ZdenkoMandui

HowFormalistsWatchedFilm:Shklovsky,Pudovkin,andTheEndofSt.Petersburg

DeclaredbysometobeVsevolodPudovkinsmostcomplexandmultifariousfilm(Kepley,2),
The End of St. Petersburg (1927) represents a curious combination of disparate cinematic
strategies,whichreflecttheculturaltensionsthatinfluencedthefilmsproduction.Pudovkins
epicwascommissionedforthetenthanniversaryoftheOctoberRevolutionandismadeof
episodicrenderingsofbothmundanehumanactivitiesandepicscaleactionsequencesdepicting
warandrevolution.ItcombinesHollywoodinspiredclassicalcontinuityeditingwithRussian
avantgarde montage. In this manner, the film represents Pudovkins investment in multiple
cinematicstrategies.Eventhoughithasbeensubsequentlyanointedacinematicmasterpiece,the
filmwasnotoriginallywellreceivedbythepublicandsomereviewersdebatedthecombination
ofvaryingcinematicelements.Writinginthe1927yearendissueoftheNovyiLefjournal,
VictorShklovskyclaimedPudovkinsfilmhadanambivalenteffectonhim(1988,180).But
whileShklovskycriticizesthefilmforhavingaweaknarrative,healsoconsiderschallengesof
poeticcinemaandproblemsofmontage,commendingPudovkinsuseofpoeticmontageandhis
experimentationwiththecleansedshot.
SincetheconceptsunderpinningShklovskysreadingofPudovkinsfilmareassociated
withtheworkofRussianFormalistsonliteratureandcinema,theNovyiLefarticlebelongsto
thewidercriticalcontextof1920sSovietArtandFilm.ButInsteadofconfirmingearlierheld
views regarding the limits and possibilities of film, Shklovsky departs from his developed
stancesontheprimacyofplotincinemabyhisopennesstostylisticcontrolofplotconstruction,

Mandui2

withwhichPudovkinresolvedthenarrativeproblemofsituatingindividualexperienceswithin
theepiccontextoftheRevolution.ThispaperwillcontrastShklovskyscriticalstanceregarding
TheEndofSt.Petersburg toPudovkinsownconceptions offilmmaking,inordertobetter
understandthecriticaldiscourseandtheinterconnectedconceptionsoffilmmakingandnarrative
thatshapedthisepiccommemorationoftheRevolution.ShklovskysreadingofPudovkinsepic
film,essentially,construesthemovingimagetobeatext,reducingvisionandvisualimagesto
language.InthissenseItakethewritingsofRussianFormalistsonfilm,particularlyShklovskys
inthisinstance,torepresentakindrebuspuzzleoranintersectionofvisualrepresentationand
language,wherewecanscrutinizehowmovingimageswereinterpretedthroughliterarymodels.
Shklovsky began to write about cinema at the time when Soviet films exhibited a
radicallyoriginalstyle,generallyknownasmontage(Bordwell,9).Montagewasusedtobuild
anarrative(byformulatinganartificialtimeandspaceorguidingtheviewersattentionfrom
onenarrativepointtoanother),tocontrolrhythm,tocreatemetaphors,andtomakerhetorical
points(Ibid).AndreBazin,usefullydefinesmontageasthecreationofasenseormeaningnot
objectively contained in the images themselves but derived from their juxtaposition (25).
VsevolodPudovkinwasamongthemainexponentsofmontage,alongwithSergeiEisenstein,
DzigaVertov,andLevKuleshov.ButwhileKuleshov,andhispupilPudovkinutilizedmontage
primarilyforrhythmicandnarrativeends,EisensteinandVertov,soughttogobeyondnarrative
editing to make metaphorical and rhetorical statements (Bordwell, 10).The four werealso
divided in their wider allegiances. While Kuleshov and Pudovkin stood,as David Bordwell
states,intheartisticallyadvancedwingoftheconservativefilmmakers,VertovandEisenstein

