片段从46分钟红旗飘扬开始自52分钟战舰出现为结束。其中大约出现了150个镜头。 片段的开头是红旗的特写,下一个镜头则是孩子和妇女们的招手、欢呼。在这里导演并没有运用一个大全景的镜头将这些画面概括在一个镜头内,而是运用了蒙太奇的手法,将两个毫无关系的镜头相接,使得人群像是在朝军舰欢呼和招手一般。 随着字幕和音乐中一个强音的出现,故事的节奏出现变化,字幕之后,是一个头发凌乱的女人脸部的特写,随后人群的慌乱移动,后以一个伞越来越大作为跳板,画面变成了一个全景,人群慌乱。这组镜头内有一个是铜像占据黄金分割线并且处于前景的镜头,我认为这个画面处理的非常好,因为除了铜像以外,画面的二分之一中景,分别被追逐的军队和逃跑的人群平分,而剩下的二分之一是处在后景的一栋阴郁的教堂,这个画面将电影的立体感表现得很好,也体现出故事当中人物之间、社会之间的矛盾。 然后是大全景,开始真正的“大屠杀”,这时人群从后景跑入。导演在这里所表现大屠杀并不是用大的场面来渲染其的宏大残忍,而是选取了几个小而独到的角度,尤其是两位母亲保护孩子的视角,使冲突逐渐提升,从而使影片达到全剧高潮。 人群跑入后,随之而来的就是特写一个人的腿部跪下的动作,这个镜头开始后,出现了很多人物摔倒(死亡)的镜头,这些镜头的转换很快,这组镜头内突出了一个小孩,开始他只是坐下,但是再又一个大全景人物奔跑后,小孩捂上了耳朵,这强加给观众的是枪声使得小孩捂上耳朵,而倒地的人都是被枪杀死的。 随后,又出现我最喜欢的,带有铜像的那一个画面,不过,不同的是军队渐渐将中景占据,而人群渐渐被逼出画面。而后的大逃难镜头延续了之前的拍摄方法,值得一提的是他们的灯光,是从人群的背后打来,这种灯光将人的影子无线拉长,让人的心里情绪通过影子表现出来,这种感觉,在之后一位母亲抱着死去的小孩向军队声讨时,更为具体和鲜明的表现。 对于人群逃跑的场面导演分别用了:在人群后大全景拍摄;人群侧面的全景拍摄;和中景拍摄某个人物或者一到三个人群的状态来表现。其中有一个,从侧面拍人群逃跑的画面,这个镜头,导演让演员从左边入场,右边出场,这个画面在构图上,有一个亮点,就是在后景的黄金比例处放置了一根棍子,而棍子的两边是对峙的两棵大树,这个非常具有表现里。这个段子里有很多镜头都可以看出来,是导演经过认真思索以后拍出来的,构图上是分得妙。 在小孩被枪打前的镜头是一个用移动镜头来跟踪小孩的状态。小孩摔倒后大叫“妈妈”是特写,而后是母亲回头的特写。在这之后是一系列的蒙太奇,我们可以看见人们先是绕过孩子,在是从腿间经过,最后将孩子替翻了面,从肚子上踩过,配上音乐,层层递进,中间穿插着对于母亲面部表情的特写,表现母亲的震惊、伤心、愤怒。而后的剧情则主要是用蒙太奇体现剧中女教士的发现、号召、维权。 之后,军队首先是以影子入场的,而之后,拍到妇女时,是将她的影子拉长,让观众在这种视觉效果下,自然而然的认为妇女是弱小的,军队的强大、霸道。之后的一个移动镜头将妇女与军队的影子重合,这个镜头,并没有出现军队的正面,便直接让军队开枪杀死了妇女。 之后人群的逃亡中,出现马的从幕的两侧出现在前景,这增加了画面的立体感和无序、混乱感。之后,有一组蒙太奇是枪和人群的倒下。而后婴儿车的奔跑和一位妇女的夸张表情,一个青年的表情,冒烟的枪,组成一组蒙太奇。 总体来说,在那个年代这是个伟大的影片。
During the Montage movement, Soviet films were relatively similar in terms of genres. As Lenin declared, “Of all the arts, for us the cinema is the most important,” (Bordwell, 107) The Bolshevik regime realized that the cinema was the most powerful tool for propaganda and education, given the 80% rates of illiteracy and the mix of vernaculars straddled across the country. Hence, we could see a great similarity in films directed by most of the Montage directors during that time. Depictions of uprisings, strikes, and rebellion against the authoritarian regime were extremely popular among directors who emphasized the Bolshevik ideology in films. BothBattleship Potemkin(Eisenstein, 1925) andMother(Pudovkin, 1926) include various strikes and demonstration sequences to highlight the tension between the authorities and civilians, commemorating the failed Revolution of 1905. In order to be as comprehensible to the viewers as possible, intertitles in bothMotherandBattleship Potemkinwere simple and concise. Phrases like “It was spring”, “Even a dog wouldn’t eat this”, and “Brothers!” helped to maintain the continuity in the narratives, but also powerful enough to evoke the spectator’s emotion about the Bolsheviks’ solidarity in the revolution.
