A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Griffith vs. Eisenstein
How do Griffith's and Eisenstein's approach to cinema differ? Why do you think so?
I think a major difference between Griffith and Eisenstein was that Griffith created films for commercial success, whereas Eisenstein created films with a more intellectual intention. This affected their overall approach to creating films. Griffith’s films, as stated in the book, reflected values of the Victorian middle class, and had sentimentalist feel to them, which all would have appealed to this middle class. Though his films (especially the later ones) were well thought out in terms of content, he definitely had a focus on creating a large quantity of films and getting his work out there. Eisenstein’s films were much more geared towards people who were more educated, like he was. He focused on the content of the films, and only created 7 over a period of 23 years. His films didn’t have the commercial success that Griffith’s did. Rather, they were seen by other intellectuals who were on the same level as him. He also put a large emphasis on the psychological effects his films had on the viewer. I think these differences largely lie in their backgrounds. Griffith left high school early, and had beginnings as an actor and playwright, which led to his career in film. Eisenstein, on the other hand, was highly intellectual. He went to school for engineering, and went on to work for Moscow’s Proletkult Theatre, which was known for avant-garde and modernist ideas. His work with the company surely contributed to his revolutionary ideas.
I agree with Kyra in her statement that Griffith created more commercial films that were intended to make money as compared to Eisenstein who was more critical with his work, only creating seven films throughout his career. Additionally, on a more technical note Eisenstein focused greatly on the power of intercutting and juxtaposing different shots in order to create story and emotion. The relationship between shots was of most importance to him. In contrast, Griffith was more straightforward and focused on creating emotional stories through a narrative structure. In other words, Griffith used close ups of actors to create emotional scenes, while Eisenstein believed a filmmaker could simply juxtapose an emotionless face with shots of seemingly unrelated objects in order to create an emotional performance. Griffith used more flashbacks and dissolves, while Eisenstein focused on the use of montage to entice psychological effects on the audience. I agree that the differences in Griffith and Eisenstein are based on their upbringing and backgrounds. Eisenstein, as a more educated man, put more emphasis on intellect and abstract ideas than Griffith, who seemed to be more about pushing technical limits to create compelling narratives. However, both filmmakers were extremely influential in the field of editing and have created many revolutionary films.
One of the major differences between Eisenstein and Griffith's approach to cinema was their idea of the narrative and its relation to editing. Griffith, due to his background in theater and his apparent love for Dickens, really focused in on the story. His stories, as mentioned in a previous comment, possessed hints of Southern romanticism and/or middle class mentality. With that in mind, Griffith also focused on how the editing could progress his narrative and move it in the right direction. To Griffith, editing was a way to help tell the story. Eisenstein on the other hand, was an intellectual who seemed to be very interested in the psychology of film. Though he was also interested in narrative form, or using film to tell a story, he used editing as a way to express abstract ideas that were overall, independent from, but relating to the narrative. In this way, the symbolic images he used through editing became a kind of poetic narrative in itself-- metaphors for the major themes in the actual plot. He was really interested in audience perception and psychology rather than creating huge elaborate spectacles like Griffith. I agree with the previous comment that attributes these differences to each filmmaker's background. Eisenstein was an intellectual and that definitely showed in his approach to film. Griffith started from humble beginnings but I think definitely pulled from his experiences in theater to create elaborate stories in his films. Overall, both men were revolutionary but I believe Griffith was driven by his desire to outdo everyone in the industry while Eisenstein was really experimenting with the idea of perception and creation of reality.
I believe the main difference between Griffith and Eisenstein lie in the motives behind their cinematic discoveries. Griffith was driven by his desire to create fantastic films that blew other films away, especially the Italian epic Quo Vadis? Griffith saw film as a narrative story told through the arrangement of moving photographic images instead of words. He sought to arrange these moving photographic images in new ways in an attempt to make more epic and engaging films, with huge commercial success. Eisenstein was driven on a more intellectual level. He wanted to understand and define why and how montage was effective. Eisenstein formulated his theories of editing based off of the psychology of perception and Marxist dialectic. And he published his theoretically findings. Something Griffith did not do. Both Eisenstein had theatrical backgrounds that they used. But Eisenstein began to look down on theater; he equated theater to a wooden plough, and film to a more modern and technological tractor. Griffith initially looked down on film, and considered theater to be the real art and film second-class art. (Although, his opinion of film changed, which was signified when he put his real name on his work, not a pen name) Also, Griffith was just as concerned with that was happening inside the shot, as the sequencing of the shots. He was considered the first great actor’s director, and all actors in Hollywood wanted to work with him. By making his films for serious, and focusing on the realness and authenticity of his actors, he was attempting to dignify the medium of motion pictures.
Both Griffith and Eisenstein were revolutionary filmmakers and though similar in that respect, also had many differences. I think one of the main differences was the reason each of them made their films. To me, it seems as though Griffith got caught up in attempting to outdo himself, constantly upping the cost and sets of his films. He wanted his films to be seen by the millions and, most likely, was making them for the middle class. In contrast, Eisenstein limited what he made and took considerable time on his productions. His outlook was different in the respect that he focused on theoretical meanings and utilized his intellectualism to make only a few, great films. While Griffith was commonly utilizing new technology, it seems to me that Eisenstein was instead perfecting his methods. Each filmmaker was clearly creating films for different audiences. One wanted to appeal to the masses, while the other aimed to appeal to an intellectual population, who was presumably of a higher class. Overall, though both men were extremely influential filmmakers, I believe that Griffith was furthering film in order to further his fame as a director, while Eisenstein wanted to appeal intellectually and make his mark as a filmmaker based on his film theory.
