THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS OF THE FAMILIAR: REFRAMING SOVIET AVANT-GARDE CINEMA BETWEEN AESTHETICS AND IDEOLOGY

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 29, 2025
https://doi.org/10.56353/aspiration.v6i2.111
Download
PDF
Statistic
Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025): November Edition of ASPIRATION Journal

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Pavel Malin
Xiamen University Malaysia, Malaysia
Wang Changsong
Xiamen University Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract

This study reinterprets Soviet avant-garde cinema of the 1920s through the analytical lens of Russian Formalism, challenging the prevailing scholarly dichotomy that frames these films either as ideological propaganda or as purely aesthetic experimentation. Employing a formalist conceptual analysis, the study investigates key cinematic devices in selected films by Eisenstein, treating rhythmic, intellectual, metric and tonal montage types as the primary units of analysis. The method integrates formalist principles with sequence analysis to determine how familiar sociopolitical motifs function within the perceptual logic of poetic cinema. The findings reveal that revolutionary and socialist imagery in avant-garde films operates not as direct ideological messaging but as perceptually automatized material necessary for generating defamiliarization effects. Devices such as rhythmic, intellectual, metric and tonal montage reconfigure these familiar motifs into sites of renewed perception, confirming their role as formal prerequisites rather than propagandistic ends. The analysis further shows that the historical displacement of Formalism by Marxist and post-structuralist frameworks shaped later misreadings of Soviet cinema, obscuring its original system-bound aesthetic rationale. It concludes that Soviet avant-garde cinema’s political motifs should be understood as integral components of a wider formal system grounded in perceptual estrangement. This approach provides a historically informed analytical model for reassessing early Soviet film beyond ideological binaries and offers a foundation for further research on how aesthetic systems emerge from and respond to their cultural zeitgeist.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Malin, P., & Changsong, W. (2025). THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS OF THE FAMILIAR: REFRAMING SOVIET AVANT-GARDE CINEMA BETWEEN AESTHETICS AND IDEOLOGY. ASPIRATION Journal, 6(2), 110–138. https://doi.org/10.56353/aspiration.v6i2.111

