代写留学生电影美学论文，在1920年代，吸引力蒙太奇理论强调权威作者的目的；作为一个非常重要的电影理论和方法，这引起了一个新的艺术形式：暴力美学的现代。过程中的演变，不同的暴力美学的核心思想吸引力蒙太奇，发展趋势与对偶性。结合其他一些作品，本文简要地论述了发展轨迹和内涵的不同类型的暴力美学吸引力蒙太奇。Two types of Violence Aesthetics derived from Attraction Montage
By *****
From **** University
Summary: Formed in 1920’s, the theory of Attraction Montage emphasizes the authority of the author’s purpose; as a very important film theory and method, it has aroused a new art form: the Violence Aesthetics in modern time. During the course of its evolvement, Violence Aesthetics varies from the core thinking of Attraction Montage, trends to develop with duality. Combined with some other works, this article deals briefly with the developing tracks and the connotation of the two types of Violence Aesthetics derived from Attraction Montag.
Key words: S.Eisenstein, Attraction Montage, Violence Aesthetics
I. Attraction Montage and its key thinking
代写留学生论文Montage is a main arena for the film aesthetics. In 1923, Eisenstein brought forward:” a new method —— to combine the randomly selected, independent (still acting apart from the established structures and narrative scenes) impressive means freely, but with a specific objective, namely to achieve a certain final subject effect, this is Attraction Montage”. <1>p425, In practice, two shot elements without any necessary logical relation in time and space are spliced to form new images to create the film text with a giant visual impact and clear expression so as to show the director’s ideas. The juxtaposition of the two different film elements doesn’t just turn out the same effects as A plus B or A times B, but create a new unknown —— the new concepts and characters; for example, in the film October, Eisenstein matched the shots of Kerensky to that of a mechanical peacock with clockwork to show Kerensky’ vainglory and his condition being controlled; and in his maiden work the strike, the shots of over 1,500 dead people and that of the killed cattle with blood dripping out of their throats in a slaughterhouse were inserted reciprocally to present the cruelty of the killing, making a great impact and enduring impression on the audience.
The key thinking of Attraction Montage is to produce a double effect via the conflicts and the impacts from matching two shots, to bring out a series of thoughts out of what the shots will express. At the first of its development, the function of this thinking is “to create an emotional state, where the audience will identify with the thoughts which are to be transmitted by others.” <1>p320 and the author of the thoughts is just the director himself, who acts as a guide to bring the audience’s emotions and senses into his creative thinking process so that the audience agree on the way the director expresses his thinking, experience the same processes as the director does.
II. The evolvement of Violence Aesthetics
At a certain extent, Attraction Montage” itself is a aesthetic phenomena to show distinct intentions”. <2> Within two scenes —— even one scene, the image assembly, the shot level switching, the picture and sound matching and SYNC are selected and arranged together according to the director’s own intentions to show a specifically designed goal. As for the audiences, their gifts to understand art are bereaved at the very beginning of the film. The director accomplishes the process from social life to thinking and knowledge at one time. Now film has been a tool to lead the thinking, to unite the knowledge. Andre Ba-zin thought that this was a kind of aesthetic violence brought by some intellectual elite and that:” whether the sculpted contents of the scenes or every type of montages, these could help the film annotate the reproduced events by all means, and then impose all these on the audience.” <3>
Attraction Montage’s ultimate aim is to make the audiences focus their impressions and emotions on itself, and follow in the director’s will and steps. This highly designed planning has produced a kind of ”violent “effect in aesthetics —— this kind of violence can’t simply be considered as bloodshed and cruelty, as a matter of fact it stands for the director’s tight control of his audience’s wills. Violence Aesthetics doesn’t absolutely stamp out the thinking of the audiences, but it strictly controls the audiences’ thinking in a limited range by its film camera language and image frame, expressing the director’s ambition to seek for an absolute authority in aesthetics. S.Eisenstein was indeed the first one with this ambition and he introduced Pavlov’s biological theory into film, considering that it was possible to actualize the forming of the aesthetic consciousness in a conditioned reflex way. But this was the Utopianism in aesthetics, namely he wanted to find out a productive scheme with correct ideology to make out masses of persons who had the same thinking in batches.
Violence Aesthetics came into vogue after the mid of 1990s’. At that time, some film critics in Hong Kong used this expression in their comments on films. Violence Aesthetics mainly refers to the externalism gusto about violence as well as the external aesthetic feelings such as shoot-out, fight and killing and some other violent scenes in the film, which promotes the aesthetic feelings to a extremely height. The film elements such as bloodshed and death are narrated both in a poetic and romantic way and in a cold and rational way.
In the film Kill Bill, Quentin Tarantino romanced the revenge and killing in a grandiose and shocking way, which has been regarded as the nonesuch of Violence Aesthetics. As for the films in Hong Kong before him, —— such as the series films A Better Tomorrow and the killer directed by John Woo, there exists a chain of elements: pigeons are flying out of the fierce battle; pleasant family life and the gunfight scenes are inserted either actively or passively; and in the close-ups, the noisy sound effects comes to a sudden stop; chamber loaded, a bullet is releasing from the gun slowly etc. In the classic film The Godfather; the scene of a baby receiving baptism and that of the sinister gang’s killing people are interspersed. In a Japanese film HANA－BI directed by Takeshi Kitano, the instant violence contrasts the colored cartoon. In a Korean film: Old boy directed by Chan-wook Park, the self-mutilation of the leading character is processed in slow motion. All these make Violence Aesthetics run to its acme. The understanding of the violence in these films is limited within a literal scope and the releasing process of the violence is dissolved in the viewing process by means of describing the violent elements with close-ups to express the director’s moods.
The Violence Aesthetics in these films is just a pure sense of form, can’t inspire the audience’s initiative, and the audience’s aesthetic initiative is limited. The audience’s thinking is weakened by its gorgeous means of the picture and sound. Completely under the control of being accepted, and being in a passive state of unconsciousness, the audiences to see the films simply obtain the impregnate visual feast, at the same time are led into the situations well designed by the director.
It is a necessity for Violence Aesthetics to form and grow with the development of Attraction Montage. Nowadays, the audiences’ value judgments extend into disparate fields; the stages for which Attraction Montage plays a governing role are restricted in the films with less value judgment, and purer audio-visual enjoyment----only the shot elements themselves must have so much attraction that they can ensure the audiences completely to accept the film languages passively, as a result, Attraction Montage has formed a new developing trend at the aspect of discovering the pure viewing effects and visual impacts.
But on the other hand, in a large measure, Attraction Montage has explored the profound thinking that the audiences can’t reach in a state of generalized consciousness, and then, opposite to its own intention, to exploit a more abundant realm of thinking. The films that can incarnate this function, generally take on a kind of low-pitched “violence”, showing another type of aesthetic characteristic.
III. Low-pitched “violence”, to explore more vast aesthetic space
As for processing methods, Attraction Montage smacks of forethought and being transcendental, that’s to say, the director, in advance, enactments a thinking mode, then develops the whole film according to the designed mode. But in the scope of film language, the juxtaposition of two kinds of specific elements means that the director, with his imagination, splices the complicated and changeable alternatives, exploits the similarities that the audiences don’t concern about or understand in daily life, and at a certain degree, establishes a bran-new thinking mode and thinking field. “Our ability to apperceive the interconnection of things is localized and restricted.” <4> While it creates a limitation, Attraction Montage increases the intensity for us to set up connections and to think within this limitation.
S.Eisenstein once drew an analogy that shot is just like a Chinese letter; Montage is the glyph system in the structure of the Chinese letters. For example, in Chinese, a “bird” combined a “mouth” means”singing”. “Every single Chinese letter corresponds to one thing, well then, the juxtaposition of two pictographs becomes one corresponding concept. By the combination of two ‘describable objects’, one can draws out something that can’t be described with graphics.” <1>p451 Attraction Montage makes juxtaposition of shots that seem unassociated and express their own meanings and then, press the meaning produced out of the combination on the audiences, though it limits the audiences’ understanding extent, it can’t entirely restricts its angles and depth, producing an artistic effect that the meaning is implied.” Film is the exclusive and concrete art which can arose thinking, it may fulfill the task to stimulate the thinking.” <5>. From an anthropology and linguistics point of view, S.Eisenstein divided human language into three modes: the oral language, the written language and the inner language. The reproduction of the thinking in inner language and that of the relations between objects are fulfilled through images; this is a kind of visualized thinking, but “inner language is a illogical thinking driven and stimulated by emotions.” <6>so Attraction Montage doesn’t incarnate the director’s attitude toward the contents and meanwhile doesn’t make the audiences treat the same contents with the same attitudes.” <7>. While the audiences’ thinking directions are controlled, a new thinking way is inaugurated for the audiences.
Thus derives another type of Low-pitched “violence”. This violence weakens or spurns the social morale judgment and the particular directivity of the imagination professedly, returns the choice again to the audiences; it thinks that “What the film provides is the pure aesthetic judgment”, <8> the audiences can process the corresponding structures of the scenes to establish their own value system and aesthetic context.
The violent elements in this type of aesthetics become more implicit; it peels off the reasonable kernel about the artistic skills in Attraction Montage; it makes great efforts to syncretize the thoughts and aesthetic feeling formally, it fulfills to express the director’s intention without any trace. For instance in the Korean series film The Isle directed by Ki-duk Kim, a carp cut off a half of its body is set free; in the film, Spring, Summar, Full, Winter, and Spring, the panorama of the isle and the close-up of the figure of Buddha appears regularly; in a American film Mulholland Drive directed by David Lynch, the dream made up of broken details flashbacks, together with plenty of the symbolistic expressions in many films; all these guide the audiences’ tastes and thinking, and at the same time enlarge the multiple linguistic space. The low-pitched Violence Aesthetics weakens its ambition to grasp all the audiences’ thoughts in a quick profit; it releases an ideographic relaxation with expression; it contributes more extensive possibility. But for its effects, this implicit intention, on the contrary, caters for the audiences’ accepting psychology, so the thinking that the director wants to show is naturally accepted by the audiences, consequently, the core intention of Attraction Montage is realized, the result that Violence Aesthetics expects is achieved.
代写留学生论文For both types of Violence Aesthetics derived from Attraction Montage, the former emphasizes particularly on the fluid and vigorous catharsis and expression in emotions; the latter focus on the unity of the perceptual expression and the rational thinking in a low-key way. At this point, S.Eisenstein thought:” guiding the emotional thinking is one of the ultimate issues in the rational films”. <9>the dialectical aesthetics of the film art lies in two aspects: on one hand, it may promote thinking to establish a highly untied thinking to lead the thinking direction and angle of the film; on the other hand, it may penetrate into the most secret perceptual thinking through forms and structures to strengthen partial analysis and emotional experience. The charm of many excellent films just comes from the highly united power. Changing from actual realistic images into abstract perceptual thinking, canceling from the complicated reality, approaching more closely the pure reality,----“ retreat in order to advance”, <10> this is the dialectical approach to syncretize the intuitive images and abstract sensation in the film perfectly to achieve the significance of Attraction Montage on its aesthetic value.
Reference books:
<1> S.Eisenstein (Russia), on Montage, China Film Press, 1999
<2> Jean Mitry(France), The Psychology of Montage, film art translations,1980
<3> AndreBa-zin (France), What is the Movie, China Film Press, /2005.5
<4> Вейцман Евгений Михайлович (Russia), Очерки философии кино, China Film Press, 2000.12
<5> S.Eisenstein (Russia), the Principles of the Film in New Russia, China Film Press, 2000
<6> Nick Browne (US), On the History of Film Theory, China Film Press, 1994
<7> S.Eisenstein (Russia), Nonindifferent Nature, China Film Press, 2003.9
<8> Haojian (China), The New Discussing on The Montage of Attraction, Contemporary Cinema, 2002.5
<9> Guido Aristarco (Italy), the History of the Film Theory, China Film Press, 1992
<10> Ждан,B (Russia), the Aesthetics of the Films, China Film Press, 1992