SERGEI M EISENSTEIN

37. Sergei M. Eisenstein, “Commentary on the Film The Great Fergana Canal,” in Voprosy
kinodramaturguii,” ed. Ilya Weissfeld (Moskva: Iskusstvo, 1959), pp. 327-353.
38. Ibid., The Dynamic Square, in SW 1, p. 207.
39. Ibid., “Montage 1937,” in Towards a Theory of Montage, in SW 2, p. 43. This idea of a
journeyinspacethatbecomesajourneyintimecanbefoundintheworksstemming
from other travels to Mexico with which Eisenstein’s Mexican experience can be
compared: from the travel that the British ethnologist Edward B. Tylor described in
1861 in the volume entitled Anahuac, to Aby Warburg’s visit to the Hopi of New
Mexicoin 1895-1896,avisitwhose photographicdocumentation was then presented
and commented by Warburg in a lecture known as “Lecture on the Serpent Ritual”
(the original title in German was “Bilder aus dem Gebiet der Pueblo-Indianer in
Nord-Amerika”) delivered in 1923 at the Bellevue psychiatric clinic in which he had
been hosted since 1921; from D.H. Lawrence’s visits to Mexico and New Mexico
between 1923 and1925 (which provided the basis for The Plumed Serpentand Mornings
in Mexico in 1926 and 1927), to the later travels of Artaud in 1936 and Breton in 1938.
40. The article has been published with a commentary by Naum Kleiman in
Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 89-90 (2008-2009), pp. 111-124 (Italiantranslation in Francesco
Pitassio, ed., La forma della memoria. Memorialistica, estetica, cinema nell’opera di Sergej
Ejzenštejn [Udine: Forum, 2009], pp. 193-214).
41. Lenin deals with the issue of mnogukladnost in two different texts: “Left-Wing
Communism: An Infantile Disorder” (1918) and “The Tax in Kind” [1921]. The
quoted passage comes from the second text (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, 1st English
ed. (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), vol. 32, p. 331).
42. Sergei M. Eisenstein, “Piat’ epokh” [Five epochs], in Pravda, 6 June 1926.
43. On the “shift” that tookplace in Eisenstein’s film theory between the writingsof the
1920s on the one hand, and those of the 1930s and 1940s on the other, see David
Bordwell, “Eisenstein’s Epistemological Shift,” Screen 15.4 (1975), pp. 29-46; ibid.,
The Cinema of Eisenstein (New York: Routledge, 2005).
44. On the period Eisenstein spent in Paris between November 1929 and May 1930, the
encounters with personalities such as André Breton and Georges Bataille, and on
Eisenstein’s contribution to Documents, see Georges Didi-Huberman, La Ressemblance
informe, ou le Gai Savoir visuel selon Georges Bataille (Paris: Macula, 1995). See also Marie
Rebecchi, Parigi 1929. Ejzenštejn, Bataille, Buñuel (Milano: Mimesis, 2014).
45. Ernst Bloch, Heritage of Our Times [1935], trans. Neville and Stephen Plaice
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).
46. Naum Kleiman, “Nota a Le cinque epoche,” in Pitassio, La forma della memoria, p. 213.
47. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures [1910] (Paris: Alcan,
1922), pp. 425ff.
48. On Eisenstein’s unfinished book Metod, see the introductions written by Naum
KleimanandOksanaBulgakowatothetwodifferentRussianeditionsthathavebeen
published so far: Naum Kleiman, “Problema Eizenshteina” [Eisenstein’s problem],
in Eizenshtein, Metod, pp. 2-30; Oksana Bulgakowa, “Teoriia kak utopicheskii
proekt” [Theory as a utopian project], in Sergei Eisenstein, Metod/Die Methode, 4 vols.
(Berlin: Potemkin Press, 2008). See also Antonio Somaini, Ejzenštejn. Il cinema, le arti,
il montaggio (Torino: Einaudi, 2011; English translation: Eisenstein: Cinema, Art History,
notes 435