Vertov For The Doctrine Of Kino Eye example essay topic

what did vertov mean by his doctrine of kino-eye? "Of all the great innovators of the Soviet cinema, none speaks so directly to the issues of our time as Dziga Vertov" The basic principle of kino-eye is that it involves not only a disappearance of the border between the camera and the eye but a dissolution in the stages separating the process of film production as well. In this essay I will elaborate on Vertov's conception of kino-eye. I shall also study kino-eye in practice, as applied by Vertov in his 1928 film The Man with a Movie Camera. Finally I shall examine Eisenstein' appraisal of the theory.

In all, my intention is to reveal the ambitions and deep tensions within Vertov's thought and practice. Kino-eye- motivations Vertov has been described as belonging to the 'constructivist generation' in that he had great. ".. disdain of the mimetic, his concern with technique and process, their extensions and disclosure... ". (Vertov, p. xxv) All of these elements are apparent within the Kino-eye doctrine and can be seen as one of the initial causes of the theorem.

One of the motivations for creating Kino-eye was Vertov' distaste for fiction film-making; he described fiction films as "a "hellish idea" invented by the bourgeoisie "to entertain the masses" he also described them as "poison" and "film vodka". Vertov construed traditional narrative techniques as not just bourgeois, but as ideological; as producing a fictive coherence to the everyday world that produced illusion rather than truth, entertainment rather than revelation. Hence, the critiques of the techniques of narration are, in part, politically motivated. Vertov thought that there was an intimate relation between the intrinsic features film, its unique language and capacities, and the critique of the bourgeois world.

Film in its essence, he thought, would be at one with the ambitions of socialism. Equally importantly, then, his desire was to. ".. affirm the future of cinema art by rejecting its present". As things stood he felt that cinema had become far too entwined or, in synthesis, with the other arts, such as literature and painting, at far too early a stage in its development: "We are for a synthesis at the zenith of achievement of every art form - but not before". In brief, in typically modernist fashion, Vertov wanted first of all to establish what was distinctive and particular to film as a medium, to reveal its particular potencies, since, until they were known, film would remain a way of re-presenting images whose natural home was elsewhere, say literature or the theatre. The future of film as such, and the political future ideally converged for Vertov. Kino-Eye: A. Notes towards a definition and B. The doctrine in practice A. Notes towards a definition To properly define Kino-Eye it is important to first define what montage meant to Vertov, for the doctrine of Kino-Eye is a montage theory.

In From Kino-Eye to Radio-Eye Vertov states that "Montage means organizing film fragments into a film object... writing something cinematic... ". (Vertov, p. xxix) he then goes on to say that, montage does not function in the same way as other types of film in that it is controlled by the theme rather than by those working with the footage; "Every Kino-Eye production is subject to montage from the moment the theme is chosen... it is edited during the entire process of film production". (Vertov, p. xxix- ) In another of his lectures Vertov outlined the stages of montage production 1. Evaluation of documents (books, manuscripts, photos etc.) "directly or indirectly related to the assigned theme". 2.

Montage Synthesis- This is essentially the plan of shots 3. General montage- The synthesis of. ".. the notations on film by the camera". 4. The general construction of the film via the use of 'intervals' taking in to regard in the movement from one frame to the next, relations in light and shade, relation of speed of recordings etc. (Vertov, p.) Kino-Eye was Vertov's attempt to reconstruct the ways in which things were filmed. Rather than recording an image for the sake of a story he wanted to record images for the sake of images, to gather "stocks of preliminaries" which the filmmaker could then draw from in the construction of his film.

"The main and essential thing is: the sensory exploration of the world through film. We therefore take as a point of departure the use of the camera as a Kino-Eye, more perfect than the human eye, for the exploration of the chaos of visual phenomena that fills space". Dziga Vertov, (Manifesto The Council of Three, 1923) As stated in the introduction to Kino-Eye- The Writings of Dziga Vertov, Vertov "Categorically re-defined cinema's vocation as the capturing of 'the feel of the world' through the substitution of the camera, that 'perfectible eye' for the human eye, that 'imperfect one' " (Vertov, p. xxv) These two statements can be seen as the basic principles of the doctrine known as Kino-eye. In Kino-Eye The writings of Dziga Vertov, Vertov states that; "Kino-eye means the conquest of space...

