MIKHAIL KAUFMAN: portraits

Dziga Vertov’s experimental film ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (VUFKU 1929) portrays a day in the life of an unnamed Soviet city in 1928. Filming the activities of its inhabitants at work and play the cinematographer (and Vertov’s brother) Mikhail Kaufman also recorded wonderfully sympathetic candid portraits of some of them. Each image is my selection of a particular frame to capture an expression or movement. The screenshots are taken from the outstanding 2014 restoration of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ by the Eye Film Institute Netherlands and Lobster Films. The clarity of the images is extraordinary for a 93-year-old film enhancing Mikhail Kaufman’s remarkable photography.

Images courtesy of and copyright Eye Film Institute and Lobster Films

Original text and image selection copyright Richard Bossons 2022

Posted in Cinema, Constructivism, Dziga Vertov, Film studios, Man with a Movie Camera, Photography, silent film, Soviet film, Ukraine, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MIKHAIL KAUFMAN: portraits

VUFKU 100

100th anniversary of the All-Ukrainian Photo Cinema Administration

Film poster for Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s ‘Zvenigora’ (1928)

The All-Ukrainian Photo Cinema Adminstration (Vse-Ukrains’ke Foto Kino Upravlinnia, ВУФКУ – Всеукраїнське фоtокіноуправління) was founded on the 13th March 1922 by the National Commissar of Education of the Ukrainian SSR. Lenin realised that a more accommodating approach to Ukrainian nationalism would better serve Russia’s long-term interests and the separate development of the Ukrainian film industry independent of Goskino (Госкино), the RSFSR State Committee for Cinematography, was an example of this.

VUFKU rapidly grew a reputation for much more adventurous commissioning than Goskino and its successor Sovkino, training, employing, and promoting mostly Ukrainian directors and cinematographers, and their films. Its main studio was in Odesa (still exists as a film centre and museum) with two small studios in Kyiv and Kharkiv, and a larger one in Yalta. After the 1927 earthquake in Yalta a large new studio complex was built in Kyiv and the administrative offices moved there in 1928.

VUFKU was effectively closed down by the Moscow authorities in 1930, forced to merge as ‘Ukrainfilm’ with Soyuzkino (Sovkino’s successor) after accusations of Nationalism, Formalism and other ‘unacceptable behaviour’ by the authorities in Moscow. In the 1930s during Stalin’s suppression of the Ukrainian national revival many of its leading figures were imprisoned or executed.

In less than nine years the studios had produced over 140 full length feature films, and many documentaries, newsreels and animations. Films such as Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s ‘Ukrainian Trilogy’ (‘Zvenigora’ [1928], ‘Arsenal’ [1929], ‘Earth’ (‘Zemlya’) [1930]), and Dziga Vertov’s 1929 experimental masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera‘, earned VUFKU an international reputation. It controlled all aspects of the cinematic process including film-making, film processing, screening, publicity, and education. The Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Centre in Kyiv is engaged in discovering, researching and restoring many other early masterpieces of Ukrainian cinema produced by VUFKU.

At the time of writing Ukraine and its culture are once again being attacked by Moscow, and the Dovzhenko Centre’s precious archive of over 7,000 Ukrainian and foreign films is under threat.

Fundraising for the Dovzhenko Centre: https://gofund.me/24394934

Link to the Dovzhenko Centre: https://dovzhenkocentre.org/en/

Link to information about VUFKU: https://vufku.org/en/information/

For obvious reasons these links may not always work.

Posted in Cinema, Constructivism, Dziga Vertov, Film studios, Man with a Movie Camera, silent film, Soviet film, Ukraine, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on VUFKU 100

Rodchenko’s Birthday

С Днем Рождения Александр Михайлович!

Rodchenko in his Productivist work suit, folded parts of the Spatial Construction sculptures in the background, c1924. Photograph by Mikhail Kaufman.

Aleksandr Mikhailovich Rodchenko was born in St Petersburg on the 5th December 1891 (New Style calendar), and died on the 3rd December 1956 in Moscow.

December 5th 2021 is the 130th birthday of one of the great creative geniuses of the early Soviet Union. As a painter, sculptor, designer, graphic artist, and photographer, his work had a profound influence on the course of these arts from the early Twentieth Century to the present day.

https://monoskop.org/Alexander_Rodchenko

Posted in Art, Cameras, Constructivism, Design, Graphic Design, Leica, Photography, product design, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Rodchenko’s Birthday

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: trainspotting!

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (1929)

‘Long live the poetry of the propelling and propelled machine, the poetry of levers, wheels, and steel wings1, the iron screech of movements, the dazzling grimaces of red-hot jets.’

From: ‘We. A Version of a Manifesto’, Dziga Vertov, Kino-Fot no. 1, August 1922 (source: ‘The Film Factory’, ed. Richard Taylor & Ian Christie, Harvard University press, 1988, p. 72).

‘…images of trains as symbols of connectedness (especially in combination with bridges) and of dynamism, rupture with the past, glorification of modernity, continue through the 1920s in the Futurist avant garde…while the image eventually disappears from Italian art, it is absorbed, maintained, and continuously re-elaborated in Soviet art, where it becomes part of the official iconology…’

‘The Train and the Cosmos: Visionary Modernity’, Professor Matilde Marcolli, California Institute of Technology, 2015.

Mikhail Kaufman, the cinematographer and eponymous Man of the film, had a serious disagreement with his brother, Dziga Vertov, the director, over the editing of ‘Man with a Movie Camera‘ (they never worked together again). In a later interview2 he complained about the ‘interminable number of trams’ in the film and indeed they are everywhere, not surprising when filming in European cities. As with many of the Kinoks’3 films there are also a lot of trains featured, particularly at the beginning and end. Both are used to create dynamism, criss-crossing the screen, often at dramatic angles, and acting as a counterpoint to previous and following scenes. Train sequences4 also signpost a journey to Odesa intercut with views of the station and passengers in cabs. This post also shows that many of the particular railway themes in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ are a re-use or continuation of those in previous Kinoks’ films throughout the 1920s.

The railway had a significant role at the beginning of Dziga Vertov’s career when, from January 1920, he was enlisted to work on the administration of film shooting and exhibitions on the famous Agit(ational) trains (Агит-поездa, Agit-poyezda) that spread propaganda and education throughout the areas occupied by the Red Army during the Civil War5. He travelled and organised film shows on the ‘Red October’ Agit-train at this time:

‘The next step was my work on the agit-trains of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Comrade Lenin attached great significance to the use of film in the work of the agitational trains and steamers. And so on January 6, 1920, I leave with Comrade Kalinin for the southeast front. I take films with me, including “The Anniversary of the Revolution”…We screen that film at all the train stops and carry it to urban movie theatres. At the same time, we shoot. The result is a film about the journey of the all-Russian senior leader, Kalinin. The period of my work concludes with the big film “A History of the Civil War”.6

The cinema carriage on the VI Lenin Agit train [provenance unknown]
Contemporary poster showing film projection on to an outdoor screen
Trotsky’s train from ‘The Anniversary of the Revolution’ (1918)
‘The October Revolution – a Bridge to a Brighter Future’ (1921 poster)

1A Russian term referring to the sides of a locomotive (eg. the driver stands/sits on or behind the right wing), not airplane wings (made of fabric or aluminium in that era).

2‘An interview with Mikhail Kaufman’, October Journal, Vol 11, Winter 1979, pp. 54-76, The MIT Press (interview by Annette Michelson).

3Kinoks (Киноки) was the name of the collective of Soviet documentary filmmakers founded in 1922 by Vertov, Elizaveta Svilova (Vertov’s wife) and Kaufman (the word comes from an amalgamation of the Russian for ‘Film Eyes’, ‘kino-oki’, кино-оки).

4[00:20:25] [00:20:50] [00:20:57] [00:21:00] [00:21:38] [00:21:51] [00:22:00] [00:22:11]

Screenshot times [hr:min:sec] from a restored version of the film (see Notes).

5For extensive details of Vertov’s involvement in these trains refer to ‘Dziga Vertov, Life and Work: Volume 1’, John MacKay, Academic Studies Press, 2018 (Ch. 4 p. 233 on).

6‘Kino-Eye, The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, excerpt from ‘About Love for the Living Person’, ed. Annette Michelson, tr. Kevin O’Brien, University of California Press, 1984, pp. 151-152.

Mikhail Kalinin (1875-1946) was the Chairman of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets.

‘The Anniversary of the Revolution’ (1918) was Vertov’s first full length film, a two hour long documentary using archival footage, some taken from the ‘Film-Week’ (Kino-Nedelia) newsreel series (recently restored, see Notes).

‘History of the Civil War’ (1921) was another long compilation documentary film (again, using some material from the ‘Film-Week’ series). Most of the film is considered lost.

TRAINS IN ‘MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA’

The first dramatic appearance of a train in the film as it rushes towards the intrepid cameraman. There’s an even braver one filming this with a camera and tripod in the middle of the track!

[00:10:06]

An impression is given that the camera was placed in a hole between the tracks for the shot (compare with the actual location above!).

[00:10:29]

The ‘nightmare’ and ‘waking woman’ sequence of carriages rushing across the screen at different angles.

[00:10:07 on]
Close-up of carriage windows from ‘Kino-Pravda’ No.20 (1924) [Austrian Film Museum]
[00:10:22 on]

An extraordinary sequence ending with footage of a railway track interrupted with black, darkened, and repeated frames to achieve a flickering stroboscopic effect. Professor Vlada Petrić, in his detailed analysis of the film7, has a fascinating explanation of this sequence as intending to represent ‘hypnopompic’ sensations (the transitional state that occurs during waking up).

7‘Constructivism in Film, The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, Vlada Petrić, Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 164-176.

A previous shot of a railway track from Dziga Vertov’s ‘One Sixth of the World’ (1926).

A well-known photograph of Mikhail Kaufman on a Soviet-made EP (aka GET) series electric locomotive (built in 1926-27) with a Debrie Parvo Model JK camera in another risky position. The location of the camera was presumably to film railway tracks like the shots seen above (or perhaps this is just a pose…). An interesting photograph not least because the electrification of the railways in the Soviet Union, promoted by Lenin, only started in 1926 with the 19km Baku – Sabunchi – Surakhani railway in the Azerbaijan SSR. Kaufman featured this unusual (and short) locomotive in his city symphony ‘Moscow’ (1927) so presumably this photograph was taken in 1926 (though the loco is looking rather battered for such a recent introduction!). However, electrification of Moscow’s railway system did not begin until 1929 so the sequence was either filmed in Azerbaijan (by Kaufman or others?) or perhaps it was running on Moscow tram lines (both the tram and railway gauges in Russia are 5 ft8). The intertitle describes the EP as ‘The first Soviet electric locomotive’. A rather quaint photograph to modern eyes but in 1920s Soviet Russia the loco and camera epitomised modern technology, a theme in so much of the Kinoks’ work.

8The 5 ft railway gauge was proposed by an American engineer hired as a consultant to the Moscow-St Petersburg Railway in the 1840s, George Washington Whistler, the father of the renowned artist James Abbott McNeill Whistler.

Screenshot of the EP electric locomotive from ‘Moscow’ (the train goes over the camera in a typical Kinoks’ under-train shot, below).

[00:20:25]

Balancing on top of the carriage for this shot was a very precarious location for the cameraman but Mikhail Kaufman ‘….used to push himself to his limits, often risking his life. While working on the episodes of ‘Kino-Pravda’ (Dziga Vertov’s documentary series 1922-1925) Kaufman used to lay on the rails with the camera and film the train rushing forward above him. Once, the [carriage] was not properly attached and Kaufman escaped death by moving aside at the last moment…Another time [while filming for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’] he worked standing on top of a train.’ [‘Mikhail Kaufman, Ukrainian Dilogy’, Stanislav Bytiutskyi, Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Centre, Kyiv, 2018, p. 15]. Kaufman also shot an almost identical sequence for his earlier film ‘Moscow’ (1927) below9.

9Many of the familiar scenes in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ are also evident in Kaufman’s film such as the tram and train sequences, shots of the Bolshoi Theatre, Mostorg department store, Theatre and Revolution Squares, Kuznetsky Most street, Strastnaya Square and Novo-Sukharevsky Market in Moscow, steelworks scenes, machinery and workers, bus station, high level filming of traffic and crowd scenes. Bearing in mind the scarcity and expense of film stock at the time it would seem logical that some of this footage would be used for MwaMC. This recycling was common in most of the Kinoks’ work, some of the same sequences appearing in several films.

From ‘Moscow’ above, and similar rooftop sequences from ‘Kino-Pravda’ below, the first one facing to the rear of the train.

‘Kino-Pravda’ No.19 (1924) [Austrian Film Museum]
‘Kino-Pravda’ No.19 [Austrian Film Museum]
[00:20:50]

On the locomotive steps with the Debrie Parvo Model L camera. Mikhail Kaufman lives up to his dare-devil reputation with another dangerous camera position (circled) taking close-up footage of the engine wheels (below). Filmed (probably with a hand-held camera) from the platform beside the boiler (arrow) – you can see the locomotive number on the side of the cab. There is some footage filmed from a similar location in ‘Kino-Pravda’ No. 20.

[00:21:39 et al]

‘…the poetry of levers, wheels, and steel wings, the iron screech of movements…’

[01:03:49]

This low level filming of locomotive wheels also featured in Vertov’s 1926 film ‘One Sixth of the World’ above (how was the second shot filmed from this angle?).

A shot of wheels from the carriage steps this time from ‘Kino-Pravda’.

Screenshot from Austrian Film Museum print of ‘Kino-Pravda’ No. 20

More close-up footage of locomotive wheels in motion from ‘Kino-Pravda’ and Mikhail Kaufman’s ‘Moscow’ (part of a sequence of trains and locomotives).

‘Kino-Pravda’ No.20 [Austrian Film Museum]
‘Moscow’ (1927)

At the first [00:10:07] filming location from the other side of the tracks (note the electricity posts seen in [00:10:07]).

[00:20:57]

The camera follows the train as it passes (note the triangulated posts in the distance seen in [00:10:07]).

[00:20:59] [01:07:36]

At the second location – the train stops.

[00:22:13] et al

It seems dangerous and foolhardy if, as the passage above suggests, Mikhail Kaufman was indeed lying on the tracks to film these multiple sequences. How did he try it out the first time not knowing how much clearance there was under different trains – look at the low steel bar in the screenshot? The passage above suggests that he was nearly killed filming the sequences below from ‘Kino-Pravda’ from what sounds like a loose part of the carriage coupling hanging down. The commentary below seems apt! After this I suspect that the clockwork Kinamo camera was used for most of these shots (see my blog post on the cameras used in the film, link below).

‘At one point a curious intertitle informs us: “4 metres of movie-camera memory, as it falls under the wheels of the freight train.” The huge wheels flash by; a view from under the train. That’s it. The last 4 metres of what the movie camera remembers. Evidently, in the eyes of the kinocs their kino-eye was a living being.’10

10A commentary on ‘Kino-Pravda’ No. 19 from: Yuri Tsivian, Catalogue ‘Le Giornate del Cinema Muto’, Sacile/Pordenone 2004.

Screenshot from Austrian Film Museum print of ‘Kino-Pravda‘ No. 19
Just the locomotive this time from ‘Kino-Pravda’ No.20 [Austrian Film Museum]

Under-train shots were a feature of Kinoks’ films from the beginning – below is a scene from ‘Kino-glaz’ (1924). This superbly filmed sequence is quite hypnotic and very different in character to the more conventional shots in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’. Note the heavy coupling hanging down, presumably like the one that nearly killed Kaufman!

The same piece of film was re-used for the end of Kino-Pravda No. 21 (devoted to Lenin). The text says ‘along the rails of Leninism’.

Screenshot from Austrian Film Museum print of ‘Kino-Pravda‘ No. 21 (1925)

Viktor Shklovsky in his review of ‘Stride, Soviet!’ in Sovetski Ecran (14th August 1926, p. 4)11 praises ‘the shots of a train beneath the wheels’. It isn’t clear what this is referring to as I haven’t found any under train shots in this film. However, there are other superb shots of locomotives which I have added at the end of the post.

11‘The Film Factory’, ed. Richard Taylor & Ian Christie, Harvard University press, 1988, p. 152

There is a horse and cart version (going backwards over the camera) in ‘Kino-glaz’! Surely filmed with a motorised camera, not hand-cranking!

At the first filming location (note the triangulated posts). Filmed in the opposite direction to [00:10:07].

[01:06:09]

Taken from similar camera positions at the second location but different locomotives. Imagine lying between the tracks, if this was the case, watching this train approaching!

[00:10:10] [01:06:55] [01:07:04] [01:07:21]

A similar locomotive and track shot but at a third location.

[01:06:48]

A similar shot from ‘Kino-Pravda’, a locomotive only – see above for the underneath view.

Kino-Pravda’ No.20 [Austrian Film Museum]

A shot of a locomotive without carriages going away at the second location (very little clearance underneath – another heavy coupling hanging down!). This is the back of the tender to the locomotive in [01:06:55].

[01:06:56]

Another steam engine ‘at speed’ along the track at the first filmed location (presumed from the post in the distance).

[01:07:18]

A similar shot from the track-side in ‘Kino-glaz’ (1924) below.

The C (S) on the front of the steam engines in the films gives a clue to the type. This is a restored example of the Class C (2-6-2 wheel configuration), a common passenger locomotive of this era, built in Russia between 1910 and 1919. Wikipedia Russia has a very comprehensive article about these good-looking locomotives, including details of the individual ones seen in the film. [photo source: Wikipedia Russia]

The carriage behind the locomotive is typical of many in the film, a Third Class pre-Revolutionary design, built in the 1900s, usually painted green.

Photograph courtesy of fototerra.ru

A great shot of an unnumbered Class C locomotive coming into a station from ‘Kino-Pravda’.

Screenshot from Austrian Film Museum print of ‘Kino-Pravda’ No. 22 (1925)

Another Class C undergoing maintenance work, and a finished one emerging from the shed freshly painted with a star on the front, both in Vertov’s ‘Stride, Soviet!’ (1926). See the end of the post for more shots of locomotives in this film.

The only non Class C locomotive in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ at the second filming location. It is likely to be a Class Щ (2-8-0) type (as in the superb group photograph below) from the unclear letter on the front, which was in service in Ukraine (built 1906-1924).

[01:06:55]

Perhaps influenced by Arthur Honneger’s 1923 orchestral work ‘Pacific 231’ an example of this class of locomotive inspired a vocal composition in 1926 [music by V. Kruchinin, lyrics by P. Herman], and a rather good Constructivist poster!

[01:07:42]
[01:07:38] [01:07:42]

A mysterious vehicle on the railway track, front (top) and rear (bottom). These are ‘hidden’ images in the last fast montage of the film, only occupying a few frames. I have not found any contemporary or earlier truck, van, ‘bus, or car that looks remotely like this vehicle. It seems to have a heavily framed ‘V’ shaped windscreen and superstructure, a (red?) star on top of the radiator and a (wooden?) buffer bar fitted to the front and rear of it. The rear (presumed) is almost semi-circular with large lights and a small window. No rear loading doors, so perhaps a passenger vehicle. It could be a conversion of the ubiquitous AMO F-15 truck, though the radiator looks slightly different and there are only single wheels at the back (the truck has paired rear wheels). This odd contraption does not appear anywhere else in the film and the track location seems to be different from the others. Shot for an earlier film (one of the lost episodes of ‘Kino-Pravda’?) perhaps, though I haven’t found anything yet.

The cameraman being run over again, and this convinces me that a clockwork camera (such as the Kinamo) and not the hand-cranked Debrie Parvo or Interview12 must have been used for most of these ‘under train’ shots as there is no possibility of this chassis clearing someone lying on the track! The wheels are very odd as they appear to have rubber tyres (look at the rear ones), and are not flanged steel railway wheels, an impossibility! There are examples of rubber-tyred rail vehicles but they always have some method of keeping the wheels on the rails.

12See my blog post on the cameras in the film for details, link below.

Kino-Nedelya No. 21 (1918) [Austrian Film Museum]

A car on rails also featured in the newsreel ‘Cinema Week’ (Kino-Nedelya) No. 21 but this one is more obviously adapted for rail use with proper flanged wheels (and it makes a lot of smoke!)13.

13Dziga Vertov began his film career as the office manager and book keeper of the Moscow Film Committee’s Photo-Film Division that produced Kino-Nedelya and he started editing the films around the time of this issue [refer to ‘Dziga Vertov, Life and Work: Volume 1’, John MacKay, Academic Studies Press, 2018, Ch. 4 p. 193 on].

Other shots of trains in the film not illustrated above: [00:10:14] [00:10:18] [00:21:00] [00:21:40] [00:21:51] [00:22:00] [00:22:12] [01:03:48] [01:04:47] [01:04:48] [01:04:51][01:07:34].

A shot of Mikhail Kaufman with the Debrie Parvo camera apparently during filming of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ [source: ‘Mikhail Kaufman, Ukrainian Dilogy’, Stanislav Bytiutskyi, Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Centre, Kyiv, 2018]. The tracks are for a narrow gauge railway (2’6″), half of the conventional track gauge in Russia. Most of these railways were in forested areas or for the peat industry, or in factory locations. It isn’t clear where this was taken. The stacked timber might be a clue. These railway tracks do not appear in the film.

STRIDE, SOVIET!’ [Шагай Cовет!] (1926)

No connection to any footage seen in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ but I thought I would add some more shots of steam locomotives from this earlier Kinoks’ film. As with so much of their carefully composed cinematography the individual frames make wonderful still pictures (the cameraman on this film was Ivan Beliakov).

Dramatic footage of crashed trains, the first one perhaps in the Civil War as you can see some artillery in the wrecked wagons.

POSTSCRIPT

Nearly twenty years after writing the words at the beginning of this post Dziga Vertov looked back on his career in 1941 using a railway analogy:

 “Documentary cinema is not yet a cross-country vehicle. These are still the first rails and the first locomotive. I’ve spent my whole life building the locomotive, but I have not yet been able to obtain a broad railway network…14

14‘Kino-Eye, the Writings of Dziga Vertov’, ed. Annette Michelson, tr. Kevin O’Brien, Pluto Press, 1984,  p. 243.

NOTES

I have added links to other websites and information to enhance the value of this post and although I have taken reasonable steps to ensure that they are reputable, I am unable to accept responsibility for any viruses and malware arising from these links.

Fair Use claimed for any copyright material as it is copied solely for research purposes and commentary only, without financial gain. Attribution and links given where known. Contemporary Soviet photographs are generally in the public domain.

This post assumes some knowledge of this 1929 masterpiece of Soviet Cinema and its creators. For more information and a bibliography of essential reading about the film read my previous blog posts:

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the movie cameras

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the film locations

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the first cinema screening

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ screenshots from various sources. Screenshot times (approximate) in [hr:min:sec] from the Eye Institute/Lobster Films 2014 restoration of the film.

Screenshots of ‘Stride, Soviet!’ from a YouTube version posted by Film Preservation Associates.

‘Anniversary of the Revolution’ (1918), Russian State Documentary Film and Photo Archive, restored by Nikolai Izvolov, 2018.

Screenshots of ‘Moscow’ (1927) from a YouTube video posted by the CSDF Museum project.

Many thanks to Lewis Siegelbaum, Professor Emeritus of History at Michigan State University, for information regarding the ‘mystery vehicle’ at the end of the film.

Locomotive information from various sources including Wikipedia.

Other references on the association of railways and the avant-garde:

‘Putting Revolution in the Rails’, Tevfik Rada, Academia, 2019

‘Fast Forward: The Aesthetics and Ideology of Speed in Russian Avant-Garde Culture, 1910-1930’, Tim Harte, University of Wisconsin Press, 2009.

‘Modernism, Postmodernism and Steam’, Timothy J Clark, October Journal, Vol 100, Spring 2002.

‘The Arrival of a Train’ exhibition, Ekaterina Cultural Foundation, Moscow, 2018

Please contact me with any comments and queries: richardbossonsfcsd@gmail.com

FOR AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POST PLEASE GO TO: richardbossons.academia.edu/research

Posted in Camera, Cameras, Cinema, Constructivism, Dziga Vertov, Man with a Movie Camera, silent film, Soviet film, Steam locomotives, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: trainspotting!

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: reflections

Studying ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ carefully, shot by shot, for two previous posts on the locations and cameras, I was struck by the repetition of reflected and reversed images throughout the film from the first dramatic view of the giant camera with the cameraman on top of it, to the ‘Film-Eye’ closing in the last few frames. No other film that I know of uses this editing technique to such a great extent. Largely invisible to an audience many of the reversed shots are just a few frames long (one second or less) spliced into the film.

Technically known as ‘flopped’1 images these only occur in the parts of the film shot in 1928, not in any of the ‘The Eleventh Year’ sequences used in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’. Some of the lens shots were most likely filmed into a mirror which is why they are reflected images with the lettering the wrong way round. Other lens shots, and almost all of the camera body shots were reversed in the editing. Parts of the location sequences of the carousel and beach were also flopped. Some shots were reversed to show the opposite direction to a particular sequence (horseman, athletics etc). This consistent reflective imagery would have been a conscious editing decision, but the reasons for some of it are not obvious and I have been unable to find any discussion of the topic. Professor Vlada Petrić mentions some reversed shots in his detailed frame-by-frame analysis of the film, ‘Constructivism in Film, the Man with the Movie Camera, A Cinematic Analysis’ (Cambridge University Press, 1987) and his reasons for three of them are noted below ([00:02:22] [00:10:07] [00:19:52]2).

Writing about filming newsreels in 19223 Vertov listed one of the requirements as: ‘…trick printing of the positive from the negative (dual and triple printing), printing various negatives into the positive (aperture inventions – laboratory montage)…’. Perhaps turning the film the wrong way round is another variation of ‘trick printing’ though it would not be noticed by an audience.

1Flopped image = a static or moving image that is generated by a mirror-reversal of an original image across a vertical axis. Not to be confused with reversed motion shots (see Notes). A ‘flipped’ image is across a horizontal axis. [WikiVisually].

2[hr:min:sec] Screenshot times taken from a restored print of the film (see Notes).

3Source: ‘Lines of Resistance: Dziga Vertov and the Twenties’, ed. Yuri Tsivian, tr. Julian Graffy, Le Giornate del Cinema Muto, 2004, p. 81.

FLOPPED IMAGES IN THE FILM

[00:02:22] The first frames of the film. The camera is reversed: the ‘Le Parvo’ lettering is back to front and the viewfinder and crank handle are on the wrong sides. The miniature camera on top is also reversed (the prominent silver disc on the Debrie Parvo Model L is on the wrong side). Correct image below.

Professor Petrić mentions this reversal (p. 134): ‘The viewer’s attention is promptly drawn to the circular form of the lens by the mirror image of the camera manufacturer’s logo4 “Le Parvo” (“Le Parvo”) [sic] reflected in the lens’ rim, forcing the viewer to read the words counterclockwise.’

I am not sure what is meant by this as I cannot make out any clear reflection on the lens (in an HD version of the film). As can be seen in [00:11:11] the hood is in the usual black satin finish which does not reflect very well. Even if it was reflected the lettering would be upside down as well as back to front, and ‘counterclockwise’ is not the right description. It is the reversed images of the lenses later in the film that have the counterclockwise rim engraving. I am doubtful that the audience’s attention would be drawn to the lens by this name reversal as it is already very prominent and in the centre of the screen. I suspect most Soviet audiences would not have registered that the French/Latin text is reversed, not knowing what it meant. Interestingly, Professor Petrić uses this image the correct way around to illustrate his essay ‘Film-Eye vs Film-Truth’ without explanation.

So I think there must be another reason for this reversal. Perhaps the exact opposite is intended: by reversing the lettering on the camera and lenses it becomes unreadable and less of a distraction to the viewer (though this does not explain why the lens in [00:33:48] is the correct way round).

4The manufacturer’s logo is an eagle on top of a globe with a length of film in its beak. ‘Parvo’ is the name of the camera model (Latin for ‘small’ as the camera is very compact because of the internal film magazines).

[01:07:44] The last frames of the film, the ‘Film-Eye’ closing. The Kinoks’ symbolic device (кино-глаз, Kino-glaz5) was invented by Mikhail Kaufman in the early 1920s using his colleague Boris Kudinov’s eye [source: ‘Ukrainian Dilogy’, S. Bytiutskyi, Oleksandr Dovzhenko Centre, Kyiv, 2018, p. 12]. Note the reversed lettering on the lens. This is the same set-up as seen in [00:11:34] & [00:11:46] with the iris attachment, and was most likely filmed into a mirror (see below).

5Variously translated as Kino-Eye, Cine-Eye etc.

FLOPPED SHOTS OF THE CAMERA AND LENSES

[00:02:22] Opening sequence (the ‘miniature’ camera on top is also in reverse). Illustrated above.

[00:11:11 on] Lens changing sequence. The crank handle should be on this side. 

[00:11:23] [00:11:27] [00:11:30] Front view of the camera being cranked (young tramp sequence). The handle should be on the left of the lens, this is the viewfinder side.

[00:35:44] Brief image of camera cranking from front (in reverse?).

[00:37:56] Cranking camera in reverse (non-reflected image, otherwise identical to [00:38:03] and the young tramp sequence). In some prints of the film (eg BFI version) this shot is also flipped ie seen upside down!

[00:38:03] Cranking camera in reverse (‘mirrored’ view of above). This makes editorial sense as a balancing image to the previous one.

[00:34:58] Side view of the camera being cranked.

[00:42:31] [00:42:34] [00:42:37] The same side view of the camera being cranked juxtaposed with machinery rotating.

All of the shots of the cranking side of the camera are flopped as above. The handle should be on the other side. Presumably the reversal was to have the cranking action match the direction of the machinery in the latter three shots.

[00:11:34] & [00:11:46] 21cm lens with camera reflection. This looks as though it was filmed into a mirror as the iris attachment in the image also appears to be on the reflected camera. This is the same iris as seen in the well-known Eleazar Langman photograph of Kaufman and the Debrie Parvo Model L camera below. Note the adjustment lever with the thickened end at the top left present in many of the reflected images of the camera. This set-up was also used for the ‘Film-Eye’ at the end of the film when the iris closes (compare the scratch marks on the rh iris perimeter).

It is interesting to speculate about how this set-up was achieved. If the iris attachment was used with a standard or wide angle lens it could be fixed directly to the front of the camera. However as the telephoto lens would have extended past the iris preventing it from working it is likely that a bellows lens hood would have been used to allow the iris to be fixed in front of the long lens. It looks as though the standard lens hood has been removed. The Model L catalogue shows both of these accessories.

The iris is seen on the Model L camera during the animation sequence [01:00:39 on].

[00:12:39] & [00:12:42] 15cm lens with another iris attachment6. These do not show a camera reflection in the lens but what looks like foliage, indicating that the shots could have been taken with another camera and telephoto lens from a distance rather than into a mirror, and then flopped in the editing for some reason. There is some unclear movement reflected in the lens which may be a cranking action.

[00:12:59] & [00:13:04] Last frames of Reel 1 & first frames of Reel 2. 15cm telephoto lens with iris opening and closing (and ‘foliage’ reflection). The same details as above. The iris is used unconventionally to signify the reel change by filming it from the outside rather than through the lens!

6This iris may be an earlier type, most likely used on the Debrie Interview camera. It is not shown in the Model L catalogue. Note the ‘Établissements André Debrie Paris’ engraving (in reverse) around the perimeter. A bellows lens hood would also have been used with the iris for these shots, as seen in screenshot [00:29:17] on the Debrie Interview.

[00:14:34] [00:14:37] 21cm lens (reflection of camera being cranked, with superimposed Film-Eye). The camera reflection and background look very similar to [00:33:48 etc]. The reflected camera has the iris not seen around the lens and so it seems likely that this took the shot which was flopped in the editing.

[00:32:22] 21cm lens (same lens image with eye as above).

[00:33:48] Start of Reel 4 – 21cm lens rising up with reflection of camera being cranked (the only non-reflected image of a lens in the film, but the same appearance as [00:43:27] at the end of this reel). Again, the reflected camera has the iris that is not present in the shot of the lens. If reversing the lenses was meant to make the lettering unreadable it isn’t clear why this solitary one was left the right way round.

[00:43:27] End of Reel 4 – 21cm lens going down, as [00:33:48] but flopped in the editing (and slightly out of focus). Same reflection of the camera, reversed.

The original shot [00:33:48] showing the 21cm telephoto lens (the correct way round) rising up at the beginning of reel 4 must have been taken with the camera that is reflected in the lens, and not into a mirror. As this looks like the Parvo Model L with the iris attachment what camera is being filmed? As the 21cm lens has the special Model L mount which would not fit the other camera used in 1928 (the Debrie Interview) was there a second Model L Parvo used for the filming? There appears to be a camera body in the background. See my previous blog post for information about the different cameras used in the film. The same lens goes down to signify the end of Reel 4 but this has been deliberately reversed in the editing.

[00:35:43/44] 21cm lens – reflection of a camera being adjusted? A strange reflection as the camera seems to be on its side (what looks like the rear viewfinder can be seen hanging down when the frames are studied) and there isn’t any obvious cranking action. There is also a second off centre ghostly reflection of the lens rim (with projecting lugs) of the Debrie Interview. The background to the lens looks like the Parvo Model L. However, this could not be a shot taken with the reflected Interview camera on its side as the lens is the right way up (Tessar is always at the top). Nothing about this shot makes much sense and there aren’t enough frames (21) for a more detailed study.

[00:35:03] Filming into a mirrored stand or booth (Paris Specialist [shoe?] Cleaner). Not reversed but the only reflected shot of the camera definitely filmed into a mirror!

[01:07:44] The ‘Film-Eye’ closing, the final image of the film. Illustrated at the beginning of the post. The same view of the 21cm lens with the iris attachment in [00:11:34] & [00:11:46] with the eye superimposed.

OTHER FLOPPED SHOTS IN THE FILM

[00:03:51] & [00:03:58] Shantser Cinema seats at the beginning of the film (note TS on the back = Theater Shantser. Anton Shantser was Austrian). Obvious editing reasons for this reversal.

[00:03:32] & [00:05:00] Film through the projector. The later shot is in motion. There is also a slight difference in framing between the two shots. Again, the reason for this reversal seems obvious.

[00:10:07] Railway track sequence. Top is original shot, bottom is flopped shot. There are clear editing reasons for this reversal (see Petrić p. 167). There may be other reversed shots of the train carriages in this sequence but it is difficult to tell.

[00:22:36] [00:23:04] [00:25:02] The first shot (top) is of a carriage with two women and a man in a straw hat travelling north along Pushkins’ka in Odesa being filmed from the camera car. The second shot (bottom) is of the carriage ‘frozen’ facing in the opposite direction. The third shot is the ‘frozen’ image moving again in the same reverse direction. This carriage and passengers is also seen going in the right direction in [00:21:41] and [00:21:56].

[00:48:35 on] Flopped sequences of a rider on a horse galloping in opposite directions. Not exactly the same background but the horse’s inside front leg has the white ‘sock’ in both shots.

[00:48:13] [00:48:18] Athletics sequence. Curiously the framing isn’t exactly the same (the lower image is enlarged) but the position of the athletes is identical. Presumably this happened when the film strip was copied.

[01:05:23 on] During the fast montage sequence at the end of the film a carriage is seen in Odesa with one male and two female passengers, one holding flowers. This is shown going in one direction on the Shantser Cinema screen and in the opposite direction thereafter.

CAROUSEL 

Most of the carousel sequence [00:54:23 on] is in reverse as you can tell by the camera – the viewfinder is on the wrong side (correct image below). This may have been an editorial decision to show the carousel circulating in the opposite direction (clockwise) to the motorcycles going around the track (anti-clockwise). A few of the carousel shots are the right way around so this contrast is not consistent.

KUYAL’NIK BEACH

Current view of Kuyal’nik (near Odesa) showing the (now derelict) Sanatorium pier and hill behind in the opposite direction to the screenshot [Google Earth – photograph by Vladimir Percenko].

FullSizeRender(18)

[00:51:05] & [00:51:18]

Most of the reversed images are of the Debrie Model L Parvo. The exception is in part of the beach scene at Kuyal’nik where the Debrie Interview with Mikhail Kaufman is shown the wrong way around. The background is clearly incorrect in the top picture and the cranking handle should be on the opposite side in the bottom shot as the correct image below. I have not discovered any obvious reasons for this reversal.

REFLECTIONS IN WINDOWS

[00:19:52]

There is a long shot of reflections of Strastnaya Square in Moscow from what appears to be a revolving glass door (the camera and cameraman are visible in the screenshot above). Professor Petrić has a lengthy analysis in his book (p. 88) of this sequence, suggesting it represents the triumph of Vertov’s ‘Film-Truth’ principles (the reflected views of the outside ‘real’ world) over entertainment cinema (the first frames showing the film poster of ‘The Awakening of a Woman’, a 1927 German comedy film).

[00:14:50]

Reflections (above) in the Mostorg department store front (Theatre Square, Moscow), and (below) in the windows of the Singer sewing machine and ‘cyclist’ shops, and a building with large windows (all three in unknown locations).

[00:07:14]

[00:07:26]

[00:20:02]

FLOPPED PHOTOGRAPHS

Many of the well-known photographs of Dziga Vertov and Mikhail Kaufman are often reversed in error, as are screenshots of the final sequence of MK in a speeding car through Odesa, most likely through a lack of knowledge of the cameras. The external viewfinder on a Debrie camera is on the right of the lens, and the crank handle is on the left, not as the following images (there are many more!):

FullSizeRender - 3(2)

The only photograph known of Dziga Vertov with a camera not on location. The incorrect top rh image is published in ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, T. Tode & B. Wurm, photograph #55 (and also seen in other publications). Vertov is holding the main part of the Kinamo camera (seen with Mikhail Kaufman in [00:43:00] & [00:43:05]) with the lens and film compartment. The missing motor drive casing is on the right of the lens and fits over the silver metal rim, as shown in the correct lh top image. Bottom images show the correct view as demonstrated by my own Kinamo – note the position of the front and rear frame-finder (the rear of the camera is towards the viewer).

NOTES

Much of my commentary is speculative as I have not found any information about the reflected and reversed images other than noted above. Any suggestions and comments would be welcomed. I would also appreciate information about any reversed shots I might have missed! My email is:

richardbossonsfcsd@gmail.com

I have found little published about ‘flopping’ or ‘mirror reversal’ in film, and what there is does not have much relevance to ‘Man with a Movie Camera’:

‘The Aesthetics of Mirror Reversal’, Roy Sorensen, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, Vol. 100, No. 2 (Aug., 2000), pp. 175-191, Springer, JSTOR (registration required).

‘A Note on the Aesthetics of Mirror Reversal’, Rafael De Clercq, Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, vol. 132, no. 3, 2007, pp. 553-563, JSTOR (registration required).

The effect of left-right reversal on film: Watching Kurosawa reversed, Marco Bertamini, Carole Bode, Nicola Bruno, Iperception. 2011; 2(6): 528–540. Published online 2011 Sep 15.

Mirror or left-right reversal is of course distinct from Reverse Motion, another consistent feature of the film (eg. pigeons flying backwards, people and traffic going backwards, etc). See Petrić p. 117.

The screenshots are from a version of the film posted on YouTube by a Ukrainian source AVG which is no longer available. The screenshot times [hr:min:sec] are from the Lobster Films/Eye Institute 2014 restoration of the film.

Details of the cameras and lenses used in the film can be found in my blog post ‘Man with a Movie Camera: the movie cameras’.

FOR AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POST PLEASE GO TO: richardbossons.academia.edu/research

ALL ORIGINAL CONTENT COPYRIGHT ©Richard Bossons 2020

Posted in Camera, Cameras, Cinema, Constructivism, Dziga Vertov, Man with a Movie Camera, silent film, Soviet film, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: reflections

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the first cinema screening

In the spring of 1927 Dziga Vertov* moved to Kyiv to work for VUFKU, the All-Ukrainian Photo Cinema Adminstration (Vse-Ukrains’ke Foto Kino Upravlinnia, ВУФКУ – Всеукраїнське фоtокіноуправління) after being sacked by Sovkino, the Russian equivalent, for being over budget on his film ‘One Sixth of the World’ [1926], and for refusing to present a script for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (which he had no intention of writing). Founded in 1922 VUFKU had a reputation for much more adventurous commissioning than Sovkino, and its predecessor Goskino, training, employing, and promoting mostly Ukrainian directors and cinematographers, and their films. VUFKU was effectively closed down in 1930, merged with Soyuzkino (Sovkino’s successor) after accusations of Nationalism, Formalism and other ‘unacceptable behaviour’ by the authorities in Moscow. In less than nine years the studios had produced over 140 full length feature films, and many documentaries, newsreels and animations. Films such as Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s ‘Ukrainian Trilogy’ (‘Zvenigora’ [1928], ‘Arsenal’ [1929], ‘Earth’ (‘Zemlya’) [1930]), and Dziga Vertov’s experimental masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera‘, earned VUFKU an international reputation. It controlled all aspects of the cinematic process including film-making, film processing, screening, publicity, and education. The main studios were originally in Odesa with others in Kharkiv and Yalta. After the earthquake in Yalta in 1927 VUFKU decided to relocate its equipment to large new studios in Kyiv in 1928. These are now the home of the Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Film Studio. The studio administration was also based in Kyiv at this time.

*With his wife and brother, Elizaveta Svilova and Mikhail Kaufman. Svilova’s virtuosic editing of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is evident, but the latter’s creative contribution to this and earlier films is increasingly recognised (eg the excellent essays about him in the Dovzhenko Centre’s recent book, ‘Ukrainian Dilogy’ 2018).

Dziga Vertov’s first commission from the organisation was ‘The Eleventh Year’, a short propaganda film about the development of the electricity industry as part of the Soviet Union’s drive to develop the backward country (ahead of Stalin’s first Five Year Plan that began in 1928). Several sequences for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ were shot during ‘The Eleventh Year’ filming, and Mikhail Kaufman also used some of the footage for his film ‘Unprecedented Campaign’ [1931]. The VUFKU board were obviously satisfied with this first film as during a meeting held on the 12th and 13th April 1928 permission was granted to proceed with ‘Man with a Movie Camera’.

‘6. About the permission for the director DZIGA VERTOV to shoot a picture ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (Comrade SIDERSKY).’

‘6. Shooting such a picture is considered appropriate. Pass the production plan through the appropriate authorities for approval.

According to the shooting schedule filming began in Moscow in early June and continued to mid-September in Kyiv (see my previous blog post on the locations for details of the schedule). However, a short article in the Kyiv monthly journal Kino No. 11, November 1928, mentions that ‘filming is almost finished’. Editing and production work was presumably going on at the same time, the VUFKU board complaining of slight delays in handing over the film in a minute dated 10th January 1929.

The picture “Man with a Movie Camera” instead of receiving it on January 1st* the production department promised to hand it over on January 4th, but submitted it on the 5th, while the picture was supposed to go on the screen on January 7th.’

*A previous minute mentioned January 2nd as the handover date.

VUFKU minutes from ‘Minutes of the VUFKU Board (1922-1930)’, compiled by Roman Roslyak, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the Rylsky Institute of Art Studies, Folklore & Ethnology, Kyiv. Lyra-K Publishing House, 2017.

THE FIRST SCREENING ON MONDAY 7th JANUARY 1929

It did make the deadline as the announcement for the first cinema screening of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was published on the 6th January 1929 in the Sunday edition of the Russian language newspaper ‘Kievsky Proletary’ (it wasn’t published on a Monday).

A very modest advertisement for the film to be shown ‘tomorrow’ at Goskino No. 2 Cinema with little information except that it was a ‘film without words, Director Dziga Vertov, Cinematographer Kaufman’. The announcement also boasts that the film is the ‘best VUFKU release’, not obvious from the small badly printed advert and screening in the less prestigious Goskino No. 2. Better publicity would follow (see the posters for the Moscow and Berlin screenings).

The Goskino No. 2 Cinema (Держкінo/Derzhkino = State Cinema in Ukrainian) was the re-named Express Cinema on the main boulevard in Kyiv, Khreschatyk (entrance circled above). This was the first cinema in Kyiv, and one of the first in the Russian Empire, opened in 1907 by Anton Shantser. It was a great success and several others followed culminating in his most luxurious cinema, named after himself, which opened on Khreschatyk in 1912. This is the cinema that features in the opening scenes of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (see a previous blog post for screenshots and details) so it was a pity that the film could not have been shown there. Both cinemas were confiscated after the revolution and renamed Goskino No. 1 and No. 2. They were destroyed in 1942 when the retreating Red Army blew up the Khreschatyk area of Kyiv.

Although the evidence points to the 7th January being the date of the first screening of the film in a cinema an article [1] on the 12th January 1929 in the ‘Proletars’ka Pravda’ (Ukrainian language) Kyiv newspaper implies an earlier pre-release screening of the film. A remarkably appreciative and insightful review by an anonymous author ‘N.U.’ (likely to be the writer and poet Mykola Ushakov [2]) in the same newspaper on the 21st December is describing the film that must have been seen before it was ready for distribution. Professor John MacKay, Vertov’s biographer, has drawn my attention* to a document in the Vertov archive in Moscow (RGALI f. 2091, op. 1, d. 34) which records the minutes of a ‘discussion of the film “Man with a Movie Camera” by the representatives of the press with the speech by DA Vertov’ dated 7th November 1928. Referring to this in his Academia paper ‘Man with a Movie Camera: an Introduction’, 2013 (p. 5, fn. 8), Professor MacKay notes that ‘the speakers at this session were largely enthusiastic about the film, in contrast to an earlier debate in Khar’kov, where (according to Vertov) speakers declared that he should be prevented from working further, and that the film was a “criminal” waste of government funds’.

This seems to be the only record of pre-release screenings of the film but as filming appears to have still been going on in October (Kino article above), and the VUFKU production department only handed the release print over for public screening on the 5th January 1929, the film must have been incomplete at this stage. It also seems odd that Mykola Ushakov’s enthusiastic review was not published until six weeks after the November screening. It therefore seems likely that there was another screening in late December to approve the film for release. Unfortunately, there are no details of any pre-release screening in the VUFKU protocols.

*email to author

[1] [2] See Notes at end

Anna Onufriienko, Research Scholar and co-curator of the exhibition ‘VUFKU: Lost & Found’, at the Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Centre in Kyiv comments:

‘Щодо показу в грудні, думаю, це ймовірно, можливо, показ був внутрішній на засіданні приймальної комісії ВУФКУ, які обговорювали і дозволяли випуск фільму в прокат. Подібні засідання були звичною практикою. Наприклад, у книзі Українська дилогія, яка сподіваюсь, до вас невдовзі потрапить, є стенограма такого засідання щодо фільму “Навесні”. Там були присутні різні представники ВУФКУ, а також журналісти, письменники. Щодо такого показу в протоколах ВУФКУ нічого немає.’

‘As for the screening in December, I think it is probably possible that the screening was internal at a meeting of the admissions committee of VUFKU, which discussed and allowed the release of the film for rent. Such meetings were common practice. For example, in the book ‘Ukrainian Dilogy’….there is a transcript of such a meeting on the film “In Spring”. There were various representatives of VUFKU, as well as journalists and writers. There is nothing about such a show in the protocols of VUFKU.’

THE FIRST REVIEW OF ‘MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA’

‘Proletars’ka Pravda’ 21st December 1928

The Ukrainian transcription from the review by Mykola Ushakov and a full translation are at the end of the post. Ushakov is full of praise for the film, describing it as a masterpiece.

“…Dziga Vertov himself calls his film only an experiment. Perhaps this is excessive modesty. Man with a Movie Camera almost goes beyond the scope of laboratory research. This is a truthful picture, which excites not only by the freshness of its view of the material, not only by its formal achievements but also by its thematic depth. Many directors in the USSR and abroad will extract material from it in parts, and dozens and hundreds of young filmmakers will learn from it photogeny, interpretation of nature, editing and cinematographic art.

VUFKU is destined to give world cinema a new masterpiece. Let VUFKU use it to provide Vertov with a further opportunity to experiment in this way. These experiments will become the pride of Ukrainian cinema.”

ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK IN KYIV

Advertisements in Russian from the ‘Kievsky Proletary’ newspaper and in Ukrainian from the ‘Proletars’ka Pravda’ newspaper.

TUESDAY 8th JANUARY 1929

The second announcement for the film has even less information than the first, omitting ‘best release from VUFKU’. Goskino No. 1 Cinema is screening Vsevolod Pudovkin’s ‘Storm over Asia’ (aka ‘The Heir to Genghis Khan’) [1928] (with a mention of Dovzhenko’s ‘Arsenal’ below), stiff competition for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’!

WEDNESDAY 9th JANUARY 1929

Announcements in both papers, proclaiming that the third day is sold out! ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is described as ‘the only new experimental film in the USSR without words in 8 parts’ (sic). There is much more information about the film this time in rather florid language: ‘Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov*, Odessa, Kiev are in anticipation of a dream (of) dialectical movement, contrasts and versatility. The most sophisticated techniques of modern cinema, extraordinary filming without any preparation of props, without a script, and without actors. Life as it is. Many Kievans can see themselves on the screen, where they were photographed by the camera in the cinema, even through a window at home. At the same time the art of film editing and the integrity of the design are impressive.

These adverts are perversely printed at right angles to the page for some reason, perhaps to make them stand out.

*I have only found evidence of one Kharkiv location in the film. See my blog post on the locations.

THURSDAY 10th JANUARY 1929

Announcements for the film in the newspapers on this day have not been found. Perhaps it was sold out again and there was no need to advertise.

There is an advertisement for the film in the 10th January edition of the monthly Kiev journal ‘Kino-Gazeta’ at the bottom of page 4. This proclaims: ‘VUFKU News! An extremely interesting film will be shown in Ukraine. Cinematographer Kaufman, Author-Director Dziga Vertov’.

FRIDAY 11th JANUARY 1929

Back to the same basic announcement of the 8th January.

SATURDAY 12th JANUARY 1929

Interest in the film was waning perhaps as two comedies have been added to the programme to encourage Saturday cinema goers!

SUNDAY 13th JANUARY 1929

This was the last day of the film in Kyiv and the following Monday’s screening was being promoted in larger type. This was an ‘artistic drama’ entitled ‘The Right to Life’, a 1928 Sovkino film directed by Pavel Petrov-Bytov. It was about ‘the battle against protectionism in the production process during the NEP years’ which does not sound much like an ‘artistic drama’ but the story-line of a village girl being exploited when she comes to the city is similar to Boris Barnet’s more famous 1928 film ‘The House on Trubnaia’. [source: Julian Graffy]

KHARKIV PREMIERE – TUESDAY 15th JANUARY 1929

The print of the film must have then gone straight to Kharkiv as the first screening in the Ukrainian capital at the time was announced in the Sunday 13th January edition of the Khar’kovsky Proletary newspaper for the following Tuesday at the Goskino ‘K. Liebknecht’ cinema. The digital press archives for Kharkiv are incomplete so I am unable to discover how long the film was shown, and find reviews.

The announcement proclaims (in Russian) that this is the ‘first film without words’, and goes on to copy the titles at the beginning of the film – ‘An experiment in the cinematic transmission of visual phenomena, without resorting to theatre (a drama without actors, sets etc), without the help of a script (a film without a script), and finally without intertitles (a film without intertitles).’

Early 1900s view of Sumska Street, the main street in the city, showing the location of the cinema.

The cinema was opened in 1913 as the ‘Empire’, confiscated after the Revolution and re-named after the 19thC Prussian socialist politician and theorist Karl Liebknecht. [1930s photograph of the entrance].

An extravagant display of folk paintings and costumes to advertise the 1936 film of ‘Natalka Poltavka’, the 1819 nationalist play by Ivan Kotlyarevsky turned into a popular operetta by Mykola Lysenko in 1889. This first adaptation of an operetta in the Soviet Union was directed by Ivan Kavaleridze. A surprising production given the political situation of Ukraine at the time as the anti-nationalistic ‘Great Terror’ had commenced but apparently Stalin liked the operetta.

MOSCOW PREMIERE – TUESDAY 9th APRIL 1929

The Moscow premiere of the film was at the Hermitage Theatre in the Hermitage Garden and Tverskaya 46 Cinema on the corner of Tverskaya and Strastnaya Square. There was a preview of the film in the previous month attended by ‘experts in the art of film and from literature, theatre, and art circles’ as reported by the German Die Form magazine (see German screening).

A 19thC postcard of the Hermitage Theatre, one of the pavilions in the Hermitage Garden, located in the north of the city near the Garden Ring. Established in 1894 the garden became an important cultural centre with several theatres located in buildings in the garden or nearby. The Hermitage Theatre (not to be confused with its more famous St Petersburg namesake) was the venue for the first showing of a film in the city (‘The Arrival of a Train’) by a travelling Lumière operator in 1896. Nationalised in 1918 it was rented by a group of entrepreneurs in the NEP period for a variety of entertainment events, including film shows.

Screenshot [00:16:13] from the film showing the corner of the Tverskaya 46 Cinema at the junction of Strastnaya Square and Tverskaya street. The poster of a man in spats and large ‘disc’ with the cinema name can be seen on the building behind the motorcycle and sidecar in another screenshot below. The full poster as seen below is on the wall to the right of the kiosk.

Screenshot [01:04:31] showing the cinema on Strastnaya Square.

The cinema’s entry in a 1929 Moscow directory.

The posters are advertising the 1928 film ‘Engineer Elagin’, directed by Vladimir Feinberg. The man in spats probably depicts the engineer’s traitorous son in the pay of foreign intelligence, who sabotages his father’s factory and kills a worker. Engineer Elagin forces his son at gunpoint to give himself up! [Many thanks to James Mann for tracking down the poster and to Julian Graffy for information on the film]

The first* announcement for the film in ‘Pravda’ on Sunday 7th April 1929 advertising the premiere on the 9th.

The advertisement for the film on the day of the premiere. Unclear in parts but much of the rather sensational text is decipherable: ‘Today, the premiere of the first film in the SSSR without words. Man with a Movie Camera, Author supervisor Dziga Vertov, Chief cameraman M. Kaufman, Assistant editor E. Svilova. A VUFKU Production. Hermitage VUFKU, Tverskaya 46. Amazing adventures of a film cameraman. On land, on water, underground and in the air, for the first time – the TRANSFORMATION of a cameraman from a GIANT into a midget and vice versa. A Cinema GULLIVER…People in the air, a FROZEN horse, FILM-RESURRECTION of people and animals…The man is in danger…a tram over the auditorium…HELP…EXPLOSION of time. What happened to Theatre Square? The rebellious pendulum. Chasing time. Up to 1000 kilometres an hour…Up to 15 minutes per minute.’

*Preliminary ‘teaser’ advertisements were placed in Pravda from the end of March.

In contrast to the paltry announcements in the Kyiv and Kharkiv press VUFKU obviously thought it worthwhile to commission the renowned graphic artists Georgii and Vladimir Stenberg to design a poster for the Russian screening of the film. The result is a masterpiece, surely one of the greatest film posters of all time. It perfectly captures the spirit of the film’s breakneck journey through the city, using a spiralling motif with the letters suggesting the frames of a film. Clearly produced to promote the film for the Moscow premiere the description of Vertov et al matches that in the Pravda advertisement. Printed (by Sovkino) in an astonishingly large edition of 12,000.

The second Stenberg brothers poster for the film doesn’t quite match the virtuosity of their first but is still a wonderful graphic representation of images from the film (though the ‘gun’ silhouette is clearly designed to attract an audience as it is only a fleeting image in the film). The ‘camera eye’ is a brilliant device, and the Debrie camera and tripod are very accurately depicted.

This poster for the film by M. Chelovski is exhibited in the Cinémathèque française in Paris, but I have no information about it or the designer. In the Russian language but an odd rendering of the film title using ‘из’ (of) and ‘Kaufman’ is also spelled incorrectly. The alternative spelling of аппаратом is odd as the ‘m’ replacing ‘t’ in Cyrillic is normally only used in handwriting or an italic font. [photograph courtesy of the Cinémathèque française]

Anna Onufriienko has found a Ukrainian version of the poster seen in a catalogue of the ‘Ippei Fukura Collection’ of Soviet posters at the National Museum of Modern Art in Tokyo. The ‘with’ in the film title is now correct but the misspelled ‘Kaufman’ remains. The Dovzhenko Centre does not know of any other Ukrainian posters for the film. The only other publicity I have come across is a newspaper or magazine advertisement in the Vertov Archive at the Austrian Film Museum.

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was on for a week, replaced on the 16th April in both cinemas by an old Harold Lloyd film ‘Grandma’s Boy’ (1922). Also on show (‘exclusively’) at the famous ARS Cinema on Arbat was another 1922 film ‘Nanook of the North’.

This is the actual poster advertising ‘Grandma’s Boy’ at Tverskaya 46 on the 16th April 1929.

Chapters 24 & 25 in ‘Lines of Resistance: Dziga Vertov and the Twenties’ (edited by Yuri Tsivian) has several articles on the film, some with complaints about the short run at both cinemas. Konstantin Feldman in Vecherniaia Moskva, 18th April 1929, (chap. 25, p. 349) writes that ‘Our readers remember the campaign which Vecherniaia Moskva had to wage so as to achieve the cinematic release of Dziga Vertov’s film “Man with a Movie Camera”. Our exhibitors and cinema administrators – experienced specialists and connoisseurs of public taste – peremptorily decided that this film would not “get through” to the mass viewer. When it was finally put on in two large Moscow cinemas, Dziga Vertov’s film brilliantly refuted these gloomy prophecies. For a whole week the film did good box office at both theatres, competing successfully against foreign “hits”‘.

However, Feldman complains, despite this great success the film was immediately withdrawn from the screens of the two cinemas. He sarcastically says that if they were showing ‘popular’ films everything would have been ‘arranged for the better’ and they would have been kept on for a second and third week. ‘The film is being taken off the screen by force. We must hurry and expedite the release of such a significant film as “Grandma’s Boy” with Harold Lloyd himself. The mistake goes beyond the bounds of the permissible. We have before us the fact of stubborn opposition to bringing a work by a Soviet master to the mass viewer. It is time to draw conclusions from this whole long drawn-out story.’

See below for further reviews from the book, and publication details.

THE FIRST SCREENING OF THE FILM OUTSIDE THE SOVIET UNION

VUFKU Board Meeting Minute 17, Protocol 53, December 11th 1928.

’17. Statement of the director VERTOV with a request to give him leave to go abroad from the 15th December.’

’17. [resolved] to give the director VERTOV a vacation and it is expedient to send him abroad. Instruct the Art Department to agree with VERTOV on his further work.’

VUFKU minute from ‘Minutes of the VUFKU Board (1922-1930)’, compiled by Roman Roslyak (see end notes for details).

FILM UND FOTO EXHIBITION, STUTTGART, MAY – JULY 1929

In May 1929 Dziga Vertov took a print of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ with him on a tour of Europe to promote the film. It isn’t clear if this trip was a delayed result of the minute above or further permission had been granted. The tour was largely organised by the contacts of Vertov’s friends El Lissitzky and his German wife Sophie Küppers. The Lissitzkys had been commissioned to design the Russian Room at the seminal 1929 Stuttgart exhibition ‘Film und Foto’. An unprecedented event that showcased contemporary photography and cinema from Europe, the Soviet Union and the USA, by all the leading practitioners of the day. The curator of the film section of FiFo, Hans Richter, wanted to promote film as a serious art form and many prominent film-makers took part in the exhibition, including Charlie Chaplin, Marcel Duchamp, Viking Eggeling, and Walter Ruttmann. Films by Sergei Eisenstein, Oleksandr Dovzhenko, Vsevolod Pudovkin, Esfir Shub, and Dziga Vertov were screened in the Russian Room.

.

Unlike the rest of the exhibition The Russian Room (above) combined both film and photography showing work by contemporary Soviet directors alongside photographs by Aleksandr Rodchenko and others.

HANOVER, 3rd and 4th JUNE 1929

The first screening of the film outside the Soviet Union in a cinema was in Hanover according to an announcement in the Hannoverscher Anzeiger newspaper of the 1st June 1929. It was only on for two days, with talks by Vertov and ‘other work’ being shown, as the print was presumably needed for ‘Film und Foto’. It was not screened in a conventional street level cinema but in the huge dome of the planetarium at the top of the newspaper’s offices, the Brick Expressionist Anzeiger-Hochhaus building (below). Designed by Fritz Höger, and completed in 1928, the building was one of the first high rises in Germany, hence its name. In December 1928 a temporary cinema in the planetarium was opened under the name ‘Planetarium-Lichtspiele Kulturfilmbühne‘ (stage for cultural films), with 210 seats1. The reason for this first screening in Hanover seems to have been the Lissitzky’s contacts at the Kestner Gesellschaft, the city art gallery founded in 1916 to promote modern art2. Sophie Küppers-Lissitzky came from Hanover and her first husband had been the director of the gallery for many years3.

1Hanover City portal and Hochhaus-Lichtspiele website. ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, p. 262, describes the film ‘being projected into the dome of the planetarium’ but this seems unlikely and a misinterpretation of the location.

2‘Hannover in 3 Tagen: ein kurzweiliger Kulturführer’, Peter Struck, Schlütersche, 2008.

3‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, p. 262.

Announcement in the Hannoverscher Anzeiger on 1st June 1929 advertising the screening of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ in the Planetarium on Monday 3rd and Tuesday 4th June, at 8:20pm. ‘As well as this film Vertov will show other work. Vertov will also personally speak about his creative endeavours’. [courtesy of ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, ref: Pr De 005].

During his second European trip Dziga Vertov had also been invited to give a talk at the Kulturfilmbühne on the 7th and 8th October 1931 about his first sound film ‘Enthusiasm: the Donbas Symphony’ but this had to be cancelled after the film was banned in Germany on October 5th [‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, letter ref: B013].

Vertov also gave talks about the film and Kino Eye to audiences in Berlin, Munich1, and Frankfurt2. Germany was the centre for film production and photographic manufacturing in Europe at that time, and the giant UFA Studios in Berlin were the most advanced in the world. This made the city the most important venue for a screening of ‘Man with a Movie Camera‘ during the tour.

1 ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, p. 35 & pl. 19.

2‘Lines of Resistance’ chap. 28, p. 378.

BERLIN PREMIERE, TUESDAY 2nd JULY 1929

Following the film’s showing at ‘Film und Foto’ and Hanover the Berlin premiere of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was on the 2nd July at the Marmorhaus cinema (named because of the marble facade) on Kurfürstendamm. Built in 1912 on the most prestigious avenue in the city it was often the venue for the first screening of new films, including ‘The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari’ [1920] and ‘The Head of Janus’ [1920], the interior designed by the Expressionist painter and set designer César Klein making it a suitable location for both. Dziga Vertov also gave a talk at the venue on the day of the premiere1.

1‘Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, ref: Pr De 053.1.

A much better advertisement for the film than the Soviet papers could manage in the 29th June edition of Film Kurier [courtesy of ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, ref. Pr De 049.IV].

The advertisement of the premiere of ‘Der Mann mit der Kamera’ at the Marmorhaus Cinema in the 2nd July 1929 edition of the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper. Performances at 7:15 and 9:15.

The film was at the Marmorhaus for a week, replaced on the 9th July by another Soviet film premiere, Vsevolod Pudovkin’s ‘Storm over Asia’ (the film that occupied Goskino No.1 Cinema in Kyiv during the screening of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ back in January!).

The Marmorhaus Cinema in 1952 (I cannot find any suitable contemporary views of the building).

Interiors of the cinema (unknown date). [photographs: Oleg Andreev]

Another superb poster for the film, designed by Julius Kupfer-Sachs, showing the cameraman on a motorcycle speeding through an Expressionist city. According to a stamp on the poster it was approved by the Berlin film censors on the 24th June 1929, a week before the premiere [source: Austrian Film Museum Collection].

It seems Dziga Vertov may have designed a very good photo montage, featuring stills from the film, for promoting it in Germany.

EARLY REVIEWS OF ‘MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA

The popular narrative (eg Wikipedia, Senses of Cinema etc) is that ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was poorly received by both critics and the public on its release in the Soviet Union. Sergei Eisenstein’s comment that the film was ‘pointless camera hooliganism’ is well known. The reality was largely the opposite, typified by the first, very enthusiastic, review of the film by Mykola Ushakov written after a pre-release screening in Kyiv. After the first rather modest announcements in the local papers VUFKU obviously thought the public reaction to the film made it worthwhile to commission a poster (and a second) from the leading designers of the era, the Stenberg brothers, and have 12,000 of it printed. As noted above the Moscow screening was counted a success by critics, who complained the film was taken off too soon.

The principal reference to writings by and about Dziga Vertov is ‘Lines of Resistance: Dziga Vertov and the Twenties’ (edited by Yuri Tsivian with translations by Julian Graffy and research by Aleksandr Deriabin, published by Le Giornate del Cinema Muto, 2004) which includes contemporary articles and reviews of the film in the Soviet Union and the West. The majority of these are very positive about the film and its director.

THE FIRST (PRE-RELEASE) REVIEW OF THE FILM

21st DECEMBER 1928 by MYKOLA USHAKOV

Transcribed from:

Пролетарська правда. – 1928. – 21 грудня.

Культура й мистецтво

«Людина з кіно-апаратом»

Виробництво ВУФКУ 1928 року, автор-керівник – Дзига Вертов, голов. опер. М. Кауфман, асист. на монтажі Є. Свілова.

“Майстер іде вперед, а кайдани маніфестів тягнуться за ним.

Вертов, як і перше, говорить про життя, як його сприймає кіно-апарат. Він каже, що доданки цих сприйнять не міняють загальної суми. Але в мистецтві, а те, що робить Вертов, звичайно мистецтво, від переміни додаників сума цілком міняється. Отже ціла картина вже не життя, яким його бачить кіно-апарат, – це життя, що його створив монтаж Вертова та його групи.

Кайдани маніфестів тягнуться за майстром.

Вертов іде вперед.

«6-та частина світу» трималася на гіперболі написів, але самі держторгівські маштаби від полярного песця до виноградників говорили за себе. Ту саму гіперболу тітрів маємо й у «Одинадцятому». З погляду розгортання гіперболи «Одинадцятий» виявив себе, як провал, бо віддалення від Донбасу до Київа це не віддалення від Нової Землі до Криму. Шаленим монтажем Вертов хотів підмінити природній простір і зовсім не гіперболічну індустрію. Сталася невідповідність між бідністю й малими маштабами матеріялу та між темпом.

«Одинадцятий» міг би бути тільки, як частина «6-ої частини світу», але окремо він мав бути, бо без нього не було-б нової картини Вертова «Людина з кіно-апаратом». «Одинадцятий» з погляду монтажу був уже готуванням до нового надзвичайного вертівського фільму.

Говорити про мистецтво за-для мистецтва й про мистецтво тенденційне – це безглуздя. Великий майстер, працюючи над твором за-для мистецтва, створює шедевр великої громадської ваги. «Одинадцятому» куди до шедевру. Хоч тему мав і ювілейну, проте він дуже часто не підносився вище за монтажний орнамент, за-для монтажного орнаменту.

Те само могло трапитися й з новою вертовою картиною, коли-б у ній за головну дійову особу не була людина, оператор, Фігаро кінематографії, що прокидається вдосвіда й працює на повітрі, під водою й землею, що відбігає з рейок саме тоді, коли поїзд уже мав його розчавити, що повстав з-під ніг одеських рикш і із шклянки пива.

Цей оператор схоплює те життя людей і речей, яке ми бачимо, але не сприймаємо.

Дюамель в одному свому нарисі скаржиться, що люди, приходячи до шпиталю, дивуються з вилиску нікелю та білої фарби, але не бачать самої сути – страждання.

Гоголь, Достоєвський відкрили нам дух Санкт-Петербургу, Анатоль Франс – дух Парижу. Німецькі кінематографісти, що здіймали «Симфонію великого міста», чесно зареєстрували одну добу Берліну. Ми дізналися, що робить берлінець о 5-й, о 6-й, о 9-й год. ранку, о-півдня, після служби і о-півночі. Але дух Берліну був не розкритий. У Вертова немає певного міста й зовсім не важно, що «поштові скриньки» з київських вулиць монтують разом із Кузнецькнм мостом. Вертов не реєструє просто вияви міського життя, нещасні випадки, смерть, народження, спочинок, то-що. Але в своїй разючій грі темпами, то роблячи 5 хвнл. на хвилину, то висаджуючи час, вимикнувши життя, подає дух сучасного міста взагалі, міста не такого, як його бачить кіно-апарат, а своєрідного міста, що його викрили Вертов, його асистенти та оператор.

Вертов, підносячись над самим експериментом, подає своєрідну філософію міста.

Коли-б це місто було тільки місто, що його побачив кіно-апарат, то, звісно, не було-б великої різниці між «Парижем у-ві сні», «Симфонією великого міста» і містом із «Людини з кіно-апаратом». Хоч є зовнішні спільні моменти (велосипед у вітрині, поїзд і нещасний випадок із «Симфонії великого міста», і зупинка юрби в «Парижу у-ві сні»), проте ці три картини а-ні трохи неподібні.

Говоримо про це тільки для того, щоб Вертов не так уже цінував свої кайдани.

Сам Дзига Вертов називає свій фільм тільки експериментом. Можливо, це зайва скромність. «Людина з кіно-апаратом» майже виходить по-за межі лабораторних шукань. Це правдива картина, що хвилює не тільки свіжістю поглядів на матеріял, що хвилює не тільки своїми формальними досягненнями а й своєю тематичною глибиною.

Багато режисерів СРСР і за кордоном вихоплюватимуть з неї матеріял частинами, десятки і сотні молодих кіноробітників будуть з неї вчитися фотогенії, трактування натури, монтажу й операторського мистецтва.

ВУФКУ судилося дати світовій кінематографії новий шедевр. Хай же ВУФКУ використає його й забезпечить Вертову дальшу можливість так експериментувати.

Ці експерименти стануть гордістю української кінематографії.”

Н. У.

                             
Proletarian Truth – 1928. – December 21.

CULTURE AND ART

“Man with a movie camera”

Production of VUFKU, 1928, author-supervisor – Dziga Vertov, head cameraman M. Kaufman, editing assistant E. Svilova.

“The master marches ahead, dragging along the shackles of his manifestos.

Vertov, as before, talks about life as it is perceived by the film camera. He says that the terms of these perceptions do not change the thing in its entirety. But in art, and what Vertov does is, of course, art, the change of terms completely changes the whole. So the whole picture is no longer life as the film camera sees it, – it is life created by the editing of Vertov and his group.

The shackles of the manifestos follow the master.

Vertov goes forward.

A Sixth Part of the World was based on the hyperbole in the intertitles, but the very scale of state trade from polar foxes to vineyards spoke for itself. We have the same hyperbolic intertitles in The Eleventh Year. From the point of view of the deployment of hyperbole, The Eleventh Year proved to be a failure, because the distance from Donbass to Kyiv is not the distance from Novaya Zemlia to the Crimea. Vertov wanted to replace natural space and absolutely not hyperbolic industry with crazy editing. There is a mismatch between the poverty and small scale of the material and the pace of the film.

The Eleventh Year could just have been a part of A Sixth Part of the World but it had to be separate, because without it there would not have been Vertov’s new picture, Man with a Movie Camera. In terms of editing The Eleventh Year was already a preparation for Vertov’s extraordinary new film.

Talking about art for art’s sake and tendentious art is nonsense. A great master, working on a work for art’s sake, has created a masterpiece of great civic importance. The Eleventh Year is far from a masterpiece. Although it had a jubilee theme, it often did not rise above montage ornament for the sake of montage ornament.

The same could have happened with Vertov’s new picture, were it not for the fact that the main character was a man, a cameraman, a Figaro of cinema, waking up before dawn and working in the air, under water and underground, running from the rails just when a train might have crushed him, rising from under the feet of Odesa rickshaws and from a glass of beer.

This cameraman captures the lives of people and things that we see but do not perceive.

In one of his essays, Duhamel complains that when people come to a hospital they are surprised by the shine of the nickel and white paint, but do not see the essence – suffering.

Gogol, Dostoevsky revealed to us the spirit of St. Petersburg, Anatole France – the spirit of Paris. The German filmmakers who filmed The Symphony of a Great City honestly recorded one day in Berlin. We learned what a Berliner does at 5 o’clock, at 6 o’clock, at 9 o’clock in the morning, at noon, after work and at midnight. But the spirit of Berlin was not revealed. Vertov does not have a specific city, and it does not matter at all that “mailboxes” from the streets of Kyiv are edited together with Kuznetskii Most Street in Moscow. Vertov does not simply register the events of city life, accidents, deaths, births, rest, etc. Rather, in his striking game with tempo, he either turns five minutes into one, or he ousts the sense of time, switching life off, giving the spirit of the modern city in general, a city not as seen by the film camera, but as revealed by Vertov, his assistants and cameraman.

Vertov, rising above the experiment itself, presents a kind of philosophy of the city.

If this city was just a city seen by a movie camera, then, of course, there would be no big difference between Paris qui dort, The Symphony of a Great City and the city in Man with a Movie Camera. Although there are external commonalities (a bicycle in a shop window, a train and an accident from the The Symphony of a Great City, and a crowd coming to a stop in Paris qui dort) these three pictures are totally different.

We are talking about this only so that Vertov will not value his shackles so highly.

Dziga Vertov himself calls his film only an experiment. Perhaps this is excessive modesty. Man with a Movie Camera almost goes beyond the scope of laboratory research. This is a truthful picture, which excites not only by the freshness of its view of the material, not only by its formal achievements but also by its thematic depth.

Many directors in the USSR and abroad will extract material from it in parts, and dozens and hundreds of young filmmakers will learn from it photogeny, interpretation of nature, editing and cinematographic art.

VUFKU is destined to give world cinema a new masterpiece. Let VUFKU use it to provide Vertov with a further opportunity to experiment in this way.

These experiments will become the pride of Ukrainian cinema.”

N. U.

I am very grateful to Julian Graffy, Emeritus Professor of Russian Literature and Cinema at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, and Tom and Roksolyana Lasica for editing the translation of Mykola Ushakov’s remarkable review of the film.

MOSCOW

‘The Hero of the Film is the Camera’ (‘Lines of Resistance’, chap. 24, p. 339)

‘Kino’ #2, Moscow, 8th January 1929, page 3. E[zra] Vilensky

In an appreciative review, the day after the Kyiv premiere, Vilensky notes that the ‘film aroused heated debate in Kharkov and Kiev*. It is a long time since film production has delivered such sharp material. It is a long time since the Ukrainian public was so agitated’. He fears that ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ will suffer the fate of the majority of non-fiction films and insists that ‘we must not allow it to lie on a shelf until some unspecified time. The centre of the cinematic life of the USSR, Moscow, must see this film as quickly as possible’.

*This is presumably referring to the pre-release screenings and discussions recorded in the minutes dated 7th November 1928 in the RGALI Vertov archive, and noted in Professor MacKay’s paper at the beginning of the post.

‘So What is the Matter?! Once again about Man with a Movie camera’ (‘Lines of Resistance’, chap. 25, p. 350).

‘Kino’ #17, Moscow, 23rd April 1929, page 3

The anonymous author repeats much of Konstantin Feldman’s comments in Vecherniaia Moskva asking readers to recall the ‘heated struggle between the public and the film exhibition organisers which had to take place before the release of “Man with a Movie Camera”….The public won a partial victory. On the 9th April the film began a run on the screens of two central cinemas, the Hermitage and 46 Tverskaia Street. The first week of the run showed that the fears of the cinema businessmen were completely unfounded. In material terms ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ did normal box-office: at the Hermitage it was higher than average (more than 4,000 roubles in a week), and at the Tverskaia it was average (over 7,000 roubles). If you bear in mind that this is a non-fiction, experimental film, which the viewer is not used to and may even find difficult to take in, then these figures would seem to provide evidence of a great victory for our cinema: they reveal the heightened cultural demands of our viewers, and in consequence the film should continue to be shown.’ However, the author complains that, despite this commercial success and protests from the public and press, ‘after a single week “Man with a Movie Camera” made way on the screens of the Hermitage and 46 Tverskaia Street for such an obviously philistine film as “Grandma’s Boy”, with Harold Lloyd.’

I would like to thank Professor Julian Graffy for providing the pages with the original articles.

GERMANY

The 1st April 1929 edition of the influential design magazine Die Form, produced by the Deutscher Werkbund, included a preview of the Film und Foto exhibition featuring ‘Man with a Movie Camera’. Translation of the article below.

NEW RUSSIAN FILMS AT THE EXHIBITION

In Moscow a new film “Man with a Movie Camera” was recently previewed. The film, which takes simple everyday life by surprise and records it dynamically, was created by the young Russian film artist Dsiga Werthoff without actors, without any scenario and completely without intertitles. Hot, pulsating life, which seems to jump out at the viewer, is not only seen anew and given new forms by the film, it is experienced anew and is turned into a cinematic work of art without any literary or theatrical pathos. This is why this film can neither be told nor described in any way, it speaks its own language, which is derived from the possibilities of cinema. He shows us the facts – seen through the lens of the camera – from a different angle than we are used to seeing them.

The film made a strong impression on all viewers, who were composed of experts in the art of film and from literature, theatre and art circles.

Dsiga Werthoff’s film will also be presented to the public for discussion in Germany, for the first time, as part of the international Werkbund Exhibition “Film und Foto” in Stuttgart. As is well known, this exhibition aims to address all of the important issues of film and photography by showing demonstrations and lectures in order to encourage progress in these areas.

In addition to the new film by Werthoff, other previously unpublished films will also be premiered in Stuttgart. Individual directors and cinematographers intend to put together short instruction films especially for this exhibition, which should give an insight into their theories, working methods, and editing. Shorter published films by Pudowkin, Eisenstein, Schub and new cultural films from Russia will also be shown.’

Die Form, issue 7, 1st April 1929

Vertov’s friend, Sophie Küppers (-Lissitzky) wrote an article in praise of the film in the May 1929 edition of the influential art journal Das Kunstblatt, ‘Schaut das Leben durch das Kino Auge Dsiga Werthoffs’ (‘Look at Life through Dziga Vertov’s Kino-Eye’). In one of the most thoughtful reviews of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ she gets right to the heart of the film: ‘..But life here is not only observed and fixed. It is experienced – formed deeply and chastely, and with a heart burning with poetry. Never before was womankind shown with such restraint, never before has the martyrdom of birth in art revealed itself as a drama of a few seconds. The whole range of human emotions is touched upon – quietly and with great dignity…Vertov’s optical tricks catch us unawares – if he has mystified us, so in the next moment he will laughingly explain his trick to us. Even as the wild chaos of the street is barely no longer whirring before us, he already shows us the assistant at her laborious editing work.

She concludes: ‘Vertov has received complete appreciation and enthusiastic acclaim from all progressive-minded people. His valiant co-workers loyally support him in his struggle for his work. A new language has truly been created, that cannot be imparted by any other communications medium other than the cinema apparatus. No written history, no verbal poetry, and no image will be able to give the following generations a truer testimony of the experience of life in our time than these film records of Dziga Vertov. Through his instrument he has rythmatized seeing; seeing resounds; the theatre broke into pieces – what we experience through him is only – REALITY.

[Excerpt from ‘Lines of Resistance’, chap. 26, pp. 359-360. Translation by Oliver Gayken]

The following Berlin newspaper extracts are difficult to read so there is a link to each article via the newspaper title under each review.

A review in the 12th June edition of Berliner Volks-Zeitung of a ‘poorly attended’ lecture about ‘Kino-Eye’ given by Dziga Vertov on the 9th to the National Association of Film Art in the Phoebus Theatre, Berlin. The reviewer (Franze Schnitzer – see below) wrote that the lecture was too technical for the audience and best suited to ‘experts in a cameraman’s club’. He thought that ‘what some samples from Werthow’s montage showed was, in a certain sense, a refined Ruttmann film. “Symphony of a Great City” only depicted the outward appearance of the big city, the Russians, as always, take convincing and politically oriented pictures, and also depict something like the people’s soul. Werthow is a fanatical fan of the candid film. One of these, “The Man with the Movie Camera”, will soon be showing in Berlin.’

The day after the premiere a small notification of the film’s release by Derussa* appeared in the 3rd July edition of Berliner Volks-Zeitung.

*The German-Russian Film Alliance

‘The first full-length, complete film by the Russian film art association “Kino-Eye” is now being released by Derussa. Direction and Montage: Werthoff’.

A review in the Berlin Communist newspaper ‘Die Rote Fahne’ (The Red Flag) on Friday 5th July. Difficult to read even in the original because of the ‘Faktur’ black type, it concludes that the film is ‘very interesting artistically, with masterful montage and camerawork, but overflowing with details and without a continuous rythm. Ruttmann’s film “Symphony of a Great City” is more economical than this Werthoff film. Werthoff’s path with “The Man with the Camera” deviates from the real tasks of Russian “Cinema Eyes”.’

A review of ‘Der Mann mit der Kamera’ in the Saturday 6th July edition of Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (unfortunately difficult to read even in the original as it is typeset in Fraktur black letter script). DAZ was one of the principal German newspapers.

A mixed review that rather misses the point of the film in the 10th July edition of Berliner Volks-Zeitung (translation below). The misplaced photograph of the star of ‘Sweet and Sinful’ illustrating the piece would have also irritated Dziga Vertov I imagine!

The Man with the Camera
In the Marmorhaus

‘Wertoff’s film culture and the goals of the Russian film group Kino Eye have already been discussed by this writer a few weeks ago1. At that time one had only seen excerpts from the “Man with the Movie Camera”, a documentary and a film with no intertitles that resembles Ruttmann’s “Symphony of a City”.  There is no actual content to be seen here.  The eye of the spectator experiences a city and its inhabitants, people who work, play sports, join committees, have children, mourn their dead, get divorced, work again, rush through the city, and have their fun and their sorrows.  The man with the camera is everywhere.  At the wedding, at the divorce, when having children, in the cemetery, when there is a fire and everywhere and all the time.  He turns, turns, turns.  He records the reality and then goes into the editing room and glues together a wonderful song out of it.  The hymn of a city, Werthoff’s pictorial song, begins with an andante and ends with a magnificent furioso, which is brilliantly assembled, but which will not be of interest to a non-literary audience or a viewer unfamiliar with the French absolutists and the birth of the avant-garde.

The film runs without intertitles.  For the German provinces and for the many smaller cinemas (even in Berlin) this is a catastrophe.  In the Marmorhaus the excellent accompaniment music by Schmidt-Boelke2 [sic] was played now and then to the audience so that the various scenes could be distinguished and understood.  But in a smaller cinema with only a gramophone or an organ or a man with a violin – what will the audience do?

Werthoff’s picture is a treat for film professionals. All weekly newsreel cameramen should watch it.  You can learn from him.  But the film is too long.  You can’t watch the weekly news for two hours3. What is very nice, however, is that Werthoff understands how to explain film as a craft over and over again, in close relation to the following scene. Rather like a table of contents.  You can see a film editor arranging and sticking different film strips together, spooling and rolling them.

It is all very beautiful, and it should be acknowledged that this film is worth seeing and a great artistic achievement, despite some foolish antics. But …. what will the audience outside of the area around the Memorial Church4 have to say about this series of pictures?  It is a muddle, from the tram to the railway, from work in the factory to people on the street.  The housewives are tired of worrying about their children, of doing housework, and of the whole week.  And now you sit in “your cinema” and see nothing but the tram, factory work, housework, children and all the excruciating hustle and bustle of everyday life.  In addition, an untrained eye may not be able to cope with the terrific rhythm of the sequence of images. Also about the film see the last paragraph of the article on this page “Cinema of the Workshop”‘.  F.S. (Franze Schnitzer)

Paragraph referred to:

‘Every now and then, however, a local theatre owner sets his ambition aside and plays one of those much-praised films often referred to as “art films”. For example, a now much-celebrated Russian film. And what does he have to listen to from his very candid audience? “Man, it looks as though I’m looking at the Kurfürstendamm through your bandy legs!”*’ Franze Schnitzer.

*An odd phrase in Berlin dialect.

1See above for Schnitzer’s 12th June review of Dziga Vertov’s Berlin talk (this may have been one of the articles that Dziga Vertov was complaining about below, although it only mentions Ruttmann).

2Werner Schmidt-Boelcke (1903-1985) was a German conductor and composer of film music.

3An exaggeration. The film is around 1 hour and six minutes long, similar to Ruttmann’s film.

4The Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church is at one end of the Kurfürstendamm.

Dziga Vertov complained in a long letter to the Frankfurter Zeitung (written from Berlin on the 8th July, but not to a Berlin newspaper for some reason) that ‘one segment of the Berlin press’ had made the accusation that ‘…Kino Eye essentially represents a “fanatical” continuation of the principles and practices carried on by a certain Blum (in the film “In the Shadow of the Machine”)1 and Ruttmann (Berlin, “Symphony of a Big City”), both of whom are unknown to me’. Albrecht Blum had lifted parts of ‘The Eleventh Year’ for his 1928 film2, and Walter Ruttmann did acknowledge the influence of Vertov’s theories. There is a long, generally favourable review by Siegfried Kracauer in the Frankfurter Zeitung of 19th May3 so perhaps Vertov thought he would find a readership sympathetic to his letter in this newspaper. Most reviews of the film in the Berlin press were positive (many making reasonable comparisons with Ruttmann’s film) but he could have taken offence at a very critical one in the 3rd July issue of ‘Kinematograph’ which concluded that ‘Vertov had nothing new to offer and could no longer surprise the audience, since Ruttmann and others had already used the same techniques’.

Letter excerpt from ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, p. 221.

1The reference to Blum was removed from the published letter [‘Lines of Resistance’, chap. 28, fn. 16].

2 ‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, p. 221

Vertov also explained his film and complained about Blum in an interview included in ‘Lines of Resistance’ [chap. 26, pp. 366-367].

Chapter 28 in ‘Lines of Resistance’ has more on ‘Vertov versus Blum’. Chapter 29 has more on Vertov and Ruttmann.

3‘Lines of Resistance’, chap. 26, pp. 355-359.

NOTES

[1] An article in ‘Proletars’ka Pravda’ on the 12th January 1929 entitled ‘Gravediggers from VUFKU’ by Mykola Yatko (1903-1968) who was a screenwriter and journalist, and had worked for VUFKU in Kyiv and the Odesa Film Studio. His article was sharply critical of VUFKU’s distribution policy that he thought favoured ‘box office hits’ at the expense of real works of art. He cites the poor advertising of the current screening of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ in Kyiv as an example. Looking at the paltry announcements for the film in the newspapers he had a point.

‘…Преса кричить про «Арсенал», а прокатники тільки всього виставили в 1-му кіні скромну дошку з світлинами «Арсеналу», а праворуч од неї пишний плакат «Мулен-Ружд» з голими ніжками танцюристок. «Людину з кіно-апаратом» без жодної об’яви (принаймні в Київі), без
жодного плакату пускають без підготовки в другорядному кіні…Наша й московська преса присвятила докладні статті «Людині з кіно-апаратом», громадський перегляд одностайно привітав ВУФКУ з новим досягненням, вирішено було всіляко сприяти й популяризувати в
масах «Людину з кіно-апаратом», а прокат просто всупереч логіці просто свідомо закопує кращий радянський фільм…’

‘…The press is shouting about “Arsenal”, but the distributors only put up a modest board with photos of “Arsenal” in the First Cinema1, but to the right of it is a magnificent poster of “Moulin Rouge” with the bare legs of dancers. “Man with a Movie Camera” is allowed to go ahead without any advertisement (at least in Kyiv), without any poster, and without any preparation in a second-rank cinema…Our and the Moscow press devoted detailed articles to “Man with a Movie Camera”, the public review2 unanimously congratulated VUFKU on the new achievement, and it was decided to promote and popularise “Man with the Movie Camera” among the masses, but the exhibitors, contrary to logic, simply deliberately buried the best Soviet film…’

1Goskino No. 1

2Julian Graffy suggests this could also mean ‘public reception’. Perhaps this is referring to another pre-release December screening at the VUFKU studios to which the public were invited, or the same one that Mykola Ushakov attended? The Dovzhenko Centre has no information about this.

[2] Mykhailo Kalnytsky suggests that ‘N.U.’ is the renowned Kyiv poet and cultural figure Mykola Mykolayovich Ushakov (1899-1973) who sometimes used these initials (for the Russian version of his name, Nikolai Ushakov). Professor Yuri Tsivian has read the review and says that it is clearly by Ushakov as it is similar in style to his book ‘Tri Operaturi’ (‘Three Cinematographers’, 1930).

Fair Use claimed for any copyright material as it is copied solely for research purposes and commentary only, without financial gain. Attribution and links given where known. Contemporary Soviet photographs are generally in the public domain.

I have added links to other websites and information to enhance the value of this post and although I have taken reasonable steps to ensure that they are reputable, I am unable to accept responsibility for any viruses and malware arising from these links.

The screenshots are from a version of the film posted on YouTube by a Ukrainian source AVG which is no longer available. The screenshot times [hr:min:sec] are from the Lobster Films/Eye Institute 2014 restoration of the film.

Pravda announcements extracted from the East West Pravda Digital Archive.

Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and Berliner Film-Zeitung newspaper announcements and reviews extracted from the ZEFYS digital archive of the Berlin State Library.

‘Lines of Resistance: Dziga Vertov and the Twenties’, edited by Yuri Tsivian with translations by Julian Graffy and research by Aleksandr Deriabin, published by Le Giornate del Cinema Muto, 2004.

‘The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, ed. Thomas Tode & Barbara Wurm, SYNEMA, 2006. There is online access to the collection, which includes many more newspaper articles and announcements.

For information on the shooting schedule and details of the film locations see my blog post Man with a Movie Camera: the film locations.

Please contact me on opinionated.designer@gmail.com with any comments and corrections.

Richard Bossons, Oxford, September 2020.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (not mentioned above)

I would like to thank the following for their invaluable help and information, and patience in answering many questions. Inclusion does not imply endorsement of anything in this blog post. Any errors and omissions are entirely mine.

I am indebted to my collaborator in Kyiv, the renowned historian of the city, Mykhailo Kalnytsky, for finding the Kyiv and Kharkiv announcements, the first review of the film, and the Mykola Yatko article. The photograph of the Goskino No. 2 Cinema is also from Mr Kalnytsky.

Professor Julian Graffy, for his invaluable comments, corrections, and information, and for his contributions also acknowledged in the text.

Anna Onufriienko, Senior Curator and Research Scholar at the Oleksandr Dovzhenko Centre in Kyiv, for providing the extracts from the VUFKU minutes, the Ukrainian poster, and other vital information.

VUFKU minutes from ‘Minutes of the VUFKU Board (1922-1930)’, compiled by Roman Roslyak, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the Rylsky Institute of Art Studies, Folklore & Ethnology, Kyiv. Lyra-K Publishing House, 2017.

Alyna Fedorovich, Chief Curator, Museum of Moscow, for information on the Hermitage Theatre.

Konstantin Dubin, Head of Department, Kharkiv Historical Museum, for information and photographs of the K. Liebnecht Cinema in the city.

Ukrainian and Russian translations, not otherwise credited, by Tatiana Kovaleva.

German translations by me and TextMaster.

FOR AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POST PLEASE GO TO: richardbossons.academia.edu/research

ALL ORIGINAL CONTENT COPYRIGHT © Richard Bossons 2020

Kінець

End.

Posted in Camera, Cameras, Cinema, Constructivism, Design, Dziga Vertov, Man with a Movie Camera, Photography, silent film, Soviet film, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the first cinema screening

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the film locations

images-w14001929 poster for the film by the Stenberg brothers

‘We leave the film studio for life, for that whirlpool of colliding visible phenomena, where everything is real, where people, tramways, motorcycles, and trains meet and part, where each bus follows its route, where cars scurry about their business, where smiles, tears, deaths, and taxes do not obey the director’s megaphone…’

Dziga Vertov, diary entry 20th March 1927

Vertov’s words anticipate his 1929 experimental masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ [Человек с кино аппаратом, Chelovek s kino apparatom (R), Людина з кіноапаратом, Lyudyna z kinoaparatom (U)] which, along with Eisenstein’s ‘Battleship Potemkin’, must be the most influential of all Soviet films. Acclaimed by many reviewers on its release, and popular with Soviet cinemagoers, the film fell out of favour along with its director in the 1930s and was neglected for decades. It is now a staple of film studies courses and academic papers, and it was voted one of the ten best films in cinematic history by BFI ‘Sight & Sound’ readers, and the best documentary ever made. 

However, it was not meant to be a documentary in the conventional terms of a 1920s ‘City Symphony’, such as Paul Strand’s on New York (‘Manhatta’, 1921), or Walter Ruttmann’s on Berlin (‘Berlin: Symphony of a Great City’, 1927). On the face of it the film portrays a cameraman’s journey around an unnamed Soviet city recording its life during one day. However, the pioneering special effects and rapid montage sequences, the extensive use of Lev Kuleshov’s theory of ‘Creative Geography’ (where different locations are edited together to portray a single place), the idea of showing the process of film-making, the beautiful cinematography, and the joyful humanity that is portrayed, lift it beyond mere documentary to the level of great art. Watching ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is still a thrilling experience over 90 years after it was made, whereas other ‘City Symphonies’ of this period look very much of their time.

This blog post assumes a knowledge of the film, and for those readers who are unfamiliar with this masterpiece a previous blog post ‘Man with a Movie Camera: the movie cameras‘ has an extensive bibliography. Professor John MacKay of Yale University, Vertov’s biographer, has written an invaluable Introduction to the film, available to read on Academia. I can also recommend one of the most perceptive reviews of the film by the renowned US critic Roger Ebert. Unfortunately there is no longer a good quality version of the film on YouTube.

A large part of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was shot during 1928 in Moscow, Kyiv, and Odesa. Vertov had been hired by VUFKU (the All-Ukrainian Photo-Cinema Directorate, in Kyiv) in 1927 after being sacked from Sovkino, the Russian equivalent, for being over budget on his film ‘A Sixth Part of the World’ (1926), and for refusing to present a script for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (which he had no intention of writing). His first commission from VUFKU in 1927 was ‘The Eleventh Year’, a short propaganda film about the development of the electricity industry as part of the young Soviet Union’s drive to develop the backward country (ahead of Stalin’s first Five Year Plan which began in 1928). It was clear that Dziga Vertov was already planning ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ as several of the sequences for the latter were shot at the same time as those for ‘The Eleventh Year’ (with a Debrie Parvo Model K 35mm hand-cranked camera, not the later Model L used on MwaMC – see my blog post on the cameras in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’). Professor MacKay has also seen notes to suggest footage for MwaMC was filmed at the same time as ‘One Sixth of the World’, but it seems that none of this footage was included in the later film.

As with his previous films, Dziga Vertov worked with his wife Elizaveta Svilova as editor, and his brother Mikhail Kaufman as cinematographer*, calling themselves in Soviet style ‘The Council of Three’. For obvious reasons Kaufman, as the eponymous ‘Man with the Movie Camera’, was being filmed by others, whose superb work is seldom credited, not least on the original film titles! Professor MacKay notes in his Academia paper (footnote #22) that the other cameramen whose footage was used on MwaMC (including that taken during ‘The Eleventh Year’) were: Boris Tseitlin, Konstantin Kuliaev, and Georgii Nikolaevich Khimchenko. In Dziga Vertov’s diary entry of June 22nd 1927 written in Zaporozh’e during the filming of ‘The Eleventh Year’, he mentions two other members of the crew ‘Kagarlitsky’ and ‘Barantsevich’, presumably one or both behind the camera shooting Mikhail Kaufman in the mine sequences.

*Mikhail Kaufman’s creative contribution to this and earlier films is increasingly recognised (eg the excellent essays about him in the Dovzhenko Centre’s recent book, ‘Ukrainian Dilogy’ 2018).

I decided to research and write this post as there seems to be a good deal of confusion in many published commentaries on the film about where it was shot. As ‘Creative Geography’ is a key part of the ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ I thought it would be both useful and enjoyable to establish exactly where the different scenes were filmed, the location’s appearance at the time, and the present. Many of the locations were already well known and much of the rest has been tracked down; the few elusive ones are included in the hope that a reader of the post familiar with the three cities may recognise them. By following the screenshots in the order they appear in the film you get a real sense of the extraordinary creative and editing process that links so many diverse locations and periods into one vision of a city throughout a single day. Also clearly evident is a fine appreciation of architecture and the urban (and industrial) landscape.

SHOOTING SCHEDULE

The locations and schedule for both films have been published in academic papers (JSTOR & Academia) by Professor MacKay, gleaned from Vertov’s notes in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI) summarised (by me) as follows:

The Eleventh Year’ (1927)

Moscow to the Volkhov dam (near Leningrad) in June 1927; then to the Ukrainian sites of Kharkiv at the end of June and beginning of July, the Kamenskoe (Kamianske) Iron Foundry (on the Dnieper River) in July and August[1] and the Donbas industrial region[2] in August. There was a visit to the under construction Dnieper Hydroelectric Station during September, and then to Kyiv[3] for the tenth anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution. The film crew also went to Odesa and the Romanian border but the exact dates of these visits are not known.

[1] Vertov’s notes seem to be incorrect as his diary entry of June 22nd 1927 describes ‘completing our filming of the Dzerzhinsky plant’ (the iron foundry in Kamianske). The diary entry was written at Zaporozh’e (Zaporizhia) the city where the Dnieper Hydroelectric Station is located where, presumably, the film crew was staying during filming there, so the September date for this looks wrong as well. He also writes about filming underground in a mine so the August date for the Donbas also looks incorrect as there are no mines in Kamianske or Zaporizhia.

[2] The mines, coke ovens, and steelworks of Rutchenkovo and Lidievka around the city of Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine. The city, originally named Hughesovka after the Welsh businessman who started the Russian steel industry, was known as Stalin at the time of the film.

[3] The sequence showing this in the film appears to be in Sovetskaya (now Tverskaya) Square, Moscow (the obelisk Monument to the Soviet Constitution in that square is clearly visible).

There seems to be uncertainty around the locations, dates, and members of the film crew for ‘The Eleventh Year’ which would merit further investigation!

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (1928)

The new footage for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was shot from early June to the middle of September 1928: Moscow in June, Odesa in June and July, Kyiv in July and August, Kharkiv* in August, and another visit to Kyiv at the end of August to mid September.

*Only one scene in the film (the aircraft hangar [00:13:26]) has been located in Kharkiv (unless one of the few unverified locations was shot there). Mr Dubin, of the Kharkiv Historical Museum, has viewed the film carefully and cannot see any other locations in the city. 

I have queries about some of these dates as the clothing worn in the relevant sequences does not seem to tie in with the time of year stated. For example the filming in Moscow took place in June, a warm summer month in the city, but people in the scenes are often wearing coats [00:20:16]. Filming in Kyiv was apparently done in the summer and early autumn as well but the audience in the cinema is wearing winter clothes [00:03:42] [00:04:01]. As Vertov was based in Kyiv this footage could have been taken later. A short article in the Kyiv monthly journal Kino No. 11, November 1928, mentions that ‘filming is almost finished’, long after the dates in the notes.

r0310_009aLocation map (see end of blog post for detailed maps of cities). Illustration to ‘The Riddle of Russia’ by Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, published in the Daily Telegraph on 31 January 1929 (courtesy of Warwick University). My annotations in red. 

MAIN LOCATIONS SEEN IN THE FILM

MOSCOW: Kuznetsky Most, Bolshoi Theatre, Theatre and Revolution Squares, Teatral’nyy Proyezd, Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, Strastnaya Square, *Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, *Novo-Sukharevsky Market.

KYIV: Khreschatyk (including cinema) & Velyka Vasylkivska Street, Sofiys’ka Square & Volodymyrska Street, Park Bridge, Strilets’ka & Reitarska Streets, Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard & Kominterna Street, Ginzburg Skyscraper, Palace Hotel, *Tobacco Factory, *Red Stadium (netball), *Lenin Club, Halytska Square.

ODESA: Prymorskyi Boulevard, Port, Station and Pryvokzal’na Square, Pushkins’ka street, *Tram Depot, *Rosa Luxemburg Street & Fire Station, *Sports Ground, Arcadia Beach, Kuyal’nik Resort.

With the exception of those with a star these were all well known locations, repeated multiple times throughout the film, which would have been familiar to a late 1920s Soviet audience. This makes the extensive use of ‘Creative Geography’ to give the impression of a single city even more significant than it would be to a modern international audience with no knowledge of these places. In Moscow much has changed since the film was made, but most of the locations in Kyiv and Odesa are still recognisable. The scenes in Moscow are particularly poignant, showing a largely unspoilt and beautiful city centre just before the widespread destruction of the 1930s from Stalin’s megalomaniac ‘General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow’ (the first major church to be demolished was St Paraskeva on Okhotny Ryad in June 1928 which must have been only a few days after it was filmed).

LOCATIONS WITH LIMITED APPEARANCES (from ‘The Eleventh Year’ filming, 1927).

Similar industrial scenes and the Volkhov Dam also feature in ‘A Sixth Part of the World’ (1926). Chimneys and steelworks are also seen in Mikhail Kaufman’s film ‘Moscow’ (1927).

DONBAS: Rutchenkovo and Lidievka (coal mine, coal yard and gantry, [chimney and blast furnace exterior?]).

KAMIANSKE: Dzerzhinsky steelworks on the Dnieper River. 

VOLKHOV (Leningrad): Hydroelectric Power Plant dam (Волховская ГEС). Similar shots of the dam are also seen in ‘A Sixth Part of the World’ (1926).

Other locations with single appearances noted throughout the post (eg Kharkiv).

There are inconsistencies with translated place names in Russian and Ukrainian, and I have sometimes used the anglicised version (Theatre Square etc). Many are gleaned from Google Earth. I have generally used the Ukrainian spelling of place names in that country. There is also some inconsistency with the names familiar today and those used in 1928, as many streets and squares were re-named several times. I will try to amend errors as the post is updated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following for their invaluable help and information, and patience in responding to many questions. Inclusion does not imply endorsement of anything in this blog post. Any errors and omissions are entirely mine.

Iryna Chuzhynova, Ukrainian Cultural Foundation

Konstantin Dubin, Kharkiv Historical Museum

Alina Fedorovich, Museum of Moscow

Dr Max Hodgson

Mykhailo Kalnytsky

Professor Catriona Kelly

Professor Robin Milner-Gulland

Anna Onufriienko, Dovzhenko Centre

Dr Denis Romodin, Museum of Moscow

Professor Hanna Vesolovska

Yevgeny Volokin

Professor Martin Williams

I am indebted to Mykhailo Kalnytsky, my collaborator and renowned historian of Kyiv, for sharing his extraordinary knowledge of the city (and elsewhere) which has added so much of interest and value to the post. Mr Kalnytsky has a fascinating online journal on Kyiv, its architecture and inhabitants.  He instigated the naming of a street in the city ‘Dziga Vertov Lane’ as a member of a City Hall commission.

I would also like to mention Dr Romodin (Moscow), and Mr Volokin (Odesa), leading historians of their respective cities, whose detailed knowledge of them solved many puzzles. Yevgeny Volokin has a comprehensive website on Odesa, full of historic information and old photographs. He has also co-authored several albums of historic photographs of the city.

Dziga Vertov’s diary entries of March 20th 1927 (quotation at the top of the post) and of June 22nd 1927 are from ‘Kino-Eye, the writings of Dziga Vertov’, ed. Annette Michelson, Pluto Press, 1984, p. 168.

Google Earth and Google Maps screenshots: Google and the Google logo are registered trademarks of Google LLC, used with permission.

Contemporary Soviet photographs are generally in the public domain (Russia has a 70 year copyright limit).

Fair Use claimed for any copyright material as it is copied for solely research purposes and commentary only, without financial gain. Attribution and links given where known.

And very grateful thanks to Wikipedia, Google Earth, Google Images, Google Translate, and the Typeit website’s invaluable Russian and Ukrainian keyboards!

I have added many links to other websites and information to enhance the value of this post and although I have taken reasonable steps to ensure that they are reputable, I am unable to accept responsibility for any viruses and malware arising from these links.

ALL ORIGINAL CONTENT COPYRIGHT © Richard Bossons 2020

Please contact me on opinionated.designer@gmail.com with any comments, criticisms, and corrections. I would be very pleased to hear from anyone with information on the scenes that can’t be located or verified.

Richard Bossons, Oxford,  June 2020

THE LOCATIONS

The screenshots are from a version posted on YouTube by a Ukrainian source AVG which is now unavailable. The approximate time of each screenshot is shown as [hr:min:sec] and they have been taken from the 2014 Eye Film Institute/Lobster Films restoration. The high definition restoration of the film has been a revelation for researchers as you can now pick out details never seen before, essential for the work involved in establishing the locations. There is a fascinating Academia paper by Mark-Paul Meyer from the Eye Film Institute about how its restoration work on the film was carried out.

I have been through every shot and many frames of the film to pick out a location of some sort, however brief, and I am fairly confident that most have been covered. Each one verified has either had clear architectural evidence pointing to the exact street or square for example, or has been confirmed by those I have consulted above. The ones I cannot verify or find are noted as such. Most of the minor ones without any clues will never be found. However, I am happy to be corrected as this is the first attempt to establish all of the locations used in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ which I hope will be useful and add to the enjoyment of watching this wonderful film.

Images not in the film are described in italics.

PROLOGUE

IMG_4310[00:02:26] Top of the Hotel National, Moscow.

IMG_4811 The original mosaics at the top of this famous hotel, on the corner of Tverskaya and Mokhovaya Street opposite Red Square, are barely visible in the opening frames of Reel 1. They were replaced with the tractor, pylons, and chimneys of the Socialist realist images above when the hotel was restored in 1931. Designed by the architect Alexander Ivanov, the National opened in 1903; after the Revolution the hotel became the seat of the first Soviet government in 1918. Lenin, Trotsky, and Dzerzhinsky all lived in the National at this time. Still a luxury hotel, now owned by the Marriott group. [Photograph by A Savin, Wikimedia Commons].

IMG_4337[00:02:34] Electricity post and street light, Moscow. 

IMG_4591A similar post near to the tram stop pavilion in Strastnaya Square (enlarged from an original photograph courtesy of the Museum of Moscow).

IMG_4312[00:02:41] Goskino No. 1 Cinema (originally Shantser Cinema)Khreschatyk 38, Kyiv.

IMG_4347

IMG_4323

IMG_4325

IMG_4276Note TS on chair =Theater Shantser.

IMG_4377 (2)The spectacular interior of the cinema is largely concealed in the film.

FullSizeRender - 2(3)The balcony needed propping up later as there are two centre posts visible in the film!

FullSizeRender - 8(2)

IMG_202007061823591Views of the Khreschatyk Street entrance to the courtyard of the Belle Vue Hotel where the cinema was located. This block and most of the rest of the street was destroyed in WW2. [top: 1914 view, starkiev.com / bottom: 1920s view, M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007181141380AStreet plan showing the cinema behind Khreschatyk 38. The outline of the canopy in the photographs above, and the passage into the courtyard is shown. [M. Kalnytsky]

Anton Shantser (Шанцер, aka Shanzer or Schantzer) was an Austrian citizen of Polish descent and a tailor by trade but noticed an opportunity in the growing cinema business (there had been a film screening in the city by a touring Lumiere operator in 1896). He opened his first, the Express Cinema, on the main boulevard through Kyiv, Khreschatyk, in 1907 (see below), and several others followed. Five years later, in an annexe to the Belle Vue Hotel at Khreschatyk 38, Shantser opened his most luxurious cinema, named after himself. According to the local paper and guests at the opening night in December 1912 this 1,100 seater theatre had a spectacular two storey foyer with velvet curtains and classical columns lit by a large chandelier. The cinema itself had armchairs with folding seats, a sloping floor and mechanical ventilation, all ‘richly decorated in the Greek style’. There was an orchestra of 60 musicians, a lot more than we see at the beginning of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’. The new cinema was a great success but unfortunately for Mr Shantser it was confiscated five years later after the Revolution and re-named Goskino No. 1 Cinema. Much of the luxury seemed to have disappeared by 1928 as the cinema looks rather drab in the film [sources: ‘Weekend Today’ and an Essay by Vlad Kaganov, ‘Khreschatyk. The best cinemas of the early twentieth century’].

THE FIRST CINEMA SCREENING OF MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA

IMG_202008141011031[Photograph: M Kalnytsky]

From the available evidence the first cinema screening of the film was on the 7th January 1929, not at the Goskino No. 1 Cinema but at the former ‘Express’ Cinema (entrance circled above), re-named Goskino* No. 2 Cinema, at Khreschatyk 25, then known as Vorovsky Street. This spectacular building was destroyed like the rest of the area by the retreating Red Army in 1941.

[*Держкіно/Derzhkino = State Cinema in Ukrainian]

The first review of the film, by the poet Mykola Ushakov, is dated 21st December 1928, which indicates there was a screening in December before the film was completed, most likely at the VUFKU studios in front of an invited audience, but we have not found any announcements for a public screening prior to the one below. The 7th January date is confirmed by minutes of the VUFKU board meeting on the 10th January in Kyiv, kindly provided by Anna Onufriienko of the Dovzhenko Centre, that state: ‘The film ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ – instead of receiving it on January 1st, the production department promised to hand it over on the 4th, but submitted it on the 5th, while the film was supposed to go on the screen on January 7th’. A previous, rather historic, minute #6 dated 12th-13th April 1928 gave the go ahead for the film, stating that ‘Staging such a picture is considered appropriate. Pass the production plan through the inspection bodies for approval’. 

Sunday 6th January 1929 edition of the Russian language ‘Kievsky Proletary’ has a modest announcement for the first showing of the film at Goskino No. 2 Cinema ‘tomorrow’ (the newspaper was not published on Monday 7th). Little information except that it was a ‘film without words’, Producer Dziga Vertov, Cameraman Kaufman. The announcement also boasts that the film is the ‘best VUFKU release’, not obvious from the paltry advert and screening in the less prestigious Goskino No.2 Cinema!

More announcements and information about the early screening of the film have been found, as well as the first ever (pre-release) review. See my recent blog post ‘MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the first cinema screening’.

REEL 1

Note: rising numeral 1 present in Eye/Lobster Films and other prints.

[00:05:06]  Apartment window in a brick wall. Location not found, but demonstrates the attention to detail in the film: this first image in reel 1 is actually shown on the film threaded through the projector!

[00:05:15] Street lights, Moscow. This design of lampost is used in Theatre Square (Teatral’naya ploschad) next to the Bolshoi Theatre. Exact location not found.

[00:05:35] The outdoor restaurant of the ‘London’ Hotel on Prymorskyi Boulevard, Odesa (then known as Feldman Boulevard after the city revolutionary who joined the 1905 Potemkin Mutiny). A popular venue as it was located next to the top of the Boulevard Steps, aka Prymorskyi Stairs, or Richelieu Steps (re-named Potemkin Stairs in 1955 on the 50th anniversary of the events portrayed in Eisenstein’s 1925 film. Now formally known by its original name of Prymorskyi Stairs but still known to most by the Potemkin version). 

IMG_4190[00:05:43] As above featuring a giant bottle advertisement. Surprisingly, I have not managed to locate any period photographs or postcards with this, presumably, well-known feature of the restaurant! Screenshot [00:09:54] shows the view to the left of the bottle.

IMG_4523A contemporary photograph of the restaurant  – note the stone pillars visible in the screenshots, now painted white [photograph and restaurant information from Y. Volokin and viknaodessa].

IMG_4524The restaurant seen from a crowded Boulevard Steps; the distinctive stone pillars are clearly visible on the corners of the terrace [photograph from viknaodessa].

Odessa_HarbourMid 19thC engraving of the recently completed (1841) Boulevard Steps and Primorskyi Boulevard gives a slightly exaggerated impression of how high the city stands above its harbour (the Steps rise nearly 30m with 192 steps). Previously the only way up was by winding paths and rickety wooden steps. A funicular railway was built up the slope in 1902.

