Paste your essay in here…Chip Cary
AMI 201
Elizabeth Landesberg
April 30, 2016
Realism in Pierrot Le Fou and Battleship Potemkin
Film as whole exists as an immediate contradiction. It attempts to present a slice of the world yet is inherently duplicitous. In particular, realist film attempts to recreate reality in an artificial space of sets, scripts, and actors. It strives to be as accurate to the real world as possible, displaying aspects of life without rose-colored glasses or extreme dramatization. Realist film may travel to obscure locations and time periods, but it attempts to present reality in that setting. As David Wills puts it, film leads the viewer to believe it is a “faithful copy of the world it represents” (12). In this view, a film can only present a message by being a close replica of the world.
However, films are inherently imperfect. Even the most impeccably realist film suffers from distortions of the real world. Films are influenced by the subtlest biases ranging from director’s viewpoints to country of origin. Nevertheless, some film theorists still hold the view that realist films are far and away the most valid. Siegfried Kracauer in his book Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality argues that films that make us “experience aspects of physical reality are the most valid aesthetically” (40). Yet this view is shortsighted. It disregards other types of films, which challenge this notion of realism and still manage to convey a strong message that affects the audience.
Instead, I turn to a different concept of realism in film. In this view, realism is not as concerned with the direct reproduction of the world as it is with the key aspect of reality on which it focuses. Sergei Eisenstein’s Soviet montage film Battleship Potemkin and Jean-Luc Godard’s French New Wave film Pierrot le Fou demonstrate this different notion of realism. Although both films have noticeably different styles, both abandon traditional realist techniques in favor of manipulations of time and space. Nevertheless, both manage to effectively convey messages about reality. Battleship Potemkin lauds the virtue of the collective and decries czarist Russia. Pierrot le Fou decries the consumerist French culture and reminds viewers to simply live.
Battleship Potemkin uses Soviet montage in order to promote the collective but as a result abandons traditional realism. Soviet montage was popularized in the 1920’s as a different approach to filmmaking. In this style, filmmakers cast aside traditional cinematography and combine seemingly different shots in order to create a new product. The audience is asked not only to take meaning out of the individual shots but also out of the juxtaposition itself (Bordwell 9). Although some of his contemporaries used montage for narrative purposes, Eisenstein goes beyond narrative in order to make “metaphorical and rhetorical statements” (Ibid 10). Seeing as Eisenstein fervently believed in Soviet ideals, they are largely Marxist and reflect his ideal worldview. In Potemkin, it is this underlying message that lends itself to the film being realist. In Eisenstein’s view, the collective is the most powerful force against oppression and has created Soviet Russia. As such the film reflects this idea constantly through the emphasis on groups rather than individuals as well as the vilification of people in power. Eisenstein purposefully breaks with traditional filmmaking tropes in order to further convey his ideas.
The mutiny on the ship Potemkin uses montage to promote the strength of the common sailors while criticizing those who hold power over them. In this sequence, the captain condemns sailors who refused to eat rotten meat stew to death by firing squad. Eisenstein bombards viewers with images of the captain, the priest, the condemned prisoners, the firing squad, the other sailors, and the ship with quick cuts in between. In doing so, he is able create a completely evil image of the captain and connect him to the priest. He constantly juxtaposes images of the priest tapping a cross in his hand with images of the condemned sailors. Through the montage, Eisenstein clearly separates the captain and priest from the other sailors, vilifying both authority and religion in a single sequence.
However, Eisenstein sacrifices traditional form to achieve his objective. Time constantly changes speeds; shots are repeated to show close-ups of the captain looking malicious. Characters are not developed but instead presented as archetypes. In the end, the entire sequence takes about five minutes to complete. Traditional realism would present the events as they unfold in real time, giving credence to complex personalities and morally grey situations. Eisenstein instead does not care about presenting the events accurately. He uses montage to distill the events to their essence. The overhead shots of the sailors emphasize their unity while the close up shots of the captain and priest emphasize their individual positions of power. When the sailors successfully complete their mutiny, the viewers admire the power of the common sailors uniting against oppression.
Likewise, The Odessa Steps scene abandons time and space in order to demonstrate the brutality inflicted on the Russian people by the czarist troops. Upon arriving in Odessa, the sailors and townspeople are massacred on the steps by czarist troops. Although this sequence would only take a couple of minutes to play out in real time, Eisenstein makes the scene six minutes long to reinforce the brutality of the czarist regime. One particularly notable series of shots is the baby carriage falling down the steps. As the carriage falls, it is juxtaposed with shots of people in panic, closeups of terrified and severely injured townspeople, and images of the rifles of soldiers. Eisenstein metrically repeats shots and as a result the fall of the baby carriage takes significantly more time than it would in real life. With this technique he manages to capture the terror and chaos of the townspeople and connect it to the cold brutality of the soldiers. To reinforce his point, in the sequence the soldiers are never shown in their entirety, instead only their rivals are shown as a synecdoche for the brutality of the entire regime. If Eisenstein had instead followed traditional realism, the fall of the baby carriage would have been over in seconds, and the entirety of the Odessa steps massacre would have been over in a few minutes. In addition, the czarist soldiers would not have been presented as such one-sided characters possibly even garnering them pity. However, by elongating the sequence and archetyping characters through montage, Eisenstein is able to more effectively demonstrate the brutality of the czar.
By casting aside traditional realism, Eisenstein is able to present a more compelling image of the world he believes in. Through montage, he is able to promote the idea of the collective and disparage the idea of oppressive authority. In doing so, he manages to present the essence of his reality to the viewers. Even though he manipulates time and space through editing, his individual shots are fairly realistic with few non-diegetic elements other than music. In this manner, Battleship Potemkin does have an aspect of traditional realism. However, its overall presentation of Eistenstein’s worldview would lend it connection to realism as a whole.
Jean Luc Godard’s Pierrot le Fou also strays away from traditional realism but still manages to convey Godard’s modern worldview. This film is an example of French New Wave Cinema. This style was highly influenced by Alexander’s Astruc’s idea of “writ[ing] ideas directly on film” (2). Members of this movement experimented with nonlinear storytelling and unique editing techniques such as the jump cut to challenge traditional cinema. The films they created blend philosophy and cinema in order to convey each director’s point of view. In this manner, Francois Trufant’s famous politique des auteurs resulted in directors personally involving themselves with their work. Through New Age Film, Jean-Luc Godard is able to escape from traditional narrative cinema in order to more effectively convey his worldview.
Pierrot le Fou’s structure immediately demonstrates that it is not a copy of reality. Godard constantly jump cuts and breaks the fourth wall. The film is discontinuous and has musical sequences that appear seemingly out of nowhere. While Eistenstein respected the fourth wall and the apparent realism of his individual shot, Godard shatters this idea. He creates a film that by any definition defies all measures of traditional realism. However, as David Wills puts it, this film is a “reality…in fragments”(18). The individual elements that Godard includes are not in the film just to be different but to spur thought in the viewer. Much as Eisenstein emphasizes the meaning of the synthesis of shots, Godard emphasizes his form as much as his narrative.
While Eisenstein is concerned with Soviet ideals, Godard is simply concerned with life. In Godard’s own words, film is the “paradise for the study of life while living it” (qtd. in Dienst 38). He seeks to remind viewers to live life instead of being caught up in apathy and pointless consumerism. The party scene effectively demonstrates this point. In this scene, Ferdinand attends a party with associates from his former career in television. Everyone at this party speaks in jargon borrowed from ads, and Godard arbitrarily applies color filters to delineate each set of people. However, as is Godard’s intention, the colors only emphasize the similarities of the party guests and the fact that corporate culture only makes them more uniform. Godard does not want to show viewers what is wrong with consumer culture. Instead, as Dienst writes, he wishes for people to “learn that [they] have not yet learned how to live” (38). By communicating reality through essence and feel instead of through image, Godard is able to emotionally and philosophically affect his viewers.
Although Eisenstein and Godard use fundamentally different styles of filmmaking, both defy traditional realism in order to communicate their worldview. Eisenstein’s use of montage flies in the face of the idea of presenting stories by maintaining continuity and impartiality, through long takes and straightforward editing. He instead manipulates time and space to vilify and dramatize. This technique enables him to effectively communicate his ideas of collectivism and anti-authoritarianism. Godard creates blatantly unrealistic situations with jarring cinematography. However, he is able to effectively reach the viewer on a deeper level due to these techniques.
By casting aside traditional realism, Eisenstein and Godard have significantly more ability to impart their own imprint on the film. This idea once again calls to mind Astruc. He writes that, given the freedom from form, filmmakers will use film as a “means of expression” with the “camera-stylo” allowing them to write as clearly through film as paper (1). Even though Eisenstein came two decades before Astruc’s famed article, he demonstrates a similar idea through his work. His montage is blatantly personal, with Eisenstein’s ideas shining through every synthesis. The end result challenges the necessity of traditional realism. Potemkin is just as effective as a film like Paisà, Rossellini’s masterpiece of neorealism. Potemkin succeeds due to Eisenstein’s realistic portrayal of his own feelings.
Pierrot le Fou succeeds for similar reasons. Godard stays honest to himself. He embraces the politique des auters and uses the film as a medium of expression. Even though he ignores and outright disobeys common tropes, he makes a hugely effective film. By involving himself and his own feelings in the filmmaking process, Godard conveys an honest portrayal of his world. The difference between what is seen and what is felt or thought explains the power of both of these films. By eschewing traditional realist techniques, the filmmakers are able to more effectively convey their own worldviews. Although there is a virtue to traditional realism, it should not be considered a necessity as it can limit the expression of a filmmaker’s deepest thoughts and feelings.
Works Cited
Astruc, Alexander. " The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Caméra-Stylo.” Web. 1 May
2016.
Bordwell, David. "The Idea of Montage in Soviet Art and Film." Cinema Journal 11.2
(1972): 9. JSTOR. Web. 1 May 2016.
Dienst, Richard. “The Imaginary Element: Life + Cinema.” Jean-Luc Godard's Pierrot
Le Fou. Ed. David Wills. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Web. 1 May 2016.
Kracauer, Siegfried. Theory of Film; the Redemption of Physical Reality. New York:
Oxford UP, 1960. Web. 1 May 2016.
Wills, David. “Introduction.” Jean-Luc Godard's Pierrot Le Fou. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2000. Web. 1 May 2016.