Eisenstein, Vertov and Medvedkin: revolutionary “cinefication” and communist subjectivityGal Kirn
, 2017, original scientific article
Abstract: The major hypothesis of this article is that revolution was first “cinefied” in the Soviet context, which suggests that film was able to imagine, produce, narrate and circulate the image of (the October) (R)revolution. In this context, I will attempt to elaborate on the concept of “cinefication” here taken from Pavle Levi’s book Cinema by Other Means (2012). Levi has shown that cinefication should not be seen only as an official Soviet policy that build the cinematic infrastructure across the country and spread the revolution by trains. Rather, cinefication should be seen as the emergence of an apparatus with intensified technological capacities and also as the specific modality-genealogy of avant-garde methods within cinema. In order to understand the emergence of (avant-garde) film one should actually take into account non-cinematic means, which in their turn produced cinematic effects. My hypothesis shifts the stress on these interdisciplinary, inter-medial resources to the more general relationship between revolution and cinema/film. In short, the October Revolution continued “by other means” in cinema/film. Therefore we will not be interested in a vulgar materialist analysis that engages in a mere reflection of the October Revolution on screen (revolution as matter), but rather in how the revolution was “refracted,” displaced or replaced and actually continued by new Soviet cinema.
Keywords: cinema-train, cinefication, revolutionary cinema, cinema on revolution, October, Medvedkin, Eisenstein, Vertov, communist subjectivity, emancipation, workers' history
Published in RUNG: 19.08.2020; Views: 2036; Downloads: 0
This document has many files! More...