Griffith and Eisenstein both made significant contributions to film, but it is arguable that Eisenstein made more conscious contributions to cinema theory. Griffith created intuitively and his films were seen by millions—he made over 500 of them. Eisenstein made seven films in a 23-year career. Griffith’s ideology lay firmly in Victorian values, while Eisenstein was an intellectual modernist whose films, unlike Griffith’s, were seen by a select few. Most importantly I think that their intentions for their films were very different. Griffith’s films were reactionary, Eisenstein’s films were psychological—and as directed very divergently to the Western “bourgeois cinema”. Eisenstein developed film theory and film methods, instead of constructing them on instinct, like Griffith (whose films would probably fall under bourgeois cinema). Eisenstein’s conscious attempt to develop various cinema methods like his metric, rhythmic, tonal, overtonal, and intellectual montage, set him apart from D.W Griffith, whose films seemed to rely on narrative to incite reaction.
Both Griffith and Eisenstein are praised as true revolutionary filmmakers in regards to the narrative and editing aspects of film. However, Griffith and Eisenstein's style and history could not be more different. Griffith had always wanted to work in the arts and did not stray from that, he worked as an actor prior to his directing. While Eisenstein had a passion for the arts, he went to school to study engineering where he became interested in Marxism and psychology. When Eisenstein first began his work in theater, he worked with Meyerhold and considered him a mentor. Griffith focused on using film to tell a story to create intense emotions and reactions. His films were marketed to the middle class. While Eisenstein's films were made for an audience of intellectuals. Eisenstein's films used editing in a completely different way that Griffith. He tried to use editing as its own form of art to create emotion and engage the audience. Griffith's career was a large amount of movies, with only a handful being revolutionary and successes. And Eisenstein only made 7 films in his career, these films did not achieve the same commercial success that Griffith's did, but Eisenstein did not create film for the intent of making money. These differences could be heavily based on their differing upbringings. Eisenstein was highly intellectual, and had a some training in the theater prior to directing. Griffith worked as an actor and playwright. These influence greatly contributed to how they chose their respective styles.
Eisenstein and Griffith were both film makers that influenced a great deal of change. However, their personal styles and reasons for making films were vastly different. While Griffith found a way to make films commercially successful, Eisentein thought critically about every detail in his films. While it is clear that Griffith was also detail oriented, he was more interested in the grandeur of his films and his focus was on pumping out film after film quickly and creating a name for himself, this name was created because his films were accessible to everyone while Eisentein’s were viewed by far less people who were more intellectual. Eisenstein thought more critically about the content of his films and the way that different shots working together could create and evoke a response from an audience. This attention to detail become obvious when we look at the number of films produced by each film maker. While Eisenstein only created 7 films over 23 years, Griffith had many more. I think that in making less films, Eisenstein was able to develop theories about film and see what worked and what didn't and was able to develop relevant film theories based on that. In contrast, Griffith didn't focus much on theory and instead focused on emotional responses and narrative.
Griffith and Eisenstein were both great filmmakers in their own right, however their motives for producing their films was much different. Griffith produced hundreds of small films as well as many box office successes. And while Griffith failed to catch onto "film fads" he still produced movies in the hopes that they would be great successes. With each film he strove to either out do himself, or produce a good enough film to fund his next extravagant adventure. With each film he strove to strengthen his status as a great director. Eisenstein on the other hand only produced 7 films during his 23 years in the industry. His films, while hailed as more artistic then Griffith, were commissioned by the government or political groups. He often took their request and made it into a fantastic artistic master piece. While shots were planned he learned from the great director Vsevolod Meyerhold the art of "rigorous systematization and spontaneous improvisation." He also made great use of montages throughout his movies to wrap the audience up in the chaos of a battle. Naming the greatest director of all time can be very subjective, but there is no doubt that these two men were very influential and progressive directors during their time in the industry.
Both Griffith and Eisenstein added so much to the film industry, but it is believed that Eisenstein was more productive in contributing to the rise of cinema theory. Griffiths popularity grew as he made over 500 films. Most of his films were based on his own Victorian values. Eisenstein was the opposite. He only made 7 films which were all very current. Both Eisenstein and Griffith had very different strategies for their films. Not only were all of Griffiths films victorian but they were also very conservative. Eisenstein's films on the other hand were very mental and emotional. He is credited for coming up with the development of film theory and methods. He took a lot of time in examining and making his films. Not only that but he also included certain aspects in his films such as metric, rhythmic, and intellectual montage. In comparison, Griffith created his films more on the spot and didn't think as deeply about them as Eisenstein.
There is no doubt that D.W. Griffith took seriously the craft of filmmaking. Griffith made great strides in developing the art of filmmaking through his use of various shots as well as his editing style to convey the emotion of his characters, which drove his narratives forward and likewise stirred his audiences. However, his theater background, middle class values and commercial motives limited his scope about the possibilities of film and what films could achieve. Sergei Eisentein, on the other hand, was an extremely educated man, a true intellectual. This aided in his ability to think outside the box, if you will, and focus on the psychological effects that film could have on its audiences. Unlike Griffith, whose techniques both moved his narrative forward and helped his audiences understand the narrative, Eisenstein's techniques and use of montage forced his audiences to tap into a higher level of understanding to interpret what they were seeing on the screen. Whereas Griffith was more concerned with conveying the story clearly and becoming the best and most successful in his field, Eisenstein appealed to a more niche audience and did not achieve success as equal to Griffith at the time. However, Eisenstein's experimental and avant-garde techniques opened up avenues that had never occurred to those before him. Eisenstein demanded his audience to interpret the screen for themselves and challenge their intellects through the use of montage and unique editing techniques to evoke emotional responses, rather than Griffith who used the actors themselves to evoke emotion, which made his films more accessible to a wider audience.
Griffith and Eisenstein definitely approached the world of cinema in different ways. Griffith attracted the middle class making about 450 films. He captured emotion realistically and was always pushing himself to think outside of the box and to come up with something that no one else had. Some of his work was even controversial for his portrayal of race and religion. Griffith made many films for the pure joy and excitement of being creative and expressive, and for the pleasure of audiences. He always wanted his films to be popular and he even campaigned to get people interested in watching his films. He got the audience actively involved in his productions by portraying history, real emotions, and thrilling events such as a car chase. In this way, he differs from Eisenstein especially because Eisenstein hardly made any films. Eisenstein took his time with producing and focused more on camera angles, montage, and the feelings of the audience. He looked at cinema psychologically and how it could meaningfully impact his audience, rather than just try to make his films popular. Griffith also was extremely creative with editing and studio sets. He edited films with color shading and created illusions to impress his audience. He worked in the snow, on ice, on the beach, etc. He always wanted to do something new and create a box office triumph. Eisenstein wanted to be artistic and not simply produce what audience would want to see. So, he made an impact in cinema for different reasons than Griffith did because of these opposing approaches to film.
Eisenstein and Griffith were both filmmakers who contributed a great deal to the film industry over their many illustrious years. While they are both major figures in the history of film, their contributions differ significantly. Eisenstein is credited by many film scholars as a pioneer in film theory and his handful of films reflect that notion. Over the course of his 23 years in the industry, Eisenstein only made 7 films (kind of like Terrence Malick in today's modern film industry). In his few intellectual films, Eisenstein made sure that the content of his works were more psychologically stimulating. He used the montage technique - which was revolutionary at the time - to draw out an emotional reaction from his audiences. Griffith's filmmaking talents differed in the sense that he was more concerned with the commercial success of his films. Therefore, his films were much more direct and easier to comprehend. Griffith's films were received by a much wider audience than Eisenstein's as they were typically made with the intention of earning loads of money in order to make more films (kind of like Michael Bay's films today).
Both Griffith and Eisenstein were both pioneers of modern film and cinema. Their collections of work made a lasting impact on the development of directing, editing and film technique. However, their approaches and techniques differ. Eisenstein developed his own film theory “montage of attractions,” which in short means a sequence of pictures whose complete emotional effect is vast and conveys a greater meaning. Even though Eisenstein wanted to make films for the common man, his intense use of theory, symbolism and metaphor was far to intellectual to appeal to the general public/the middle class. However, he revolutionized and went beyond nineteenth century concepts, creating an abstract frontier for film to grow. On the other hand, Griffith strove to create narratives with intense emotions and drama. Griffith invented film as art and propaganda, which widely appealed to the middle class, thus resulting in large profits. He created large-scale sets that no one had seen before. He used his dreams to create art through the medium of film. In my opinion, Eisenstein was educated formally as an engineer, thus his eye for film was much more technical and intellectual, where Griffith was originally an actor and writer, thus giving him a more artistic and astatically pleasing eye for film that appealed to broader audiences.
Like many have mentioned, Eisenstein took a more intellectual approach in creating his films, and used film as a way of testing and experimenting with his theories on the psychological effects of juxtaposition and montage. Griffith was more concerned with the narrative logic of his films and he tended to pull from theater writings that heavily relied on dramatic, linear story lines. Eisenstein’s approach to cinema was so different from Griffith’s due to the context in which Eisenstein was introduced to the medium. Soviet silent cinema arose much later than the rest of the world because of the socioeconomic problems that were going at the time of the revolution and the civil war. Eisenstein’s films are loaded with aspects dealing with the social and political issues of his time, and through editing and his practice of “intellectual or ideological montage” he tried to communicate these ideas with his audience.
Griffith and Eisenstein are two of the most influential directors and filmmakers of the modern age. Both revolutionary as far as their camera techniques and visionary and dramatic spectacles. Eisenstein's films however were more catered to an intellectual and artistic crowd. His films followed a loose narrative with a montage style of clipping and editing, as seen in Battleship Potemkin. Griffith on the other hand with his early films, such as Birth of a Nation, was one of the first films to engage all audiences, and most importantly the middle class which is still the largest money maker for the industry. Birth of Nation and other films of the like by Griffith were very dramatic, epics, battle scene, sweeping orchestra scores and a strong narrative story for people to follow. This is the beginning of the popularity of films and movie going. The were also revolutionary as far as the controversy that arose from some of his plots and racial tension. Overall Eisenstein and Griffith offer the full length picture style seen nowadays Eisenstein is more of the independent film model and Griffith is the influence of the Hollywood film model.
