358 Pandora's Box

[GringoTex]

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't think even Pabst would fight too hard for that one.

It's not my opinion- Pabst wrote and spoke extensively about the influence of Eisenstein.

[thomega]

I just received it in the mail: progressive or not, this is a very fine transfer. On my (largish) CRT, it looks much nicer that the Second Sight, which has a much too steep contrast in comparison. The presentation is classy too.

[HerrSchreck]

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't think even Pabst would fight too hard for that one.

It's not my opinion- Pabst wrote and spoke extensively about the influence of Eisenstein.

Influence, of course. But primary influence-- in other words "who his films most resemble & bear clearest influence", that's plain nutty to anyone whose really seen his films over and over again. His films that bear editing of a certain rapidity (of which there are very few, PANDORA only really outside of NEY, which is a composite of influences along with F. A. Wagners endlessly Murnauesque roving camera and rich pictorialism) are responsible-- cutting on actions, linking glances, etc-- for a far more visceral form of editing that is known to have contributed to Hollywood's "Invisible Style" of editing. This as opposed to Eisenstein's hyper self-conscious "Intellectual Montage" which 1) broke physical actions into extended, multiple-view, exhibitions or "studies of movement" (i e breaking the plate in the dish washroom POTEMKIN), showing objects falling over and over again from multiple vantage points, stretching the kineticism impossibly, shot by shot, vantage-switch by switch, until the object finally plunks to the floor. Obviously Eisenstein took shots of completely unrelated objects, and built metaphors and symbol orders piece by piece to comment on the action... showing for instance Karensky and other Interrim leaders interspersed with statuettes of Napoleon, religious figures, peacocks, to comment on their lust for power (in OCTOBER).

Pabst exhibits in one or two films a kinetic editing rhythm in moments of swirling excitement for tempo, but to say his work during the Weimar era like SECRETS OF A SOUL, THE JOYLESS STREET, THE LOVE OF JEANNE NEY, DIARY OF A LOST GIRL, on thru DREIGROSCHENOPER, MISTRESS OF ATLANTIS, A MODERN HERO, etc bear over and above Murnau (in DER LETZE MANN more than anything, as this may be the most influential film in history) the primary influence of Eisenstein, that's just off the hook.

[Tommaso]

Well, let's hope, but there are a few restored films that are no closer to securing a DVD release, Vampyr being just one example.

The most blatant one, of course, although Koerber's "Vampyr" resto IS now available on that French 6-disc Dreyer box.And the "Vampyr" resto hasn't been show on TV, either. But other examples: "Visages d'enfants", "La revue des revues", "Crainquebille", "Asphalt", "Sumurun". All shown on arte TV first and all made available one way or other the following year. So I still have big hopes for "New Babylon" to appear. This restoration with newly recorded score must have cost quite a lot of money, and they would surely want some of it back by DVD sales.

[GringoTex]

Influence, of course. But primary influence-- in other words "who his films most resemble & bear clearest influence", that's plain nutty to anyone whose really seen his films over and over again.

Obviously his films more resemble Murnau's, because they shared the same time, country, studio, and technicians. And, yes, Murnau set the standard for the "kammerspiel film" with the Last Laugh. But what's great about Pabst has much more to do with Eisenstein than the kammerspiel, which is why his pre-Eisenstein influnced films such as 'Joyless Street' are so pedestrian.

This as opposed to Eisenstein's hyper self-conscious "Intellectual Montage" which 1) broke physical actions into extended, multiple-view, exhibitions or "studies of movement" (i e breaking the plate in the dish washroom POTEMKIN), showing objects falling over and over again from multiple vantage points, stretching the kineticism impossibly, shot by shot, vantage-switch by switch, until the object finally plunks to the floor.

And this is exactly how Pabst shoots Brooks in Pandora's Box. Multiple and repetitive images of her that are motivated by the idea of her character rather than plot or psychological progression.

[Felix]

The most blatant one, of course, although Koerber's "Vampyr" resto IS now available on that French 6-disc Dreyer box.And the "Vampyr" resto hasn't been show on TV, either. But other examples: "Visages d'enfants", "La revue des revues", "Crainquebille", "Asphalt", "Sumurun". All shown on arte TV first and all made available one way or other the following year..