As Bordwell points out inFilm History,“…it [montage] also served more abstract purposes, linking two actions for the sake of a thematic point.” (117) The use of montage to construct narrative and court spectators’ attention was prevalent among Soviets directors, and Pudovkin and Eisenstein are prime examples. Despite their consensus on the search for dynamism through montage, Pudovkin and Eisenstein, however, diverged drastically regarding the role which montage played in film narration. Greatly influenced by Kuleshov, Pudovkin inherited the idea of continuity editing from Hollywood, in which filmmaker created an immersive experience for the viewer to match reality in a natural way. Pointed out by Pudovkin in hisSelected Essays,“The director despotically manipulate the viewer’s attention. The viewer sees only what the director shows him”(35). He stressed the use of montage to achieve the “the maximum simplicity”(36) and “clarity in resolving each individual problem”(36) when constructing a sequence. In the first sequence ofMother, when the mother (Vera Baranovskaya) is being abused by the alcoholic husband (Aleksandr Chistyakov), Pudovkin employed techniques like match-on-action and eye-line matches to cut between numerous shots to highlight each protagonist’s personality, but also intelligibly establish the family dynamics with little explanation. The back-and-forth cuts of father and the son (Nikolay Batalov) and respective close-ups of the hammer and the father’s clenched hands, captures the family’s extreme tension and the son’s resolution to protect his mother. Reminiscent of the last-minute rescue sequence inTheBirth of a Nation(D.W. Griffith, 1915), the crosscutting between the prison riot and the protest march in the last sequence of Mother, helps to build up the final culmination, and captivate the audience’s attention in a state of intense excitement.
Rather than paying excessive attention to maintain a comprehensible narrative like Pudovkin, Eisenstein was more radical and more experimental in terms of what montage could achieve. In his theory of film, Eisenstein often brought up the term “conflict” in which “antithetical elements clash and produce a synthesis that goes beyond both.” (Bordwell, 113) Eisenstein did not see montage as an implement to maintain a clear temporal and spatial relationship, guiding the spectator through the entire narrative. Rather he envisioned each individual shot or sequence as if it was a puzzle with meanings of their own. When combined, however, these individual shots created an utterly different picture, sparking new meaning that was not present in either of the original shots. The infamous Odessa stairs sequence inBattleship Potemkinisthe moment when Eisenstein fully actualizes his “intellectual montage” theory. Shots of soldiers marching down steps symbolize an oppressive force juxtaposed with unarmed civilians fleeing, barring the straightforward indication of the helplessness of the Russian people, offers new meanings of the Russian Empire’s forces’ brutality. The last sequence of the Odessa massacre constitutes shots of the stroller sliding downstairs across dead bodies, the slaughter of civilians, and close-ups of a woman’s face, covered with blood. Albeit the considerable lack of spatial and temporal relation, the sequence’s short and sharp intercuts epitomize the agony of innocuous civilians, insinuating the viciousness of the Russian army. Besides, Eisenstein deliberately intercut three consecutive shots of stone lion statues when illustrating the bombardment of the Odess theater.Although shots of the lion may not mean much on their own, when combined, it seems like the lion is rising from its sleep. They signify the Odessa people waking up and fighting against the totalitarian regime and seemingly paralleled with the first half of the film, where asleep crews ignite the revolution on battleship Potemkin.
The divergence of editing styles also leads to some nuances in respect to Pudovkin and Eisenstein’s film narrative. Pudovkin considered close-ups not simply as a tool for continuity editing, but also a powerful measure to symbolize the protagonist’s distinct characteristics. Without close-ups, according to Pudovkin, “(viewers) would have received only a general impression of the scene and not had the opportunity to examine any of the characters in isolation.”(58) InMother,the mother and the son do represent the collective but they are also strong characters on their own. Close-ups often are inserted to match by the characters’ behaviors, directing the spectator’s attention to details which seemingly embody the character’s idiosyncrasy. Eisenstein experimentation with the film narrative even appeared to be more radical when shooting theBattleship Potemkin.Shots of major characters were eliminated, instead the film focused on telling a story of a mutiny on a Russian battleship and the protest march of Odessa civilians, at the same time, dramatizing the miserable conditions of the sailors and the cruelty of the Russian authoritarian regime.
