Eisenstein's Transitional Theories in Psychology

**In order for you to view the clips that are embedded on this site, you must allow the blocked content (it's safe! I promise!) or install a plug in (which might also be what prevents you from seeing the clips). If you do not want to do that, you can go to Google Video to watch Strike or YouTube to see Ivan the Terrible. I'll direct you to the times and sections! No worries!

**Apparently Ivan the Terrible is no longer available on YouTube...YouTube must have realized it was a copyright infringement (since Ivan the Terrible is not in the public domain).

The Early Years (1924)

Eisenstein's first film Strike was the beginning of Eisenstein's experiments with montage and his theories of the human psyche. Strike is movie about a Russian factory during Czarist rule. A strike breaks out over unfair wages, work hours, and false accusations. While that's the short version of what this movie is about, the real depth of the film lies in how Eisenstein uses montage and applies his theories and ideas. Since Strike precedes Potemkin, it's nice to see where some of the imagery and ideas came from. The use of imagery and repetition are done exquisitely in this film and is much like Potemkin in its set up. The film is divided into six parts, each depicting the worker's struggle against the large money hungry bosses. The re-occurring motifs/images are the circle (that starts and stops depending on the progress of the strike) and the steam in the chimney (that only has steam pouring out when the work is being done or there is progression in the strike). These motifs serve to incite an emotional response from the viewer and serve to tap into the viewer's memory for retaining images (which Eisenstein would later greatly refine).

Early in Eisenstein's career, he believed in "attractional schemes," in which he intended these schemes to "grab" the viewer through the attraction of the themes presented. What Eisenstein hoped to achieve through montage was:
Whereas in theatre an effect is achieved primarily through the physiological perception of an actually occurring fact (e.g. a murder), in cinema it is made up of the juxtaposition and accumulation, in the audience's psyche, of associations that the film's purpose requires, associations that are aroused by the separate elements of the stated (in practical terms, in 'montage fragments') fact, associations that produce, albeit tangentially, a similar (and often stronger) effect only when taken as a whole. Let us take that same murder as an example: a throat is gripped, eyes bulge, a knife is brandished, the victim closes his eyes, blood is spattered on a wall, the victim falls to the floor, a hand wipes off the knife - each fragment is chosen to 'provoke associations' (Eisenstein).
In his first film Strike, Eisenstein begins his experiments with montage. More than anything, Eisenstein wanted to use montage as a means to shock the viewer into seeing a world anew and engage the viewer to make meaning of the film. Eisenstein never discards this notion. Through the method of montage of attractions, Eisenstein argues that the director can use this as a means of comparison for thematic effect. As Eisenstein explains the finale of his film Strike in which he uses the comparison of the slaughterhouse,
“I did this, on the one hand, to avoid overacting among the extras from the labour exchange ‘in the business of dying’ but mainly to excise from such a serious scene the falseness that the screen will not tolerate but that is unavoidable in even the most brilliant death scene and, on the other hand, to extract the maximum effect of bloody horror” (Eisenstein).
The use of montage here adds to the point Eisenstein was trying to convey in the film. Without the comparison of the slaughterhouse, the actors would have to overact and create thematic effect by other less effective means. This scene also gives the viewer a stronger understanding of the thematic base of the film and what the director wants the viewer to think. This scene was designed to incite a particular feeling. If Eisenstein had chosen a different comparison, either the montage would have been weak or would have given the audience a much different impression on what to make of the theme.

Scenes of note:
1:56 – HO letters
7:45 – Circle, like the one from HO
12:30 – Agitation to strike
16:00 – Circles with accordion, a re-occurring motif.
16:20 – Wheel on the machines - keeps with the circle and machine motif.
17:45 – Machine imagery.
19:30 – A broken circle
24:10 – Circle stops
28:35 and 33:50 – Factory Strikes – images of the steam – concept of steam and no steam in connection to the workers.
30:18 – Without workers, nothing gets done
35:20 – Notion of steam = work and steam = motion and production.
38:10 – circular controls
38:40 – No steam in the chimneys
1:32:00 – Agitation and unity among the workers. The workers must endure! Also the famous slaughterhouse scene, Eisenstein's famous use of montage.

The 1930's: a New Look at Old Ideas

During this time, Eisenstein drops the word "attraction" and adopts new theories on montage. Montage is no longer about "jarring" juxtapositions but more about what is within the frame.

Eisenstein realized that he was mistaken about the emphasis on the technique of composition and the elements of composition (montage methods and content of the shot).

"We ought to have studied more thoroughly the very nature of this unifying factor. Of the factor which, in equal measure in each film, determines both the content of individual shots and the content resulting from their juxtaposition in one way or another. But to do this, the researchers should have concentrated not on paradoxical cases where this whole, general and final comes unexpectedly of itself, but on cases where individual pieces are correlated and where the whole, general and final is predetermined and, in its own turn, predetermines the elements and methods of their juxtaposition. Such cases are normal, generally accepted and widespread. Here the whole appears as "a third something"; but the general picture of how the shot and the montage are determined - the contents of both - will be more graphic and distinct. And it is these latter cases that are typical of cinematography" (Eisenstein).

Eisenstein also begins to develop his theory about the viewer's memory and ability of the viewer to remember fragmented images and make a "whole" image out of them.

"I repeat that our psychology reduces this intermediate chain to the minimum and that we perceive only the beginning and end process. But as soon as we are called upon, for some reason or other, to establish a connection between certain representations and images which they must evoke in our mind and feelings, we are invariably compelled to employ a similar chain of intermediate representations which, collectively, make up and image" (Eisenstein).

Eisenstein tested these new theories in Que Viva Mexico! Unfortunately, this film is in the process of being restored and we are unable to view it. From the preliminary sketches that exist, Que Viva Mexico! was an amazing movie about life and death. In this movie, Eisenstein beings to use montage within the frame and also begins to impose "opposites" to keep the viewer on their toes and draw them into the film. There is a wonderful organization that is in the process of restoring the film. Here, you can also find out more information about the film and see a wonderful gallery of still shots from the film (this way I don't have to pirate them).

It was also during this period that Eisenstein was introduced to the idea of psychoanalysis, in which he would later employ in Ivan the Terrible.

The 1940's and Ivan the Terrible: a Culmination of Ideas and Theories

Eisenstein's last film, Ivan the Terrible would be a culmination of all of his theories throughout his career. Here, we can see what he discarded, what he modified, and what he adopted. The evolution of his theories on montage are clearly seen in both parts of this film. While Eisenstein's theories and beliefs remained the same from the 1930's, he took these theories to a new level with Ivan the Terrible. Not only is the viewer engaged by his beliefs in the "unconscious" mind, but the characters in the film are affected too. Eisenstein especially explains Ivan through the use of psychology (mainly his beliefs in Otto Rank and Freud), which in many ways justifies Ivan's later actions and draws the viewer into the film in the sense that the viewer feels what Ivan feels. When Ivan is being judged, the viewer feels as if they are being judged. The viewer is basically asked to share Ivan's feelings. What Eisenstein does more than anything in this film is challenging the viewer's perception of what they already know and what they should seek to know. Eisenstein employs this through the use of opposites and contradiction. What this accomplishes is a state of constant change in the film. Nothing is stagnant and everything is in a constant state of change. This draws the viewer's attention in the sense that the viewer will continue watching the film to understand why what they are seeing in the film is contrary to what they "know" and how these contradictory pieces fit into the overall "frame" of the film. Without seeing this film in its entirety, the viewer is unable to put all of the pieces together and solve the "puzzle."

For those of you that cannot view the clip, go to YouTube and type in Ivan the Terrible Part I and click on 7/10.

What you will notice in this clip is Eisenstein's use of memory. As pointed out in Yuri Tsivian's clip,Eisenstein: a Visual Vocabulary, Eisenstein believes that the viewer has the ability to remember motions, images, and sequences that are separate but put them together as a whole again. Here, (at the very beginning of this clip) what you will see is Kurbsky "sandwiched" by Anastasia and Efrosinia. Anastasia represents an angel and Efronisia the devil. Krubsky shifts his head back and forth between the two in a conflict of consciousness. About 2 minutes later, Krubsky performs the same motions but without Anastasia or Efrosinia present. However, this gives the viewer the sense of Krubsky's inner turmoil and conflict. These motions are intended to replay the emotions of the earlier scene while focusing on the viewer's ability to visually remember the last scene.

YouTube Part I, 10/10

Throughout the film, Ivan glances at the icon of the angel during times of doubt or moral dilemma (more about this below). Here, Ivan glances at the "angel" Anastasia (in her casket) for support, but finds her mute. Ivan then turns to Malyuta and Basmanov instead (from angel to demons). It is here that the "demons" suggest that Ivan should establish the Oprichnina (a brotherhood of demons). This scene is in the context of the end of Part I where Ivan leaves Moscow and asks "the people" for their judgment of his rule. Ivan is now testing the loyalty of his people, and does this through a manipulative scheme. Ivan asks for "the people's" judgement, but only if they say that he is right, otherwise he will "trick them into submission." This final clip from Part I is a prelude to what we will see in Part II. As of yet, Ivan's childhood has not yet been presented to us and we know nothing about his childhood feelings. This clip contains how Eisenstein used icons and the viewer's psyche to explain the character of Ivan.

YouTube, Part II 2/9.

This is another great example of how Eisenstein expects the viewer to have great visual memory. Start the clip at around 5:00 and end at around 5:18. What you will see here is the young Ivan's upper torso with the angel behind him and then a shot of the rest of his body, his feet. What Eisenstein does here is give the viewer two shots comprised of the young Ivan, in which he intended the two shots to comprise "one image." In other words, if you put these two images together, you see one whole Ivan. Furthermore, besides this clip being an example of "visual memory," this is also an example of how Eisenstein uses icons to draw associations between the character and the action of the character. While this is only one of many examples of the angel in Ivan the Terrible, the angel will serve as a "switch" for Ivan throughout the film. Ivan always looks to the angel in times of moral dilemma and serves as a "switch" for Ivan, in which after he glances at the angel a "switch" in emotions occurs in Ivan (confidence/doubt, etc).

What is also interesting to note, is that Eisenstein rarely shows anything in "whole" throughout the film. The viewer is subjected to fragments of images, people, and objects. What Eisenstein intended by doing this was to draw the viewer in to the film and make them view the whole film to collect all of the pieces. On a more deeper level, Eisenstein intended the fragmented pieces to be a representation of Ivan in terms of Ivan being a very complex character than cannot be embraced in one view.

YouTube Part II 4/9

Eisenstein was a strong believer in Otto Rank, a psychologist that believed in "infantile anxiety." This is a result of being left in a dark room that leads to the person remembering their primal trauma of the womb. By being left in a dark room, the person allows the memory of the womb back into their consciousness. Rank believed that everyone subconsciously remembers the traumatic experience of birth. This belief convinced him that film viewing could return us to the instinctive, purely emotional, prelogical state of prenatal experience and at the same time engage our ability to think at the highest, most intellectual levels.

Eisenstein implements this belief throughout the film. The most notable scenes are the ones mentioned in the Yuri Tsivian's commentary but I would like to point out another scene where Ivan's adult complexity is penetrated and he reverted back to his childhood memories. The clip above is the scene of children re-enacting the Fiery Furnace story. As a quick reminder, this is a story about three Jewish boys that are cast into a furnace for refusing to bow down to the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar. When Ivan sees this play, he is given an emotional clarity from the judgement. This moment of realization brings back his childhood feelings of abandonment, loneliness, and rage at his mother's murder. It is here that Ivan for the first time accepts the Efrosinia poisoned Anastasia and floods in even more rage and memories from his childhood. Now Ivan wants violent retaliation, and viewer in many ways will feel that he is justified.