Griffith and Eisenstein both made major contributions to film, however, their differences in motivation affected their approach to their film-making. As many have already stated the most significant difference between these two, stems from the fact that Griffith had a commercial and profitable motivation for his films while Eisenstein had focused on exploring the psychological impact of film upon its audiences. This led to Griffith pumping out films, often making three or four short, cheap films that could be presented as money-makers for his larger projects. This constant stream of films created a quantity of his work, promoting his name and his credentials as a director for which he could continue to make more money off of as more opportunities kept arising. Eisenstein's films however were not plentiful, for he would spend years creating a film focusing on the symbolism, emotional quality and other more intellectual aspects that made his films unique for their emphasis on the audience's experience. Eisenstein is most famous for his use of montage as a film technology to revolutionize film as a emotionally communicative art-form.
Griffith and Eisenstein were probably one of the most influential filmmakers in the early days of the industry. Being separated by thousands of miles and mindsets they shared the same passion for new kind of storytelling. However, just like the countries they represented their views and vision were radically different.
In the 40 years of his film career Griffith had produced some astonishing films, breaking the usual perception of the film and establishing his own rules. From my point of view, his signature has become those big well-rehearsed crowded scenes that first appeared in "Judith of Bethulia" and then make their way into most of his "big" films. Griffith was not afraid to challenge, or touch upon a controversy topic, just like he did in his movie “The Birth of A Nation.” However, the shortcoming of the capitalistic society did affect the filmmakers’ views and career. In addition to his passion for the “wow-effect,” that Griffith so masterfully achieved with the massive battle scenes, he was also riven by the main capitalistic idea – profits. From my point of view, this desire to make more and more money oh his movies at times clouded his judgment as a filmmaker. He did not mind producer, smaller less quality films in order to be able to make the grand ones. Nevertheless, no matter what was the reason standing behind the filmmaker’s path, Griffith’s films influenced and keep influencing millions of aspiring cinematographers all over the world. Every movie of his became a trendsetter and changed the industry, as we know it.
On the other part of the world a very talented Latvian Sergei Eisenstein was about to impress Europe, as well as the whole world later on, with his first feature film “Strike.” Having no initial access to the equipment Eisenstein was able to learn the basic techniques of filmmaking from Griffith’s footage and approach the idea of creating film from a very different perspective that became the dominant way to make films. The idea of montage was so new and brilliant to the viewers’ eyes, while Eisenstein films became an instant success and were talked about worldwide. Even now, most of the film students become acquainted with his famous Odessa steps scene from “The Battleship Potemkin.” Nevertheless, if in Griffith’s case the society was pressuring the filmmaker with the idea of profits, the Soviet government utilized Eisenstein’s talent in order to propagate the socialist regime. Trying to micro-manage the filmmaker’s movies Eisenstein had little room left for experimenting and was forced to quit the industry.
With Eisenstein coming from an engineering background in general I think that set him apart starting there from Griffith. Griffith saw things more from a narrative perspective and really wanted people to understand his story. This is due to his background and passion for theater. Eisenstein fully understood what it meant to more the camera around and use film in more of a modern way. True both filmmakers were talented, yet they were gifted in totally different ways. Griffith more about narration, perfection, and elaborate rehearsing. While Eisenstein took what he was given and worked on a more intellectual level rather than a dramatic level.
The main difference between Griffith and Eisenstein was the object of the their film. Griffith Focused heavily on appealing to the middle class, because he knew the value in bringing in that audience and therefore made his films more commercial and focused on the storytelling aspects of film. He made movies that audiences didn't really have to think about to get the message. What we call popcorn flicks today. Eisenstein's films are much more cerebral and forced the audience to think in different manners, making his films really only popular with the highly educated upper class. What I find most interesting about these two directors today is that the really created a path for current directors. There are tons of directors like Micheal Bay, Tyler Perry, Adam Shakman and Guy Richie who would fall into this Griffith style of film making where they cater to their audience because they know it will make money. These are directors who definitely serve their purpose in our society but its hard to imagine "Madea Goes To Jail" as being a classic. That's why I have much more respect for the directors who would fall into this Eisenstein category of film making because they push the envelope for what film can do to the mind. Directors like: Stanley Kubrick, Terrance Mallick, David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky. This are the type of directors who value the intellect of film over the opening weekend ticket sales. Ultimately, these films are not always going to be as successful as the popcorn flicks but they will be the films that are remembered. Rarely, we encounter a director who manages to engage the mind while appealing to the mainstream side of film these are driectors like Scorsese, De Palma, and Ford Coppola but talents like these are incredibly rare. Whether a director is making a film for the mind or the fan we have Griffith and Eisenstein to thank for laying the foundation.
Griffith and Eisenstein, both great early film makers, differed in their approach and motive to cinema. Griffith was a reactionary filmmaker, while Eisenstein was more timely as a filmmaker making films in the moment. Griffith very much embodied quantity over quality in his films. Not to say that he made films for no reason, but Griffith often made many mediocre films in order to raise enough money for films he actually desired to create. Today, in our current Hollywood studio structure, many actors and filmmakers sign on for films that they are not fully enthused about so they can create other films they have artistic vision for. Eisenstein, made very purposeful films, focusing solely on the messages he intended mass audiences to understand. He was so specific in the way that he filmed, that often times his films intended message flew over the heads of his audience. Depending on viewers ideology, they could perceive and interpret his films in many different ways. Thus, to me it seems that Griffith created films for monetary success and in order to become well known for his personal name, where as Eisenstein created films for a specific intellectual message he wished to be understood by the mass audiences.