At the beginning of the 1930s, audiences, who were tired of the esoteric style of montage, began to demand for something more accessible and more evocative. Along with the permeation of series ofSocialist Realismfilms which focus on realistic stories that supported Communist values, the Soviet Montage movement eventually came to an end. Like many revolutionary cinema movements, however, techniques by the Soviet Montage filmmakers continue to influence movies, such asRear Window(Alfred Hitchcock, 1954) andThe Godfather(Francis Ford Coppola, 1972), to this day.
Reference:
1. Film History, An Introduction, David Bordwell, Fouth Edition, p103 -123
2. Vsevolod Pudovkin Selected Essas, The Construction of the Script, p35 - 62
似乎永远走不到头的敖德萨阶梯,婴儿车,红色旗帜。特写得心应手,面部大特写很有冲击力。剪辑的煽动性用法的汇总。导演使出浑身解数用尽每一个镜头的力量去控制观众(剥夺观众的判断力,使之限于一种纯粹的集体情绪化狂热)的电影。为意识形态服务的坦克大炮。有的电影是被政治力量借用,但这部电影却是为政治宣传而生的,当然也证明作品的政治目的与艺术水准并不天然冲突。如神来之笔触的运镜及蒙太奇,与标语口号式的时代特征浓厚的强烈倾向性情节,虽然二者是相辅相成的,但应当分开看待。可以不认同它的居心与手段,但无法抹杀它在电影史上无可争议的价值与地位。尽管一般地我反对宏大叙事与粗暴露骨而狂热的政宣产物,但对于这部1925年的名作却不能丢失应有的敬意。就像那个电车难题的玩笑一样,你无法确定你是持按钮的人还是被捆在铁轨上的人,同样,如何狂热幻想没有理性与人道作支撑,我们也不知道当最后大船充满压迫感地缓缓驶来盖满镜头时,我们到底是船上的人还是船下的人。甚至大船击水这个画面本身也令人悬想:大船是如此精确无遗地将水流分为两股,非左即右,这里没有中间位置,你总得选择一个方向,汇入所选定的支流,因为这里也没有仅供一个水滴栖身的地方。
蒙太奇的力量!接近100年后的今天爱森斯坦超前又永不过时的剪辑手法还在无数的电影里沿用
电影题材和美学方法的结合,在这个电影里绝非是什么偶然。并不存在什么政治的蒙太奇。因为除却本能,蒙太奇就是,也只可能是政治。
教科书片。有专门长评论不多做一句话评论。
音乐代替人物说话。将多机位拍摄到的同一动作剪接在一起表达愤怒(第一章末摔盘子)。第二章混乱场面的处理气势恢宏(联想蒙太奇、平行剪辑)第三章,拳头(握拳的动作分解剪辑)、愤怒的演讲时人物的动作与音乐配合像舞蹈。第四章,奥德萨阶梯(电影时间的拉长)。
只凭技术就可以载入影史咯,怎么不评一评阶级仇恨比海深
到今天才看这部影史教科书,真是抱歉啊!但真的是不好看啊!
蓝光重刷。延续了《罢工》的章节叙事,五个章节是水手掀桌子,甲板大暴动,革命喜讯传,血染敖德萨,海军大联欢。水手们的暴动行为并没有什么明确的目标和纲领,获得群众支持、炮打总部为群众复仇、最后消弭海战,都建立在片中“我为人人,人人为我”的朴素团结信念上,这种遭受不公,继而群起反抗的立场,突出了革命的自发性与难以抑制。技巧上最突出的还是剪辑了,二十来岁的爱森斯坦本身是欧洲先锋电影运动的一份子,他近乎胡乱的实验手里的胶片素材,比如一个群众握紧了拳头的镜头,中间插了好几个路人激愤的面容,他这种非线性的情绪剪辑,放在这个革命题材里,多少渲染出了暴烈、躁动的情绪体验。可有时也完全是瞎弄,比如搬运帆布那里,插入了好几次一个士兵向后看的视线,但这个士兵的位置根本不可能在帆布的斜上方,这种重复兼无厘头的镜头不少
私影史默片最佳易手,也是我的第一部爱森斯坦&政治电影Top 5。算上没喊出来的,平均三分钟震撼到爆一次粗吧,在几乎所有主义之间自在穿梭,把人类近十年拍的电影合起来也干不过这片的建设性。只学“制度”不学艺术:中影史113年,此片面世93年,而这种电影我们到现在一部也没拍过。无论形态还是形式。
有人说他是为了一碗汤而死的,可当人民振臂高呼的时候,我明白了那不只是一碗汤,那是两碗汤三碗汤乃至千千万万碗汤。剪辑相当之凛冽炫酷,基本上每秒都有新镜头,在固定机位大行其道的黑白电影时期,这种多机位+剪辑出来的效果可以说是相当显眼。至于敖德萨阶梯,我还真没想到这居然是完整的一章,而且规模比我想象的要大很多,即使搁今天也是颇为牛逼的场面,更不要说它本身就是开山鼻祖了。
技術毫無挑剔之處,至於劇情……大家都明白……
一锅罗宋汤引发的革命,舌尖还是关乎民生啊。反抗的人群被血腥的镇压,婴儿车与侩子手交叠的蒙太奇太棒了!故事性不太强,有些地方冗长,老柴的《一八一二序曲》配合的很好。随着鼓点的逼近把故事推到了高潮,战争一触即发,又是一组特别棒的蒙太奇!1925年拍出这样大场面,历史题材这个着手点很不错!
