1. Vertov’s Transcendence
The impact of Dziga Vertov,and more specifically,the film, ManWith a MovieCamera,
cannot be overstated. Almost single-handedly, it delved into every conceptual and
psychologicalpossibility of film language of the last 100 years, and little, if any,
development outside the realm of pure technologicaladvancement has trumped the film’s
immense and visionary accomplishment. This is not to say, of course, other films since have
not explored new conceptual and philosophical terrain, but in formal terms, it is the
definitive creative example of “ahead of its time”. The multi-faceted storytelling, the
limitless subtext, the self-referential createdness, the celebration of philosophical (and
political) ideals—all of the astonishing foresight of this film is rendered with the most basic
tools of cinematographic composition, the rhythm and pacing of the editing, and the
decisions made in juxtaposing image upon image in calculatedprogression (and the music,
whichis more difficultto discuss considering the multiple orchestrations with whichits
since been coupled, significantly impacts the experience). However,Vertov’s writing cannot
be disconnected fromthe context of his place and time in history. Its vitality is wholly
dependent upon the impact of his film work,whereas his films stand alone in time as great.
Despite the visionary artist and thinker Vertov was, his writing is inflated with the air of a
unique and paradigm-shifting revolution, initially enabling but whichultimately cared little
about the specificity of his vision, especially after the death of Lenin. His timing couldn’t
have been better until it couldn’t have been worse, and from within this dualistic historical
context, the film takes shape and somewhat subsumes his writing.
As quoted from Vertov in SelectionsfromKino-Eye,theWritings of DzigaVertov (Michelson
1984): “Fiveseething years of universal daring have passed through youand gone, leaving
no trace. Youkeep revolutionary “artistic” models hanging like ikons within you,and it is to

2. them alone that yourinner piety has been directed. Foreign countries support you in your
errors, sending to a renewed Russia the imperishable relics of film-drama done up in
splendid, technical sauce” (p. 13). The sheer authoritative intolerance of Vertov’s writing
(assuming the translations do it and its cultural context justice) contradicts any notion of
equality. The cavalierattitude of the words simplifies the nature of things much too
objectively to resonate withthe masses in pursuit of bettering society;however,
philosophical opinions aside, the film, ManWith a MovieCamera does exist as a genuine
synthesis of his theories about film more specifically. He writes, “Psychological,detective,
satirical, travelfilm—it doesn’t matter what kind—if we cut out all the themes, leaving only
the captions, we get the picture’s literary skeleton” (Michelson,1984, p. 12). Vertov’s
sophistication of film approach is what resonates most frompage to screen—his film
artistry transcending that of his words. From this reductive point of reference, we see an
example of Vertov’s vision concerning the nature of film and how it operates. And from
there, he created truly transcendent works of art in pursuit of further realizing film’s
potential to broaden human perspective in a productiveand communal fashion.
His understanding of the subliminal power of spectacle and how that could mix with liminal
psychologicalspaces created in editing from image to image sync beautifully with his
passionate goals as a filmmaker. He writes, “My mission is the creation of a new perception
of the world. Thus I decipher in a new way a world unknownto you” (Barnouw, 1993, p.
58). Understanding that the act of watching a film is a certain experience by whichto
perceive the world onscreen, Vertov and the kinoks did create some of the most
experimental films up to their point in time, so it’s hard to refute his point. Not in that what
you see isn’t there or that the images you see in his films you haven’t seen before; but the
process by whichyou experience what yousee broadens one’s perception of a certain

3. previously unknownquality of seeing things with fresh insight—this of course would have
been truer in the time of the film than it is now based on the very filmic innovations set in
motion by this film. But even today, the film permeates the psyche of our modern brains in
a way that at the very least, given an ounce of commitment by the viewer,deals with time
and memory in a way seemingly akin to how weexperience ourselves retrospectively. The
free-flowingjourney of Man With a MovieCamera challenges formalrealism (a norm, which
remains today), charging it with manipulation of the senses, and urges us as viewersto
think deeper about the nature of the worldas captured on film and to recognize the
apparatuses by whichwe understand life and society—including the camera with whichthe
very spectacle before our eyes was captured, organized, and presented. And above all, the
team managed to do so while simultaneously creating an effectively captivatingfilm—
something that couldstand as genuine motivation towards enlightened innovation and a
new way forward—and yetit is void of any traditional narration, characters, or structure.
The only discernible story is that of human perception itself set to the motion of a Soviet
city,and once its interconnectedness is considered and fully realized, one might say the city
itself becomes the main character—one giant complex organism—but that would certainly
miss a larger point. Barnouw states, “We see the making of a film and at the same time the
film that is being made. The interweaving of the two is constant and, in its playfulness,
disarming, stimulating, often baffling” (1993, p. 63). Even withoutthe literal insertion of
Mikhail Kaufman, the cameraman, as character, there is a purely introspective nature about
this film that makes it about the maker—a filmmaker—but also, assuming wecan relate to
the filmmaker subject, it’s about us as well. And even further, the film also exists in clever
construction to showcaseand glorify the city upon which“the man” points his camera.
While I would disagree with the notion of the city as the main subject, it is that of the movie

