The Relevance of Intellectual Montage: Post Eisenstein

Eisenstein’s intellectual montage has helped shape resonant meaning within Hollywood’s most beloved and highly rated films.


Image result for sergei eisenstein

The Relevance of Intellectual Montage: Post Eisenstein

Sergei Eisenstein managed to take the unexploited potential within the film medium and through various theorizing, create specific montage techniques that truly showcased the power of movies. The techniques that Eisenstein created have influenced many filmmakers in their endeavor to produce significant concepts, emotions, and, above all else, art. The most prevalent, noticeable, and suggestive of Eisenstein’s methods, one that many Hollywood filmmakers have resorted to using, is that of the intellectual montage. Eisenstein’s intellectual montage has helped shape resonant meaning within Hollywood’s most beloved and highly rated films.

Before discussing how the intellectual montage has captivated Hollywood, it is first necessary to detail what a montage actually is. A montage, as described by author Aristides Gazetas, is “The creation of a sense or meaning not proper to the images themselves but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition.” (120)  Gazetas quote explains a process of editing that allows viewers to feel some sort of interpretational sensation.  An intellectual montage, worked through similar association, takes the concept of juxtaposition and pushes it to create thought provoking metaphors for the viewers to react to. By linking one meaningful shot with another meaningful shot, a resulting third meaning is ultimately conceived metaphorically. The third metaphorical meaning acts as a device that allows the audience to arrive at new conclusions, conclusions that perhaps would not be considered without the intellectual montage.

As a director, Eisenstein utilized the intellectual montage to create metaphorical meanings within his own films like Strike and Battleship Potemkin. The images presented in Eisenstein’s films thoroughly show how commanding an intellectual montage can be. In Strike, Eisenstein shows the viewer an excessively aggressive military attacking/killing its own civilians.  The shot, on its own, presents an overwhelmingly intense image but it becomes clear that Eisenstein is not satisfied with the singular meaning.  To create his metaphorical meaning, Eisenstein cuts away from the violent mise-en-scene of civilian murder and immediately decides to show a cow being slaughtered, imagery which displays equal brutality, but assertively, generates an especially evocative thought. The metaphorical meaning Eisenstein created through the combination of the two shots shows something conceptual, a concept that connects the slaughter of humans to the slaughter of cattle.  Eisenstein, in Battleship Potemkin, directs a very similar type of intellectual montage, one that, again, showcases the potential strength of the intellectual montage.  

When looking at both, Strike (1925) and Battleship Potemkin, (1925) the captivating ability of the intellectual montage becomes exceedingly apparent. The captivation that an intellectual form of montage carries, forces audiences to interpret cinema in new and exhilarating ways. Eisenstein details, in his work entitled Film Form, “…Emotional principal is universally human.” (82).The assessment of intellectual montage by Eisenstein appears to show the relevant relation between emotion and montage. It is clear, through Eisenstein, that intellectual montage has the ability to generate emotion, something that congruently, encourages the development of meaning. Creating an effective intellectual montage allows viewers to have an emotional reaction, something that allows a films interpretable meaning(s) to resonate. It is this attractive valuation that still acts as motive for filmmakers to create their own intellectual montage post Eisenstein.

Directors attempt to construct avenues of meaning within their films through the same intellectual montage style that Eisenstein theorized and engaged with. Alfred Hitchcock’s films North By Northwest (1959) and Psycho (1960), juxtaposes specific images in efforts to create the third meaning Eisenstein’s theory particularized. Nicholas Haeffner, in his book entitled, Alfred Hitchcock states, “…intellectual montage is used in Hitchcock’s films to plant an image in the mind of the audience which isn’t necessarily on screen” (37) Applying Haeffner’s analysis to North by Northwest, perfectly showcases the use of Eisenstein’s theory of intellectual montage. Hitchcock, at the end of the film, presents the viewer with a train cabin mise-en scene; where the male protagonist lifts the female protagonist onto the bunk bed. The following shot brings the viewer outside and shows the train entering into a tunnel.  By juxtaposing these two shots, Hitchcock is able to intellectually convey the idea of sex, rather than simply presenting or stating it. The symbolism of a train entering into the tunnel acts as metaphorical device, much like the image of Eisenstein’s cow slaughter worked through a similar set of associations. Hitchcock, in Psycho, again showcases his understanding of the intellectual montage during the famous “shower scene”. Haeffner, states: “Hitchcock took extreme care to avoid showing the knife touching the body… In a supremely effective display of Eisenstein’s principle of intellectual montage, the knife entering Marion’s flesh and the wounds, and the blood coming from them are in the imagination of the audience.” (38) While the images that Hitchcock initially presents imply a specific type of viciousness, the intellectual montage stems from capping off the violence with an evocative shot, one that shows a mixture of water and blood running down the shower drain.