Kino-eye means the conquest of time... Kino-eye makes use of every possible shooting technique... Kino-Eye uses every possible means in montage... Kino-Eye plunges into the seeming chaos of life to find in life itself the response to an assigned theme... a meaningful visual phrase an essence of 'I see' " (Vertov, p. xxv-xxvi) This appears to be a definite statement defining Kino-Eye for Vertov and marking his theory as one designed to create a filmic language. Vertov's desire to assert film as a language is evident in his describing the filmmaker as poet.

(Vertov, p. xxv ) "If film work thereby shares in the paradigmatic status of the weaver's labour, it is because for Vertov, with that super cession, the eye has indeed "become a human eye" and "its object a human social object created by man and destined for him". When the senses do thus become "directly theoretical in practice", the eye becomes, indeed, a Kino-Eye". (Vertov, p. xl) B. The doctrine in practice In the development of Kino-Eye Vertov advocated capturing "life as it is", by which he meant filming un-staged, that is, unscripted, scenes and scenes where ordinary people were not obviously reacting to the presence of the camera. "Not 'filming life unawares' for the sake of the 'unawares', but in order to show people without masks, without makeup, to catch them through the eye of the camera in a moment when they are not acting... ". (41 Vertov) These un-staged and unselfconscious images were Vertov's 'facts' - "film facts", as he called them.

They constituted his raw material, which was then to be edited into a visual statement. However Vertov. ".. isn't just recording reality, he transforms it through the power of the camera's "kino-glad" (cinema eye)". The control which the documentary director has is his ability to twist the audiences' perception of what they see through editing and special effects (Bordwell and Thompson, p. 416). Faith in the ability of the camera to capture truth, coupled with a belief in the necessity of editing, formed the basis of all montage theory. As his theory and practice unfolds, it becomes evident that these two aspects of Vertov's theory are in tension with one another.

So, for example, in Vertov's later works he used cinematographic effects heavily. These effects were used to establish the camera's superiority to the human eye - it can. ".. alter everyday reality". Clearly the ambitions of realistic immediacy, on the one hand, and altering reality on the other make for unhappy bedfellows. Vertov also attempted to make the audience aware of the camera crew and editing which had created what they saw, thus 'breaking the illusion' of the cinema. This is a style that has been termed as 'self-reflexive' (and is mimicked to great effect by many modern directors notably Godard) Vertov did this by inserting footage of people filming and editing the film, within his movie, even if the image is merely a brief shot including a reflection of the cameraman. In the book An Introduction to Film Studies Vertov's style has been described as. ".. a whirlwind of conflicting shots which disavow conventional ideas of narrative". (p. 423) Vertov's film The Man with a Movie Camera belongs to the 'city symphony's style of documentary.

Vertov has taken frank and honest footage of city-life and then linked them. ".. through associations to suggest emotions or concepts". (Bordwell and Thompson, p. 417) Vertov repeatedly demonstrates to the audience the amount of control a director has in regards to the manipulation of an audience. The film itself has been hailed as. ".. a stunning avant-garde, documentary meta-narrative which celebrates Soviet workers and filmmaking". however the film is much more than just a 'celebration' it also is a manifesto of Vertov's beliefs expressing his ideas as to the direction which cinema should take; he is clearly against the director having total control of all the camera captures, and feels that elements of freedom and spontaneity are essential to capturing the 'truth' within a movie. Something he believed should be the essence of cinema. .".. the newsreel is organised from bits of life into a theme, and not the reverse.

This also means that Kino Pravda doesn't order life to proceed according to a writer's scenario, but observes and records life as it is, and only then draws conclusions from these observations" (Vertov, 1984: 45). However, Vertov's attempts to reject 'staged' cinema seems less than fully convincing when it is considered that all the footage of Mikhail Kaufman must, at least to some extent, have been staged or contrived. The most prominent element of Man with a Movie Camera, and consequently, of the doctrine of Kino-Eye is the power of editing to twist truth, the. ".. rich imagery transcends the earth-bound limitations of our everyday ways of seeing". Vertov's film successfully depicts the power of the director to create the message he wishes to deliver regardless of the essential truths within the footage itself. This is the fundamental tension, perhaps even in contradiction, in Vertov's program; his realist ambitions, capturing the world in it raw immediacy complete with his belief that the Kino-Eye is superior to the human eye. The superiority thesis defended in these terms by Seymour Chatman commenting on Deleuze's view of Vertov: "Deleuze reminds us that Dziga Vertov's 'Kino-Eye' is not limited as a human eye is; it is ubiquitous, the product as much of montage as of cinematography.

