Eisenstein’s and Pudovkin’s view on filmmaking are both shaped by the principles of editing in order to create meaning. Both studied D.W.Griffith who revolutionized film language via editing and inspired the Soviet school of montage. While many of Eisenstein’s and Pudovkin’s influences were similar they each viewed the role of the spectator distinctly due to the meanings that can be derived from editing.

In contract to Eisenstein who stresses the importance of clashing images Pudovkin see’s the role of editing fulfilling the directors visual ambitions. Essentially Eisenstein was more interested in the disjunctive and colliding outcomes that pairing, juxtaposition and repetitiveness may induce via the image. On the other hand Pudovkin favored a smooth flowing narrative which sets the stage for a climactic, emotionally driven film.  It is clear that Pudovkin built the meaning in his films from the director’s guidance and smooth flowing transitions which help to fulfill viewers objective task at linking the images. Eisenstein clearly differs from Pudovkin due to his belief that the succession of images does not have to follow a straight forward pattern or narrative. In Eisenstein’s view, meaning is derive from a sequence of shots which are manipulated to fit via editing. It is important to note however that both Pudovkin and Eisenstein regarded editing in the highest respect, attributing the meaning to a film.

Pudovkin’s emphasis on logical conclusion via editing suggests his view that the camera acts as the perception of the filmmaker, whose job it is to shoot footage and then rearrange and give it meaning via editing. Similarly Eisenstein produces meaning via editing however his style is more ambiguous at determining the audiences intended conclusions.  The nature of film as an art from constitutes from the idea that successive shots linked together create meaning which is individual and therefore beneficial. However both studied Griffith and saw intolerance to the point the film burned through. It is therefore important to notice that while Pudovkin and Eisenstein might differ on the contextual meaning derived from montage, they both emphasize the need to utilize it.

Although both theories central points include montage they apply it’s principles to create meaning rather differently. Pudovkin’s style aims to create meaning via montage I find Eisenstein’s process of creating signs as a more important component in persuasive filmmaking. Eisenstein goes beyond what is expected from the narrative and seeks to collide images of importance almost challenging the audience to determine the sometimes nuanced correlations between shots.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar