Barnouw Discussion on Vertov

BEFORE THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4TH AT 7PM: 
Post a response here after reading Barnouw (54-59). Please respond to any aspect of the reading or you may also consider answering one or two of the following questions in your post (I prefer depth of answer that cites specific elements from the text over an attempt to answer all of the questions below). 

Write about the equivalent of 3/4 to 1 double-spaced page in a word processing program.  For those of you posting after other students have posted -  engage with what others have posted rather than merely repeating what has already been said.

What do you make of...
- Vertov's conception of truth in film? 
- His conception of the function of film?
- His preference for documentary over fiction films?
- His conception of the role of the filmmaker?
- The material conditions described surrounding Vertov's work?
- The function of the eye or embodied filmmaker?

Comments

[Paula Kim]

Vertov seems like he was a honest man. I say this because he saw the area of filmwork as a media that could be used most effectively in portraying the truth to the people, the viewers, the audience. In his words, “the body of cinema is numbed by the terrible poison of habit” (54). In other words, film had no life in it anymore. Traditionally, it was marketed as a way to tell fictional stories. It was always planned, staged. The actors memorized what they needed to do to tell a story and this is where cinema fails. For Vertov, real cinema consisted of all natural, everyday happenings, because the daily life in itself is a drama for the people. A key point in this idea was Vertov’s view that permissions don’t need to be asked in order to film the truth. This reminds me of the part in the movie, The Man With the Movie Camera, where the camera was filming a divorce registration and as it was discussed in class, it was pretty apparent that the woman really wanted to hide her face from the camera.

Because this was such a drastic flip from the traditional take on cinema, only a few supported his view, but lucky for him, one of these was Lenin. In turn, Vertov was able to change cinema so that everything “must have a blance between fiction and actuality material” (55). However, I feel like this doctrine set by Lenin could have complicated matters more because the viewers won’t be able to differentiate between what is real and what is not real, what is truth and what is not truth.

The main thing I’ve learned from this reading is the emphasis of “meaningful juxtaposition” (57). Vertov states that it’s not enough just to show clips of truth in a film, but to be able to put all the pieces of truth together so that they work together in telling the truth as a whole. However, regardless of what truth a camera man tries to capture, it is still only a truth that the camera man chose to capture. While much effort can be put in trying to film the truth, in the end, a documentary is still an incomplete truth.

[Nurbek]

I have great respect for Vertov and the kind of innovation he brought into the film making. After seeing the movie, I was amazed with the way he was able to convey themes and ideas in a silent documentary. He stressed the contrasts, juxtaposing marriage and divorce, birth and death. You could see his appreciation for technology. He experimented with special effects throughout the film and he spent a lot of time filming cars, trains, and buses. He used technology in his film making simply for the sake of experimentation. I found fascinating a scene where machines and people working at the factory were shown together. For me, it implies Vertov's believe in a future where technology is integrated with society, a future we live in today. A scene with the living camera is also interesting because it can be interpreted as a symbol of technology having the life of its own, in essence Vertov's take on artificial intelligence. From the text, he said of camera "I am a mechanical eye...show you a world such as only I can see." In his view, the camera was alive.

I was disappointed a little in Vertov after reading Barnouw's account. Though his idealistic aspirations to replace artificial scenario based movies with documentaries that more closely reflected reality were admirable, the fact is he built his career by fueling a Soviet propaganda machine. An author is clearly sympathetic to Vertov, but look at his subject matter. "The prose of life" consisted of nothing but positive things. Let's examine the historical period. Russia was coming off a revolution and civil war. Hundreds of thousands of people were displaced and thousands more killed by the Soviets. Collectivization left agriculture in shambles, leading to poverty and starvation. That prose of life was left out. I am sure bringing this up would have been a suicide for Vertov, but we cannot disregard that he was a tool in State driven propaganda. The phrase "to document socialist reality" summarizes the point I am trying to make. The documentary often is as subjective as an artistic film and represents only the reality that filmmaker wants other people to see.

Despite my criticism of Vertov, I am still in awe of his artistic genius. He was clearly ahead of his time. He saw the potential for creativity a film presented and used it to bring out the beauty of the ordinary life.

[Boris Sadkhin]

What struck me the most from the Barnouw Reading was Vertov’s description of the cinema-eye and the deficiencies of human eyes.
“I am cinema-eye-I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you a world such as only I can see.”
Reading about the cinema eye opened up my eyes to the fragility of human nature and highlighted the flaws of humanity. More so, the fact that humans have overcome some of these limitations with technological advances fascinates me. A human created a machine that makes up for one’s shortcomings. A human eye cannot detect finite movements at ultrahigh speeds, but the eye of a machine, more specifically, a high-speed camera, can detect these movements and possibly even slow them down to the rate at which a normal human being can detect the images.
Human memory is flawed. Humans tend to forget many things they have done and cannot recall perfect images. Cameras cannot forget, as their memory is stored in some aspects more physically than human memory. A camera cannot lie about what it has recorded.
Humans are very adaptable creatures, and they create very unique solutions to their shortcomings. The fact remains, however, than despite the fact that one may mask their flaws with technology, the flaws will always be there.

[Jae H. Choi]

Vertov’s idea of truth seems to revolve around capturing everyday actions, as opposed to fabricated and manipulated actions. A couple of people have already pointed out his favoritism towards what maybe considered random raw footage of life in Russia/USSR, or as the text puts it,“socialist reality,” over the “terrible poison of habit” that is theater; basically anything with a
plot, theme, and storyline. It seems like he failed to see the deeper aspect of traditional films and their potential for divulging truth in ways documentaries cannot. I am talking about the kind of truth people find but also “experience,”in films like “All Quiet on the Western Front,” an early
1930s film that reveals the harsh and terrifying realities of war, as opposed to the usual grandiose glorification. Simply put, traditional films can tell the
“truth,” without having to rely on documentary type live action images, and instill upon the viewer the emotions that can make the “revelation” more powerful and personal.

In addition, Vertov also seems to contradict himself by going against his purported dedication to absolute reality by using special effects in his film the “Man with a Movie Camera.” A supporter of Vertov’s view towards film may try to explain or justify his use of optical illusions, as a more elaborate way of portraying the political and social issues of the time, nevertheless, they are still distortions of reality, false depictions of truth, theatrical/traditional film techniques. To me, Vertov's conception of truth in film is at best a simplified
very obvious truth, that can be captured by anyone with a camera, one that fits perfectly to Lenin’s ideas and aspirations, and with that said, to Communist Russia’s. Despite the positive side to such an accessible truth, there is definitely something missing in the truth presented by documentary type films, especially in ones that suggests movies inspired by literature, or
movies that follow theatrical structures are nothing more than “scabby substitutes” for life.

[Abdullah Khan]

Nurbek, I want to add on your statement that the camera alive. I thought it was much more. For example, I found that the mechanical eye served a symbolic purpose as well. Below, I have written a detailed description of my interpretation of Vertov’s mechanical eye.

Barnouw’s article clarifies Vertov’s movie-making style. Barnouw states that Vertov intended for his films to “document socialist reality,” and to deviate from fictional movies. From the very first scene, Vertov films an empty theatre consisting of opened chairs. It hints to us, the movie watchers, to take a seat not at home but in Vertov’s reality. In order to show the movie watchers his depiction of Russian reality, Vertov represents the movie camera lens as an eye. Vertov wrote “I am a cinema eye-I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you a world such as only I can see.” Therefore, it’s understood that Vertov wanted to replace the mechanical characteristic of a movie camera with the realistic characteristics of life, such as an eye. Consequently, the movie watcher feels as though he/she is living a day in 1929 Russia through the “mechanical eye”. In this movie, the mechanical eye shows us many aspects of Russian life such as trains, coal mines, beaches, factories, cars, pregnancy, marriage and so on. To Vertov, beauty was inherent in filming everyday reality ranging from marriage to divorces, births to deaths.

The movie camera is portrayed as omniscient and all-seeing in Vertov’s film. Vertov’s intent was to distinguish the abilities of the biological eye against the mechanical or cinema eye. The biological eye cannot view multiple places at once. On the other hand, the cinema eye can view different places at the same time. Additionally, the images from the cinema eye can also be “record impressions.” Just the fact that about fifteen ART 250 students in 2008 were able to live a day in 1929 Russia though Vertov’s mechanical eye is an indication that Vertov’s reality has been visited. Thus, the mechanical eye has served its purpose and Vertov has achieved his goal of showing us “socialist reality.”

[Bradley Clarke]

I thought that the Truth About Film was far ahead of its time. The effects that the film makers displayed in the film were very well edited and protrayed in a very advanced way. I was unaware that in 1929 film was advanced enough to make such effects and transitions.
I thought that his take on the concept of film was a bit different than I expected. It clearly stated in the beginning of film that this film was that would clearly portray the art of film making, and I feel that it did just that. There was nothing that really took away from what Vertov was trying to convey.
He did want his film to be more of a documentary because he felt that films were "opium for society." He felt that it was nothing more than a way to take peoples minds off of the problems that were at hand. He wanted to convey what life really was like through the eyes of a camera, but at times, at least to me, it felt as if it was too staged. Even though concealed cameras were used to capture some of the footage, it never really felt that it was capturing "life" unadulterated.

With that being said, I feel that Vertov contradicted what he himself believed in. In the film that I saw I did not see very many hardships. I did not see what people had to go through on a daily basis, besides a few shots of the poor and elderly. I feel that Vertov's work was somewhat filtered.

[Joshua Howard]

I agree with Bradley in that Vertov was very much ahead of his time in the way that he used the art of cinematography to construct films that were their own art pieces. I appreciate his approach when making a film. He did not settle for what he saw fiction films as just "opium for the people".