Deleuze would argue that it is precisely the objectivity of the cinematic narrator that requires us to 'construct' rather than just to 'see's ince what the Kino-Eye presents us with is a construction of views that no human eye could see". I am not fully convinced by Chatman's and Deleuze optimism here. Vertov's movie deals with the power of cinema and to do this his film can be seen as a series of 'tricks', the power of editing has enabled Vertov to establish his view. Vertov has made a most powerful point; the viewer hasn't just been told what Vertov feels, he has been shown it.

The Man with a Movie Camera can be seen not just as a construction of meaning but a demonstration of it. But both construction and demonstration are tied to Vertov's own perspective. Even if that perspective is out in the open, it is still his. To be sure, even granting these tensions and contradictions, there is something ambitious and original in Vertov's work: The Man with a Movie Camera is in many ways a film about film.

Vertov was attempting to make a universal film, one which relied exclusively on film language to get its message across". As previously claimed the essence of Kino-Eye is Vertov's attempt to create a totally filmic and visual language via the manipulation of film truths. In her introduction to Vertov's writings Anne Michelson states that; "The evolution of his work renders insistently concrete, as in a series of kinetic icons, that philosophic phantasm of the reflexive consciousness: the eye seeing, apprehending itself as it constitutes the world's visibility: the eye transformed by the revolutionary project into an agent of critical production". But this is a 'phantasm. ' We can, perhaps, think of Eisenstein's critique of Vertov's constructive practice as blowing the whistle on this 'phantasm', albeit from the angle that accuses Vertov of naivety rather than over-sophistication. Eisenstein' dissent "It is not a cine-eye that we need but a cine-fist" Not all of Vertov' contemporary's were convinced by the kino-eye doctrine.

In particular Sergei Eisenstein was a constant critic of the kino-eye style of direction, dismissing the films as. ".. a mere montage of separate sequences". He believed that the doctrine of kino-eye was flawed. The 'film facts' which were so central to Vertov' theory were regarded by Eisenstein as 'passionless representation' thus all they could ever expect to achieve was to fix the audience's attention for the duration. Eisenstein wanted more than this from his films therefore, to Eisenstein, the doctrine, in practice, lacked power. Eisenstein felt that his films could have a profound effect on the audience whereas the kino-eye style simply filmed what was placed in front of the camera. Eisenstein highlights this point by comparing. ".. the abattoir that is recorded in cine-eyes and gorily effective in The Strike" Eisenstein believed that the essential difference between the two scenes was that in The Strike, he had, rather than 'recorded' the scene, taken "fragments from our surroundings according to a conscious and predetermined plan calculated to launch them at the audience in the appropriate combination, to subjugate it to the appropriate association with the obvious final ideological motivation" The very opposite of Vertov's doctrine which he saw, as simply "reductio ad absurdum of the technical methods valid for newsreel".

After making the seminal film October (19? ?) Eisenstein felt his film marked an important stage in the development of cinema, it. ".. embodied the transition from the old antithesis between fiction and documentary film... to a new... unclear defined stage... where 'cinema... stands on its own two feet with its own... as yet undesignated terminology'. (Taylor, p. 11) This new stage of synthesis was, to Eisenstein, one which totally rejected Vertov's doctrine. This is demonstrated by his referring to this stage of synthesis as 'CONTEMPT FOR RAW MATERIAL'.

By dismissing raw material Eisenstein was in effect rejecting Vertov's hypothesis. Eisenstein claimed that. ".. slaves of the machine are becoming exploiters of raw material. Slaves of raw material are becoming exploiters of raw material". He continues that whereas previously the "the material prevailed" it was, in affect replacing 'soul and mood'.

He saw the future of film as rather than merely being presentations or collections of images or, as he calls them, raw material they would be conclusions and judgements formed by a "complete concept". (Taylor, p. 11) Conclusions For Eisenstein, montage was a mode of image-construction that, although analogous to something that occurred in fine art, had its proper home in film. Through montage, the close-up, etc., image could be better attached to affect, letting us see the world a fresh. What Vertov failed to understand was that the specific powers of film were not restricted to being prosthesis of the human eye, that there was more to film than the camera itself.