Friday, September 8, 2017
Hollywood and Political Cinema
Soviet montage cinema emerged at least in part as a reaction to the Classical Hollywood style and continuity editing. The use of jump cuts in The Battleship Potemkin, for instance, was supposed to inspire the audience to take political action rather than to passively watch a good story. But is that dichotomy fair? Can the Hollywood style also be used for political cinema? Or do Hollywood films incorporate more chaotic editing to wake us from our naive political slumber? Are there any "political" mainstream films? If so, how do they motivate their audiences?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Soviet montage owes its existence to the chaotic rapidly changing political climate of post-World War One Russia. Artists were looking for new techniques to convey their political agenda, giving birth to the Soviet montage as a film technique to inspire action not passivity. As a result the Soviet montage often doesn’t convey a story, but rather an idea or emotion. This goal starkly contrasts to that of Hollywood films, which serve to convey a story. The dichotomy between the goals of these two techniques are created by the culture in which the techniques arose. However, Later Hollywood films adapted their story to convey a moral to the viewer. This has given rise to politically charged Hollywood films, yet to interpret the message that the films convey the viewer must think cognitively about the plot of the film. Soviet montage, however, relies on the cuts and camera motion to convey their message, requiring only a fraction of the film to be viewed for the message to be conveyed. This is the greatest difference between Soviet montage and Hollywood films, the means by which they convey meaning. Both techniques have conveyed political messages but the encryption of the message differs. A great example of a mainstream politically charged Hollywood film is Race, in which Jesse Owens wins four gold medals in the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. The plot conveys the political message of diversity and acceptance over the ideals of the Nazi Regime. This film incorporates subtle editing to direct the viewer’s attention, however it doesn’t convey it’s moral through the edit but rather the plot. The most prominent difference between Soviet montage and Hollywood films isn’t their messages, but rather the means in which they convey their message.
ReplyDeleteIt is not fair to portray films in a format similar to propaganda. Russians were looking for ways to spread political ideals and they took advantage of the popular film format that was evolving at the time to do so. The Hollywood style of making films is primarily for telling a story, not to spread biased ideals to people. Hollywood uses their films to entertain people and to provide a moral for the story that they tell. It is the complete opposite of Hollywood style to make people take action upon seeing a film. The Russians used filmmaking to force their ideals upon other Russians and make them think or feel a certain way based on the film’s content. An example of a recent political film is in 1976. This film’s title is “All the President’s Men.” This film’s purpose is to tell the story of the Watergate Scandal that leads to President Nixon’s resignation. Two reporters are assigned to find out about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters by the chief editor of the Washington Post. They follow their trail of evidence until they eventually lead themselves into the White House where they conclude that Nixon is guilty. This film is not necessarily propaganda but its basis of content is political. Its approach to film is similar but yet far different from that of the Russians approach in that this film did not force any opinion or have any present political bias present. This also did not motivate the audience in any particular way because there was no political bias. This shows that the way that the messages presented in current Hollywood films is different than the Russians sent their message.
ReplyDeleteOverall, it is the plot of the film that causes the audience to act rather than the editing. General audiences will not remember how a film was edited but they will remember the plot. In the specific example of The Battleship Potemkin, the audience is motivated to take action by the portrayal of the military as a cruel force of oppression. The images of all people, crippled and old, coming together to wave to the crew of the battleship is intended to bring people together not the editing. The film could show the military shooting at a baby carriage without the jump cuts to random people screening and being shot and it would still have the same effect, it would portray the military as heartless monsters completely devoid of any sympathy. A comparison can be made between editing in a film and grammar of a passage. If someone reads a text, the reader will not remember the exact grammar but the reader will remember the message. The same goes for a film, if someone watches a film, the viewer will not remember the way it was edited but they will remember the plot. A good example of a film that is political would have to be the documentary FOOD INC. It does not attempt to use editing to make the viewer act; however, it has had a huge impact on the market for organic food in America. It mostly relies on shots of livestock being mistreated and people explaining the facts and still does a great job of getting its message across.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBattleship Potemkin was a movie used to portray a political message/propaganda, using new editing techniques. Montage was one technique that was very crucial in Battleship Potemkin as it was used to rile people up and start a movement. This was just one way that the director made Battleship Potemkin a film that instilled a fire in the audience. The plot itself made people more emotionally engaged into this film. It showed a military of brutes killing people like it was no big deal. This made people want to get out of their seat and riot. The jump shots used, especially in the steps scene, were able to portray an image of ruthless officers doing terrible terrible acts in the matter of a couple chaotic seconds. This made it possible for people to watch the movie for just a minute or two and already feel sympathy for the wounded and anger against the antagonists. This is very different from that of a modern movie. Nearly every Hollywood style movie has some minor political message, but in all they are merely meant to entertain us and to make money. For example, the new Ghostbusters has women as the main characters rather than the previous Ghostbusters that had men has the main protagonists. This is meant to strike with some people, but Hollywood movies tend to refrain from offending anyone in order to make the maximum amount of money. Movies today are not made to start a riot like that of Battleship Potemkin, but rather to convey a deeper meaning you have to watch the whole movie to figure out.
ReplyDelete