Mandui3

werealigned withLEF,thepoliticalfactionofartists whowereaestheticallyandpolitically

revolutionary. In addition to participating in the work of Russian Formalist on cinema and
literature,VictorShklovskyalsobelongedtotheavantgardeLEFgroup(13).
TheliterarymindedFormalistsstudiedtheorganizingprinciplesofthethrivingcinematic
mediumasanextensionoftheirattemptstodeterminethestructuresthatconstituteworksof
proseandverse.Oneoftheprincipalquestionstheywantedtoanswerwiththeirliterarytheories
askedwhetheranarrativecouldproceedonthebasisofstylisticvariationinsteadofstoryactions
(Stam,72).Inhisshortbook LiteratureandCinema,(1923),Shklovskyclaimedthatafilm
withoutplot,whichwouldsolelyrelyforitseffectonformaldevices,wasimpossiblesinceplot
organizesactionsintocohesiveform(32).WritingintheFormalistanthologyPoeticsofCinema,
JuriTynianovclaimedthemostadvancedworksofcinemadispensedwiththestory.Thisstory
lesspoeticcinemaunfoldsonthebasisofplotpatterningandformalvariations(Ibid).
ShklovskyscontributiontotheFormalistanthologyhasbecomeoneofthefundamental
textsdefiningpoeticcinema.TitledPoetryandProseinCinema,thisbriefarticledefineshow
cinemaisclosertoversethanitistoprose,principallybecausefilmallowsforpoeticformal
resolutions.ShklovskyidentifiespoeticdevicesinPudovkins Mother,highlightingthefilms
ending as an example of the displacement of the everyday by purely formal elements. He
characterizes the films transition fromprosetopurely formal poetry as a uniquecentaur.
Shklovskygoesontosuggestthattheemphasisonformaloversemanticfeatures,whereformal
features displace semantic elements (to) resolve the composition, could be the basis for
distinctionsbetweenfilmgenres(1988,178).Butthenotionofthecentaur,ratherthesuggesting

Mandui4

twoseparatecategories,impliesakindoffusionoftwoelementsintoone;themaletorsoandthe
horselegsfunctionasone.PudovkinscombinationofdifferenteditingstylesinTheEndofSt.
Petersburgsuggestsasimilarkindoffusion.IntheNovyiLefarticle,Shklovskyisrespondingto
amoreprevalentfusionofstylesincontrasttoPudovkinsearlierfilm.ThoughShklovskyhad
previouslyassertedtheprimacyofthescriptandorganizationoffilmmaterials(Taylor,184),he
considershowthefilmsincongruousplotstructurefunctionsinrelationtoformalandstylistic
variations,orhowmistakesinthescriptledtocinematicinnovations.
ShklovskypointofdeparturefordiscussingPudovkinsfilm,suggestswhatdominant
conceptorganizeshisworkoncinema,namelytheorganizationoffilmmaterialthroughplot.He
faultsPudovkinfornotcontrastingthestoryofaworkersfamilywithadifferentplotratherthan
placing it against a background of historical montage. He claims the narrative balance was
sacrificedduringrevisionsoftheoriginalscript.Theinitialscriptapparentlyofferedasubplot
dealing with a White Guard sympathizer to counterbalance the main plot of socialist moral
enlightenment.Thiscompositionalchoiceordeletionapparentlyproducedanartisticallypaler
andlesspoliticallysignificantfilmthenthescriptfirstsuggested.Pudovkinwasthenforcedto
mask the absence of a whole section of the (films) construction through pathos inducing
montage(182).
Pudovkinsearlyconceptionsofthefilm,faroutstripsthescopeoftheversionShklovsky
is holding the director accountable for. Over the course of editing the script, Pudovkin
surrenderedtheepicdimensionsofthefirstdrafts,infavorofthepoliticaleducationofpeasants
andworkers.Thedirectororiginallyimaginedanexpansivestoryspreadingoverthreeepochs

Mandui5

andsocialchangesinRussia,underthecomprehensivetitle PetersburgPetrogradLeningrad.
Thelatternarrowerversionwasdesignedtopresentamorelimitedviewthroughtheimmediate
experience of individual characters caughtup in the events between World War I and the
OctoberRevolution.
ThenarrativeabsenceShklovskyidentifiesechoeshisclaimsforcounteractionforastory
tobeunderstoodassomethingtrulycomplete(1990,52).WhereastheWhiteGuardsubplot
would have been incongruous tothe main action, it would have counterbalanced the action
centeredonthemaincharacters:theLad,theWife,theCommunistWorker,andthefactory
ownerLebedev.Inthisdiscussionofnarrativeabsencewerecognizeoneofthebasicprinciples
oftheFormalistapproachtocinema,whichaskedifthestory,understoodasalinkedseriesof
actions,constitutedthecoreofnarrativestructure,orifnarrativeproceededonthebasisof
stylistic variations (Stam, 72). As its primary position in the article suggests, Shklovskys
discussionofthefilmsnarrativedeficienciesisgroundedinhisviewoftheprimacyofthescript
andofplotintheorganizationoffilmmaterial,theplotconstitutedbydevice.Inthissense,as
longashediscussesthewrittentextofthescript,Shklovskysargumentremainsontheliterary
level. Atthis pointhe solely focuses onthe narrative structure ofthe film, TheEnd ofSt.
Petersburgismoreatextratherthanaworkofvisualrepresentation.
Shklovskyemphasizesthistransformationofsuchmaterialbyformaldevices,whenhe
assertsthattheabsenceofplotstructurein TheEndofSt.Petersburg canbeconsidereda
cinematicinvention,whichtakesupthechallengesofpoeticcinemaandtheproblemsofshot
compositionandframing.ButwhenShklovskyswitcheshisemphasisfromscriptandplottothe

