MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

jgcorrea A tree. A baby. Machinery. A basketball match. An old lady. Homeless people. Piles of smoke. A busy street. The merry-go-round. A cinema. Another homeless person asleep. A woman who dresses up. In a nutcase, everything is incredibly annoying. This film did not invent the jump cut, the 'montage of attractions,' or the Gestalt-like editing practice. Its 65 minutes seem like 6.5 hours of pure boredom. A waste of time, therefore. A bad example of what has since been labeled 'precursor,' even 'inventive historical classicism.' It's just a succession of random shots, taken by a leisurely director who, in his free time, vaguely edited it. It tried to capture the feel and rhythms of a modern city (Moscow) as well as the joy of living and working in the Worker's Paradise. Stylistically and modernly speaking, the closest comparison would be, for example, with Koyannisqqatsi or Arne Sucksdorf's Rhythms of a City. But Vertov suffers by comparison with any other documentary filmmaker. He is far from being a "must" for filmmakers or film buffs. A revolutionary film? Absolutely not. It did not represent any advance. Berlin: the Symphony of the City, dated 1927, or Joris Ivens' Rain, dated 1929, would best qualify for such epithet, and yet that would be an exaggeration. A documentary? There is a great difference between documentary and propaganda. A documentary generally shows life as it is, while propaganda shows what a filmmaker wants to show in order to make a point and convince others of some idea (usually political or economical). Vertov is frank propaganda. His concept of artistic social responsibility was derived from Stalinist notions and later incorporated into Nazi concepts. His goal was to glorify the Soviet regime. In 1929 Stalin consolidated his power in Russia and was about to embark on what was one of the most brutal and bloody regimes in history. Vertov perhaps did not know then whereto the regime would lead, but he did continue to make films that praised Stalin (Kolybelnaya, for example). Let no artist be condemned just for working for the state. I like Eisenstein, for example. If you must rent and watch The Man With a Movie Camera, do it with a solid perspective, regardless of... taste.

De_Sam Vertov utilises the whole array of available camera and montage techniques to portray a normal day in Russia, while also showing how it is made; fast motion, slow motion, stop-motion, freeze-frame, thawed-frame, playing film backwards, double exposure, etc. A part of the film comes over as a documentary of how a film is made, namely the balance of focus and the daring stunts of early cameramen.What is being filmed is typical for the 'agitprop', i.e. everyday life of the proletariat, here sometimes put in contrast with the lavish lifestyle of the bourgeoisie. Vertov put some dialectical elements in the montage, most notably the diagonals in the earlier parts of the film, other times he draws parallels, e.g. between the working class and the cameraman/director (in my opinion Vertov did this to assert he and other filmmakers belonged to the same group) or between the washing of a woman and the washing of the city.Other communist elements are also present, the one that stood out the most was the glorifying of machines and the relation between man and machine (the total opposite of Japanese New-wave). For the most part the film escapes explicit propaganda, mostly due to the non-narrative form (it is easy to see why Stalin stopped this kind of cinema, as propaganda it did not work for many did not understand the meaning behind the dialectic montage). I needed to acclimate to the normal way of viewing movement after the film had ended, being made strangely aware of the similarities and differences between my eyes and the 'eye' of the camera. It had an hypnotic, psychedelic effect.To conclude, I would recommend this film, but only to those who have some background information on the Russian constructivism, as otherwise this could come over as too nonsensical and pointless (like all those purely structuralist films, e.g. Wavelength).

ozangunel Dziga Vertov once said 'to understand a new world we need new mediums'. For humanity 20th century is the century of immerse change and cinema can be easily described as its medium. In "The Man with a Movie Camera" (Chelovek s Kino-Apparatom) Vertov puts cameraman in front of its camera by all means makes him the hero/main character of this movie. Vertov's this decisions drives by its desire to split cinema from all other art forms. That's why we do not see any acting in front of camera but just image and editing. This movie is an historic part of both Soviet and experimental cinema. Also it's shocking to see even today Vertov's vision is still fresh and modern. A must see for all cinema lovers.

DoctorSmocter I saw this film for the first and second time last night.The first time I saw this film it was with the soundtrack by the Alloy Orchestra, apparently composed around the director's notes. This happened to be my favourite part. The actual images on-screen, while well-shot, were boring and I had to strain my interest to keep watching until the end. I could at least appreciate the intentions of the filmmakers, which was to make an "experimentation in the cinematic communication," or a film without intertitles, without actors and without a story.This intention, as well as the appreciation for the film by many people, was enough for me to decide to watch it again, this time without the soundtrack by the Alloy Orchestra. I'm really glad that I did.The second time I saw this film the seemingly random assortment of images on-screen, I realized, for in place for a reason. There is not a story in the conventional sense, as advertised, but I felt that the film captured a story of life itself - compare the contrasts of marriage and divorce, life and death. I was interested enough to sit through the film again as a whole, despite the absence of the soundtrack (which I felt may have been a distraction for me).I don't really know how an audience would have reacted to this film in 1929, when it was first released, but it ought to have been a rewarding experience for some, and it was certainly an influence for many.