IMG_4526Top of the Prymorskyi/Potemkin Stairs on Prymorskyi Boulevard. The original location of the restaurant, latterly called the ‘Lighthouse’, was behind the statue of the Duc de Richelieu (Governor of Odesa in the early 1800s, and a fascinating character who developed the city into the third largest in the Russian Empire). The terrace is in a ruinous state. A pity, as it would seem to be a great location at the top of a very long flight of steps!

[00:05:49] Bench with man asleep, Strastnaya Square, Moscow (see also [00:14:39]).

IMG_4454[00:05:53] Rubbish bin, Kyiv. The brand new bin (chained to a post) has an exhortation by the Kyiv City authorities: ‘Citizens – Preserve Cleanliness!’ (compare and contrast the rather tatty bins provided by its Moscow counterpart! [00:06:45])

[00:05:55] Boy in rags asleep on a wooden container used for winter salt and grit, Moscow (see background of screenshot [00:14:39] for a similar container). Unable to find the exact location, possibly Strastnaya Square again.

IMG_4093[00:06:00] Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, Obraztsova Street, Moscow.

unnamedA contemporary view of the garage.

1200px-Moscow_BakhmetevskyGarage_191_8304Current view after restoration and conversion into The Garage Center for Contemporary Culture.

An iconic Moscow building, built in 1927, designed by the Constructivist architect Konstantin Melnikov (1890-1974), with structural design by the pioneering engineer Vladimir Shukhov (1853-1939). Not really a Constructivist building as it is quite conventional to look at in red brick and a low pitched roof. What makes it an avant-garde landmark in industrial architecture is the parallelogram shaped floor plan developed by Melnikov from an earlier design for a Paris garage. This enabled buses to drive in at one end and leave at the other without having to reverse which enabled many more buses to park in the garage than would be the case with a conventional layout (below). Neglected for decades and nearly demolished it was saved by Daria Zhukova and Roman Abramovich who converted it into the Garage Center for Contemporary Culture in 2007-2010. The gallery moved to Gorky Park in 2012 and then in 2015 to a spectacular OMA designed building in the park. The former bus garage is now the world’s largest Jewish Museum.

300px-Melnikov_garage_floorplanDiagrammatic plan of the garage (Wikipedia)

[00:06:04] Carriages, a driver asleep. Presumably near Odesa station as this type of carriage is seen collecting passengers in later scenes, but Yevgeny Volokin does not recognise the location as Odesa. Not verified.

IMG_4456[00:06:08] Shop front fascia with sign reading TSEROBKOOP, 13 Pushkins’ka Street, Odesa. This is the Ukrainian acronym for Центральний робітничий кооператив (Central Workers Cooperative). The Kyiv acronym was SOROBKOOP (союз робітничих кооперативів). The Russian version was TSERABKOOP (Центральный рабочий кооператив) as shown below in a propaganda illustration of the early 1920s. These co-ops ran in parallel with the private enterprise shops during the NEP (New Economic Policy) period, the latter shown in various scenes throughout the film (eg [00:58:29]).

The shop was in the right hand part of the building which also houses the Pushkin Museum. Pushkin lived in an apartment here during 1823 and 1824, exiled from Moscow.

IMG_4384[00:06:12] Novo-Sukharevsky Market (1926-1930), North Moscow.

IMG_4214 (2)

IMG_4421Contemporary aerial views of the interesting roof design of the market. 

vn01(48)The Market office building – the only surviving structure (to be restored).

Designed by Konstantin Melnikov, the construction of the market began in 1924, after the city decided to replace the unofficial outdoor market on Sukharevka. The stalls in wooden pavilions were put up on a vacant plot of land between Bolshoi Sukharevsky Pereulok, Trubnaya and Sadovo-Sukharevskaya streets. The three shopping aisles converged like rays towards the centre, where the brick office building was located. The market was vacated in 1930. Information and photograph of the office building from the Moscow City website.

[00:06:16] ‘Ginzburg Skyscraper’ courtyard, Kyiv (see [00:08:46 on] and [00:13:08] for more images and details of this huge apartment building, built in 1912). The angled shot seems influenced by the photographs of Vertov’s friend Alexander Rodchenko but he had been experimenting with such compositional devices since the ‘Kino-pravda’ newsreels (1922-25).

[00:06:19] Maternity hospital interior. Unable to find location.

[00:06:29] Apartment building exterior, windows with shutters. Unable to find location.

IMG_4389[00:06:34] At first glance this looks like a park overlooking the sea, and therefore in Odesa. However, the sea does not look like this from the high viewpoint of the city parks [00:09:54] [00:55:41], and Yevgeny Volokin confirmed that it is not in Odesa. I believe it to be a park or square in Moscow because the letters MK can just be seen on some of the distinctive rubbish bins of this era between the benches. MK stands for “Московский коммунальщик” (Moscow Communal Services) and the same initials are seen more clearly on the bin in screenshot [00:06:45]. What appears to be the sea is more likely a large area of cobbles (see [00:15:10] for a similar texture). There are also possible tram lines top right. There are no other obvious clues, and the landscaping is rather nondescript so I can’t find the exact location in Moscow.

Capture

These ‘урна’ (urns) featured in a long running children’s cartoon series (1969-2006) called “Ну, погоди!”(“Well, just you wait!”) being constantly kicked over by a naughty wolf! [thanks to the Museum of Moscow for information on bins and cartoon].

image0

IMG_4095[00:06:40] Bolshoi Theatre, Theatre Square, Moscow. Advertisement for BORJOMI mineral water from Georgia (still being produced). See above for details of rubbish bin.

IMG_4550[00:06:45] Park bench with MK rubbish bin, Moscow (see above for details). Exact location not found. The bench design differs slightly from that in Strastnaya Square (see [00:14:30] and [00:14:39]).

IMG_4098[00:06:48] Bolshoi Theatre.

bolshoi19thC postcard of the theatre.

IMG_4606Current view [Google Earth].

The Bolshoi Theatre originally opened in 1825 as the Big (bolshoi) Petrovsky Theatre (as it was larger than its predecessor) which was the focal point of a new Theatre Square, but nearly thirty years later it was destroyed by fire. The rebuilt theatre was designed by Alberto Cavos and opened in August 1856, in time for Tsar Alexander IIs coronation. After the Revolution, there was serious talk of closing the theatre as one of the main symbols of Tsarist and bourgeois culture, but the Bolshevik government decided to keep it as a congress centre. It was from the Bolshoi Theatre stage that the declaration of the formation of the USSR was made in 1922. Further information from the Bolshoi website.

[00:06:57] Wine, vodka and food shop, Moscow (signs are in Russian).

IMG_4383[00:07:03] Volodymyrska Street looking towards Sofiys’ka Square, Kyiv (Bogdan Khmelnitsky statue in the centre of the square).

Known as Korolenko Street at the time of the film, this is one of the most historic areas of Kyiv: on the lhs behind the trees is the entrance to St Sophia’s Cathedral; the conical structure in the middle of the street is the Irina Pillar, the remains of an 11thC church (removed in 1932); the church with the dome in the background lhs is the 19thC Church of the Tithes built on the site of a 10thC predecessor destroyed by the Mongols in 1240. The new one was also destroyed in 1936, but there are controversial plans to rebuild it. The tower in the background is a mid 19thC fire observation and signalling structure. A fire station is still based in the building under the tower.

IMG_202007091140421aMykhailo Kalnytsky suggests that the camera would have been located on the summer restaurant terrace on the top of the ‘Red Kiev’ Hotel (formerly Prague Hotel) at Volodymyrska 36.

IMG_5351Another view of the hotel and roof terrace looking towards Sofiys’ka Square, showing why it was the likely high level location for the camera. St Sophia’s Cathedral bell tower in the background. [photohistory.kiev.ua]

hotek_PrahaMr Kalnytsky has also provided a postcard from c1913 with the view from the terrace for comparison. Note the second roof on the lhs which is also seen in the screenshot.

IMG_4909The hotel is quite far away from the square but the 15cm Krauss Zeiss telephoto lens would probably have been used (see [00:55:59] for the view with the 21cm telephoto lens). See my blog post about the cameras in the film for information on the lenses. [Google Earth]

[00:07:08] Ladies & Men’s hairdresser, Moscow (Russian sign). Location not found.

IMG_202007151445462[00:07:11] Large apartment block, Kyiv. Rear of building on Yaroslaviv Val (off Volodymyrska Street). Mykhailo Kalnytsky suggests that this shot was also taken from the roof terrace of the Red Kiev Hotel, in a SW direction.

The beautiful facade of the 1907 building designed by Josef Zekzer, and the distinctive rear staircase (visible on the screenshot). [photographs M. Kalnytsky]

[00:07:14] Singer sewing machine shop. Location not found.

[00:07:19] Another angled image of the Ginzburg Skyscraper courtyard, Kyiv. On the rhs is the keystone over the entrance arch seen in the photograph in screenshot [00:08:46] description.

[00:07:22] Radio (?) shop with dummy cyclist. Location not found.

[00:07:26] Building with large windows. Location not found.

[00:07:34] Lift lobby, probably Palace Hotel, Kyiv (see [00:25:57]).

IMG_4100[00:07:46] The first of many scenes on Kuznetsky Most in central Moscow. The poster is advertising an anniversary (presumably the 60th as he was born in 1868) collection of Maxim Gorky’s works available from the state publishing house Gosizdat.

IMG_4529A similar view of the street from the early 1930s with a luxury Lincoln Model K parked next to the building under the banner above. No doubt a top ranking official going shopping!

IMG_4156 (2)Late 19th Century postcard of the street looking towards the same junction (all the buildings in the background are recognisable in the screenshot).

IMG_4662Current appearance of the street from a similar viewpoint as the screenshot. The buildings on the left have survived, and the large one on the rhs. [Google Earth]

One of the oldest streets in the city, since the 18th Century Kuznetsky Most has been a fashionable shopping street, and still is. The name is derived from ‘Blacksmith’s bridge’ over a river that now runs underground. After the Revolution it became a centre for writers and culture (the Moscow House of Artists and School of Fine Arts are located here). Fortunately it is one of the few historic streets in central Moscow that escaped Stalin’s disastrous town planning and so is recognisable from the film.

[00:07:55] Industrial silhouette – probably filmed in the Donbas or Kamianske for ‘The Eleventh Year’.

IMG_4080[00:08:04] Izvestia newspaper building, Strastnaya Square (re-named Pushkinskaya Square in 1931), Moscow. The tower of the doomed Strastnoy (Passion) Monastery is on the right.

194711950s view of building (after the demolition of Strastnoy Monastery).

barkhin-dom-izvestiiaArchitect’s perspective view (courtesy of The Charnel House).

The Izvestia newspaper building is an iconic Constructivist building in Moscow, designed by Grigorii and Mikhail Barkhin, built in 1927. This began the modernisation of Strastnaya Square (supported by the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky) leading to the demolition of the 17th century Strastnoy Monastery and the extension of the original square in 1937 as part of Joseph Stalin’s destructive re-planning of the city. Pushkin’s statue was moved to the centre of the new square in 1950. The Charnel House website has details of the Izvestia building which has been recently restored by Grigorii Barkhin’s great grandson, Alexey Ginzburg.

IMG_4213aContemporary aerial view of Strastnaya Square. The Izvestia building is on the right opposite the monastery. Pushkin’s Statue is top centre. The dome of the Church of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki is top centre (demolished 1934). Tverskaya Street passes through the square (left to right).

IMG_4506 (2)Contemporary view over Strastnaya Square with the new Izvestia building behind the Strastnoy Monastery tower. Pushkin’s statue is at the bottom left. The dome of St. Demetrius Church in the foreground.

IMG_4509Early 1900s view of the huge monastery. There is a current campaign to rebuild it in its original location.

IMG_4401[00:08:12] View of steelworks, Kamianske (or Donbas)*.

IMG_4395[00:08:30] View of blast furnace Cowper stoves, Kamianske (or Donbas)*. These wonderful industrial images could have been taken by Bernd and Hilla Becher decades later!

*The shooting location notes include ‘Kamenskoe (Kamianske) Iron Foundry’. Known today as the Dniprovskiyi Metallurgical Plant, it was founded in 1887 as the Dnieper Works, re-named after Feliks Dzerzhynsky in 1917. Dziga Vertov’s diary entry, June 22 1927, Zaporozh’e*: ‘We are completing our filming of the Dzerzhinsky plant….’ and goes on to describe the unpleasant working conditions. This suggests that filming there was not in July and August as per the shooting location notes.

I have not been able to verify whether a steelworks in the Donbas was also a location for some of the sequences. It would have been more logical to have filmed both the steelworks and coal mines in the same area so it is not clear why a visit to Kamianske was necessary.

*The location of the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Station also filmed for ‘The Eleventh Year’.

[00:08:35] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow.

[00:08:39] Traffic semaphore on Kuznetsky Most (presumed).

IMG_5369[00:08:46] [00:09:00] View of a glass entrance door from a building interior. This door appears on several occasions in the film ([00:30:27 on] and during the final sequence at the end) and the available evidence suggests it is the main courtyard entrance to the 1912 Ginzburg Skyscraper. There are few detailed photographs of this building (destroyed in 1941), but it appears that there was a door each side of the entrance from the street (as seen in [00:09:18]) and the larger arched door in the West wing that we think is seen in the film, circled below. What appears to be the outline of the low fence around the central landscaped area below can just be made out through the glass. Without a clear exterior photograph of the doors this cannot be verified.

IMG_202007290723480aView into the courtyard of the Ginzburg Skyscraper through the entrance archway from Zhovtnya Street (formerly and now Institutska Street) with the suggested glass doors to the West wing entrance circled. The tower that appears in [00:13:08] is on the corner. See also [00:09:18] for a glimpse of the top of this arch seen from the courtyard side. The small trees in the centre landscaped area look similar to those seen through the glass doors in [00:09:09]. [Photograph courtesy of Fotiy Krasitsky]

IMG_5371[00:08:52] Courtyard of the Ginzburg Skyscraper. The roof in the background is over the  Kyiv Circus, destroyed along with the Skyscraper and most of the Khreschatyk area in 1941. The Skyscraper was built on the edge of an escarpment so the Circus and other buildings on the adjacent Karl Marx Street are considerably lower than the courtyard.

IMG_5378A[00:09:09]

[00:09:13] Ginzburg Skyscraper courtyard North side

IMG_5385 [00:09:18] The camera car leaving the courtyard (South side) through the entrance archway (as photo above). See also [00:07:19] for a glimpse of the top of the archway, [00:13:08] for an external view and description of the building, and also [00:06:16] and [00:33:49]. 

IMG_202007290723483A

Contemporary street plan showing the camera car route in the Ginzburg Skyscraper courtyard. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5118[00:09:22] Park Bridge, Petrivs’ka Alley, Kyiv. Another iconic image from the film.

IMG_202007181141381A contemporary view of the elegant pedestrian bridge and contrasting heavy looking abutments. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_4280 (2)Current view of the bridge and abutments [Google Earth].

Also known as ‘Devil’s Bridge’ or ‘Lover’s Bridge’ it was built in 1909/1910. Designed by the renowned Kyiv engineer Yevgeny Oskarovich Paton, who was also responsible for the Yevgeniya Bosh Bridge over the Dnieper River, the bridge was actually constructed before the passage which was excavated under it. Once this was made the sloping sides were supported by stone abutments, at first quite simple in design, then the rather over-scaled version that exists today. After the Revolution the bridge fell into disrepair which was written about by Mikhail Bulgakov in his essay ‘Kyiv, the City’ in 1923. By the time of the film the bridge had been repaired and survived until 1983 when a new structure that matched the old bridge replaced it. For a more detailed account of Park Bridge read Mykhailo Kalnytsky’s article here.

Contemporary postcards showing the Petrivs’ka Alley being excavated under the bridge. The Dnieper River can be seen in the background of both views. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5227The view towards the city from the bridge at the time of the film, with the Ginzburg Skyscraper in the background. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_4516[00:09:43] Pigeons in Strastnoy Monastery rh corner tower, Strastnaya Square, Moscow.

[00:09:49 on] Railway line sequence. Location not found.

IMG_4515[00:09:54] Restaurant of the ‘London’ Hotel, Prymorskyi Boulevard, Odesa. Note the ships in the distance (and possibly smaller vessels alongside the harbour breakwater on the lhs?). See also screenshots [00:05:35] and [00:05:43].

IMG_6204[00:10:13 on] Woman waking, dressing, and washing

Professor MacKay notes (p. 13, fn. 20) in his Academia paper on MwaMC (see introduction) that the woman has been identified as the dancer Valia Anastasieva, living in a room on her own at 32/12 Fundukleevskaia Street, Kyiv. Now re-named Bohdana Khmel’nyts’koho (Bohdan Khmelnytsky) Street, no. 32 is rather a grand looking apartment block near the Opera House, below. The supposed interior shots looking out of a window with blinds would most likely have been taken elsewhere, as the view out does not seem to be of this street. [photograph: M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_6205

[00:11:17 on] Tramp waking up. Location not found.

IMG_4653[00:11:36] Woman sweeping tram tracks, Strastnaya Square, Moscow (clues are the tram stop pavilion behind and the grit bin in the background (see [00:14:39] where the same bin is visible).

IMG_4642[00:11:43] [00:11:48] Man with one leg on a bench/step in front of the kiosk on Strastnaya Square, Moscow. The pharmacy (АПТЕКА) in the background can also be seen in [00:14:30] and [00:14:39].

Advertisements on the kiosk wall and window for ‘Slavyanovskaya’, ‘Narzan’, ‘Essentuki’, and ‘Batalinskaya’ mineral waters from the Caucasus. The faded lettering on the bench is unclear – possibly a request to take empty bottles to ‘Stoleshnikov (Lane?)’ for the return of the deposit? [thanks to Mykhailo Kalnytsky for this information]

IMG_4655Close up of the kiosk on the square, behind Pushkin’s statue (note the wooden grit bins at the top by the tram stop pavilion visible in other scenes). 

[00:11:54] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow

IMG_4845[00:12:06] Cast iron posts being hosed down, Kyiv. These look like the canopy supports to the Khreschatyk Street entrance of the Belle Vue Hotel and Shantser Cinema. The supports (a unique design in the city) are next to an electricity post, as can be seen in the contemporary photograph below. They look closer together in the screenshot but this may be telephoto lens foreshortening.

IMG_202007061824002

[00:12:16] Rubbish bin being hosed down, Kyiv (see [00:05:53]).

[00:12:27] Woman cleaning window. Location not found. 

REEL 2

Note: rising numeral 2 present in Eye/Lobster Films and other prints.

IMG_4245[00:13:07] This is the corner tower in the courtyard of the ‘Ginzburg Skyscraper’ in Kyiv. See also [00:08:46 on] for views of the courtyard.

The glass doors seen several times in the film [00:08:46 etc] are likely to be on the ground floor directly below the rhs balcony. This travelling shot is interesting in that it must have been taken from the camera car (or other mobile platform) moving across the courtyard not, as it appears to be, from the street. The tower appears through foliage that is probably from the trees seen in [00:08:52]. If you look carefully at the sequence there are three people at the top of the tower, one clowning about sticking his leg out!

IMG_202007290723483

IMG_4847The ‘Ginzburg Skyscraper’ was an enormous multi-storey apartment block built in 1912 by Lev Ginzburg; at the time it was the ‘tallest building in the Russian Empire’. The building was destroyed, along with most of the area around Khreschatyk, by the retreating Red Army in 1941. You can see the tower in the screenshot in the contemporary photograph above. This is a view looking north towards the courtyard facade. Various shots of the ‘Skyscraper’ are also seen in [00:06:16][00:07:19][00:08:46][00:08:51][00:09:18][00:33:49 on]. The site is now occupied by the Stalinist Ukraine Hotel. [Source: Mikhailo Kalnytsky] 

IMG_4256[00:13:19] Mikhail Kaufman (MK) runs up a large industrial structure with a Debrie Model K camera and tripod – I have been unable to verify what or where this is. I have not found any past or present bridges in Moscow, Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv, Kamianske, or Donetsk with this structure. A structural engineer told me that it was not likely to be a conventional bridge (an odd looking inverted bowstring truss suspension design). See later image of this structure below for further notes.

IMG_6588[00:13:26] Aircraft hangar, Kharkiv aerodrome. This was built in 1923-24 for Ukraine’s first airline, ‘Ukrvozduhput’ (Укрвоздухпуть). The aerodrome was also the base for the Higher Military Aviation School whose pupils are presumably bringing out their U-1 training aircraft. The frames for this sequence are masked at the top and bottom, perhaps to emphasise the horizontality of the huge door opening.

The only photograph found of the hangar (source: ‘Aviation in Ukraine. Essays on History’, V. Savin, Kharkiv, 1995). The windows are identical to the screenshot and there seems to be one large door opening. However, the door design and proportions look slightly different. Perhaps the other end looks more like the screenshot.

U-1 Red Army Air Force training aircraft as seen in the screenshot.

IMG_4988

[01:06:00] There are two hangars in the background of one of the shots in the final sequence of the film, probably at the aerodrome, but neither building looks like the Ukrvozduhput hangar. [Information on the hangar from M Kalnytsky]

IMG_4249[00:13:48] Tram depot, Vodoprovidna Street, Odesa

IMG_4203 (2)

Current [Google Earth] and 1960s views of the depot which is still partly in use by trams. There is a similar tram depot on Stepova Street in the south of the city, now used as a tram museum.

One of Mikhail Kaufman’s criticisms of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (he fell out permanently with his brother over differences in creative viewpoints during editing) was that ‘there were too many trams’. A valid criticism as indeed there are trams everywhere (which was the case in those days). The trams in the three cities can generally be differentiated as follows:

Moscow – a horizontal white band along the lower side; Kyiv – a white panel on the front, and sometimes along the sides; Odesa – neither band nor panel but only the elegant lining around the body panels [00:13:48]. The colours were generally deep red with a white or cream superstructure. Typical (restored) Moscow tram of the early 1900s below.

FullSizeRender(9)

IMG_4247[00:13:57] Mikhail Kaufman on top of an industrial structure with a tram. This was likely to have been filmed during ‘The Eleventh Year’ in 1927 as the camera appears to be the Model K Debrie Parvo used on this film (as seen above it does not have the silver disc on the side of the Model L used during the 1928 filming). The tram is unusual in that it is in one drab looking colour (Moscow, Kyiv, and Odesa trams generally had light coloured superstructures; also see above note on trams in these cities); the second carriage is very short and industrial looking with open ends; and the headboard design is unlike the other cities and says in Ukrainian ‘Factories’ and ‘Station’.

Mykhailo Kalnytsky has investigated trams in the relevant cities as follows: Kamianske (no trams there until 1935) and Donetsk (Stalin) where there was a No. 1 tram that went on the route ‘Factories – Station’ but this started in October 1928, so a year after ‘The Eleventh Year’ filming (also the passengers seem to be wearing summer clothes). In Dnipropetrovsk, a city near to Kamianske, there was a No. 1 tram at the time but the destination was ‘Factories – Camp Bazaar’. So both the structure and tram remain a mystery unless new information comes to light.

[00:14:04] Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, Moscow (see screenshot [00:06:00]).

IMG_4580

IMG_4604

IMG_4584[00:14:30] [00:14:39] Woman on a bench, Strastnaya Square, Moscow. Clues are the pharmacy (АПТЕКА) on the corner of the square (lhs) and the tram stop pavilion and toilets behind the tram seen in the middle of the square above. Many thanks to Dr Denis Romodin of the Museum of Moscow for locating this scene and for suggesting the location of the exact bench (arrow)! Note the grit bin circled in [00:14:39] which is also visible in screenshot [00:11:36]. Photograph courtesy of the Museum.

The kiosk selling mineral water in [00:11:43] is just to the right of the arrow.

IMG_4089[00:14:42] Teatral’naya (Theatre) and Revolyutsii (Revolution) Squares, Moscow.

These famous squares are in central Moscow near Red Square. You can just see a corner of the park in Revolution Square next to Theatre Square in the foreground which is overlooked by the Bolshoi Theatre (the camera would have been on the top floor or on the pediment). The large (red) building in the background was built in 1890 as the City Hall, then the Lenin Museum. It is now used as a gallery for some of the collections of the State Historical Museum. All the buildings on the right have been replaced by a dreary block and a car park as can be seen in the current Google Street View below (the caption says Theatre Passage which is the road between the squares – see also [00:20:07]).

FullSizeRender(10)

IMG_4404[00:14:50] Mostorg Department Store, Theatre Square, Moscow. This was the former Muir & Mirrielees department store (below), founded by two Scottish emigres. Now occupied by TsUM, it is a spectacular Gothic Revival building designed by the architect Roman Klein, opened in 1908. Confiscated after the Revolution it was re-named ‘Mostorg’ in 1922. The store also features in Mikhail Kaufman’s ‘Moscow’ (1927).

IMG_4403

At first glance the glass facade could be from the famous 1927 Mostorg store above, on Krasnaya Presnya, designed by the Constructivist architects Aleksandr, Leonid and Viktor Vesnin. A similar appearance at ground level but the Theatre Square store windows reflect part of the Bolshoi Theatre and the City Hall. The Vesnin building facade still exists as a Benetton store front, but the interesting iron framed lower facade of the Muir & Mirrielees store has been replaced by a very ordinary design (below).

IMG_4528[Google Earth]

IMG_4408a[00:14:56] Tverskaya Street at the corner of Strastnaya Square, Moscow.

Current view of the same corner of Tverskaya and Pushkinskaya Square. [Google Earth]

The clue to the location is the circled sign for the ‘Tverskaya 46’ Cinema, previously the Central Cinema (entry in 1929 Moscow directory below) on the corner of the building. Tverskaya and Strastnaya Square were re-built and widened in the 1930s and the street numbering has changed. The cinema was on the corner of the square on the same street as the Izvestia building and can be seen in the background of screenshot [01:04:31]. This cinema and the Hermitage Theatre were the locations for the premiere of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ in Moscow on the 9th April 1929.

IMG_4410aCinema information courtesy of Live Journal. 

Tverskaya is one of the oldest streets in Moscow, dating back to the 12thC. One of the main radial streets of the city it connects Manege Square at the top of Red Square to the Garden Ring, passing through Tverskaya (Sovetskaya) and Strastnaya (Pushkinskaya) Squares. The route into Moscow from St Petersburg for the Tsars, it became a fashionable street for the aristocracy in the 17th and 18th centuries, then a commercial centre in the 19thC. Re-named Gorky Street in 1932, most of the historic buildings were destroyed after 1935 as part of Stalin’s reconstruction of Moscow.

IMG_6166[00:15:05] MK (assumed – see [00:25:57]) with Debrie Interview camera and tripod on his shoulder walks past a poster for ‘The Awakening of a Woman’, 1927, dir. Fred Sauer. This poster also appears earlier in the film, and in the reflected view of Strastnaya Square [00:19:52]. The film was showing in Moscow at the time of the filming in early June 1928 at the ‘Hermitage’, ‘Horn’ and ‘Union’ Cinemas (Pravda advertisements) but none looks like the building in the screenshot so the location has not been found. The cinema may have been in Kyiv, but this is not confirmed by Mykhailo Kalnitsky.

IMG_4195[00:15:10] Strastnaya Square, Moscow. The Pushkin statue is concealed on the right (moved to the centre of the re-planned square in 1950). Most likely filmed with the 21cm telephoto lens from the Monastery opposite.

IMG_4641A contemporary wider angle view of the square and Pushkin statue (centre).  

[00:15:19] [00:15:23] [00:15:26] Steelworks chimney, Donbas or Kamianske.

[00:15:30] Corner of Tverskaya Street and Strastnaya Square, Moscow (as [00:14:56]).

IMG_4413[00:15:35] [00:15:47] [00:15:53] [00:15:58] [00:16:03] Mikhail Kaufman climbs up a steelworks chimney, Donbas or Kamianske*.

A terrifying looking ascent (probably not with the 10kg camera inside the case) though there does seem to be a rudimentary safety cable alongside the rungs (below)!

IMG_4448

[00:16:09] MK pauses ‘near the top of the chimney’ to get the camera out of its case (but would have been filmed nearer to ground level judging from the angle and safety concerns!).

[00:16:13] Corner of Tverskaya Street and Strastnaya Square, Moscow. A clearer view of ‘Tverskaia 46’ Cinema on the square with a poster for the film ‘Engineer Elagin’ [1928] and ‘disc’ that can be seen behind the motorcycle and sidecar in the screenshot below.[01:04:31]

[00:17:01] Steelworks lifts, Donbas or Kamianske*. Also seen next to the chimney in the images below.

IMG_4414[00:17:06] Coal yard and gantry, Donbas (presumed to be Rutchenkovo – see below for a general view with a similar gantry).

[00:17:10] Coal mine, presumed to be Rutchenkovo, Donbas.

[00:17:20] Coal yard, handcarts over the cameraman, Donbas (Rutchenkovo, as below?).

IMG_4416[00:17:32] View of Cowper ovens at a steelworks, Donbas or Kamianske*.

IMG_4274

A still from ‘The Eleventh Year’ showing the same works.

*Refer to [00:08:30] for notes on the Kamenskoe (Kamianske) steelworks.

IMG_4289 (2)Contemporary view over the Rutchenkovo coal mine and steelworks. Coal unloading gantry in screenshot [00:17:06] on lhs?

IMG_4787Contemporary view over Kamenskoe (Kamianske) steelworks.

IMG_4783Contemporary poster -‘The Donbass is the Heart of Russia’

IMG_4419[00:17:36] Strastnaya Square, Moscow (Izvestia building on lhs).

FullSizeRender - 1(2)Contemporary image of the building – note the huge clock!

IMG_4211Current view of the re-named Pushkinskaya Square – restored Izvestia Building on the left and a much wider road following the Strastnoy Monastery demolition and re-planning of the square.

IMG_5147[00:17:40] MK with the Debrie Parvo Model K on a moving gantry over a steelworks(?) yard, Donbas or Kamianske. Not located.

IMG_4268A still of the same huge gantry from ‘The Eleventh Year’

IMG_4418[00:17:56] Presumed entrance to Novo-Sukharevsky Market, Moscow (not verified).

[00:18:12] Strastnaya Square, Moscow (same camera position as [00:17:36].

IMG_5155[00:18:17] MK (assumed – see [00:25:57]) and camera (Debrie Interview) walking through the main avenue of Novo-Sukharevsky Market, Moscow (see screenshot [00:06:12] for details of the Market).

[00:18:34] Trams crossing Strastnaya Square, Moscow.

[00:18:41] Market view with rear of church (?) in background. Building not found.

IMG_4424[00:18:48] View over Velyka Vasylkivska Street and Khreschatyk beyond (the main boulevard in the centre of Kyiv, at that time [1923-1937] known as Vorovsky Street). Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) is at the top, just past the bend (then known as Soviet Square). Mykhailo Kalnytsky suggests the camera was located on the roof of No. 13 Velyka Vasylkivska (a five storey building) as it is on a turn in the road (see the contemporary map and GE screenshot). Mr Kalnytsky has also sent me an early 20thC postcard with a view taken from exactly the same spot (you can see the A of АПТЕКА (pharmacy) in the screenshot). A slightly lower viewpoint so perhaps taken from a window rather than the roof. You can also see the Ginzburg Skyscraper in the background!

IMG_4815

IMG_6297There is a very similar high level view at the beginning of Dziga Vertov’s 1926 film ‘Stride, Soviet!’ and in Mikhail Kaufman’s ‘Moscow (1927). Not Velyka Vasylkivska but Tverskaya-Yamskaya Street in Moscow shot from the top of the Triumphal Arch on Tverskaya Zastava Square.

IMG_4813(1)aArrow showing the viewpoint of the camera on the roof of No. 13 Velyka Vasylkivska

IMG_4899aCurrent view of Velyka Vasylkivska looking south with the suggested location of the camera. The distinctive building on the left and right below is recognisable from the screenshot and postcard. [Google Earth]

IMG_4910Current view of the street looking north; Khreschatyk beyond was mostly rebuilt and widened after war damage (part of the centre of the city was blown up by the retreating Red Army in 1941). [Google Earth]

[00:18:58] [00:19:06] Moscow shop seen in screenshot [00:06:57] opening shutters.

[00:19:13] Kuznetsky Most.

[00:19:17] Travel or shipping agent’s window advertising passage from Odesa to Jaffa on the ‘Lenin’. Presumed Odesa, but exact location not found.

IMG_4425[00:19:19] I am fairly certain that this is Strastnaya Square. The only clue is the sign on the post and the cables at top right. Compare with the sign, post, and cables in screenshot [00:15:10] below. The smooth pathways between the cobbles look similar as well.

IMG_4195a

IMG_4426[00:19:31] Petrovsky Fountain on Revolution Square, the Bolshoi Theatre in the background. The building on the rhs is the Mostorg (now the TsUM) department store, a 1908 Gothic Revival building by the architect Roman Klein (see screenshot [00:14:50] for details).

[00:19:45] Sewing machine shop (location not found).

[00:19:52] Strastnaya Square reflected in the glass of a revolving door (‘The Awakening of a Woman’ film poster, cameraman and camera, Strastnoy Monastery and dome of St. Demetrius Church visible).

[00:20:02] A shop window with a ‘cyclist’ – the reflected building has not been located.

IMG_4427[00:20:07] Teatral’nyy Proyezd (Theatre Passage), Moscow.

IMG_4186 (2)A contemporary view of the street. Part of the Kitay-gorod mediaeval wall on the right with the dome of St Panteleimon Chapel above. Note the sledge transport on the rhs! Theatre Passage is one of the main streets in the historic centre of Moscow connecting Theatre Square with Lubyanka (seen at the top of the photograph).

IMG_4187 (2)A similar view but looking very different now, this historic street was totally obliterated by Stalinist planners. The notorious Lubyanka KGB HQ and prison is at the end of the avenue. [Google Earth]

IMG_4169[00:20:16] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow

IMG_4152[00:20:31] Okhotny Ryad, Moscow. The end facade of Dom Soyuzov (House of the Unions) is on the rhs. The beautiful 17thC church of St Paraskeva on the lhs was destroyed (in June 1928)  just after it was filmed.

IMG_4799 (2)19thC postcard of Okhotny Ryad and St Paraskeva Church.

IMG_4154Current appearance of the street from the same viewpoint as the screenshot! [Google Earth]. Okhotny Ryad is the continuation of Teatral’nyy Proyezd (Theatre Passage) from Theatre Square to the bottom of Tverskaya and the top of Red Square. Famous for its market, restaurants, speciality shops and old hotels before the Revolution the whole area was devastated by Stalin’s re-planning of central Moscow in the 1930s.

One of the major historic buildings in Moscow, Dom Soyuzov is a huge 18thC princely mansion that became the Assembly of the Russian Nobility in 1784. Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev and other Soviet leaders all lay in state here, and the building became the centre of the country’s social, political and cultural life holding concerts, chess matches, conferences, and Party Congresses. It was also the setting for some of the notorious Stalin show trials in the late 1930s.

IMG_4429Contemporary photograph of Dom Soyuzov.

[00:20:43] Split screen of Petrovky Street approaching the junction with Kuznetsky Most.

[00:20:52] Teatral’nny Proyezd , Moscow.

IMG_4125[00:21:09] Former second-class entrance pavilion, Odesa Station (and below).

IMG_4433Photograph and Station information from viknaodessa.

IMG_4128[00:21:13] Main entrance to Odesa Station.

76266Early 1900s view of the station entrance on Pryvokzal’na Square. [courtesy of viknaodessa]

Designed by the architects Schreter and Bernardazzi, this magnificent station opened in 1883 covering a large area of the city. The entrances were strictly hierarchical: First Class passengers used the main entrance above, Second Class had the entrance with the cast iron canopy in [00:21:09], and Third Class had an entrance off the Old Town Square. The ruling family had its own Imperial entrance pavilion to avoid mixing with its subjects. The station was badly damaged during WW2 and rebuilt to a different design after the war.

IMG_4126[00:21:19] Mikhail Kaufman in the camera car in Pushkins’ka, Odesa (presumed, as I am unable to locate the building behind the trees on the rhs).

IMG_4136 (2)Early 20thC postcard view of Pushkins’ka from Pryvokzal’na Square, with the spire of St Elijah’s Monastery on the right (see [00:57:06]).

IMG_4148Current view of Pushkins’ka [Google Earth]

Pushkins’ka Street was the location of the camera car and carriage/car sequences as two large distinctive buildings that still exist on side streets are clearly visible part way through the sequence. Pushkins’ka (Pushkin lived there in 1823-24) is an avenue leading from Pryvokzal’na Square, without trams so the camera car could travel along the middle of the road alongside its subjects. There is a brief scene of the camera car turning a corner into another avenue off the square where you can see a tram emerging [00:21:45]. Pushkins’ka is a very long street allowing plenty of time for the filming, as you can clearly see from the screenshots.

IMG_4688[00:21:21] Cars and horse drawn cabs in Pryvokzal’na Square, Odesa. The car is the one being filmed in [00:22:18] et al.

[00:21:24] MK in camera car in Pryvokzal’na Square.

[00:21:31] Odesa Station entrance.

[00:21:35] [00:21:41] MK in camera car in Pryvokzal’na Square.

IMG_4129[00:21:55] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

[00:22:07] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

[00:22:15] Women in a cab on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4439[00:22:18] [00:22:51] Car and passengers on Pushkins’ka (the same car as seen in [00:21:21]).

[00:22:24] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4440[00:22:30] 2nd car and passengers on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4729

IMG_4690This is the imposing Italian Gothic Revival building of the Odesa Philharmonic Theatre glimpsed behind the car above, on the former Rosa Luxemburg Street, off Pushkins’ka. Designed to resemble the Doge’s Palace in Venice, it was built as a stock exchange in 1894. [Google Earth]

[00:22:36] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4441[00:22:39] 2nd cab with two women on Pushkins’ka (one imitating the cameraman!).

IMG_4449[00:22:45] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka (the building below on Troitska Street is behind – the balconies have disappeared!).

IMG_4136aCurrent view of the building on Troitska Street in the background of the screenshot above. [Google Earth]

[00:22:53] [00:23:00] Horse galloping, and then ‘frozen’. Assumed Odesa.

[00:22:57] Camera car on Pushkins’ka.

[00:23:04] ‘Frozen’ carriage and passengers (reverse view of the same ones seen briefly in [00:22:36] et al).

[00:23:07] ‘Frozen’ street view. Location not found.

[00:23:15] ‘Frozen’ view of the north end of Khreschatyk Street, Kyiv.

REEL 3

Note: rising numeral 3 missing from Eye/Lobster Films print.

[00:24:45] ‘Frozen’ view of the north end of Khreschatyk.

IMG_5336[00:24:48] North end of Khreschatyk, crowds in motion. Mykhailo Kalnytsky suggests the camera was located at No. 28/2 Khreschatyk (on the corner of Prorizna Street), which is much taller than its neighbours (see photograph and arrow on the map below). The main square of Kyiv, then known as Sovetskaya Square, is on the lhs by the sunlit building. It was previously known as Khreschatyk Square, then Dumskaya (Council) Square, and after being called many different names in the Soviet era it was re-named Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) in 1991.

IMG_4231 (2)An early 1900s view of the north end of Khreschatyk. The buildings are much the same except for the end of a large new building spoiling the street on the lhs of the screenshot. Apparently taken from the same building as the screenshot.

IMG_202007270916392aMykhailo Kalnytsky suggests that the camera was located on the top rhs balcony of 28/2 Khreschatyk. This beautiful building was built in 1902, designed by the famous Kyiv architect of Polish origin Vladyslav Horodetsky. It was the first on Khreschatyk to be blown up in 1941 by the retreating Red Army. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007061223140bContemporary street plan showing the suggested location of the camera overlooking Khreschatyk. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_4825Current view of the north end of Khreschatyk at a similar location [photograph by Nikolay Omelchenko on Google Earth]. Nothing much is left of the old street thanks to its destruction by the retreating Red Army in 1941. Much of the re-building after the war was in the Stalinist neo-classical style as can be seen here. Independence Square is just ahead, and now occupies both sides of the street.

[00:25:01] Passengers in a carriage, Pushkins’ka, Odesa (reverse view, ‘frozen’ at first’ – originally seen in [00:22:36] and [00:23:04]).

[00:25:08] Views of streets behind horse’s head, Odesa. From similarities to previous shots presumably around Pushkins’ka, but not verified.

[00:25:12] Two women in a carriage, Odesa. Presumably around Pushkins’ka, but not verified.

[00:25:21 on] Carriage and women outside a house in Odesa. Exact location not found.

[00:25:38] Mikhail Kaufman (assumed) with Debrie Interview camera and tripod walking in a street. Location not found.

[00:25:40] Carriage outside a building on Vorontsovs’kyi Lane, Odesa.

Modern view of the location. Windows and cellar openings have been added. The street leads to the Vorontsov Palace and the end of Primorskyi Boulevard. [Google Street View]

[00:25:47] Revolving doors at the Palace Hotel, Kyiv [see 00:25:57].

IMG_4172[00:25:50] Theatre and Revolution Squares, Moscow (taken from the top floor or pediment of the Bolshoi Theatre). This is a view to the left of the one in screen shot [00:14:42].

IMG_4174 (2)Old postcard of the opposite view, Revolution Square with 1827 Petrovsky Fountain (Moscow’s oldest) in the foreground. The layout of the squares has changed considerably, but the fountain is still in place.

IMG_4173Current aerial view of Theatre and Revolution Squares. The Bolshoi Theatre is at the bottom of the picture. The beautiful Art Nouveau Metropol Hotel is on the left. Sadly, most of the area is now taken up by parking. [Google Earth]

IMG_6149[00:25:57] Entrance to the Palace Hotel, Kyiv (advertisement for the Kyiv Opera House on the left).

Palast-1920eThe Palace Hotel, or Hotel Palast, was and is one of the premier hotels in Kyiv. On Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard it opened in 1912 in time for the ‘All Russia Exhibition’ held in the city in 1913. This exhibition was the catalyst for the extraordinary amount of fine early 19th Century architecture in the city. [Hotel advertisement from M. Kalnytsky]

FullSizeRender - 6(2)Dziga Vertov and Elizaveta Svilova stayed in the hotel when they moved to Kyiv in 1927 (not certain if Mikhail Kaufman was there also). This photograph shows MK (2nd left) and DV (right) outside the entrance. Note the design of the doors as seen in [00:25:57] and [00:30:31]. [photograph courtesy of the Oleksandr Dovzhenko Centre, from ‘Mikhail Kaufman’s Ukrainian Dilogy’, S. Bytiutskyi, 2018]

The figure in the centre (possibly the cameraman Georgii Khimchenko) is intriguing as he is dressed in the same clothing that Mikhail Kaufman is often seen in, giving rise to the possibility that he was a ‘stand-in’ for MK in some of the scenes in the film where his face is not visible, such as the introduction in the Shantser Cinema and Novo-Sukharevsky Market.    

IMG_4466[00:26:03] Corner of Theatre Square, Moscow. Metropol Hotel in the background, Maly Theatre on the lhs. This is a view to the left of the one in screen shot [00:25:50].

IMG_4218Current view of the same corner. Maly Theatre on the left, Metropol Hotel in the background.  [Google Earth]

The Maly Theatre (literally ‘Small Theatre’ in contrast to the ‘Bolshoi’) has been in this building since 1824.  One of the leading classical theatres of Europe it also operates the Shchepkin Theatre School, Moscow’s oldest.

The Metropol is one of Europe’s greatest Grand Hotels. Opened in 1905 in a beautiful Art Nouveau style building designed by the Scottish-Russian architect William Walcot its central stained glass vaulted dining room must one of the most spectacular places in the world to have breakfast (from personal experience!). From a balcony in this room the great Russian bass Fyodor Shalyapin sang and Vladimir Lenin declaimed. After the Revolution the Metropol was used for government offices and then returned to being a deluxe hotel as the Bolsheviks realised that foreign visitors would expect something better than the average post-revolution Moscow hotel!

[00:26:12] [00:26:17] Close up of the traffic policeman at the signal in Kuznetsky Most, Moscow (assumed).

[00:26:19] Telephoto view of Revolution Square taken from the Bolshoi.

[00:26:23] [00:26:57] [00:27:03] Traffic signal on Kuznetsky Most (assumed).

IMG_4159[00:26:25] [00:26:43] [00:26:52] [00:27:06] The camera overlooks Velyka Vasylkivska Street and Khreschatyk beyond, in Kyiv. Mykhailo Kalnytsky suggests the camera(s) were on the roof of No. 13 Velyka Vasylkivska (a five storey building) as it is on a bend in the road (see screenshot [00:18:48]). The depth of field (ie the camera is in focus as well as the background) is impressive!

IMG_4483[00:27:36] Split screen view of Moscow streets and trams. Locations not found.

[00:27:52] Tverskaya Street, corner of Strastnaya Square.

IMG_4484[00:28:18 on] Funeral procession, Derybasivska Street, Odesa. Presumably the cortege is for an important individual, but his identity is unknown so far. The street was known as Lassalle Street at the time, after the Prussian socialist philosopher Ferdinand Lassalle.

[00:28:25 on] Marriage and dusty street, Odesa? Location not found.

IMG_4486[00:29:02] Car procession, corner of Derybasivska Street and Pushkins’ka, Odesa. Part of the funeral cortege above? The corner dome of the huge Novikov Building can be seen in the background.

1913 Novikov Building, Derybasivska Street, Odesa. [M. Kalnytsky]

Current view of the same location. The camera was probably mounted on the camera car as the screenshot has a more elevated viewpoint. [Google Earth]

IMG_5188[00:29:16] [00:29:27] [00:29:33] MK filming in a double (triple?) exposure of angled buildings. Both buildings still exist on Strilets’ka Street in Kyiv. The building with the spire is on the corner of Reitarska Street where the ambulance garage is located [00:31:31].

[Google Earth]

[00:29:40] [00:29:59] [00:30:10] Okhotny Ryad, Moscow.

IMG_5200[00:29:44] Okhotny Ryad with a much clearer view of St Paraskeva church.

[00:29:45 on] Interior of the Palace Hotel [see 00:25:57]. The design of the doors confirms the location. It is assumed that the lift and telephone box in some of the scenes are also in the hotel, but this has not been verified. The poster for the Kyiv Opera that appears in [00:25:57] on the left of the doors is not visible. It may be concealed behind the wall or there may be two revolving doors into the hotel.

[00:30:23] [00:30:35] Teatral’nyy Projzed, Moscow.

IMG_5531[00:30:27 on] Multiple shots of the shadow of the glass entrance door seen at the beginning of the film [00:08:46] and likely to be the main courtyard entrance to the Ginzburg Skyscraper.

[00:30:31] The lobby of the Palace Hotel, Kyiv

[00:30:42] Tram passing balloons (same tram as in [01:04:11]?). Location unknown.

[00:30:50] Double exposure of Okhotny Ryad, Moscow.

[00:31:00] Camera in a car (assumed) careering around a corner, Moscow (assumed). Location not found.

[00:31:03] Speeded up traffic in Teatral’nyy Projzed, Moscow.

[00:31:10] to [00:31:31] Fast montage sequence starting with the front of a Kyiv tram (white panel on the front), with an eye looking over various street scenes. These frames have been analysed carefully and some interesting and significant locations in Kyiv have been found by Mykhailo Kalnytsky (the images are only seen for a fraction of a second and some are difficult to locate). We have been unable to locate the other fragmented images in the sequence with certainty (one looks like the view from the Bolshoi).

IMG_202007140743522 [00:31:11] Volodymyrska Street near the Opera House, Kyiv.

IMG_202007140743524Photograph c1930 from the same location (Opera House hidden on lhs). [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007140743523[00:31:11 next few frames] and [00:31:18] Lenina (now Bogdan Khmelnytsky) Street just below the intersection with Volodymyrska Street.  Contemporary photograph of the same buildings, probably taken from the same location as the screenshots. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5126Current view of the intersection with the Academy of Sciences on the right and the only surviving building in the screenshot in the background.[Google Earth/Activ Foto]

IMG_2020071407435215AContemporary street plan showing the camera location in a building on the corner of Lenina and Volodymyrska Streets. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007230805561aThese fragmentary shots and [00:31:18] [00:31:21] would probably have been taken from the corner balcony at 17 Lenina Street, on the corner of Volodymyrska. The building no longer exists. Shots from this location do not appear in any other part of the film. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007140743529

IMG_2020071407435210[00:31:12] [00:31:23]  Roof top views of a building on Halytska Square.

IMG_2020071407435211aContemporary view of the opposite side of Halytska Square to the one below. The building (which no longer exists) was on the corner of Taras Shevchenko Boulevard and Dmytrivska Street. The camera location can be confirmed as the roof of this building from the details of the attic window pediments. [M. Kalnytsky]

These fragmentary shots from the roof of a building on Halytska Square are interesting for two reasons. The fifth* high level camera location in Kyiv can be confirmed as the roof of this building from the fragmentary shots of the stone details on the top of the attic windows. Part of the wrought iron railing and lead or zinc roof covering can also be seen. The style of these shots (and others in this sequence) point to the use of a hand held automatic camera, most likely the Kinamo, and not the Debrie camera which is hand-cranked and weighs around 10kg. See my blog post on the cameras in the film for details. The more straightforward shots of the square (below) would most likely have been filmed with the Debrie to achieve the speeded up and reversed footage. You can see the small pavilion with a distinctive roof in the foreground of the contemporary photograph above on the lhs below.

*The others being the Red Kiev Hotel on Volodymyrska, 13 Velyka Vasylkivska, 28/2 Khreschatyk, and 17 Lenina Street.

IMG_4838[01:06:17 on] Views over Halytska Square (shots of trams and people, speeded up and reversed).

IMG_2020071407435218AContemporary street plan showing the camera location for the sequence in Halytska Square. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007140743521[00:31:18] [00:31:21] Fragmentary shot of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences on Volodymyrska Street, Kyiv. Taken from a building on the corner of Lenina Street (see above).

IMG_202007140743526Mid 20thC view of the Academy building. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5101Current view. [Google Earth]

IMG_202007140743528[00:31:25] Fragmentary shot of Velyka Vasylkivska Street, Kyiv, from the roof of No. 13 (see [00:18:48]). You can now see the full word АПТЕКА (pharmacy) on the side of the building.

IMG_202007140743527[00:31:29] Fragmentary shots of an apartment building on Velyka Vasylkivska Street taken from the roof of No. 13.

IMG_202007141004320Early 1900s postcard view of the building, looking towards L’va Tolstoho Square. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_2020071407435217Current view of the recently restored building. An interesting early 20thC apartment block by the undeservedly little known architect Pavlo Svatkovsky. [photograph M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5177[00:31:31 on] Ambulance sequence, Kyiv. The ambulance garage was behind 22 Reitarska Street. The address can be seen on the back of the ambulance and the price list [00:33:05 on].

IMG_202007160935191Recent photograph of the garage building in the courtyard of 22 Reitarska Street. The doors have been replaced with windows but the distinctive lintels are visible in the screenshot. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5178[00:31:41] The cameraman leaps into a car opposite the ambulance garage. The house behind still exists, below (the balconies have been changed, but the window details are recognisable).

IMG_20200716093519025 Reitarska Street. [photograph M. Kalnytsky]

[00:31:45] These houses have disappeared, but are seen on a contemporary photograph of the street looking NW towards the junction with Strilets’ka Street. No. 25 is in the background opposite the garage. The building with the corner tower in [00:29:16] is hidden on the rhs.

IMG_5186A similar view of the junction today. [Google Earth]

IMG_5185AGoogle Earth screenshot showing the garage and location of the building with the corner tower and spire on the corner of Strilets’ka and Reitarska Streets in [00:29:16 et al]. 22 Reitarska Street is still a medical clinic!

IMG_5215

IMG_4808[00:31:49] [00:31:55] The ambulance and camera car have gone down Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard and turned left into Kominterna (now Symona Petlyury) Street. The building on the corner still exists, below.

IMG_4809

[00:32:14] The ambulance collects the ‘injured man’ outside a house (No. 40) on Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard (the house has been demolished but the window and cellar opening from the far end are recognisable). Note the post on the lhs of the ambulance, also seen in [00:32:53].

There is a curious fragment of editing at [00:32:47] when the doors are closing on a different ambulance in front of a different house!

IMG_5209a[00:32:53] The ambulance goes down the northern carriageway of Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard (cobbled section). Note the post on the rhs, also seen next to the house in [00:32:14]. The boulevard was (and still is) divided by a wide tree lined pedestrian route (lhs). Tram lines were on the southern carriageway.

IMG_4488[00:32:34 on] Fire engine sequence, Odesa.

IMG_4689The Odesa Fire Brigade is still in the same building on the former Rosa Luxemburg Street over 90 years later! On the same street as the Philharmonic Theatre in [00:22:33].

20200720_104140The women and men of the Odesa Fire Brigade in 1930. [from ‘Odesa in Old Photographs’ by Y. Volokin et al., 2017]

IMG_202007230851122[00:32:55] The fire engine heads along Rosa Luxemburg (now Bunina) Street crossing  Schmidt (now Oleksandrivs’kyi) Avenue (the bell tower of the Intercession Church is seen in the background, demolished in the 1930s). A building on the corner of both streets is still recognisable. The fire engine is actually going in the opposite direction to the ones emerging from the fire station in [00:32:40].

IMG_4491[00:32:58] to [00:33:42] Ambulance and fire engine speeding through the streets sequence. A wonderful example of ‘Creative Geography’ as these scenes are set in two different cities but edited to look like the streets of one. The ambulance driver squeezing the rubber bulb of his horn regularly instead of a siren is a period touch! Mr Kalnytsky sent me an advertisement and price list from the Kyiv Directory of 1929 for the very same ambulance service!

IMG_202007061824003

REEL 4

Note: rising numeral 4 present in Eye/Lobster Films and other prints.

[00:33:49] Ginzburg Skyscraper courtyard facade, Kyiv.

[00:33:56] Traffic policeman with signal, MK with camera, on Kuznetsky Most, Moscow.

[00:34:00 on] Hairdressing and manicure sequences. Unknown location(s).

[00:34:07 on] Working activity scenes. Unknown location(s) except [00:36:20] and tobacco factory below.

[00:35:03] ‘Paris Specialist Cleaner’ shoeshine booth, Odesa? MK is wearing his white Odesa shirt but exact location not found.

[00:36:20] Traffic policeman, Kuznetsky Most, Moscow.

IMG_2020071407435225[00:36:29] Cigarette packets on a production line.

IMG_2020071407435221[00:36:42] Cheerful woman making packets for ‘Razkurochny’ cigarettes.

This was probably filmed at the well-known tobacco factory, on Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard near Halytska Square in Kyiv, established by the Kogen family in the 19thC. Confiscated after the Revolution and re-named ‘4th State Tobacco Factory’. A cigarette factory, possibly this one, also featured in Mikhail Kaufman’s 1927 film ‘Moscow’.

IMG_202007141101121

The factory name can be read (in a cursive font, with difficulty) on the back of the ‘Parol’ (Password) brand packets on the production line (above). On the front of the packet are the letters ‘YTT (UTT) for Ukrainian Tobacco Trust. The cheerful woman would have had an employee’s certificate from the factory as the cover below. [information from M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_202007141101120

A 1940s photograph of the fine looking tobacco factory at No. 74-76 Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard, constructed around 1903-1904. [M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5095a[00:36:37] [00:37:59] An unknown location, but an interesting detail. The 3 chervonets banknote on the counter (and below) was issued at the start of the New Economic Policy in late 1922 to try to stabilise the currency. One chervonets was equivalent to a pre-revolutionary ten roubles gold coin. There is an interesting description of this currency on the ‘Master & Margarita’ website.

IMG_202007141101122

IMG_5223[00:38:22 on] Coal mine in Rutchenkovo in the Donbas.

Vertov’s diary entry of June 22nd 1927 written in Zaporozh’e (on the Dnieper River) records filming in the Dzerzhinsky steelworks in Kamianske, but then goes on to describe filming underground in a mine, and at the end of the entry talks about wanting ‘to embrace and caress those gigantic smokestacks and black gas tanks’ (of the steelworks), the implication being that it is all in the same place. There are no coal mines in Kamianske (or Zaporozh’e), all the coal for the blast furnaces there come by rail from the Donbas so this entry is very confusing.

