American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Russian Formalist Film Theory by Herbert Eagle

Review by: Gerald Pirog
The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Winter, 1982), pp. 492-493
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/307751 .
Accessed: 18/06/2014 10:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:33:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
492 Slavic and East European Journal

Herbert Eagle. Russian Formalist Film Theory.(Michigan Slavic Materials) Ann Arbor:
Univ. ofMichigan, Department ofSlavic Languages and Literatures,1981. x, 174.

Rereading the Russian Formalists after reading much recent critical and theoretical
writingprovokes the exhilaration and illuminationthat comeswitha returnto origins.If
literary texts proceed in a zig-zag fromuncles to nephews,then the seminal ideas ofthe
formalists transmit and replicate themselves in a direct line throughthe writings of
Jakobson, Mukatovsky, V. V. Ivanov, and Ju. Lotman, a distinguished tribe of sons
indeed. And, as Herbert Eagle incisively shows in the latter part of his highly useful
introductoryessay, this is no less true ofEisenstein whose later writingsstand parallel to
and descendant fromthis collectionofessays whichappeared in 1927 in a volumeentitled
Poetika kino. One need onlybe somewhatacquainted withthewritingsofEisensteintosee
in this collection the collaboration that took place on the level of theoryand practice
between the filmmaker and the Formalists.As ProfessorEagle shows,thebasic principles
developed by the Formalists in their study of literature were consideredto be equally
applicable to the studyoffilm.And as he demonstrates,bothEisenstein and the Formal-
ists start froman examination of the basic autonomyof the sign in art and the conse-
quences and opportunities which follow fromits nonreferentialfunctions.This is an
especially valuable theoretical insight into an art formwhich is closely connected to
photographyand which is too oftenthoughtto be the ultimate mimeticmedium,the most
perfectway to reproducereality.In fact,as Tynjanov and Eisenstein argue, it is precisely
the nature of the medium-its planar quality, its restrictionto black and white, the
absence ofnatural sound,the boundednessofthe filmframe,and the restrictionto a single
point ofview in a given shot-which promotesits tendencytowardabstractionand makes
the cinematic image in factunlikereality.Thus therelationsofpeople and objectsin a shot
have nothing to do with real, pre-filmicspace and time but rather are "correlated with
respect to one another-they become semantic signs." As Tynjanov writes:"the visible
world is presentedin cinema notas such,but in its semanticcorrelativity(5)." And what is
true forthe relations of images within the shot is equally true forthe relations among
whole shots themselves. ProfessorEagle providesthe clearest and mostfertileinsightinto
Tynjanov's use ofthe linguistic model when he writes:"Tynjanov definedmontage not as
'linkage', 'building' (the formulationsof KuleSov and Pudovkin), but as differential
replacement.Each shot should be related in some way to the precedingshots-but in other
ways should be contrastiveor differential.By thus definingcinematicnarrativein terms
of a differentialsuccession of shots (and not necessarily a succession based on 'develop-
ment' of actions in the story), Tynjanov opened the possiblity of considering the
established story-orientednarrative and the new 'poetic' devices and genres as differing
realizations of the same conceptual models" (8-9). (Readers of Lotman's Semiotics of
Cinema should be remindedofhis own advice about studyingfilmicsyntagmaticsin order
to get a deeper insight into the problems connected with the study of supra-phrasal
structuresin general.) Thus the articulationofthe nature ofthe cinematicsign led bothto
a descriptionofthe means fortheirdifferentiation and ofthe devices fortheircombination
into larger units ofmeaning.
In addition to Tynjanov's essay on the "Foundations ofCinema," whichforme is the
richest in brilliant theoreticalsuggestiveness,especially in its applicationto the writings
of Eisenstein and the filmsproducedin the USSR duringthis period,thereare articles by
Ejxenbaum, Kazanskij, Piotrovskij,Mikhailov, and Moskvin and a kind of epilogue by
Jakobson writtenin 1933. ProfessorEagle's introductory essay is a skillfulinterweaving
of the main issues ofall the articles. It also places themin theirrightplaces on the family
tree of semiotics both by his restatement of their arguments within the conceptual

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:33:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Reviews 493

framework of semiotics and by his dicussion of the writingsof Ju. Lotman and V. V.
Ivanov.
Many people owe a great debt ofat least gratitudeto ProfessorEagle forhis transla-
tion efforts.He has been involved in bringingthe worksofthe Russian Formaliststo the
English speaking reader since at least 1971 when he contributedtranslations to the
Matejka-Pomorska anthology.This introductionas well as his writingson Eisenstein as a
semiotician and his recent article on versificationin thisjournal give him a sure place in
the line ofdescent ofFormalist thought.

Gerald Pirog,Rutgers University

Carl and Ellendea Proffer,eds. ContemporaryRussian Prose. Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1982.
xxxii, 430, $9.50 (paper).

One question commonlyasked ofAmerican travelersin the Soviet Union (literarytravel-

ers, in particular) is what contemporaryRussian writersare popular at home.The answer,
if one is honest, is none. Few are even known,and theyare mainly6migr6sor still-Soviet
dissidents rather than writerswho publish exclusivelyin the USSR. The lines separating
these categories are continually changing, and their essential unity is increasingly
apparent. Carl and Ellendea Proffer, claiming a "convergence"(vii) betweenrecentSoviet
and 6migr6writing,bridge the gap between them in this anthology.The fortunateresult
is a wonderfullyvaried collectionofworks by seven major writersfromboth sides ofthe
border.
Each writeris representedby one storyor novella (all withdifferent translators).The
selections are substantial and characteristicenough to give a sense ofthe writers'svoice.
In the orderarranged,theyare Aksenov,"The Steel Bird"; SukSin,"Snowball BerryRed";
Sokolov, A School forFools; Trifonov,"The Exchange"; Bitov, "Life in WindyWeather";
Iskander, "Belshazzar's Feasts"; and Rasputin, "Downstream."The firstfourtranslations
have previously been published by Ardis in volumes devoted to an individual writer;a
Bitov collection which will include the above storyis forthcoming.One mightcriticizethe
republication of works already available, when so much other worthyfictionis still
untranslated. But this duplication serves a useful purpose here. The book is evidently
directed at the general public, which is unfamiliar with all or most of its contents.An
anthology ofthis sorthas a larger potential marketthan Ardis's individual collections.It
serves a larger student audience as well: this book would be good forsurveycourses. The
works are well chosen, and theycomprisea broad-rangingwhole. The editorsare success-
ful in their aim to show contemporaryRussian literature'shigh quality and diversity.
A brief,informativegeneral introductionis followedby separate two-or three-page
introductionsto each writer.These sketchthe writer'scareer and place the selectionin his
oeuvre. They give a good feelingforboth the individual writersand the literaryworld in
which they were formed.As forthe translations:one can quibble endlesslyabout equival-
ents, but this volume does not warrant much quibbling. The translationsare rathergood,
though one comes across occasional awkward phrases. For example, we are told in "The
Exchange" that a character"wasn't so bad" (301), which a non-Russian-speakermay not

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:33:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions