The Man with a Movie Camera

The comparison of Tatlin and Vertov in their different mediums is very interesting. Tatlin’s Tower was grounded in the “technique of montage” and both the Tower and The Man with a Movie Camera insisted “upon the materiality of the object and its architectonics as determinant”. Again, the manner in which the art came about is the most important thing. Having read this article after watching the film, the ideas in the article just further emphasize Vertov’s reasoning and method. I feel I understood the film, but could see even more if I watched it again. The idea that film was not being used to its full potential is understandable and the manner in which Vertov wanted to treat film was truly innovative and revolutionary. Film used not to tell a story but to show what the eye does not see. Relearning how to look. So much can be uncovered if you just look at things differently or from a new perspective, and this type of filmmaking forces you to do so. What patterns can be found? What connections? Can the “terrible underside of things” be exposed, just by looking in a different fashion? Vertov’s attention to formal tension, chiaroscuro, relationships, movement, tempo, etc., reminds me of the Renaissance painting Fete Champetre by Giorgione that seems to have no relation to a biblical or classical story or any specific people, unlike most other paintings of the time, but is painted to capture the mood, rather than tell a story. The painting looks at their bodies, at the light, at the placement of the figures. Though Vertov and his contemporaries are trying to distance themselves with the past (Suprematists more than others) there are always roots in history. I feel that film can be pushed in Vertov’s direction even more. Imagine seeing a man’s face daily from birth to death in the span of five minutes, as proposed by Moholy-Nagy. There is so much that could be uncovered.