DV and MK in mine 2

Dziga Vertov and Mikhail Kaufman looking rather miserable in the mine at Rutchenkovo during filming of ‘The Eleventh Year’.

IMG_5231[00:39:19] Dzherzhinsky steelworks interior – a spectacular sequence of industrial images! See [00:08:30] for notes on the steelworks.

IMG_4284 (2)Typical contemporary Donbas scene of coke ovens (lhs), coal mine (rhs) and steelworks blast furnaces (background).

[00:40:35] [00:40:48] [00:40:55] [00:41:00] Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant, near Leningrad.

IMG_5243[00:41:08] [00:41:21] [00:41:32] [00:41:43] [00:41:50] [00:41:57] [00:42:04] MK and assistant in a suspended platform over the Volkhov Dam.

The Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant (Волховская ГEС) is on the river of the same name near to Lake Ladoga in the Leningrad Oblast (County). Opened in 1926 (but actually a pre-revolutionary design) and named after VI Lenin, it is the oldest hydroelectric plant still operating in Russia.

2470179205Current view of the dam and generating building taken from a similar position [fotostrana].

Shass-Kobelev_-_Lenin_and_electrification_1024x1024Contemporary poster celebrating Lenin’s electrification plans featuring the Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant.

IMG_4652[00:42:10] Split screen scene of trams in Moscow. Top is of Okhotny Ryad, bottom is of Myasnytska Street.

[00:42:52] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow? Not verified.

IMG_5560[00:42:59 on] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow. MK with Kinamo and Debrie Parvo cameras.

[00:43:10] As above, except the Parvo on a spreadeagled tripod without the cameraman.

IMG_5267[00:43:12 on] MK with Debrie camera(s) on Teatral’nyy Projzed, Moscow.

[00:43:24] Split screen scene of trams in Moscow. Top is of Okhotny Ryad, bottom is of Myasnitska Street.

REEL 5

Note: rising numeral 5 missing from Eye/Lobster print.

[00:44:42] Park Bridge, Kyiv.

IMG_4480[00:44:47 on] Arcadia Beach, Odesa.

IMG_4111[01:06:04] A wider view of the beach from the rapid montage sequence at the end of the film – note the building at the top right, and below, which was a spa and hydrotherapy centre and is now a hotel.

IMG_4643A quieter Arcadia Beach in the early 20thC. 

IMG_4248 (2)Information and photographs above from viknaodessa.

IMG_4482The building still exists as a hotel. [Google Earth – photograph by Wazza Production]

IMG_4117 (2)Current view of Arcadia Beach. The former hydrotherapy centre is marked with an arrow.[Google Earth – photograph by Sergii Kushnarov]

Named after an idyllic area of Greece to encourage visitors, Arcadia Beach was Odesa’s main seaside resort in the late 1920s, and still is. On the outskirts of the city, connected by tram, it was very popular from the start of its development at the end of the 19thC. There were restaurants, cafes, warm sea baths, a spa and hydrotherapy clinic, sanatoriums, and ‘a polyclinic with electro-mechano-therapeutic rooms’ which sounds intimidating! Next to the beach there was a pleasant seafront park with the inevitable monument to VI Lenin.

[00:45:28 on] Swimming and exercises, Odesa Port (see also [00:48:55] on). Confirmed by Yevgeny Volokin because of the distinctive iron mooring bollard.

[00:45:34 on] Conjuror and children sequences. Unknown location. There is a similar scene in ‘Kino-glaz’ (1924).

[00:45:50] Carousel (the same one as sequence [00:54:23]?). Likely to be Odesa but location not found.

IMG_4479[00:46:38 on] Athletics sequence, Odesa. The seating is similar to that seen in later sports sequences (see [00:54:15 on]).

IMG_4468

[00:48:27 on] Trotting (Harness racing) at Moscow Hippodrome. The spectacular grandstand below does not appear in any of the footage, most likely because there were no spectators. This was difficult to locate because of the lack of clues but the (assumed) stables building at the end of the track on the left above appears in an early 1900s photograph of a race.

Moscow Hippodrome [Google Earth]. Only the left wing of the building seems to have survived, circled above.

[00:48:36 on] Horse riding on a track (?). Difficult to see if it is the same hippodrome as there are no clues except for the distinctive fence which isn’t seen in the trotting sequence. Location not verified.

IMG_4470

[00:48:55 on] Diving, exercising, and swimming at Odesa Port (the harbour, not a swimming pool – note the large mooring bollards). The diving tower was located in the yacht club.

[00:49:47 on] Mud and sun bathing at Kuyal’nik resort, near Odesa.

A perfect example of ‘Creative Geography’: the impression of a journey by sea is given from the travel agent’s window advertising passage from Odesa to Jaffa on the ‘Lenin’ [00:19:17] and the ship leaving port [00:44:22].

The ‘Man with the Camera’ disembarks [00:50:15], and then goes on to a beach with his camera [00:50:48]. The resort is nowhere near Jaffa but actually on a land-locked shallow salt lagoon a few km by road from the centre of Odesa! The ship then returns to the city ‘after the holiday’ at the beginning of reel 6 [00:55:37].

[00:50:39 on] [00:52:03 on] Exercise machines at Kuyal’nik Sanatorium? Not verified.

IMG_4087[00:50:48] MK walks across the beach at Kuyal’nik

IMG_4189 (3)The same view today with the ruins of the pier from the Sanatorium in the background (Google Earth – photograph by Vladimir Percenko).

IMG_4358 (2)Late 19thC postcard showing the Kuyal’nik Sanitorium in its heyday.

Current Google Earth images showing the derelict Sanatorium and remains of its pier.

[00:52:14] Disembodied weight lifter, Kuyal’nik? Not verified.

IMG_4738[00:53:05] Netball sequence at the ‘Red Stadium’ in Kyiv.

IMG_4792Overall view of the stadium with a ‘human chess’ event! The netball would have been played at the top left judging by the large building on the lhs in the background and in the screenshot which was on Zhilyanska Street, since demolished for the Olympic Stadium .

[00:53:28 on] Football (part?) and intermittent athletics sequences, Odesa. The sports ground can be located as in one of the frames there is a glimpse of a nearby church and churchyard which is St John of Kronstadt, unrecognisable today from the beautiful building below right. The spectator seating below left can be seen in the athletics and some of the shots of the football match. It isn’t clear if the rest of the match is being filmed in the stadium.

IMG_4735The sports ground still exists, called Dynamo. The church is just above the rh end [Google Earth].

IMG_5288[00:54:19 on] Motor cycles on a track. The banked part of the track is seen during the sequence in a triple horizontal exposure ([00:54:48] check the broken concrete line!) to give the impression it was wider and there were more ‘competitors’.

I have not yet found the location of this track which I think was a velodrome (cycling track) as is too narrow for a motor racing circuit compared to Brooklands in Surrey (UK) for example. It seems to be in a semi-derelict condition (top image below [00:54:26]) which implies it was old in the late 1920s. It could be one of two early velodromes (cycle racing tracks) in Kyiv. The later one seems to have been in use at the time of the film (location map below) but I cannot find any record of the first one built at Bibikovsky Boulevard in 1899. There were also early velodromes in Kharkiv, Odesa, and Donetsk. For a visual comparison there was a later velodrome in Odesa (bottom image below) built in 1929.  Investigations continue!

IMG_202007041315330a1925 location map (Kyiv Public Utilities Department #311) of the second (1913) Kyiv Velodrome which has been restored and is in use again. The diagonal road at the bottom is Bogdan Khmelnytsky Street. [map courtesy of M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_5300[00:54:22 on] Carousel sequences, in Odesa judging by the clothing. Exact location not found. The carousel is actually ‘mirrored’ in parts of this sequence (as in this screenshot – the camera is the wrong way around!). Perhaps for artistic reasons to contrast with the motor cycles going around the track in the opposite direction?

REEL 6

Note: rising numeral 6 missing from Eye/Lobster print.

IMG_4651[00:55:40] Prymorskyi Boulevard, Odesa. Views over the Port. 

[00:55:48] Proletarian Cinema, (later Beaumonde [Бомонд] Cinema), October Revolution Square, Odesa.

IMG_4164[00:55:59] Giant camera overlooking Sofiys’ka Square, Kyiv. The angle of view is  narrower than the previous one overlooking Volodymyrska Street (see screenshot [00:07:03]) as the 21cm Krauss Zeiss telephoto lens would probably have been used here (this is the lens that is most commonly seen in the film). See my blog post on the cameras in the film for details of the lenses.

Current views of Sofiys’ka Square and statue – the building behind the statue of Bogdan Khmelnytsky is recognisable in the screenshot from the film [top: Google Earth; bottom: Ukrainian Trip Adviser]. Sofiys’ka is one of the main squares of Kyiv, overlooked by the Cathedral of St Sophia.

IMG_4222

IMG_4221[00:57:06] ‘Drunken’ views over a candle shop and church (former St Elijah’s Monastery) converted into the VI Ulyanov (Lenin’s real name) workers’ club, Pushkins’ka Street, Odesa.

IMG_4237 (2)Current view of  St Elijah’s Monastery, beautifully restored, with a religious scene over the gates instead of Lenin!

[00:57:40] Rifle range. Location not found.

IMG_4627[00:58:29] Drinks shop, Kyiv (city name on fascia). An example of private enterprise during the NEP era. Exact location not found.

IMG_5314[00:58:39] Lenin Club, No. 19 Ivana Franka Street, Kyiv.

IMG_4793The well restored building is now occupied by the Ministry of Culture. 

[01:00:35] Audience in Shantser Cinema, Kyiv.

IMG_5332[01:00:38] Stop motion tripod and camera action. Location not found.

{01:01:41 on] Shantser Cinema, Kyiv.

[01:02:40 on] Split screen sequences of Okhotny Ryad, Moscow.

IMG_5337[01:03:30] MK and Indian motorcycle on screen in the Shantser Cinema (and on the track). See my blog post on the cameras in the film for details of the motorcycle.

[01:03:44] [01:03:56] Multi exposure and split screen images of crowds. Possibly Stepanovska Street, Kyiv? (see also [01:04:56]). Not verified.

[01:04:05] A carriage turning in the street, Odesa. Pushkins’ka? Not verified.

[01:04:11] Moscow tram passing through Strastnaya Square (Sarastovsko -Leningradskaya on headboard).

IMG_5344[01:04:17] City street scene, motorcycle and sidecar, bicycle, cars and people, Strastnaya Square, Moscow. Strastnoy Monastery and corner of Izvestia building in the background.

Two expensive recently imported cars filmed speeding through the square – perhaps a commentary on the NEPmen’s extravagance? A French Amilcar sports car is on the left, and an English Crossley Tourer apparently being driven by a chauffeur.

IMG_4507This photograph shows the Strastnoy Monastery entrance tower covered up with an advert for AVTODOR, the state body tasked with improving roads and ‘Automobilism’ in the Soviet Union, set up in 1927. Deliberate disrespect for the religious institution, and even less at night! (photograph courtesy of MosDay.ru).

IMG_4620 (2)

[01:04:36 on] Trams and carriage, Moscow (Strastnaya Square?).

[01:04:51] Shantser Cinema, Kyiv.

IMG_4630[01:04:56] Double (or more?) exposure of MK and cameras over crowds of people (there are two Debrie Interviews plus the crowd). There are other glimpses of the scene in the final rapid montage sequence. Mikhailo Kalnytsky believes this location to be Stepanovska Street (now called Starovokzalna) in Kyiv which led to a temporary station while the Central Station nearby was being constructed (1927-1932). He suggests it is crowded due to the proximity of the Jewish Bazaar market (see Halytska Square below).

IMG_4631[01:05:07] The best known image in the film – the Bolshoi Theatre and squares split in the middle!

[01:05:23] Shantser Cinema, Kyiv. Odesa carriages on the screen

IMG_4838[01:06:17 on] Halytska Square, Kyiv. The location of several scenes in the final sequence with both speeded up and reversed crowds and trams, and close-ups (the small ‘kiosk’ above the tram is visible in one shot). This was the location of the popular Jewish market at the time which explains the crowds. See also [00:31:12 et al] for the location of the camera that took this footage.

IMG_202007061823590A recent view of the modern Perehomy (Victory) Square.  The buildings in the background of the screenshot can still be seen here on the corner of modern Saksaganskoho and Starovokzalna Streets. The tram tracks and pavilions have disappeared. [photograph and information from M. Kalnytsky]

IMG_4965[01:05:33 on] Mikhail Kaufman in the camera car speeding along Pushkins’ka in Odesa. This has been difficult to locate because of the lack of obvious clues and fast movement. Some sources placed it firmly in Kharkiv. However, a close scan of the frames, and of the buildings along this street, uncovered the following clues that definitely placed the sequence in Odesa:

IMG_202007141233182aThe distinctive lamp posts of Odesa still exist in the city centre. Also visible on Pushkins’ka several times during the carriage and car sequences. [observation M. Kalnytsky]

Archways to Pushkins’ka 45 and 55. [Google Earth]

The same distinctive balconies on a Troitska Street building at the corner of Pushkins’ka are also visible in the carriage sequences. [observation M. Kalnytsky]

[01:05:24 on] a carriage in Odesa; MK and his Debrie Parvo Model L camera in a car speeding through Odesa; carriages on Primorskyi Boulevard, Odesa; the Shantser Cinema audience; Theatre and Revolution Squares, Moscow; Park Bridge, Kyiv; trams, aeroplanes, railcar, and trains; Arcadia Beach, Odesa; Khreschatyk and Velyka Vasylkivska, Kyiv (and an image of it ‘splitting’); a crowded Halytska square in Kyiv (see above); Stepanovska Street, Kyiv; cars in Derybasivska Street, Odesa; people rushing through glass doors seen in shadow on the floor (see [00:08:46 on] for the likely location of these doors); film editing and the eyes of E. Svilova; Teatral’nyy Proyezd, Moscow; a crowded street and trams; the cinema audience; the last frames of the film are of the No. 7 Kyiv tram and the remarkable image of the camera iris ‘Film-Eye’ closing. This is the most extraordinary feat of editing by Elizaveta Svilova, so fast that I had difficulty catching all the locations so there may be some I have missed!

Note: the AVG version used for the screenshots differs from the Eye Film Institute/Lobster Films restoration in a number of respects. AVG includes the original film titles, but omits the ‘Eye’ image seen in [00:31:10 on], and MK carrying the Debrie Interview camera in the final frames. As noted above the Eye/Lobster Films version omits several rising numbers at the beginning of the reels. In December 2020 the AVG version was unfortunately withdrawn from YouTube.

FOR AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POST PLEASE GO TO: richardbossons.academia.edu/research

END

кінець

IMG_5375

CITY MAPS

Maps from OpenStreetMap © OpenStreetMap contributors. Available under Open Database Licence.

MOSCOW FILMING LOCATIONS

Kuznetsky Most, Bolshoi Theatre, Theatre & Revolution Squares, Teatral’nyy Proyezd, Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, Strastnaya Square, Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, Novo-Sukharevsky Market, Hippodrome.

KYIV FILMING LOCATIONS

Velyka Vasylkivska and Khreschatyk, Volodymyrska Street & Sofiys’ka Square, Park Bridge, Strilets’ka & Reitarska Streets, Tarasa Shevchenko Boulevard & Kominterna Street, Red Stadium (netball), Lenin Club, Ginzburg Skyscraper, Palace Hotel (on TS Boulevard), Tobacco Factory (on TS Boulevard), Halytska Square.

ODESA FILMING LOCATIONS

Prymorskyi Boulevard (at the top of Primorskyi Stairs aka Potemkin Stairs), Port, Station & Pryvokzal’na Square, Pushkins’ka Street, Tram Depot, Fire Station & Rosa Luxemburg Street, Sports Ground, Arcadia Beach, Kuyal’nik Resort. Hippodrome location in the film not verified so far.

Posted in Architecture, Cinema, Constructivism, Design, Dziga Vertov, Man with a Movie Camera, silent film, Soviet film, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the film locations

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the film locations

IMG_4697

1929 poster for the film by the Stenberg brothers

Dziga Vertov’s 1929 experimental masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ [Человек с кино аппаратом, Chelovek s kino apparatom (R), Людина з кіноапаратом, Lyudyna z kinoaparatom (U)], along with Eisenstein’s ‘Battleship Potemkin’, must be the most influential of all Soviet films. Greeted with mostly bafflement and criticism on its release and neglected for decades, it is now a staple of film studies courses and academic papers. It was voted one of the ten best films in cinematic history by ‘Sight & Sound’ readers, and the best documentary ever made. 

However, it is not a documentary in the conventional terms of a 1920s ‘City Symphony’, such as Paul Strand’s on New York (‘Manhatta’, 1921), or Walter Ruttmann’s on Berlin (‘Berlin: Symphony of a Great City’, 1927). On the face of it the film portrays a film cameraman’s journey around an unnamed Soviet city recording its life during one day. However, the pioneering special effects and rapid montage sequences, the extensive use of Lev Kuleshov’s theory of ‘Creative Geography’ (where different locations are edited together to portray a single place), the idea of showing the process of film-making, the beautiful cinematography, and the joyful humanity that is portrayed, lift it beyond mere documentary to the level of great art. Watching ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is still a thrilling experience over 90 years after it was made, whereas other ‘City Symphonies’ of this period look very much of their time.

This blog post assumes a knowledge of the film, and for those readers who are unfamiliar with this masterpiece a link to a YouTube version is given below, and a previous blog post ‘The movie cameras in Man with a Movie Camera’ has an extensive bibliography. Professor John MacKay of Yale University, Vertov’s biographer, has written an invaluable Introduction to the film, available to read on Academia.

A large part of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was shot during 1928 in Moscow, Kiev, and Odessa. Vertov had been hired by VUFKU (the All-Ukrainian Photo-Film Directorate, in Kiev) in 1927 after being sacked from Sovkino, the Russian equivalent, for being over budget on his film ‘One Sixth of the World’ (1926), and for refusing to present a script for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (which he had no intention of writing). His first commission from VUFKU in 1927 was ‘The Eleventh Year’, a short propaganda film about the development of the electricity industry as part of the young Soviet Union’s drive to develop the backward country (ahead of Stalin’s first Five Year Plan which began in 1928). It was clear that Dziga Vertov was already planning ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ as several of the sequences for the latter were shot at the same time as those for ‘The Eleventh Year’ (with a Debrie Parvo Model K 35mm hand-cranked camera, not the later Model L used on MwaMC – see my blog post on the cameras in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’). Professor MacKay has also seen notes to suggest footage for MwaMC was filmed at the same time as ‘One Sixth of the World’, but it seems that none of this footage was included in the later film.

As with his previous films, Dziga Vertov worked with his wife Elizaveta Svilova as editor, and his brother Mikhail Kaufman as cinematographer, calling themselves in Soviet style ‘The Council of Three’. For obvious reasons Kaufman, as the eponymous ‘Man with the Movie Camera’, was being filmed by others, whose superb work is seldom credited, not least on the original film titles! Professor MacKay notes in his Academia paper (footnote #22) that the other cameramen whose footage was used on MwaMC (including that taken during ‘The Eleventh Year’) were: Boris Tseitlin, Konstantin Kuliaev, and Georgii Nikolaevich Khimchenko.

I decided to research and write this post as there seems to be a good deal of confusion in many published commentaries on the film about where it was shot. As ‘Creative Geography’ is a key part of the ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ I thought it would be both useful and enjoyable to establish exactly where the different scenes were filmed, the location’s appearance at the time, and the present. Many of the locations were already well known and much of the rest has been tracked down; the few elusive ones are included in the hope that a reader of the post familiar with the three cities may recognise them. By following the screenshots in the order they appear in the film you get a real sense of the extraordinary creative and editing process that links so many diverse locations and periods into one vision of a city throughout a single day. Also clearly evident is a fine appreciation of architecture and the urban (and industrial) landscape.

The post will be continually updated with corrections and new information.

SHOOTING SCHEDULE

The locations and schedule for both films have been published in academic papers (JSTOR & Academia) by Professor MacKay, gleaned from Vertov’s notes in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI) summarised (by me) as follows:

The Eleventh Year’ (1927)

Moscow to the Volkhov dam (near Leningrad) in June 1927; then to the Ukrainian sites of Kharkov at the end of June and beginning of July, the Kamenskoe (Kamianske) Iron Foundry (on the Dnieper River) in July and August, and the Donbass  industrial region* in August. There was a visit to the under construction Dnieper Hydroelectric Station during September, and then to Kiev** for the tenth anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution. The film crew also went to Odessa and the Romanian border but the exact dates of these visits are not known.

*The mines, coke ovens, and steelworks of Rutchenkovo and Lidievka around the city of Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine. The city, originally named Hughesovka after the Welsh businessman who started the Russian steel industry, was known as Stalin at the time of the film.

**Though the sequence showing this in the film (and possibly MwaMC, see screenshot [00:17:54]) appears to be in Sovetskaya (now Tverskaya) Square, Moscow (the obelisk Monument to the Soviet Constitution in that square is clearly visible).

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (1928)

The new footage for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was shot from early June to the middle of September 1928: Moscow in June, Odessa in June and July, Kiev in July and August, Kharkov* in August, and another visit to Kiev at the end of August to mid September.

*I am unable to find any scenes located in Kharkov (Kharkiv). Perhaps the sequences filmed there were never used. Comments welcome from readers more knowledgeable about that city.

I have queries about some of these dates as the clothing worn in the relevant sequences does not seem to tie in with the time of year stated. For example the filming in Moscow took place in June, a warm summer month in the city, but people in the scenes are often wearing coats [00:18:51]. Filming in Kiev was apparently done in the summer and early autumn as well but the audience in the cinema is wearing winter clothes [00:02:34] [00:02:47]!

r0310_009aLocation map (see end of blog post for detailed maps of cities). Illustration to ‘The Riddle of Russia’ by Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, published in the Daily Telegraph on 31 January 1929 (courtesy of Warwick University). My annotations in red.

MAIN LOCATIONS SEEN IN THE FILM

MOSCOW: Kuznetsky Most, Bolshoi Theatre, Theatre and Revolution Squares, Teatral’nyy Proyezd, Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, Strastnaya Square, Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage*, Novo-Sukharevsky Market*.

KIEV: Khreschatyk (including cinema), Sofiys’ka Square, Park Bridge, Red Stadium (netball), Lenin Club.

ODESSA: Prymorskyi Boulevard, Port, Station and Pryvokzal’na Square, Pushkins’ka street, Tram Depot*, Sports Ground*, Arcadia Beach, Kuyal’nik Resort.

With the exception of those with a star these were all well known locations, repeated multiple times throughout the film, which would have been very familiar to a late 1920s Soviet audience. This makes the extensive use of ‘Creative Geography’ to give the impression of a single city even more significant than it would be to a modern international audience with no knowledge of these places. In Moscow and Kiev much has changed since the film was made, but the locations in Odessa are still recognisable. The scenes in Moscow are particularly poignant, showing a largely unspoilt and beautiful city just before the widespread destruction of the 1930s from Stalin’s megalomaniac ‘Master Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow’ (the first major church to be demolished was St Paraskeva on Okhotny Ryad in June 1928 which must have been only a few days after it was filmed).

DONBASS: Rutchenkovo and Lidievka (coal mine, coal yard and gantry, chimney, and blast furnace. The latter may have been taken in the Kamenskoe (Kamianske) Iron Foundry on the Dnieper River). 

VOLKHOV (Leningrad): Hydroelectric Power Plant dam (Волховская ГEС).

There are inconsistencies with translated place names in Russian and Ukrainian, and I have sometimes used the anglicised version (Theatre Square etc). Many are gleaned from Google Earth. I will try to amend these if necessary as the post is updated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following for their invaluable help and information, and patience in responding to many questions. Inclusion does not imply endorsement of anything in this blog post. Any errors and omissions are entirely mine.

Irina Chuzhinova, Ukrainian Cultural Foundation

Alina Fedorovich of the Museum of Moscow

Dr Max Hodgson

Mykhailo Kalnytsky

Professor Catriona Kelly

Professor Robin Milner-Gulland

Dr Denis Romodin of the Museum of Moscow

Professor Hanna Vesolovska

Yevgeny Volokin

Professor Martin Williams

I would particularly like to mention Mr Kalnytsky (Kiev), Dr Romodin (Moscow), and Mr Volokin (Odessa), leading historians of their respective cities, whose great knowledge of them solved many puzzles. Mykhailo Kalnytsky has a fascinating journal on Kiev and its inhabitants, and Yevgeny Volokin has a comprehensive website on Odessa, full of historic information and old photographs.

Google Earth and Google Maps screenshots: Google and the Google logo are registered trademarks of Google LLC, used with permission.

Contemporary Soviet photographs are generally in the public domain (Russia has a 70 year copyright limit).

Fair Use claimed for any copyright material as it is copied for solely research purposes and commentary only, without financial gain. Attribution and links given where known.

And very grateful thanks to Wikipedia, Google Earth, Google Images, Google Translate, and the Typeit website’s invaluable Russian and Ukrainian keyboards!

Please contact me on opinionated.designer@gmail.com with any comments, criticisms, and corrections. I would be very pleased to hear from anyone with information on the scenes that can’t be located or verified.

Richard Bossons  June 2020

THE LOCATIONS

The approximate time of each screenshot is shown as [hr:min:sec] and they have been taken from a version on YouTube of a 2014 digital restoration of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (with the perfect Alloy Orchestra score based on Dziga Vertov’s notes) from a Ukrainian source AVG. The high definition restoration of the film (originally by Lobster Films and the Eye Film Institute) has been a revelation for researchers as you can now pick out details never seen before, essential for the work involved in establishing the locations.

I have been through virtually every frame of the film to pick out a location of some sort, however brief, and I am fairly confident that most have been covered. Each one verified has either had clear architectural evidence pointing to the exact street or square for example, or has been confirmed by those I have consulted above. The ones I cannot verify or find are noted as such. Most of the minor ones without any clues will never be found. However, I am happy to be corrected as this is the first attempt to establish all of the locations used in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ which I hope will be useful and add to the enjoyment of watching this wonderful film.

Images not in the film are described in italics.

PROLOGUE

IMG_4310[00:01:14] Top of the Hotel National, Moscow.

IMG_4811The superb Socialist realist paintings (1931) at the top of this famous Moscow hotel overlooking the Kremlin are hardly seen in the opening frames of Reel 1. Designed by the architect Alexander Ivanov, the National opened in 1903; after the Revolution the hotel became the seat of the first Soviet government in 1918. Lenin, Trotsky, and Dzerzhinsky all lived in the National at this time. Still a luxury hotel, now owned by the Marriott group.[Photograph by A Savin, Wikimedia Commons]

IMG_4337[00:01:22] Electricity post and street light, Moscow. 

IMG_4591A similar post near to the tram stop pavilion in Strastnaya Square (enlarged from an original photograph courtesy of the Museum of Moscow).

IMG_4312[00:01:30] Goskino No. 1 Cinema (originally Shantser Cinema)Khreschatyk 38, Kiev.

IMG_4347

IMG_4323

IMG_4325

IMG_4276Note ST on chair = Shantser Theater.

IMG_4377 (2)The spectacular interior of the cinema is largely concealed in the movie.

FullSizeRender - 2(3)The balcony needed propping up later as there are two centre posts visible in the film!

IMG_47441930s view of the cinema on Khreschatyk (left of photograph). This block and most of the rest of the street was destroyed in WW2.

Anton Shantser (Шанцер, aka Shanzer or Schantzer) was an Austrian citizen of Polish descent and a tailor by trade but noticed an opportunity in the growing cinema business (the pioneering Lumiere brothers had visited Kiev in 1896). He opened his first, the Express Cinema, on the main boulevard through Kiev, Khreschatyk, in 1907, and several others followed. Five years later, in an annexe to the Belle View Hotel at Khreschatyk 38, Shantser opened his most luxurious cinema, named after himself. According to the local paper and guests at the opening night in December 1912 this 1,100 seater theatre had a spectacular two storey foyer with velvet curtains and classical columns lit by a large chandelier. The cinema itself had armchairs with folding seats, a sloping floor and mechanical ventilation, all ‘richly decorated in the Greek style’. There was a professional concert orchestra of 30 musicians, a lot more than we see at the beginning of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’. The new cinema was a great success but unfortunately for Mr Shantser it was confiscated five years later after the Revolution and re-named Goskino No. 1 Cinema. Much of the luxury seemed to have disappeared by 1928 as the cinema looks rather drab in the film [sources: ‘Weekend Today’ and an Essay by Vlad Kaganov, ‘Khreschatyk. The best cinemas of the early twentieth century’].

REEL 1

[00:02:18] [00:03:45] [00:03:53] Apartment window in a brick wall. Location not found, but demonstrates the attention to detail in the film: this first image in reel 1 is actually shown on the film threaded through the projector!

[00:03:59] Street lights, Moscow. This design of lampost is used in Theatre Square (Teatral’naya ploschad) next to the Bolshoi Theatre. Exact location not found.

[00:04:19] The outdoor restaurant of the ‘London’ Hotel on Prymorskyi Boulevard, Odessa (then known as Feldman Boulevard after the city revolutionary who joined the Potemkin Mutiny). A popular venue as it was located next to the top of the Boulevard Steps, aka Prymorskyi Stairs, or Richelieu Steps (re-named Potemkin Stairs in 1955 on the 50th anniversary of Eisenstein’s film. Now formally known by its original name of Prymorskyi Stairs but still known to most by the Potemkin version). 

IMG_4190[00:04:28] As above featuring a giant bottle advertisement. Surprisingly, I have not managed to locate any period photographs or postcards with this, presumably, well-known feature of the restaurant! Screenshot [00:08:34] shows the view to the left of the bottle.

IMG_4523A contemporary photograph of the restaurant  – note the stone ‘obelisks’ visible in the screenshots, now painted white [photograph and restaurant information from viknaodessa].

IMG_4524The restaurant seen from a crowded Boulevard Steps; ‘obelisks’ clearly visible on the corners of the terrace [photograph from viknaodessa].

Odessa_HarbourMid 19thC engraving of the recently completed (1841) Boulevard Steps and Primorskyi Boulevard gives a slightly exaggerated impression of how high the city stands above its harbour (the Steps rise nearly 30m with 192 steps). Previously the only way up was by winding paths and rickety wooden steps. A funicular railway was built up the slope in 1902.

IMG_4526Top of the Prymorskyi/Potemkin Stairs on Prymorskyi Boulevard. The original location of the restaurant, latterly called the ‘Lighthouse’, was behind the statue of the Duc de Richelieu (Governor of Odessa in the early 1800s, and a fascinating character who developed the city into the third largest in the Russian Empire). The terrace is in a ruinous state. A pity, as it would seem to be a great location at the top of a very long flight of steps!

[00:04:32] Bench with man asleep, Strastnaya Square, Moscow [see also [00:13:10].

IMG_4454[00:04:37] Rubbish bin, Kiev. The brand new bin (chained to a post) has an exhortation by the Kiev City authorities: ‘Citizens – Preserve Cleanliness!’ (compare and contrast the rather tatty bins provided by its Moscow counterpart! [00:05:27])

[00:04:38] Boy in rags asleep on a wooden container used for winter salt and grit, Moscow (see background of screenshot [00:13:18] for a similar container). Unable to find the exact location, possibly Strastnaya Square again.

IMG_4093[00:04:44] Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, Obraztsova Street, Moscow.

unnamedA contemporary view of the garage.

1200px-Moscow_BakhmetevskyGarage_191_8304Current view after restoration and conversion into The Garage Center for Contemporary Culture.

An iconic Moscow building, built in 1927, designed by the Constructivist architect Konstantin Melnikov (1890-1974), with structural design by the pioneering engineer Vladimir Shukhov (1853-1939). Not really a Constructivist building as it is quite conventional to look at in red brick and a low pitched roof. What makes it an avant-garde landmark in industrial architecture is the parallelogram shaped floor plan developed by Melnikov from an earlier design for a Paris garage. This enabled buses to drive in at one end and leave at the other without having to reverse which enabled many more buses to park in the garage than would be the case with a conventional layout (below). Neglected for decades and nearly demolished it was saved by Daria Zhukova and Roman Abramovitch who converted it into the Garage Center for Contemporary Culture in 2007-2010. The gallery moved to Gorky Park in 2012 and then in 2015 to a spectacular OMA designed building in the park. The former bus garage is now the world’s largest Jewish Museum.

300px-Melnikov_garage_floorplanDiagrammatic plan of the garage (Wikipedia)

[00:04:46] Carriages, a driver asleep. Presumably near Odessa station as this type of carriage is seen collecting passengers in later scenes, but Yevgeny Volokin does not recognise the location as Odessa. Not verified.

IMG_4456[00:04:53] Shop front fascia with sign reading TSEROBKOOP, Kiev or Odessa. This is the Ukrainian acronym for  Центральний робітничий кооператив (Central Workers Cooperative). The Russian version was TSERABKOOP (Центральный рабочий кооператив) as shown below in a propaganda illustration of the early 1920s. These co-ops ran in parallel with the private enterprise shops during the NEP (New Economic Policy) period, the latter shown in various scenes throughout the film (eg [00:56:22]).

IMG_4695

IMG_4384[00:04:56] Novo-Sukharevsky Market (1926-1930), North Moscow

IMG_4214 (2)

IMG_4421Contemporary aerial views of the interesting roof design of the market. 

vn01(48)The Market office building – the only surviving structure (to be restored).

Designed by Konstantin Melnikov, the construction of the market began in 1924, after the city decided to replace the unofficial outdoor market on Sukharevka. The stalls in wooden pavilions were put up on a vacant plot of land between Bolshoi Sukharevsky Pereulok, Trubnaya and Sadovo-Sukharevskaya streets. The three shopping aisles converged like rays towards the centre, where the brick office building was located. The market was vacated in 1930. Information and photograph of the office building from the Moscow City website.

[00:04:59] Apartment building in Moscow or Kiev from the architecture, but unable to verify. The angled shot is influenced by the photographs of Vertov’s friend Alexander Rodchenko.

[00:05:03] Maternity hospital interior. Unable to find location.

[00:05:12] Apartment building exterior, windows with shutters. Unable to find location.

IMG_4389[00:05:17] At first glance this looks like a park overlooking the sea, and therefore in Odessa. However, the sea does not look like this from the high viewpoint of the city parks [00:08:34] [00:53:37], and Yevgeny Volokin confirmed that it is not in Odessa. I believe it to be a park or square in Moscow because of the distinctive rubbish bins of the city (you can just make out the letters MK on some of them which stand for “Московский коммунальщик” [Moscow Communal Services]). The same letters are on the bin in the screenshot [00:06:46]. What appears to be the sea is more likely a large area of cobbles (see [00:13:49] for a similar texture). There are also possible tram lines top right. There are no other obvious clues, and the landscaping is rather nondescript so I can’t find the exact location in Moscow.

These ‘MK урна’ (urns) featured in a long running children’s cartoon series (1969-2006) called “Ну, погоди!”(“Well, just you wait!”) being constantly kicked over by a naughty wolf! [thanks to the Museum of Moscow for information on bins and cartoon].

image0

IMG_4095[00:05:22] Bolshoi Theatre, Theatre Square, Moscow. Advertisement for BORJOMI mineral water from Georgia (still being produced). See above for details of rubbish bin.

IMG_4550[00:05:27] Park bench with MK rubbish bin, Moscow (see above for details). Exact location not found. The bench design differs slightly from that in Strastnaya Square (see [00:13:10] and [00:13:18]).

IMG_4098[00:05:31] Bolshoi Theatre

bolshoi19thC postcard of the theatre

IMG_4606Current view [Google Earth]

The Bolshoi Theatre originally opened in 1825 as the Big (bolshoi) Petrovsky Theatre (as it was larger than its predecessor) which was the focal point of a new Theatre Square, but nearly thirty years later it was destroyed by fire. The rebuilt theatre was designed by Alberto Cavos and opened in August 1856, in time for Tsar Alexander IIs coronation. After the Revolution, there was serious talk of closing the theatre as one of the main symbols of Tsarist and bourgeois culture, but the Bolshevik government decided to keep it as a congress centre. It was from the Bolshoi Theatre stage that the declaration of the formation of the USSR was made in 1922. Further information from the Bolshoi website.

[00:5:41] Wine, vodka and food shop, Moscow (signs are in Russian).

IMG_4383[00:05:45] Volodymyrska Street looking towards Sofiys’ka Square, Kiev (Bogdan Khmelnitsky statue in the centre of the square). Dating from the 10thC this street is one of the oldest continually inhabited streets in Europe.

IMG_4183 (2)

IMG_4181 (2)Current views of Sofiys’ka Square and statue – the building behind the statue and the one with a corner tower and dome are recognisable in the screenshot from the movie [top: Google Earth; bottom: Ukrainian Trip Adviser]. Sofiys’ka is one of the main squares of Kiev, overlooked by the Cathedral of St Sophia.

[00:05:51] Ladies & Men’s hairdresser, Moscow (Russian sign). Location not found.

[00:05:54] Large apartment block, Kiev. Rear of building on Yaroslav Val (off Volodymyrska Street) .

[00:05:58] Singer sewing machine shop. Location not found.

[00:06:01] Another ‘Rodchenko style’ apartment block image. Location not found.

[00:06:03] Radio (?) shop with dummy cyclist. Location not found.

[00:06:10] Building with large windows. Location not found.

IMG_4100[00:06:26] The first of many scenes on Kuznetsky Most in central Moscow. The poster is advertising an anniversary (presumably the 60th as he was born in 1868) collection of Maxim Gorky’s works available from the state publishing house Gosizdat!

IMG_4529A similar view of the street from the early 1930s with a luxury Lincoln Model K parked next to the building under the banner above. No doubt a top ranking official going shopping!

IMG_4156 (2)Late 19th Century postcard of the street looking towards the same junction (all the buildings in the background are recognisable in the screenshot).

IMG_4662Current appearance of the street from a similar viewpoint as the screenshot [Google Earth]. The buildings on the left have survived, and the large one on the rhs.

One of the oldest streets in the city, since the 18th Century Kuznetsky Most has been a fashionable shopping street, and still is. The name is derived from ‘Blacksmith’s bridge’ over a river that now runs underground. After the Revolution it became a centre for writers and culture (the Moscow House of Artists and School of Fine Arts are located here). Fortunately it is one of the few historic streets in Moscow that escaped Stalin’s disastrous town planning and so is recognisable from the film.

[00:06:36] Industrial silhouette – probably filmed in the Donbass or Kamianske for ‘The Eleventh Year’.

IMG_4080[00:06:45] Izvestia newspaper building, Strastnaya Square (re-named Pushkinskaya Square in 1931), Moscow. The tower of the doomed Strastnoy (Passion) Monastery is on the right.

194711950s view of building (after the demolition of Strastnoy Monastery)

barkhin-dom-izvestiiaArchitect’s perspective view (courtesy of The Charnel House)

The Izvestia newspaper building is an iconic Constructivist building in Moscow, designed by Grigorii Barkhin, built in 1927. This began the modernisation of Strastnaya Square (supported by the poet Vladimir Mayakovsky) leading to the demolition of the 17th century Strastnoy Monastery and the extension of the original square in 1937 as part of Joseph Stalin’s megalomaniac re-planning of the city. Pushkin’s statue was moved to the centre of the new square in 1950. The Charnel House website has details of the Izvestia building.

IMG_4213aContemporary aerial view of Strastnaya Square. The Izvestia building is on the right opposite the monastery. Pushkin’s Statue is top centre. The dome of Demetrios Church is top centre (demolished 1934). Tverskaya Street passes through the square.

IMG_4506 (2)Contemporary view over Strastnaya Square with the new Izvestia building behind the Strastnoy Monastery tower. Pushkin’s statue is at the bottom left. The dome of Demetrius Church in the foreground.

IMG_4509Early 1900s view of the huge monastery. There is a current campaign to rebuild it in its original location.

IMG_4401[00:06:53] View of steelworks, Donbass or Kamianske*.

IMG_4395[00:07:09] View of blast furnace Cowper stoves, Donbass or Kamianske*. These wonderful industrial images could have been taken by Bernd and Hilla Becher 40 years later!

*The shooting location notes include Kamenskoe (Kamianske) Iron Foundry. This was likely to have been the oldest steelworks in the city, known today as the Dneprovskiyi Metallurgical Plant. I have not been able to verify whether it was this or one in the Donbass that was the location for all or some of the steelworks sequences. It would have been logical to have filmed both the steelworks and coal mines in the same area.

[00:07:15] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow.

[00:07:22] Traffic semaphore on Kuznetsky Most.

[00:07:25] [00:07:40] View of a glass entrance door from a building interior. Location not found.

[00:07:31] [00:07:53] [00:08:00] View of a road between apartment blocks from above. Courtyard of the ‘Ginzburg Skyscraper’, Kiev (the tallest pre-war building in the city). See also screenshot [00:11:48].

IMG_5118[00:08:05] Park Bridge, Petrivs’ka Alley, Kiev. Another iconic image from the film.

IMG_4278 (2)A contemporary view of the elegant pedestrian bridge and contrasting heavy looking abutments.

IMG_4280 (2)Current view of the bridge and abutments [Google Earth].

Also known as ‘Devil’s Bridge’ or ‘Lover’s Bridge’ it was built in 1910 to replace a wooden structure. After the Revolution the bridge fell into disrepair which was written about by Mikhail Bulgakov in his essay ‘Kiev, the City’ in 1923. Repaired after WW2, it was replaced by a new matching steel structure in 1983.

IMG_4516[00:08:21] Pigeons in Strastnoy Monastery rh corner tower, Strastnaya Square, Moscow.

[00:08:27 on] Railway line sequence. Location not found.

IMG_4515[00:08:34] Restaurant of the ‘London’ Hotel, Prymorskyi Boulevard, Odessa. Note the ships in the distance, and possibly the harbour breakwater on the lhs? See also screenshots [00:04:19] and [00:04:28].

[00:09:53 on] Tramp waking up. Location not found.

IMG_4653[00:10:13] Woman sweeping tram tracks, Strastnaya Square, Moscow (clues are the tram stop pavilion behind and the grit bin in the background (see [00:13:18] where the same bin is visible).

IMG_4642[00:10:17] [00:10:24] Man with one leg on a bench/step in front of the tram ticket kiosk on Strastnaya Square, Moscow. Destinations on the lhs of the kiosk window, bottom one reading ‘Slavyanskaya’. 

IMG_4655Close up of the kiosk on the square, behind Pushkin’s statue (note the wooden grit bins at the top by the tram stop pavilion visible in other scenes). 

[00:10:30] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow

[00:10:41] Lamp posts being hosed down. Location not found.

[00:10:53] Rubbish bin being hosed down, Kiev (see [00:04:37]).

[00:11:04] Woman cleaning window. Location not found. 

REEL 2

IMG_4245[00:11:48] Building with corner tower and aerial. This is the ‘Ginzberg Skyscraper’ in Kiev, another interesting building in the film. See also [00:07:31] for the courtyard.

The ‘Ginzberg Skyscraper’ was an enormous 11 storey apartment block built in 1912 by Lev Ginzberg; at the time it was the ‘tallest building in the Russian Empire’. The building was destroyed, along with most of central Kiev, by the retreating Red Army in 1941. You can see the tower in the screenshot in the centre of the lh photograph .

IMG_4256[00:11:59] Mikhail Kaufman (MK) runs up a large industrial structure with a Debrie Model K camera and tripod – I have been unable to verify what or where this is. I have not found any past or present bridges in Moscow, Kiev, Odessa, Kharkov, Kamianske, or Donetsk with this structure. A structural engineer told me that it was not likely to be a conventional bridge (an odd looking inverted bowstring truss suspension design), but could be an industrial structure or a moving bridge (lifting or turning). See later image of this structure below.

IMG_4257[00:12:06] Aircraft hangar – unfortunately I cannot locate this which is a pity as it looks like an interesting structure with its large clear span and huge opening door. I am waiting for information from aircraft museums in Moscow and Kiev.

IMG_4249[00:12:28] Tram depot, Stepova Street, Odessa

IMG_4203 (2)

IMG_4206Current [Google Earth] and 1960s views of the depot which is now a museum and workshop

One of Mikhail Kaufman’s criticisms of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (he fell out permanently with his brother over differences in creative viewpoints during editing ) was that ‘there were too many trams’. A valid criticism as indeed there are trams everywhere (which was the case in those days). The trams in the three cities can generally be differentiated as follows:

Moscow – a horizontal white band along the lower side; Kiev – a white panel on the front, and sometimes along the sides; Odessa – neither band nor panel but only the elegant lining around the body panels [00:12:28]. The colours were generally deep red with a white or cream superstructure. Typical (restored) Moscow tram of the 1920s below.

FullSizeRender(9)

IMG_4247

[00:12:38] Mikhail Kaufman on top of an industrial structure with a tram. I think this was filmed in the Donbass or Kamianske during ‘The Eleventh Year’ in 1927 for several reasons (also refer to first screenshot above). The camera appears to be the Model K Debrie Parvo used on this film (it does not have the silver disc on the side of the Model L used during the 1928 filming); the tram is unusual in that it is in one drab looking colour (Moscow, Kiev, and Odessa trams generally had light coloured superstructures; also see above note on trams in these cities); the second carriage is very short and industrial looking with open ends; and the headboard design is unlike the other cities and says ‘Factory to Station’. Perhaps it is a special tram for the steel workers to Rutchenkovo or Kamianske Station. All speculation as I have not found any similar trams. I have contacted a Ukrainian Tram preservation society but as yet have had no reply – to be confirmed!

[00:12:45] Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, Moscow (see screenshot [00:04:44] above).

IMG_4580

IMG_4604

IMG_4584[00:13:10] [00:13:18] Woman on a bench, Strastnaya Square, Moscow. Clues are the news stand on the corner of the square (lhs) and the tram stop pavilion and toilets behind the tram seen in the middle of the square above. Many thanks to Dr Denis Romodin of the Museum of Moscow for locating this scene and for suggesting the location of the exact bench (arrow)! Note the grit bin circled in [00:13:18] which is also visible in screenshot [00:10:13]. Photograph courtesy of the Museum.

The ticket kiosk in [00:10:20] is just to the right of the arrow.

IMG_4089[00:13:21] Teatral’naya (Theatre) and Revolyutsii (Revolution) Squares, Moscow.

These famous squares are in central Moscow near Red Square. You can just see a corner of the park in Revolution Square next to Theatre Square in the foreground which is overlooked by the Bolshoi Theatre (the camera would have been on the top floor). The large (red) building in the background was built in 1890 as the City Hall, then the Lenin Museum. It is now used as a gallery for some of the collections of the State Historical Museum. All the buildings on the right have been replaced by a dreary block and a car park as can be seen in the current Google Street View below (the caption says Theatre Square but the building overlooks Revolution Square).

FullSizeRender(10)

IMG_4404[00:13:29] Mostorg Department Store, Theatre Square, Moscow. This was the former Muir & Mirrielees department store (below), founded by two Scottish emigres. Now occupied by TsUM, it is a spectacular Gothic Revival building designed by the architect Roman Klein, opened in 1908. Confiscated after the Revolution it was re-named ‘Mostorg’ in 1922.

IMG_4403

At first glance the glass facade could be from the famous 1927 Mostorg store above, on Krasnaya Presnya, designed by the Constructivist architects Aleksandr, Leonid and Viktor Vesnin. A similar appearance at ground level but the Theatre Square store windows reflect part of the Bolshoi Theatre and the City Hall. The Vesnin building facade still exists as a Benetton store front, but the interesting iron framed lower facade of the Muir & Mirrielees store has been replaced by a very ordinary design (below).

IMG_4528[Google Earth]

IMG_4408a[00:13:35] Tverskaya Street, Moscow.

IMG_4409Current view of Tverskaya [Google Earth].

The clue to the location is the circled sign for the ‘Tverskaya 46’ Cinema, previously the Central Cinema (entry in 1929 Moscow directory below) on the corner of the building. That does not necessarily give us the exact modern junction as the street numbering will have undoubtedly changed. However, this is a current view of 46 (not 30 as caption) Tverskaya Street at the junction of Sadovaya-Triumfalnaya Street.

IMG_4410aCinema information courtesy of Live Journal. 

[00:13:45] MK with Debrie Interview camera and tripod on his shoulder walks past a poster for ‘The Awakening Woman’. This poster also appears earlier in the film, and in the reflected panning view of Strastnaya Square [00:18:30], but it isn’t clear where this scene is located.

IMG_4195[00:13:49] Strastnaya Square, Moscow. The Pushkin statue is concealed on the right (moved to the centre of the re-planned square in 1950). Filmed with a telephoto lens from the Monastery opposite?

IMG_4641A similar wide angle view of the square and Pushkin statue (centre).  

[00:13:57] Steelworks chimney, Donbass or Kamianske (and two more).

[00:14:08] Tverskaya Street, Moscow (as [00:13:35]).

IMG_4413[00:14:13] [00:14:24] [00:14:30] [00:14:35] [00:14:40] Mikhail Kaufman climbs up a steelworks chimney, Donbass or Kamianske*.

A terrifying looking ascent (probably not with the 10kg camera inside the case) though there does seem to be a rudimentary safety cable alongside the rungs (below)!

IMG_4448

[00:14:45] MK pauses ‘near the top of the chimney’ to get the camera out of its case (but would have been filmed nearer to ground level judging from the angle and safety concerns!).

[00:14:50] Tverskaya Street, Moscow (as before).

[00:15:38] Steelworks lifts, Donbass or Kamianske*. Also seen next to the chimney in the images below.

IMG_4414[00:15:42] Coal yard and gantry, Donbass (presumed to be Rutchenkovo – see below for a general view).

[00:15:47] Coal mine, Donbass.

[00:15:56] Coal yard, handcarts over the cameraman, Donbass (Rutchenkovo, as below?).

IMG_4416[00:16:08] View of Cowper ovens at a steelworks, Donbass or Kamianske*.

IMG_4274

A still from ‘The Eleventh Year’ showing the same works.

*Refer to [00:06:53] for note on Kamenskoe (Kamianske) Iron Foundry.

IMG_4289 (2)Contemporary view over the Rutchenkovo coal mine and steelworks. Coal unloading gantry in screenshot [00:15:42] on lhs?

IMG_4787Contemporary view over Kamenskoe (Kamianske) steelworks.

IMG_4783Contemporary poster -‘The Donbass is the Heart of Russia’

IMG_4419[00:16:11] Strastnaya Square, Moscow (Izvestia building on lhs).

FullSizeRender - 1(2)Contemporary image of whole building – note the huge clock!

IMG_4211Current view of the re-named Pushkinskaya Square – restored Izvestia Building on the left and a much wider road following the Strastnoy Monastery demolition and re-planning of the square.

IMG_5147[00:16:16] MK with the Debrie Parvo Model K on a moving gantry over a steelworks(?) yard, Donbass or Kamianske. Not located.

IMG_4268A still of the same huge gantry from ‘The Eleventh Year’

IMG_4418[00:16:30] Presumed entrance to Novo-Sukharevsky Market, Moscow (not verified).

[00:16:48] Strastnaya Square, Moscow (same camera position as [00:16:11].

IMG_5155[00:16:54] MK and camera (Debrie Interview) walking through the main avenue of Novo-Sukharevsky Market, Moscow (see screenshot [00:04:56] for details of the Market)

[00:17:08] Trams crossing Strastnaya Square, Moscow

[00:17:14] Market view with rear of church (?) in background. Building not found.

IMG_4424[00:17:22] Aerial view over Khreschatyk, the main boulevard in the centre of Kiev (at that time [1923-1937] known as Vorovsky Street). Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti) at the top, just past the bend (then known as Soviet Square). I have not yet found the high level camera location.

IMG_4180Current view of the street, mostly rebuilt and widened after war damage (the centre of the city was blown up by the retreating Red Army) [Google Earth].

[00:17:33] [00:17:41] Moscow shop seen in screenshot [00:05:41] opening shutters.

[00:17:47] Kuznetsky Most

IMG_4425[00:17:54] Possibly Sovetskaya Square (now Tverskaya Square), Moscow. Marchers celebrating the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution as filmed for ‘The Eleventh Year’ as below? Obelisk monument to the Soviet Constitution at right. The film location schedule at the beginning of the post has Kiev being the site of the demonstration. Not verified.

IMG_4270

IMG_4426[00:18:06] Petrovsky Fountain on Revolution Square, the Bolshoi Theatre in the background. The building on the rhs is the Mostorg (now the TsUM) department store, a 1908 Gothic Revival building by the architect Roman Klein (see screenshot [00:13:29] for details).

[00:18:30] Strastnaya Square reflected in panning shot of shop windows (Monastery and dome of Demetrius Church visible).

[00:20:03] Reflection in shop window with ‘cyclist’ – reflected building not yet found

IMG_4427[00:18:42] Teatral’nyy Proyezd, (Theatre Passage) Moscow.

IMG_4186 (2)A contemporary view of the street. Part of the Kitay-gorod mediaeval wall on the right with the dome of St Panteleimon Chapel above. Note the sledge transport on the rhs! Theatre Passage is one of the main streets in the historic centre of Moscow connecting Theatre Square with Lubyanka (seen at the top of the photograph).

IMG_4187 (2)A similar view but looking very different now, this historic street was totally obliterated by Stalinist planners. The notorious Lubyanka KGB HQ and prison is at the end of the avenue.

IMG_4169[00:18:51] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow

IMG_4152[00:19:06] Okhotny Ryad, Moscow. The end facade of Dom Soyuzov (House of the Unions) is on the rhs. The beautiful 17thC church of St Paraskeva on the lhs was destroyed (in June 1928)  just after it was filmed.

IMG_4799 (2)19thC postcard of Okhotny Ryad and St Paraskeva Church.

IMG_4154Current appearance of the street from the same viewpoint as the screenshot! [Google Earth]. Okhotny Ryad is the continuation of Teatral’nyy Proyezd (Theatre Passage) from Theatre Square to the bottom of Tverskaya and the top of Red Square. Famous for its market, restaurants, speciality shops and old hotels before the Revolution the whole area was devastated by Stalin’s re-planning of central Moscow in the 1930s.

One of the major historic sights of Moscow, Dom Soyuzov is a huge 18thC princely mansion that became the Assembly of the Russian Nobility at the end of the 18thC. Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev and other Soviet leaders all lay in state here, and the building became the centre of the country’s social, political and cultural life holding concerts, chess matches, conferences, and Party Congresses. It was also the setting for some of the notorious Stalin show trials in the late 1930s.

IMG_4429Contemporary photograph of Dom Soyuzov

[00:19:18] Split screen with the same street view – location not found.

[00:19:26] Teatral’nny Proyezd , Moscow

IMG_4125[00:19:44] Former second-class entrance pavilion, Odessa Station (and below)

IMG_4433Photograph and Station information from viknaodessa

IMG_4128[00:19:48] Main entrance to Odessa Station

IMG_4438Late 19thC postcard of the station entrance on Pryvokzal’na Square (courtesy of dumskaya.net).

This magnificent station was rebuilt by the City Architect Alexander Bernadazzi in 1884 covering a huge area of the city. The entrances were strictly hierarchical: First Class passengers could only use the entrance above, Second Class had the entrance with the wrought iron canopy in [00:19:44], and Third Class had an entrance off the Old Town Square. The ruling family had its own Imperial entrance pavilion to avoid mixing with its subjects. The station was totally destroyed during WW2.

IMG_4126[00:19:54] Mikhail Kaufman in the camera car at the station end of Pushkins’ka, Odessa

IMG_4136 (2)Early 20thC postcard view of Pushkins’ka from Pryvokzal’na Square, with the spire of St Elijah’s Monastery on the right.

IMG_4148Current view of Pushkins’ka [Google Earth]

Pushkins’ka Street was the location of the camera car and carriage/car sequences as two large distinctive buildings that still exist on side streets are clearly visible part way through the sequence. Unlike the other long avenue leading from Pryvokzal’na Square there are no trams so the camera car could travel along the middle of the road alongside its subjects. There is a brief scene of the camera car turning a corner into the other avenue where you can see a tram emerging. Pushkins’ka is a very long street allowing plenty of time for the filming, as you can clearly see from the screenshots.