4. within the movie, and as the interconnectedness of everything persists, is it not all one and
the same—a part of the functioning whole? The film does showcase a bustling city from an
awe-inspiring point of view with efficiency and functionality at the forefront. It is a
celebration of the city and its impressive products, but the film, to me, functions as a
testament to the ever-presence of human ingenuity and potential forrevolution. The city,
without whichhuman collaboration couldnot coalesce,is secondary.
Barnouw (1993) writes, “In a superimposure we see a camera on its tripod, seemingly the
size of an EiffelTower, standing with the cameraman in the midst of a vast crowdof tiny
people: a highly expressive image. Elsewhere we see a cameraman, with camera and tripod,
climbing out of a glass of beer: what is Vertov telling us here? At the end of the film, camera
and tripod take a bow by themselves” (p. 63). One major formal aspect of traditional
filmmaking defied by Vertov is the use of time in Man With a MovieCamera. There isn’t a
time outside that of the timeframe during which we as the audience watch the film. It is
abstracted in a relative dreamscape only furthered by the introduction on screen of the
camera by whichwhat we see is manifested—essentially offering up a multi-dimensional
interpretation of time. Is this real time? Is this what I’m seeing or what the camera is
seeing? Why did I ever consider there to be a difference? The created nature of the film
itself becomes as much the theme as anything else. It glorifies the cameraman and
showcases his magical powers by manipulating reality onscreen withcamera tricks. “But
the artificiality is deliberate: an avant-garde determination to suppress illusion in favorof a
heightened awareness” (Barnouw, 1993, p. 63).
Similar to the treatment of the city subject of the movie within the movie, the man with the
movie camera as a character enjoys a position of powerin the film—a glorified position

5. indeed—but by stripping the experience of any formal realism, Vertov beckons us deeper,
begging the question of how effectively aselective editing job can ever portray its subject
matter in terms of objectivetruthfulness. Is this the reality of the new modern Soviet city,
or is this a glorified facsimile framed beautifully and omitting less palatable particulars? It’s
both, and yet more importantly, it’s an expression of that city. The motion of bicycles,
horses, buggies, and people fillcontemplative and meditative sequences of interconnected
life functioning collectively;thereal time of a given sequence suddenly stops still for a
second or two before cutting to the editing booth where the reality of single shots come
together to recreate motion; the camera and cameraman on a carcuts to the scene captured
by said camera, exposing film truth as something separate from ideal truth. This isn’t quite
the city as it is, but not because the images are not of the city—they indeed are very much
so the city. It’s an acknowledgment of the only way one can see anything: subjectively;and
only in accepting this reality can we come together collectively in understanding and
mutuality.
The depth of this conceptual commitment to a style of transparency is the deepest truth
here, and it renders a certain take on that city or perhaps a plea to embrace what that city
might be. That city is not the revolution but the embodiment of it—or at least it could be.
Manwith a MovieCamera is a suggestion of poetic sophistication and depth that belies
Vertov’s authoritarian manifestos and urges a broader perspective both on life and the craft
and functionof filmmaking. If fornothing else, the history of Vertov’s suppression within
post-revolutionary communist Russia is telling of the factthat Vertov, the man, conjured
immense filmic power and that film itself harbors very real potential for societal impact.
The debate of truth aside, the reality of watching a film functions as some sort of relative
agreement between screen and audience to simply spend a bit of time together. What

6. transpires within that time is a special sort of reflexive contemplation, which exists
subjectively from person to person; and Vertov, I believe, and perhaps despite his intentions
to herd perspectives into a grouping of revolutionary ideology, tapped into that mutual
relationship and transcended the reach of state control.