Answer these 3 questions in brief.
Question 1
We're going to start with the Kuleshov Effect which is usually regarded as the basic kind of montage in film.
Can you briefly, in your own words, give your own understanding of this 'effect'? How might it generate
meaning beyond what is contained in individual shot?
Question 2
Now read pages 214-224 of Eisenstein's extraordinary essay 'Dickens, Griffith and the Film Today' which you
can read here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/138381993/Sergei-Eisenstein-Dickens-Griffith-and-the-Film-Today-1944
From 'However let us turn to the basic montage structure…' on PAGE 214 to PAGE 224 'his debt to Dickens's
memory'.
Eisenstein talks (p. 217) about how Dickens 'sketches the city in the form of a dynamic (montage) picture' and
about 'this montage' of the city's rhythms.
Do you think Eisenstein is thinking about the Kuleshov effect here, or has he some broader idea of 'montage' in
mind? If so, how would you describe it?
Question 3
Eisenstein then quotes a big chunk of Oliver Twist (chapters XIV to XVI), and describes it as 'Dickens's
montage progression of the story composition'.
What do you think he means by that, -- and what is the point of the list on pp. 222-23?
Sample Solution