Vertov was off to show the truth to the audience through the depiction of real moments, instead of constructed events. I appreciate his original mindset, but like Bradley, I too did not see Vertov's truth in "Man with a Movie Camera". I did not see the everyday events that he tried to convey. Possibly because Vertov was more about showing more unusual topics.

I feel like Vertov was very much in the wrong time period as far as his thinking went. He would piece together several shots to construct a specific realistic scene in his mind. I can only imagine what the audience originally thought of Vertov's "Film-Truth" series.

The only drawback to Vertov's thinking is that he sort of contradicts his own line of thinking. He proclaims that his truth is correct and he is a "machine that can portray a truth that no one can see". His truth was merely a series of constructed shots from his concealed cameras, and this is no better than the fiction films he spoke out against. Though I do appreciate his line of thought, Vertov's truth is just as contrived as the fiction films he spoke out against.

[Yinnong Zheng]

As with many of my peers, I agree that his philosophy if you will was such an incredible idea. "I am cinema-eye-I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, show you a world such as only I can see." This quote brings about the main point of what Vertov tries to accomplish. I think it is hard to create a visual piece that can attract audiences in without a story. What Vertov has accomplished is using the idea of visually pleasing and special effects to make a boring everyday event, into an interesting flowing scene, to take something ordinary and make it into something you dont see everyday. Vertov would edit similar events together, although having nothing to do with each other, the scenes would be similar in their actions and become visually appealing.

When Vertov said that his films would be of "truth", and that he wanted to make the "whole..a truth", I can't help but say that he isn't getting the whole truth. I agree with a previous statement that his shots were somewhat filtered. In the "man with a camera" the tone of the movie was rather uplifting. The music was optimistic, and the effects also kept the audiences happy. If someone were to get the whole truth, that would be difficult, and probably wouldn't succeed. But if Vertov intended just to make his film as a whole, truth in itself, then it would suffice.

[Steven Winter]

I don't have much to say about Vertov himself as an artist because i believe his work is highly overrated. I've seen The Man with the Movie Camera a few times and each time I'm less convinced. Although his methods of cinematography were considered original and innovative, i didn't find his his tactics to be affective and sometimes overkill. The end of the article proclaimed he was "ingenious" for his "resourceful, even tricky," with his chronological edits and transitions, but "often appeared to use them for their own sake." Just because you can use technology doesn't mean you have to and can often be distracting to your main point or argument. In my opinion Vertov was more into exploring the science of film and the physical aspects of frame editing, and less aware of the connotations of video edits and effects. Give him props for starting a study of New Media practice, but not for making any serious artistic statements that advanced cultural or global art philosophies.

[Jerry Joseph]

After seeing the movie, I understand why Vertov views the video camera as a mechanical eye which is able to visualize things the human eye can’t even begin to perceive. I always pictured the video camera as a lifeless but powerful apparatus that can be used to express the camera man’s perspective and deliver his experiences from the camera lens into our greedy human eyes. However, Vertov’s response got me thinking that that it was actually the camera that was conveying its visual criteria to the camera man to express, and the camera man simply recorded to the extent that the camera was able to see.
To critique on Boris’s response, I agree that it is human to be flawed, and to be consumed with error, but these imperfections are the mold for our perfection. Humans may not be able to see the things without the help of the camera, but it were the humans that created this extraordinary instrument. We will continue to perfect the modern camera to reveal even more aspects of the hidden visual world. In conclusion, I believe that both the camera and camera man are important in visual perception; a camera cannot exist completely in its ideal form without the man behind the camera, and vice versa.
Furthermore, I agree with Steven that Vertov’s work can be perceived to some as overrated. During Vertov’s existence on the perpetual timeline, his works of visual art were indeed ahead of its time. Today, many video artists have adapted his form of video editing, so his work may seem overrated to us, but I still appreciate his artistic statements of trying to convey his perspective of advanced cultural art philosophies.

[Johnny Mei]

In the article, Vertov points out the "superhuman versatility of the film camera" and I would like to briefly discuss the way he takes on the role of filmmaker channeling that versatility. He controls the composition of every shot, choosing to let the viewers see only what he wants us to see.

Boris touched on the quote "I am cinema-eye..." stating that humans created this technology to compensate for our own shortcomings but I believe that the way Vertov used the technology actually goes against what he says about the camera and the mechanical eye. His film is a medley of shots depicting everyday life - pieces of different events used to try to document "Soviet actuality". However, the way the film is presented feels much more like a traditional fiction film more than a documentary.

The "technical tricks" used made the film more abstract than realistic. To me, it draws attention away from the everyday events that he films. The viewer is distracted with these editing tricks and it becomes a film about a director showcasing his ability to keep a viewer interested rather than to document reality. As far as the versatility of the film camera goes, he is able to do creative things like film a camera that is filming something else and make it appear cohesive. He has control over what he wants his viewers to see, but because of his "love of technical tricks", he goes overboard with editing tricks and ends up making his documentary feel, at times, far too fictional.