Download Film Great Sergei Eisenstein`s background information - john

Eisenstein - A Beginning
Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein is best known as a film maker. Yet his films number only eight (of
which six were completed: 'Strike', 'The Battleship Potemkin', ' October', 'The Old and the
New', 'Alexander Nevsky', 'Ivan the Terrible - Que Viva Mexico! 'and 'Bezhin Meadow' are
unfinished) and of these one, possibly two, exist now in the form in which they were planned.
Although few in number, his films, particularly The Battleship Potemkin, continually appear in
listings of the top ten films of all time. Not only the power of Potemkin, but the possibilities of
the art form that it demonstrated, ensure that Eisenstein will always have a place in the history of
the development of the cinema.
Yet Eisenstein was not only a film maker. His work as an artist encompassed stage and costume
design, while his extensive drawings, many of which are included in the exhibition, show Eisenstein
experimenting with styles in a psychological exploration of himself.
And what of the man himself? When we talk of Eisenstein, of whom are we talking? The film
theoretician? The fan of Mickey Mouse? The man who met Rin Tin Tin? The dancer? The
engineer? The artist? Revolutionary film maker? The teacher? The mimic? Not one but all of
these. In his film theories, his influences were wide - mathematics, painting, physiology, philology,
ethnology and literary history all played a part in the formation of his ideas. The room in which he
died exhibited the many influences on his life and thought. Disney, Daumier, Dickens, Joyce, Leger
words, images, all of which reappeared in his work from the store house of ideas that was
Eisenstein.
Childhood
"My father was very vain. He was a domestic tyrant and like old
Grandet in Balzac's novel he always wore black lacquered boats with
rounded toes. The seeds of social protest were planted here not by
injustice or deprivation but by that master symbol of social tyranny my
father."
23 January 1898 Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein born in Riga, Latvia,
the only son of Mikhail Osipovich. His father, an engineer, has hopes
that his son will follow his profession. Much is often made of the
childhood of artists, the ways in which they have been formed by their
early experiences. No experience, no reading, no image was forgotten
by Eisenstein.
Eisenstein's relationship with his parents was highly influenced by the fact that they separated
when he was 11. He was left in the custody of his father for whom he held little affection.
The 'father figure' features strongly throughout life both the search for one (as in the case of the
dramatist Meyerbald) or in the presentation of such figures as tyrants (e.g. the father in Bezhin
Meadow).
As well as the remembrance of his father, other memories from his childhood would remain and
reappear in his films. In 1906 he visited Paris with his parents and saw his first film, 400 Tricks of
the Devil by Melies. Images from it were later to reappear in October. His passion for art
appeared at an early age and one of his favourite artists was Daumier. The latter's representation
of people as animals also appeared in Eisenstein's work, from early drawings to films. His
childhood interest in drawing was to have a profound influence an him all his life. Drawing would
be away of escape, of release and of planning in the difficult years in which he lived.
In 1915 Eisenstein enrolled at the Petrogrod Institute of Civil Engineering, following his father's
profession. As well as studying, however, Eisenstein spent many hours at the theatre and the
cinema. With the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917, it was these two influences which
would pull him away from his professional training.
From Revolutionary
Theatre to Revolutionary
Film
"If it had not been for the Revolution, I should never have broken with the tradition passed down
from father to son of becoming an engineer. The germ was there, but only the revolution gave
me ... the freedom to take my fate into my own hands."
Initially, Eisenstein volunteered for the Red Army and during the Civil War became a technician in
the Engineer Corp. It was not long, however, before his artistic talents were recognised.
Eisenstein was transferred to the Theatre Department of the Political Section of the Western
Front, designing Agit Prop trains which travelled throughout Russia taking art to the people, and
also amateur theatre productions.
The artistic ferment that existed after the Revolution could not fail to affect Eisenstein. The
avant garde of Russian art led Eisenstein to believe that the only revolutionary art was one which
did away with old forms and looked for new means of expression far the new revolutionary state.
Artists such as Meyerhald and Mayakovsky had
been experimenting with various art forms from
early in the century.
Leaving the Army, Eisenstein enrolled at
Meyerhald's Stage School far Stage Direction. He
became involved in the theatrical avant
garde-the old concepts of the proscenium arch
and characterisation disappeared. In its stead
came the idea of an amalgam of farms based an
a concept of popular culture-circus, sang, dance,
acrobatics. Eisenstein had ideas of his own about
how to move the theatre into the revolutionary age.
"What do the masses and the Revolution want from the theatre? Only what comes from
traditional farms of popular spectacle: circus, fairground attractions. The new theatre must be a
sort of 'montage of attractions', that is to say, 0f shock elements that strike and dazzle."