I wasn't aware of this and yes, it does offer hope for a release. Was the restoration of Murnau's Der Brennende Acker one such film do you know? (I know it was shown on German TV and have a copy from an e-tailer.)

Also, is the Vampyr in the box set definitely the restored version?

[HerrSchreck]

But what's great about Pabst has much more to do with Eisenstein than the kammerspiel, which is why his pre-Eisenstein influnced films such as 'Joyless Street' are so pedestrian..

And this is exactly how Pabst shoots Brooks in Pandora's Box. Multiple and repetitive images of her that are motivated by the idea of her character rather than plot or psychological progression.

I'll sign off on this-- "what's great about Pabst" is a highly subjective zone of discussion which you're perfectly entitled to process in your own terms. But I'll leave you with this from the Brittanica, which illustrates what I was talking about yesterday... again, just because a silent is a non-proscenium type film (roll the camera on the full cast from a distance and film the whole scene in one long take), and bears multiple cuts, does not make it montage. Of course there are multiple images of Brooks.. she drives the whole film, it revolves around her scene after scene-- but this is not Eisensteinian montage!! Pabst never symbolizes Brooks with disparate images, nor does he break single movements into artificially extended cuts captured from multiple vantage points, "building" a single movement of an arm or leg or object out of multiple pieces like a mosaic of formerly unconnected pieces of tile.

Brittanica:

The master of the form was G.W. Pabst, whose work established conventions of continuity editing that would become essential to the sound film. In such important realist films as Die freudlose Gasse, Die Liebe der Jeanne Ney (The Love of Jeanne Ney, 1927), Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora's Box, 1929), and Das Tagebuch einer Verlorenen (Diary of a Lost Girl, 1929), Pabst created complex continuity sequences using techniques that became key features of Hollywood's “invisibleâ€

[HerrSchreck]

Ah, Sternberg. 2b honest the linking of the two, (Pabst w V.Ster..) which I never did, is a revelation; how much one instructs the other re the self-assured integration of Hollywood style with an odd infusion of French Impressionist/German Expressionist arthouse aesthetic.

In other words using the hallucinatory psychology of the Europeans to amp up and abstract the effect of the Hollywood "star closeup". The trippy depth of Deitrich in EMPRESS, DEVIL IS A.. is specifically an intravenous injection of Carl Mayer into the photographic conventions of 30's/early 40's Hollywood. The Sternbergian self-assurance matches the confidence of Deitrich in c/u and dominating among an ensemble--

Whereas the brilliance of PANDORA feels so... almost random??? (and never duplicated again within Pabsts canon, at least stylistically, certainly vs Sternberg's ability to repeat his astonishing technique of mythologising a character) it verges on a happy accident. There is almost no centre to PANDORA... it all ambles along with a compositional weightlessness which duplicates the at-times confusing nature of life itself. One finds meaning in an ex post facto way, and always as pertains to all's relation to ones self (or Brooks, re the film).

[GringoTex]

But I'll leave you with this from the Brittanica, which illustrates what I was talking about yesterday...

And if I could find it on the net, I could leave you with David Cook's write-up on Pabst and Eisenstein from his History of Narrative Film. The Brittanica article pigeonholes Pabst. Yes, he developed invisible editing techniques. He also incorporated montage within a melodramatic structure. He did both things

Of course there are multiple images of Brooks.. she drives the whole film, it revolves around her scene after scene-- but this is not Eisensteinian montage!! Pabst never symbolizes Brooks with disparate images, nor does he break single movements into artificially extended cuts captured from multiple vantage points, "building" a single movement of an arm or leg or object out of multiple pieces like a mosaic of formerly unconnected pieces of tile.

I'm talking about the fundamental idea of dialectical montage, which is Shot A + Shot B = Idea C (diametrically opposed to Bazin's A and B virgin-birthing C in the same frame). The artificially extended cuts and multiple vantage points are merely Eisenstein's personal style- they are not fundamental to dialecitical montage.

Nothing could be more opposite from the hyper self-conscious Eisensteinian Montage than the fluid, natural, extremely logical form of continuity editing which Pabst employed and indeed helped to pioneer.

We've probably reached an impasse at this point, because my direct reading of the film is that there is nothing fluid, natural, or logical about the editing in Pandora's Box. The film's a religious excercise.

[GringoTex]

The star of PANDORA is inevitably and eternally Brooks, and the editing never operates out of anything but smoothly tempoed support of her onscreen actions.

A lovely quote, even if I don't agree with the sentiment:

"Pabst's remarkable evolution must thus be seen as an encounter with an actress who needed no directing, but could move across the screen causing the work of art to be born by her mere presence. " -Lotte Eisner

[HerrSchreck]

We've probably reached an impasse at this point...

True enough, which is why I won't go on any further with contention-- respectfully of course. I do know there are academic attributions out there to support your point. Probably as many or more than exist to support my allegation-- the majority of these same critics call just about anything from Weimar cinema (including PANDORA) Expressionist.. of which there are very few examples post-1925. You have Kracauer's wild claims :-# . The scholarship of this period is a mess, and I was aiming to clarify what I consider to be a huge whopper of a misattribution regarding Pabst's editing contribution.

And if I could find it on the net, I could leave you with David Cook's write-up on Pabst and Eisenstein from his History of Narrative Film. The Brittanica article pigeonholes Pabst. Yes, he developed invisible editing techniques. He also incorporated montage within a melodramatic structure. He did both things

I'm talking about the fundamental idea of dialectical montage, which is Shot A + Shot B = Idea C (diametrically opposed to Bazin's A and B virgin-birthing C in the same frame). The artificially extended cuts and multiple vantage points are merely Eisenstein's personal style- they are not fundamental to dialecitical montage.

I'm sure you know I know what montage is.. we all know that out of Soviet observation Griffith in sequences like the Barthelmes/Gish chase thru the snow to the ice floes in WAY DOWN East evolved the concept of dialectical or "intellectual" montage, commonly understood as virtually invented by Eisenstein, and taken up by his comrades in the yrs 25-28. And the reason I'm discussing Eisen's style is that you stated that he alone-- no other-- was the greatest influence on Pabst, so why not note the defining features of that style when investigating his alleged influence on another man?

What I'd ask of you in closing-- a friendly request: pick out a couple of those zones of PANDORA's BOX which most illustrate Pabst's use of montage a la the employment of disparate elements placed side by side to create a sum idea not resident in the individual parts in isolation.. i e Kerensky in OCTOBER: (Napoleon statuette) + (peacock) + (Karensky) = lust for power, dictatorial impulses, bloated ego of ruler, et al. Or something similar, or just those zones of PANDORA which for you most clearly exhibit, via editing technique, the Eisenstein influence.

[zedz]

What I'd ask of you in closing-- a friendly request: pick out a couple of those zones of PANDORA's BOX which most illustrate Pabst's use of montage a la the employment of disparate elements placed side by side to create a sum idea not resident in the individual parts in isolation.. i e Kerensky in OCTOBER: (Napoleon statuette) + (peacock) + (Karensky) = lust for power, dictatorial impulses, bloated ego of ruler, et al. Or something similar, or just those zones of PANDORA which for you most clearly exhibit, via editing technique, the Eisenstein influence.

This would indeed be useful - it's much easier to have a constructive discussion around concrete examples. At the moment, I share in the bemusement. Dialectical montage is generally powerful, it can be complex, but it's rarely subtle - hence the skepticism that it somehow dominates the film yet still eludes our notice. Eisensteinian montage isn't the same thing as fast cutting, or classical decoupage - it's not something you just notice, like bleeding gums (thanks, Jeanne).

[GringoTex]

hence the skepticism that it somehow dominates the film yet still eludes our notice.

No one's ever said that Eisenstein montage dominates Pandora's Box. What's eluding you is how Pabst incorporates it within a Hollywood/kammerspeil film framework.

