Abstract
Abstract This article examines some of the theoretical issues that exercised Sergei Eisenstein during the years 1920–1924 when he worked in the Russian Proletarian Cultural-Educational Organization (Proletkult), of which Aleksandr Bogdanov was one of the founders. We ask how far Eisenstein was influenced by Marxism in general and by the ideas of Bogdanov in particular, and explain his exit from the Proletkult in terms of the unacceptability of his theory and practice of theatre and film to the Chairman of the Proletkult, Valeriyan Pletnëv. During these years the Agitprop Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, at Lenin’s behest, was taking steps to reduce the scope of activities of the Proletkult, discredit Bogdanov as a thinker, and exclude him from politics.
Highlights
“There are two specific trends that I physically cannot stand: first, art prolétaire quand-même and second, the ‘Stanislavskiy system’ ...”1
This article examines some of the theoretical issues that exercised Sergei Eisenstein during the years 1920–1924 when he worked in the Russian Proletarian Cultural-Educational Organization (Proletkult), of which Aleksandr Bogdanov was one of the founders
We ask how far Eisenstein was influenced by Marxism in general and by the ideas of Bogdanov in particular, and explain his exit from the Proletkult in terms of the unacceptability of his theory and practice of theatre and film to the Chairman of the Proletkult, Valeriyan Pletnëv
Summary
This article examines some of the theoretical issues that exercised Sergei Eisenstein during the years 1920–1924 when he worked in the Russian Proletarian Cultural-Educational Organization (Proletkult), of which Aleksandr Bogdanov was one of the founders. The objective should be to achieve not the superficial imitation of a real action but an “organic representation that emerges through the appropriate mechanical schema and a real achievement of the motor process of the phenomenon being depicted” (Taylor 2010: 50) Such a “montage (assembly) of movements that are purely organic in themselves ... In my laboratory work in the Proletkult Theatre” (Taylor 2010: 51).10 He goes on to mention the work of specialists in pathology (Hermann Nothnagel, 1841–1905); neurology and physiology (Guillaume-Benjamin-Armand Duchenne de Boulogne, 1806–1875); eurythmics (Émile Jaques-Dalcroze, 1865–1950); rhythmic gymnastics (Rudolphe Bode, 1881–1970); hygiene and physical exercize (Ferdinand Hueppe, 1852–1938); and expressive movement (Hermann Krukenberg, 1863–1895; Ludwig Klages, 1872–1956) (Taylor 2010: 52–53).. We learn from an interview of 1928 that one of the modules of his Teaching and Research Workshop was devoted to “Ideological Expressiveness” – “the problem of the transition of film language from cinema figurativeness to the cinematic materialization of ideas, i.e., with the problems of the direct translation of an ideological thesis into a chain of visual stimulants” (Taylor 2010: 127–129). The film Strike, completed in 1924, Eisenstein’s last year in the Proletkult, provides an insight into the kind of ideological messages that he was seeking to convey at this time
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
