Eisenstein - A Beginning Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein is best known as a film maker. Yet his films number only eight (of which six were completed: 'Strike', 'The Battleship Potemkin', ' October', 'The Old and the New', 'Alexander Nevsky', 'Ivan the Terrible - Que Viva Mexico! 'and 'Bezhin Meadow' are unfinished) and of these one, possibly two, exist now in the form in which they were planned. Although few in number, his films, particularly The Battleship Potemkin, continually appear in listings of the top ten films of all time. Not only the power of Potemkin, but the possibilities of the art form that it demonstrated, ensure that Eisenstein will always have a place in the history of the development of the cinema. Yet Eisenstein was not only a film maker. His work as an artist encompassed stage and costume design, while his extensive drawings, many of which are included in the exhibition, show Eisenstein experimenting with styles in a psychological exploration of himself. And what of the man himself? When we talk of Eisenstein, of whom are we talking? The film theoretician? The fan of Mickey Mouse? The man who met Rin Tin Tin? The dancer? The engineer? The artist? Revolutionary film maker? The teacher? The mimic? Not one but all of these. In his film theories, his influences were wide - mathematics, painting, physiology, philology, ethnology and literary history all played a part in the formation of his ideas. The room in which he died exhibited the many influences on his life and thought. Disney, Daumier, Dickens, Joyce, Leger words, images, all of which reappeared in his work from the store house of ideas that was Eisenstein. Childhood "My father was very vain. He was a domestic tyrant and like old Grandet in Balzac's novel he always wore black lacquered boats with rounded toes. The seeds of social protest were planted here not by injustice or deprivation but by that master symbol of social tyranny my father." 23 January 1898 Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein born in Riga, Latvia, the only son of Mikhail Osipovich. His father, an engineer, has hopes that his son will follow his profession. Much is often made of the childhood of artists, the ways in which they have been formed by their early experiences. No experience, no reading, no image was forgotten by Eisenstein. Eisenstein's relationship with his parents was highly influenced by the fact that they separated when he was 11. He was left in the custody of his father for whom he held little affection.
The 'father figure' features strongly throughout life both the search for one (as in the case of the dramatist Meyerbald) or in the presentation of such figures as tyrants (e.g. the father in Bezhin Meadow). As well as the remembrance of his father, other memories from his childhood would remain and reappear in his films. In 1906 he visited Paris with his parents and saw his first film, 400 Tricks of the Devil by Melies. Images from it were later to reappear in October. His passion for art appeared at an early age and one of his favourite artists was Daumier. The latter's representation of people as animals also appeared in Eisenstein's work, from early drawings to films. His childhood interest in drawing was to have a profound influence an him all his life. Drawing would be away of escape, of release and of planning in the difficult years in which he lived. In 1915 Eisenstein enrolled at the Petrogrod Institute of Civil Engineering, following his father's profession. As well as studying, however, Eisenstein spent many hours at the theatre and the cinema. With the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917, it was these two influences which would pull him away from his professional training. From Revolutionary Theatre to Revolutionary Film "If it had not been for the Revolution, I should never have broken with the tradition passed down from father to son of becoming an engineer. The germ was there, but only the revolution gave me... the freedom to take my fate into my own hands." Initially, Eisenstein volunteered for the Red Army and during the Civil War became a technician in the Engineer Corp. It was not long, however, before his artistic talents were recognised. Eisenstein was transferred to the Theatre Department of the Political Section of the Western Front, designing Agit Prop trains which travelled throughout Russia taking art to the people, and also amateur theatre productions. The artistic ferment that existed after the Revolution could not fail to affect Eisenstein. The avant garde of Russian art led Eisenstein to believe that the only revolutionary art was one which did away with old forms and looked for new means of expression far the new revolutionary state. Artists such as Meyerhald and Mayakovsky had been experimenting with various art forms from early in the century. Leaving the Army, Eisenstein enrolled at Meyerhald's Stage School far Stage Direction. He became involved in the theatrical avant garde-the old concepts of the proscenium arch and characterisation disappeared. In its stead came the idea of an amalgam of farms based an a concept of popular culture-circus, sang, dance, acrobatics. Eisenstein had ideas of his own about