[GringoTex]

What I'd ask of you in closing-- a friendly request: pick out a couple of those zones of PANDORA's BOX which most illustrate Pabst's use of montage

Good idea. I'll try to find time to do that this weekend.

[GringoTex]

Or something similar, or just those zones of PANDORA which for you most clearly exhibit, via editing technique, the Eisenstein influence.

Sorry, I had forgot about this...

Take the first scene (two minutes) of the film. Pabst breaks the 180 degree axis nine times in the first shots introducing Lulu, and four more times in the first shots introducing her father. This breaking of standard film grammar clearly shows he is more interested in psychological association and stimulation than in narrative logic. Add to that the rapid cutting (24 shots), static camera, and the fact that all three actors are holding multiple objects in their hands during the entire scene -- the whole thing is doused in Eisenstein.

[zedz]

Or something similar, or just those zones of PANDORA which for you most clearly exhibit, via editing technique, the Eisenstein influence.

Sorry, I had forgot about this...

Take the first scene (two minutes) of the film. Pabst breaks the 180 degree axis nine times in the first shots introducing Lulu, and four more times in the first shots introducing her father. This breaking of standard film grammar clearly shows he is more interested in psychological association and stimulation than in narrative logic. Add to that the rapid cutting (24 shots), static camera, and the fact that all three actors are holding multiple objects in their hands during the entire scene -- the whole thing is doused in Eisenstein.

Nope!

To quote me:

Eisensteinian montage isn't the same thing as fast cutting

More to the point, to quote Schreck:

the employment of disparate elements placed side by side to create a sum idea not resident in the individual parts in isolation.. i e Kerensky in OCTOBER: (Napoleon statuette) + (peacock) + (Karensky) = lust for power, dictatorial impulses, bloated ego of ruler, et al.

The objects they're holding in their hands are elements of mise-en-scene, not montage. Pabst makes repeated use of the decor to comment on character (e.g. the 'Lulu as Pierrot' picture, the gnomic tchotchke on the mantelpiece), but this is a centuries-old device in the visual arts and dramaturgy and owes nothing to Eisenstein.

We're clearly talking about completely different things.

[GringoTex]

All that matters in the opening sequence is Pabst setting up the introductions of three separate men as figures in Brooks' life at this point in the narrative, along with the decor of the apartment, all of which function to emphasize Brooks and the volume of life and activity which she alone generates! She remains the centre of the film throughout.

I agree, and he places her at the glorious center by breaking the 180 degree axis rule 9 times in 30 seconds. This is why she stands out so perversely and pleasurably. You still have some people who claim Pabst was a hack and that the axis breaki9ng was inadvertant. By a director who closely studied Eisenstein and was obsessed with montage? I don't think so.

[GringoTex]

Nope!

To quote me:

Eisensteinian montage isn't the same thing as fast cutting

More to the point, to quote Schreck:

the employment of disparate elements placed side by side to create a sum idea not resident in the individual parts in isolation.. i e Kerensky in OCTOBER: (Napoleon statuette) + (peacock) + (Karensky) = lust for power, dictatorial impulses, bloated ego of ruler, et al.

I'm pretty sure I'm past the point where I need a limiting Cliff Notes version of Eisenstein thrown at me. Eisenstein's influence on others wasn't his use of symbols for intellectual effect (although this is the easy stuff everyone can grasp on to) - it was his use of associative montage for psychological effect. If you want a fuller understanding, try reading his "Dialectical Approach to Film Form" and "The Structure of the Film."

[HerrSchreck]

Gringo I really think you do need those cliff notes plus a complete collection of Eisensteinian silents so you can identify immediately what is was the man did so you can identify this very specific, radical, and unmistakable technique. What you're describing my friend in your PANDORA example is virtual "coverage" of a character, not a montage. It's standard mise en scene.

Weren't you once known here by the handle Langlois68?

[GringoTex]

Gringo I really think you do need those cliff notes plus a complete collection of Eisensteinian silents so you can identify immediately what is was the man did so you can identify this very specific, radical, and unmistakable technique.

If Eisenstein's influence on Pabst escapes you, it has nothing to do with my knowledge of the subject.