IMG_4688[00:19:57] Cars and horse drawn cabs in Pryvokzal’na Square, Odessa.

[00:20:01] MK in camera car in Pryvokzal’na Square.

[00:20:05] Odessa Station entrance.

[00:20:10] [00:20:16] MK in camera car in Pryvokzal’na Square.

IMG_4129[00:20:30] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

[00:20:41] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

[00:20:50] Ladies in cab on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4439[00:20:52] Car and passengers on Pushkins’ka (the same car as [00:19:57].

[00:20:58] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4440[00:21:04] 2nd car and passengers on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4729

IMG_4690This is the imposing Italian Gothic Revival building of the Odessa Philharmonic Theatre glimpsed behind the car above, on the former Rosa Luxembourg Street, off Pushkins’ka. Designed to resemble the Doge’s Palace in Venice, it was built as a stock exchange in 1894 .

[00:21:11] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka.

IMG_4441[00:21:13] 2nd cab with two ladies on Pushkins’ka (one imitating the cameraman!).

IMG_4449[00:21:19] MK and camera car on Pushkins’ka (the building below on Troitska Street is behind – the balconies have disappeared!).

IMG_4136aCurrent view of building in background of screenshot above

[00:21:42] ‘Frozen’ street view. Location not found.

IMG_4225[00:21:49] ‘Frozen’ view of the north end of Khreschatyk, Kiev.

IMG_4231 (2)Early 1900s view of the north end of Khreschatyk. The buildings are much the same except for the end of a large new building spoiling the street on the lhs of the screenshot.

IMG_4178Current view of the north end of Khreschatyk [Google Earth, photograph by Nikolay Omelchenko]. Nothing much is left of the old street thanks to its destruction by the retreating Red Army in WW2. Much of the re-building after the war was in the usual Stalinist neo-classical style as can be seen here. The main square of Kiev, the Maidan, is just past the bend in the street ahead.

REEL 3

[00:23:16] ‘Frozen’ North end of Khreschatyk.

[00:23:18] North end of Khreschatyk, crowds in motion.

[00:23:33] Two women in a carriage, Odessa. Exact street not found.

[00:23:40] Views of streets behind horses head, Odessa. From previous shots presumably around Pushkins’ka, but not verified.

[00:23:43] Two more ladies in a carriage, Odessa. Presumably around Pushkins’ka, but not verified.

[00:23:53] Carriage and women outside a house in Odessa. Exact location not found.

[00:24:08] Mikhail Kaufman with Debrie Interview camera and tripod walking in a street. Location not found.

[00:24:13] Carriage outside a house in Odessa. Exact location not found.

IMG_4172[00:24:20] Theatre and Revolution Squares, Moscow (taken from the top floor of the Bolshoi Theatre). This is a view to the left of the one in screen shot [00:13:21]

IMG_4174 (2)Old postcard of the opposite view, Revolution Square with 1827 Petrovsky Fountain (Moscow’s oldest) in the foreground. The layout of the squares has changed considerably, but the fountain is still in place.

IMG_4173Current aerial view of Theatre and Revolution Squares. The Bolshoi Theatre is at the bottom of the picture. The beautiful Art Nouveau Metropol Hotel is on the left. Sadly, most of the area is now taken up by parking [Google Earth].

[00:24:27] Presumed entrance to the Bolshoi Theatre (poster advertising operas on the left). Not verified.

IMG_4466[00:24:33] Corner of Theatre Square, Moscow. Metropol Hotel in the background, Maly Theatre on the lhs. This is a view to the left of the one in screen shot [00:24:20].

IMG_4218Current view of the same corner. Maly Theatre on the left, Metropol Hotel in the background  [Google Earth].

The Maly Theatre (literally ‘Small Theatre’ in contrast to the ‘Bolshoi’) has been in this building since 1824.  One of the leading classical theatres of Europe it also operates the Shchepkin Theatre School, Moscow’s oldest.

The Metropol is one of Europe’s greatest Grand Hotels. Opened in 1905 in a beautiful Art Nouveau style building designed by the Scottish-Russian architect William Walcot its central stained glass vaulted dining room must one of the most spectacular places in the world to have breakfast (from personal experience!). From a balcony in this room the great Russian bass Fyodor Shalyapin sang and Vladimir Lenin declaimed. After the Revolution the Metropol was used for government offices and then returned to being a deluxe hotel as the Bolsheviks realised that foreign visitors would expect something better than the average post-revolution Moscow hotel!

[00:24:41] Close up of the traffic policeman at the signal in Kuznetsky Most, Moscow.

[00:24:48] Telephoto view of Revolution Square taken from the Bolshoi.

IMG_4159[00:24:55] [00:25:13] [00:25:20] [00:25:34] [00:27:06] The camera overlooks Khreschatyk street, Kiev. I am, so far, unable to locate a tall building where the camera (s) could have been placed to take this high level sequence. The depth of field (ie the camera is in focus as well as the background) is impressive!

IMG_4483[00:26:04] Split screen view of Moscow street and trams. Location not found.

[00:26:18] Tverskaya Street corner.

IMG_4484[00:27:01] Funeral procession, Odessa (clothes and street are clues). Location not found.

[00:27:08} Marriage and dusty street, Odessa? Location not found.

IMG_4486[00:27:28] Car procession, Odessa (clothes and French style buildings are clues). Location not found.

IMG_5188[00:27:43] [00:27:52] [00:27:58] MK filming in a double (triple?) exposure of angled buildings. Both buildings still exist on Strilets’ka Street in Kiev .

[Google Earth]

[00:28:05] [00:28:22] [00:28:35] Okhotny Ryad, Moscow.

[00:28:09 on] Interior of a building with a lift and reception desk. Location unknown.

[00:28:47] [00:28:59] Teatral’nyy Projzed, Moscow.

[00:28:51 on] Multiple shots of the shadow of the glass entrance door seen at the beginning of the film [00:07:25]. Location unknown.

[00:29:09] Tram passing balloons (same tram as in [01:02:00]?). Location unknown.

[00:29:14] Double exposure of Okhotny Ryad, Moscow.

[00:29:24] Camera in a tram (?) careering around a corner, Moscow. Location not found.

[00:29:28] Speeded up traffic in Teatral’nyy Projzed, Moscow.

[00:29:33] to [00:29:52] Fast montage sequence starting with the front of a Kiev tram (white panel on the front), with an eye looking over various street scenes. Difficult to verify locations, but several of Kiev and Moscow are repeated from previous shots.

IMG_4808[00:29:54] Ambulance sequence, Kiev. The screenshot shows the junction of Shevchenko Boulevard and Comintern Street (the building on the corner still exists, below) .

IMG_4809[Google Earth]

IMG_4488[00:30:55] Fire engine sequence, Odessa (on sign above doors).

IMG_4689The Odessa Fire Brigade is still in the same building over 90 years later! On the same street as the Philharmonic Theatre in [00:21:04] .

[00:31:10] to [00:32:05] Ambulance and fire engine speeding through the streets sequence. A wonderful example of ‘Creative Geography’ as these scenes are set in two different cities but edited to look like the streets of one. The ambulance driver squeezing the rubber bulb of his horn regularly instead of a siren is a period touch!

REEL 4

[00:33:49] Apartment buildings shot from a moving vehicle. Location not found.

[00:32:18] Traffic policeman with signal, MK with camera, on Kuznetsky Most, Moscow.

[00:32:26] ‘Paris Specialist Cleaner’ shoeshine booth, Odessa? MK is wearing his white Odessa shirt but exact location not found.

[00:33:40 on] Hairdressing and manicure sequences. Unknown location(s).

[00:34:25 on] Industrial activity scenes. Unknown location(s).

[00:34:38] Traffic policeman, Kuznetsky Most, Moscow

IMG_5223[00:36:41] Coal mine in the Donbass  (Rutchenkovo or Lidievka).

IMG_5231[00:37:33] Donbass or Kamianske steelworks interior – a spectacular sequence of industrial images!

IMG_4284 (2)Typical contemporary Donbass scene of coke ovens (lhs), coal mine (rhs) and steelworks blast furnaces (background).

[00:38:48] [00:38:59] [00:39:07] [00:39:10] Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant, near Leningrad.

IMG_5243[00:39:20] [00:39:31] [00:39:42] [00:39:53] [00:40:00] [00:40:07] [00:40:17] MK and assistant in a suspended platform over the Volkhov Dam.

The Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant (Волховская ГEС) is on the river of the same name near to Lake Ladoga in the Leningrad Oblast (County). Opened in 1926 (but actually a pre-revolutionary design) and named after VI Lenin, it is the oldest hydroelectric plant still operating in Russia.

2470179205Current view of the dam and generating building taken from a similar position [fotostrana].

Shass-Kobelev_-_Lenin_and_electrification_1024x1024Contemporary poster celebrating Lenin’s electrification plans featuring the Volkhov Hydroelectric Power Plant.

IMG_4652[00:40:20] Split screen scene of trams in Moscow. Top is of Okhotny Ryad. Bottom location not found.

[00:41:02] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow? Not verified.

[00:41:09] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow. MK with Kinamo camera.

IMG_5560[00:41:14] Kuznetsky Most, Moscow. MK with Kinamo and Debrie Parvo cameras.

[00:41:18] As above, except just the Kinamo.

[00:41:19] As above, except the Parvo on a spreadeagled tripod without the cameraman.

IMG_5267[00:41:24 and on] MK with Debrie camera on Teatral’nyy Projzed, Moscow.

[00:41:33] Split screen scene of trams in Moscow. Top is of Okhotny Ryad. Bottom location not found.

REEL 5

[00:42:50] Park Bridge, Kiev.

IMG_4480[00:42:54 and on] Arcadia Beach, Odessa.

IMG_4111[01:03:50] A wider view of the beach from the rapid montage sequence at the end of the film – note the building at the top right, and below, which was a spa and hydrotherapy centre and is now a hotel.

IMG_4643A quieter Arcadia Beach in the early 20thC. 

IMG_4248 (2)Information and photographs above from viknaodessa

IMG_4482The building still exists as a hotel [Google Earth – photograph by Wazza Production].

IMG_4117 (2)Current view of Arcadia Beach. The former hydrotherapy centre is marked with an arrow.[Google Earth – photograph by Sergii Kushnarov].

Named after an idyllic area of Greece to encourage visitors, Arcadia Beach was Odessa’s main seaside resort in the late 1920s, and still is. On the outskirts of the city, connected by tram, it was very popular from the start of its development at the end of the 19thC. There were restaurants, cafes, warm sea baths, a spa and hydrotherapy clinic, sanatoriums, and ‘a polyclinic with electro-mechano-therapeutic rooms’ which sounds intimidating! Next to the beach there was a pleasant seafront park with the inevitable monument to VI Lenin.

[00:43:34 on] Swimming and exercises, Odessa Port (see also [00:47:00] on). Confirmed by Yevgeny Volokin because of the distinctive iron mooring bollard.

[00:43:41 on] Conjuror and children sequences. Unknown location (Graham Roberts says that this sequence is from Vertov’s ‘Kino Glaz’ film series of 1924 and 1925 (ref: ‘The Man with the Movie Camera’, the Film Companion series, IB Tauris, 2000, p80).

[00:43:57] Carousel (the same one as sequence [00:52:18]?). Location not found.

IMG_4479[00:44:43 on] Athletics sequence, Odessa. The seating is similar to that seen in later sports sequences (see [00:51:02]).

IMG_4468[00:46:32 on] Trotting (Harness racing) at Odessa Hippodrome which still exists!

IMG_4177[Google Earth]

[00:46:40 on] Horse riding, presumably also at Odessa Hippodrome. Not verified.

IMG_4470

[00:47:00 on] Diving, exercising, and swimming at Odessa Port (the harbour, not a swimming pool!). The diving tower was located in the yacht club .

[00:47:49 on] Mud and sun bathing at Kuyal’nik resort, near Odessa.

A perfect example of ‘Creative Geography’: the impression of a journey by sea is given from the travel agent’s window advertising passage from Odessa to Yalta on the ‘Lenin’ [00:17:51] and the ship leaving port [00:42:30].

The ‘Man with the Camera’ disembarks [00:48:16], and then goes on to a beach with his camera [00:48:49]. The resort is actually on a land-locked shallow salt lagoon a few km by road from the centre of Odessa! The ship then returns to the city ‘after the holiday’ at the beginning of reel 6 [00:53:30].

[00:48:45 on] [00:50:04 on] Exercise machines at Kuyal’nik Sanatorium? Not verified.

IMG_4087[00:48:49} MK walks across the beach at Kuyal’nik

IMG_4189 (3)The same view today with the ruins of the pier from the Sanatorium in the background (Google Earth – photograph by Vladimir Percentenko).

IMG_4358 (2)Late 19thC postcard showing the Kuyal’nik Sanitorium in its heyday.

Current Google Earth images showing the derelict Sanatorium and remains of its pier.

[00:50:14] Disembodied weight lifter, Kuyal’nik? Not verified.

IMG_4738[00:51:02] Netball sequence at the ‘Red Stadium’ in Kiev.

IMG_4792Overall view of the stadium with a ‘human chess’ event! The netball would have been played at the top left judging by the large building on the lhs in the background and in the screenshot which was on Zhilyanska Street, since demolished for the Olympic Stadium .

[00:51:26] Football (part) and athletics sequences, Odessa. The sports ground can be located as in one of the frames there is a glimpse of a nearby church and churchyard which is St John of Kronstadt, unrecognisable today from the beautiful building below right. The spectator seating below left can be seen in the athletics and some of the shots of the football match. It isn’t clear if the rest of the match is being filmed in the stadium.

IMG_4735The sports ground still exists, called Dynamo. The church is just above the rh end [Google Earth].

IMG_5288[00:52:13 on] Motor cycles on a track. The banked part of the track is sometimes seen in a triple horizontal exposure ([00:52:41] check the broken concrete line!) to give the impression it was wider and there were more ‘competitors’. I have not yet found the location of this track which is surprising as there weren’t many purpose built banked race tracks at that time. It is actually in a derelict condition (rh image below [00:52:21]) which implies it was old in the late 1920s. It is too narrow for a motor racing circuit compared to Brooklands in Surrey (UK) for example. It could be one of two early velodromes (cycle racing tracks) in Kiev. The later one seems to have been in use at the time of the film (location map below) but I cannot find any record of the first one built at Bibikovsky Boulevard in 1899. For comparison there was a similar velodrome in Odessa (lh below) but this was built in 1929. Mykhailo Kalnytsky, who knows more about the history of Kiev than anyone, does not know of any early photographs of the velodromes, or much of their history. Investigations continue!

IMG_202007041315330a1925 location map (Kiev Public Utilities Department #311) of the second (1913) Kiev Velodrome which has been restored and is in use again. The diagonal road at the bottom is Bohdan Khmelnytsky Street [map courtesy of M. Kalnytsky].

IMG_5300[00:52:17 on] Carousel sequences, in Odessa judging by the clothing. Exact location not found. The carousel is actually ‘mirrored’ in parts of this sequence (as in this screenshot – the camera is the wrong way around!). Perhaps for artistic reasons to contrast with the motor cycles going around the track in the opposite direction?

REEL 6

IMG_4651[00:53:37] Prymorskyi Boulevard, Odessa. Views over the Port. 

[00:53:48] Proletarian Cinema, (later Beaumonde [Бомонд] Cinema), October Revolution Square, Odessa .

IMG_4164[00:53:54] Giant camera overlooking Sofiys’ka Square, Kiev (see screenshot [00:05:45]).

IMG_4222

IMG_4221[00:55:00} ‘Drunken’ views over a candle shop and church (former St Elijah’s Monastery) converted into a workers’ club, Pushkins’ka Street, Odessa.

IMG_4237 (2)Current view of  St Elijah’s Monastery, beautifully restored, with a religious scene over the gates instead of Lenin!

[00:55:37] Rifle range. Location not found.

IMG_4627[00:56:22] Drinks shop, Kiev (city name on fascia). An example of private enterprise during the NEP era. Exact location not found.

IMG_5314[00:56:29] Lenin Club, No. 19 Ivana Franka Street, Kiev .

IMG_4793The well restored building is now occupied by the Ministry of Culture. 

[00:58:25] Audience in Shantser Cinema, Kiev.

IMG_5332[00:58:28 on] Stop motion tripod and camera action. Location not found.

[00:59:31] [00:59:39] [01:00:22] Shantser Cinema, Kiev.

[01:00:28] [01:00:36] [01:00:44] Split screen sequence of Okhotny Ryad, Moscow.

IMG_5337[01:01:20] MK and Indian motorcycle on screen in the Shantser Cinema (and on the track).

[01:01:32] [01:01:44] Multi exposure and split screen images of crowds. Unknown locations.

[01:01:53] A carriage turning in the street, Odessa. Pushkins’ka? Not verified.

[01:02:00] Moscow tram passing through Strastnaya Square (Leningradskaya on headboard).

IMG_5344[01:02:08] City street scene, cars and people, Strastnaya Square, Moscow. Strastnoy Monastery and corner of Izvestia building in the background.

Two expensive recently imported cars filmed speeding through the square – perhaps a commentary on the NEPmen’s extravagance? A French Amilcar sports car is on the left, and an English Crossley Tourer with what looks like a chauffeur!

IMG_4507This photograph shows the Strastnoy Monastery entrance tower covered up with an advert for AVTODOR, the state body tasked with improving roads and ‘Automobilism’ in the Soviet Union, set up in 1927. Deliberate disrespect for the religious institution, and even less at night! (photograph courtesy of MosDay.ru).

IMG_4620 (2)

[01:02:40] Shantser Cinema, Kiev

IMG_4630[01:02:44] Triple (?) exposure of MK and cameras over crowds. Unknown location, but the same view as screenshot [01:05:15].

IMG_4631[01:02:53] The best known image in the film – the Bolshoi Theatre and squares split in the middle!

[01:03:11] Shantser Cinema, Odessa carriages on the screen

[01:03:15 on] Rapid-fire montage of MK in a car speeding through Odessa on the screen and on the street; shots of speeding carriages; Revolution Square, Moscow; Park Bridge, Kiev; aeroplanes and trains; Arcadia Beach, Odessa; Khreschatyk, Kiev (and an image of it ‘splitting’); unknown streets and squares in Kiev (?); the car procession in Odessa; film editing; Teatral’nyy Proyezd, Moscow; unknown crowded street and trams [01:05:15] (the same as in [01:02:44]); MK carrying camera; the cinema audience; the No. 7 Kiev tram; the last image of the film being the camera iris ‘Eye’ closing.

IMG_5375

CITY MAPS

Map extracts from Google Maps (see introduction for acknowledgement of copyright).

MOSCOW FILMING LOCATIONS

Kuznetsky Most, Bolshoi Theatre, Theatre and Revolution Squares, Teatral’nyy Proyezd, Okhotny Ryad, Tverskaya, Strastnaya Square, Bakhmetevsky Bus Garage, Novo-Sukharevsky Market.

IMG_4667 ANNOTATED

IMG_4669 ANNOTATED

KIEV FILMING LOCATIONS

Khreschatyk, Sofiys’ka Square, Park Bridge, Red Stadium (netball), Lenin Club.

IMG_4665 ANNOTATED

ODESSA FILMING LOCATIONS

Prymorskyi Boulevard (at the top of Primorskyi Stairs aka Potemkin Stairs), Port, Station and Pryvokzal’na Square, Pushkins’ka street, Tram Depot, Sports Ground, Arcadia Beach, Kuyal’nik Resort.

IMG_4569 ANNOTATED

IMG_4568 ANNOTATED

кінець

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Architecture, Cinema, Constructivism, Design, silent film, Soviet film, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the film locations

Adriano Olivetti

adrianoolivetti

 

Adriano Olivetti in memoriam

11th April 1901 – 27th February 1960

 

A film about the greatest industrialist of them all: https://youtu.be/Ax_zKlnSxHE

 

 

 

 

Posted in Architecture, Art, Computers, Design, Housing, Housing Design, Personal Computers, product design, Typewriters, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Adriano Olivetti

Why is Computer Design stuck in the 1950s?

 

TRADIC_computer

Compared to my first computer, an Apple Macintosh 128K, the modern device has an awesome amount of computing power. I have just bought a Hewlett Packard ‘All-in-One’  PC with wireless keyboard and mouse, 24″ screen, 8GB of RAM and 1 terabyte of storage. An inconceivable specification only a few years ago, and a very elegant design, but completely unusable straight out of the box. I cannot think of any other advanced and expensive consumer product which, as a matter of course, doesn’t work when you first use it. Imagine buying a new car which refuses to go over 20mph, the manufacturer and supplier could not care less, and you have to spend hours under the bonnet to get it to operate properly!

Yet this is what we have come to expect from modern computers. The primary cause of the HP’s inability to do anything came down to constant updating from the in-built Windows 10 and McAfee LiveSafe software which slowed the machine down to an unacceptable degree. Having disabled the automatic updating from Microsoft and uninstalled the McAfee I now have an excellent computer, but why do I and everyone else (just look at the forums) have to work out what the problem is and do something about it having spent hundreds of pounds? Microsoft now notifies me regularly that an ‘important update’ needs to be installed – this just shows that the software is very badly designed in the first place.

The computer industry is stuck in the automotive equivalent of the 1950s when tinkering about with your car was the norm, and a knowledge of mechanics was useful. Modern vehicles are outstanding in their reliability, engineering, ergonomics, and simplicity of operation, and it is a pity that software engineers, or ‘architects’ as they are laughably called, cannot design their products to the same standards as we approach the 2020s.

Posted in Computers, Design, Personal Computers, product design, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why is Computer Design stuck in the 1950s?

MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the movie cameras

img_46971929 poster for the film by the Stenberg brothers

Dziga Vertov’s 1929 masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is a staple of film studies courses and has been analysed and written about countless times. What has had no attention, surprisingly, is the actual equipment used on and in the film. Surprisingly, because it is the only film where the camera plays such a central role (even ‘coming to life’ towards the end), and ‘the mechanical eye’ was a central part of Vertov’s theories. In most of the analyses of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ there is little or no discussion of the cameras, or they are mentioned inaccurately. This post looks at the film from the Movie Camera’s point of view.

I have included links to other websites and information to enhance the value of this post and, although I have taken reasonable steps to ensure that they are reputable, I am unable to accept responsibility for any viruses and malware arising from these links.

[x] Numbers in brackets refer to the Notes at the end of the post.

THE FILM AND ITS AUTHOR

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ [Человек с кино аппаратом, Chelovek s kino apparatom (R), Людина з кіноапаратом, Lyudyna z kinoaparatom (U)], along with Eisenstein’s ‘Battleship Potemkin’, must be the most influential of all Soviet films. It was voted one of the ten best films in cinematic history by BFI ‘Sight & Sound’ readers, and the best documentary ever made [1]. The latter accolade is rather misleading as the film was not meant to be a documentary in the conventional sense. Vertov describes it as an ‘Excerpt from a Camera Operator’s Diary’ in the opening titles, but warns the audience:

“Attention Viewers!
This film is an experiment in the cinematic communication of real events
Without the help of intertitles
Without the help of a story
Without the help of theatre
This experimental work aims at creating a truly international language of cinema based on its absolute separation from the language of theatre and literature”

Rather than ‘Director’ Vertov describes himself as the ‘Author-Supervisor of the Experiment’. On the face of it the ‘story-line’ is of a man with a movie camera wandering about an unnamed city (mostly a mixture of Odesa, Kyiv, and Moscow – see Notes) filming its activities during the day. There are images of trams, trains, traffic, people working and playing, birth, death, marriage and divorce, an ambulance and fire engine, factory machinery and crowds at the beach. But the film is unlike any other ‘City Symphony’ in the 1920s such as Paul Strand’s on New York (‘Manhatta’, 1921) or Walter Ruttmann’s on Berlin (‘Berlin: Symphony of a Great City’, 1927), and this dry description “…doesn’t do justice to its dedication to transforming and upending reality. This film is visibly excited about the new medium’s possibility, dense with ideas, packed with energy: it echoes Un Chien Andalou, anticipates Vigo’s À Propos De Nice and the New Wave generally, and even Riefenstahl’s Olympia. There are trick-shots, split-screens, stop-motion animation, slo-mo and speeded up action. Welles never had as much fun with his train-set as Vertov had with his movie camera” [2]. It is also a film about film-making, shots of the city and the ‘Man’ (Vertov’s brother, and cinematographer, Mikhail Kaufman) are interspersed with images of the film being edited by Vertov’s wife, Elizaveta Svilova. There are occasional views of the audience in a cinema reacting to events on the screen, watching the very film that they are appearing in!

Dziga Vertov aka David KaufmanDziga Vertov (a pseudonym meaning ‘spinning top’, his real name was David Kaufman) became a film-maker in 1918 after two years experimenting with sound in what he called the ‘Laboratory of Hearing’. During the Civil War he organised film shows and film-making on the ‘agit-trains’ spreading propaganda through the areas captured by the Red Army, and then worked on a series of short documentary films he titled ‘Kino-pravda’ (Film-truth) during the early 1920s. During this period Vertov developed his experimental film techniques and his theories about cinema as the art form best suited for the masses. He derided film drama as ‘… the opium of the people…Down with the bourgeois fairy-tale script! Long live life as it is!”.

Vertov believed that the camera, more than the human eye, is best used to explore real life, as being a mechanical device it would record the world as it really was without bias or aesthetic considerations. This theory he called ‘Kino-glaz’, or Cine-Eye:

“The Cine-Eye lives and moves in time and space, it perceives and fixes its impressions in a completely different way from that of the human eye…We cannot make our eyes any better than they have been made but we can go on perfecting the camera forever.”

“I am the Cine-Eye. I am the mechanical eye.

I the machine show you the world as only I can see it.

I emancipate myself henceforth and forever from human immobility. I am in constant motion. I approach objects and move away from them. I creep up to them. I clamber over them, I move alongside the muzzle of a running horse, I tear into a crowd at full tilt, I flee before fleeing soldiers, I turn over on my back, I rise up with aeroplanes, I fall and rise with falling and rising bodies…

…Freed from any obligation to 16-17 frames a second, freed from the restraints of time and space, I juxtapose any points in the universe regardless of where I fixed them.

My path leads towards the creation of a fresh perception of the world. I can thus decipher a world that you do not know.”

– Dziga Vertov: The Cine-Eyes. A Revolution, published in LEF #3, 1923 [3]

IMG_3627

He adopted these principles in several films following this manifesto including ‘Kino-glaz’ in 1924 (above), ‘A Sixth Part of of the World’ (1926), and ‘The Eleventh Year’ (1928), but ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is the apotheosis of his theories [4]. It had a mixed reception on its release, praised by many critics, but also criticised as too ‘formalistic’ (elitist) with Sergei Eisenstein deriding it as “pointless camera hooliganism”. The film was popular with audiences but fell out of favour in the 1930s along with its director and was neglected for years. It is now regarded as a masterpiece of world cinema, influencing directors from Godard to Christopher Nolan.

This is only a brief introduction to the film and Dziga Vertov. For an in-depth analysis read John MacKay’s essay ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, Academia, 2013.

For a frame-by-frame dissection read ‘Constructivism in Film, The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, Vlada Petrić, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

For other references see Notes at the end of the post.

THE CAMERAS IN ‘MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA’

Man with a Movie Camera ‘….is an experimental documentary in which a cameraman (Kaufman) and a moving-picture camera (the French-made Debrie Parvo ‘L’) become a single entity, an ubiquitous, omniscient and quasi God-like eye capable of recording a new kind of social and political reality. Not only is this mechanical eye able to perceive things that the human eye cannot, but the camera itself has become a ‘Constructivist’ object in its own right, a sleek blend of silver, metal design and utilitarian, ideological purpose.’ [5]. 

Dziga Vertov and his friend and collaborator the Constructivist artist and photographer Alexander Rodchenko shared an interest in cameras. The latter spent over 6,000 francs (around 2,600 euros today) on photographic equipment during his trip to Paris in 1925, including a camera for Vertov (a Debrie Sept). The choice of cameras for a film about a cameraman would have been carefully considered by the ‘Author-Supervisor’ and his brother. Particularly the latter as Mikhail Kaufman was a mechanical and electrical engineer with an expert knowledge of the cine camera, as well as a director making innovative films in his own right [6]. In an article in the November 1926 edition of the journal Kino it was announced that “At the last Kinok [7] meeting, cameraman and Kinok member M. Kaufman held a lecture about the first Soviet film camera with a motor drive designed along entirely new lines, which he constructed together with film technician Userdov. The camera can be used for single frame animation, normal and slow motion shooting. The design of the camera is so simple that it presents no obstacles to the commencement of mass production. The camera is equipped with technically superior shooting devices, and will be distinguished by its comparative light weight. The first Soviet film camera will carry the name of Kinoglaz.” This sounds like an advanced camera for the time, particularly as the Soviet camera industry only began in earnest in the early 1930s [8]. There is no evidence that it ever went into production, or was used in the making of  ‘Man with a Movie Camera’.

MwaMC cameras with MK (right way round)

Mikhail Kaufman looking pleased to be surrounded by the equipment used on the film in 1928. On the left is a rare Debrie GV Model F on a Debrie tripod, an Ica or Zeiss Ikon Kinamo being held above a Debrie Parvo Model L (with the 21cm Krauss Zeiss telephoto lens seen in the film), and a Debrie Interview (wooden body panels) on the right. The latter two are supported by a makeshift mount and clamp on another Debrie tripod. Missing is the Parvo Model K (used on ‘The Eleventh Year’), and possibly a Debrie Sept. This photograph is usually shown the wrong way round.

The most prominent camera used by Kaufman in the film is the Parvo Model L, made by André Debrie in Paris, introduced in 1926. An obvious choice as it was the most sophisticated and advanced movie camera of its day, widely used by European [9] film-makers including Sergei Eisenstein, Abel Gance, Fritz Lang, Joris Ivens, and many others. Importantly, apart from being technically superior to its contemporaries, it is very photogenic, a simple silver and black metal box on a beautifully designed wood and aluminium tripod. The classic all black Mitchell or Bell & Howell movie cameras with their protruding ‘Mickey Mouse ears’ film magazines and ugly tripods would not have looked as good on screen, and would have been awkward to carry around.  The Debrie cameras are compact and (relatively) light enough to be carried by Kaufman up a chimney, into the back of cars, on a motorcycle, across a moving gantry, along a beach, down a mine, in a foundry, and in many of the other challenging locations demanded by his brother. Debries were also the main cameras imported by the state film organisations such as Goskino/Sovkino and VUFKU (supplied by Schatzow of Berlin) after Germany recognised the Soviet Union in 1922.

As it is so prominent in many of the well known scenes many commentators assume that the Parvo Model L is the only camera that appears with Kaufman in the film, but in fact there were four. A total of 5 or 6 cameras were involved in the making of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, perhaps more, as follows:

DEBRIE ‘PARVO’ MODEL L 35MM HAND-CRANKED CINE CAMERA (1926)

000a MODEL L

Frank Hurley'sThe Australian explorer Frank Hurley’s Debrie Parvo Model L. He described his camera as “a glorious piece of mechanism, and ideal for my work”. The Parvo is in good condition after its Antarctic and WW2 Middle East adventures (though missing its strap handle and side viewfinders). [National Museum of Australia]

The Model L was the latest in a series of Parvo cine cameras going back to the early 1900s. Joseph Debrie founded his company in Paris in 1898 to make film perforating machines for the rapidly developing cinematography industry.  This had been born in the city in 1895 when the Lumière brothers held the first public screening of a motion picture. With the help of his 17 year old son André he designed the first ‘Parvo’ in 1908 at the request of the English partner of a Parisian film distribution company, Charles Raleigh, who wanted a compact, lightweight, but tough 35mm cine camera for African film expeditions. The new camera design was based around a strong engine turned aluminium frame which supports the hand cranked mechanism (for picture see section on Model K). The separate, simple box-like casing is made of thin varnished mahogany plywood panels. Rather than external film containers, the magazines are mounted within the casing on each side of the frame which makes the camera very compact. The film comes out of one magazine and is looped and twisted around the film gate to return into the other one (see lh illustration on the Model L catalogue pages below). This arrangement also allows direct viewing through the lens between the magazines, for focusing before the film is fed through the gate. There is also a side mounted ‘Newton’ type viewfinder (negative power plano-concave lens) for use during filming. Debrie named the new camera ‘Parvo’, Latin for ‘small’. And indeed it is, the body measuring 242 x 175 x 147mm, and weighing only 6.5kg (actual measurements of National Science & Media Museum 1908 camera).

debrie1898-1                         Debrie Offices and Factory, Rue Saint-Maur, Paris, early 1900s

In 1919 André Debrie took over the company after his father’s death which by that time had expanded into manufacturing all types of cinematography equipment including darkroom, editing and printing apparatus, film projectors and devices for special effects. From 1920 the Parvo outer casing was made of aluminium, occasionally painted black or grey, but mostly left in its natural finish. My Model K has a special ‘engine-turned’ finish, but most were plain. The shutter was also fitted with an ingenious auto-dissolve mechanism in 1920. The camera had been slightly larger since the 1913 Model A, still very compact for a professional 35mm cine camera at 270 x 200 x 150mm, with a film capacity of 120 metres (390 ft). However, the weight had increased considerably to 10.1 kg (including 7,5cm lens) due to the all metal construction and additional components. The Parvo became the most widely used cine camera for European silent films in the 1920s, most notably in the Soviet Union. The renowned Berlin photographic dealer Schatzow proclaimed that it was the ‘Sole Representative for Germany and Russia’ on the maker’s plate and so the firm would have sold the cameras for some of the greatest films ever made!

1924 PARVO MODEL K (2)a

The 3,000th camera left the Rue Saint-Maur in 1924, and over 9,000 Parvos were eventually manufactured. Virtually all the great directors [10] outside the USA used the camera as well as Dziga Vertov, particularly Sergei Eisenstein and Abel Gance (see section on the Model K).

IMG_4366Eduard Tisse and Sergei Eisenstein in crash helmets with a Parvo Model JK!

A series of minor improvements throughout the 1920s were signified by the ever changing letter codes of E,* G, H, * JK, K, KL, until the L was designed in 1926. There was also a simpler ‘amateur’ range called the ‘Interview’, introduced in 1924, which ran concurrently with the professional cameras. Some of the models had a long life as the Model E (the basic Parvo) and Model K were still shown in the 1931 catalogue that mainly featured the Model L. There was also a Model LS in the catalogue, identical to the L but with the body made of ebonite (a hardened rubber material) to deaden the sound of the mechanism for ‘talking pictures’. Even more confusion is caused by the letters found next to the serial number, often used to describe the model in sales particulars. For example my Model K has the series letter Z. I have not found out what these letters refer to as obviously there were not 26 variations of the Model K!

*I have not yet come across a Model ‘F’ ‘I’ or ‘J’

IMG_5496

The Model “L” PARVO, “Parvo” model L, or “Parvo Debrie” model L (as it was inconsistently called in the handbooks and sales catalogues) had significant advantages over the previous versions with, among other additional features, an ingenious way of allowing focusing through the lens on to ground glass when a film was loaded (above), and a quicker method of changing lenses (see notes on Krauss Zeiss lens). As with the Model K an electric motor drive could easily be attached (though many camera operators still preferred the hand crank at this time). The magazine capacity remained at 120 metres (390 ft), giving six minutes of exposed film at the standard silent film hand-cranked speed of 16 frames/second. 

The Model L was made for several years, becoming Debrie’s most popular camera, until the advent of sound films in the early 1930s when it was superseded by the larger (300m) capacity Super Parvo with a built-in motor drive and sound-proofing (an intermediate Model T was available in 1931 which was effectively a Model L adapted for the larger film magazines). However, because it was still one of the most compact and reliable cameras, significant film-makers such as Leni Riefenstahl [11] and Eduard Tisse (Eisenstein’s cinematographer) [12] were still using motorised Model Ls throughout the 1930s. Carol Reed used a Model L and Model K for shooting some of the scenes of his 1949 film ‘The Third Man’ [13]. Agnès Varda also used a motorised Model L (due to budgetary reasons, presumably) for her first film La Pointe Courte (1955). The thirty-year-old design was still capable of producing the beautiful cinematography of this ground-breaking film.

A selection of scenes with the Parvo Model L

[Note: figures in brackets show in hours, minutes & seconds approximately when the scene appears in a 2014 digitally restored version by the Eye Institute and Lobster Films (see Notes). The scene can extend before and after the time shown which is just meant as a guide to locate it. The approximate times would apply to most versions of the film].

IMG_5101

[00:02:22] Opening sequence (‘reflected’ image, the first of many – see Notes). The ‘miniature’ camera on top is also the Parvo Model L (reflected as well)

IMG_5178

[00:21:19 on] The car and carriage sequence around Odesa

IMG_5186

[00:26:25 on] The camera over the City sequence (Kyiv)

IMG_5296

[00:54:18 on] Motorcycles around the track sequence

IMG_5334

[01:00:38 on] The camera and tripod animation sequence

Other scenes with the Parvo Model L

[00:09:58] On the railway tracks (the camera isn’t very clear, and this is part of the Debrie ‘Interview’ camera [see below] sequence but it looks like an aluminium body)

[00:11:10] Lens changing sequence (reflected image)

[00:11:23] [00:11:27] [00:11:30] Cranking sequences (reflected image) 

[00:11:34] & [00:11:46] 21cm lens (reflected image)

[00:12:39] & [00:12:42] 15cm lens (reflected image); possibly on Debrie Interview

[00:12:59] & [00:13:04] 15cm lens with iris (reflected image) – between Reels 1 & 2; possibly on Debrie Interview

[00:14:34] [00:14:37] 21cm lens (reflected image with ‘Cine-eye’)

[00:19:53] Reflection of camera and buildings in revolving door 

[00:20:47] Filming the wheels from the side steps of a locomotive 

[00:21:19 on] Car and carriage sequence around Odesa

[00:32:22] 21cm lens (reflected image with ‘Cine-eye’)

[00:33:48] 21cm lens (only non-reflected image); beginning of Reel 4

[00:33:55] Traffic policeman at intersection sequence, Moscow

[00:34:58] Side view of camera cranking (reflected)

[00:35:03] Filming into a mirrored stand or booth (Specialist [shoe?] Cleaner, Paris)

[00:35:44/45] 21cm lens (reflected image)

[00:35:44] Brief image of camera cranking (reflected)

[00:37:56] Cranking camera in reverse (non-reflected image)

[00:38:03] Cranking camera in reverse (reflected image)

[00:42:31] [00:42:34] [00:42:37] Side view of camera cranking (reflected image)

[00:42:57 on] Model L appears in traffic intersection sequence with Kinamo

[00:43:10] Model L on its own at the traffic signal with spreadeagled tripod

[00:43:15] Model L in part of ‘between the trams’ sequence

[00:43:26] 21cm lens (reflected image); end of Reel 4

[00:54:18 on] Camera on a motorcycle around the track sequence

Close up of camera on motorcycle handlebars in a special cradle – end of Reel 5 (omitted from Lobster Films version).

[00:55:28 on] On the carousel sequence (partly shown ‘reflected’ – see Notes)

[01:03:29] Second camera on a motorcycle sequence

[01:05:32 on] Camera in the back of a speeding car through Odesa sequence

E. KRAUSS TESSAR ZEISS 21cm f4,5 TELEPHOTO LENS #156458

This lens was used often, and appears regularly in the film with the Model L, usually in reflection, and often with the iris attachment (see below). Krauss was a Paris based optical manufacturer founded in the late 1880s that made Zeiss lenses under licence. The Tessar (from the Greek Tessares = four) was designed by Paul Rudolph of Carl Zeiss in 1902, and is the most successful lens configuration of all, licensed to many manufacturers. 116 years on the name is still used for Zeiss’ four element mobile phone camera lenses. The Tessar design consists of four lens elements in two groups, the front pair separated by an air space and the rear pair cemented together as a ‘doublet’.

IMG_5431

IMG_5435

    [00:33:48] The only non-reflected image of the lens

IMG_5186 - Copy

Enlargement of [00:26:27]

A 15cm Krauss Tessar Zeiss lens appears briefly at the ‘out-of-focus flowers’ sequence [00:12:39] & [00:12:42] and shortly afterwards at the end of Part 1 [00:12:59] and the beginning of Part 2 [00:13:04] using a closing and opening iris to show this changeover symbolically. Debrie made a 90mm iris (catalogue illustration below) to fit in front of the lens, and a 140mm iris for the accessory carrier on the tripod. However this iris looks like an earlier type, perhaps fitted to the Interview. The image of the lens is reflected. This lens does not appear anywhere else in the film. The outer rim with the protruding lugs is for attaching accessories such as a lens hood and filter holder.

IMG_5491

20201013_085733

Mikhail-Kaufman-1

The 90mm iris in the catalogue as seen on the Model L Parvo in Eleazar Langman’s well-known photograph of Mikhail Kaufman. To clear the telephoto lenses seen in the film it was likely that the iris was attached to the front of a bellows type lens hood.

A new interchangeable lens mount was designed for the Model L to allow for very fast lens changes, ‘in one second as a maximum’ boasted the handbook (I have seen several Model L’s without this feature, and other models were fitted with it after 1926). There was a large choice of lenses for this mount from a variety of manufacturers including Taylor Hobson, Zeiss, and Bausch & Lomb. The lenses below are all fitted into the Model L mount (in the centre of the handbook illustration below).

IMG_5419

IMG_5429

Quoting from the instructions:

‘Attachment of lenses on “Parvo” Model L with new style mount

The following explanations, which are rather lengthy and require a great deal of attention, permit of attaching or removing a lens in one second as a maximum.

….Take the desired lens; turn sunshade (I) from left to right and push it on its mount as far as it will go. In this way focusing flange (J) will face ball (K) on apparatus. Set this lens of the camera in such a way that button (L) of lens sunshade will engage notch (E) of camera at the same time that the three notches (M) on lens will engage the 3 lugs on camera. Hold the lens completely in and push tightening lever (C) to the left. The lens will then be attached…’

The operation is indeed a lot quicker and simpler than the instructions would suggest as can be seen in the film [00:11:10] when Mikhail Kaufman swaps lenses just before swinging the camera around for a profile view. This is another reflected image as the lever is actually on the right of the lens.

Krauss lens change

DEBRIE ‘INTERVIEW’ TYPE ‘a’ 35MM HAND-CRANKED CINE CAMERA (1924)

IMG_4631

Harking back to the basic design of the first Parvo, intended for the ‘Amateur and Reporter’ according to the brochure, the wood-bodied Interview is essentially the same as the aluminium models but without the auto-dissolve mechanism. It was lighter at 8.4kg, which is probably a good reason why it features in most of the scenes where the camera and tripod are being carried around by Mikhail Kaufman. It was also the least valuable Debrie of the three seen in the film, and the wood absorbs knocks better than aluminium! In any case, the more advanced ‘L’, ‘K’, and ‘GV’ would have been the preferred cameras for filming. Various iterations of the basic type ‘a’ Interview added accessory mounts, bayonet lens mount, reverse cranking, the Parvo tachometer, up to type ‘f’ which added motor drive and the facility to use it with a shoulder harness mount instead of a tripod.

It is is not clear if a Parvo ‘Interview’ was used for ‘The Eleventh Year’ filming in 1927. I have not found any evidence for this but it is unlikely that an expensive Model L would have been used in the foundry and mine sequences to film a Model K, more likely the other way around. Mikhail Kaufman was also using a Model JK during this period as it can be seen mounted on an Indian motorcycle and the front of a train in photographs of the mid-Twenties.

A selection of scenes with the Interview

IMG_5105

[00:02:37] Opening sequence

IMG_5151

[00:18:18] Through the market crowd sequence

IMG_5195

[00:31:41 on] Following the ambulance sequence

IMG_5258

[00:42:40] Machinery and camera sequence

IMG_5275

[00:50:49] On the beach sequence

IMG_5306

[00:56:20] The beer glass sequence

Other scenes with the Interview

[00:09:05] Through the glass doors to the waiting car sequence

[00:09:23] Under the bridge sequence

[00:09:49] Across the railway line

[00:09:58] On the railway tracks (the camera isn’t very clear, and although this is part of the ‘Interview’ sequence it looks like the aluminium body of the Model L)

[00:10:43] Back across the railway line (presumed Interview camera being placed back on the tripod)

[00:15:06] Walking along the street with the camera and tripod (‘The Awakening of a Woman’ poster)

[00:25:37] Walking along the street with the camera and tripod

[00:29:27] Filming buildings sequence (double/triple exposure)

[00:30:30] In the hotel lift lobby

[00:33:25] On the fire engine

[00:38:47] Possibly in part of the mine sequence

[00:43:13] The beginning of the ‘between trams’ sequence. Replaced by Model L  

[00:50:15] Coming off the ship down the steps

[00:51:10] Sitting and lying in the sea sequence (reflected)

[00:55:58] A giant camera looks over the city

[00:58:29] Coming out of the drinks shop

[00:58:39] Going into the Workers Club

[01:04:56] Two cameras above the crowd

[01:07:38] Carrying camera and tripod. This is the last camera image in the film which is omitted in some versions.

DEBRIE ‘PARVO’ MODEL K 35MM HAND-CRANKED CINE CAMERA (1924)

000c MODEL K

00. MODEL K

1924 PARVO MODEL K (13)

Dials and controls from top: crank handle turn counter, metres of film counter, direct viewfinder through lens (with optional red filter), opening for electric motor attachment with dark slide, tachometer showing frames per second speed while cranking (0 to 24 fps, arrow on 16 fps), threaded lug for motor (bottom rhs). The top loop toggle is for marking the negative (when you pull it a small hole is cut into the film); the bottom one is for disengaging the crank handle and changing gear to one frame per turn (rather than eight).

1924 PARVO MODEL K (4)a

The front and side panels open up to allow full access. Note the beautiful engine-turned finish on the frame (the screws are ‘blued’ like a fine watch). A film magazine is in place on the opposite side.

The penultimate version before the Model L (there was a Model KL), this was the most popular Parvo in the mid Twenties. Abel Gance used a number of Ks and JKs to film his 1927 epic Napoleon, and Debrie collaborated with him on the extraordinary ‘Polyvision’ split screen panoramic sequences in the final reel of the film. A special rig was made to mount three Parvos with synchronized motors on top of one another, facing in different directions to achieve the effect.

NAPOLEON CREW

‘Napoleon’ Film Crew with Model Ks on Debrie tripods 

Rudolph Valentino, an enthusiastic photographer, also owned a 1924 Model K. This camera was in the auction of his property following his early death in 1926 at a guide price of $850, more than $11,500 today!

Rudolph Valentino 1924

A selection of scenes with the Parvo Model K*

IMG_5149

[00:17:41] Across the moving gantry

IMG_5223

[00:38:21] In the mine sequence (also with Debrie Interview?)

IMG_5231

[00:39:19] In the foundry sequence

IMG_5239

[00:40:35] The Volkhov dam sequence

IMG_5247

[00:41:21] Over the Volkhov dam (note modified tripod head)

Other scenes with the Parvo Model K*

[00:13:19] [00:13:57] ‘Bridge’ and trams sequence

[00:15:36 on] Climbing the steelworks chimney with a camera case (probably empty!)

[00:16:09] Taking out the camera from its case at the ‘top’ of the chimney (I can’t be sure that this is the Model K as there appears to be a small knob below the lens indicating a Debrie Interview, although it looks like an aluminium body).

[00:17:20] Carts over the cameraman sequence 

*The sequences with the Model K were taken during the filming of ‘The Eleventh Year” in 1927

DEBRIE TRIPOD MODEL ‘C’ (1920s)

Beautifully made in aluminium and beech, the tripod also has a prominent role in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, whether being carried on Kaufman’s shoulder or performing acrobatics with the camera in a stop-motion sequence. A tripod was available with the wood-bodied Parvo Model A but it seems that the version of the tripod (with an improved head design) that appears in the film was introduced around 1920 with the first aluminium bodied Parvo (I have not been able to find any catalogues for this period). It is the most beautiful and finely engineered design, the cast aluminium head assembly alone weighing over 9kg (total weight is 12.6kg). This contains the (high) geared pan and tilt mechanism controlled with removable handles. These are very evident during the car and carriage sequence [00:21:19 on] with Mikhail Kaufman rapidly adjusting the pan and tilt standing precariously on the edge of the car body. Tiny spirit levels on the side and rear ensure exact levelling when required. There is a large knurled knob on the side to lock the tilt with a finely engraved dial showing degrees of tilt; panning is locked into gear with a brass switch at the rear, otherwise the head swings freely. Every movement of this example is precise and accurate, even after 95 years.  A nicely made leather and canvas case with a shoulder strap protects the tripod when stored or carried on its own.

1924 PARVO MODEL K (1)A

1924 PARVO MODEL K (15)

The two holes in the front of the head are for the accessory support rods (fully utilised in this photograph of Sergei Eisenstein).

MODEL L WITH EISENSTEIN (2) - Copy

Mikhail Kaufman’s engineering skill is evident in the adapted head on the tripod when filming the Volkhov Dam sequence (more than likely he made it as it is not a Debrie tripod accessory). It only appears here and might have been fitted to allow for a steeper tilt filming down from the aerial platform (the dam, near Leningrad, was also being filmed for Vertov’s 1928 film ‘The Eleventh Year’).

IMG_5246A

The sturdy legs comprise three sections of 32mm varnished beech bound with brass strips. The central section pulls out to increase the height and is locked at the bottom with screw clamps on the lower two brass bindings. There is a double metal spike for grip at the end. 

IMG_5434

The legs are removable, fixed with a 9mm diameter steel rod retained with a loose T-bar clamping nut. An adjustable ‘spider’ was provided to restrain the spread of the legs (see above), but I have not noticed this being used in the film.  There is a leather handle for carrying the tripod (visible in the screenshot below) but with the camera attached it is rather unbalanced and Kaufman’s familiar over the shoulder method of transport is the best way. The metal bodied cameras and tripod together weigh nearly 23kg, the wood bodied camera and tripod not much less at 21kg, and he must have endured much to carry them up and across gantries, down a mine, in a foundry, through crowds and streets, and along the beach!

IMG_5326

[01:00:38] The tripod appears in a solo role at the beginning of the animation sequence

THE INDIAN MOTORCYCLE

MK on Indian - Copy

Mikhail Kaufman on the 1927 Indian Big Chief 74 ci (1206 cc) V-twin motorcycle used in the race track scenes, with a professional looking custom-made cradle supporting the Model L camera fixed to the wide handlebars (made by MK?). How effective this would have been for filming over the obviously bumpy track is debatable (you can see it shaking in the film). Significantly there are no sequences taken by this motorcycle mounted camera in the film, so it was really just a demonstration of speed and technology.

IMG_5337

[01:03:29]

IMG_5296

[00:54:43]

The photograph below shows him astride a 1923 Big Chief with an earlier attempt at filming from a motorcycle. Unlike the one in the film this is fitted with a very crude camera support that looks like a piece of rough timber with a G-clamp! This would have undoubtedly fallen off at the first bump, and doesn’t look like the work of an expert engineer like Kaufman. The camera is a Parvo Model JK, which was not used in Man with a Movie Camera (there is no evidence for this and no reference to any film attached to the image). The circular fitting on the tank is a klaxon (see colour photographs below).

Mikhail Kaufman on board Indian Vee twin with Parvo JK

The Big Chief, made in the USA from 1923-1928 by the Indian Motocycle Company (no ‘r’), was one of the most powerful and glamorous motorcycles of this era. With the latest model of cine camera mounted on the handlebars the ensemble would have been very impressive to a 1920s Soviet audience. Whether or not the ‘bike was Kaufman’s it was the only suitable choice. Having a ten kilo weight balanced on top of the handlebars of most motorcycles wouldn’t have done much for the steering, particularly while cranking the camera! The Big Chief, like all Indians, has very wide bars and is a big heavy machine making handling with a weight up front a lot easier. Another advantage is that these Indians have unique (for the period) twist grip controls with cables routed through the handlebars and, unlike the majority of motorcycles of this era, the throttle is on the left side meaning MK could crank the camera with his right hand while safely controlling the speed and steering. This would have been more difficult with the usual lever controls on the right handlebar. Kaufman could clearly manage this big beast of 1920s motorcycles with one hand so I suspect it was his. It seems to have been his second Big Chief, an expensive motorcycle in the Soviet Union – an enthusiastic technophile, he was a pilot as well (there are aerial sequences in his 1929 film ‘In Spring’).

IMG_6042.PNG

Close up of custom-made camera mounting cradle (in some prints but omitted from Lobster Films restoration).

IMG_5680

1927 Indian Big Chief (like the one used in the film)

img_1

1923 Indian Big Chief (note different front suspension)

img_15

Twist-grip throttle on left handlebar and klaxon on the top tube. 

From a vintage motorcycle enthusiast’s point of view the ‘race’ is interesting with a variety of early and pre-1920s single cylinder touring machines taking part, but no contemporary racing ‘bikes to match the speed of Kaufman’s 90 mph Indian V-twin! Triple exposure makes the narrow (velodrome) track much wider than reality.

FullSizeRender(11)

Julius Kupfer-Sachs’ 1929 poster for the film featuring an image of a stylised motorcycle and camera speeding through an ‘Expressionist’ city [Dovzhenko Centre].

ICA OR ZEISS IKON ‘KINAMO’ 35MM CLOCKWORK CINE CAMERA (1923-1925, 1926-1933)

IMG_5943

IMG_5945

Originally designed for Ica (Internationale Camera AG) in Dresden by the scientist and inventor Emanuel Goldberg [14] the clockwork version of the Kinamo was introduced in 1923, the same year as Bell and Howell’s iconic 16mm Filmo 70. Both cameras were meeting the growing need for precision made compact automatic cine cameras for the amateur market. The hand-cranked Kinamo (from Kino and Latin Amo = I love film) was launched two years earlier but the new model soon became very popular with professional film-makers as a hand-held 35mm cine camera. In particular, Joris Ivens, the Dutch documentary film-maker (below, with the camera), made a number of experimental films using his Kinamo in the 1920s and 30s (eg ‘The Bridge’ 1928, ‘Rain’ 1929, ‘Borinage’ 1933). The Hungarian artist and Bauhaus teacher László Moholy-Nagy was also an enthusiastic Kinamo user.

Joris Ivens (1)

Way ahead of its time, the camera is beautifully made and very compact at only 150 x 130 x 95mm, but heavy for a small camera, weighing 2.5 kg. There is a choice of internal optical viewfinder and external wire type (Ivens is using the former as is Kaufman in the screenshot below). It could also be used as a still camera, and to copy films using a light source through the lens aperture. There was also a microscope attachment (Microphot).

Ica Kinamo ad

3

The film is pre-loaded into cassettes which makes changing films in daylight very easy and convenient when on location. The 80 ft (25 metres) of film in each cassette provides around 75 seconds running time at the governed 16 frames per second. The Kinamo also has interchangeable lenses including a 180mm telephoto lens which makes it very versatile. After the merger of Ica into the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate in 1926 the camera continued to be manufactured under the new name in 35mm (N.25) and even smaller 16mm versions (S.10).

IMG_3851

There is little apparent difference other than the embossed maker’s name, the later Ica and the Zeiss Ikon Kinamos both having a small diagonal nickel switch (that locks the shutter release) above the end of the winding handle which you can just spot if you look closely at Kaufman’s camera in the 1928 photograph.

MwaMC cameras with MK (right way round) a

Exactly which version was used is difficult to ascertain. The state organisation for cinematography, Goskino, had purchased several Ica Kinamos in the mid 1920s, and Lev Kuleshov (the great film director and theorist) had ‘criticized their haphazard distribution within the industry’ [15]. However, Vertov had been sacked by Sovkino, Goskino’s successor, in January 1927 after disputes about his film ‘One Sixth of the World’, and his refusal to provide a script for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, so the Kinamo is unlikely to have been one of these elusive cameras.  He moved to Ukraine in the spring of the same year to work for the film organisation VUFKU and so it could have provided either type of Kinamo. It could equally well have been a Zeiss Ikon version, perhaps imported by Vertov around this time, as his Debrie Sept had been in 1925 (see later notes). This is one of the few photographs of him posing with a camera (rather than on a set) and it certainly looks as if it belongs to him! His brother Boris Kaufman used a Kinamo to shoot some of the hand-held scenes in Jean Vigo’s 1930 film ‘À propos de Nice’ which may have been this one.