how to move the theatre into the revolutionary age. "What do the masses and the Revolution want from the theatre? Only what comes from traditional farms of popular spectacle: circus, fairground attractions. The new theatre must be a sort of 'montage of attractions', that is to say, 0f shock elements that strike and dazzle." Enough Simplicity In Every Wise Man? staged in 1923, was Eisenstein's theatrical tour de force. His lack of respect for classic traditions was obvious in a play performed in a circus ring constructed within the theatre, by actors who had trained to be acrobats, jugglers, tightrope artistes, clowns. Actors would seemingly drift in and out of moments of action, the scene of the play moving from one part of the ring to another. The clash of the various actions was intended to introduce a 'new measure of tension' into theatre. His future ideas of cinematic montage are already apparent in this production. Not only that, it was here that Eisenstein had his first experience of film making. The production of Ostrovsky's play included a short filmed version of the play, Glumov's Diary. The film ended as an actor burst through the screen holding a reel of film. Despite the studio's fear of the technical difficulties in the shooting of Glumov's personality changes and the pressure of time (filming began 3 days before the play's opening night), the shooting was successfully completed in a single day. Having experimented with theatre in what can only be described as an anti realist format, Eisenstein's final theatrical production went to the opposite extreme. The performance of Sergei Tretyakov's Gas Masks, was staged in the Moscow Gas Works. After only four performances, the actors were asked to leave. Eisensten realised that the real life surroundings were incompatible with the theatrical illusion. The surroundings overwhelmed the play, making it seem absurd and pointless. Having exhausted, to his mind, the possibilities of the theatre, Eisenstein now turned to film as a way of expressing his ideas. Mastering Montage Eisenstein's first films would follow the course of his plays. Not content with simply making films in the normal way, he wanted to confront the 'bourgeois film' and its influences. He wanted to challenge its escapism and the failure of the cinema to educate and agitate the proletarian class. It was Eisenstein's aim to create a "revolutionary art without compromises!", a series of blows to the consciousness and feelings of the audience." Eisenstein, after a period of co-operation with experienced film makers Shub and Kuleshov, made his first full length film, Strike. It was described in PRAVDA as "the first revolutionary creation of our cinema". That Eisenstein's first film was so accomplished should cameos no surprise. His
experiments in the theatre and his theorising on the place of art in the revolution, his concepts not only of form but the relationship of form to an audience's understanding of an artwork, as well as his final realisations of the limits of theatre, meant that Strike exploded with the artistic revolutionary fervour that had been building up within him. As in his theatrical productions, Eisenstein in his first film avoided a narrative and instead concentrated on themes. He also avoided using large numbers of actors and instead looked for people who could portray easily recognisable 'types' of people-the priest, the student. It would often take Eisenstein days or weeks to find the right person to fit o role. As well as differing in content, Eisenstein attempted new ways of shooting and assembling film. He was striving for effect in his finished film. For this he developed the idea of montage. "But in my view montage is not on idea composed of successive shots stuck together, but on idea that derives from the juxtapositioning between two shots that ore independent of one another (the 'dramatic principle'). ('Epic' and 'dramatic' in relation to the methodology of form and not content or plot!!) As in Japanese hieroglyphs, in which two independent ideographic characters ('shots') are juxtaposed and explode into o concept. THUS: Eye + Water = Crying Door + Ear = Eavesdropping Child + Mouth = Screaming Mouth + Dog = Barking Mouth + Bird = Singing Knife + Heart = Anxiety, etc" 1 "If we regard film as a means of producing on emotional impact on the mosses, then it follows that we must secure it in the impact category. In seeking ways to build the cinema we must make extensive use of the experience and latest accomplishments in those arts that set themselves similar tasks. 2 1 The Dramaturgy of Film Form. 1929 2 The Montage of Film Attractions, 1924
With these techniques, he was not only giving the image more power and meaning, he was also demanding reaction from his audience the tension that he had sought in his theatre work. From such an auspicious beginning, Eisenstein then started planning a number of films about the Revolution, particularly the year 1905. From these plans emerged his masterpiece, The Battleship Potemkin (1925). Potemkin takes the ideas of montage and typage and develops them on the basis of dialectical materialism to form a film which, in essence, makes one event stand for the 1905 revolution asa whole. The 'characters' in the film ore, following the theory of typage, representative of 'The Masses' - for it is the revolutionary force that is the main character of this film and also of October. October Ten Days that Shook the World (1927) demonstrates a whole variety of 'intellectual montage' along the lines of the Japanese ideogram above. However, its release gave rise to a storm of criticism in which even Eisenstein's mentor Meyerhold, joined. The wind of change was beginning to blow. Revolutionary ideas had to be tempered with a knowledge of what was required by the State. Before its release Trotsky had fallen from power and most references to him in the film were removed. Another criticism levelled at October was that it was inaccessible to a mass audience. 'Intellectualism' was a dangerous tag to have in the years to come. Eisenstein's final film of this period, The General Line was to confront the problem of State acceptance in an even more problematic way. Experimental in its form, the subject matter-the co-operative farm movement-was the focus of much debate within the USSR. During its making, a policy swing meant that Eisenstein's treatment of the topic was no longer acceptable by the time the film was due for release. He was forced to produce a new ending, and when even this failed to satisfy the authorities, the name of the film had to be changed to The Old and the New (1929) in order to disassociate it from official policies on agriculture. Whilst being a time of creative experiment for Eisenstein, it was also a period of growing problems for the artist, problems which Eisenstein would have to face on his return from his travels.