The metaphorical meaning within intellectual montage can also be seen in films that were made in later decades as well. One of the most notable and influential directors, to utilize the intellectual montage, is Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola’s 1972 film, The Godfather applies Eisenstein’s theory of the intellectual montage but at the same time, elaborates on it. The montage comes at the films climax, specifically, “The Baptism Murders”. Michael Asimow & Shanonn Mader, authors of Law and Popular Culture: A Course Book, discuss “The Baptism Murders,” by stating, “The sequence is a powerful one, for Coppola is contrasting images of birth and death. The meaning that spectators glean from the contrast is that Michael Corleone is a hypocrite.” (167). To showcase the hypocrisy referenced by Asimow and Mader, Coppola starts the “The Baptism Murders,” with Michael observing the baptism of his son. Coppola quickly cuts away from the religious event and brings the viewer to various Mafia goons preparing to assassinate rival Dons/associates. Already, in the very early stages of the scene, the essence of an intellectual montage has been crafted and is considering curious ideas about religion and hypocrisy. Coppola enhances the montage by juxtaposing images of Michael agreeing to be baptized with the disturbing images of murder. The viewer knows that Michael is the one responsible for the deaths of the rival Dons/associates and partnering that concept with that of baptism works to create the much desired third meaning, a meaning that is layered with hypocrisy. Michael’s façade of a moral catholic is contrasted with him being a vindictive mafia man. This intellectual montage shapes a third meaning, that suggests the baptism is less about religiosity, and more of a metaphor that speaks to Michael fully accepting a life of crime and violence.

The inclusion of intellectual montages in cinema is a powerful tool that allows audiences to interpret and create new meanings. In relationship to Eisenstein, and the power of the intellectual montage, Thomas Elsaesser & Malte Hagener detail, in their book, Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses, “It was film’s efficiency in delivering vivid sense impressions…that rendered it so powerful as a medium.” (172). The quote by Elsaesser and Hagener, similarly align with the theory of Eisenstein. The films looked at, are elevated by the interpretable meaning that the intellectual montages work convey. The metaphors that audiences are able to recognize and translate in many ways, add an extra layer of sensation to films. Had Coppola not adopted Eisenstein’s theory of intellectual montage, “The Baptism Murders,” would not be a much-admired scene, but rather a selection of shots that ultimately feel flat and hollow. The intellectual montage acts as a tool of elevation, working to elevate perception, sensation, and meaning. With this elevation, compelling ideas can be considered, to the point, where the intellectual montage can have a lasting effect on the audience.

When filmmakers embark on the laborious journey to make a film, one of the most craved outcomes is that of meaning. Eisenstein’s theory of intellectual montage still remains relevant in connection to how meaning is achieved in cinema.  By utilizing this form of montage, filmmakers are able to shape metaphors that elevate movies. Two Hollywood filmmakers, Hitchcock and Coppola, directed some of the most well-known movies to ever be put to film and interestingly, they both managed to take Eisenstein’s theory and integrate it into their respective work. Having intellectual montages in film allows the natural meaning to be significantly elevated to a point where new meaning is derived. Utilizing Sergie Eisenstein’s specific theory of intellectual montage helps to create resonant metaphorical meanings in film.

-Reddmond Perone

Works Cited

Eisenstein, Sergei. Film Form. New York & London: A Harvest/HBJ Book, 1977. Web.

Elsaesser, Thomas, Malte Hagener. Film Theory: An Introduction Through the Senses. London: Routledge, 2015. Web

Gazetas, Aristides. An Introduction to World Cinema 2d ed. Jefferson, North Carolina:                                                      McFarland & Company, Inc, 2008. Web.

Haeffner. Nicholas. Alfred Hitchcock. London: Routledge, 2004. Web

That Movie Experience: La La Land

Then it hit me, a thought-provoking revelation, all thanks to La La Land…

Image result for la la land theatrical poster

Why La La Land was my favorite movie of 2016.