Dziga Vertov with Kinamo (lid off) correct view

Dziga Vertov with the Kinamo (photo usually the wrong way round)

The scenes with the Kinamo

IMG_5261

IMG_5263 [00:42:59 on] The traffic intersection sequence (note the Parvo Model L on the spread-eagled Debrie tripod).

As the hand-cranked Parvos are normally used on a tripod the clockwork Kinamo would have been used for the scenes requiring a hand-held camera throughout the film (and possibly a Debrie Sept – see later description). 

There was a growing use of the ‘chest tripod’ shoulder harness which enabled a large cine camera like the Parvo (and Interview) to be used for mobile filming [16]. Note the separate expanding viewfinder. However, there is no evidence that this type of support was used on Man with a Movie Camera, and it would have been very unwieldy compared with the Kinamo.

modell-l-16

DEBRIE LABRÉLY ‘GV’ MODEL F 35MM HIGH SPEED CINE CAMERA (1925)

IMG_4639

MK with Labrely correct way round

Mikhail Kaufman with the Debrie GV Model F cine camera on a Debrie tripod

A rare cine camera (so scarce that I am unable to find a better photograph of it) made by Debrie for a limited period in the mid 1920s, the Model F was an early version of a series of high speed cameras made from 1921 up to the mid 1960s. Designed around the invention by Emile Labrély of a hand-cranked or motorised film mechanism that could operate from 16 to an astonishing 240 frames per second (the ‘standard’ silent film rate was 16 frames per second [17]). ‘GV’ stands for Grande Vitesse, naturally! Labrély had worked for Pathé in the early 1900s developing high speed cameras and had achieved 400 fps in 1909, and 1200 fps the following year. Extraordinary speeds for the time, but they were not intended as conventional cine cameras being very bulky and producing images only suited to scientific work. The Model F must have been more successful as a studio or location camera but there are few survivors. The National Science & Media Museum has one, and I have seen a later GV Model G that was for sale at a price (commensurate with the high speed) of £45,000! It was perfectly suited to the study of engineering, military, scientific, or medical problems according to the 1925 Debrie catalogue. Kaufman presumably used this camera for some of the slow motion sequences (eg athletics) in the film in addition to conventional filming.

Debrie GV Model G

A later Debrie GV Model G, courtesy of the Cinémathèque française

DEBRIE ‘SEPT’ 35MM CLOCKWORK MULTI-FUNCTION CINE CAMERA (1921-26)

IMG_5440

s-l1600 (2)

s-l1600 (1)

The Debrie Sept is a remarkably innovative device, made of aluminium, comprising a 35mm cine camera (only 16 seconds worth of film @ 16 fps), still camera (250 images), rapid sequence still camera, slide and cine projector, film copier, and enlarger. Seven operations, hence the name. A clockwork motor is housed in a detachable box on the side (a second version had a larger motor inside a more bulbous case, below). The 5 metres length of film is loaded into cassettes (or ‘boxes’ as they are described in the English language instructions), larger versions of the later Leica type. There is a choice of reflecting viewfinder or Newton type by pulling out the sliding front lens. The Sept started life in Italy just after WW1 as the ‘Autocinephot’ designed and made by Guiseppe Tartara of F.A.C.T. in Turin. Only around 100 were made when the design was licenced to Etablissements André Debrie, in Paris, who started producing a modified version in 1921. The camera was marketed by Société Française SEPT (see below) at the very high price of 2,550 francs (with a Zeiss lens), approximately 1,300 euros today! For comparison the far more sophisticated Kinamo with a f2.7 Zeiss lens was 475 Reichsmarks, or around 1,200 euros. Despite the cost many thousands were sold (I have seen serial # 9049 at auction in 2015).

FullSizeRender - 1(8)

Second version of the Sept with a larger clockwork motor introduced in 1925. [photograph courtesy of Novacon]

Although marketed ‘Pour Amateurs’, as a tough, small, hand-held movie camera the Sept was popular with silent film directors including Douglas Fairbanks (Robin Hood), and Abel Gance (Napoleon). It was also a favourite of newsreel photographers who could take a short cine film as well as still photographs of their subject. The diminutive* Sept could also be smuggled into events where their rivals had the sole rights, particularly football matches! It is a very different design compared with the precision-made Kinamo, being more the camera equivalent of a 1920s truck with thick metal construction, over-size controls, coarse helicoil focusing for the various available lenses, and a noise like a machine-gun!

*137 x 100 x 70mm, 1.6kg

Sept brochure

Sales leaflet cover

In Soviet Russia the Debrie Sept ‘…would appear to have been a prized possession in the 1920s…Iakov Tolchan, a student at the State Film Technical College (GTK) and later a renowned actuality specialist, has recalled being plucked from the obscurity of his studies by Dziga Vertov in 1924 and given the opportunity to join his Ciné-Eye group primarily because he was the owner of a Debrie-Sept, a gift from a relative living in Paris.’ [18]

FullSizeRender(17)Mikhail Kaufman in a precarious position using the later model Sept to film inside the Dzerzhinsky Steelworks in 1927 for ‘The Eleventh Year’. [photograph courtesy of the Dovzhenko Centre]

The following year Dziga Vertov obtained his own Debrie Sept but I can find no evidence that this camera was used during the 1928 filming of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’; it is not seen in the film and it isn’t included with the equipment surrounding Kaufman in the 1928 photograph. However it appears to have been used for ‘The Eleventh Year’ (above). Vertov was using the Sept during his travels across Russia in the mid 20s [19] and Mikhail Kaufman is pictured below by Varvara Stepanova on roller skates with a Sept on her cover design for the first 1927 edition of Soviet Cinema magazine. As both men obviously liked the camera, there is every reason to suppose that this very versatile device was used for at least some of the hand-held shots shot in 1928 (eg the netball and football matches [00:53:05 on] where such a tough camera would have been very suitable). 

IMG_3626

Dziga Vertov’s Sept was bought for him by Alexander Rodchenko on his visit to Paris in 1925 to supervise the design and construction of the Workers’ Club in the USSR Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition (‘Kino-Glaz’ was awarded a silver medal and diploma there), and there is some interesting correspondence with his wife Varvara Stepanova about the camera. Rodchenko spent over 6,000 francs on camera equipment during his visit (letter to Stepanova, May 31st 1925).

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Paris, May 2, 1925

“I bought the Sept with a timer, a 6-meter [film magazine], and a Zeiss Tessar f3.5, with eighteen cassettes, with a tripod, film, printing thing, etc. I’m sitting here looking it over. It’s small, smaller than my 9 x 12 photo camera. But unfortunately the lens has a scratch, tomorrow I’ll exchange it. It’s in a good case, and you can shoot photos with it too….I’m terribly happy…I want to shoot the opening [20], when Krasin’s [21] there, and send [it] to Vertov – I’ll be Kino-Pravda’s correspondent in Paris..”

“…Your son exchanged the Sept for another one without a scratch. Besides that I bought twelve cassettes, a black tripod, and a big bottle of developer…’ (added note to his mother).

Stepanova to Rodchenko – Moscow, June 1st, 1925

“Dear Rodchenok [sic],  we received your letter no. 28 of May 24, where you wrote that you want to buy a camera for Vertov. He’s very happy and specially asks for a telephoto lens*.

As soon as you get the camera, send Dziga a letter that you bought such-and-such camera, no., the factory, and so on – this is necessary to get the license.”

*see below

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Paris, June 8, 1925

“I am sending Dziga Vertov a Sept camera, no: 0905*, with a Zeiss 1:3.5 lens, in a leather case with six bobbins**.”

* from the photograph of Mikhail Kaufman using the Sept (if it is the same one) it looks like a later model with the larger motor which came out in 1925 so this serial number would not be correct. Perhaps it is 10905.

**’bobbins’ = film cassettes

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Paris, June 10, 1925

“I’ll send Dziga the camera on the 12th. I went and bought a printing machine for the Sept, I’ve got about three suitcases full now. I received permission to photograph at the exhibition, which I am enjoying. I do the developing myself and I’ll print at home.”

“Dziga asked you why I bought a tripod for the Sept. Well, he’s an idiot. I bought it, of course, for photos. I bought another one too – for photographing architecture, inside the rooms, with a long exposure, here the tripods are marvellous and cheap.”

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Around 20th June, 1925 

“Left Paris for Moscow by train. Brought with me a 4 x 6 Ica, a small Sept cine camera, and two tripods. Posted one Sept cine camera for Dziga Vertov together with a telescopic lens* and extra cassettes to Goskino” [22]

*I have never come across such a lens for a Sept which is usually only fitted with a standard 50mm lens. A telephoto lens is mentioned in the June 1st letter, but this letter may be referring to a lens bought for Goskino.

NOTES, COMMENTS, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Fair Use claimed for any copyright material as it is copied for solely research purposes  & commentary only, without financial gain; attribution given where possible.

Dziga Vertov was born in Belostock (now Białystok in NE Poland) in 1896, and died in Moscow in 1954. There is an excellent biography with a comprehensive bibliography on the Monoskop cultural web-site.

Mikhail Kaufman was born in Belostock in 1897 and died in Moscow in 1980. Though overshadowed by his brother, he was an innovative film-maker himself and his work is becoming more appreciated. His creative contribution to MwaMC and earlier films is also increasingly recognised. The Dovzhenko Centre has restored two of his films, ‘In Spring’ (1929) and ‘Unprecedented Campaign’ (1931), and there are excellent essays about him in the Centre’s recent book‘Ukrainian Dilogy’, 2018. His biography is on the VUFKU website.

Elizaveta Svilova was born in Moscow in 1900 and died there in 1975. One of the greatest of film editors she spent her life after Vertov’s death preserving his memory and archive. It is thanks to her dedication that his reputation is now higher than ever. Monoskop also has her biography. There is an interesting paper on Svilova and Esfir Shub by Lilya Kaganovsky. Dr Karen Pearlman of Macquarie University has made an award winning film ‘Woman with an Editing Bench’ (2016) paying homage to Svilova’s contribution to the art of film editing.

The film is variously called ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, ‘The Man with a Movie Camera’, ‘The Man with the Movie Camera’, and ‘a Man with a Movie Camera’. Google Translate comes up with the latter version but most people adopt the first one. There is no definite or indefinite article in Russian which explains the confusion. There is also a muddle about the translation of Kino, as in Kino-pravda and Kino-glaz. Most commentators use ‘Cine’ but the film isn’t known as ‘Man with a Cine Camera’! Capitals and hyphens are inconsistent (Kino-Glaz, kinoglaz) even in Vertov’s notes.

The film premiered in Kyiv on the 7th January 1929 (at Goskino No. 2 Cinema), and in Moscow on the 9th April 1929 (at the Hermitage Theatre and Tverskaya 46 cinemas). The film was shown at the influential 1929 ‘Film und Foto’ exhibition in Stuttgart and screened to audiences in Berlin and Paris during Dziga Vertov’s European tour in the summer of the same year. See my blog post on the First Cinema Screening.

THE ‘CITY’

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is the best example of Lev Kuleshov’s theory of ‘Creative Geography’ where different locations are edited together to portray a single place. Locations were filmed in many different places over two years to be edited into the imaginary City that the Man with the Movie Camera records throughout the day. 

MAIN LOCATIONS SEEN IN THE FILM

Read my blog post for the (almost) definitive list and details of the locations filmed for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’.

MOSCOW, KYIV, AND ODESA

Much has changed in Moscow since the film was made, but many of the locations in Kyiv and Odesa are still recognisable. The scenes in Moscow are particularly poignant, showing a largely unspoilt and beautiful city centre just before the widespread destruction of the 1930s from Stalin’s megalomaniac ‘General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow’.

DONBAS & KAMIANSKE: Steelworks and coal mines.

VOLKHOV (Leningrad): Hydroelectric Power Plant dam (Волховская ГEС).

The sequences in the Donbas, Kamianske, and the Volkhov Dam were shot in 1927 during filming for ‘The Eleventh Year’ (1928), Vertov’s first film for VUFKU.

NOTE: Kharkiv is included in Dziga Vertov’s shooting notes but following extensive research into the film locations only one scene (aircraft hangar [00:13:26]) has been located in the city. Konstantin Dubin of the Kharkiv Historical Museum has watched the film carefully and confirms that he could not see any obvious Kharkiv locations. It is assumed that the rest of the footage taken in the city was not used during the editing of the film.

POSTERS

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ poster by Vladimir & Georgii Stenberg, 1929 

‘Kino-glaz’ film poster by Aleksandr Rodchenko, 1924

Julius Kupfer-Sachs 1929 poster ‘Der Mann mit der Kamera’ from the Dovzhenko Centre

FILM VERSION USED

The screenshots are from a version of the film posted on YouTube by ‘DM Amelin’ in 2018 (also referenced on the Russian Wikipedia entry for the film) but no longer available. The screenshot times are from a 2014 digitally restored HD version by the EYE Film Institute and Lobster Films from Vertov’s original print of the film left in Amsterdam after his 1931 European trip. There is an interesting account of the restoration by Mark-Paul Meyer of the Eye Film Institute on Academia.

There is also a restored print of the film available on DVD from the BFI. The poor quality of this (on my copy) and the dirge-like Michael Nyman score mean there is no comparison to the AVG/Lobster version.

A digital restoration of the film was also made by the Dovzhenko Centre in Kyiv, available from its shop. I have not seen it so cannot comment.

NOTE: ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is in the public domain in Russia according to article 1281 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006 and article 6 of Law No. 231-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 (the Implementation Act for Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

FLOPPED* SHOTS 

Several shots in the film have been flopped or ‘reversed’, particularly the famous opening sequence [00:02:22] of the giant camera where you can clearly see the back to front lettering “LE PARVO”. All of the close-up shots of lenses (eg final image of the ‘Cine-Eye’ below), except one [00:33:48], and all the cranking side close-ups of the camera, except one [00:37:56 – but this has MK cranking backwards!], are also ‘reflected’. Some of the lens shots could have been into mirrors, but I have not found out why the others were done in this way. Artistic reasons perhaps, as the reversed images are too consistent to be editing mistakes. 

All the ‘reflected’ images are of the Model L (so taken in 1928) except for the Interview ‘camera in the sea’ sequence [00:51:10].

Most of the sequence on the Carousel is ‘reversed’. Presumably for artistic reasons again, perhaps to contrast with the motorcycles going around the track in the opposite direction. You can easily tell as the crank handle should be on the left in the screenshot below, not the external viewfinder and maker’s plate!

IMG_5300 [00:55:28]

This ‘reversing’ or ‘flopping’of scenes and images has seldom been mentioned in all the various sources I have read. Graham Roberts, in ‘The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion’, p. 58, notes that one cranking view of the camera during the ‘drunk waking up’ scene at the beginning of the film is ‘flipped’ or upside down (BFI version, but not in the Lobster Films version which is based on Vertov’s own print). Professor Vlada Petrić in his detailed analysis of the film (see reference below) also comments on this topic.

In addition, the 1928 photograph of Mikhail Kaufman and his cameras, the photograph of Kaufman with the Debrie GV, and that of Dziga Vertov with the Kinamo, and others, are often reversed when published, even in scholarly publications, through a lack of knowledge of the cameras in the image.

See my blog post ‘Man with a Movie Camera: reflections’ for more information on this topic.

‘Flopped image – a static or moving image that is generated by a mirror-reversal of an original image across a vertical axis. A flipped image is across a horizontal axis.’ [WikiVisually]

ASSISTANT CAMERAMAN

As the credited ‘Chief Operator M. Kaufman’ was on the screen for much of the time there was clearly another operator behind the camera. No one else is credited in the titles for many of the wonderful sequences in the film, particularly in the mine and foundry (many of these images would stand alone as outstanding photographs), and the exhilarating ‘camera in the car’ scenes around Odesa and in the final moments of the film, which are impressive technical achievements.

Professor John MacKay in his Academia paper on the film (see essential reading) has ascertained from a study of documents in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art in Moscow that various cameramen were involved – Boris Tseitlin (‘The Eleventh Year’ scenes used in the film, except those of the Volkhov Dam taken by Konstantin Kulyaev) and Georgii Nikolaevich Khimchenko for all the new scenes shot  during 1928 [p15 of the paper]. The Central Documentary Film Studio Museum also includes Konstantin Kulyaev in the 1928 crew. In addition Dziga Vertov’s diary entry for 22nd June 1927 mentions two further members of the crew for the coal mine sequence, ‘Kagarlitsky’ and ‘Barantsevich’. The latter (described as an electrician) is included in Vertov’s list of staff in his 1923 proposal ‘On the Organisation of a Film Experiment Station’ [Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, p. 23 – see below].

Gleb Troyanski is also mentioned as a cameraman on the film in various sources, not least his IMDb biography.

DEBRIE

Research into the various models produced by Etablissements André Debrie is difficult as few catalogues were published, or have survived. I have only come across a couple of early advertisements. The company still exists as a manufacturer of cinematography equipment (no longer cameras) after several iterations (including being owned by the James Bond producer, Harry Saltzmann) as part of the French CTM Group. Unfortunately it is unable to provide any information on the history of the company or its products. Camera dates have been mostly taken from a history of Debrie published by the firm in 1964, kindly provided by Laurent Mannoni. Some of these dates conflict with generally accepted ones published elsewhere.

The Cinémathèque française cinema museum in Paris has a lot of Debrie related items, including sales and other literature, and various cameras, but only a Parvo Model T on display. The National Science & Media Museum in Bradford, UK, has an extensive collection of Debrie cameras and equipment with several Parvos (including the original 1908 version) and Septs, a GV Model F, sales literature, and handbooks. Sadly, nothing is on display (at the time of my visit in 2018). I have a 1924 Model K on a Debrie tripod, and a 1923 Debrie Sept. Information on the various models has also been gleaned from other museums, collections, auction catalogues, Ebay, and other internet sources. Although around 9,000 Parvos were made there are few original ones left as many led hard lives in film studios, updated and modified through the years. 

I am indebted to Laurent Mannoni, Directeur Scientifique du Patrimoine of the Cinémathèque française, for an invaluable dossier of the Debrie literature in the Museum’s collection. A visit to his wonderful museum is a must for film enthusiasts!

Also thanks to Kendra Bean, Emma Hogarth, and Toni Booth of the National Science & Media Museum for enabling me to inspect the Debrie cameras in its collection (all in storage), and for subsequent information. The lack of any early film related exhibits in this museum is inexplicable! 

More information on the Debrie Parvo

Fascinating contemporary film of a Parvo L being manufactured

Parvo Model L brochure

More information on the Debrie Interview

More information on the Debrie Grande Vitesse

More information on the Debrie Sept

Debrie Sept instructions

NEW ECONOMIC POLICY

After the devastating civil war of 1918 to 1922 the economy was in ruins and there was a famine and typhoid epidemic in the Lower Volga region in 1921 when millions died. For pragmatic reasons Lenin abandoned the Bolshevik programme of total nationalisation and proposed a New Economic Policy,  a form of ‘state capitalism’ that would combine state ownership of banks and large institutions with private enterprise. This was quite successful in quickly resurrecting the economy but both Rodchenko and Vertov commented adversely on the rise of the ‘NEP’ man and woman, regarded as nouveaux riches and an affront to socialist values, and there is much in Man with a Movie Camera contrasting the extravagant and superficial behaviour of these new capitalists in the hair salon, on the beach, and in the gym, with the industrious workers at their machines, or in the mine and foundry.

It is interesting to see that expensive vehicles and cameras were available in the Soviet Union at this time, only a few years after the Civil War and during a period of economic problems. I spotted a chauffeur driven English Crossley tourer (below) and a French Amilcar sports car during the street scenes, both high quality imported vehicles, not what you would expect to see in a Communist state. Vertov perhaps using these as an example of NEP extravagance. However, his brother owned, or had the use of, two expensive top of the range Indian motorcycles which seems just as bourgeois!

IMG_5345

[01:04:29]

Despite the almost constant financial crises there seems to have been no shortage of the finest European camera equipment for the Soviet films and photographers of this era, at least from the mid-20s. The cameramen of Eisenstein, Dovzhenko, Pudovkin et al. were all using Debrie Parvos, and Kaufman was filming ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ in 1928 with the most recent Parvo Model L* and the rare and expensive Debrie Grand Vitesse. Alexander Rodchenko spent a lot of money on camera equipment during his visit to Paris in 1925 as we have seen, and bought a Leica in 1928 for the equivalent of 1,600 euros. The renowned camera store of F. Iochim in Moscow and St Petersburg, that used to supply the Imperial Court with photographic equipment, continued to thrive on importing top quality cameras from Ica and other German manufacturers. The camera that Rodchenko used for his first significant photographs (of Mayakovsky) in 1924 was from Iochim.

[*From the 1931 catalogue the price of a Model L was 28.700 FF and the tripod cost 4.800FF, a total equivalent cost today of around 17,000 euros].

PHOTO CREDITS

Debrie Parvo Model L – Photographs of the camera and Frank Hurley by George Serras, courtesy of the National Museum of Australia. Many thanks to the NMA for permission to use both images.

Debrie Interview photograph with the kind permission of  Sam Dodge who has a wonderful collection of antique movie cameras on his website. Also, thanks to Sam Dodge for confirming the identity of the Interview and other useful information.

Debrie Parvo Model K photographs with the kind permission of Jake’s Cameras, Colorado, USA.

Rudolph Valentino photograph from ‘Old Hollywood in Color’ blog

J Debrie building photograph from CTM André Debrie (France).

1927 Indian Big Chief photograph with the kind permission of Yesterdays Antique Motorcycles. Also, many thanks to Geert Versleyen of YAM for help with identifying the two Indians.

1923 Indian Big Chief photographs with the kind permission of Vintage Bikes Collection, a private Polish collection of early motorcycles and cycles.

Photograph of Mikhail Kaufman with the Debrie Sept with the kind permission of the Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Centre, Kyiv. From ‘Mikhail Kaufman’s Ukrainian Dilogy’, Stanislav Bytiutskyi, 2018.

Period photographs are from multiple sources so no specific attribution can be made. Contemporary Soviet photographs are in the public domain (Russia has a seventy year copyright limit).

Illustrations from Debrie literature are from the writer’s own collection or multiple sources.

REFERENCES IN TEXT

[1] Link to both polls:  http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magazine/greatest-docs

Brian Winston, in the September 2014 issue of Sight & Sound, made this interesting claim 85 years after the film came out:  ‘..Vertov’s agenda in Man with a Movie Camera signposts nothing less than how documentary can survive the digital destruction of photographic image integrity and yet still, as Vertov wanted, “show us life”.  Vertov is, in fact, the key to documentary’s future.’

[2] Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian, 30/07/2015

[3] ‘The Film Factory, Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents 1896-1939’,  pp. 91 & 93 (see reference below).

[4] “The idea for The Man with a Movie Camera had already arisen in 1924. How did this idea take shape? Strictly speaking we needed a Kino-theory and a Kino-program in cinematic form. I suggested such an idea to Vertov but it could not be realised at that time”. ‘Interview with Mikhail Kaufman’, 1979 (see reference below). He had a major disagreement with his brother over the editing of the film and they never worked together again.

There is an argument that Vertov contradicts his theories by providing a narrative throughout the film (ie the cameraman making a film), and that the trick effects and obvious actors and staging in some scenes (the woman getting dressed in her apartment etc) conflict with his desire for film realism. However, Vertov’s approach ‘…differed with most of the other Soviet futurist and constructivist artists, who insisted on the absolute dominance of  “facts'” in art, and sought to eliminate any subjective interpretation. Vertov was less inclined to restrict his film making to such a factual approach and instead strove to achieve a balance between an authentic representation and “aesthetic” reconstruction of the external world. In doing so, he merged his “Film-Truth” principle of respecting the authenticity of each separate shot with his “Film-Eye” method, which requires a cinematic recreation of events through editing’ – Vlada Petric, ‘The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, p. 8 (see reference below).

[5] ‘The Men with the Movie Camera, The Poetics of Visual Style in Soviet Avant-Garde Cinema of the 1920s’, p. 19 (see reference below).

[6] Mikhail Kaufman studied at the VGIK film school in Moscow and became a mechanic during the Civil War. Vertov described his skills: ‘…works in motion picture and still photography; knows cars; has knowledge of electrical engineering, blacksmithing, and metalwork; given to experimentation’ (On the Organisation of a Film Experiment Station,  ‘Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, p. 23, see reference below).

Kaufman made several documentary films during the 1920s and 30s, including the critically acclaimed ‘Moscow’ in 1927 and ‘In Spring’ in 1929. His creative contribution to ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ and earlier films is being increasingly recognised. The youngest Kaufman brother, Boris, also became a renowned cinematographer, working with Jean Vigo, Sidney Lumet, and Elia Kazan, winning an Oscar for ‘On the Waterfront’ in 1954.

[7] The Kinoks (‘kino-oki’ meaning ‘cine-eyes’) were a collective of film-makers organised by Dziga Vertov in the early 1920s.

[8] The Russian camera industry began with the production of copies of traditional folding cameras in 1930 by the Fototrud Industrial Co-operative in Moscow called EFTE and ARFO. Almost exact copies of the Leica rangefinder camera were made by FED from 1932, completely ignoring the Leitz patents. Link to the fascinating story of these cameras and the Dzerzhinsky Commune. The first semi-professional Soviet cine camera (apart from Mikhail Kaufman’s!) was a 16mm prototype made by NIFKI in 1934 (thanks to Russian camera expert Aidas Piviotas for this information). The first synchronised sound camera was the KS-2 made in 1936 by Lenkinap.

[9] Apart from Rudolph Valentino (see photo) Hollywood preferred home-grown cameras from Bell & Howell or Mitchell because of their greater film capacity, turret lenses, and ease of obtaining spare parts. However, Paramount News used Debrie Parvos extensively.

[10] Some notable examples in addition to Vertov/Kaufman: Michael Curtiz, Oleksandr Dovzhenko, Carl Dreyer, Sergei Eisenstein/Eduard Tisse, Abel Gance, Joris Ivens, Fritz Lang, Marcel L’Herbier, FW Murnau, Vsevolod Pudovkin, Leni Riefenstahl, Abram Room, Paul Wegener.

[11] Eduard Tisse used a Model L to film the duelling sequence in Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky, 1938 (multiple sources).

[12] Leni Riefenstahl used Model Ls to film the Berlin Olympics in 1936.

[13] The two cameras are on display in the Third Man Museum in Vienna.

[14] ‘The Kinamo Movie Camera, Emanuel Goldberg and Joris Ivens’ – a draft paper by Michael J Buckland, University of Berkeley, California, 2008.

[15] ‘The Delirious Vision: The Vogue for the  Hand-held Camera in Soviet Cinema of the 1920s’ p. 14 (see reference below).

[16] ‘The Delirious Vision: The Vogue for the  Hand-held Camera in Soviet Cinema of the 1920s’ pp. 15 & 16 (see reference below).

[17] Silent film speeds varied slightly depending on the studio but the usual cranking rate was 16 frames per second [first set by the Lumière Brothers’ Cinématographe in 1896]. The first ‘talkies’ had a speed of 24 fps (The ‘Jazz Singer’ onwards) and synchronised sound cameras were motorised to run at this speed.

Graham Roberts, in The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion, p. [ix] notes that ‘In general Western scholars have been working on 18 fps (whilst in Moscow I watched the film at 24 fps). It has now become more common to run the film at 24 fps. The British Film Institute video and DVD print – for which the film is run at 24 fps – lasts 66 minutes, 30 seconds’. Both the Kinamo and Debrie Sept have clockwork motors set at 16 fps and the Debrie Parvo’s tachometer scale is from 0 to 24 fps with a large arrow on the 16 fps mark (below).  The maximum speed was generally used for a slow motion effect (ie filming at 24 fps and playing back at 16 fps) so cranking the camera at full speed all the time would have been difficult and unlikely. Just maintaining a regular 16 fps called for a lot of skill and stamina from the operator (from personal experience!); a one eighth turn of the handle = one frame, so two full turns per second = 16 fps. Vertov himself called this ‘the usual rate’ (though wanting it to be abolished in favour of special effects!). ‘Kino-Eye: ‘The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, p. 131 (see reference below). 

IMG_5593

[18] ‘The Delirious Vision: The Vogue for the  Hand-held Camera in Soviet Cinema of the 1920s’ pp. 12 & 13 (see reference below)

[19] According to Herbert Marshall in Masters of the Soviet Cinema: Crippled Creative Biographies – chapter on Dziga Vertov.

[20] The opening of the Soviet Pavilion. This extraordinary building, designed by Konstantin Mel’nikov, was a showcase for the avant-garde of the young USSR.

[21]  Leonid Krasin, People’s Commissar for Foreign Trade.

[22] Goskino was the State Committee for Cinematography in Moscow. In 1924 it was      succeeded by Sovkino so perhaps Rodchenko was just used to the old name. 

Correspondence (except last letter) from ‘Aleksandr Rodchenko, Experiments for the Future’, pp. 167-185. Edited and prefaced by Alexander N Lavrentiev, translated by Jamey Gambrell, introduction by John E Bowlt, The Museum of Modern Art, 2005.

Last letter from ‘Alexander Rodchenko, Revolution in Photography’, catalogue of an exhibition at the Hayward Gallery London, February to April 2008, p. 216. Author Alexander Lavrentiev, Moscow House of Photography Museum, 2008. 

ESSENTIAL LINKS AND REFERENCES ON DZIGA VERTOV AND HIS FILM

‘The man with the movie camera. Speed of vision, speed of truth?’ An essay by Marko Daniel, 2002.

‘Five wonderful effects in Man with a Movie Camera and how they’re still inspiring film-makers today’, Ben Nicholson, British Film Institute.

‘Man with a Movie Camera: the greatest documentary of all time?’ Silent London Blog

‘An interview with Mikhail Kaufman’, MIT Press, 1979 JSTOR (registration required).

‘Man with a Movie Camera: an Introduction’, John MacKay, Academia, 2013

‘Constructivism in Film, The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, Vlada Petrić, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

‘The Man with the Movie Camera, The Film Companion’, by Graham Roberts, IB Tauris, 2000 

Professor Roberts is one of the few authors who mention the equipment used on the film. However, only one camera is listed in the credits as a ‘Debrie with Zeiss lens (35mm and 70mm)’, but a ‘standard 28mm’ and ‘telephoto’ are mentioned later in the text. In the absence of an equipment list for the film the only lenses that I can be certain of are the 21cm and 15cm Krauss Zeiss ones (NOTE: focal lengths for Krauss lenses of this period are stated in centimetres with commas). Standard (5cm or 7,5cm) and wide angle (3,5cm) lenses would undoubtedly have been used but only the two Krauss telephotos are shown in the film. Lenses seem to have been matched to the camera – on my Model K the serial numbers of the three Krauss lenses (5, 3,5 and 7,5cm) that came with the camera are engraved on the distance bar. There are also serial numbers for 10,5cm and 15cm lenses, unfortunately missing from the set. Debrie chose to show these focal lengths on the bar in millimetres for some reason. The telephotos seem to have been Kaufman’s favoured lenses which is why the cinematography is so unusual for the period. Wide angle lenses are seldom used.

‘Man with a Movie Camera (SU 1929): under the Lens of Cinemetrics’, a discussion by A. Heftberger (Wien), Y. Tsivian (Chicago) and M. Lepore (Torino).

‘The Movie Cameras in Man with a Movie Camera’, by Richard Bossons, 2018 (privately published, contact author: richardbossons@icloud.com).

’Dziga Vertov: Life and Work (Volume 1: 1896-1921), by John MacKay, Academic Studies Press, 2018. The definitive biography.

‘Dziga Vertov, a guide to references and resources’, Seth Feldman, GK Hall, 1979.

‘Dziga Vertov: Defining Documentary Film’, by Jeremy Hicks, KINO: The Russian Cinema series, IB Tauris, 2007 (ch. 4 is on Man with a Movie Camera).

‘Lines of Resistance: Dziga Vertov and the Twenties’, edited by Yuri Tsivian, translations by Julian Graffy, research by Aleksandr Deriabin, Le Giornate del Cinema Muto, Italy, 2004. The definitive compilation of writings by and about Dziga Vertov.

‘Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, by Annette Michelson and Kevin O’Brien, Pluto Press, 1984.

‘Dziga Vertov: The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, by Thomas Tode and Barbara Wurm, SYNEMA, 2006.

‘False Cinema: Dziga Vertov and early Soviet film’, Jeremy Murray-Brown, an article published in November 1989 in The New Criterion magazine (Volume 8, Number 3). Current commentary on Dziga Vertov is generally uncritical, but this article written on the eve of the Soviet Union’s demise compares him to Nazi propagandists.

Russia’s People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present’, edited by Stephen M. Norris, Willard Sunderland, chapter on Dziga Vertov by John MacKay, Indiana University Press, 2012.

‘The most important of the arts’: film after the Russian Revolution,  John Green, 26/6/2017 Culture Matters.

‘The delirious vision: the vogue for the hand-held camera in Soviet cinema of the 1920s’
Dr Phil Cavendish, Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5-24. An invaluable study of a neglected aspect of early Soviet film-making – the cameras that were used to make the films!

‘The Men with the Movie Camera, The Poetics of Visual Style in Soviet Avant-Garde Cinema of the 1920s’, by Philip Cavendish, Berghahn Books, 2013.

‘The Hand that Turns the Handle: Camera Operators and the Poetics of the Camera in Pre-Revolutionary Russian Film’, Philip Cavendish, The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol 82 #2, April 2004.

‘The Film Factory, Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents 1896-1939’, by Richard Taylor and Ian Christie, Harvard University Press, 1988.

‘Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, 1918-1935’, Denise J Youngblood, University of Texas Press, 1991.

THE MUSIC FOR THE FILM

Silent films were meant to be accompanied by music, often live as shown in the opening sequence in the film. The Shantser Cinema in Kyiv, where the scenes were filmed, had a 60 piece orchestra in the early 1900s. My Grandfather used to accompany silent films (including Westerns) in the local cinema on a more modest scale with his ‘cello in a string quartet! Dziga Vertov left notes to indicate the type of music he thought would suit the film but sadly his directions seem to have been ignored with one notable exception.

Still the best accompaniment for the film by far is the Alloy Orchestra’s wonderfully percussive and exciting score of 1995 composed for the Pordenone Silent Film Festival, exactly the sort of ‘Constructivist’ music you could imagine being composed at the time, full of driving jazzy rhythms, metallic and other sound effects. The group, who specialise in silent movie music, made a careful study of Vertov’s notes (Vertov archive, Moscow) to his composer (Konstantin Listov) for the Moscow premiere of the film in 1929, and it shows. The last few minutes of the film are a thrilling, mesmeric, combination of music, noise, and action, and the music carefully follows what is shown on screen unlike many of the other soundtrack attempts. The discovery of these notes was a major achievement in film scholarship, first written about by Professor Yuri Tsivian. Dennis James’ Filmharmonia and the Alloy Orchestra, were among a small handful of musicians to perform realizations of this intended score worldwide when the notes were uncovered in the mid-1990’s. Professor Tsivian kindly sent me a copy of these notes which cover 8 pages of precise instructions for each part of the film, detailed to the nearest second. Interestingly the overall running time of the film is shown as 01:04:32, considerably shorter than the prints available now, but the length obviously depends on the running speed.

A digitally restored version of the film (2014) with this soundtrack (and the correct screen ratio) has been made by the EYE Film Institute (Amsterdam) and Lobster Films (Paris) from Vertov’s own print. This was left by him in Amsterdam in 1931 after travelling around Europe for the second time to promote his films. The clarity and quality of the images are a revelation after seeing so many poor examples and at last do full justice to the outstanding cinematography. 

So many scores do not reflect the activity on the screen, maintaining a similar tempo throughout. Michael Nyman’s 2002 version is a popular one (BFI) but the rhythm of the music is much the same whatever is happening on screen (e.g. it just carries on regardless during the dramatic pause in the action after the car and carriage sequence [00:23:02]), and bizarrely includes choral singing which creates completely the wrong atmosphere in my opinion. Michael Nyman is apparently composing an opera about Dziga Vertov according to a recent radio discussion. 

The same criticisms apply to the Cinematic Orchestra’s 2003 version which has a consistent jazzy ‘mood music’ rhythm, sometimes at odds with the action on screen. ‘In the Nursery’ has composed a more imaginative score but, along with most of the others, it fails to match the editing tempo of the film. 

Wikipedia lists no less than 21 different soundtrack versions from 1983 to 2014!

The most recent score (2019) is by the innovative group The Cabinet of Living Cinema, written to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the film.

The only other score that I think Dziga Vertov would have appreciated was not actually made for the film but for the project (2017) by the artist Perry Bard called ‘Man with a Movie Camera: The Global Remake’This imaginative project called on people around the world to upload video shots to ‘remake’ the film. The uploads play in sync with the original. The result is a delight, and the score brings to mind Vertov’s first sound film, ‘Enthusiasm: The Symphony of Donbas’ (1931).

John Mackay, in his definitive biography of Dziga Vertov (see essential reading) has more detailed notes on the scores (p xxx, note 45).

IMG_5375

[01:07:44] The closing iris of the ‘Cine-Eye’ ends the film. Mikhail Kaufman invented this symbolic device of the Kinoks using his colleague Boris Kudinov’s eye for the original photograph [source: ‘Mikhail Kaufman, Ukrainian Dilogy’ by Stanislav Bytiutskyi, Oleksandr Dovzhenko Centre, 2018].

КОНЕЦ

End of a ‘work in progress’. More information and corrections as research continues!

I can be contacted on opinionated.designer@gmail.com

FOR AN UPDATED VERSION OF THIS POST PLEASE GO TO: richardbossons.academia.edu/research 

ALL ORIGINAL CONTENT COPYRIGHT © Richard Bossons 2018

Posted in Cameras, Cinema, Photography, silent film, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA: the movie cameras

The movie cameras in Man with a Movie Camera

images-w1400

Dziga Vertov’s 1929 masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is a staple of film studies courses and has been analysed and written about countless times. What has had no attention, surprisingly, is the actual equipment used on and in the film. Surprisingly, because it is the only film where the camera plays such a central role (even ‘coming to life’ towards the end), and ‘the mechanical eye’ was a vital part of Vertov’s theories. In most of the analyses of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ there is little or no discussion of the cameras, or they are mentioned inaccurately. This post looks at the film from the Movie Camera’s point of view.

THE FILM AND ITS AUTHOR

‘Man with a Movie Camera’ [Человек с кино аппаратом, Chelovek s kino apparatom], along with Eisenstein’s ‘Battleship Potemkin’, must be the most influential of all Soviet films. It was voted one of the ten best films in cinematic history by ‘Sight & Sound’ readers, and the best documentary ever made [1]. The latter accolade is rather misleading as the film is not a documentary in the conventional sense. Vertov describes it as an ‘Excerpt from a Camera Operator’s Diary’ in the opening titles, but warns the audience:

“Attention Viewers!
This film is an experiment in the cinematic communication of real events
Without the help of intertitles
Without the help of a story
Without the help of theatre
This experimental work aims at creating a truly international language of cinema based on its absolute separation from the language of theatre and literature”

Rather than ‘Director’ Vertov describes himself as the ‘Author-Supervisor of the Experiment’. On the face of it the ‘story-line’ is of a man with a movie camera wandering about an unnamed city (mostly a mixture of Odessa, Kiev, and Moscow – see Notes)  filming its activities during the day. There are images of trams, trains, traffic, people working and playing, birth, death, marriage and divorce, an ambulance and fire engine, factory machinery and crowds at the beach. But the film is unlike any other ‘City Symphony’ in the 1920s such as Paul Strand’s on New York, and Walter Ruttmann’s on Berlin, and this dry description “…doesn’t do justice to its dedication to transforming and upending reality. This film is visibly excited about the new medium’s possibility, dense with ideas, packed with energy: it echoes Un Chien Andalou, anticipates Vigo’s À Propos De Nice and the New Wave generally, and even Riefenstahl’s Olympia. There are trick-shots, split-screens, stop-motion animation, slo-mo and speeded up action. Welles never had as much fun with his train-set as Vertov had with his movie camera.” [2]. It is also a film about film-making, shots of the city and the ‘Man’ (Vertov’s brother, and cinematographer, Mikhail Kaufman) are interspersed with images of the film being edited by Vertov’s wife, Elizaveta Svilova. There are occasional views of the audience in a cinema reacting to events on the screen, watching the very film that they are appearing in!

Dziga Vertov aka David KaufmanDziga Vertov (a pseudonym meaning ‘spinning top’, his real name was David Kaufman) became a film-maker in 1918 after two years experimenting with sound in what he called the ‘Laboratory of Hearing’. During the Civil War he organised film shows and film-making on the ‘agit-trains’ spreading propaganda through the areas captured by the Red Army, and then worked on a series of short documentary films he titled ‘Kino-pravda’ (Film-truth) during the early 1920s. During this period Vertov developed his experimental film techniques and his theories about cinema as the art form best suited for the masses. He derided film drama as ‘… the opium of the people…Down with the bourgeois fairy-tale script! Long live life as it is!”.

Vertov believed that the camera, more than the human eye, is best used to explore real life, as being a mechanical device it would record the world as it really was without bias or aesthetic considerations. This theory he called ‘Kino-glaz’, or Cine-Eye:

“The Cine-Eye lives and moves in time and space, it perceives and fixes its impressions in a completely different way from that of the human eye…We cannot make our eyes any better than they have been made but we can go on perfecting the camera forever.”

“I am the Cine-Eye. I am the mechanical eye.

I the machine show you the world as only I can see it.

I emancipate myself henceforth and forever from human immobility. I am in constant motion. I approach objects and move away from them. I creep up to them. I clamber over them, I move alongside the muzzle of a running horse, I tear into a crowd at full tilt, I flee before fleeing soldiers, I turn over on my back, I rise up with aeroplanes, I fall and rise with falling and rising bodies…

…Freed from any obligation to 16-17 frames a second, freed from the restraints of time and space, I juxtapose any points in the universe regardless of where I fixed them.

My path leads towards the creation of a fresh perception of the world. I can thus decipher a world that you do not know.”

– Dziga Vertov: The Cine-Eyes. A Revolution, published in LEF #3, 1923 [3]

IMG_3627

He adopted these principles in several films following this manifesto including ‘Kino-glaz’ in 1924 (above), and ‘A Sixth Part of of the World’ in 1926, but ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is the apotheosis of his theories [4]. It had a mixed reception on its release, criticised as too ‘formalistic’ (elitist) with Sergei Eisenstein deriding it as “pointless camera hooliganism”, and many audiences and critics were baffled by its breakneck editing and special effects. It is now regarded as a masterpiece of world cinema, influencing directors from Godard to Christopher Nolan.

This is only a brief introduction to the film and Dziga Vertov. For an in-depth analysis read John MacKay’s essay ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, Academia, 2013.

For a frame-by-frame dissection read ‘Constructivism in Film, The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, Vlada Petrić, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

For other references see Notes at the end of the post.

 

THE CAMERAS IN ‘MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA’

Man with a Movie Camera ‘….is an experimental documentary in which a cameraman (Kaufman) and a moving-picture camera (the French-made Debrie Parvo ‘L’) become a single entity, an ubiquitous, omniscient and quasi God-like eye capable of recording a new kind of social and political reality. Not only is this mechanical eye able to perceive things that the human eye cannot, but the camera itself has become a ‘Constructivist’ object in its own right, a sleek blend of silver, metal design and utilitarian, ideological purpose.’ [5]. 

Dziga Vertov and his friend and collaborator the Constructivist artist and photographer Alexander Rodchenko shared an interest in cameras. The latter spent over 6,000 francs (around 3,000 euros today) on photographic equipment during his trip to Paris in 1925, including a camera for Vertov (a Debrie Sept). The choice of cameras for a film about a cameraman would have been carefully considered by the ‘Author-Supervisor’ and his brother. Particularly the latter as Mikhail Kaufman was a mechanical and electrical engineer with an expert knowledge of the cine camera, as well as a director making innovative films in his own right [6]. In an article in the November 1926 edition of the journal Kino it was announced that “At the last Kinok [7] meeting, cameraman and Kinok member M. Kaufman held a lecture about the first Soviet film camera with a motor drive designed along entirely new lines, which he constructed together with film technician Userdov. The camera can be used for single frame animation, normal and slow motion shooting. The design of the camera is so simple that it presents no obstacles to the commencement of mass production. The camera is equipped with technically superior shooting devices, and will be distinguished by its comparative light weight. The first Soviet film camera will carry the name of Kinoglaz.” This sounds like an advanced camera for the time, particularly as the Soviet camera industry only began in earnest in the early 1930s [8]. There is no evidence that it ever went into production, or was used in the making of  ‘Man with a Movie Camera’.

MwaMC cameras with MK (right way round)

Mikhail Kaufman looking pleased to be surrounded by (some of) the equipment used on the film in 1928. On the left is a rare Debrie GV Model F on a Debrie tripod, an Ica or Zeiss Ikon Kinamo being held above a Debrie Parvo Model L (with the 21cm Krauss Zeiss telephoto lens seen in the film) , and a Debrie Interview (wooden body panels) on the right. The latter two are supported by a makeshift mount and clamp on another Debrie tripod. Missing is the Parvo Model K (used on ‘The Eleventh Year’), and possibly a Debrie Sept. This photograph is usually shown the wrong way round.

The most prominent camera used by Kaufman in the film is the Parvo Model L, made by André Debrie in Paris, introduced in 1926. An obvious choice as it was the most sophisticated and advanced movie camera of its day, widely used by European [9] film-makers including Sergei Eisenstein, Abel Gance, Fritz Lang, Joris Ivens, and many others. Importantly, apart from being technically superior to its contemporaries, it is very photogenic, a simple silver and black metal box on a beautifully designed wood and aluminium tripod. The classic all black Mitchell or Bell & Howell movie cameras with their protruding ‘Mickey Mouse ears’ film magazines and ugly tripods would not have looked as good on screen, and would have been awkward to carry around.  The Debrie cameras are compact and (relatively) light enough to be carried by Kaufman up a chimney, into the back of cars, on a motorcycle, across a bridge, along a beach, down a mine, in a foundry, and in many of the other challenging locations demanded by his brother. 

As it is so prominent in many of the well known scenes many commentators assume that the Parvo Model L is the only camera that appears with Kaufman in the film, but in fact there were four. A total of 5 or 6 cameras were involved in the making of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, perhaps more, as follows:

DEBRIE ‘PARVO’ MODEL L 35MM HAND-CRANKED CINE CAMERA (1926)

000. MODEL L

000a MODEL L

The Model L was the latest in a series of Parvo cine cameras going back to the early 1900s. Joseph Debrie founded his company in Paris in 1898 to make film perforating machines for the rapidly developing cinematography industry.  This had been born in the city in 1895 when the Lumière brothers held the first public screening of a motion picture. With the help of his 17 year old son André he designed the first ‘Parvo’ in 1908 at the request of the English partner of a Parisian film distribution company, Charles Raleigh, who wanted a compact, lightweight, but tough 35mm cine camera for African film expeditions. The new camera design was based around a strong engine turned aluminium frame which supports the hand cranked mechanism (for picture see section on Model K). The separate, simple box-like casing is made of thin varnished mahogany faced plywood panels. Rather than external film containers, the magazines are mounted within the casing on each side of the frame which makes the camera very compact. The film comes out of one magazine and is looped around the film gate to return into the other one (see lh illustration on the Model L catalogue pages below). This arrangement also allows direct viewing through the lens between the magazines, for focusing before the film is fed through the gate. There is also a side mounted ‘Newton’ type viewfinder (negative power plano-concave lens) for use during filming. Debrie named the new camera ‘Parvo’, Latin for ‘small’. And indeed it is, the body measuring 242 x 175 x 147mm, and weighing only 6.5kg (actual measurements of National Science & Media Museum 1908 camera).

debrie1898-1                         Debrie Offices and Factory, Rue Saint-Maur, Paris, early 1900s

In 1919 André Debrie took over the company after his father’s death which by that time had expanded into manufacturing all types of cinematography equipment including darkroom, editing and printing apparatus, film projectors and devices for special effects. From 1920 the Parvo outer casing was made of aluminium (though some wooden bodies were still produced as ‘Tropical’ versions), occasionally painted black or grey, but mostly left in its natural finish. The shutter was also fitted with an ingenious auto-dissolve mechanism in 1921. The camera had been slightly larger since the 1913 Model A, still very compact for a professional 35mm cine camera at 270 x 200 x 150mm, with a film capacity of 120 metres (390 ft). However, the weight had increased considerably to 10.1 kg (including 7,5cm lens) due to the all metal construction and additional components. The Parvo became the most widely used cine camera for silent films in the 1920s particularly in Europe, and most notably in Russia. The renowned Berlin photographic dealer Schatzow proclaimed that it was the ‘Sole Representative for Germany and Russia’ on the maker’s plate and so the firm would have sold the cameras for some of the greatest films ever made!

1924 PARVO MODEL K (2)a

The 3,000th camera left the Rue Saint-Maur in 1924, and over 9,000 Parvos were eventually manufactured. Virtually all the great directors [10] outside the USA used the camera as well as Dziga Vertov, particularly Sergei Eisenstein and Abel Gance (see section on the Model K). The Australian Antarctic explorer and photographer Frank Hurley owned a Parvo Model L which he described as “a glorious piece of mechanism, and ideal for my work”. The bottom illustration above is of Hurley’s camera, still in good condition after its Antarctic and wartime adventures. A series of minor improvements throughout the 1920s were signified by the ever changing letter codes of E,* G, H, * JK, K, KL, until the L was designed in 1926. There was also a simpler ‘amateur’ range called the ‘Interview’, introduced in 1924, which ran concurrently with the professional cameras. Some of the models had a long life as the Model E (the basic Parvo) and Model K were still shown in the 1931 catalogue that mainly featured the Model L. There was also a Model LS in the catalogue, identical to the L but with the body made of ebonite (a hardened rubber material) to deaden the sound of the mechanism for ‘talking pictures’.  

*I have not yet come across a Model ‘F’ ‘I’ or ‘J’

IMG_5496

The Model “L” PARVO, “Parvo” model L, or “Parvo Debrie” model L (as it was inconsistently called in the handbooks and sales catalogues) had significant advantages over the previous versions with, amongst other additional features, an ingenious way of allowing focusing through the lens on to ground glass when a film was loaded (above), and a quicker method of changing lenses (see notes on Krauss Zeiss lens). As with the Model K an electric motor drive could easily be attached (though many camera operators still preferred the hand crank at this time). The magazine capacity remained at 120 metres (390 ft), giving six minutes of exposed film at the standard silent film hand-cranked speed of 16 frames/second. Debrie had already introduced a special tripod for the Parvo, incorporating geared pan and tilt mechanisms. Beautifully made in aluminium and beech, it also has a prominent role in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, whether being carried on Kaufman’s shoulder or performing acrobatics with the camera in a stop-motion sequence. The tripod and camera (as a mechanical eye) are graphically rendered in another superb Stenberg brothers’  poster for the film.

IMG_4697

The Model L was made for several years, becoming Debrie’s most popular camera, until the advent of sound films in the early 1930s when it was superseded by the larger (300m) capacity Super Parvo with a built-in motor drive and sound-proofing (an intermediate Model T was available in 1931 which was effectively a Model L adapted for the larger film magazines). However, because it was still one of the most compact and reliable cameras, significant film-makers such as Leni Riefenstahl [11] and Eduard Tisse (Eisenstein’s cinematographer) [12] were still using motorised Model Ls throughout the 1930s. Carol Reed used a Model L and Model K for shooting some of the scenes of his 1949 film ‘The Third Man’ [13]. Agnès Varda also used a motorised Model L (due to budgetary reasons, presumably) for her first film La Pointe Courte (1955). The thirty-year-old design was still capable of producing the beautiful cinematography of this ground-breaking film.

A selection of scenes with the Parvo Model L

[Note: figures in brackets show in hours, minutes & seconds approximately when the scene appears in the Lobster Films version of the film – see Notes. The scene can extend before and after the time shown which is just meant as a guide to locate it. Some brief shots of the camera lens and hand-cranking action have not been included. The approximate times would apply to most versions of the film].

IMG_5101

[00:02:23] Opening sequence (reversed image) – the ‘miniature’ camera on top is also the Parvo Model L (reversed as well)

IMG_5178

[00:22:25] The car and carriage sequence around Odessa

IMG_5186

[00:26:27] The camera over the City sequence (Kiev)

IMG_5296

[00:55:11] Motorcycle around the track sequence

IMG_5334

[01:01:26] The camera and tripod animation sequence

Other scenes with the Parvo Model L

[00:10:05] On the railway tracks (the camera isn’t very clear, and this is part of the ‘Interview’ sequence but it looks like an aluminium body – could also be Model K)

[00:11:11] Lens changing sequence (mirrored image)

[00:11:23] [00:11:27] [00:11:31] Cranking sequences (mirrored image) 

[00:11:34] & [00:11:46] Lens (mirrored image)

[00:12:39] & [00:12:42] 15cm lens (mirrored image)

[00:12:59] & [00:13:04] 15cm lens with iris (mirrored image)

[00:13:58] Bridge/trams sequence 

[00:16:10] Taking out camera from case at top of chimney  (unclear, could be Model K)

[00:17:30] Carts over camera sequence (unclear, could be Model K)

[00:19:57] Reflection of camera panning in window (unclear, could be Model K)

[00:20:47] Filming from side step of train sequence

[00:21:19 on] Car and carriage sequence around Odessa

[00:33:56] Traffic policeman at intersection sequence

[00:34:58]  Cranking camera (mirrored image)

[00:35:03] Filming into mirrored shopfront (Specialist Shoe Shine, Paris)

[00:37:57] Cranking camera in reverse (non-mirrored image)

[00:38:03] Cranking camera in reverse (mirrored image)

[00:42:59] Model L appears in traffic intersection sequence with Kinamo

[00:43:10] Model L on its own at the traffic signal with spreadeagled tripod

[00:54:18 on] Camera on a motorcycle around the track sequence

[00:54:29] Close up of camera on motorcycle handlebars in a special cradle (not in Lobster Films version; timing from Wikimedia Michael Nyman version) 

[00:55:28] On the carousel sequence (partly shown ‘mirrored’ – see Notes)

[01:00:38 on] Animated tripod and camera sequence

[01:03:30] Second camera on a motorcycle sequence

[01:05:33 on] Camera in the back of a speeding car through Odessa sequence

 

E. KRAUSS TESSAR ZEISS 21cm f4,5 TELEPHOTO LENS #156458

This lens appears regularly in the film with the Model L, usually in reflection. Presumably for aesthetic reasons as a telephoto lens would not have been used for most of the filming. Krauss was a Paris based optical manufacturer founded in the late 1880s that made Zeiss lenses under licence. The Tessar (from the Greek Tessares = four) was designed by Paul Rudolph of Carl Zeiss in 1902, and is the most successful lens configuration of all, licensed to many manufacturers. 116 years on the name is still used for Zeiss’ four element mobile phone camera lenses. The Tessar design consists of four lens elements in two groups, the front pair separated by an air space and the rear pair cemented together as a ‘doublet’.

IMG_5431

IMG_5435

    [00:33:48] The only non-reversed image of the lens

IMG_5186 - Copy

A 15cm version of the lens appears briefly at the ‘out-of-focus flowers’ sequence [00:12:40] & [00:12:44] and shortly afterwards at the end of Part 1 [00:12:59] and the beginning of Part 2 [00:13:04] using a closing and opening iris to show this changeover symbolically. Debrie made a 90mm iris to fit in front of the lens, and a 140mm iris for the accessory carrier on the tripod, but these images may be a double exposure. The image of the lens is reversed. This lens does not appear anywhere else in the film. The outer rim with the protruding lugs is for attaching accessories such as a lens hood and filter holder.

