man with a movie camera (1929)

[lisa-]

http://iadorepeople.wordpress.com/2014/ ... mera-1929/

the first time i saw this film was on a 17 inch laptop screen at the university library, and i hadn’t slept the previous night at all. i still loved it, but in that condition it would be difficult to say that i experienced the full magnitude of dziga vertov’s film.

today, i saw man with a movie camera for the second time, on a 5+ metre projection screen, with a full night’s sleep, souped up on caffeine. and even if this course on film theory ends up providing nothing of insight whatsoever – an unlikely proposition – simply having the chance to view this astonishing masterpiece in its natural environment is more than enough reason for my participation.

there is something about soviet cinema that is supremely powerful. forget all that nonsense about propaganda. it isn’t important at all. because what unites films of this culture is a complete rejection of hiding passion and expression behind that obfuscation known as subtlety. it can be found in silent classics such as sergei eisenstein’s battleship potemkin and alexandr dovzhenko’s earth, or in the couplet of war films, come and see and the ascent, directed respectively by married couple elem klimov and larisa shepitko. in leaving subtlety behind, these filmmakers have crafted art of intense emotional and thematic power.

man with a movie camera engages with the same culture. but it is of course different, because it also transcends traditional narrative. it is what it intended to do, and it is what it succeeded in doing. that isn’t to say there isn’t a narrative at all, and in fact there clearly is, one in which everything begins in dormancy, life and camera, until all of it builds and ramps and crescendos into a shattered explosion of rhythmic sound and image. it transcends traditional narrative because there is no textual component at all, either explicit or implied. it’s quite ironic that one of silent cinema’s most profound films is also one where sound is most crucial to both its emotive impact and its theory of film.

strangely, a few people still consider this a piece of communist propaganda. it doesn’t mean much that it was banned upon release, as the aforementioned works by sergei and alexandr were also, even though they show slavish commitment to their ideology’s values. but given its existence as a piece of experimental cinema and the clearest statement of kuleshov’s montage theory, not only is it a completely uninteresting way to analyse the film, but these qualities also make it deeply subversive, and it is eminently more obvious as to why the soviets banished this from cinemas at the time than some other works.

this brief review is a bit of an aimless screed, but i’ll conclude by saying that this film, along with 2001: a space odyssey, are the only two pieces of ‘cinema’ that exist. if you’re wondering why or what i really mean by saying this, you should probably just go ahead and watch them.

[Ag0stoMesmer]

Cool review. This has been on my radar for ages (considering it for a collection). With a recommendation so strong I think I'll give it a watch at the weekend. I see both the 'cinematic orchestra' and Nyman versions on a popular video streaming site but there are others - I like orchestral, I like Nyman but, theremins would've been cool. Any recommendation for the soundtrack?

Edit: After a quick compare on YT I've ordered the disc so I can watch the In The Nursery ST - I thought their Hindle wakes one was good - It's the synth-loving goth in me

[karamazov.]

. . . even though they show slavish commitment to their ideology’s values.

Ooh, ouch.
This must be [wince] I caught this serious case of the paronomasia just now, like a kick in the pince-nez.
[spoiler][/spoiler]

Will have to sub to the wordpress.

[lisa-]

oh god, i have to mention that i watched the version with alloy orchestra. man, nyman's score sounds so shit in comparison. obviously i can't say that with my tainted view.

also no-one should look at that trashy piece of writing before it. though i agree with my message. death sucks.

[karamazov.]

Yeah, I love some of Nyman's Greenaway stuff, but I'm also not much of a fan of his score for this.

[mattorama12]

I generally avoid reading the full reviews for movies I haven't seen, but there was enough feedback here and this film is old enough that I decided to read anyway. First off, really excellent review! Second, Soviet cinema is a gigantic and embarrassing blind spot for me. I had planned to start digging in to that blind spot with some Tarkovsky first and Battleship Potemkin next, but this review has bumped Man with a Movie Camera to the top.

[Ag0stoMesmer]

An article for all any Jungsters reading

[lisa-]

i didn't think about tarkovsky when writing the review - obviously, that destroys any notion i had of the soviets acting as one collective to destroy subtlety in cinema, lol.

not a rag on tarkovsky.

[lisa-]

An article for all any Jungsters reading

i've always thought i need to see more documentaries, but i've seen the top five. all great, except sans soleil...which isn't.

tbh i don't really consider man with a movie camera much of a documentary - or something like koyaanisqatsi. perhaps cinematic essay is the best term. it seems the genre has evolved to include anything that isn't strictly fictional.

[avgcrtckr]

It tops the BFI's Greatest Documentaries of All Time:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magaz ... atest-docs