When details surrounding La La Land were first released I, admittedly, was not too interested. A musical about an unfulfilled jazz pianist and an aspiring actress chasing their dreams in the unforgiving city of L.A. seemed like the type of film that could quickly bore all types of movie-goers…

As the opportunity was presented to take a trip to a nearby theater and watch the film, which at this point, was already being pegged to win best picture, I sat in my seat and thought about what other musicals I had watched. Deep in thought, questioning if I had taken the time to watch such classics as, Singin’ in the Rain, West Side Story, or even Les Misérables’, I realized that musicals were indeed a major hole in my film repertoire. In other words, my first experience with musicals was La La Land, a film that I fully anticipated would put me to sleep by the time the first big number ended.

Well I was wrong…

The lights dimmed, the shuffling of the audience ceased, and the film began. From the first frame, I was hooked. Never did I think that a traffic jam on the 101 could be so captivating, to the point where, I wished I could join in on the action and dance atop of my piece of junk Honda Civic, or  that watching a jazz pianist play with such virtuosity could make me desire the same ability.

But was the impact that the film had on me really constructed through the spectacular spectacle of the music, performances, directing, lighting, etc., or was there something more, something that lingered deep inside my own experience, something that suggested familiarity and a significant note of pure relatability. As I left the theater and drove home, singing “City of Stars” the whole way, I couldn’t help but think about what had transpired in my own life rather recently.


As if it were a bizzaro version of La La Land, I was playing music when she walked in, but instead of Piano I wielded a guitar, and attempted to sing. It wasn’t long until I realized that she was someone I wanted to get to know better. She had a sense of humor like no one else, a contagious laugh, an engaging intellect, and a smile that, though cliché, lit up the room.

We loved each other’s company and were content with simple nights of movie-watching. Constantly, we ventured off and explored the little area of the world our pockets permitted us, however, regardless of location or activity, being together was always enough…

Fast forward to…

A month prior to my viewing of La La Land, my relationship with her unfortunately deteriorated. Through its conclusion, there was an established understanding, made clear through our equally shared affection for one another, that life was taking us in two different, individually necessary, directions. I was going left and she was going right. I was going to school in New York and studying screenwriting while she, at the same time, was in Virginia studying accounting. We were two people with our own uniquely individual goals that would, through accomplishment, give us a powerful sense of self-satisfaction, fulfillment, and approval.

When I watched Sebastian and Mia, in the third act of the film decide to, as Seb puts it, “Wait and see” about their relationship. I couldn’t help but recall a similar conversation that I had experienced when my own relationship ended, one that that ultimately concluded with a parallel sense of melancholy.

Yet it was this melancholy; my own, which held an interpretable  meaning that alluded my recognition, or better yet, was blatantly ignored for hopes that this new reality would suddenly become untrue. Was I just sad about losing somebody I loved or was it that the dreams we had planned out together, ones that looked not at the present, but rather the future, had become completely trapped in a world of what could have been? I’ll say both…


Never before had the words of a movie character jumped, with such haste, off the big screen and into my life…”Wait and See”… As corny as it sounds, Sebastian’s idea of “Waiting and seeing” gave me a much needed dose of comfort, reassurance, and even encouragement. Not only did it suggest a type of hope that could make me forget the still fresh break up, it also suggested that to dwell on the heartache would be unfavorable to the existence of my dreams and the potential that resided somewhere inside of them. To “Wait and See,” means, to me, putting in time to watch something happen; whether beneficial or detrimental…that of love or separation, success or failure. It’s that chance to see experiences and have them move through “us” like emotions, to the point, where we are changed, affected, and heartwarmingly touched.

Then it hit me, a thought-provoking revelation, all thanks to La La Land. Having been in my relationship was a perfect practice of “waiting and seeing.” The two of us, didn’t really know each other, but regardless, decided that we should give it a shot and see how it goes. I would be lying if I wrote that being with her didn’t change me, that the experience of connection and love didn’t affect me in an enormous way because it did. This idea, that seemed so fresh; “waiting and seeing,” was something that I’d been practicing for a long time, but was clearly oblivious to.

With this new-found recognition, moving past the looming melancholy seemed to be something I could attempt without fear…and here I am, in school, studying to achieve my dream of being a screenwriter, knowing that it is all in reach if I “wait and see.” Maybe She and I will run into each other and just like the end of La La Land share a quick moment, a quick smile that recognizes our past, but also our paths moving forward. To be honest, I hope for that moment.

And while La La Land hasn’t generated a new passion for musicals, it gave me something, I feel, is much more useful. The film gave me a needed realization, understanding, and ability to grow. A movie I thought was going to put me to sleep became a moving piece of art that completely changed my life for the better…


-Reddmond Perone