IMG_5491

A new interchangeable lens mount was designed for the Model L to allow for very fast lens changes, ‘in one second as a maximum’ boasted the handbook. There was a large choice of lenses for this mount from a variety of manufacturers including Taylor Hobson, Zeiss, and Bausch & Lomb. The lenses below are all fitted into the Le Parvo mount (in the centre of the handbook illustration below).

IMG_4043

IMG_5429

Quoting from the instructions:

‘Attachment of lenses on “Parvo” Model L with new style mount

The following explanations, which are rather lengthy and require a great deal of attention, permit of attaching or removing a lens in one second as a maximum.

….Take the desired lens; turn sunshade (I) from left to right and push it on its mount as far as it will go. In this way focusing flange (J) will face ball (K) on apparatus. Set this lens of the camera in such a way that button (L) of lens sunshade will engage notch (E) of camera at the same time that the three notches (M) on lens will engage the 3 lugs on camera. Hold the lens completely in and push tightening lever (C) to the left. The lens will then be attached…’

The operation is indeed a lot quicker and simpler than the instructions would suggest as can be seen in the film [00:11:11] when Mikhail Kaufman swaps lenses just before swinging the camera around for a profile view.

 

DEBRIE ‘INTERVIEW’ TYPE ‘a’ 35MM HAND-CRANKED CINE CAMERA (1924)

IMG_4631

Harking back to the basic design of the first Parvo, intended for the ‘Amateur and Reporter’ according to the brochure, the wood-bodied Interview is essentially the same as the aluminium models but without the auto-dissolve mechanism. It was lighter at 8.4kg, which is probably a good reason why it features in most of the scenes where the camera and tripod are being carried around by Mikhail Kaufman. It was also the least valuable Debrie of the three seen in the film, and the wood absorbs knocks better than aluminium! In any case, the more advanced ‘L’, ‘K’, and ‘GV’ would have been the preferred cameras for filming. Various iterations of the basic type ‘a’ Interview added accessory mounts, bayonet lens mount, reverse cranking, the Parvo tachometer, up to type ‘f’ which added motor drive and the facility to use it with a shoulder harness mount instead of a tripod.

A selection of scenes with the Interview

IMG_5105

[00:02:37] Opening sequence

IMG_5151

[00:18:17] Through the market crowd sequence

IMG_5195

[00:31:44] Following the ambulance sequence

IMG_5258

[00:42:47] Machinery and camera sequence

IMG_5275

[00:50:51] On the beach sequence

IMG_5306

[00:56:24] The beer glass sequence

Other scenes with the Interview

[00:09:05] Through the glass doors to the waiting car sequence

[00:09:24] Under the bridge sequence

[00:09:49] Across the railway line

[00:10:05] On the railway tracks (the camera isn’t very clear, and although this is part of the ‘Interview’ sequence it might be an aluminium body – Model L or K?)

[00:10:43] Back across the railway line (camera being removed from tripod)

[00:15:06] Through the street sequence (The ‘Awakening Woman’ poster)

[00:25:38] Walking along the street

[00:29:15] Filming balconies sequence

[00:30:30] In the lift lobby 

[00:31:32] Climbing into the back of the car

[00:33:25] On the fire engine

[00:43:12] Between the trams sequence

[00:50:15] Coming off the ship down the steps

[00:51:11] Lying in the sea sequence (mirrored)

[00:56:03] The camera looks over the city

[00: 58:30] Coming out of the drinks shop

[00:58:39] Going into the Workers Club

[01:04:56] Two cameras above the crowd

[01:07:37] Carrying camera and tripod (last camera image in the film)

 

DEBRIE ‘PARVO’ MODEL K 35MM HAND-CRANKED CINE CAMERA (1924)

000c MODEL K

00. MODEL K

1924 PARVO MODEL K (13)

Dials and controls from top: crank handle turn counter, metres of film counter, direct viewfinder through lens (with optional red filter), opening for electric motor attachment with dark slide, tachometer showing frames per second speed while cranking (0 to 24 fps, arrow on 16 fps), threaded lug for motor (bottom rhs). The top loop toggle is for marking the negative (when you pull it a small hole is cut into the film); the bottom one is for disengaging the crank handle and changing gear to one frame per turn (rather than eight).

1924 PARVO MODEL K (4)a

 

The front and side panels open up to allow full access. Note the beautiful engine-turned finish on the frame (the screws are ‘blued’ like a fine watch). A film magazine is in place on the opposite side.

The penultimate version before the Model L (there was a Model KL), this was the most popular Parvo in the mid Twenties. Abel Gance used a number of Ks and JKs to film his 1927 epic Napoleon, and Debrie collaborated with him on the extraordinary ‘Polyvision’ split screen panoramic sequences in the final reel of the film. A special rig was made to mount three Parvos with synchronized motors on top of one another, facing in different directions to achieve the effect.

NAPOLEON CREW

‘Napoleon’ Film Crew with Model Ks on Debrie tripods 

Rudolph Valentino, an enthusiastic photographer, also owned a 1924 Model K. This camera was in the auction of his property following his early death in 1926 at a guide price of $850, more than $11,500 today!

Rudolph Valentino 1924

 

A selection of scenes with the Parvo Model K*

IMG_5149

[00:17:44] Across the moving gantry

IMG_5223

[00:38:27] In the mine sequence

IMG_5231

[00:40:08] In the foundry sequence

IMG_5239

[00:40:50] The Volkhov dam sequence

IMG_5247

[00:41:21] Over the Volkhov dam sequence (note modified tripod head)

Other scenes with the Parvo Model K*

[00:10:05] On the railway tracks (the camera isn’t very clear, and this is part of the ‘Interview’ sequence, but it looks like an aluminium body – could also be Model L)

[00:16:10] Taking out the camera from its case at the top of the chimney  

[00:17:30] Carts over the cameraman sequence 

[00:19:57] Reflection of camera panning in window (unclear, could be Model L)

*The sequences with the Model K were taken during the filming of ‘The Eleventh Year” in 1927

 

DEBRIE TRIPOD MODEL ‘C’ (1920s)

An aluminium and beech tripod was available with the wood-bodied Parvo Model A but it seems that the version of the tripod (with an improved head design) that appears in the film was introduced around 1920 with the first aluminium bodied Parvo (I have not been able to find any catalogues for this period). It is the most beautiful and finely engineered design, the cast aluminium head assembly alone weighing over 9kg (total weight is 12.6kg). This contains the (high) geared pan and tilt mechanism controlled with removable handles. These are very evident during the car and carriage sequence [00:22:26 on] with Mikhail Kaufman rapidly adjusting the pan and tilt standing precariously on the edge of the car body. Tiny spirit levels on the side and rear ensure exact levelling when required. There is a large knurled knob on the side to lock the tilt with a finely engraved dial showing degrees of tilt; panning is locked into gear with a brass switch at the rear, otherwise the head swings freely. Every movement of this example is precise and accurate, even after 95 years.  A nicely made leather and canvas case with a shoulder strap protects the tripod when stored or carried on its own.

1924 PARVO MODEL K (1)A

1924 PARVO MODEL K (15)

The two holes in the front of the head are for the accessory support rods (fully utilised in this photograph of Sergei Eisenstein).

MODEL L WITH EISENSTEIN (2) - Copy

Mikhail Kaufman’s engineering skill is evident in the adapted head on the tripod when filming the Volkhov Dam sequence (more than likely he made it as it is not a Debrie tripod accessory). It only appears here and might have been fitted to allow for a steeper tilt filming down from the aerial platform (note: the dam, near Leningrad, was also filmed for Vertov’s 1928 film The Eleventh Year).

IMG_5246A

The sturdy legs comprise three sections of 32mm varnished beech bound with brass strips. The central section pulls out to increase the height and is locked at the bottom with screw clamps on the lower two brass bindings. There is a double metal spike for grip at the end. 

IMG_5434

The legs are removable, fixed with a 9mm diameter steel rod retained with a loose T-bar clamping nut. An adjustable ‘spider’ was provided to restrain the spread of the legs (see above), but I have not noticed this being used in the film.  There is a leather handle for carrying the tripod (visible in the screenshot below) but with the camera attached it is rather unbalanced and Kaufman’s familiar over the shoulder method of transport is the best way. The metal bodied cameras and tripod together weigh nearly 23kg, the wood bodied camera and tripod not much less at 21kg, and he must have endured much to carry them up and across bridges, down a mine, in a foundry, through crowds and streets, and along the beach!

IMG_5326

[01:00:38] The tripod appears in a solo role at the beginning of the animation sequence 

 

THE INDIAN MOTORCYCLE

MK on Indian - Copy

Mikhail Kaufman on the 1927 Indian Big Chief 74 ci (1206 cc) V-twin motorcycle used in the race track scenes, with a professional looking custom-made cradle supporting the Model L camera fixed to the wide handlebars (made by MK?). How effective this would have been for filming over the obviously bumpy track is debatable (you can see it shaking in the film). Significantly there are no sequences taken by this motorcycle mounted camera in the film, so it was really just a demonstration of speed and technology.

IMG_5337

[01:03:30]

IMG_5296

[00:55:12]

The photograph below shows him astride a 1923 Big Chief with an earlier attempt at filming from a motorcycle. Unlike the one in the film this is fitted with a very crude camera support that looks like a piece of rough timber with a G-clamp! This would have undoubtedly fallen off at the first bump, and doesn’t look like the work of an expert engineer like Kaufman. The camera is a Parvo Model JK, which was not used in Man with a Movie Camera (there is no evidence for this and no reference to any film attached to the image). The circular fitting on the tank is a klaxon (see colour photographs below).

Mikhail Kaufman on board Indian Vee twin with Parvo JK

The Big Chief, made in the USA from 1923-1928 by the Indian Motocycle Company (no ‘r’), was one of the most powerful and glamorous motorcycles of this era. With the latest model of cine camera mounted on the handlebars the ensemble would have been very impressive to a 1920s Soviet audience. Whether or not the ‘bike was Kaufman’s it was the only suitable choice. Having a ten kilo weight balanced on top of the handlebars of most motorcycles wouldn’t have done much for the steering, particularly while cranking the camera! The Big Chief, like all Indians, has very wide bars and is a big heavy machine making handling with a weight up front a lot easier. Another advantage is that these Indians have unique (for the period) twist grip controls with cables routed through the handlebars and, unlike the majority of motorcycles of this era, the throttle is on the left side meaning MK could crank the camera with his right hand while safely controlling the speed and steering. This would have been more difficult with the usual lever controls on the right handlebar. Kaufman could clearly manage this big beast of 1920s motorcycles with one hand so I suspect it was his. It seems to have been his second Big Chief, an expensive motorcycle in the Soviet Union – an enthusiastic technophile, he was a pilot as well (there are aerial sequences in his 1929 film ‘Spring’).

IMG_6042.PNG

[00:54:29 Wikimedia version] Close up of custom-made camera mounting cradle

IMG_5680

1927 Indian Big Chief (like the one used in the film)

img_1

1923 Indian Big Chief (note different front suspension)

img_15

Twist-grip throttle on left handlebar and klaxon on the top tube. 

From a vintage motorcycle enthusiast’s point of view the ‘race’ is interesting with a variety of early and pre-1920s single cylinder touring machines taking part, but no contemporary racing ‘bikes to match the speed of Kaufman’s 90 mph Indian V-twin!

img

Julius Kupfer-Sachs’ 1929 poster for the film featuring an image of a stylised motorcycle and camera speeding through an ‘Expressionist’ city (Austrian Film Museum)

 

ICA OR ZEISS IKON ‘KINAMO’ 35MM CLOCKWORK CINE CAMERA (1923-1925, 1926-1933)

IMG_5943

IMG_5945

Originally designed for Ica (Internationale Camera AG) in Dresden by the scientist and inventor Emanuel Goldberg [14] the clockwork version of the Kinamo was introduced in 1923, the same year as Bell and Howell’s iconic 16mm Filmo 70. Both cameras were meeting the growing need for precision made compact automatic cine cameras for the amateur market. The hand-cranked Kinamo (from Greek Kine and Latin Amo = I love film) was launched two years earlier but the new model soon became very popular with professional film-makers as a hand-held 35mm cine camera. In particular, Joris Ivens, the Dutch documentary film-maker (below, with the camera), made a number of experimental films using his Kinamo in the 1920s and 30s (eg ‘The Bridge’ 1928, ‘Rain’ 1929, ‘Borinage’ 1933). The German artist and Bauhaus teacher László Moholy-Nagy was also an enthusiastic Kinamo user.

Joris Ivens (1)

Way ahead of its time, the camera is beautifully made and very compact at only 150 x 130 x 95mm, but heavy for a small camera, weighing 2.5 kg. There is a choice of internal optical viewfinder and external wire type (Ivens is using the former as is Kaufman in the screenshot below). It could also be used as a still camera, and to copy films using a light source through the lens aperture. There was also a microscope attachment (Microphot).

Ica Kinamo ad

3

The film is pre-loaded into cassettes which makes changing films in daylight very easy and convenient when on location. The 80 ft (25 metres) of film in each cassette provides around 75 seconds running time at the governed 16 frames per second. The Kinamo also has interchangeable lenses including a 180mm telephoto lens which makes it very versatile. After the merger of Ica into the Zeiss Ikon conglomerate in 1926 the camera continued to be manufactured under the new name in 35mm (N.25) and even smaller 16mm versions (S.10).

IMG_3851

There is little apparent difference other than the embossed maker’s name, the later Ica and the Zeiss Ikon Kinamos both having a small diagonal nickel switch (that locks the shutter release) above the end of the winding handle which you can just spot if you look closely at Kaufman’s camera in the 1928 photograph.

MwaMC cameras with MK (right way round) a

Exactly which version was used is difficult to ascertain. The state organisation for cinematography, Goskino, had purchased several Ica Kinamos in the mid 1920s, and Lev Kuleshov (the great film director and theorist) had ‘criticized their haphazard distribution within the industry’ [15]. However, Vertov had been sacked by Sovkino, Goskino’s successor, in January 1927 after disputes about his film ‘One Sixth of the World’, and his refusal to provide a script for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, so the Kinamo is unlikely to have been one of these elusive cameras.  He moved to Ukraine later in the same year to work for the film organisation VUFKU and so it could have provided either type of Kinamo. It could equally well have been a Zeiss Ikon version imported by Vertov around this time, as his Debrie Sept had been in 1925 (see later notes). This is one of the few photographs of him posing with a camera (rather than on a set) and it certainly looks as if it belongs to him! Apparently he gave this camera to his brother Boris Kaufman to shoot some of the hand-held scenes in Jean Vigo’s 1930 film ‘À propos de Nice’.

Dziga Vertov with Kinamo (lid off) correct view

Dziga Vertov with the Kinamo (photo usually the wrong way round)

The scenes with the Kinamo

IMG_5261

[00:43:00] The traffic intersection sequence

IMG_5263

                 [00:43:04] The traffic intersection sequence (note the Parvo Model L                         on the spread-eagled Debrie tripod)

As the hand-cranked Parvos are normally used on a tripod the clockwork Kinamo would have been used for the scenes requiring a hand-held camera throughout the film (and possibly a Debrie Sept – see later description). 

There was a growing use of the ‘chest tripod’ shoulder harness which enabled a large cine camera like the Parvo (and Interview) to be used for mobile filming [16]. Note the separate expanding viewfinder. However, there is no evidence that this type of support was used on Man with a Movie Camera, and it would have been very unwieldy compared with the Kinamo.

modell-l-16

 

DEBRIE LABRÉLY ‘GV’ MODEL F 35MM HIGH SPEED CINE CAMERA (1925)

IMG_4639

 

MK with Labrely correct way round

Mikhail Kaufman with the Debrie GV Model F cine camera on a Debrie tripod

A rare cine camera made by Debrie for a limited period in the mid 1920s, the Model F was an early version of a series of high speed cameras made from 1921 up to the mid 1960s. Designed around the invention by Emile Labrély of a hand-cranked or motorised film mechanism that could operate from 16 to an astonishing 240 frames per second (the ‘standard’ silent film rate was 16 frames per second [17]). ‘GV’ stands for Grande Vitesse, naturally! Labrély had worked for Pathé in the early 1900s developing high speed cameras and had achieved 400 fps in 1909, and 1200 fps the following year. Extraordinary speeds for the time, but they were not intended as conventional cine cameras being very bulky and producing images only suited to scientific work. The Model F must have been more successful as a studio or location camera but there are few survivors. The National Science & Media Museum has one, and I have seen another that was for sale at a price (commensurate with the high speed) of £45,000! It was perfectly suited to the study of engineering, military, scientific, or medical problems according to the 1925 Debrie catalogue. Kaufman presumably used this camera for some of the special effects in the film in addition to conventional filming.

 

DEBRIE ‘SEPT’ 35MM CLOCKWORK MULTI-FUNCTION CINE CAMERA (1921-26)

IMG_5440

s-l1600 (2)

s-l1600 (1)

The Debrie Sept is a remarkably innovative device, made of aluminium, comprising a 35mm cine camera (only 16 seconds worth of film @ 16 fps), still camera (250 images), rapid sequence still camera, slide and cine projector, film copier, and enlarger. Seven operations, hence the name. A clockwork motor is housed in a detachable box on the side (a second version had a larger motor inside a more bulbous case). The 5 metres length of film is loaded into cassettes (or ‘boxes’ as they are described in the English language instructions), larger versions of the later Leica type. There is a choice of reflecting viewfinder or Newton type by pulling out the sliding front lens. The Sept started life in Italy just after WW1 as the ‘Autocinephot’ designed and made by Guiseppe Tartara of F.A.C.T. in Turin. Only around 100 were made when the design was licenced to Etablissements André Debrie, in Paris, who started producing a modified version in 1921. The camera was marketed by Société Française SEPT (see below) at the very high price of 2,550 francs (with a Zeiss lens), approximately 1,300 euros today! For comparison the far more sophisticated Kinamo with a f2.7 Zeiss lens was 475 Reichsmarks, or around 1,200 euros. Despite the cost many thousands were sold (I have seen serial # 9049 at auction in 2015).

Although marketed ‘Pour Amateurs’, as a tough, small, hand-held movie camera the Sept was popular with silent film directors including Douglas Fairbanks (Robin Hood), and Abel Gance (Napoleon). It was also a favourite of newsreel photographers who could take a short cine film as well as still photographs of their subject. The diminutive* Sept could also be smuggled into events where their rivals had the sole rights, particularly football matches! It is a very different design compared with the precision-made Kinamo, being more the camera equivalent of a 1920s truck with thick metal construction, over-size controls, coarse helicoil focusing for the various available lenses, and a noise like a machine-gun!

*137 x 100 x 70mm, 1.6kg

Sept brochure

Sales leaflet cover

In Soviet Russia the Debrie Sept ‘…would appear to have been a prized possession in the 1920s…Iakov Tolchan, a student at the State Film Technical College (GTK) and later a renowned actuality specialist, has recalled being plucked from the obscurity of his studies by Dziga Vertov in 1924 and given the opportunity to join his Ciné-Eye group primarily because he was the owner of a Debrie-Sept, a gift from a relative living in Paris.’ [18]

The following year Dziga Vertov obtained his own Debrie Sept but I can find no evidence that this camera was used in ‘Man with a Movie Camera’; it is not seen in the film and it isn’t included with the equipment surrounding Kaufman in the 1928 photograph. Vertov was using the Sept during his travels across Russia in the mid 20s [19] and Mikhail Kaufman is pictured below by Alexander Rodchenko’s wife, Varvara Stepanova, on roller skates with a Sept on her cover of the first 1927 edition of Soviet Cinema magazine. As both men obviously liked the camera, there is every reason to suppose that this very versatile device was used for at least some of the hand-held shots in the film (eg the netball and football matches [00:53:05 on] where such a tough camera would have been very suitable). 

IMG_3626

Dziga Vertov’s Sept was bought for him by Alexander Rodchenko on his visit to Paris in 1925 to supervise the design and construction of the Workers’ Club in the USSR Pavilion at the Paris International Exhibition (‘Kino-Glaz’ was shown there, awarded a diploma), and there is some interesting correspondence with his wife about the camera. Rodchenko spent over 6,000 francs on camera equipment during his visit (letter to Stepanova, May 31st 1925).

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Paris, May 2, 1925

“I bought the Sept with a timer, a 6-meter [film magazine], and a Zeiss Tessar f3.5, with eighteen cassettes, with a tripod, film, printing thing, etc. I’m sitting here looking it over. It’s small, smaller than my 9 x 12 photo camera. But unfortunately the lens has a scratch, tomorrow I’ll exchange it. It’s in a good case, and you can shoot photos with it too….I’m terribly happy…I want to shoot the opening [20], when Krasin’s [21] there, and send [it] to Vertov – I’ll be Kino-Pravda’s correspondent in Paris..”

Stepanova to Rodchenko – Moscow, June 1st, 1925

“Dear Rodchenok [sic],  we received your letter no. 28 of May 24, where you wrote that you want to buy a camera for Vertov. He’s very happy and specially asks for a telephoto lens.

As soon as you get the camera, send Dziga a letter that you bought such-and-such camera, no., the factory, and so on – this is necessary to get the license.”

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Paris, June 8, 1925

“I am sending Dziga Vertov a Sept camera, no: 0905, with a Zeiss 1:3.5 lens, in a leather case with six bobbins.”

(‘bobbins’ = film cassettes)

(the serial number is far too low for 1925 so it was probably a second-hand camera)

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Paris, June 10, 1925

“I’ll send Dziga the camera on the 12th. I went and bought a printing machine for the Sept, I’ve got about three suitcases full now. I received permission to photograph at the exhibition, which I am enjoying. I do the developing myself and I’ll print at home.”

“Dziga asked you why I bought a tripod for the Sept. Well, he’s an idiot. I bought it, of course, for photos. I bought another one too – for photographing architecture, inside the rooms, with a long exposure, here the tripods are marvellous and cheap.”

Rodchenko to Stepanova – Around 20th June, 1925 

“Left Paris for Moscow by train. Brought with me a 4 x 6 Ica, a small Sept cine camera, and two tripods. Posted one Sept cine camera for Dziga Vertov together with a telescopic lens and extra cassettes to Goskino” [22]

 

NOTES, COMMENTS, AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Fair Use claimed for any copyright material as it is copied for solely research purposes  & commentary only, without financial gain; attribution given where possible.

Dziga Vertov was born in Belostock (now Białystok in NE Poland) in 1896, and died in Moscow in 1954. There is an excellent biography on the Monoskop cultural web-site.

The film is variously called ‘Man with a Movie Camera’, ‘The Man with a Movie Camera’, ‘The Man with the Movie Camera’, and ‘a Man with a Movie Camera’. Google Translate comes up with the latter version but most people adopt the first one. There is no definite or indefinite article in Russian which explains the confusion. There is also a muddle about the translation of Kino, as in Kino-pravda and Kino-glaz. Most commentators use ‘Cine’ but the film isn’t known as ‘Man with a Cine Camera’! Capitals and hyphens are inconsistent (Kino-Glaz, kinoglaz) even in Vertov’s notes.

The film premiered in Kiev, Ukraine, USSR on the 8th January 1929, and in Moscow on the 9th April 1929 (at the Hermitage Theatre). Vertov showed the film to audiences in Berlin and Paris during a visit in July 1929.

THE ‘CITY’

According to Graham Roberts in ‘The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion’ p. [x] (see reference) the filmed material came from five locations:

Moscow: material filmed for ‘Kino-Glaz’ in 1924 (Tverskaia Street, Bolshoi Theatre and square, the magician and children sequence); 

Kiev: material created specifically for the film (the cinema, train station) in 1928;

Donbass (E. Ukraine): material filmed for ‘The Eleventh Year’ in 1928 (scenes not mentioned by GR but the coal mine and steel foundry)

Odessa and Yalta: material created specifically for the film (Car and carriages sequences, the beach, funfair, holiday camp, firing range, Workers’ club, Proletariat Cinema).

Mr Roberts has several facts wrong. The train station is actually in Odessa, and there are no locations set in Yalta, or any evidence that filming took place there. The filming for ‘The Eleventh Year’ was actually in 1927. I do not think that the scenes on Kuznetsky Most, which Mr Roberts wrongly describes as Tverskaia Street, were filmed in 1924 as the camera in some of the scenes is the Model L Parvo which was used for the 1928 filming. Also, the banner across the street is advertising an ‘Anniversary Collection’ of Maxim Gorky’s works. The writer was born in 1868 which would make 1928 the 60th anniversary of his birth.

The majority of the ‘streets with trams’ sequences were set in Moscow and Kiev, apart from the tram depot and some shots of trams near the station in Odessa.

In addition, there is the dam sequence at Volkhov near Leningrad, made during filming for ‘The Eleventh Year’ in 1927.

John MacKay in his Academia essay adds Kharkov as a filming location but omits Yalta (see Essential Reading). I have not yet found any sequences set in Kharkov.

I am in the process of researching all the film’s locations and will be publishing a new blog post soon.

POSTERS

Both ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ posters by Vladimir & Georgii Stenberg, 1929 

‘Kino-glaz’ film poster by Alexander Rodchenko, 1924

Julius Kupfer-Sachs 1929 poster ‘Der Mann mit der Kamera’ from the Austrian Film Museum

FILM VERSION USED

Film stills were taken from a (Russian) YouTube version posted in 2018 by ‘DM Amelin’. No music, no adverts, reasonably clear and crisp, and the correct aspect ratio. Total running time 01:07:01, slightly longer than other copies. Running speed unknown. Unfortunately some frames are missing from this version, and it now seems to have disappeared from YouTube, but it was the best free one I found at the time of posting for clear screenshots. The approximate times for the screenshots were taken from the Lobster Films/Eye Institute 2014 restoration (see below).

The Oleksandr Dovzhenko National Center (Dovzhenko Center) is the largest Ukrainian State Film Archive. It preserves more than 5000 titles of Ukrainian, Russian, European and American films from 1910. There is a familiar image of the ‘Cine-Eye’ heading the ‘Documentary’ section of its site but a search for Людина з кіноапаратом (Liudyna z Kinoaparatom, Ukrainian for ‘Man with a Movie Camera’) produces no results, surprisingly. However, the Center has restored a copy of the film and DVDs are available from its on-line shop.

The best available version is the 2014 EYE Film Institute/ Lobster Films HD restoration from Vertov’s original copy of the film left in Amsterdam after his 1931 European trip. The score is by the Alloy Orchestra. See section below for notes on the music. There is now (2020) the same (free) version from a Ukrainian source on YouTube

NOTE: ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ is in the public domain in Russia according to article 1281 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006 and article 6 of Law No. 231-FZ of the Russian Federation of December 18, 2006 (the Implementation Act for Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).

MIRROR OR ‘REVERSED’ IMAGES

A number of the images in the film have been ‘reversed’, particularly the famous opening sequence [00:02:23] where you can clearly see the back to front lettering “LE PARVO”. All of the close-up shots of lenses (eg final image below), except one [00:33:48], and all the cranking side close-ups of the camera, except one [00:37:57 – but this has MK cranking backwards!], have also been ‘reversed’. Some of the lens shots could have been into mirrors, but I have not found out why the others were done in this way. Artistic reasons perhaps, as the reversed images are too consistent to be editing mistakes. Graham Roberts, in ‘The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion’, states that one of the cranking shots in the BFI print of the film (of the ‘drunk’ waking up [00:11:23 on]) is also upside down, but this is not the case in the Lobster Films version.

All the ‘reversed’ images are of the Model L except for the Interview ‘camera in the sea’ sequence [00:51:11].

Most of the sequence on the Carousel is ‘reversed’. Presumably for artistic reasons again, perhaps to contrast with the motorcycles going around the track in the opposite direction. You can easily tell as the crank handle should be on the left in the screenshot below, not the external viewfinder and maker’s plate!

IMG_5300 [00:55:27]

This ‘reversing’ of scenes and images has never been commented on in all the various sources I have read. Perhaps no one has noticed! Graham Roberts, in ‘The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion’, p. 58, notes that one cranking view of the camera during the ‘drunk waking up’ scene is ‘upside down’ (BFI version, not in Lobster Films version) whereas it is actually upside down and mirrored! Incidentally, the image on p. 9 of this book has been printed the wrong way round.

In addition, the 1928 photograph of Mikhail Kaufman and his cameras, the photograph of Kaufman with the Debrie GV, and that of Dziga Vertov with the Kinamo are often reversed when published, even in scholarly publications, through a lack of knowledge of the cameras in the image.

ASSISTANT CAMERAMAN

As the credited ‘Chief Operator M. Kaufman’ was on the screen for much of the time there was clearly another operator behind the camera. No one else is credited in the titles, but there is some evidence to show that the ‘assistant’ cinematographer was Gleb Troyanski (or Troyansky) who was presumably responsible for many of the wonderful sequences in the film, particularly in the mine and foundry (many of the images would stand alone as outstanding photographs), and the exhilarating ‘camera in the car’ scenes around Odessa. 

Graham Roberts, in ‘The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion’, suggests it could be Peter Zotov (pp. [ix] and 72) as he believes he is the cameraman filming on the fire engine sequence [00:33:25] (even though he is wearing the same white shirt with notched collar and hat as Kaufman in the roundabout image above). However, Troyanski is credited by other commentators (eg Luke Dormehl, ‘a Journey through Documentary Film’; Muriel Awards etc) and the film is included in Troyanski’s biographies. Maybe both, or more, were involved as Kaufman and Vertov worked with a number of other cameramen including Ivan Belyakov, Alexander Lemburg (father of Rodchenko’s ‘Girl with a Leica’, Evgenia Lemberg), and Samuil Bendersky. However, I have not uncovered biographical references (particularly on the IMDb website) to anyone other than Troyanski working on the film with the ‘Soviet of Three’ (as Vertov, Svilova and Kaufman referred to themselves). 

John MacKay in his Academia paper on the film (see essential reading) has ascertained from a study of documents in the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art in Moscow that various cameramen were involved – Boris Tseitlin (‘The Eleventh Year’ scenes used in the film, except those of the Volkhov Dam taken by Konstantin Kuliaev) and Georgii Nikolaevich Khimchenko for all the new scenes shot  during 1928 (p15 of the paper).

DEBRIE

Research into the various models produced by Etablissements André Debrie is difficult as few catalogues were published, or have survived. I have only come across a couple of early advertisements. The company still exists as a manufacturer of cinematography equipment (no longer cameras) after several iterations (including being owned by the James Bond producer, Harry Saltzmann) as part of the French CTM Group. Unfortunately it is unable to provide any information on the history of the company or its products. Camera dates have been mostly taken from a history of Debrie published by the firm in 1964, kindly provided by Laurent Mannoni. Some of these dates conflict with generally accepted ones published elsewhere.

The Cinémathèque française cinema museum in Paris has a lot of Debrie related items, including sales and other literature, and various cameras, but only a Parvo Model T on display. The National Science & Media Museum in Bradford, UK, has an extensive collection of Debrie cameras and equipment with several Parvos (including the original 1908 version) and Septs, a GV Model F, sales literature, and handbooks. Sadly, nothing is on display. I have a 1924 Model K on a Debrie tripod, and a 1923 Debrie Sept. Information on the various models has also been gleaned from other museums, collections, auction catalogues, Ebay, and other internet sources. Although around 9,000 Parvos were made there are few original ones left as many led hard lives in film studios, updated and modified through the years. 

Many thanks to Laurent Mannoni, Directeur Scientifique du Patrimoine of the Cinémathèque française, for an invaluable dossier of the Debrie literature in the Museum’s collection. A visit to his wonderful museum is a must for film enthusiasts!

Many thanks to Kendra Bean, Emma Hogarth, and Toni Booth of the National Science & Media Museum for enabling me to inspect the Debrie cameras in its collection (all in storage), and for subsequent information. The lack of any early film related exhibits in this museum is inexplicable! 

More information on the Debrie Parvo

Fascinating contemporary film of a Parvo L being manufactured

Parvo Model L brochure

More information on the Debrie Interview

More information on the Debrie Grande Vitesse

More information on the Debrie Sept

Debrie Sept instructions

NEW ECONOMIC POLICY

After the devastating civil war of 1918 to 1922 the economy was in ruins and there was a famine and typhoid epidemic in the Lower Volga region in 1921 when millions died. For pragmatic reasons Lenin abandoned the Bolshevik programme of total nationalisation and proposed a New Economic Policy,  a form of ‘state capitalism’ that would combine state ownership of banks and large institutions with private enterprise. This was quite successful in quickly resurrecting the economy but both Rodchenko and Vertov commented adversely on the rise of the ‘NEP’ man and woman, regarded as nouveaux riches and an affront to socialist values, and there is much in Man with a Movie Camera contrasting the extravagant and superficial behaviour of these new capitalists in the hair salon, on the beach, and in the gym, with the industrious workers at their machines, or in the mine and foundry.

It is interesting to see that expensive vehicles and cameras were available in the Soviet Union at this time, only a few years after the Civil War and during a period of economic problems. I spotted a chauffeur driven English Crossley tourer (below) and a French Amilcar sports car during the street scenes, both high quality imported vehicles, not what you would expect to see in a Communist state. Vertov perhaps using these as an example of NEP extravagance. However, his brother owned, or had the use of, two expensive top of the range Indian motorcycles which seems just as bourgeois!

IMG_5345

[01:04:29]

Despite the almost constant financial crises there seems to have been no shortage of the finest European camera equipment for the Soviet films and photographers of this era, at least from the mid-20s. The cameramen of Eisenstein, Dovzhenko, Pudovkin et al. were all using Debrie Parvos, and Kaufman was filming ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ in 1928 with the most recent Parvo Model L* and the rare and expensive Debrie Grand Vitesse. Alexander Rodchenko spent a lot of money on camera equipment during his visit to Paris in 1925 as we have seen, and bought a Leica in 1928 for the equivalent of 1,600 euros. The renowned camera store of F. Iochim in Moscow and St Petersburg, that used to supply the Imperial Court with photographic equipment, continued to thrive on importing top quality cameras from Ica and other German manufacturers. The camera that Rodchenko used for his first significant photographs (of Mayakovsky) in 1924 was from Iochim.

[*From the 1931 catalogue the price of a Model L was 28.700 FF and the tripod cost 4.800FF, a total equivalent cost today of around 20,000 euros, plus presumably hefty import duties to the USSR!]

PHOTO CREDITS

Debrie Parvo Model L – top image with the kind permission of The Malkames Collection (this seems to be a rare early version as it lacks the rapid lens changing feature); bottom image is Frank Hurley’s camera from the National Museum of Australia 

NOTE: First Cinemakers is a very interesting joint venture from The Malkames Collection and Abelcine in New York, celebrating the early days of cinema.

Debrie Interview photograph with the kind permission of  Sam Dodge who has a wonderful collection of antique movie cameras on his website. Also, thanks to Sam Dodge for confirming the identity of the Interview and other useful information.

Debrie Parvo Model K photographs with the kind permission of Jake’s Cameras, Colorado, USA.

Rudolph Valentino photograph from ‘Old Hollywood in Color’ blog

J Debrie building photograph from CTM André Debrie (France).

1927 Indian Big Chief photograph with the kind permission of Yesterdays Antique Motorcycles. Also, many thanks to Geert Versleyen of YAM for help with identifying the two Indians.

1923 Indian Big Chief photographs with the kind permission of Vintage Bikes Collection, a private Polish collection of early motorcycles and cycles.

Period photographs are from multiple sources so no specific attribution can be made. Contemporary Soviet photographs are in the public domain (Russia has a seventy year copyright limit).

Illustrations from Debrie literature are from the writer’s own collection or multiple sources.

REFERENCES IN TEXT

[1] Link to both polls:  http://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-sound-magazine/greatest-docs

Brian Winston, in the September 2014 issue of Sight & Sound, made this interesting claim 85 years after the film came out:  ‘..Vertov’s agenda in Man with a Movie Camera signposts nothing less than how documentary can survive the digital destruction of photographic image integrity and yet still, as Vertov wanted, “show us life”.  Vertov is, in fact, the key to documentary’s future.’

[2] Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian, 30/07/2015

[3] ‘The Film Factory, Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents 1896-1939’,  pp. 91 & 93 (see reference below).

[4] “The idea for The Man with a Movie Camera had already arisen in 1924. How did this idea take shape? Strictly speaking we needed a Kino-theory and a Kino-program in cinematic form. I suggested such an idea to Vertov but it could not be realised at that time”. ‘Interview with Mikhail Kaufman’, 1979 (see reference below). He had a major disagreement with his brother over the editing of the film and they never worked together again.

There is an argument that Vertov contradicts his theories by providing a narrative throughout the film (ie the cameraman making a film), and that the trick effects and obvious actors and staging in some scenes (the Girl in her apartment etc) conflict with his desire for film realism. However, Vertov’s approach ‘…differed with most of the other Soviet futurist and constructivist artists, who insisted on the absolute dominance of  “facts'” in art, and sought to eliminate any subjective interpretation. Vertov was less inclined to restrict his film making to such a factual approach and instead strove to achieve a balance between an authentic representation and “aesthetic” reconstruction of the external world. In doing so, he merged his “Film-Truth” principle of respecting the authenticity of each separate shot with his “Film-Eye” method, which requires a cinematic recreation of events through editing’ – Vlada Petric, ‘The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, p. 8 (see reference below).

[5] ‘The Men with the Movie Camera, The Poetics of Visual Style in Soviet Avant-Garde Cinema of the 1920s’, p. 19 (see reference below).

[6] Mikhail Kaufman studied at the VGIK film school in Moscow and became a mechanic during the Civil War. Vertov described his skills: ‘…works in motion picture and still photography; knows cars; has knowledge of electrical engineering, blacksmithing, and metalwork; given to experimentation’ (On the Organisation of a Film Experiment Station,  ‘Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, p. 23, see reference below).

Kaufman made several documentary films during the 1920s and 30s, including the critically acclaimed ‘Moscow’ in 1927 and ‘In Spring’ in 1929. The youngest Kaufman brother, Boris, also became a renowned cinematographer, working with Jean Vigo, Sidney Lumet, and Elia Kazan, winning an Oscar for ‘On the Waterfront’ in 1954.

[7] The Kinoks (‘kino-oki’ meaning ‘cine-eyes’) were a collective of film-makers organised by Dziga Vertov in the early 1920s.

[8] The Russian camera industry began with the production of copies of traditional folding cameras in 1930 by the Fototrud Industrial Co-operative in Moscow called EFTE and ARFO. Almost exact copies of the Leica rangefinder camera were made by FED from 1932, completely ignoring the Leitz patents. Link to the fascinating story of these cameras and the Dzerzhinsky Commune. The first semi-professional Soviet cine camera (apart from Mikhail Kaufman’s!) was a 16mm prototype made by NIFKI in 1934 (thanks to Russian camera expert Aidas Piviotas for this information). The first synchronised sound camera was the KS-2 made in 1936 by Lenkinap.

[9] Apart from Rudolph Valentino (see photo) Hollywood preferred home-grown cameras from Bell & Howell or Mitchell because of their greater film capacity, turret lenses, and ease of obtaining spare parts. However, Paramount News used Debrie Parvos extensively.

[10] Some notable examples in addition to Vertov/Kaufman/Troyanski: Michael Curtiz, Alexander Dovzhenko, Carl Dreyer, Sergei Eisenstein/Eduard Tisse, Abel Gance, Joris Ivens, Fritz Lang, Marcel L’Herbier, FW Murnau, Vsevolod Pudovkin, Leni Riefenstahl, Abram Room, Paul Wegener.

[11] Eduard Tisse used a Model L to film the duelling sequence in Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky, 1938 (multiple sources).

[12] Leni Riefenstahl used Model Ls to film the Berlin Olympics in 1936.

[13] The two cameras are on display in the Third Man Museum in Vienna.

[14] ‘The Kinamo Movie Camera, Emanuel Goldberg and Joris Ivens’ – a draft paper by Michael J Buckland, University of Berkeley, California, 2008.

[15] ‘The Delirious Vision: The Vogue for the  Hand-held Camera in Soviet Cinema of the 1920s’ p. 14 (see reference below).

[16] ‘The Delirious Vision: The Vogue for the  Hand-held Camera in Soviet Cinema of the 1920s’ pp. 15 & 16 (see reference below).

[17] Silent film speeds varied slightly depending on the studio but the usual cranking rate was 16 frames per second [first set by the Lumière Brothers’ Cinématographe in 1896]. The first ‘talkies’ had a speed of 24 fps (The ‘Jazz Singer’ onwards) and synchronised sound cameras were motorised to run at this speed.

Graham Roberts, in The Man with The Movie Camera Film Companion, p. [ix] notes that ‘In general Western scholars have been working on 18 fps (whilst in Moscow I watched the film at 24 fps). It has now become more common to run the film at 24 fps. The British Film Institute video and DVD print – for which the film is run at 24 fps – lasts 66 minutes, 30 seconds’. However, both the Kinamo and Debrie Sept have clockwork motors set at 16 fps and the Debrie Parvo’s tachometer scale is from 0 to 24 fps with a large arrow on the 16 fps mark (below).  The maximum speed was used for slow motion effect (ie filming at 24 fps and playing back at 16 fps) so cranking the camera at full speed all the time would have been difficult and unlikely. Just maintaining a regular 16 fps called for a lot of skill and stamina from the operator; a one eighth turn of the handle = one frame, so two full turns per second = 16 fps. Vertov himself called this ‘the usual rate’ (though wanting it to be abolished in favour of special effects!). ‘Kino-Eye: ‘The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, p. 131 (see reference below).

IMG_5593

[18] ‘The Delirious Vision: The Vogue for the  Hand-held Camera in Soviet Cinema of the 1920s’ pp. 12 & 13 (see reference below)

[19] According to Herbert Marshall in Masters of the Soviet Cinema: Crippled Creative Biographies – chapter on Dziga Vertov.

[20] The opening of the Soviet Pavilion. This extraordinary building, designed by Konstantin Mel’nikov, was a showcase for the avant-garde of the young USSR.

[21]  Leonid Krasin, People’s Commissar for Foreign Trade.

[22] Goskino was the State Committee for Cinematography in Moscow. In 1924 it was          succeeded by Sovkino so perhaps Rodchenko was just used to the old name. 

Correspondence (except last letter) from ‘Alexandr Rodchenko, Experiments for the Future’, pp. 167-185. Edited and prefaced by Alexander N Lavrentiev, translated by Jamey Gambrell, introduction by John E Bowlt, The Museum of Modern Art, 2005.

Last letter from ‘Alexander Rodchenko, Revolution in Photography’, catalogue of an exhibition at the Hayward Gallery London, February to April 2008, p. 216. Author Alexander Lavrentiev, Moscow House of Photography Museum, 2008. 

ESSENTIAL LINKS AND REFERENCES ON DZIGA VERTOV AND HIS FILM

‘The man with the movie camera. Speed of vision, speed of truth?’ An essay by Marko Daniel, 2002.

‘Five wonderful effects in Man with a Movie Camera and how they’re still inspiring film-makers today’, Ben Nicholson, British Film Institute.

‘Man with a Movie Camera: the greatest documentary of all time?’ Silent London Blog

‘The most important of the arts’: film after the Russian Revolution,  John Green, 26/6/2017 Culture Matters

‘An interview with Mikhail Kaufman’, MIT Press, 1979 JSTOR (registration required).

‘Man with a Movie Camera: an Introduction’, John MacKay, Academia, 2013

‘Constructivism in Film, The Man with the Movie Camera, a Cinematic Analysis’, Vlada Petrić, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

‘The Man with the Movie Camera, The Film Companion’, by Graham Roberts, IB Tauris, 2000 

This publication is one of the few to mention the equipment used. However, only one camera is listed in the credits as a ‘Debrie with Zeiss lens (35mm and 70mm)’, but a ‘standard 28mm’ and ‘telephoto’ are mentioned later in the text. In the absence of an equipment list for the film the only lenses that I can be certain of are the 21cm and 15cm Krauss Zeiss ones (NOTE: focal lengths for Krauss lenses of this period are stated in centimetres with commas). Standard (5cm or 7,5cm) and wide angle (3,5cm) lenses would undoubtedly have been used but it is impossible (at least on YouTube) to read the engraved text on any but the two Krauss telephotos. Lenses seem to have been matched to the camera – on my Model K the serial numbers of the three Krauss lenses (5, 3,5 and 7,5cm) that came with the camera are engraved on the distance bar. There are also serial numbers for 10,5cm and 15cm lenses, unfortunately missing from the set. Debrie chose to show these focal lengths on the bar in millimetres for some reason.

‘The Movie Cameras in Man with a Movie Camera’, by Richard Bossons, 2018 (privately published, contact author: richardbossons@icloud.com).

’Dziga Vertov: Life and Work (Volume 1: 1896-1921), by John MacKay, Academic Studies Press, 2018. The definitive biography.

‘Dziga Vertov, a guide to references and resources’, Seth Feldman, GK Hall, 1979

‘Dziga Vertov: Defining Documentary Film’, by Jeremy Hicks, KINO: The Russian Cinema series, IB Tauris, 2007 (ch. 4 is on Man with a Movie Camera).

‘Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov’, by Annette Michelson and Kevin O’Brien, Pluto Press, 1984.

‘Dziga Vertov: The Vertov Collection at the Austrian Film Museum’, by Thomas Tode and Barbara Wurm, SYNEMA, 2006.

‘False Cinema: Dziga Vertov and early Soviet film’, Jeremy Murray-Brown, an article published in November 1989 in The New Criterion magazine (Volume 8, Number 3). Current commentary on Dziga Vertov is generally uncritical, but this article written on the eve of the Soviet Union’s demise compares him to Nazi propagandists.

Russia’s People of Empire: Life Stories from Eurasia, 1500 to the Present’, edited by Stephen M. Norris, Willard Sunderland, chapter on Dziga Vertov by John MacKay, Indiana University Press, 2012.

‘The delirious vision: the vogue for the hand-held camera in Soviet cinema of the 1920s’
Dr Phil Cavendish, Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5-24. An invaluable study of a neglected aspect of early Soviet film-making – the cameras that were used to make the films!

‘The Men with the Movie Camera, The Poetics of Visual Style in Soviet Avant-Garde Cinema of the 1920s’, by Philip Cavendish, Berghahn Books, 2013.

‘The Hand that Turns the Handle: Camera Operators and the Poetics of the Camera in Pre-Revolutionary Russian Film’, Philip Cavendish, The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol 82 #2, April 2004.

‘The Film Factory, Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents 1896-1939’, by Richard Taylor and Ian Christie, Harvard University Press, 1988.

‘Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, 1918-1935’, Denise J Youngblood, University of Texas Press, 1991.

THE MUSIC FOR THE FILM

Silent films were meant to be accompanied by music, often live as shown in the opening sequence in the film. My Grandfather used to accompany silent films (including Westerns) in the local cinema with his ‘cello in a string quartet! Dziga Vertov left notes to indicate the type of music he thought would suit the film but sadly his directions seem to have been ignored with one notable exception.

Still the best music for the film by far is the Alloy Orchestra’s wonderfully percussive and exciting score of 1995, exactly the sort of ‘Constructivist’ music you could imagine being composed at the time, full of driving jazzy rhythms, metallic and other sound effects. The group, who specialise in silent movie music, made a careful study of Vertov’s notes (Vertov archive, Moscow) to his composer (Konstantin Listov) for the premiere of the film in 1929, and it shows. The last few minutes of the film are a thrilling, mesmeric, combination of music, noise, and action, and the music carefully follows what is shown on screen unlike many of the other soundtrack attempts. Unfortunately, the YouTube version suffers with the wrong aspect ratio, configured for a modern wide screen. A DVD is available from the BFI that has the correct aspect ratio, but the print quality and sound are poor (on my disc). It includes a commentary by the Russian film historian Yuri Tsivian who researched the music for the Alloy Orchestra score.

Fortunately a restored film version (2015) with this soundtrack (and correct ratio)  has been made by the EYE Film Institute (Amsterdam) and Lobster Films (Paris) from Vertov’s own print. This was left by him in Amsterdam in 1931 after travelling around Europe for the second time to promote his films. The HD and Blu-ray versions are available from Eureka! The clarity and quality of the images are a revelation after seeing so many poor examples and at last do full justice to the outstanding cinematography.

So many scores do not reflect the activity on the screen, maintaining a similar tempo throughout. Michael Nyman’s 2002 version is a popular one on DVD but the rhythm of the music is much the same whatever is happening on screen (e.g. it just carries on regardless during the dramatic pause in the action after the car and carriage sequence [00:22:06]), and bizarrely includes choral singing which creates completely the wrong atmosphere in my opinion (Michael Nyman is apparently composing an opera about Dziga Vertov according to a recent radio discussion). 

The BFI DVD features an alternative score by In the Nursery which is also in an minimalist and choral style.

The same criticisms apply to the Cinematic Orchestra’s 2003 version which has a consistent jazzy ‘mood music’ rhythm, sometimes at odds with the action on screen.  

Wikipedia lists no less than 21 different soundtrack versions from 1983 to 2014!

The most recent score (2019) is by the innovative group The Cabinet of Living Cinema, written to commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the film.

John Mackay, in his definitive biography of Dziga Vertov (see essential reading) has more detailed notes on the scores (p xxx, note 45).

 

IMG_5375

КОНЕЦ

End of a ‘work in progress’. More information and corrections as research continues!

I can be contacted on opinionated.designer@gmail.com 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Cameras, Cinema, Photography, silent film, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The movie cameras in Man with a Movie Camera

Apple Park

IMG_2178.JPG

Steven Levy of Wired magazine was invited in for a tour of the vast new Apple headquarters building in Cupertino, California, designed by Foster and Partners. Opened in April 2017 the building has cost a reported $5 billion, and the circular shape is apparently visible from space.

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/apple-park-new-silicon-valley-campus/

Guided around by Apple’s design chief, Sir Jony Ive, Levy reported the obsessive attention to detail including custom-made door handles, ‘distressed’ stone cladding, and specially designed glass canopies to avoid the green tint that would have offended the design conscious occupants. The 4000 seater staff canteen has four storey high glass doors to the landscaped courtyard, and provides specially designed ventilated containers so staff don’t have to eat soggy pizzas at their desks. This obscenely expensive building is a monument to the power and fabulous wealth of the huge technology companies from California that now dominate our lives. It reminds me (and others) of the behaviour of the ‘robber barons’ of the railway and oil age in the USA who built extravagant palaces for themselves on the backs of the labour that created their wealth. The poorly paid employees of Foxconn, Pegatron and others who make the expensive products that have created Apple’s and other tech companies’ vast profits worked under oppressive conditions in windowless factories, and slept in dormitories surrounded by anti-suicide netting. The ‘progressive’ features of the space age Apple HQ, with its sustainability, high-tech design, and 10,000 sq metre health and wellness centre, are just window-dressing for a company with nineteenth century ethics.

IMG_2179

See my post on the 1950s Olivetti factory near Naples for a truly progressive employer’s enlightened attitude to all of its workers, not just the lucky elite at the top who will occupy Apple’s lavish new building.

Apple HQ photo – Wikimedia Commons by Dicklyon

Foxconn factory, China photo –  Shanghai Evening Post undercover reporter Wang Yu

 

Posted in Architecture, Building, Computers, Construction, Design, Olivetti, Personal Computers, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Apple Park

Archispeak #1 – TEA, Tenerife

WHAT ARCHITECTS SAY VERSUS THE REALITY!

Tenerife Espacio de las Artes, Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2008

ARCHITECTS: Herzog & De Meuron, project directed by the Canarian architect Virgilio Gutiérrez

ARCHITECTS:

“…..A new public path diagonally cuts through the building complex connecting the top of the General Serrador Bridge with the shore of the Barranco de Santos. On its way down to the Barranco this path is widening and transforming itself into a triangular, semi-covered space in the heart of the cultural centre….This unusual triangular space is a new public plaza which is open and accessible for everyone. The new urban life will be animated by the museum café and restaurant which will be able to serve food and drinks not only in the building but also on the plaza or under the large and shadowy canopy of the existing trees at the Barranco. The plaza can also be used at night as an open air cinema performing films and videos in collaboration with the TEA.”

REALITY:

On a recent visit it was a bleak, grey concrete, empty, soulless space half covered with tatty grey blinds, the antithesis of a bright, colourful and animated Spanish plaza! The only interest is in gawping down into the library area and irritating the readers far below.

Perhaps the interminable greyness of the building was meant to reflect the local volcanic rocks, but in an island of brightly coloured buildings it seems to be yet another example of global architecture that could be plonked down in any city in the world.

A pity it is such a joyless looking building as the exhibitions and facilities within it are excellent.

img_1732

img_1735A building in Spain, Germany or Japan?

 

http://www.webtenerife.co.uk/what-see/museums/tea.htm

Posted in Architecture, Blots on the Cityscape, Blots on the Townscape, Building, Design, Spanish Architecture, Ugly Buildings, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Archispeak #1 – TEA, Tenerife

Dismal Designs – Nikon D5

In complete contrast to my previous post…….

image

image1

The grotesque looking D5 is the epitome of everything I loathe about the current offering of DSLR cameras. It is the Mr Creosote* of cameras, a misshapen lump with buttons, lids, and switches scattered at random over its spotty black flanks. Imagine having your photograph taken with this aggressive looking ensemble – you’d be worried it might fire something at you! This is the worst one I have seen so far, but why do DSLRs have to be so astonishingly ugly? Here’s another very similar elephantine design, this time from Canon.

image

Why would anyone want to buy one of these dated dinosaurs with their clunky mirrors when there is the fabulous Sony A7RIII and the even better Leica SL?!

*Mr Creosote is a grotesquely fat character in Monty Python’s 1983 film The Meaning Of Life who eats so much he eventually explodes!

Top Nikon photo by Kārlis Dambrāns, Wikimedia Commons

Bottom Nikon photo by Morio, Wikimedia Commons

Canon photo by  decltype, Wikimedia Commons

 

Posted in Camera, Cameras, Design, Japanese Design, Photography, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dismal Designs – Nikon D5

Delightful Designs – 1946 SIRIO Elettra II camera

sirio-and-case

As well as being a Leica fan I’m also intrigued by the many ‘Look-a-Leicas’ that mostly appeared in the decade after WW2. The launch of the first Leica in 1925 caused a sensation, changing the way people took photographs. Tens of thousands were sold and rival manufacturers looked on enviously but helplessly as Ernst Leitz had protected the design of the camera with worldwide patents (the letters DRP on the top plate of the cameras means Deutsche Reich Patent). Only the Soviet Union in the 1930s ignored the patents and produced their own version of the camera, not as well made but almost identical in appearance, to the extent that some of the FED copies even had the Leica name on the top plate! Some of these have been faked-up to resemble rather unconvincing Nazi era military Leicas that appear in Ebay regularly!

800px-%d1%84%d1%8d%d0%b4_-_fed_1_model_iv_upper_right_side_view

1930s Soviet made FED 1 with 50mm f3.5 lens (Leica II with Elmar lens copy)

s-l500A  (misspelt) ‘Kriegsmarine Leica’ with no resemblance whatsoever to anything from Wetzlar!

In the aftermath of WW2 the American and British military governments in Germany suspended the country’s patents as part of the war reparations and restrictions on German industry. This opened the floodgates to world-wide copies of the Leica camera, most notably in Japan. Some of the Japanese clones (many of which had ‘made in occupied Japan’ engraved on the body) were very good indeed, particularly from Canon and Nicca. Probably the best copies of all were made by the English aircraft manufacturer and instrument maker Reid and Sigrist whose cameras (more or less exact copies of the Leica III series) were just as beautifully made as the ‘real thing’, and are even more valuable and sought after (there were even Russian copies of this Leica copy).

img_9011-copy

I couldn’t resist this beautiful little camera on Italian Ebay recently! More in the Leica style rather than a direct copy, the Elettra II is a strikingly modern looking design made by an obscure and short-lived Italian company from Florence, SIRIO (S.I.R.I.O. – Società Industriale Ricerche Innovazioni Ottiche). Its first effort in 1945, the Elettra I (note different spelling in the advert!) was a simple design in black enamel and leatherette, with a separate screwed-on viewfinder, looking rather like a Standard model Leica, even to the similar knobs on the top plate. Deliberately so as it is even mentioned in the ad. below. Presumably the name was chosen to give the camera a futuristic image as Elettra/Electra doesn’t mean anything in Italian and it is mechanically operated!

foto-notiz-51-54Advertising a clearance sale of ‘Electra I’ cameras

A year later a much improved second version with the familiar Leica finish of satin metal and black leatherette was launched at the 1946 Milan Fair. This had the viewfinder cast into the aluminium top plate which made it look very streamlined, and it had more modern knobs and a better looking lens. It is an elegantly simple design, with the bare minimum of controls, that wouldn’t look out of place in the Apple catalogue!

img_9014

img_9015

Both were designed for 35mm film in standard cassettes and had a 3 blade, 4 speed (25, 50, 100, 200) shutter within the lens, a much neater design than most of the rim-set ‘Compur’ type lenses. The Elettra II had a 4cm f5.6 ‘Sculptor’ lens as standard, with an option of a 5cm f4.5 ‘Mizar’ lens. Other focal lengths were available, as well as lens hoods and filters. There was no rangefinder or light meter available (and no accessory shoe for them). I can’t find anything about Sculptor lenses (made by SIRIO?) but I have seen another obscure 1950s Italian viewfinder camera with a similar lens made by Mizar (Closter IIa).

img_9018Comparison with 1930s Leica 1 Model C showing similar layout and shape!

img_9017Film loading via bottom plate as for all early Leicas

elettra-ii-sirio-p4-copyAdvert for the second model with a simpler viewfinder (not made?)