23 comments:
I think a major difference between Griffith and Eisenstein was that Griffith created films for commercial success, whereas Eisenstein created films with a more intellectual intention. This affected their overall approach to creating films. Griffith’s films, as stated in the book, reflected values of the Victorian middle class, and had sentimentalist feel to them, which all would have appealed to this middle class. Though his films (especially the later ones) were well thought out in terms of content, he definitely had a focus on creating a large quantity of films and getting his work out there. Eisenstein’s films were much more geared towards people who were more educated, like he was. He focused on the content of the films, and only created 7 over a period of 23 years. His films didn’t have the commercial success that Griffith’s did. Rather, they were seen by other intellectuals who were on the same level as him. He also put a large emphasis on the psychological effects his films had on the viewer.
I think these differences largely lie in their backgrounds. Griffith left high school early, and had beginnings as an actor and playwright, which led to his career in film. Eisenstein, on the other hand, was highly intellectual. He went to school for engineering, and went on to work for Moscow’s Proletkult Theatre, which was known for avant-garde and modernist ideas. His work with the company surely contributed to his revolutionary ideas.
I agree with Kyra in her statement that Griffith created more commercial films that were intended to make money as compared to Eisenstein who was more critical with his work, only creating seven films throughout his career. Additionally, on a more technical note Eisenstein focused greatly on the power of intercutting and juxtaposing different shots in order to create story and emotion. The relationship between shots was of most importance to him. In contrast, Griffith was more straightforward and focused on creating emotional stories through a narrative structure. In other words, Griffith used close ups of actors to create emotional scenes, while Eisenstein believed a filmmaker could simply juxtapose an emotionless face with shots of seemingly unrelated objects in order to create an emotional performance. Griffith used more flashbacks and dissolves, while Eisenstein focused on the use of montage to entice psychological effects on the audience.
I agree that the differences in Griffith and Eisenstein are based on their upbringing and backgrounds. Eisenstein, as a more educated man, put more emphasis on intellect and abstract ideas than Griffith, who seemed to be more about pushing technical limits to create compelling narratives. However, both filmmakers were extremely influential in the field of editing and have created many revolutionary films.
One of the major differences between Eisenstein and Griffith's approach to cinema was their idea of the narrative and its relation to editing. Griffith, due to his background in theater and his apparent love for Dickens, really focused in on the story. His stories, as mentioned in a previous comment, possessed hints of Southern romanticism and/or middle class mentality. With that in mind, Griffith also focused on how the editing could progress his narrative and move it in the right direction. To Griffith, editing was a way to help tell the story. Eisenstein on the other hand, was an intellectual who seemed to be very interested in the psychology of film. Though he was also interested in narrative form, or using film to tell a story, he used editing as a way to express abstract ideas that were overall, independent from, but relating to the narrative. In this way, the symbolic images he used through editing became a kind of poetic narrative in itself-- metaphors for the major themes in the actual plot. He was really interested in audience perception and psychology rather than creating huge elaborate spectacles like Griffith.
I agree with the previous comment that attributes these differences to each filmmaker's background. Eisenstein was an intellectual and that definitely showed in his approach to film. Griffith started from humble beginnings but I think definitely pulled from his experiences in theater to create elaborate stories in his films. Overall, both men were revolutionary but I believe Griffith was driven by his desire to outdo everyone in the industry while Eisenstein was really experimenting with the idea of perception and creation of reality.
I believe the main difference between Griffith and Eisenstein lie in the motives behind their cinematic discoveries. Griffith was driven by his desire to create fantastic films that blew other films away, especially the Italian epic Quo Vadis? Griffith saw film as a narrative story told through the arrangement of moving photographic images instead of words. He sought to arrange these moving photographic images in new ways in an attempt to make more epic and engaging films, with huge commercial success. Eisenstein was driven on a more intellectual level. He wanted to understand and define why and how montage was effective. Eisenstein formulated his theories of editing based off of the psychology of perception and Marxist dialectic. And he published his theoretically findings. Something Griffith did not do. Both Eisenstein had theatrical backgrounds that they used. But Eisenstein began to look down on theater; he equated theater to a wooden plough, and film to a more modern and technological tractor. Griffith initially looked down on film, and considered theater to be the real art and film second-class art. (Although, his opinion of film changed, which was signified when he put his real name on his work, not a pen name) Also, Griffith was just as concerned with that was happening inside the shot, as the sequencing of the shots. He was considered the first great actor’s director, and all actors in Hollywood wanted to work with him. By making his films for serious, and focusing on the realness and authenticity of his actors, he was attempting to dignify the medium of motion pictures.
Both Griffith and Eisenstein were revolutionary filmmakers and though similar in that respect, also had many differences. I think one of the main differences was the reason each of them made their films. To me, it seems as though Griffith got caught up in attempting to outdo himself, constantly upping the cost and sets of his films. He wanted his films to be seen by the millions and, most likely, was making them for the middle class. In contrast, Eisenstein limited what he made and took considerable time on his productions. His outlook was different in the respect that he focused on theoretical meanings and utilized his intellectualism to make only a few, great films. While Griffith was commonly utilizing new technology, it seems to me that Eisenstein was instead perfecting his methods. Each filmmaker was clearly creating films for different audiences. One wanted to appeal to the masses, while the other aimed to appeal to an intellectual population, who was presumably of a higher class. Overall, though both men were extremely influential filmmakers, I believe that Griffith was furthering film in order to further his fame as a director, while Eisenstein wanted to appeal intellectually and make his mark as a filmmaker based on his film theory.
