That even people who are accustomed with the environment, of which something new is being attempted, sometimes don’t know how to handle such a radical change. They will try to dumb it down or control it in a manner that allows them to accept and/or feel comfortable with it, even if that change is absurd in its rationality.

Since film audience has accustomed to an average shot length (ASL) of 11.2 seconds, the quick cuts from Man with a Movie Camera cause trouble of comprehending the meaning behind shots. This is why Ebert brings up Harry Carey’s advice — in order to keep track with the director, audience needs longer shots to digest. Vertof’s use of short shots is revolutionary although it receives criticism.

People were not used to seeing a change such as this one. It does him well to ask the question in the beginning along with the statement comparing the past ASL fact with the modern movie, because it shows just how much people have changed after a few years, regardless of how reluctant we were to change in the first place.

Ebert suggest that these quick shots revealed the joys of work, the rhythm of workers and machines, he also felt that film-making was also a component of that mechanical reality. The shots can represent the pacing of what way life back then, comparing how long can a individual watch something without tuning out.

While society strives to progress and come up with new ideas, the usual response to something new is disapproval. I think people react this way not because that actually dislike it, but that they do not know how to feel. New things are unfamiliar territory, which comes with apprehension.

At the time Vertof was trying a completely new style one that, Mordaunt Hall was “horrified” by seeing. A lot of the time people are scared or thrown off by new ideas, even though they might lead to changing the entire landscape of the entire film industry.

“The stage play” sounds more planned-out while Vertof’s new style induces “free-associating.” This new style is more documentary especially when the film is capturing daily activities compared to the traditional stage play.

A stage has the limits of a single place, so the scenes and background had to look ambiguous enough, or rather versatile enough to change throughout the play, or have the characters interact in ways that clearly changes the scenes for them.
In films, you have the luxury and liberty to change any scene, and express exactly what you want to make the audience feel without having to use dialogue, and it forces an artist to think more creatively about how to do this.

When I read “locked into the traditions of the stage play,” the first thing that comes to mind is ‘to act.’ In other words, every movement, every act was deliberate and planned out. In addition to that, when I think of a staged performance, I think of the dramatization and emotion of the characters in every scene that happens. Things that happen in a performance (no matter what it is) is there in order to elicit emotion from the audience.

These can be useful for demonstrating to agents, producers, and publishers that one wants a straight forward concept, but in the world of aspiring filmmakers, each individual wants make something that don’t follow the tradition norm of filming in the earlier 1920s. In “Man With a Movie Camera”, the film lacks a scripted narrative , as if the camera eye and the editor did not need direction to express for viewers to understand what is going on.

I feel that Ebert is saying that the tradition of stage play was the typical type of set up of films. In this film the scenes are much faster and shorter, keeping the viewer intrigued. The scenes are sequenced similarly to how the brain works, creating idea after idea without stopping.

In “Man With a Movie Camera” the audience gets to see a film from different shots from different angles in a shorter period, which gives them a different perspective for the film overall. Other films would have long shots from the same angle which at times can make someone feel like they are sitting, watching a play because each scene is shown from the same angle and it doesn’t allow for a scene to be shown from a different perspective.

a story. What those filmmakers didn’t realize is that a story could be told without a script, a plot, lighting, and dialogue.

Films were traditional, meaning with professional actors, scripts, and movie sets etc.. “Man with a Movie Camera” captures everyday life in Russia during the Industrial Revolution which can be shocking to the average American audience.

In films, dialogues were used, they were planned out and not as natural as the films we watch today. However, “Man Wth a Movie Camera” was steering away from that. He is saying here that all those extras that showed one perspective and didn’t always connect to the audience was shifted here and gave some excitement to the usual movie.

Man with a Movie Camera contains many shots that do not interact with each other, so those shots do not necessarily form a scene.

A scene allows viewers to rest their eyes a bit more, whereas this film filled with shots does not allow the audience any visual break. This makes he film give off a more frantic vibe.

The stories that the first directors wished to record might run near half an hour, or in Vertov’s case nearly 70 min.; but, it is known that their cameras could only hold a few minutes worth of film. To solve the problem, they must have shot scenes in short sections, and spliced the separate film strips together.

While we know that the “scenes” in “Man with a Movie Camera” aren’t very long, I believe one could justify the argument of why Ebert refers to “shots,” and not “scenes.”

Vertov use several shots (edited or not) to compose a scene. A scene can have a series of seemingly random shots for viewers to get a visual appeal, but it is the editor, Elizaveta Svilova who pieces these random shots together to create and change some very important things.

