SERGEI M EISENSTEIN

hapsarchivalinformationonthismayemergeinthefuture,thoughitisnotatall
certain.
But what is most important is thinking about the conceptual or theoretical
roots of this overlap between Bazin and Eisenstein. This begins from the idea of
time as radically problematic, which is registered as trauma in Eisenstein and
threat to subjectivity in Bazin. In both this menace is said to be fundamentally
generative of culture and art, and to be behind any special status attributed to
cinema: as conjunction of the reenactment and mummification lines fordischarging
the trauma in Eisenstein, and as privileged medium for preserving not only
objectsbutdurationitselfinBazin.
ThedistinctionbetweenreenactmentandmummificationintheNotesonaGeneral
History of Cinema thus also suggests the centrality of configuring temporality
for Eisenstein. Of course, this is implicit in the value he places on terms like
dynamic and transformation in so many of his other writings. These are concepts
that his theoretical work explores most intensively not with respect to history,
but with respect to aesthetic composition and its relation to spectatorial experience.
Earlier I pointed out that the opposition between reproduction and reflectionintheNoteswouldexistwithinboththereenactmentandthemummification
lines, though in different valences. I also briefly compared it to the crucial opposition
in his other later writings between depiction and obraz/global or generalizedimage.
Obraz was a term widely utilized in a variety of Russian aesthetic thought. In
Eisenstein’s work, it is associated with the dynamic, transformative aspect of the
work. In his reading of Eisenstein’s later theory, Martin Lefebvre has argued that
its effectivity is dependent on memory, that is, on mental entities and associations
specific to each spectator. The artistic composition marshals these into a
whole through emotive means. 24 Memories come to mentality in the present
fromfleetingpast,andarethenorganizedbymeansofaestheticformandcognitive
appeal. This would mean that at the core of the spectator, as well as the core
the work, and therefore at the core of Eisenstein’s approach to aesthetics and
culture, we find the great modern aporia between past and present, between the
enduring and the unique. As we have seen, it is also at the heart of historical
consciousness in modernity, and it doubtless finds outlet in Eisenstein’s own
theoretical ambitions. In this sense, at least, “Verweile doch, du bist so schön” is an
appropriate epigram for his general history of cinema, but also for the special
relationofformandemotioncentraltoallofEisenstein’sthought.
404 philip rosen