Enough Simplicity In Every Wise Man? staged in 1923, was Eisenstein's theatrical tour de force.
His lack of respect for classic traditions was obvious in a play performed in a circus ring
constructed within the theatre, by actors who had trained to be acrobats, jugglers, tightrope
artistes, clowns. Actors would seemingly drift in and out of moments of action, the scene of the
play moving from one part of the ring to another. The clash of the various actions was intended
to introduce a 'new measure of tension' into theatre. His future ideas of cinematic montage are
already apparent in this production. Not only that, it was here that Eisenstein had his first
experience of film making. The production of Ostrovsky's play included a short filmed version of
the play, Glumov's Diary. The film ended as an actor burst through the screen holding a reel of
film. Despite the studio's fear of the technical difficulties in the shooting of Glumov's personality
changes and the pressure of time (filming began 3 days before the play's opening night), the
shooting was successfully completed in a single day.
Having experimented with theatre in what can only be described as an anti realist format,
Eisenstein's final theatrical production went to the opposite extreme. The performance of Sergei
Tretyakov's Gas Masks, was staged in the Moscow Gas Works. After only four performances, the
actors were asked to leave. Eisensten realised that the real life surroundings were incompatible
with the theatrical illusion. The surroundings overwhelmed the play, making it seem absurd and
pointless. Having exhausted, to his mind, the possibilities of the theatre, Eisenstein now turned to
film as a way of expressing his ideas.
Mastering Montage
Eisenstein's first films would follow the course of
his plays. Not content with simply making films in
the normal way, he wanted to confront the
'bourgeois film' and its influences. He wanted to
challenge its escapism and the failure of the
cinema to educate and agitate the proletarian
class. It was Eisenstein's aim to create a
"revolutionary art without compromises!", a series
of blows to the consciousness and feelings of the
audience."
Eisenstein, after a period of co-operation with
experienced film makers Shub and Kuleshov, made
his first full length film, Strike. It was described in PRAVDA as "the first revolutionary creation of
our cinema". That Eisenstein's first film was so accomplished should cameos no surprise. His
experiments in the theatre and his theorising on the place of art in the revolution, his concepts
not only of form but the relationship of form to an audience's understanding of an artwork, as
well as his final realisations of the limits of theatre, meant that Strike exploded with the artistic
revolutionary fervour that had been building up within him.
As in his theatrical productions, Eisenstein in his first film avoided a narrative and instead
concentrated on themes. He also avoided using large numbers of actors and instead looked for
people who could portray easily recognisable 'types' of people-the priest, the student. It would
often take Eisenstein days or weeks to find the right person to fit o role.
As well as differing in content, Eisenstein attempted new ways of shooting and assembling film.
He was striving for effect in his finished film. For this he developed the idea of montage.
"But in my view montage is not on idea composed of successive shots stuck together, but on
idea that derives from the juxtapositioning between two shots that ore independent of one
another (the 'dramatic principle'). ('Epic' and 'dramatic' in relation to the methodology of form
and not content or plot!!) As in Japanese hieroglyphs, in which two independent ideographic
characters ('shots') are juxtaposed and explode into o concept. THUS:
Eye
+
Water
=
Crying
Door
+
Ear
=
Eavesdropping
Child
+
Mouth
=
Screaming
Mouth +
Dog
=
Barking
Mouth +
Bird
=
Singing
Knife
Heart
=
Anxiety, etc"1
+
"If we regard film as a means of producing on emotional impact on the mosses,…then it follows
that we must secure it in the impact category. In seeking ways to build the cinema we must make
extensive use of the experience and latest accomplishments in those arts that set themselves
similar tasks. 2
1 The Dramaturgy of Film Form. 1929
2 The Montage of Film Attractions, 1924
With these techniques, he was not only giving
the image more power and meaning, he was also
demanding reaction from his audience the
tension that he had sought in his theatre work.
From such an auspicious beginning, Eisenstein
then started planning a number of films about
the Revolution, particularly the year 1905. From
these plans emerged his masterpiece, The
Battleship Potemkin (1925). Potemkin
takes the ideas of montage and typage and
develops them on the basis of dialectical
materialism to form a film which, in essence,
makes one event stand for the 1905 revolution
asa whole. The 'characters' in the film ore,
following the theory of typage, representative of
'The Masses' - for it is the revolutionary force
that is the main character of this film and also of
October.
October Ten Days that Shook the World (1927) demonstrates a whole variety of 'intellectual
montage' along the lines of the Japanese ideogram above. However, its release gave rise to a
storm of criticism in which even Eisenstein's mentor Meyerhold, joined. The wind of change was
beginning to blow. Revolutionary ideas had to be tempered with a knowledge of what was
required by the State. Before its release Trotsky had fallen from power and most references to
him in the film were removed. Another criticism levelled at October was that it was inaccessible
to a mass audience. 'Intellectualism' was a dangerous tag to have in the years to come.
