Amanda Halter Midterm

Sergei Eisenstein was a film theorist, who believed in making the audience think. He did not want to create films in which the audience would be able to turn off their minds for a couple of hours. He believed that film was better than this because it could create montage editing. Montage editing is a way to edit a film in which one shot corresponds with the next shot to form a concept. In other words, two shots might not appear to fit exactly together, but if you think about both of them, you may realize a deeper meaning. I found this to be a very interesting way to edit, and I wished to explore it some more by creating a film about some of the emotions I experience when I bowl.

I decided to create a film that portrays my experience when I bowl because it gives my film meaning. I wanted to portray frustration, determination, focus, nervousness, companionship, hard work, commitment, a challenge, competition, and excitement (not necessarily in that order). It allows the audience to try to figure out what I am trying to portray, and when they do figure it out (if I succeeded), they will have a deeper connection with my sport and me. This gives meaning to what I created.

One aspect that I noticed when I watched The Battleship Potemkin was that Eisenstein did not use many establishing shots. He used a great deal of close-ups, and few long shots. This helps make the audience think about what is happening beyond what we see. I decided to employ this aspect in my film, and I realized that long shots are not necessarily needed. The audience understands what is happening without having to spell it out for them.

Another aspect of Eisenstein’s editing that I experimented with is connecting two shots together that have nothing to do with one another. I inserted a great deal of random shots to try and make the audience wonder and think. For example, there is a shot of a girl preparing to bowl, then a shot of a lion stalking its prey in a field. These two shots would normally have nothing to do with one another, yet in this film it is connecting how focused and precise this girl is when she bowls. She is the predator and the pins are her prey. At times I struggled to find a shot that could connect with the previous shot in that way, but I believe there were times such as this when I succeed in making the audience think.

I also tried to insert some clashing images. This was easy when I inserted a “random” shot that was not bowling related, but I also tried to incorporate it at other times. For example, toward the beginning, I wanted to explain that I put in a lot of time when I bowl, which is why I get frustrated if I do not bowl well. I did this by filming a clock ticking away. Then, I would show somebody doing push ups, and I would cut back to the clock, then I would show somebody doing bench press, and I would cut back to the clock again. I particularly liked this because we see the man doing push ups – he is lifting his body up and down. Then, we see a man doing bench press – his body is stable but he is lifting a bar up and down. When we see them like this, they look like opposites. Yet, neither shot is more important than the other, which helped me to realize the neutralization aspect that Eisenstein talked about.

Overall, it was difficult to try and discover the advantages and disadvantages to Eisenstein’s work. I think that by creating this film I have discovered new techniques, and I think they work if I can edit correctly. I also found a way to make my film mean more to the audience, which made the creation of this short film more meaningful to me as a filmmaker.