## Metadata: Title: Early Cinema, Sergei Eisenstein, and Film Culture Today: An Interview with Ian Christie on New Directions in Film History Full Reference: Type: Author(s): Malte Hagener, Annie Van Den Oever, #Author/Malte Hagener, Annie Van Den Oever Zotero Link: [Early Cinema, Sergei Eisenstein, and Film Culture Today: An Interview with Ian Christie on New Directions in Film History](zotero://select/items/@hagener_early_2018) Index: ## Summary: - Ian Christie and Sergei Eisenstein, 프랑스의 이론주의적 접근방식보다 methodological 방식을 통한 역사적으로 사라진 감독들에 대한 연구가 지속되어야한다. ## Notes: #LiteratureNotes * Mdnotes File Name: [[hagener_early_2018]] > We focused mainly on his work on Eisenstein and early cinema.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:2](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=2) > conjunction of new approaches to Eisenstein that opened up at the end of the 1970s, making him seem very different from the rather monumental figure created by the original Film Society generation.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:3](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=3) > I think it’s had a fairly consistent basis through all these years, which is to rescue him from the excessive canonisation that engulfed him already during the 1920s, and then made him rather like the monuments or gods that he loved toppling.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:4](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=4) > So you realise that his reputation has long been sharply contested at home as well as abroad.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=7) > Vertov began to be championed in the 1970s and 1980s as a more authentically ‘Soviet’ – meaning Constructivist – artist than Eisenstein, and one who paid the price of being silenced for his refusal to compromise; while Tarkovsky has increasingly been seen as an anti-Soviet ‘good Russian’, and moreover one who cast himself as the antithesis of Eisenstein.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=7) > In Tarkov- sky’s case, I think it was initially a generational matter, as he and his contem- poraries looked out toward world cinema, having been brought up on a dull diet of Eisenstein as propagandist.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=7) > then Eisenstein’s films are still in the early stages of interpretation and reassessment.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:11](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=11) > More importantly, I think it has inhibited students and scholars working in film studies from ‘boldly going’ (as in Star Trek) where they could go in order to develop new paradigms for understanding how audiovisual media work, and especially how they work on us as embodied subjects. ‘Film’ is clearly not what it was as a cultural object or practice back in the 60s and 70s.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:17](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=17) > I would like to see film and media studies return to being methodologi- cally (not ‘theoretically’) ambitious, promiscuous even, in making use of the tools we have at our disposal.[Hagener and Van Den Oever 2018:18](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/MRH222P6?page=18)