Eisenstein's final film of this period, The General Line was to confront the problem of State
acceptance in an even more problematic way. Experimental in its form, the subject matter-the
co-operative farm movement-was the focus of much debate within the USSR. During its making, a
policy swing meant that Eisenstein's treatment of the topic was no longer acceptable by the time
the film was due for release. He was forced to produce a new ending, and when even this failed to
satisfy the authorities, the name of the film had to be changed to The Old and the New (1929) in
order to disassociate it from official policies on agriculture. Whilst being a time of creative
experiment for Eisenstein, it was also a period of growing problems for the artist, problems which
Eisenstein would have to face on his return from his travels.
USA and Mexico Years of Travel, Years of Disillusion
1929-30 Eisenstein spent four months touring Europe, lecturing and getting involved in a
number of film projects. Whilst in London he even appeared in Hans Richter's short film Everyday,
as a policeman! Finally he set sail for Hollywood with a contract from Paramount Pictures. There
he met Chaplin and Walt Disney. He would remain in contact with Chaplin for many years and his
admiration for Disney's work was immense.
Eisenstein's arrival in Hollywood could have been looked on as a liberating possibility for the film
maker. Instead of State intervention in film making, he might have hoped fora more liberal and
liberating response to his ideas. It is ironic that Hollywood and the "capitalist socialists" that he
met on his travels there eventually proved to be a deadening influence on his creative talents.
Eisenstein had been given 3 months to come up with a project which would be acceptable to the
studios for filming. The major problem that he faced, however, was the Hollywood conception of
what a film should be. Hollywood demanded stars and a narrative formalized in a way which was
readily accessible to an American audience. Only two scripts were fully developed in this period
Eisenstein's adaptations of Blaise Cendrars' Gold and Theodore Dreiser's 'An American Tragedy'.
When read by David 0. Selznick, head of Paramount Pictures, the response was probably
predictable:
"I have just finished reading the Eisenstein adaptation of 'An American Tragedy'. It was for me a
memorable experience; the most moving script I have ever read. It was so effective, it was
positively torturing. When I had finished reading it, I was so depressed that! wanted to reach for
the bourbon bottle. As entertainment, I don't think it has one chance in a hundred ... Let's try
new things, by all means. But let's keep these gambles within the bounds of those that would be
indulged by rational businessmen."
Having hired Eisenstein as a great 'artist', Hollywood then expected him to produce the typical
Hollywood product. Eisenstein was therefore not surprised when his contract with Paramount was
terminated.
Que Viva Mexico! - Death of a Dream
After the failure of the American adventure,
Eisenstein was financed by the wife of the novelist
Upton Sinclair to make a film in Mexico. As with his
first major production for the theatre, Eisenstein
returned to popular forms for the overall shape of
his film.
"The story of this film is unusual. Four novels
framed by prologue and epilogue, unified in
conception and spirit, creating its entity . Six
Mexican songs accompany these novels, which
themselves are simply unrelated folk songs about
local legends, tales from different parts of Mexico,
brought together in one unified cinematic work."
The film, Que Viva Mexico! (1930-31), was Eisenstein's most ambitious film project and was also
to prove his greatest tragedy. What the eventual outcome and 'look' of this film would have been
we can only guess. Originally scheduled to shoot for four months, the filming extended until, after
thirteen months (and spending twice as much money as originally planned), the Sinclairs stopped
production. Most of the sections had been filmed, but Eisenstein was barred from seeing rushes
and taking part in the editing process. The only completed sections of the film to survive of
Eisenstein's filming were two films, Thunder Over Mexico and Death Day, both put together by
other hands. Eisenstein himself never sow any of his shot footage until many years later.
Eisenstein returned to Moscow empty handed. Possibly the only positive
thing to come out of his travels was that he began to draw again. The
drawings from this period, plans far filming, and sketches of his personal
response to Mexico, show us a further side of this creative genius. The line,
the flow, capture the 'spirit' that he saw in Mexico and which he may well
have caught also in 'Que Viva Mexico'. Far the future, it brought back a
talent from his youth which he would use to great effect bath in his
planning of films and as a means of expressing himself when he was unable
to make films. At that moment, however, Eisenstein could not see the
benefits that he had gained from his travels, small though they may have
been compared to the disasters of his trip.
"I am slowly recovering from the blow of my Mexican experience. I have never worked on anything
with such enthusiasm and what has happened to it is the greatest crime, even if I have to share
the guilt. But there are things which have to be above personal feelings. Let's not talk about it
any mare."