Griffith and Eisenstein both made significant contributions to film, but it is arguable that Eisenstein made more conscious contributions to cinema theory. Griffith created intuitively and his films were seen by millions—he made over 500 of them. Eisenstein made seven films in a 23-year career. Griffith’s ideology lay firmly in Victorian values, while Eisenstein was an intellectual modernist whose films, unlike Griffith’s, were seen by a select few.
Most importantly I think that their intentions for their films were very different.
Griffith’s films were reactionary, Eisenstein’s films were psychological—and as directed very divergently to the Western “bourgeois cinema”. Eisenstein developed film theory and film methods, instead of constructing them on instinct, like Griffith (whose films would probably fall under bourgeois cinema). Eisenstein’s conscious attempt to develop various cinema methods like his metric, rhythmic, tonal, overtonal, and intellectual montage, set him apart from D.W Griffith, whose films seemed to rely on narrative to incite reaction.
Both Griffith and Eisenstein are praised as true revolutionary filmmakers in regards to the narrative and editing aspects of film. However, Griffith and Eisenstein's style and history could not be more different. Griffith had always wanted to work in the arts and did not stray from that, he worked as an actor prior to his directing. While Eisenstein had a passion for the arts, he went to school to study engineering where he became interested in Marxism and psychology. When Eisenstein first began his work in theater, he worked with Meyerhold and considered him a mentor.
Griffith focused on using film to tell a story to create intense emotions and reactions. His films were marketed to the middle class. While Eisenstein's films were made for an audience of intellectuals. Eisenstein's films used editing in a completely different way that Griffith. He tried to use editing as its own form of art to create emotion and engage the audience.
Griffith's career was a large amount of movies, with only a handful being revolutionary and successes. And Eisenstein only made 7 films in his career, these films did not achieve the same commercial success that Griffith's did, but Eisenstein did not create film for the intent of making money.
These differences could be heavily based on their differing upbringings. Eisenstein was highly intellectual, and had a some training in the theater prior to directing. Griffith worked as an actor and playwright. These influence greatly contributed to how they chose their respective styles.
Eisenstein and Griffith were both film makers that influenced a great deal of change. However, their personal styles and reasons for making films were vastly different. While Griffith found a way to make films commercially successful, Eisentein thought critically about every detail in his films. While it is clear that Griffith was also detail oriented, he was more interested in the grandeur of his films and his focus was on pumping out film after film quickly and creating a name for himself, this name was created because his films were accessible to everyone while Eisentein’s were viewed by far less people who were more intellectual. Eisenstein thought more critically about the content of his films and the way that different shots working together could create and evoke a response from an audience. This attention to detail become obvious when we look at the number of films produced by each film maker. While Eisenstein only created 7 films over 23 years, Griffith had many more. I think that in making less films, Eisenstein was able to develop theories about film and see what worked and what didn't and was able to develop relevant film theories based on that. In contrast, Griffith didn't focus much on theory and instead focused on emotional responses and narrative.
Griffith and Eisenstein were both great filmmakers in their own right, however their motives for producing their films was much different. Griffith produced hundreds of small films as well as many box office successes. And while Griffith failed to catch onto "film fads" he still produced movies in the hopes that they would be great successes. With each film he strove to either out do himself, or produce a good enough film to fund his next extravagant adventure. With each film he strove to strengthen his status as a great director. Eisenstein on the other hand only produced 7 films during his 23 years in the industry. His films, while hailed as more artistic then Griffith, were commissioned by the government or political groups. He often took their request and made it into a fantastic artistic master piece. While shots were planned he learned from the great director Vsevolod Meyerhold the art of "rigorous systematization and spontaneous improvisation." He also made great use of montages throughout his movies to wrap the audience up in the chaos of a battle. Naming the greatest director of all time can be very subjective, but there is no doubt that these two men were very influential and progressive directors during their time in the industry.
Both Griffith and Eisenstein added so much to the film industry, but it is believed that Eisenstein was more productive in contributing to the rise of cinema theory. Griffiths popularity grew as he made over 500 films. Most of his films were based on his own Victorian values. Eisenstein was the opposite. He only made 7 films which were all very current. Both Eisenstein and Griffith had very different strategies for their films. Not only were all of Griffiths films victorian but they were also very conservative. Eisenstein's films on the other hand were very mental and emotional. He is credited for coming up with the development of film theory and methods. He took a lot of time in examining and making his films. Not only that but he also included certain aspects in his films such as metric, rhythmic, and intellectual montage. In comparison, Griffith created his films more on the spot and didn't think as deeply about them as Eisenstein.
There is no doubt that D.W. Griffith took seriously the craft of filmmaking. Griffith made great strides in developing the art of filmmaking through his use of various shots as well as his editing style to convey the emotion of his characters, which drove his narratives forward and likewise stirred his audiences. However, his theater background, middle class values and commercial motives limited his scope about the possibilities of film and what films could achieve. Sergei Eisentein, on the other hand, was an extremely educated man, a true intellectual. This aided in his ability to think outside the box, if you will, and focus on the psychological effects that film could have on its audiences. Unlike Griffith, whose techniques both moved his narrative forward and helped his audiences understand the narrative, Eisenstein's techniques and use of montage forced his audiences to tap into a higher level of understanding to interpret what they were seeing on the screen. Whereas Griffith was more concerned with conveying the story clearly and becoming the best and most successful in his field, Eisenstein appealed to a more niche audience and did not achieve success as equal to Griffith at the time. However, Eisenstein's experimental and avant-garde techniques opened up avenues that had never occurred to those before him. Eisenstein demanded his audience to interpret the screen for themselves and challenge their intellects through the use of montage and unique editing techniques to evoke emotional responses, rather than Griffith who used the actors themselves to evoke emotion, which made his films more accessible to a wider audience.
