EISENSTEIN SERGEI: (1898-1948)

EISENSTEIN SERGEI: (1898-1948)

‘I do not want too much talking about the picture now – there is too much troubles in finishing it and getting it in correct form. And that is why I would ask you to tell nobody about all you know about it.’

 

EISENSTEIN SERGEI: (1898-1948) Soviet film director & film theorist, a pioneer in the theory and practice of montage. An exceptional, lengthy A.L.S., S. Eisenstein, ten pages, 4to, New York, 2^nd April 1932, to Seymour [Stern] ('My dear Seymour!'), on the printed stationery of the Hotel Hermitage, in English. Despite the length of Eisenstein's letter, he explains that he is writing in a 'very great hurry' and has a lot to do ('why do they not allow to say two lots, or even more - as is my case?') before he leaves, continuing 'I think “E[xperimental].C[inema].” in its actual shape is a brilliant achievement. I hope that this statement from me is enough! I am sorry not to join the board of editors - but it could not be done in a magazine where such a lot of space is given to our activities!' and also writing of his current film work, 'Very glad to hear that you seem to like the rushes “Viva Mexico” in the theoretical research field is before everything a “shot” (camera angle) picture: I think I have solved (anyhow for myself) the montage problem (as a system of expression). This picture has to analyze the same laws on their other degree - the “shot”. It is a pretty hard problem - but a couple of emotional “thru breaks” (like the ones you like) by their extravagance I suppose will help (and partly have allready [sic] helped) to solve the angle problem as well. I am allways (sic) very carefull (sic) in “my angles” - but in this picture especially - I am unrestfull (sic) until I get into the verve - basic verve of a thing - and in this problem there still are little odds and ends which escape and will be clear to the moment of the release of the picture', and writing of film journalism and his previous work, '….the article of the German soldier is misusing the “overtone” conception in the lousiest way. Ozef's shot (according to the examples stated - I have not seen the picture) are the poorest impressionistic baby-conceptions. Overtone is a thing of much profounder value and intention! Read it over! The worst thing that can happen is the vulgarization - not of the presentation of a thesis - of a term. I had one experience like that allready (sic) - many years ago I “flung upon the theoreticall (sic) market” the designation “film language” (you might not know that - but the first conscious use of that designation was made by me in a polemic article to Bella Balazo's (sic; Bela Balazs) revue of “Potemkin” 1926). It became just a matter of easy talking: “the f. language of Trauberg is clearer than the film language of Ekk” or in this style: “the vigour of Pudovkin's film language is enormous”. The use of such things is the worst bunk you can imagine. And that seems to happen to the overtone-conception! Do not tell that to the “poor soldier” - as soon as I have time I'll analyse and point out the mistakes he made - it will be more correct and less offending'. Eisenstein again returns to his current film project and explains that he cannot send his correspondent the photographs they wanted, 'I do not want this type of thing to be shown before the picture comes out. There are some “refrain” treatments through the whole picture made in the same manner and connected with the death theme going through it. I reserve the interest of this for this theme. It is an ”overtonal” theme to the picture - besides the “rough” social scheme of enslavement of the peons: the idea….well I'll tell you about that another time. I do not want too much talking about the picture now - there is too much troubles in finishing it and getting it in correct form. And that is why I would ask you to tell nobody about all you know about it. There are too many things involved. Mrs [Upton] Sinclair's statements…well I never use too strong language (in letters) and as in this case it would be exceedingly strong - I wish hold. Less understanding for film or anything than in the Pasadena Group I have never met…Well that is personal. No word about that. I object in the most formal way to publishing one line of the script, in principle - that must never be done with an unfinished picture, there are very important changes in the film (you know that part of the material has not been shot and the film has been re-shaped in treatment)…..I want the script - Kohner has - immediately with your help - sent to me…..I wrote him about it but got no answer…..And I do not want the script to travel through Hollywood', concluding by kindly thanking his correspondent for all of their assistance and, in a postscript signed with his initials ('S E'), angrily remarking 'As to the lousy bunch of philisters who consider my photographs “reactionary” - I only can use a Russian expression: “I put my Peter on them….” and remind them that I was allready (sic) doing “something” when these were just sucking “the breasts of their….f… mothers and shitting in their damned breeches - what they supposedly continue to do up to now!'. An extremely rare letter of truly remarkable and important content. Some very light, extremely minor age wear, VG

 

Seymour Stern (1908-1978) American writer and film director who was the co-editor of Experimental Cinema and worked as a special advisor to Carl Laemmle and also assisted Sergei Eisenstein in America and Mexico.

 

The present letter was written whilst Eisenstein was in the process of making Que Viva Mexico, a film project he had begun in 1930 and, with the production beset with difficulties, was eventually abandoned. The director had been invited by Upton Sinclair and his wife, Mary Craig Kimbrough Sinclair, to make a short, apolitical film about or involving Mexico. The Sinclairs had also made it clear that they were expecting Eisenstein to concentrate on visual imagery, and anything by way of a plot would be secondary; they were looking for an artistic travelogue. With the abandonment of the project Eisenstein would publicly maintain that he lost all interest in the film. Que Viva Mexico has since been described by film historians as Eisenstein's 'greatest film plan and his greatest personal tragedy'.