![]() In that essay Eisenstein had attempted to tie film-from its most rudimentary physical basis, namely the creation of an impression of movement, to its capacity for the most subtle kind of historical analysis-back into the revolution of consciousness that was dialectical materialism. For he had prefaced his own discourse, “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form,” with the following statement:Īccording to Marx and Engels the dialectic system is only the conscious reproduction of the dialectic course (substance) of the external events of the world. ![]() In that same spring, he had written an essay in which he had optimistically connected his passion for film theory with Theory of Historical Materialism. Eisenstein’s “acquaintance” with the works of Marx was neither “slight” nor superficial. ”Īlexandrov does not describe Eisenstein’s reaction to that remark, and Eisenstein himself did not write about the interview or discuss it with others. “Cde Stalin spoke heatedly,” reports Alexandrov, “about the slight acquaintance that masters of Soviet film art had with the works of Marx. The “great friend of Soviet cinema” had spoken of the weakness of his comrade film makers’ grasp of Marxism. During that same meeting, Stalin had said something else. ![]() And his criticism had resonated through the Communist Party ranks to deprive the film of its original release title, substituting instead Old and New, a title that would no longer signal the work as an embodiment of official Soviet directive. Stalin had expressed displeasure about the ending of the film which purported to express the official position on the collectivization of agriculture. The interview had been held in the spring of 1929, in the interval between the completion and the official release of The General Line, Eisenstein’s fourth film. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |