by Elliot Fogarty

Created on: August 11, 2008

Much has been made of the pioneering directorial work of The Man With A Movie Camera director Dziga Vertov. As stated by the man himself to his Kino-Eye groups: Our eyes see very little and very badly- so people dreamed up the microscope to let them see invisible phenomena' The Kino-Eye is translated as stating Vertov's belief of the importance of the camera over the human eye, and amongst other beliefs stated his concepts of new cinema in 1920. As Vertov proclaimed Down with the bourgeois imagination and its fairytales! Long live open everyday life!'

The significance of Vertov's aforementioned beliefs becomes clear upon viewing TMWAMC. On the surface, we see just over an hours worth of footage of, to quote Vertov, ...ordinary people filmed in everyday life and at work.' Yet behind this initial level, there are plenty of statements about the lives of the proletariat. Initially at least, there is no apparent narrative or no real structure. However, in showing the cycle of a proletariat individual's working day, there is indeed a narrative of both importance and significance to Vertov's Marxist belief of the proletariat being mediated by the bourgeoisie. In this instance, it can be argued that Vertov is trying to show that the work they are producing is perhaps for the benefit and gain of the bourgeois.

Vertov's view that the camera is the star is demonstrated throughout the film's entirety, and the fact that the camera appears to take a bow upon the films finale is a testimony to this. By editing the footage via speeding up or slowing down scenes, freezing the footage altogether and at one point filming Vertov's wife who is editing the film, it can be argued that this is a postmodern film even before modernity occured. Vertov's study of sound whilst in the Petrograd Psychoneurological Institute appeared to ensure that he was aware of the importance of audio to a piece, and with no words in the film, the continuous, striking music dominates throughout and remains in your mind long after the film has finished.

Does TMWAMC's uniqueness automatically make it a film of true quality? It is a film that generates rather uncomfortable viewing. Whilst intentional, the montage of footage featuring people leading normal, working lives (along with the occasional, rather surprising footage such as the rather graphic birth of a child) ensured this was not riveting to watch. However, is this an indictment of the film, or the way we view film's today? Vertov's view that more customary film's are The opium of the masses' therefore like a drug to society- rings true with regards to this film: By watching a film so unconventional compared to mainstream, traditional films society is so used to leaves a sense of awkwardness, perhaps even surrealness upon watching it. Howeever, despite the sheer lack of enjoyment upon watching it, the film itself can be greatly appreciated and admired for both its originality and the message beneath the face value of the film, as it tries to tell about the reality of everyday proletariat life in 1920's Soviet Union.

Learn more about this author, Elliot Fogarty.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.