USA and Mexico Years of Travel, Years of Disillusion 1929-30 Eisenstein spent four months touring Europe, lecturing and getting involved in a number of film projects. Whilst in London he even appeared in Hans Richter's short film Everyday, as a policeman! Finally he set sail for Hollywood with a contract from Paramount Pictures. There he met Chaplin and Walt Disney. He would remain in contact with Chaplin for many years and his admiration for Disney's work was immense. Eisenstein's arrival in Hollywood could have been looked on as a liberating possibility for the film maker. Instead of State intervention in film making, he might have hoped fora more liberal and liberating response to his ideas. It is ironic that Hollywood and the "capitalist socialists" that he met on his travels there eventually proved to be a deadening influence on his creative talents. Eisenstein had been given 3 months to come up with a project which would be acceptable to the studios for filming. The major problem that he faced, however, was the Hollywood conception of what a film should be. Hollywood demanded stars and a narrative formalized in a way which was readily accessible to an American audience. Only two scripts were fully developed in this period Eisenstein's adaptations of Blaise Cendrars' Gold and Theodore Dreiser's 'An American Tragedy'. When read by David 0. Selznick, head of Paramount Pictures, the response was probably predictable: "I have just finished reading the Eisenstein adaptation of 'An American Tragedy'. It was for me a memorable experience; the most moving script I have ever read. It was so effective, it was positively torturing. When I had finished reading it, I was so depressed that! wanted to reach for the bourbon bottle. As entertainment, I don't think it has one chance in a hundred... Let's try new things, by all means. But let's keep these gambles within the bounds of those that would be indulged by rational businessmen." Having hired Eisenstein as a great 'artist', Hollywood then expected him to produce the typical Hollywood product. Eisenstein was therefore not surprised when his contract with Paramount was terminated.
Que Viva Mexico! - Death of a Dream After the failure of the American adventure, Eisenstein was financed by the wife of the novelist Upton Sinclair to make a film in Mexico. As with his first major production for the theatre, Eisenstein returned to popular forms for the overall shape of his film. "The story of this film is unusual. Four novels framed by prologue and epilogue, unified in conception and spirit, creating its entity. Six Mexican songs accompany these novels, which themselves are simply unrelated folk songs about local legends, tales from different parts of Mexico, brought together in one unified cinematic work." The film, Que Viva Mexico! (1930-31), was Eisenstein's most ambitious film project and was also to prove his greatest tragedy. What the eventual outcome and 'look' of this film would have been we can only guess. Originally scheduled to shoot for four months, the filming extended until, after thirteen months (and spending twice as much money as originally planned), the Sinclairs stopped production. Most of the sections had been filmed, but Eisenstein was barred from seeing rushes and taking part in the editing process. The only completed sections of the film to survive of Eisenstein's filming were two films, Thunder Over Mexico and Death Day, both put together by other hands. Eisenstein himself never sow any of his shot footage until many years later. Eisenstein returned to Moscow empty handed. Possibly the only positive thing to come out of his travels was that he began to draw again. The drawings from this period, plans far filming, and sketches of his personal response to Mexico, show us a further side of this creative genius. The line, the flow, capture the 'spirit' that he saw in Mexico and which he may well have caught also in 'Que Viva Mexico'. Far the future, it brought back a talent from his youth which he would use to great effect bath in his planning of films and as a means of expressing himself when he was unable to make films. At that moment, however, Eisenstein could not see the benefits that he had gained from his travels, small though they may have been compared to the disasters of his trip. "I am slowly recovering from the blow of my Mexican experience. I have never worked on anything with such enthusiasm and what has happened to it is the greatest crime, even if I have to share the guilt. But there are things which have to be above personal feelings. Let's not talk about it any mare."
