Thanks Doug. Indeed I was getting frustrated by the limitations imposed upon me by the
diastic, but you've led me to see the connection to a somewhat similar feeling
experienced by Russian filmmakers. Scott MacDonald notes:
"However, for many filmmakers during the waning years of the Soviet Union, Eisenstein
and Vertov came to represent the arrival of Stalin, the gulag, and artistic repression; the
result was a rebellion against montage that took two forms. Andrei Tarkovsky's slow,
meditative films constructed from long takes were a crucial breakthrough, and many
directors followed his lead, among them Alexander Sokurov, whose Russian Ark (2002), a
feature-length film realized in one shot, is the apotheosis of this antimontage impulse. A
less pervasive tendency, perhaps best exemplified by Peleshian, has involved a
redirection of the forms of montage championed by Eisenstein and Vertov."
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:23:50 -0700, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>Yes, but I also like the way the first one catches a real sense of
>frustration...
>
>Doug
>On 24-Feb-10, at 10:34 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
>
>> The second stanza I really enjoyed.
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 23:59 +0000, Barry Alpert wrote:
>>> MONTAGE (DISTANCE)
>>>
>>> redirected by Artavazd Peleshian
>>>
>>>
>>> Magnetic field around the film.
>>> Dont call my method montage;
>>> sense I've eliminated montage.
>>> Montage--I've destroyed montage!
>>> Montage, no collision, so as a result
>>> montage has been destroyed in Eisenstein.
>>> Anymore only the whole film has the meaning . . .
>>>
>>> FilM
>>> invOlved
>>> meaNs
>>> anyThing
>>> creAtes
>>> fraGments,
>>> entErs the territory of the sound.
|