Soviet Montage and Realism

     Pudovkins concept of constructive editing revolves around the shots in a sequence. First, he said that each shot should make a new point; this is important for a film in order to develop the plot. If each shot did not make a new point, then there would be random scenes that don't relate to the film and would make the audience feel awkward --- they will know if something is wrong and will feel awkward. Overall, he believed that by juxtaposing shots would create new meaning.
     The Kuleshov effect is another  editing idea used in films on a regular basis. What it is, is that its when two shots are put together in order to create a new meaning. A relationship is established between two items people etc. An example of this is when you have a shot of a sweaty man and the sun. You understand he is hot. Or you could have the same sweaty man and then a different shot of a women. You might infer that he is nervous and to afraid to talk to her.
     Eisentstein had a different idea than Pudovkin. Contrastingly he believed that instead of each shot making its own new point that they should be contributing to one and another. Montage is several shots that have to do with the same concept. In the Odessa Steps sequence, everyone is being shot down. Each shot has its own thing to talk about yet they are incomplete. No one knows why people are running but we later see they are running from guns.


     In "The Man With the Movie Camera" there is no set plot line. For me it is infuriating to watch because I am bored out of my mind. A lot of shots are put together. One long continuous take after another. This trait of realistic editing is very slow. It allows time for the audience to absorb information and develop their own meaning. Also, the montage is being done here where several shots are put together to create meaning. There was a time frame in this film where there were several people laying down on the streets because they are probably poor. The kuleshov effect if used because there are several shots of average city life in this setting (who knows where) and accompanied by these poor souls on the ground. With this relationship we can establish the poverty in this village/ town etc. and notice its decline. Everything is very dull too. and there is not much to notice about this film except for its simplicity. This film does not follow Eisentsteinian criteria because each shot has its own meaning. They are not incomplete and they could get away to being their own meaning as individual clips. Overall, this film is simplistic and does not contribute anything significant except for one overall definition of that town.

     The plot in this film is very interesting. A child gets his bike stolen and his father tries to get it back for him. Ironically, the father ends up trying to steal one to get a bike back to his son. This film clearly uses the kuleshov effect throughout the beginning sequence of this clip. We know the backstory that he is trying to get the bike back for his son but he resorts to stealing. The kuleshov effect occurs when there is a large group of bikes in front of him. His stare shows a want for it and the bikes show what he wants. Then he looks at the bike in the allyway. He tries to make the decision which bike to take. The isolated one where no one can see him, or out in public. Basically, I believe that this clip uses Eisentinian editing because each shot helps to develop the character (this adult man person). We see shots of his son, allowing us to feel for his love for him. We see he wants to get a bike for him etc. Overall, I feel that the kuleshov effect help sto develop a character. Its a way to contribute to the plot and that is why this films is Eisenstenian.