What you're describing my friend in your PANDORA example is virtual "coverage" of a character, not a montage. It's standard mise en scene.

I've never heard of this term "virtual coverage." Could you give some other examples? which directors pioneered it? maybe refer me to some writings on it?

And breaking the 180 degree axis 9 times in 30 seconds is certainly not standard mise en scene by any definition of the term. And by 1928, film grammar had become highly standardized.

Weren't you once known here by the handle Langlois68?

Yes.

[GringoTex]

The point is Eisie' apparent (and relatively crude) montage effects in a movie like Strike (juxtaposing abbatoir slaughter with the plutocrats etc) frankly seems to me to fit better within a generally avant garde theory than actual practice.

As you mentioned before, Eisenstein himself abandoned the hyperextreme form of his montage relatively quickly. But not before other filmmakers (like your Busby example) incorporated elements into their own work. Walt Disney was another filmmaker highly influenced by Eisenstein.

[HerrSchreck]

The breakoff here of my substantive answers to Gringo's questions seem like an obvious personal favor to our favorite, er, wrangler... especially since the subsequent, totally OT discussion of Eisenstien alone has nothing to do with PANDORAS BOX and is far more off topic than the relatively calm, only slightly needly discussion between he & I about the film. And the using my username as the launching pad for this is, let's face it, pretty absurd.

Whoopatee-eyeooo, git aloang little doagies, it's yoar....

[HerrSchreck]

As you mentioned before, Eisenstein himself abandoned the hyperextreme form of his montage relatively quickly. But not before other filmmakers (like your Busby example) incorporated elements into their own work. Walt Disney was another filmmaker highly influenced by Eisenstein.

Incidentally I think you're remembering something that you've read, and are remembering it backwards. Sergei Eisenstein was very public about the influence of Walt Disney on himself, particularly in the laying out of screen action to correspond in rhythm to the scoring of his ALEXANDER NYEVSKY by Profokiev. The utilization of what became (deriseively, for some) known as "Mickey Mousing" the score to the image track (i e in STEAMBOAT WILLY the bouncing up and down of the mouse corresponds precisely to the the bouncing of the rhythm of the soundtrack melody; he spits tobacco juice and drums thump as one lands and a bell rings as another splats into something) causes, for example, Steiner's KONG score to come in for abuse by sophisticoes... i e Kong steps (WOMP) step (womp) step (WOMP). Tickles Fay: (titter of flutes). Pounds serpent twice: (DOUBLE WOMP).

In NEVSKY this sort of total unison coordination between image and soundtrack, as invented by Walt Disney, and openly & publicly admired by Eisenstein (he visited the Disney studio in 1930 prior to starting NEVSKY) in public speech as well as in his writings.

If there is any example of Disney professing influence by the work of Sergei Eisenstein (certainly would be odd for Mister America who had a loathing for Communists & worked in joint investigation w the FBI to root them out... not to mention his not-so-secret admiration for the anticommunist efforts of Adolf Hitler, as well as Hitler the man & the myth of fascism in sum), it is certainly quite obscure enough... though I suspect this is a misremembering of scholarship. Certainly "highly influenced" is a simple gaffe.

I actually find a discussion of the utility of Eisensteins intellectual montage-- the formalist mosaics running thru his silent work-- beyond the bounds of formally avant garde works an interesting one, and as it is diluting the completely unreleated subject of this thread, I'm going to open up a new one to explore this further.

[GringoTex]

Incidentally I think you're remembering something that you've read, and are remembering it backwards.

No, Disney would have his cartoonists and designers study Eisenstein's silents for preparation of his own films. And your notion that Disney would have rejected Eisenstein either peronally or aesthetically over issues of ideology is false. Disney worshipped Eisenstein's balls when he visited the U.S., and the two subsequently corresponded.

Obviously, Eisenstein was influenced by Disney when making Nevsky and Ivan.

[HerrSchreck]

You go, Gringo! Don't take no shit from nobody... Remember-- The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing. Whatever it takes, brother. Fast and loose! (Where's Lemmy when I need him?)

O this poor, defaced thread.