| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Soviet montage theory ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
== Overview ==Confined to the project of Soviet expansion, film theorists of the USSR cared little for questions of meaning. Instead, the writing sought the praxis of filmmaking and theory. The pragmatic and revolutionary application of these movements stands in harsh contrast to ideas being developed simultaneously in Western Europe. Socialist Realism characterized the emergence of art within the constraints of communism. Constructivism, an extension of Futurism, sought a pre-modern integration of art into the everyday. Soviet theorists had a clear job before them: theorize in order to aid the cause of the Communist Party. The ethical and ontological dimensions explored in the West were tabled in lieu of film’s potential to reach the millions in far reaches of Soviet territory, where literacy was scarce. Film was a tool with which the state could advance the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was no surprise that most of the Soviet film theorists were also filmmakers.The principal contribution of Soviet film theorists to global cinema was Montage Theory, which brought formalism to bear on filmmaking. Soviet montage theory is an approach to understanding and creating cinema that relies heavily upon editing (''montage'' is French for "assembly" or "editing"). Although Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s disagreed about how exactly to view montage, Sergei Eisenstein marked a note of accord in "A Dialectic Approach to Film Form" when he noted that montage is "the nerve of cinema", and that "to determine the nature of montage is to solve the specific problem of cinema". Its influence is far reaching commercially, academically, and politically. Alfred Hitchcock cites editing (and montage indirectly) as the lynchpin of worthwhile filmmaking. In fact, montage is demonstrated in the majority of narrative fiction film available today. Post-Soviet film theories relied extensively on montage’s redirection of film analysis toward language, a literal grammar of film. A semiotic understanding of film, for example, is indebted to and in contrast with Sergei Eisenstein’s wanton transposition of language “in ways that are altogether new.” While several Soviet filmmakers, such as Lev Kuleshov, Dziga Vertov, Esfir Shub and Vsevolod Pudovkin put forth explanations of what constitutes the montage effect, Eisenstein's view that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not ''next'' to the other, but on ''top'' of the other" has become most widely accepted.The production of films- how and under what conditions they are made- was of crucial importance to Soviet leadership and filmmakers. Films that focused on individuals rather than masses were deemed counterrevolutionary, but not exclusively so. The collectivization of filmmaking was central to the programmatic realization of the Communist state. Kino-eye forged a film and newsreel collective that sought the dismantling of bourgeois notions of artistry above the needs of the people. Labor, movement, the machinery of life, and the everyday of Soviet citizens coalesced in the content, form, and productive character of Kino-eye repertoire.Ultimately, the over-regulation of film form under Joseph Stalin, the absorption of Hollywood cinematic standards, and the alienation of filmmakers from their craft prompted the fizzling of Soviet influence in global cinema. The bulk of influence, beginning the October 1917 Revolution until the late 1950s, brought a cinematic language to the fore and provided the groundwork for contemporary editing and documentary techniques, as well as providing a starting point for more advanced theories.
== Overview ==
Confined to the project of Soviet expansion, film theorists of the USSR cared little for questions of meaning. Instead, the writing sought the praxis of filmmaking and theory. The pragmatic and revolutionary application of these movements stands in harsh contrast to ideas being developed simultaneously in Western Europe. Socialist Realism characterized the emergence of art within the constraints of communism. Constructivism, an extension of Futurism, sought a pre-modern integration of art into the everyday. Soviet theorists had a clear job before them: theorize in order to aid the cause of the Communist Party. The ethical and ontological dimensions explored in the West were tabled in lieu of film’s potential to reach the millions in far reaches of Soviet territory, where literacy was scarce. Film was a tool with which the state could advance the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was no surprise that most of the Soviet film theorists were also filmmakers.
The principal contribution of Soviet film theorists to global cinema was Montage Theory, which brought formalism to bear on filmmaking. Soviet montage theory is an approach to understanding and creating cinema that relies heavily upon editing (''montage'' is French for "assembly" or "editing"). Although Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s disagreed about how exactly to view montage, Sergei Eisenstein marked a note of accord in "A Dialectic Approach to Film Form" when he noted that montage is "the nerve of cinema", and that "to determine the nature of montage is to solve the specific problem of cinema". Its influence is far reaching commercially, academically, and politically. Alfred Hitchcock cites editing (and montage indirectly) as the lynchpin of worthwhile filmmaking. In fact, montage is demonstrated in the majority of narrative fiction film available today. Post-Soviet film theories relied extensively on montage’s redirection of film analysis toward language, a literal grammar of film. A semiotic understanding of film, for example, is indebted to and in contrast with Sergei Eisenstein’s wanton transposition of language “in ways that are altogether new.” While several Soviet filmmakers, such as Lev Kuleshov, Dziga Vertov, Esfir Shub and Vsevolod Pudovkin put forth explanations of what constitutes the montage effect, Eisenstein's view that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not ''next'' to the other, but on ''top'' of the other" has become most widely accepted.