Griffith and Eisenstein definitely approached the world of cinema in different ways. Griffith attracted the middle class making about 450 films. He captured emotion realistically and was always pushing himself to think outside of the box and to come up with something that no one else had. Some of his work was even controversial for his portrayal of race and religion. Griffith made many films for the pure joy and excitement of being creative and expressive, and for the pleasure of audiences. He always wanted his films to be popular and he even campaigned to get people interested in watching his films. He got the audience actively involved in his productions by portraying history, real emotions, and thrilling events such as a car chase. In this way, he differs from Eisenstein especially because Eisenstein hardly made any films. Eisenstein took his time with producing and focused more on camera angles, montage, and the feelings of the audience. He looked at cinema psychologically and how it could meaningfully impact his audience, rather than just try to make his films popular. Griffith also was extremely creative with editing and studio sets. He edited films with color shading and created illusions to impress his audience. He worked in the snow, on ice, on the beach, etc. He always wanted to do something new and create a box office triumph. Eisenstein wanted to be artistic and not simply produce what audience would want to see. So, he made an impact in cinema for different reasons than Griffith did because of these opposing approaches to film.
Eisenstein and Griffith were both filmmakers who contributed a great deal to the film industry over their many illustrious years. While they are both major figures in the history of film, their contributions differ significantly. Eisenstein is credited by many film scholars as a pioneer in film theory and his handful of films reflect that notion. Over the course of his 23 years in the industry, Eisenstein only made 7 films (kind of like Terrence Malick in today's modern film industry). In his few intellectual films, Eisenstein made sure that the content of his works were more psychologically stimulating. He used the montage technique - which was revolutionary at the time - to draw out an emotional reaction from his audiences.
Griffith's filmmaking talents differed in the sense that he was more concerned with the commercial success of his films. Therefore, his films were much more direct and easier to comprehend. Griffith's films were received by a much wider audience than Eisenstein's as they were typically made with the intention of earning loads of money in order to make more films (kind of like Michael Bay's films today).
Both Griffith and Eisenstein were both pioneers of modern film and cinema. Their collections of work made a lasting impact on the development of directing, editing and film technique. However, their approaches and techniques differ. Eisenstein developed his own film theory “montage of attractions,” which in short means a sequence of pictures whose complete emotional effect is vast and conveys a greater meaning. Even though Eisenstein wanted to make films for the common man, his intense use of theory, symbolism and metaphor was far to intellectual to appeal to the general public/the middle class. However, he revolutionized and went beyond nineteenth century concepts, creating an abstract frontier for film to grow.
On the other hand, Griffith strove to create narratives with intense emotions and drama. Griffith invented film as art and propaganda, which widely appealed to the middle class, thus resulting in large profits. He created large-scale sets that no one had seen before. He used his dreams to create art through the medium of film.
In my opinion, Eisenstein was educated formally as an engineer, thus his eye for film was much more technical and intellectual, where Griffith was originally an actor and writer, thus giving him a more artistic and astatically pleasing eye for film that appealed to broader audiences.
Like many have mentioned, Eisenstein took a more intellectual approach in creating his films, and used film as a way of testing and experimenting with his theories on the psychological effects of juxtaposition and montage. Griffith was more concerned with the narrative logic of his films and he tended to pull from theater writings that heavily relied on dramatic, linear story lines.
Eisenstein’s approach to cinema was so different from Griffith’s due to the context in which Eisenstein was introduced to the medium. Soviet silent cinema arose much later than the rest of the world because of the socioeconomic problems that were going at the time of the revolution and the civil war. Eisenstein’s films are loaded with aspects dealing with the social and political issues of his time, and through editing and his practice of “intellectual or ideological montage” he tried to communicate these ideas with his audience.
Griffith and Eisenstein are two of the most influential directors and filmmakers of the modern age. Both revolutionary as far as their camera techniques and visionary and dramatic spectacles. Eisenstein's films however were more catered to an intellectual and artistic crowd. His films followed a loose narrative with a montage style of clipping and editing, as seen in Battleship Potemkin. Griffith on the other hand with his early films, such as Birth of a Nation, was one of the first films to engage all audiences, and most importantly the middle class which is still the largest money maker for the industry. Birth of Nation and other films of the like by Griffith were very dramatic, epics, battle scene, sweeping orchestra scores and a strong narrative story for people to follow. This is the beginning of the popularity of films and movie going. The were also revolutionary as far as the controversy that arose from some of his plots and racial tension. Overall Eisenstein and Griffith offer the full length picture style seen nowadays Eisenstein is more of the independent film model and Griffith is the influence of the Hollywood film model.