Mandui6

visualrepresentationandthemovingimage,heusesliteraryanalogiestodiscussPudovkins
style of editing. Moving from the issue of plot construction to problems of poetic cinema,
Shklovsky establishes his paragon in the context of poetry. He cites the substitution of
compositional surrogates for semantic elements, such as the appearance/disappearance of
caesura, which can, in the final line of a lyric poem, replace a semantic resolution (72).
Shklovsky offers a more extensive explanation of the this device in his contribution to the
Formalist anthology Poetics of Cinema, by referencing the work of the nineteenth century
RussianpoetAfansiFet(182092).Hedescribeshowafterfourstanzasinaparticularmeterwith
acaesura,anunnamedpoemisnotresolvedbyitsplot,butbythefactthefifthstanza,while
beinginthesamemeter,hasnocaesura,whichcreatesasenseofclosure(1988,177).
WiththismodelwithShklovskyconsidersformaltransformationsofsemanticmoments
intopoeticmontagesequencesinPudovkinsfilm.Heisparticularlyfascinatedintheelliptical
montagesequencethatshowsseveralfactoryimagesofbillowingsmoke,turningwheels,and
driving piston rods in the Peterburg sequence. Shklovsky asserts that a factory is thus
transformedintoamontagesequence(1988,180).ThoughShklovskylargelyemphasizedthe
importanceofplotanditsorganizationbystoryactions,hisenthusiasmforPudovkinsuseof
montageTheEndofSt.Petersburg,correlatestohisacceptanceofformalcinematicresolutions
asequalsofstoryactionsintermsoffilmresolution.Additionally,wealsohavetokeepinmind
thatPudovkincontrastedthequickeditingofthefactorymontagesequenceandtherelativestasis
oftheprecedingsceneintheapartment,inordertoachievearhythmicaldisjunctionandthekind
incongruityShklovskyseeksinnarrative.

Mandui7

Writing shortly before the completion of the film, Pudovkin described the montage
sequenceShklovskypraiseintheNovyiLefarticle asthecinematicdevelopment oftheme.
Whileheconsideredtherangeofstylisticpossibilitiesincinema,Pudovkinalsosuggeststhe
kindofincongruityheseekstocompose.Heasserts,Ifeverythingisfilmedasbeautiful,i.e.
basedonlyonexternalform,this,inmyview,isverybadbecauseinthefinalanalysistheviewer
willreceiveonlyonekindofexcitementfromandthatisaestheticenjoyment(Petersburg,
127).HethengoesontocredithiscameramanGolovniaforselectingthedistortinglensesand
oblique angle chosen for scenes in which Pudovkin wanted to achieve dynamic saturation.
Throughtheseassertions,PudovkinrevealshisaffinityforstylisticexperimentationasTheEnd
ofSt.Petersburgsuggestsinabruptswitchesbetweencontinuityeditingandmontagepassages.
WhileShklovskystranspositionofFormalistliterarytheoryintohisworkoncinema
reflectstheinterchangebetweenartistsandwritersinmultipleaestheticmediumsandinmultiple
debates,theworkofVsevolodPudovkin,particularly TheEndofSt.Petersburg,suggestsa
differentkindofexchangeofstylesandcinematicstrategies,occurringwithintheboundsofthe
filmmedium.Pudovkinswasduallyinterestedinexperimentingwiththeuseofmontageto
createmetaphorsandmakerhetoricalpoints,aswellastheuseofmontagetoenergizefilm
narratives through editing (Kepley, 29). Studying in Lev Kuleshov celebrated workshop,
PudovkinwasimpressedbyhowAmericanmoviesgeneratedamoreimmediateandanimated
spectator,whichtheKuleshovgroupattributedtoquicker,moresophisticatededitingtechniques
(Ibid).PudovkinscrossfertilizationofeditingstylesinTheEndofSt.Petersburgrepresentsthe

Mandui8

filmmakers assimilation of distinct influences, which are however contained within the
cinematicmedium.
Pudovkins conception of representing reality throughdetails takes after the work of
D.W. Griffith. He credits Griffith with incredible ability to select from a mass of real raw
materialthemostrevealingdetailsandachieveanoverpoweringimpact.ForPudovkinevery
phenomenon has to be dissected into its parts (Ibid). The technique of observation is thus
combinedwiththecreativeactivityofchoosingthecharacteristicselements(Ibid).Pudovkin
thusdeclaresthenecessityofcastingasideintermediateandinsignificantelementsofinevitable
reality,sothatparticularhighlightscanbeusedtocreategreatcinematicimages.
ShklovskysconsiderationofPudovkinsworkwiththecleansedshotimpliesaclose
associationtotheliterarycriticswellknowncontentionthattheessenceofworkofart(lies)in
the renewing perceptionsaboutrealitywhichdailylifetendedto automatize(Eagle,4).He
asserts,Pudovkinsattempttoworkwiththecleansedshothasproducedintheshotofdailylife
anextraordinaryuseofrawmaterial(Shklovsky1988,182).InasmuchasShklovskyattributes
thesemblanceofrealitytotherepresentationofsomethingoutofitsnormalcontext,hethen
identifies in Pudovkins the strategy 'defamiliarization.' This conjecture is suggested by
Shklovskyfascinationwithimageofateacup.Whenthepolicearrivetoarrestthehusbandthey
realizefromthesteamingteacupthatthehusbandhadjuststeppedoutandwilllikelyreturn
soon.Pudovkininsertscloseupsoftheteacupwithinaseriesofprofiledepictionsofpolicemen
andtheWifestrikingoffscreenglance.ThesteamingcupofteaunderShklovskyscrutinyis
insertedtoheightentheanticipationasitimpliesthehusbandsimpendingreturnandtheensuing

Mandui9

actionseries.ThusforShklovsky,itwouldappearthisdetailrepresentsameansforintensifying
thesensationofreality.
Shklovskys theory of ostranenie, translated as the defamiliarization or making
strange,firstpostulatedinhisessayArtasDevice(1919),ledtheRussianFormaliststomake
theirprincipalfocusofstudiesthosedevicesthatstructurerawmaterialsinworksofartandare
usedtorenewtheperceptionreality.ByadoptingShklovskysview,theFormalists cameto
considerhowdevicesgenerallyfunctionedinart.Inthissense,Shklovskysworkoncinemawas
dedicatedtotheanalysisofhowartformtransformsmaterialstakenfromlifeintoasignifying
systemcapableofgeneratingnewinsightsabouthumanexperience(Eagle,5).
ConceptualparallelsbetweenShklovskysstrategyofdefamiliarizationorthemaking
strangeofrealityasaremedyfortheautomatizationofourresponses,andPudovkinsown
theoriesofhowrealityistoberepresentedspecificallysuggestthekindofsuturingofimage
and writing that constitutes films, particularly in the silent era. The directors detailed
considerationsofhowcertainsituationssuchascaraccidentsshouldbecinematicallydepicted
subordinates language to the discussion of visual representation. While Shklovskys
transposition of Formalist literary theory into his work on cinema reflects the interchange
betweenartistsandwritersinmultipleaestheticmediumsandinmultipledebates,theworkof
Vsevolod Pudovkin, particularly The End of St. Petersburg, suggests a different kind of
exchangeofstylesandcinematicstrategies,occurringwithintheboundsofthefilmmedium.
WhilePudovkinwasorientedtowardthevisualrepresentationofreality,Shklovskysreadingof
TheEndofSt.Petersburgisheavilyreliantuponliterarytheory.LikeShklovsky,JuriTynianov

Mandui10

alsousedverseformsashisprincipalparallels,arguingthatthejumpingnatureofcinema,the
roleofshotunityinit,thesemantictransformationofeverydayobjects(wordsinverse,thingsin
cinema) allofthesebringcinema andversetogether(Eagle,94).Butwhereas Tynianov
called for storyless poetic films, Shklovsky accepted formal resolutions (oppositions,
repetitions, and parallelism) as well as story actions, (transactions, developments, and
resolutions)asequaldevicesusedfortheattainmentofclosure.However,inhisanalysisofThe
EndofSt.Petersburg,hereducesvisualrepresentationtoliterarydevicesshowinghowRussian
Formaliststendedtoreadfilmsastextsofpoeticverse.