The production of films- how and under what conditions they are made- was of crucial importance to Soviet leadership and filmmakers. Films that focused on individuals rather than masses were deemed counterrevolutionary, but not exclusively so. The collectivization of filmmaking was central to the programmatic realization of the Communist state. Kino-eye forged a film and newsreel collective that sought the dismantling of bourgeois notions of artistry above the needs of the people. Labor, movement, the machinery of life, and the everyday of Soviet citizens coalesced in the content, form, and productive character of Kino-eye repertoire.
Ultimately, the over-regulation of film form under Joseph Stalin, the absorption of Hollywood cinematic standards, and the alienation of filmmakers from their craft prompted the fizzling of Soviet influence in global cinema. The bulk of influence, beginning the October 1917 Revolution until the late 1950s, brought a cinematic language to the fore and provided the groundwork for contemporary editing and documentary techniques, as well as providing a starting point for more advanced theories.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「== Overview ==Confined to the project of Soviet expansion, film theorists of the USSR cared little for questions of meaning. Instead, the writing sought the praxis of filmmaking and theory. The pragmatic and revolutionary application of these movements stands in harsh contrast to ideas being developed simultaneously in Western Europe. Socialist Realism characterized the emergence of art within the constraints of communism. Constructivism, an extension of Futurism, sought a pre-modern integration of art into the everyday. Soviet theorists had a clear job before them: theorize in order to aid the cause of the Communist Party. The ethical and ontological dimensions explored in the West were tabled in lieu of film’s potential to reach the millions in far reaches of Soviet territory, where literacy was scarce. Film was a tool with which the state could advance the dictatorship of the proletariat. It was no surprise that most of the Soviet film theorists were also filmmakers.The principal contribution of Soviet film theorists to global cinema was Montage Theory, which brought formalism to bear on filmmaking. Soviet montage theory is an approach to understanding and creating cinema that relies heavily upon editing (''montage'' is French for "assembly" or "editing"). Although Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s disagreed about how exactly to view montage, Sergei Eisenstein marked a note of accord in "A Dialectic Approach to Film Form" when he noted that montage is "the nerve of cinema", and that "to determine the nature of montage is to solve the specific problem of cinema". Its influence is far reaching commercially, academically, and politically. Alfred Hitchcock cites editing (and montage indirectly) as the lynchpin of worthwhile filmmaking. In fact, montage is demonstrated in the majority of narrative fiction film available today. Post-Soviet film theories relied extensively on montage’s redirection of film analysis toward language, a literal grammar of film. A semiotic understanding of film, for example, is indebted to and in contrast with Sergei Eisenstein’s wanton transposition of language “in ways that are altogether new.” While several Soviet filmmakers, such as Lev Kuleshov, Dziga Vertov, Esfir Shub and Vsevolod Pudovkin put forth explanations of what constitutes the montage effect, Eisenstein's view that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not ''next'' to the other, but on ''top'' of the other" has become most widely accepted.The production of films- how and under what conditions they are made- was of crucial importance to Soviet leadership and filmmakers. Films that focused on individuals rather than masses were deemed counterrevolutionary, but not exclusively so. The collectivization of filmmaking was central to the programmatic realization of the Communist state. Kino-eye forged a film and newsreel collective that sought the dismantling of bourgeois notions of artistry above the needs of the people. Labor, movement, the machinery of life, and the everyday of Soviet citizens coalesced in the content, form, and productive character of Kino-eye repertoire.Ultimately, the over-regulation of film form under Joseph Stalin, the absorption of Hollywood cinematic standards, and the alienation of filmmakers from their craft prompted the fizzling of Soviet influence in global cinema. The bulk of influence, beginning the October 1917 Revolution until the late 1950s, brought a cinematic language to the fore and provided the groundwork for contemporary editing and documentary techniques, as well as providing a starting point for more advanced theories.」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|