# MacKay, John (2011). *Montage Under Suspicion: Bazin's Russo-Soviet Reception*. : Oxford University Press. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[]] > Title:: Montage Under Suspicion: Bazin's Russo-Soviet Reception > Author(s): [[MacKay, John]] > Year:: 2011 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: mackay_john_montage_2011 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Montage Under Suspicion: Bazin's Russo-Soviet Reception](zotero://select/items/@mackay_john_montage_2011) > ReviewedDate:: [[2024-01-21]] ## Citation ```latex [@mackay_john_montage_2011] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@mackay_john_montage_2011]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary ==이글은 러시아 내에서 바쟁의 위치를 역사적으로 풀어내는 글. == ## Annotation 안드레 바진의 비판적이고 이론적인 작업은 1960년대 중반 소련에서 중요한 방식으로 느껴졌고, 특히 1972년 장 르누아르에 대한 그의 에세이 중 하나가 그 영화 제작자에 대한 책이자 1972년 300페이지가 넘는 번역본이 출판된 이후 러시아어 영화 저작에 중요한 역할을 했다.이 책은 서지학적으로 드문 판본으로 자리 잡게 되었다. “The Evolution of the Language of the Cinema” [[@bazin_what_2005]]의 번역본은 이미 1965년에 나타났다. 그리고 프랑스어를 아는 러시아의 연구자들의 바쟁에 대한 접근은 그보다 더 빨랐다. 1991년의 소비에트가 멸망 이후로 저널 “Kinovedcheskie Zapiski (Film Studies Notes)은 최소 7개의 바쟁의 글을 실었다. 바쟁이 러시아-소비에트 안에서의 여정은 3개의 기간으로 나눌 수 있다. 1. 1960년대 중반 -> 1980년대 중반 1. 초반에 피할 수 없는 중심적 문제 [[Soviet montage]] [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] 2. 그 외에 철학적, 윤리적, 정치적 영향은 이야기되지 않았음 2. 1980년대 중반 -> 1993년변화의 시기 (페레스트로이카 (고르바초프 정권)) 부터 USSR의 붕괴 3. 후기-소비에트 시기 (neoliberal Yeltsin 시기와 neo-authoritarian 푸틴) **“The Evolution of the Language of the Cinema”에서 나온 두 문장자** > …the creation of a sense or meaning not objectively contained in the images themselves but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition. The well-known experiment of (Lev) Kuleshov with the shot of (actor Ivan) Mozzhukhin in which a smile was seen to change its significance according to the image that preceded it, sums up perfectly the properties of montage. > ==Montage as used by Kuleshov, (Sergei) Eisenstein, or (Abel) [[Abel Gance|Gance]] did not show us the event==; it alluded to it. Undoubtedly they derived at least the greater part of the constituent elements from the reality they were describing but the final significance of the film was found to reside in the ordering of these elements much more than in their objective content. The substance of the narrative, whatever the realism of the individual image, is born essentially from these relationships—Mozzhukhin plus dead child equals pity—that is to say, an abstract result, none of the concrete elements of which are to be found in the premises; maidens plus apple trees in bloom equal hope…” ([[@bazin_what_2005]], 25-6) > “In analyzing reality, montage presupposes of its very nature the unity of meaning of the dramatic event. Some other form of analysis is undoubtedly possible, but then it would be another film. In short, montage by its very nature rules out ambiguity of expression. Kuleshov’s experiment proves this per absurdum in giving on each occasion a precise meaning to the expression on a face, the ambiguity of which alone makes the three successively exclusive expressions possible. (…) > [[Jean Renoir]] (by contrast) uncovered the secret of a film form that would permit everything to be said without chopping the world up into little fragments, that would reveal the hidden meanings in people and things without disturbing the unity natural to them.” ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@mackay_john_montage_2011]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```