Griffith and Eisenstein both made major contributions to film, however, their differences in motivation affected their approach to their film-making. As many have already stated the most significant difference between these two, stems from the fact that Griffith had a commercial and profitable motivation for his films while Eisenstein had focused on exploring the psychological impact of film upon its audiences. This led to Griffith pumping out films, often making three or four short, cheap films that could be presented as money-makers for his larger projects. This constant stream of films created a quantity of his work, promoting his name and his credentials as a director for which he could continue to make more money off of as more opportunities kept arising. Eisenstein's films however were not plentiful, for he would spend years creating a film focusing on the symbolism, emotional quality and other more intellectual aspects that made his films unique for their emphasis on the audience's experience. Eisenstein is most famous for his use of montage as a film technology to revolutionize film as a emotionally communicative art-form.
Griffith and Eisenstein were probably one of the most influential filmmakers in the early days of the industry. Being separated by thousands of miles and mindsets they shared the same passion for new kind of storytelling. However, just like the countries they represented their views and vision were radically different.
In the 40 years of his film career Griffith had produced some astonishing films, breaking the usual perception of the film and establishing his own rules. From my point of view, his signature has become those big well-rehearsed crowded scenes that first appeared in "Judith of Bethulia" and then make their way into most of his "big" films. Griffith was not afraid to challenge, or touch upon a controversy topic, just like he did in his movie “The Birth of A Nation.” However, the shortcoming of the capitalistic society did affect the filmmakers’ views and career. In addition to his passion for the “wow-effect,” that Griffith so masterfully achieved with the massive battle scenes, he was also riven by the main capitalistic idea – profits. From my point of view, this desire to make more and more money oh his movies at times clouded his judgment as a filmmaker. He did not mind producer, smaller less quality films in order to be able to make the grand ones. Nevertheless, no matter what was the reason standing behind the filmmaker’s path, Griffith’s films influenced and keep influencing millions of aspiring cinematographers all over the world. Every movie of his became a trendsetter and changed the industry, as we know it.
On the other part of the world a very talented Latvian Sergei Eisenstein was about to impress Europe, as well as the whole world later on, with his first feature film “Strike.” Having no initial access to the equipment Eisenstein was able to learn the basic techniques of filmmaking from Griffith’s footage and approach the idea of creating film from a very different perspective that became the dominant way to make films. The idea of montage was so new and brilliant to the viewers’ eyes, while Eisenstein films became an instant success and were talked about worldwide. Even now, most of the film students become acquainted with his famous Odessa steps scene from “The Battleship Potemkin.” Nevertheless, if in Griffith’s case the society was pressuring the filmmaker with the idea of profits, the Soviet government utilized Eisenstein’s talent in order to propagate the socialist regime. Trying to micro-manage the filmmaker’s movies Eisenstein had little room left for experimenting and was forced to quit the industry.
With Eisenstein coming from an engineering background in general I think that set him apart starting there from Griffith. Griffith saw things more from a narrative perspective and really wanted people to understand his story. This is due to his background and passion for theater. Eisenstein fully understood what it meant to more the camera around and use film in more of a modern way. True both filmmakers were talented, yet they were gifted in totally different ways. Griffith more about narration, perfection, and elaborate rehearsing. While Eisenstein took what he was given and worked on a more intellectual level rather than a dramatic level.
The main difference between Griffith and Eisenstein was the object of the their film. Griffith Focused heavily on appealing to the middle class, because he knew the value in bringing in that audience and therefore made his films more commercial and focused on the storytelling aspects of film. He made movies that audiences didn't really have to think about to get the message. What we call popcorn flicks today. Eisenstein's films are much more cerebral and forced the audience to think in different manners, making his films really only popular with the highly educated upper class.
What I find most interesting about these two directors today is that the really created a path for current directors. There are tons of directors like Micheal Bay, Tyler Perry, Adam Shakman and Guy Richie who would fall into this Griffith style of film making where they cater to their audience because they know it will make money. These are directors who definitely serve their purpose in our society but its hard to imagine "Madea Goes To Jail" as being a classic. That's why I have much more respect for the directors who would fall into this Eisenstein category of film making because they push the envelope for what film can do to the mind. Directors like: Stanley Kubrick, Terrance Mallick, David Fincher and Darren Aronofsky. This are the type of directors who value the intellect of film over the opening weekend ticket sales. Ultimately, these films are not always going to be as successful as the popcorn flicks but they will be the films that are remembered. Rarely, we encounter a director who manages to engage the mind while appealing to the mainstream side of film these are driectors like Scorsese, De Palma, and Ford Coppola but talents like these are incredibly rare. Whether a director is making a film for the mind or the fan we have Griffith and Eisenstein to thank for laying the foundation.
Griffith and Eisenstein, both great early film makers, differed in their approach and motive to cinema. Griffith was a reactionary filmmaker, while Eisenstein was more timely as a filmmaker making films in the moment. Griffith very much embodied quantity over quality in his films. Not to say that he made films for no reason, but Griffith often made many mediocre films in order to raise enough money for films he actually desired to create. Today, in our current Hollywood studio structure, many actors and filmmakers sign on for films that they are not fully enthused about so they can create other films they have artistic vision for. Eisenstein, made very purposeful films, focusing solely on the messages he intended mass audiences to understand. He was so specific in the way that he filmed, that often times his films intended message flew over the heads of his audience. Depending on viewers ideology, they could perceive and interpret his films in many different ways. Thus, to me it seems that Griffith created films for monetary success and in order to become well known for his personal name, where as Eisenstein created films for a specific intellectual message he wished to be understood by the mass audiences.
Post a Comment