References

  1. Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In S. Heath (Trans.), Image–music–text (pp. 142–148). London: Fontana Press.
  2. Brecht, B. (1964). Alienation effects in Chinese acting. In J. Willett (Ed. & Trans.), Brecht on theatre: The development of an aesthetic (pp. 91–99). New York: Hill and Wang. (Original work published 1936)
  3. Castello Branco, P. S. (2022). Haptic visuality, sensation and politics in Eisenstein’s film theory. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 16(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503132.2022.2056992
  4. Derrida, J. (1976). The violence of the letter: From Lévi-Strauss to Rousseau. In G. C. Spivak (Trans.), Of grammatology (pp. 101–140). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1967)
  5. Derrida, J. (1982). Différance. In A. Bass (Trans.), Margins of philosophy (pp. 1–28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1968)
  6. Eikhenbaum, B. (1965). The theory of the “formal method.” In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. & Trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (pp. 99–139). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1926)
  7. Eisenstein, S. (1977). A dialectic approach to film form. In J. Leyda (Ed. & Trans.), Film form: Essays in film theory (pp. 45–63). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (Original work published 1930)
  8. Greimas, A. J. (1987). Elements of a narrative grammar. In P. J. Perron & F. H. Collins (Trans.), On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory (pp. 63–84). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1966)
  9. Hughes, A. U., & Riley, H. (2007). The multimodal matrix — A laboratory of devices: Film and the formalist legacy. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 1(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1386/srsc.1.2.191_1
  10. Izvolov, N. (2019). Dziga Vertov’s directorial debut Anniversary of the Revolution. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 13(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503132.2019.1540224
  11. Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Kim, O. (2022). Poetic cinema: A genealogy of the “poetic” in Soviet and post-Soviet critical discourse. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 16(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503132.2022.2064578
  13. Kirn, G. (2017). A return to the conjunction of revolutionary art and politics. KinoKultura, (58). https://www.kinokultura.com/2017/58-kirn.shtml
  14. Kovalova, A. (2017). World War I and pre-revolutionary Russian cinema. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 11(2), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503132.2017.1300425
  15. Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, dialogue and novel. In L. S. Roudiez (Ed.), T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez (Trans.), Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (pp. 64–91). New York: Columbia University Press.
  16. Kuleshov, L. (1974). The principles of montage. In R. Levaco (Ed. & Trans.), Kuleshov on film: Writings by Lev Kuleshov (pp. 45–50). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1929)
  17. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore, 68(270), 428–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/536768
  18. Mitchell, S. (1974). From Shklovsky to Brecht: Some preliminary remarks towards a history of the politicisation of Russian Formalism. Screen, 15(2), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/15.2.74
  19. Mukařovský, J. (1970). Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague school reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17–30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Original work published 1964)
  20. Popa, B. (2023). Reanimating the spirit of the avant-garde, but with ideology critique. Studies in European Cinema. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.51391/trva.2023.08.09
  21. Prokhorova, E. V. (2023). The script form in Soviet and Russian film studies. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 17(2), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503132.2023.2205285
  22. Puyal, A. (2024). A linguist among cineastes: Roman Jakobson on the moving image. Studies in European Cinema. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17411548.2024.2406106
  23. Sebuktekin, S., & Kılınçarslan, Y. (2025). Traces of post-Soviet revolution poetic cinema in the films of Sergei Loznitsa. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 36(1), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2024.2408115
  24. Selden, R., Widdowson, P., & Brooker, P. (2017). A reader’s guide to contemporary literary theory (5th ed.). London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  25. Shklovsky, V. (1990a). Art as device. In B. Sher (Trans.), Theory of prose (pp. 1–14). Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press. (Original work published 1917)
  26. Shklovsky, V. (1990b). The relationship between devices of plot construction and general devices of style. In B. Sher (Trans.), Theory of prose (pp. 15–51). Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press. (Original work published 1919)
  27. Shklovsky, V. (1990c). The structure of fiction. In B. Sher (Trans.), Theory of prose (pp. 52–71). Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press. (Original work published 1921)
  28. Shklovsky, V. (1990d). The novel as parody: Sterne’s Tristram Shandy. In B. Sher (Trans.), Theory of prose (pp. 147–170). Normal, IL: Dalkey Archive Press. (Original work published 1923)
  29. Shklovsky, V. (2001). Poeziya i proza v kinematografii [Poetry and prose in cinematography]. In Perechityvaya poetiku kino [Rereading poetics of cinema] (pp. 89–92). Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (Original work published 1927)
  30. Skakov, N. (2021). Eisenstein in Fergana: From avant-garde to national form. Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, 15(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503132.2020.1870795
  31. Szaloky, M. (2005). Making new sense of film theory through Kant. New Review of Film and Television Studies, 3(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400300500037357
  32. Trotsky, L. (1924). Literature and revolution (R. Strunsky, Trans.). https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/index.htm
  33. Tynianov, Y. (2019). On literary evolution. In A. Morse & P. Redko (Eds.), Permanent evolution: Selected essays on literature, theory and film (pp. 267–282). Boston: Academic Studies Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781644690635-015 (Original work published 1927)
  34. Vertov, D. (1984). We: Variant of a manifesto. In A. Michelson (Ed. & Trans.), Kino-eye: The writings of Dziga Vertov (pp. 5–11). Berkeley: University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)
  35. Waite, C. T. (2021). Somatic montage for immersive cinema. Cultural Science Journal, 13(1), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.2478/csj-2021-0009
  36. Zubarev, A. (2012). Priemy ostraneniya: Opyt unifikatsii [Devices of defamiliarization: An attempt at unification]. Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, 114(2). https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/114_nlo_2_2012/article/18635/