SERGEI M EISENSTEIN

26. Cf. my “A Cinema of Memory in the Future Tense: Godard, Trailers and Godard
Trailers,” in Forever Godard, ed. James Williams, Michael Temple, and Michael Witt
(London: Black Dog Publishing, 2004), pp. 141-159.
9. Mikhail Iampolski, Point – Pathos – Totality
1. Here one may fully apply the Marxist scheme describing development from a certain
organic labor process by means of the division of labor and alienation to the
restoration of unity in nonalienated communist labor. But this can also be a
religious model of the movement from the heavenly completeness of being through
the Fall toward redemption.
2. “Dynamic Mummification: Notes for a General History of Cinema,” here, p. 159.
3. Ibid., p. 161.
4. Ibid., p. 143.
5. Eisensteintook“SecondBaroque”tomeanavant-gardeartofthefirstdecadesofthe
twentieth century. See Viacheslav V. Ivanov, Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kul’tury
(Moskva: Iazyki russkoj kul’tury, 1999), vol. 1, p. 200: “A favorite thought of
Eisenstein’s, repeated many times, was the assertion that, in cinema, everything that
the art of the ‘Second Baroque’ of the first decades of the twentieth century stopped
at will manage to be accomplished. The spatial experiments of cubism, the
attractions of leftist theater, surrealist visions, the internal monologue of Joyce –
Eisenstein viewed all of these projects and attempts of the newest art movements as
approaches to cinema. Eisenstein considered the fact that these movement tried to
solve problems which only cinema was capable of fully addressing a shortcoming
which had a ruinous effect on said movements.”
6. “The Heir,” here, p. 111.
7. “Dynamic Mummification,” p. 138.
8. Ibid., p. 202.
9. Sergei M. Eisenstein, Nonindifferent Nature, ed. Herbert Marshall (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 21.
10. Ibid. Eisenstein examined montage in detail in accordance with the principle of the
golden section and with the principle of bricklaying in his analysis of the ending of
Pushkin’s “The Bronze Horseman.” See: Sergei Eisenshtein, “Final ‘Mednogo
vsadnika,’” Kinovedcheskie zapiski 42 (1999), pp. 106-128. A special section devoted to
the principle of bricklaying is found in the section “Montazh tonfil’ma” in the study
entitled “Montage 1937,” in Sergei M. Eisenstein, Montazh (Moskva: Muzei kino,
2000), pp. 311-326. “Bricklaying” appears constantly in Metod: see, for instance,
Sergei M. Eisenstein, Metod, ed. Naum Kleiman, 2 vols. (Moskva: Muzei kino,
Eizenshtein tsentr, 2002), vol. 2, p. 159.
11. “The construction of the futurist paintings visible to you arose from the discovery of
a plane of points, such that the location of real objects, when torn apart or put
together,would havegeneratedthegreatest speed.Thediscovery ofthesepointscan
be made independently from the physical law of naturalness and perspective. This is
why,infuturistpaintings,weseetheappearanceofclouds,horses,wheelsandother
objects in places not corresponding to nature” (Kazimir Malevich, Sobranie sochinenii
v piati tomakh [Moskva: Gileia, 1995], vol. 1, p. 45).
512 notes