Return to the USSR
If the Mexican experience had severely damaged Eisenstein's psyche, then his return to the USSR
in no way helped to repair the damage. The problems that he had faced before his travels abroad
were greatly increased an his return in 1932. He faced severe difficulties in actually making a film.
Viewed with suspicion by the authorities after his long absence, and out of touch with the artistic
development within the USSR, it was three years before he found a subject which was acceptable
to the State. Refusing to lose the ideas of Que Viva Mexico! he proposed a film an Moscow
which would look at the development of the city over the centuries, much as his Mexican film had
tried to examine that country. Again, this came to nothing. Most of his time in this period was
spent teaching at the GIK film school.
Bezhin Meadow (1936-37) was the first
project that was acceptable to the State. On
the surface, the film looked at the defence of a
collective farm by a group of young Pioneers
from attacks by Kulaks (rich farmers).
Eisenstein, however, used this as a basis to
explore the relationship between the hero,
Stepak, and his father echoes of his own
boyhood and its problems. The film ends with
the father murdering his son
This was Eisenstein's first sound film made in
the Soviet Union and he had great hopes of
experimenting with the form- -"a sound film
expressive of a specific artistic farm and of a
psychological interpretation of reality." In the
end, however, it was all to no avail. The policy
which had first of all allowed him to make the
film changed. A different view of collective
farms was needed. The film was destroyed. All
that remains are a number of stills which give
us same idea of what the film would have baked
like. Two years of creative work were brought to nothing, Eisenstein returned to his teaching and
to drawing.
His next project, Alexander Nevsky (1938), responded directly to the anti-fascist mood of the
times in the USSR, in its recounting of the story of the repulse of the Teutonic knights by the
Russians. It was Eisenstein's first collaboration with the composer Prokofiev, who wrote the
soundtrack far the film. Prokofiev would arrive at the studios in the evening to see the days
completed filming and then, by mid-day of the following day would return with a completed
soundtrack far that section of the film.
Regarded as a success when it first appeared, it too fell foul of a sudden policy change, in this
case the German Soviet non aggression pact. The film was withdrawn and Eisenstein forced to
make 'fraternal' broadcasts to Germany, in addition to his being made director of a production of
Wagner's Die Walküre. With the German invasion of the USSR, however, the film returned to
favour as an example of anti-fascist film making. Two sketches from this time encapsulate the
many frustrations of the period. In the first, Eisenstein is shooting himself in the head and in the
second, banging his head against a brick wall. The caption, written in English, reads: "That's how I
do feel.".
The Final Years
The final years of Eisenstein's life were years of
bath triumph and continued frustration. Film
projects were encouraged and then rejected.
Eisenstein turned his hand to opera production,
with a staging of Die Walküre His drawings far the
production show o different style from those of
Mexico-more controlled, less expressive in their
line. Alongside these were his own personal
sketches, many based yet again on Shakespeare's
Macbeth, a ploy which haunted him all of his life.
His final project, Ivan the Terrible, faced the usual problems of Stalin's personal intervention.
Eisenstein envisaged that the film would be in three parts. His first experiment with colour is a
feature of part two; while influences from his childhood and his reading abound. When the first
part was released (1944) it met with Stalin's praise as it was in accordance with his view of
Russian history -- Eisenstein being awarded the Stalin Prize, First Class, for the film. This success
was, however, short lived. With the completion of part two (1946), Stalin's mood changed he
failed to identify with Ivan in the second part, unlike in the first. The film was banned and all
footage of the third part destroyed.
During the whole of this period Eisenstein had been at work not only on his theoretical writings
but also on his memoirs. It was as if he sensed that time was running out. A series of heart
attacks had given a sense of urgency to this task, almost a race against time to complete his
life's work.
February 10-11, 1948 Eisenstein suffered a fatal
heart attack whilst writing the introduction to
Kuleshov's Fundamentals of Film Direction.
Eisenstein's legacy to the cinema is to be found as much in his theoretical writings (which are
extensive) as in his films. More than anything it is Eisenstein's vision of what cinema and film can
do that makes him an enduring influence on radical film makers around the world.
"Imagine a cinema which is not dominated by the
dollar-a cinema industry where one man's pocket is
not filled at other people's expense; which is not to
benefit the pockets of two or three people but the
minds and hearts of one hundred and fifty million
people!"
29 September to 11 December 1988
29 December to 5 February 1989
The exhibition was first shown at The Museum of
Modern Art, Oxford
Exhibition organised by The Museum of Modern Art,
Oxford. The British Film Institute and the USSR
Union of Cinematographers with financial support
from Visiting Arts and The Arts Council of Great Britain
Text: Ian Wall © 1988 The South Bank Centre and Film Education Stills courtesy of Eisenstein
Archive, Moscow;