
• educated in chemistry at Moscow University
• three-hear internment in a Pomerianian prisoner-of-war camp
• back in Moscow in 1918, he entered the State Cinema School,
mentor, Lev Kuleshov.
• Pudovkin argued that individual shots should be conjoined more
in the manner of linkage rather than Eisensteinian collision.

3. • He believed that the practice of montage, of alternating long shots with
close-ups, cutaways, and flashbacks was analogous to the way the human
mind and the eye conspire to perceive and process information about the
real world.
• “The film technician, in order to secure the greatest clarity, emphasis, and
vividness,” he wrote, “shoots the scene in separate pieces and, joining them
and showing them, directs the attention of the spectator to the separate
elements, compelling him to see as the attentive observer saw. . . . The
sequence of the pieces must not be uncontrolled, but must correspond to the
natural transference of attention of an imaginary observer.”

4. • He rejected those methods, standard at the time, of exactly coinciding the
image with its sound source. Used in that way, he argued, “sound will
destroy the art of montage.” Rather, “only the use of sound as counterpoint
to visual montage offers new possibilities of developing and perfecting
montage..” In sum, sound is neither more nor less important than the image,
but should be considered as “a new element of montage,” insuring the artistic
future of the film medium.
• Never lost sight of the individual face and humanity behind the formal
experiments and the ideologies of his stories. 1:20
“For myself,” he wrote, “I define montage as an all inclusive discovery and
explanation of the interrelationships of the phenomena of real life. . . .”

5. LEV KULESHOV
• 1899-1970
• Studied Painting after 1910 in Moscow
• Began designing sets for movies in 1916.
• Studied American montage ("short shot" construction)
• Conceived of the "creative geography/anatomy" approach to editing
Earlier Work:
• "Filmness" of cinema--cinema quintessentially the ordering of strips of film
• Assembly of shots more important than their subject
• “Film is built brick by brick”
• Actors as "manniquins" and "models”  typage
• THE EXTRAORDINARY ADVENTURES OF MR. WEST (1924)
• "The Mozhukin Experiment"

7. NEW DIRECTIONS
• More importance laced on making meaning  reality filmed, actors directed, personal
influence of director
• Editing is NEEDED, but is not sole aspect of film as art, not origin of cinematic specificity
• Editing creates overall concept/feel/message  CNN / FOX News / MSNBC
• Trailers  Catfish, Documentaries
• Kulsehov became concerned with UNDERSTANDING success with audiences
• Which scenes elicit a reaction / which reaction / building blocks analyzed
• US, European and Russian Film  Why Montage emerged as main specificity
• Consoling Art
• Montage creates meaning by creating ‘sentences’, “semantic comprehension” for
audiences

8. INTRA-SHOT MONTAGE, MONTAGE & IDEOLOGY
• (The) Shining

9. DZIGA VERTOV
Films have the possibility to revolutionize the World
Born Denis Kaufman (1864-1954)
Proponent of the Marxist Cinema
Founder of KINO-EYE
”Revolutionary Capacity of Cinema”
Most renowned essay is: “”Film Directors: A
Revolution” and with this essay greatly
influenced Jean Luc Goddard and Chris Maker

10. INFLUENCES:
• His work was mostly influenced by the Avant-gardes – leading to problems in the 1930’s
when Soviet “socialist Realism” became more popular and Vertov’s experimental work
was considered artistic elitism and alienating to the population;
• He emphasizes in his cinema work: MACHINES/ CITIES/ SPEED
• Like Kuleshov had originally done, Vertov places the utmost importance on editing as a
constructionist’s tool of creation
• He sought to use the camera to DECODE that which is invisible to the naked eye for the
visible world
• Just like Epstein, Vertov considered Hollywood’s narrative style a shackle for the camera
and its artistic possibilities
• He considered Sound as important to the dialectic power of cinema

11. “FILM DIRECTORS: A REVOLUTION” (1923)
1. As of 1919 films do not work towards an “emancipation of the film camera” – camera
remains enslaved to the human eye
1. Sciences on the sidelines
2. Has to capture the “visual phenomena, which evoke spatial dimension”
3. Wrong-Cranking: Accidents yet apparent irregularities which probe and organize
phenomena
4. Until now The better the Copy the better… shackling the cinematographer and the
camera
2. CAMERA SHOULD NOT BE IN POSITION OF THE SPECTATOR
1. Spectators all see something different – Camera CANNOT allow for that
2. Instead it drags the eye to specified point on screen

12. CONT’D
3. One Scene’s location can be created from various locations  the cinematographer
constructs the world we see.
4. Freed from human immobility the camera needs to embrace PERPETUAL MOTION
5. Cinema embraces the DIVISION OF FUNCTIONS sound and vision are not one!
Asynchronous Sound
CINEMA PROVIDES AN ESCAPE, SO WHY CREATE A COUNTERFEIT VERSION OF THAT
WHICH WE LIVE IN ALREADY?
For Vertov, highly skilled Montage-Editors are key to cinema fulfilling its promise
Cinema has no need for: DRAMAS, LITERARY ADAPTATIONS, THEATRICAL
PRODUCTIONS  Vertov seeks the VISUAL NEWSREEL

13. ROBOCOP - 1987
Paul Verhoeven