片段從46分鐘紅旗飄揚(yáng)開始自52分鐘戰(zhàn)艦出現(xiàn)為結(jié)束。其中大約出現(xiàn)了150個鏡頭。 片段的開頭是紅旗的特寫，下一個鏡頭則是孩子和婦女們的招手、歡呼。在這里導(dǎo)演并沒有運(yùn)用一個大全景的鏡頭將這些畫面概括在一個鏡頭內(nèi)，而是運(yùn)用了蒙太奇的手法，將兩個毫無關(guān)系的鏡頭相接，使得人群像是在朝軍艦歡呼和招手一般。 隨著字幕和音樂中一個強(qiáng)音的出現(xiàn)，故事的節(jié)奏出現(xiàn)變化，字幕之后，是一個頭發(fā)凌亂的女人臉部的特寫，隨后人群的慌亂移動，后以一個傘越來越大作為跳板，畫面變成了一個全景，人群慌亂。這組鏡頭內(nèi)有一個是銅像占據(jù)黃金分割線并且處于前景的鏡頭，我認(rèn)為這個畫面處理的非常好，因為除了銅像以外,畫面的二分之一中景，分別被追逐的軍隊和逃跑的人群平分，而剩下的二分之一是處在后景的一棟陰郁的教堂，這個畫面將電影的立體感表現(xiàn)得很好，也體現(xiàn)出故事當(dāng)中人物之間、社會之間的矛盾。 然后是大全景，開始真正的“大屠殺”，這時人群從后景跑入。導(dǎo)演在這里所表現(xiàn)大屠殺并不是用大的場面來渲染其的宏大殘忍，而是選取了幾個小而獨(dú)到的角度，尤其是兩位母親保護(hù)孩子的視角，使沖突逐漸提升，從而使影片達(dá)到全劇高潮。 人群跑入后，隨之而來的就是特寫一個人的腿部跪下的動作，這個鏡頭開始后，出現(xiàn)了很多人物摔倒（死亡）的鏡頭，這些鏡頭的轉(zhuǎn)換很快，這組鏡頭內(nèi)突出了一個小孩，開始他只是坐下，但是再又一個大全景人物奔跑后，小孩捂上了耳朵，這強(qiáng)加給觀眾的是槍聲使得小孩捂上耳朵，而倒地的人都是被槍殺死的。 隨后，又出現(xiàn)我最喜歡的，帶有銅像的那一個畫面，不過，不同的是軍隊漸漸將中景占據(jù)，而人群漸漸被逼出畫面。而后的大逃難鏡頭延續(xù)了之前的拍攝方法，值得一提的是他們的燈光，是從人群的背后打來，這種燈光將人的影子無線拉長，讓人的心里情緒通過影子表現(xiàn)出來，這種感覺，在之后一位母親抱著死去的小孩向軍隊聲討時，更為具體和鮮明的表現(xiàn)。 對于人群逃跑的場面導(dǎo)演分別用了：在人群后大全景拍攝；人群側(cè)面的全景拍攝；和中景拍攝某個人物或者一到三個人群的狀態(tài)來表現(xiàn)。其中有一個，從側(cè)面拍人群逃跑的畫面，這個鏡頭，導(dǎo)演讓演員從左邊入場，右邊出場，這個畫面在構(gòu)圖上，有一個亮點(diǎn)，就是在后景的黃金比例處放置了一根棍子，而棍子的兩邊是對峙的兩棵大樹，這個非常具有表現(xiàn)里。這個段子里有很多鏡頭都可以看出來，是導(dǎo)演經(jīng)過認(rèn)真思索以后拍出來的，構(gòu)圖上是分得妙。 在小孩被槍打前的鏡頭是一個用移動鏡頭來跟蹤小孩的狀態(tài)。小孩摔倒后大叫“媽媽”是特寫，而后是母親回頭的特寫。在這之后是一系列的蒙太奇，我們可以看見人們先是繞過孩子，在是從腿間經(jīng)過，最后將孩子替翻了面，從肚子上踩過，配上音樂，層層遞進(jìn)，中間穿插著對于母親面部表情的特寫，表現(xiàn)母親的震驚、傷心、憤怒。而后的劇情則主要是用蒙太奇體現(xiàn)劇中女教士的發(fā)現(xiàn)、號召、維權(quán)。 之后，軍隊首先是以影子入場的，而之后，拍到婦女時，是將她的影子拉長，讓觀眾在這種視覺效果下，自然而然的認(rèn)為婦女是弱小的，軍隊的強(qiáng)大、霸道。之后的一個移動鏡頭將婦女與軍隊的影子重合，這個鏡頭，并沒有出現(xiàn)軍隊的正面，便直接讓軍隊開槍殺死了婦女。 之后人群的逃亡中，出現(xiàn)馬的從幕的兩側(cè)出現(xiàn)在前景，這增加了畫面的立體感和無序、混亂感。之后，有一組蒙太奇是槍和人群的倒下。而后嬰兒車的奔跑和一位婦女的夸張表情，一個青年的表情，冒煙的槍，組成一組蒙太奇。 總體來說，在那個年代這是個偉大的影片。

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 inThe Birth 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 Potemkinis the 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