Return to the USSR If the Mexican experience had severely damaged Eisenstein's psyche, then his return to the USSR in no way helped to repair the damage. The problems that he had faced before his travels abroad were greatly increased an his return in 1932. He faced severe difficulties in actually making a film. Viewed with suspicion by the authorities after his long absence, and out of touch with the artistic development within the USSR, it was three years before he found a subject which was acceptable to the State. Refusing to lose the ideas of Que Viva Mexico! he proposed a film an Moscow which would look at the development of the city over the centuries, much as his Mexican film had tried to examine that country. Again, this came to nothing. Most of his time in this period was spent teaching at the GIK film school. Bezhin Meadow (1936-37) was the first project that was acceptable to the State. On the surface, the film looked at the defence of a collective farm by a group of young Pioneers from attacks by Kulaks (rich farmers). Eisenstein, however, used this as a basis to explore the relationship between the hero, Stepak, and his father echoes of his own boyhood and its problems. The film ends with the father murdering his son This was Eisenstein's first sound film made in the Soviet Union and he had great hopes of experimenting with the form- -"a sound film expressive of a specific artistic farm and of a psychological interpretation of reality." In the end, however, it was all to no avail. The policy which had first of all allowed him to make the film changed. A different view of collective farms was needed. The film was destroyed. All that remains are a number of stills which give us same idea of what the film would have baked like. Two years of creative work were brought to nothing, Eisenstein returned to his teaching and to drawing. His next project, Alexander Nevsky (1938), responded directly to the anti-fascist mood of the times in the USSR, in its recounting of the story of the repulse of the Teutonic knights by the Russians. It was Eisenstein's first collaboration with the composer Prokofiev, who wrote the soundtrack far the film. Prokofiev would arrive at the studios in the evening to see the days completed filming and then, by mid-day of the following day would return with a completed soundtrack far that section of the film.
Regarded as a success when it first appeared, it too fell foul of a sudden policy change, in this case the German Soviet non aggression pact. The film was withdrawn and Eisenstein forced to make 'fraternal' broadcasts to Germany, in addition to his being made director of a production of Wagner's Die Walküre. With the German invasion of the USSR, however, the film returned to favour as an example of anti-fascist film making. Two sketches from this time encapsulate the many frustrations of the period. In the first, Eisenstein is shooting himself in the head and in the second, banging his head against a brick wall. The caption, written in English, reads: "That's how I do feel.". The Final Years The final years of Eisenstein's life were years of bath triumph and continued frustration. Film projects were encouraged and then rejected. Eisenstein turned his hand to opera production, with a staging of Die Walküre His drawings far the production show o different style from those of Mexico-more controlled, less expressive in their line. Alongside these were his own personal sketches, many based yet again on Shakespeare's Macbeth, a ploy which haunted him all of his life. His final project, Ivan the Terrible, faced the usual problems of Stalin's personal intervention. Eisenstein envisaged that the film would be in three parts. His first experiment with colour is a feature of part two; while influences from his childhood and his reading abound. When the first part was released (1944) it met with Stalin's praise as it was in accordance with his view of Russian history -- Eisenstein being awarded the Stalin Prize, First Class, for the film. This success was, however, short lived. With the completion of part two (1946), Stalin's mood changed he failed to identify with Ivan in the second part, unlike in the first. The film was banned and all footage of the third part destroyed. During the whole of this period Eisenstein had been at work not only on his theoretical writings but also on his memoirs. It was as if he sensed that time was running out. A series of heart attacks had given a sense of urgency to this task, almost a race against time to complete his life's work. February 10-11, 1948 Eisenstein suffered a fatal heart attack whilst writing the introduction to Kuleshov's Fundamentals of Film Direction. Eisenstein's legacy to the cinema is to be found as much in his theoretical writings (which are extensive) as in his films. More than anything it is Eisenstein's vision of what cinema and film can do that makes him an enduring influence on radical film makers around the world.
"Imagine a cinema which is not dominated by the dollar-a cinema industry where one man's pocket is not filled at other people's expense; which is not to benefit the pockets of two or three people but the minds and hearts of one hundred and fifty million people!" 29 September to 11 December 1988 29 December to 5 February 1989 The exhibition was first shown at The Museum of Modern Art, Oxford Exhibition organised by The Museum of Modern Art, Oxford. The British Film Institute and the USSR Union of Cinematographers with financial support from Visiting Arts and The Arts Council of Great Britain Text: Ian Wall 1988 The South Bank Centre and Film Education Stills courtesy of Eisenstein Archive, Moscow;