9/10。开场岸边愤怒的海浪和波将金号威武的黑烟、仰拍支持革命的两位水手和吊床横七竖八中穿梭的军官,愤怒与威武、光与影的对比划分了两大阵营。拒食罗宋汤一幕,阴影中军官看了一眼身处光亮的水手,随后急促的号声和水手飞奔到甲板上集合的运动一组交替镜头,蕴含了理性的愤怒,把违纪士兵蒙着枪毙的白色帆布犹如裹尸布,炮台的全景、手敲十字架、军官脸的特写结合手摸军刀,突显节奏,表现旧势力的黑暗。哀悼水手的抗议集会场景,从灰色帆影转向临时帐篷,把海水化为眼泪,由尸体旁的烛火联系象征愤怒的红旗,将情绪性渗透进风景中。人民送食物的小船驶向舰艇,沙皇军队排列整齐、从上至下地屠杀慌乱的群众,造反的战舰互相招手致意,几个视觉高潮从数量的多与少、直线与弧线的构图布局和挥手的位置变换,造就如诗般各种形象重复、变奏的音乐性结构。
一个说明editing和montage区别、说明只有组合镜头才能传达状态的绝佳例子,Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis。直给的方式,使要表达的内容很精准。情绪的渲染跟剪辑节奏跟配乐紧密地黏在一起,无可挑剔。桥上的马太震撼了。
快速凌厉杂耍般的蒙太奇剪辑,敖德萨阶梯混乱紧张,群众场面的娴熟调度,长镜头俯拍,为了一勺罗宋汤,英雄的鲜血不会白流,革命无罪,造反有理
共产主义的童话,可是不得不承认很有镜头感很有煽动力。情节的择选和镜头的转移都有一种深受绘画影响的古典美。
整个片子好像就没有一个镜头是超过一分钟的,他累不累啊,不过敖德萨阶梯那段快慢结合确实比较丰富
爱森斯坦开创了区别于美式剪辑的苏式蒙太奇,速度更快更凌厉,远中近景包括刁钻角度频繁切换,各种局部特写大特写使用得更大胆,效果就是更有压迫性更有冲击力更有煽动性,绝对适合进行社会主义国家文艺作品的洗脑功效。第二幕结尾第三幕开头,节奏突然放缓开始抒情渲染,与敖德萨阶梯一静一动相映生辉
不愧是经典,感染力够强!敖德萨阶梯一段是爱森斯坦“冲撞蒙太奇”理论绝佳的诠释,150多个短镜头起到时间扩展作用,震撼人心,在景别、机位、被摄物上作出对比鲜明的快速切换,睡狮-蹲狮-跃狮的隐喻蒙太奇魅力十足。剧作结构是经典五幕剧,纵深感强烈的构图、配乐、节奏、红旗都是亮点。(9.0/10)
牛逼的不只是蒙太奇,还有极具压迫性的运动镜头和构图;另外,觉得政宣片还是用默片拍好,口号式的呼号减到最少,全靠影像去煽动。
苏联蒙太奇电影最佳典型,后来所有的红色电影都可见这里面的手法。这片子号召水手和普罗大众的罢工、反抗和起义,一边是统治阶级的丑恶嘴脸:奥德萨阶梯的无情镇压,一组极其迅速凌厉的杂耍蒙太奇,加上极其震撼的配乐,无疑极具煽动性,镜头一接就是左派视角下被剥削被压迫的底层劳工的艰辛、不满和体现的悲悯,浩浩荡荡的群众游行和奔波俞急的战舰象征了帝国主义资本主义如历史潮流一般将不可避免走向灭亡。消灭专制、阶级斗争,这是真正意义上的马克思主义,现在看来何其讽刺!蒙太奇理论在以爱森斯坦为代表的前苏联发扬光大,虽然是出于党国宣传的目的,真正意义上也扩充了在上世纪初电影这种刚出现不久的艺术形式的叙事功能,使得影像在剪辑之间具备了无限的叙事可能。8.8