Ebert refers to them as shots and not scenes because they are shorter and faster compared to regular film scenes. Most scenes in films are much longer and from only a few perspectives. In these shots they are from different set-ups and angles.

A shot is the angle, and or movement from which the footage is filmed. A scene is duration of action or dialogue that was captured on film, it can be made up of one shot or several shots. This is what separated Vertof from others, he chose to use several shots to tell a scene.

Surrealism applies when Vertov’s camera works as an human eye that is witnessing the city. The film is not telling a story, but it enables us to picture ourselves in the city with our own stories flashing around. Isn’t it in modern society we all associate ourselves with the surroundings? The film makes me feel that I am participating into a Russian city with Vertov.

I believe Ebert meant that all people could become artists through the democratization of both technology and creativity. Vertov wanted his audiences place themselves in his situation. He is our eyes as directed by human interest and motivation.e. The overwhelming and exciting portrayal of the public life upstages the domestic life through this careful editing, creating a aesthetic transformation of the city.

Modernism and surrealism refers conformity. These two terms are used to describe a era when doing things to resemble real time and every day life. In the film, Vertov used a different style to invoke a new style of film. The jump cut was used to do this by creating a sense of nuance.

The camera is a machine much similar to other machines like binoculars or telescopes. They both have are a lens, tripods, lens adjustments, power buttons, and USB ports. A camera differs from other machinery because it is one of the few machines that can capture visual ongoing action.

The camera differs from other machines in that other machines are elements within the reality, but a camera is the tool that captures the reality.

The technological advances of that time were not not a big impact as today. The camera shows how production, machines, and people enjoyment fascination never stop. There is always this sense of progress. The camera shows that there is always two sides to every part of life, whether it showing fiction or reality.

The shots are conjoined together to represent the goings-on of living in a Russian city. It shows people traveling, working and playing as well as capturing some of the mechanisms of the inanimate machines that keeps it going. People and machinery are the major subjects of the movie because they both keep the city going as well as give it a personality, something I think Vertov wanted to represent.

The editing makes me feel like watching “surreality” since the visual effect of the images projected is reinforced. The editing tells me that certain reality, such as the self-moving camera, is created rather than merely represented.

All documentary films have an idea they want to convey; I think Vertov’s idea is to show actuality. His film is titled “Man with a Movie Camera.” In this film, a man shoots with a camera. He chooses different scenes and settings. The audience watches this man film. Then the audience sees the film. And a woman cutting and editing the film. The audience also sees another audience watching the produced film.

In the review, Ebert mentions how other artists shocked the world with the pieces they created. That is what Vertov does by showing the production stages of his film. A movie does not show actuality, but acting, and Vertov goes against the movie norm by creating this film.

and for many different reasons.

There are many actions repeated on screen for several times, and the music follows closely with the repeated action by playing the same note, which creates a motif.

I really enjoyed watching the film. It is a masterpiece. However, I imagine the film will be hard to watch without the accompany of the musical score. At some point I even thought the shots were supplementary to the music score.

If silent films didn’t have music scores, which some don’t, it would be easy to get bored. Only one sense, sight, would be stimulated. Having a music score not only will also give the audience something to listen to to keep their attention, but will make the film more interesting and emotional. People usually have emotional responses to music, therefore having the music playing would tap into that side of them. Also music can help make a scene more intense, sad, scary, happy – whatever the scene is trying to portray. With music the meaning of the scene or shot can be made much more apparent and enjoyable.

Music and/or sound can single handily change the entire atmosphere of a film. From creepy to spooky music setting a ton in scary movies, to how the sound of lasers screams sci-fi films. Sound changes the feel of a film.

The presence of sound and music makes time pass more quickly in the movie, making it less boring and more enjoyable because music is inherently arousing or it can be distracting. Sometimes a sound or music seems to be out of context of a scene/shot, but it could be a design choose to help understand the situation surrounding the scene.

The musical score can help the audience understand the film better, it can intensify a scene and set the tone. It can almost serve as guide to the viewer.

Like we discussed in class today, different mediums evoke different responses. A film is viewed, while a score is heard.

A musical score tells a story on its own. By adding a score to a film, a score heightens the experience because the audience is able to hear a story, while seeing it on screen. Different aspects of music create an array of emotional response from the listener. (For example, high pitched staccato notes build the feeling of being in a hurry or rushing.)

Also, one’s experience can change if a movie is played with two different scores. I originally watched this movie on YouTube with a different score. With the in-class viewing, I felt that the score was more invasive because my emotional reactions were stronger.