Late 1920s film theory and criticism as a test-case for Benjamin's generalizations on the experiential effects of editing. Issue 3 (2nd July 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Slugan, Mario
• Is Part Of: Early popular visual culture. Volume 14:Issue 3(2016)
• Page Start: 215
• Page End: 233
• Publication Date: 2016-07-02
• Subjects: Modernity thesis -- hyper-stimulation -- classical Hollywood editing -- Soviet montage -- classical film theory -- historical reception in Weimar; Cinematography -- History -- Periodicals; Visual communication -- History -- Periodicals; Image transmission -- History -- Periodicals; Photography -- History -- Periodicals; Popular culture -- History -- Periodicals; Entertainment events -- History -- Periodicals; 778.05
• DOI: 10.1080/17460654.2016.1199322
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1746-0654

Abstract

Abstract: This article investigates Walter Benjamin's influential generalization that the effects of cinema are akin to the hyper-stimulating experience of modernity. More specifically, I focus on his oft-cited 1935/36 claim that all editing elicits shock-like disruption. First, I propose a more detailed articulation of the experience of modernity understood as hyper-stimulation and call for distinguishing between at least two of its subsets: the experience of speed and dynamism, on the one hand, and the experience of shock/disruption, on the other. Then I turn to classical film theory of the late 1920s to demonstrate the existence of contemporary views on editing alternative to Benjamin's. For instance, whereas classical Soviet and Weimar theorists relate the experience of speed and dynamism to both Soviet and classical Hollywood style editing, they reserve the experience of shock/disruption for Soviet montage. In order to resolve the conceptual disagreement between these theorists, on the one hand, and Benjamin, on the other, I turn to late 1920s Weimar film criticism. I demonstrate that, contrary to Benjamin's generalizations about the disruptive and shock-like nature of all editing, and in line with other theorists' accounts, different editing practices were regularly distinguished by comparison to at least two distinct hyper-stimulation subsets: speed and dynamism, and shock-like disruption. In other words, contemporaries regularly distinguished between Soviet montage and classical Hollywood editing patterns on the basis of experiential effects alone. On the basis of contemporary reviews of city symphonies, I conclude with a proposal for distinguishing a third subset – confusion.