The Elettra II was only produced for 3 years (with a final variant that incorporated an accessory shoe in the top plate) as the firm closed in 1949 after only around 10,000 cameras had been produced. I am unable to find out much about SIRIO other than looking on Google Earth to see where it was based – Via Bolognese 89 is in a rather upmarket area of Florence behind some large iron gates! No one seems to know who owned it, who designed the cameras, and why the company disappeared after only a few years. Although the Elettra II is a great looking camera it is very basic and lacks most of the features expected by serious photographers in the post-war era.

There is hardly anything on the web about SIRIO except a good summary of the firm in this comprehensive review of the Italian camera industry during il miracolo economico in the two decades after WWII (two adverts above courtesy of this site):

Fotocamere Italiane 1946-1964 by Donato Consonni

Photo of FED camera from Wikimedia Commons taken by Michele MF

FED has a fascinating history!

Fake Nazi Leica from Ebay

Posted in Camera, Cameras, Design, Italian Design, Leica, Photography, product design, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Delightful Designs – 1946 SIRIO Elettra II camera

Japanese Style

DSC01076

 

I took this photograph in Gion, the historic part of the city centre in Kyoto. Not posed at all, they were just walking down the street, totally absorbed in each other. Over the past decade it has become quite common to see young people wearing traditional dress, either on a date or on public holidays. Kimonos are even available in denim and modern patterns, but I loved the way the traditional bold floral design of the woman’s kimono contrasts perfectly with the plain and dark colours of the male outfit. No fashion designer could come up with a more perfect combination of colours and patterns! I was fortunate with the background to the pair, the lovely muted tones and materials of a traditional wooden house. The bamboo ‘skirts’ against the walls are a common feature of old buildings, particularly in the Kyoto region. Called “Inu-yarai”(犬矢来) they protect the walls during the rainy season (and supposedly against dog pee – inu meaning ‘dog’).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimono

Posted in Fashion, Japan, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Japanese Style

Whistler’s Haircut

James Abbott McNeil Whistler (1834-1903) was one of the greatest artists of the late nineteenth century, and the finest etcher since Rembrandt. An expatriate American, he had a huge influence on the cultural world of London and Paris, friends with Manet, Courbet and Rossetti, as well as Oscar Wilde, Mallarmé, and other artists and intellectuals of that golden age. Whistler’s credo ‘Art for Art’s sake’ brought him into conflict with the art establishment of the time who favoured narrative and allegorical painting. His personal symbol of a butterfly with a stinging tail represented both sides of his character – a gentle sensitive nature combined with a combative and provocative spirit. His belief in the importance of balance and harmony extended beyond the composition of his work to the arrangement of his exhibitions, interior decoration and furniture, and even his own appearance which was carefully cultivated. ‘A century before Warhol, Whistler treated his own persona as a work of art’ (Ann Landi, Art News, December 2014).

He was admired and derided in equal measure during his life and for some time after it. His friends and compatriots Joseph and Elizabeth Robins Pennell wrote an exhaustive two volume biography that was published in 1908, and there have been dozens since. However, I think the best book ever written about the artist was by his pupil, sometime friend, and acolyte Mortimer Menpes (1855-1938). Written in 1904, the memories of his time with Whistler were fresh in his mind, and he writes in a wonderfully intimate and descriptive way:

IMG_0642

Mortimer Menpes: ‘Whistler Monocle, Left Eye, Head Tilted’. c. 1880. Drypoint*

“Even in so small a detail as the dressing of his hair, Whistler was most particular. Many people thought him vain; but that idea is quite false. He treated his hair, as he could not but treat everything about him, purely from the artistic standpoint, as a picture, a bit of decoration. Many a time have I been with him to his hair-dresser in Regent Street, and very serious and important was the dressing of the Master’s head. Customers ceased to be interested in their own hair; operators stopped their manipulations; everyone turned to watch Whistler having his head dressed.

He himself was supremely unconscious. The bystanders troubled him not at all. The hair was trimmed but left rather long. Whistler meanwhile directing the cutting of every lock as he watched the barber in the glass. The poor fellow, only too conscious of the delicacy of his task, shook and trembled as he manipulated his scissors. Well he might, for was not this common barber privileged, to be thus an instrument in the carrying out of a masterpiece, a picture by the Master? The clipping completed, Whistler waved the operator imperiously to one side, and we noticed for a while the back view of this dapper little figure surveying himself in the glass, stepping now backward, now forward.

Suddenly, to the intense surprise of the bystanders, he put his head into a basin of water, and then, half drying his hair, shook it into matted wet curls. With a comb he carefully picked out the white lock, a tuft of hair just above his forehead, wrapped it in a towel, and walked about the room for from five to ten minutes pinching it dry, with the rest of the hair hanging over his face. This stage of the process caused great amusement at the hair-dresser’s. Still pinching the towel, Whistler would then beat the rest of his hair into ringlets (to comb them would not have given them the right quality), until they fell into decorative waves all over his head. A loud scream would then rend the air! Whistler wanted a comb! This procured, he would comb the white lock into a feathery plume, and with a few broad movements of his hand form the whole into a picture. Then he would look beamingly at himself in the glass, and say but two words, – “Menpes, amazing!” – and sail triumphantly out of the shop.

Once having stepped into a four-wheeler, he put his head out to give a direction to the driver. His hat just touched the window, and disarranged his hair. Whistler stopped the cab, got out, re-entered the hair-dresser’s, and the work began again.”

Mortimer Menpes, “Whistler As I Knew Him”, Adam & Charles Black, London 1904; Chapter III ‘The Man’ pp 33-35

*As well as this sympathetic biography Menpes created several superb portraits of Whistler that really captured the character and spirit of the man.

Posted in Art, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Whistler’s Haircut

Beyond The Dreaming Spires

THE OTHER OXFORD, FAR FROM THE TOURIST TRAIL

Mention Oxford to most people and an image of beautiful golden stone buildings with spires and domes comes to mind. The High Street or ‘The High’ is surely one of the most splendid streets in the world from Magdalen Bridge and the magnificent Magdalen Tower up to Carfax Tower, passing medieval college walls mixed with old shopfronts and the University Church of St Mary’s at its centre. Unfortunately this is only a small fragment of the city and apart from leafy North Oxford and a few other pleasant residential areas the rest of it is blighted by suburban sprawl. Oxford has long been an industrial city as well as an academic one and to the south east are endless streets of pre-war and 1950s council houses, 1930s semis, and Morris car factory workers’ housing.

Since first visiting the place I have been struck by the difference between ‘Town’ and ‘Gown’ exemplified by the beautiful architecture from the 13th century up to 1914, centred around the University, and the dross that followed WW1 and the city’s expansion. No other English city has such a contrast between the historic centre and everywhere else. Mediocre development continues to this day with a few honourable exceptions (see my post on the appalling University buildings that have recently blighted the 1000 year old Port Meadow).

The beauty of the University has been photographed by countless tourists but I thought I would take my old Leica down to the suburban streets of the ‘real’ Oxford to capture a more accurate view of the city ‘beyond the Dreaming Spires’…….

000031

000030

000038a

000037

000032

000012a

000027a

000028

000015

000031

000030

Posted in Architecture, Blots on the Cityscape, Blots on the Townscape, Building, Housing, Housing Design, Oxford, Ugly Buildings, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Beyond The Dreaming Spires

Leica 1 Model C – The First System Camera

The renowned optical instrument firm of Ernst Leitz of Wetzlar in Germany produced the first modern camera in 1925, the Leica 1 Model A.  Designed by two brilliant engineers, Oskar Barnack and Max Berek, it revolutionised photography by using 35mm cine film combined with outstanding optics in a pocket-sized camera.  By the end of the ’20s over 21,000 had been sold, and enthusiastic customers such as Alexander Rodchenko, André Kertész and Paul Wolff were changing the way photographs were taken. Candid street photography became possible as you no longer had to lug around heavy plate cameras and tripods to get good quality photographs. Kodak roll film cameras had a huge impact on amateur photography from the end of the 19th Century but the quality of the images was poor and serious photographers still preferred using plates until the Leica came along.

pa240244

A disadvantage of the Model A was that it came with a fixed 50mm lens and so Leitz answered the growing demand for different focal lengths by coming up with the Model C in 1930 which was fitted with a flange so that screw-in lenses could be used. The previous Model B was the Compur Leica which had a leaf shutter within the fixed lens.

Because the alloy bodies were not all identical the flange to film plane distance on the first few thousand cameras was individually adjusted. The lenses were matched to each body and part of the camera number was engraved on the lens. There was a small ‘peep hole’ for focusing at the back of the camera body so that Leitz technicians could make final minute adjustments to the lens flange.

The obvious problem with this was that you had to buy a matching set of expensive lenses when you bought the camera. After around 3000 cameras had been produced the flange to film distance was set at exactly 28.8mm and lenses were truly interchangeable. The flanges and lenses were marked with a numeral ‘0’ to signify the change. Many of the ‘non-standard’ Model Cs were converted to the standard type by the factory and original ones, especially with a set of matching lenses, are very rare indeed.

IMG_7295

The first available lenses were the standard f3.5 50mm lens, a f3.5 35mm wide angle lens, a telephoto f4.5 135mm, all called Elmar*, and a faster 50mm lens, the f2.5 Hektor (named after Berek’s dog!). The image above shows the telephoto, standard and wide angle lenses, with a FOFER range-finder, and VISIL torpedo view-finder. Note the small ‘0’ at 12 o’clock on the camera body lens flange signifying that this is the standard Model C. All this kit would have cost you the equivalent of £2,500 in today’s money, a lot cheaper than a modern Leica!

*Elmar = a combination of the letters in Ernst Leitz and Max Berek – it replaced the more obvious Elmax name of the previous version due to a patent claim by a rival optical company.

IMG_5833

The great Soviet artist and photographer Alexander Rodchenko using a Leica 1(C) with an Elmar 135mm telephoto lens and FOFER range-finder clipped to a ‘torpedo’ view-finder [photograph by A Skurikhin, 1933]

Right from the start of production the Leica was available with a range of accessories. Barnack was convinced that Leitz must have an influence over the whole photographic process to ensure that photographs from the camera were top quality. Film cassettes, range and view-finders, enlargers and developing tanks were offered, and by 1931 the Leica catalogue ran to nearly 100 pages. These examples show some of the huge range of accessories on offer:

1931 catalogue 2

1994 photos of pit filled in

1931 catalogue 3

Below is a small selection from the catalogue (apart from the 1933 ELDUR glass slide contact printer at the back). There are various yellow and UV filters with a leather filter purse, close-up lenses, a developing tank with thermometer, film winding and trimming devices, and an ELDIA contact printer. The small black device by the leather case is a WINKO right angle view-finder. Two film cassettes are shown by a rare twin cardboard container. Modern 35mm film cassettes were based on these and will fit the early Leicas!

IMG_7099

The unique Leitz reference code for each product is shown in the catalogue against each item. Leica aficionados are familiar with the quirky, and sometimes unintentionally amusing, five letter codes that Ernst Leitz provided for everything that they sold, from cameras and binoculars to darkroom accessories and rolls of gummed paper. In fact this was quite common for manufacturers since the start of the telegraph. You generally paid by the word for a telegram so asking Leitz to send another 6 “Extra long arms for attaching the Leica to the upright of the Large Copying Device with nose for the auxiliary housing” would have cost a lot more than just asking for 6 more VEARMs. It also avoided any confusion between similar products. Generally made up of of five letters some of the codes were loosely based on German words for the item, such as the above example. Some are amusing to English speakers such as NOOKY (close-up device for the Elmar lens), POOHY (red filter), or ACHOO (Leica III camera). The derivation of most, such as VOLIG, VOMIR, VOOAL, VOODZ, VOOWI (enlarging equipment parts), is a total mystery. Not foreseen by Leitz, for modern collectors these code words are a boon when searching on Ebay!

For more detailed descriptions of early Leica accessories have a look at these posts on the OPINIONATED DESIGNER blog:

Leica VISOR, VIDOM, and VIOOH Viewfinders

Leica APDOO Self-timer, WINKO, WINTU, and AUFSU Viewfinders

Leica RASAL and ROSOL Framefinders

Leica FIKUS Lens Hood

The ‘bible’ for accessory aficionados is ‘Leica, An Illustrated History, Volume III – Accessories’ by James Lager (1998 ISBN 0-9636973-3-1)

 

 

Posted in 1930s photography, Camera, Cameras, Design, Photography, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Leica 1 Model C – The First System Camera

Blot on the Historic Townscape

King’s Lane Development, Cambridge, UK (1967)  – Architect: James Cubitt & Partners 

There are so many third-rate modern buildings around they just blend into the background, but sometimes you come across one that is so crass, ugly, and ridiculous that you just have to wonder what was going through the designer’s head. Walking along Trumpington Street, the main historic route through Cambridge, this monstrosity stopped me in my tracks.

DSC00113

This is the visible part of a large development of student accommodation behind the street which emerges into a space between two old college buildings in honey coloured stone, part of King’s College. It has absolutely no relationship with either in proportions, materials, detailing and everything else you can think of. Insensitive is the mildest adjective to describe this building. It is hideous and crude in every single respect and is just the sort of miserable 1960s edifice that made everyone loathe architects. King’s College is equally to blame for being persuaded at the presentation that this awful design would be suitable for this historic site and not sacking Cubitts on the spot. The planners of this era would approve any old rubbish as long as it was ‘modern’ so no surprise there.

DSC00115

The design concept for this elevation is mystifying. Perhaps the parapet used to line up with the building on the left before the roof extension, and presumably the giant bay is meant to reflect the corner turret of its Victorian neighbour. Are the badly stained recessed lines in the facade meant to be a nod to the rustication of its classical neighbour? Not sure what the tatty looking grey metal windows and panels have been inspired by – the extension of the mullions into little spikes above the roof was presumably meant to liven up the roof line, who knows? The mullions also do a great job of staining the facade below them. And presumably the stone was chosen to match the limestone of King’s College Chapel and its neighbours up the road instead of the ones next door? In fact, I am giving some credit to the architects for thinking about ‘context’ when of course in that dismal era of British Modernism it was a dirty word. The entire aim of this building was to show utter contempt for its old neighbours. At least it isn’t listed so there is some hope it could be demolished and replaced with something more sensitive in the future.

Unfortunately Cubitts is still a large multi-disciplinary practice spreading its vile designs around the world, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Check out this link to get an idea:

Home

The practice is obviously not ashamed of its work at King’s Lane which is still shown on its website!

King’s College shows how much it thinks of one of its most illustrious alumni, Alan Turing, by putting up a blue plaque in his honour, not on one of the many beautiful walls it owns but on the revolting stained flanks of this eyesore which wasn’t even built when he was alive.

 

Posted in Architecture, Blots on the Townscape, Building, Ugly Buildings, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Blot on the Historic Townscape

Dismal Designs – The Hearing Aid

WHY ARE HEARING AIDS SO BADLY DESIGNED AND OVER-PRICED?

An elderly relation of mine has some Starkey 3 Series hearing aids which cost an extraordinary £2,500 ($3,600)! Apart from the outrageous price, of which more later, this is one of the most badly designed consumer products I have ever come across. Old people’s hands tend to be unsteady, and their eyesight is often poor, so the ‘geniuses’ at Starkey came up with an off switch that doubles up as a battery holder so when you pull it out with shaky fingers the tiny battery usually falls on the floor and can’t be found by someone who has difficulties bending down and can’t see very well. She dropped one of the aids fiddling about with this ridiculous switch and it promptly broke into two because of the brittle and flimsy plastic. The hearing aid centre charged her hundreds of pounds to fix it, and soon afterwards she dropped it again with the same result! Because of the expense she now only uses the surviving one which is very inconvenient.

DSC01116

Why do you need a loose battery or such a crude switch? What about proximity wireless charging like the Apple Watch? What about having it switch off automatically when it is taken out of the ear? Modern camera electronic viewfinders sense when your eye is against them so it can’t be that difficult. The whole concept and design of the electronics (presumably just a microphone, speaker, and digital signal processor) look like something out of the 1970s. As the case had split open you could see the rather basic looking components and wiring inside, which didn’t look very complicated or expensive, so I found a breakdown of the costs of these things. As I suspected the profit margins are huge!

DSC01118

The breakdown for a pair of typical mid-range hearing aids is apparently as follows (US dollars):

Cost of manufacture – $250, then sold to a specialist hearing aid centre for $1,000 which includes research and development costs, marketing and $425 profit. The retailer then charges another $2,000 to cover their overheads and profit, selling them for $3,000. The audiologist profession maintain they need this level of profit to cover fitting, cleaning and adjustments, and the ‘personal touch’……!! This is all reminiscent of opticians some years ago selling outrageously priced glasses, which now of course you can get much cheaper from your local pharmacy and high street chain.

There are now some web-based suppliers such as Audicus in the US and Hearing Direct in the UK selling hearing aids for under $500/£340, so hopefully this might force the large manufacturers to come up with innovative modern designs at a reasonable price.

There is also growing interest in more sophisticated alternative solutions to the conventional device using smartphones:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-05/hearing-aid-alternatives-get-cheaper-more-powerful

Posted in Design, product design, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on Dismal Designs – The Hearing Aid

A Factory Filled with Light – Olivetti at Pozzuoli

stabilimentopozzuoli

“…Facing the most remarkable bay in the world, the architect has designed this factory to respect its beautiful surroundings and to make this beauty a source of comfort in the working day. We wanted nature to be part of the life of the factory rather than being excluded by a building which was too large, in which the windowless walls, air conditioning, and artificial light would diminish, day by day, the spirit of those working there. 

The factory was therefore designed to a human scale because in such surroundings the workplace will be an instrument of fulfilment and not a source of suffering. So we wanted low windows, open courtyards, and trees in the garden to banish the feeling of being in a constricted and hostile enclosure….”

Pozzuoli 1

60 years ago, on the 23rd April 1955, with these words in a speech to his employees, Adriano Olivetti opened his new office machine factory in Pozzuoli overlooking the Bay of Naples. These are not the sort of words usually uttered by a factory owner but Olivetti was no ordinary boss. One of the most remarkable industrialists and intellectuals of the Twentieth Century he had developed a utopian vision of the place of industry in society that this pioneering factory exemplified. This vision had developed in the twenty years since he took over the direction of his father’s company in 1933.

BACKGROUND

fedora (2)In 1908 Camillo Olivetti (1868-1943) had established Ing. C. Olivetti & C. in the small northern Italian town of Ivrea, near to Turin, as Italy’s first typewriter factory (illus.). A gifted engineer, he had been inspired by a stay in the USA to first import, then make, typewriters which were becoming essential equipment in most offices. The company grew rapidly and by the early 1920s was employing 250 and making over 2,000 machines a year. Olivetti was also an early Socialist, involved in radical politics at the turn of the century, and he published two left-wing newspapers. His factory pioneered social reforms in a country with generally appalling working conditions providing his employees with health and accident insurance, good wages, apprenticeships, further education, and subsidised housing. His socialist and anti-fascist views soon brought him, and his son Adriano, into conflict with the Mussolini regime and it was only the state’s need for Italian-made typewriters (as vital as computers are today) that prevented the firm from being closed down during the Fascist period.

ad-olivettiposter-02

Adriano Olivetti (1901-1960) shared his parents’ socialist opinions and strong moral purpose and, although trained as an engineer, he became an editor of one of Camillo’s newspapers at an early age. However, the failure of Italian socialism in the early 1920s and the rise of Mussolini disillusioned him (1) and he decided against a career in political journalism, joining the family firm as an apprentice in 1924. Following a tour of America in 1925, where he saw the mass-production methods of Ford and the vast Remington typewriter factories, he persuaded his father to transform the rather old-fashioned way Olivetti produced its machines. By the time Adriano became president of the firm in 1938 it had grown by 400% into a global business employing more than 2,000 workers.

During this period of rapid expansion the welfare of the Olivetti employees had not been forgotten. Adriano’s enthusiasm for modern management techniques included the development of social policies along with a new emphasis on industrial and graphic design, and modern architecture. Increasing profits were used for the benefit of the company’s workers. A foundation was created to provide financial assistance to injured or sick employees, social services were extended to include a health service, convalescent home, libraries, schools and a summer camp, and a whole district of subsidised worker housing was planned. Olivetti had embraced Modernism with enthusiasm, inviting Le Corbusier to Ivrea in 1934 to discuss management, architecture and planning. He brought together a group of young avant-garde Milanese architects to help him plan the expansion of the company’s facilities, and to develop a regional plan for the area around Ivrea which culminated in the Piano Regolatore di Valle d’Aosta (General Plan of the Aosta Valley) in 1937.

Olivetti complex in via Jervis: first extension Architect Figini1936 Factory extension, Ivrea, Architects Figini and Pollini (1949 extension by the same architects in the background)

The Olivettis’ relationship with the Fascist regime had been complex. Rather like Leitz (Leica) in Nazi Germany, the family’s politics and opposition were well known but the state needed their expertise and products. Their newspaper (Tempi Nuovi) was forced to close in 1925 after being attacked by the Fascists, and Adriano had a brief period of exile in London following his involvement in the escape to France of Filippo Turati, the veteran Socialist leader, in 1926. Despite this, to protect his business, he joined the Fascist Party in the late 30s whilst continuing his clandestine support for the anti-fascist movement. After the Nazi occupation of Italy he had to escape again in February 1944, this time to Switzerland, after being imprisoned by the Badoglio government. His father had already gone into hiding to avoid arrest, and he had died in December 1943. The Olivetti factories in Ivrea became the headquarters for the partisans in the region, and 24 employees were killed during the resistance struggle.

COMUNITA’ 

Olivetti had started to think about the reconstruction and ‘resurrection’ of post-war Italy as early as 1942, and his exile in Switzerland provided an opportunity for him to develop further his theories on urban and regional planning that he had begun with the Valle d’Aosta Plan. These ideas crystallized into the doctrine of Comunità or Community set out in his book ‘L’ordine politico delle Comunità published in 1945. He was a great admirer of the US writer and urban theorist Lewis Mumford whose 1938 book ‘The Culture of Cities’ stressed the importance of the region, ‘an area large enough to embrace a sufficient range of interests and small enough to keep these interests in focus and make them a subject of collective concern’.

Olivetti believed that industrialisation and urbanisation were destroying that sense of community and closeness to nature that people felt when they lived in smaller scale surroundings with natural and human boundaries, drawing inspiration from his own experience of living and working in the Canavese region around Ivrea, and the Canton system of government in Switzerland. He proposed that society should be organised in small self-governing communities of between 150,000 and 75,000 inhabitants, centred around industry or technology which would be integrated with housing and agriculture, in effect a form of (liberal) corporatism. He thought that this would be the best way to combine the needs of an industrial society with the values of a traditional one.

These autonomous communities would have their own government, legislature, scientific and academic organisations and, as in Switzerland, they would be organized into a national Federation. They would each represent the ‘spazio naturale dell’uomo’, defined by the natural limits of human social relationships and geography. For a community to function properly, argued Olivetti, its citizens must be in touch with one another and as much as possible with their political leaders. Direct contact with the natural world was also vital. Olivetti was promoting a sustainable society decades before the term was invented.

ordine_comunita

On his return from Switzerland in 1945 Olivetti founded a journal, a publishing group, and the Movimento di Comunità, keen to disseminate his ideas as Italy was re-building after the war. The Movimento was to be a forum for debate and education, and it established community centres throughout Italy which provided a variety of services as well as spreading the ideas of its founder. It also moved into the political arena by entering the elections in 1953 (not very successfully, although Olivetti became an MP in 1958).

To have some influence on the planning of post-war Italy Olivetti had joined the administration of UNRRA-Casas, the agency tasked with the recovery programme in the country immediately after the war. As part of the decentralisation policy of Comunità he wanted to take some of his production away from the concentrated industrial areas of northern Italy. He decided to build a factory in the impoverished south of the country where he would have the opportunity to put some of his ideas into practice. The site Olivetti chose for the 30,000 sq. metre building was on an elevated position overlooking the Golfo di Napoli, about 15 kilometres west of Naples,  in the volcanic area known as the Campi Flegrei.

To design his building Olivetti commissioned Luigi Cosenza (1905-1984), a Neapolitan architect and urban planner, who was a member of the Association of Organic Architecture and a Communist. This was not to be a traditional industrial shed – his brief from Olivetti was to harmonise the requirements of the factory with the landscape, introduce as much natural light and ventilation as possible, and make the most of the views across the bay. Both the plan and clever section achieved this in a spectacular way.

IMG_5699Concept sketch by Luigi Cosenza

piantastabilimento

The cross-shaped plan satisfied the production requirements while integrating the building into the sloping site. The narrow cross-section with fully glazed elevations gave employees direct views to the outside, overlooking landscaped courtyards or the sea. The glazing was shaded from the sun by projecting ledges, and extensive opening vents provided cross-ventilation from the sea breezes. Olivetti’s desire to bring nature into the workplace was masterfully achieved. It must have been wonderful to work there, particularly when you were living in the impoverished south of Italy after the devastation of WW2.

IMG_5715sezionestabilimento 

 cosenzastabilimentopozzuoli_rid 

assemblaggiosumma15View of main production hall showing the elegant and simple structure designed by the engineers Adriano Galli and Pietro Ciaravolo. Full height windows (shaded where necessary) overlook landscaped gardens. High level vents bring in Mediterranean breezes. 

The factory looks more like a modern office park or university campus with its large areas of glazing overlooking gardens or the sea. The integration of the landscape into an industrial environment had never been done before, and has not been attempted again with the same success. The landscaping was designed by Pietro Porcinai to adapt the building to its setting, and a colour scheme was developed by the great Olivetti designer Marcello Nizzoli (creator of the classic Lettera 22 portable typewriter) based on the those found in nearby Pompeii. The site also incorporated a canteen (Mensa on the plan) with views over the sea, a Social Services centre (Assistenza Sociale) with medical and other facilities, a library (Biblioteca), and a training centre for apprentices.

mensapozzuoliCanteen overlooking the Bay of Naples

bibliotecapozzuoliLibrary

In line with Olivetti’s social programme a residential neighbourhood for employees was built nearby, also designed by Cosenza. This included primary and secondary schools, a church, shops, cinema and a summer camp, all set in beautiful landscaping.

g081_olivetti_case

The factory was hugely successful throughout the 50s and 60s, employing 1,300 workers at its opening and continually expanding to Cosenza’s pre-arranged plan. Following the company’s decline in the 1990s it has now become a technology centre, occupied by Vodafone amongst others. In these times of zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage, criticisms of Amazon, Apple, Samsung, Walmart, and many other firms for their poor working practices, tax avoidance, and vast pay differentials between bosses and workers, it is difficult now to imagine a company that would spare no expense or effort to support the physical and mental welfare of its employees. Pozzuoli was conceived by a visionary industrialist and a left-wing architect who both shared the belief that politics and architecture were inseparable. Sixty years later it still remains the most humane and beautiful factory ever built, a part of the remarkable legacy of Adriano Olivetti.

Adriano Olivetti died on February 27th 1960 from a heart attack on the Milan to Lausanne express at the age of 58. His son, Roberto, took over and the company continued to be at the forefront of design, architecture and employee welfare for another two decades, despite increasing financial problems. It had some notable technological successes such as producing the first personal computer, the Programma 101 in 1965, but following a disastrous hostile takeover of Telecom Italia in 1999 it ended up being swallowed by the much larger company and now produces rather ordinary looking tablets and other electronic devices.

IMG_5719Current Google Earth view of the factory with later extensions to the north

Pozzuoli 3

IMG_5697IMG_5696

Pozzuoli 2Views of the factory (not luxury offices!), now a technology centre

IMG_2949

“At Pozzuoli, facing one of the most beautiful bays in the world, we built our factory. In its handsome functionalism, its carefully studied organization and its cultural and assistance services which equal those previously established in Ivrea, it bears out our aim of placing technology at the service of man.” AO in ‘Olivetti 1908-1958’

OLIVETTI vs APPLE

Some recent commentators and Italian documentaries have made a rather simplistic connection between Adriano Olivetti and Steve Jobs as entrepreneurs with design-led technology companies who both died at the peak of their careers. This shows a complete misunderstanding and ignorance of Olivetti’s philosophy and approach to business. Not just one of Italy’s leading industrialists or even a philanthropist, he was a socialist intellectual, urban theorist and planner, for whom good design and ‘the product’ were only a part of a much wider picture of how industry could and should contribute to the community and its workers. It is impossible to separate Olivetti the industrialist from (Italian) politics, whereas Jobs never had a serious political thought in his life.

Olivetti’s conviction that a company’s profits should be re-invested for the benefit of the community would be an alien concept to Apple, a firm with a cash pile of $200 billion achieved through rock-bottom labour costs and clever tax arrangements. As is quite evident in Walter Isaacson’s biography (and the recent Danny Boyle biopic), the Product was everything to the obsessive Jobs; his employees were secondary.

You only have to compare Cosenza’s light-filled masterpiece at Pozzuoli to the sunless interior of one of the factories making Apple products (below) to see the gulf between the two companies. The Californian management and designers at Apple will be moving into a spectacular new building by Foster Associates whereas the people who make their iPhones and iPads have had to put up with an appalling working environment which has resulted in protests and suicides.

Unsurprisingly, as businesses are usually short-term profit or dividend driven, Pozzuoli has had no influence at all on the design of industrial buildings. Sixty years later most have become the ‘source of suffering’ that Adriano Olivetti took so much care to avoid with his beautiful building in its gardens overlooking the Bay of Naples, designed to enhance the lives of his workers, rather than ‘diminish their spirit’. Looking at the factory interiors below his words at the opening of Pozzuoli in 1955 seem just as relevant today:

‘…We wanted nature to be part of the life of the factory rather than being excluded by a building which was too large, in which the windowless walls, air conditioning, and artificial light would diminish, day by day, the spirit of those working there…’

foxconn_undercover_02Foxconn factory, China

SAMSUNG DIGITAL CAMERAClothing factory, Bangladesh

Google Moto X factory, Fort WorthFlextronics factory, Texas

 

Photo and Illustration Credits

Photograph of 1936 Olivetti ICO factory extension – Tommaso Franzolini, founder/director of the Architectural Association Visiting School, Ivrea

Other black and white photographs, plan and section of factory, illustration of original Ivrea factory and early poster –  Associazione Archivio Storico Olivetti

Coloured sketches by Luigi Cosenza, and colour photographs of factory – Archivio Luigi Cosenza/La Fabricca Olivetti a Pozzuoli book (see below)

Aerial view of factory – Google Earth 

Foxconn factory – Shanghai Evening Post undercover reporter Wang Yu

Clothing factory – Fahad Faisal  via Wikimedia Commons

Flextronics factory (Google Moto X smartphones) – Google Street View  (the factory opened in 2013 after a $25m re-fit and closed at the end of 2014!)

Book 

La Fabbrica Olivetti a Pozzuoli (Italian/English text) by Gianni and Anna Cosenza. A really excellent in depth description of the project with superb photographs. Published by Clean Edizioni ISBN 88-8497-020-2 and available from their online shop.

00028_cosenza-olivetti

Links

Most of these are in Italian which sadly demonstrates just how quickly Olivetti and Pozzuoli have been forgotten outside Italy.

The story of Pozzuoli from the Olivetti Archive

The Factory with the Most Beautiful View in the World

Bios of Adriano Olivetti:

https://www.storiaolivetti.it/articolo/64-adriano-olivetti/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Olivetti

Movimento di Comunità (Adriano Olivetti Foundation):

http://www.fondazioneadrianolivetti.it/lafondazione_speciali.php?id_speciali=18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Movement

Bio of Luigi Cosenza:

http://www.luigicosenza.it/doc/biografia/biografia.htm

Note (1)

Olivetti wrote (unpublished notes for the Olivetti History 1908-58) that ‘Fascism had shattered my aspirations to journalism and my resistance to joining my father’s factory was weakening.’

He had become disillusioned with politics as well:

‘From 1919-1924, during my years at the Polytechnic Institute, I witnessed the failure of the socialist revolution. I can still picture the great parade of two hundred thousand people on May Day 1922 in Turin; but there was no one intellectually capable of channelling this great human impulse towards a better way of life….’ Olivetti History 1908-58

Posted in Architecture, Olivetti | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Factory Filled with Light – Olivetti at Pozzuoli

Great Designers Remembered – Pier Giorgio Perotto and the first PC

This month marks the 50th Anniversary of the launch of the world’s first commercially produced personal computer, the Olivetti Programma 101, during the Business Equipment Exhibition at the New York World’s Fair in October 1965. No, it wasn’t IBM, Hewlett-Packard, or Xerox who came up with the first one, but a small team of five brilliant engineers working for Olivetti in Ivrea, northern Italy, led by Pier Giorgio Perotto (1930-2002).

image

At least 10 years ahead of its time, the revolutionary 101 was a genuine computer, though of course very simple by today’s standards. It could be programmed, had data storage, a display (albeit only two lamps, blue and red!), keyboard, and printer, all contained in an elegant casing designed by Mario Bellini. Perotto’s team invented the magnetic card to input data. You only had to put it on your desk and plug it in to a normal electrical socket. Perotto and Bellini had designed it to be as easy to use as a typewriter.

P101-teamProgramma 101 Design Team – Gastone Garziera back left, Giancarlo Toppi back right, Pier Giorgio Perotto front left, Giovanni De Sandre front right (Giuliano Gaiti not present)

Perotto later spoke of his vision for the Programma 101:

“I dreamed of a friendly machine to which you could delegate all those menial tasks which are prone to errors. A machine that could quietly learn and perform tasks, that could store simple data and instructions, that could be used by anyone, that would be inexpensive and the size of other office products which people used. I had to create a new language which did not need interpreters in white coats.”

image

Until the 101 arrived access to computers was restricted to programmers and IT specialists, using punched cards and large reels of magnetic tape, often at only booked times. These main-frame computers needed their own air-conditioned rooms with heavy duty power supplies and raised access floors. The 101 enabled normal office or academic users to operate their own computer on their desks. Relatively cheap compared with a main-frame computer at $3,200 (although equivalent to nearly $24,000 today!), the 101 proved to be a huge commercial success for Olivetti, with over 44,000 sold. NASA bought several Programma 101s for the Apollo 11 moon landing, which took up rather less space than the IBM 7090 computers in the 1960s NASA computer room above!

image

Olivetti had pioneered electronic computers from the mid 1950s. The Elea 9003 was Italy’s first electronic computer, and the first of a very successful series. However following the death of Adriano Olivetti in 1960 the company got into severe financial difficulties after buying the giant US Underwood company and the electronics division was sold off to General Electric early in 1965. Before then Olivetti’s son, Roberto, had given the go ahead in 1962 for the development of a small ‘desk-top’ computer This had reached an advanced stage by the time of the take-over and to avoid their project being swallowed up by GE, Perotto’s team changed some of the specification of the 101 to make it appear to be a ‘calculator’ rather than a ‘computer’ which meant the project could stay with Olivetti.

Even so, the potential for the 101 was not really appreciated by the Olivetti management once Roberto Olivetti had left the company. It was included on the Olivetti stand at the 1965 World’s Fair in New York, but rather in the background, as the firm was more interested in promoting their latest calculators. Despite this the 101 was a sensation, both the press and public astonished that something so small could be a fully working computer. Some even thought it was connected to a larger computer behind the scenes. Olivetti realised they had a huge hit on their hands, and full production and sales began in early 1966.

It wasn’t until Hewlett-Packard launched its HP9100A in 1968 that the 101 had some serious competition. However, this was technically similar to the Olivetti machine and HP ended up paying the Italians $900,000 in royalties for copying many aspects of the 101, including the magnetic card.

Outside Italy Perotto’s name is not as well known as it should be, though the National Museum of Computing in Bletchley Park (Milton Keynes, UK) has a Programma 101 on display, and the nickname for the 101 is the ‘Perottina’. In 1991 Perotto received the prestigious Premio Leonardo da Vinci for his development of the first personal computer. Few realise now that Olivetti was the true pioneer in personal computing, and not one of the better known US computer companies. The Programma 101 is only mentioned briefly as a ‘calculator’ (pp 212-213) in the chapter about Personal Computers in Paul Ceruzzi’s well-known book A History of Modern Computing where he claims that Altair invented the PC in 1974!

Perotto’s home town, Cavaglià, near to the Olivetti epicentre of Ivrea, in Piedmont, has a wild flower and rock garden dedicated to his memory as the ‘creator of the first personal computer’.

IMG_6111

PHOTO CREDITS

Programma 101 design team – Associazione Archivio Storico Olivetti

Programma 101 on display at the National Museum of Computing – Wikimedia Commons, author AlisonW (October 2009)

NASA Computer Room with IBM 7090 computers – NASA archives

Giardini Perotto,  Cavaglià – Wikimedia Commons, author Sciking (May 2015)

LINKS

Nothing in the UK press but La Stampa celebrated the anniversary!

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/10/14/tecnologia/olivetti-MQlYiMynKSxdUZsWdrftsI/pagina.html

An excellent description of the technical aspects of the Programma 101:

http://www.curtamania.com/curta/database/brand/olivetti/Olivetti%20Programma%20101/

From the Storia Olivetti site (based on the Olivetti archives):

http://www.storiaolivetti.it/percorso.asp?idPercorso=630

A well written blog post on the Programma 101 story:

http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/28/the-first-pc-from-1965/

Perotto’s son has a site devoted to his father’s memory:

http://www.piergiorgioperotto.it/piergiorgioperotto.aspx

Perotto wrote a book about designing the 101:

Programma 101 – L’invenzione del personal computer, una storia appassionante mai raccontata. G. Perotto. Sperling & Kupfer 1995

Posted in Computers, Italian Design, Olivetti, Personal Computers, product design | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Great Designers Remembered – Pier Giorgio Perotto and the first PC

Miniature Masterpiece – Leica FIKUS Variable Lens Hood

A series of posts celebrating the early Leica camera accessory, ingenious and often beautiful small masterpieces of functional design. Ernst Leitz produced the first ‘system’ camera in 1930 (the Leica 1 Model C), and by 1933 the accessory catalogue ran to over 100 pages. These were so well designed from the start that many were still in production over 20 years later. See the first post for the Leica story.

This beautifully made lens hood is a classic example of the quality and ingenuity of the Leica accessory. Introduced in 1932 it can be used for several lenses to save carrying around a separate hood for each one. The base ring clamps around the end of the lens (A36 size or 36mm diameter) and the outer black hood slides up and down to suit each focal length and is then clamped into position. The inner sleeve is engraved with settings for different lenses. This is an early type which shows a setting for the Hektor 5cm f2.5 lens. The 1933 catalogue (below) describes and shows a setting for the 3.5cm wide angle Elmar lens on the same line as the Hektor but this was not shown as an option in the 1936 catalogue, presumably because it must have cut off some of the image (vignetting)! Very rare early hoods have a marking for the 5cm f2 Summar lens instead. The usual settings are 5cm, 9cm and 13.5cm, later in mm, then back to cm.

IMG_5641a

FIKUS 1933 brochure

IMG_5643IMG_5644

Because the inner sleeve is nickel plated it is lined in black felt to avoid reflections. The outer black hood is lined in fine grooves for the same reason. Later types had the same grooves on both the hood and base sleeve.

IMG_5640 IMG_5638

The little box it comes in is typically Leica. Beautifully made in humble cardboard, it has colour matched velvet lining to the top and bottom. Over 80 years old it is still in perfect condition. This is the earliest style of Leica packaging from 1925 up to the early 30s. Later boxes came in dark red then a lighter red in the early 50s.

IMG_5635

A 1932 Leica II range-finder camera shown with the FIKUS attached to an Elmar 5cm standard lens…..

IMG_5712

…..and to a rare Elmar 13.5cm telephoto lens, a very impressive looking vintage ensemble!

IMG_5761

A portrait of the great Leica photographer Dr. Paul Wolff in the 1930s with a FIKUS and VIDOM viewfinder attached to his Leica.

IMG_2789

This is the 1950s version of the hood in satin chrome, with lens markings in cm and later packaging style. Shown on a 5cm Elmar/If and 9cm Elmar/IIIf. The FIKUS was produced for over 30 years, only ending production in 1965.

IMG_5710IMG_5708

image

Links to other posts in the series:

RASAL and ROSOL Frame Finders

APDOO Self-timer, WINKO and WINTU Angular Viewfinders, and AUFSU Reflecting Viewfinder

VISOR, VIDOM, and VIOOH Viewfinders

Photograph of Paul Wolff:

Archiv Dr. Paul Wolff & Alfred Tritschler

Paul Wolff was the photographer who did the most to popularise the Leica and 35mm photography in the 20s and 30s with many books and articles. All his negatives were lost in WW2 but a gallery in Salzburg has many of his surviving prints and is apparently publishing a book on Wolff with an exhibition. Timing not known. The photographer and Leica enthusiast Thorsten Overgaard has an interesting piece about Wolff on his blog:

http://www.overgaard.dk/the-story-behind-that-picture-0122_gb-Dr-Paul_Wolff.html

The ‘bible’ for accessory aficionados is ‘Leica, An Illustrated History, Volume III – Accessories’ by James Lager (1998 ISBN 0-9636973-3-1)

Posted in 1930s photography, Cameras | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Miniature Masterpiece – Leica FIKUS Variable Lens Hood

Disappointing Designs – Apple Watch

Being an Apple fan since my first Macintosh I wasn’t expecting to be disappointed by the Apple Watch. I tried out the Sport version recently which seemed well made and there are some great features and apps, but crucially it just didn’t look or feel right on the wrist. I was hoping that Apple would re-invent the wrist device as they did the mobile ‘phone, and some of the early ideas using flexible screens looked exciting. Unfortunately the final product looks too much like a shrunken iPhone (but even thicker) and doesn’t generate enough ‘must-have’ feelings for me to reach for my credit card, despite a good review on cnet:

http://www.cnet.com/uk/products/apple-watch/

This skates over the absurdity of the Edition versions of the watch. Why would anyone want to buy one in pink gold for $17,000 (plus a ludicrous $1,500 for two years of ‘support’)? The same people who buy jewel encrusted Vertu mobile ‘phones I expect. Apart from the fact it will be out of date in a year or so when version 2 comes out, it has exactly the same innards as the $349 watch (which apparently costs around $200 to make). If you really want a rectangular pink gold watch spend a bit more to have the craftsmanship and pedigree of a slimmer and more elegant Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Duo and an Apple Watch Sport. The Reverso will last forever and you can keep changing the Apple Watch!

IMG_4719

Alternatively the new Samsung Gear S2 smart watch is tempting me to ditch iOS in favour of Samsung’s new Tizen OS! It looks terrific, has faces designed by Alessandro Mendini instead of Mickey Mouse, and does what the Apple Watch does but far more stylishly. The round face is like a conventional watch and because of the clever strap it sits much more elegantly on the wrist than its lumpy rectangular competitor.

This got me thinking about the earliest ‘smart’ mechanical wristwatches – ie a wrist device which doesn’t just tell the time. One of my favourite watches is the old Breitling Navitimer 806 (lh) which was designed in 1952 as a development of their beautiful 1940s Chronomat (rh). It incorporates a circular slide rule for pilots to work out their air speed, rate of climb, fuel consumption, and other conversions. Breitling referred to it as a ‘Flight Computer’.

The Chronomat was patented in 1941 as a watch with a built in slide rule for maths, scientific and engineering uses. It was made in various forms right up to Breitling’s financial difficulties in the late 70s. The current rather ‘blingy’ Chronomat has no relationship at all to this wonderful vintage watch.

FullSizeRenderIMG_4713

IMG_4716

The very first ‘smart watch’ was probably the Meyrat & Perdrizet Pocket-Watch Calculator produced in France from the 1880s which had a circular slide rule surrounding a very small traditional watch dial. However, the prize for the earliest ‘smart’ wristwatch must go to the elegant but obscure Swiss-made Mimo Loga which also had a built-in circular slide rule – ‘A calculating machine in a watch’. It was introduced in 1941 just before the Chronomat but, unlike the latter, it has vanished without trace.

Photo credits:

JLC Reverso Duo – courtesy of Jaeger-LeCoultre

Chronomat – from forums.watchuseek website below

Mimo Loga ad from History of Smart Watch blog below

Links:

Jaeger-LeCoultre Reverso Duo – one of the all time classic watches:

http://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/GB/en/collections/reverso

http://basepath.com/watches/Reviews/JLCReverso/JLCreview.htm

An excellent source for the history of the early Chronomat:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f39/breitling-chronomat-short-history-part-1-slide-rule-chronomats-9103.html

And for the Navitimer:

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f39/breitling-navitimer-brief-history-most-famous-breitling-all-25057.html

http://people.timezone.com/breitling/bfaq/Reviews–Navitimer.html

For the M&P Pocket-Watch Calculator:

www.oughtred.org/jos/articles/Wyman_M&PB.pdf

And for the Mimo Loga and Chronomat:

http://www.invenitetfecit.com/modeles/page-breitlingchronomat.html

The History of the Smart Watch:

https://bhtooefr.org/blog/2012/03/04/the-history-of-the-smart-watch-part-1-calculation-and-entertainment/

Posted in Design, watch design | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Disappointing Designs – Apple Watch

Memorable Images – Henry Taunt

Henry Taunt (1842-1922) was one of the most influential, innovative, and prolific Victorian photographers, all but forgotten today except by River Thames enthusiasts. Based in Oxford, he produced the first* photographically illustrated guide book to the river in 1872 which he entitled:

“A new map of the River Thames from Oxford to London, from entirely new surveys taken during the summer of 1871: with a guide giving every information required by the tourist, the oarsman, and the angler”

As well as all this information there were maps showing sections of the Thames, hand coloured in blue, with small photographs of local scenes on the relevant pages. His guide was so popular it ran for several editions to the end of Victoria’s reign and was one of the reasons for the huge increase in visitors to the Thames at the end of the century, another being the increasing popularity and ease of rail travel to the various towns along the length of the river. Taunt also wrote and illustrated many other local photographic guidebooks, and his business increased to such an extent that he had a small ‘factory’ on the outskirts of Oxford in Cowley producing all the many guides and photographs he created. At his death in 1922 thousands of his glass photographic plates were destroyed, but many were rescued and are preserved in the Oxford City Library and the National Archives.

Taunt's Guide bound in

Renowned at the time (and since by those who know of him) for his photographs of the Thames, he was also a fine photographer of other subjects. These are two of my favourites:

1232444 Great Barrington Barn 1880Threshing, Great Barrington Barn 1895

Great Barrington is near Burford in the Cotswolds. This character is straight from a Thomas Hardy novel, and the strong and confident late Victorian farm labourer makes an interesting contrast to the rather depressed and resigned late 20thC American workers portrayed by Duane Hanson in the previous post!

1232416 London Bridge 1880London Bridge 1880

The bridge in the photograph was completed in 1831 to the designs of Charles Rennie and replaced the medieval Old London Bridge with its houses and shops, and executed heads on pikes in earlier times. This crossed just downstream with the City end of it more or less where the dark brick warehouse building is seen. In its turn Rennie’s bridge was replaced in 1972 by a wider concrete bridge and the old one was dismantled, sold to an American entrepreneur, and rebuilt in Arizona.

The photograph was taken from the south bank of the river in the middle of the day, the clock on the Adelaide Buildings on the right of the bridge showing 12:40. This evocative picture conjures up all the hustle and bustle of Victorian England at the time of Oscar Wilde, Gilbert & Sullivan, and Gladstone. The City of London was at the centre of a vast empire and over 8000 pedestrians and 900 vehicles were crossing the bridge every hour in this period (it is the end of the A3 trunk road from Portsmouth). You can see carts with some of the huge quantities of hay needed for the 300,000 horses in the capital, and others are filled with wheels, boxes or barrels. There are omnibuses, Hansom cabs, and private carriages jostling the commercial vehicles on the crowded bridge, with a lone policeman observing it all from the roadside!

What is remarkable about this late Victorian view of the City of London is that there are hardly any buildings above 5 or 6 storeys allowing most of the church towers to be seen, a skyline little changed for 200 years. The centre of Paris is still much like this, but the Blitz and the philistinism and greed of the City put paid to any chances of this unique skyline being preserved. There are at least four of Sir Christopher Wren’s designs in the picture: St Magnus the Martyr is the church in the centre of the image, next to his Monument to the 1666 Great Fire of London. The tower above the end of the bridge belongs to St Mary Aldermary and the spire on the far right is St Margaret Pattens. On the left of the bridge is the classical looking headquarters of one of the famous guilds of London, Fishmongers Hall, built in 1834.

A Google Earth screenshot shows just how much has changed for the worse over the following 135 years. The only recognisable building is Fishmongers Hall. You can just catch a glimpse of the golden ball on top of the Monument to the left of Richard Roger’s ‘Cheesegrater’ building above the roof of Adelaide House. Everything else is hidden or destroyed and only ugly modern buildings remain, the most recent being the dreadful ‘Fryscraper’ by Rafael Viñoly which looms over the scene like a grotesque cartoon phantom.

image

Taunt images from Imagestate Media on 2/11/2011

*Russell Sedgfield was the first to use photographs in his three books on the Thames published in the mid-1860s, but these were general interest guides rather than for users of the river.

Posted in Photography, Victorian photographers | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Memorable Images – Henry Taunt

Duane Hanson at the Serpentine

The 1805 Magazine building (an armoury and gunpowder store) in London’s Kensington Gardens was sensitively converted by Zaha Hadid and Liam O’Connor Architects in 2013 into the new Sackler extension of the Serpentine Gallery, with a swooping tent-like addition in fabric and glass by Hadid enclosing a new restaurant. The gallery is currently exhibiting work by the US sculptor Duane Hanson (1925-1996), who created astonishingly lifelike figures and tableaux of working-class Americans (exhibition closes 13th September).

http://www.serpentinegalleries.org/exhibitions-events/duane-hanson

DSC00296 (1)Homeless Person 1991

Very well laid out, not too crowded with exhibits, you can get up close to each sculpture to examine their incredible detail. They are life-size and technically astonishing, made from a variety of materials including epoxy resin (car body filler), fibreglass, painted bronze, real hair, clothes and accessories. Their ‘skin’ has wrinkles, age spots, small cuts, moles, hair, stubble, and sweat. In fact they are so lifelike that staring at them becomes slightly uncomfortable and voyeuristic after a while as you half expect them to turn and curse you for being so rude. You also end up staring at the gallery staff wondering if they are exhibits as well! Hanson actually created Security Guard in 1990 which disconcerts visitors to the Boca Raton Museum of Art where the sculpture stands next to its security office.

However, what lifts them far beyond a Madame Tussauds style wax-works exhibit and makes them works of art is the extraordinary way these static figures can convey deep emotions. You can feel their despair, disappointment, loneliness, bitterness, or boredom, and some of the figures are weighed down with the effort of day-to-day life, especially the Man with Hand Cart who has just had enough of his tiring work. The ones doing monotonous jobs stare into the distance, their minds elsewhere. Look at the (not so) Old Couple on a Bench, married so long they have nothing left to say to each other, lost in their own thoughts of what might have been perhaps.

DSC00287 (1)Old Couple on a Bench 1994

A figurative painter until he was 40 Hanson started making socially critical sculptures in the mid 1960s depicting police brutality, abortion, soldiers in Vietnam, and homeless people. One of these earlier pieces in the exhibition is quite shocking, depicting a dead baby with a plastic bag over its head in a dustbin (Trash 1967). He moved on to create sculptures of working-class Americans, brilliantly capturing the details of the lives and tastes of this artistically ignored section of US society. He is never patronising, a sympathetic observer as you can see from his witty Self Portrait with Model with the artist thoughtfully sitting opposite one of his subjects. He explained why he chose this area of human life for his art:

“The subject matter that I like best deals with the familiar lower and middle class American types of today. To me, the resignation, emptiness and loneliness of their existence capture the true reality of life for these people.”

             DSC00295 (1)ASelf Portrait with Model 1979

DSC00283 (1)aHouse Painter 1  1984/88

DSC00289 (1)Above: detail of Man with Hand Cart 1995        

DSC00293 (1)DSC00294 (1)Man on Mower 1995

DSC00292 (1)A Detail of Queenie II 1988

All photographs by me

Posted in Art | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Duane Hanson at the Serpentine

Blots on the Cityscape – The Ruin of London?

There has been an astonishing lack of serious debate about the future planning of London except in one or two of the architecture journals and the Guardian. Over 400 very tall buildings are planned for the city, particularly along the south bank of the Thames. Judging by what has been built so far, and visuals of what are planned, these will mostly be a motley collection of mediocre and gimmicky buildings which will have a profound effect on London’s skyline and at ground level, blocking views and casting long shadows. The majority of these blocks will be crammed full of apartments sold off-plan to foreign buyers for ‘investment’ which will mean many of them will be dark at night, like the Richard Rogers’ buildings on Hyde Park last time I went past them. Only a token few will be ‘affordable homes’ for Londoners – a recent ad for one luxury block promised Hong Kong buyers that there would be no social housing in it.

The former Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, proclaimed that “new tall buildings are gracing London’s iconic skyline, demonstrating our city’s ability to design and construct world-class architecture” and “sensitively managed, well-designed and in the right place, tall buildings will continue to help this city address its greatest challenge.” (Newsweek)

Presumably these include the execrable ‘Fryscraper’ (20 Fenchurch Street) by Rafael Viñoly, winner of the 2015 Carbuncle Cup, which blights the views from the Thames in both directions, has melted cars, blows people over, and looms over the Tower of London. This dreadful building was also supported by the former City Planner Peter Rees, milords Foster and Rogers and other ‘distinguished’ architects who have all been rather quiet about the finished result, as has Boris Johnson!

DSC08761a

DSC08764a

Because of their effect on views of the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey UNESCO has warned that several proposals for tall buildings on the south bank of the Thames have led it to consider placing Westminster on the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger. This decision has not yet been taken because of lobbying from the UK, but what a shocking indictment of the lack of any strategic planning in London!

‘LONDON IS BECOMING A BAD VERSION OF SHANGHAI OR DUBAI’ – Alain de Botton

Alain de Botton has produced an excellent short film to warn of the danger that this greedy mania for tall buildings poses for London. He accuses the developers and architect of the ‘Fryscraper’ of committing crimes against Beauty and wonders why they aren’t in prison – strong stuff!

http://youtu.be/6QcbsedsGdA

image

Posted in Architecture, Blots on the Cityscape, Blots on the Townscape, London Architecture | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Blots on the Cityscape – The Ruin of London?

Disappointing Designs – Alfa Romeo Giulia

If you’re an Alfa Romeo enthusiast you need to be very resilient to keep faith with the brand! From the boxy looking 1960s Giulias (the accident prone grey police cars in the Italian Job) to the Capybara look-alike Mito, they just keep on designing odd looking or uninspiring cars in between the occasional gem like the Alfasud or Montreal. The lovely Duetto Spider sports car (of The Graduate fame) was messed up with ugly bumpers and a chopped off back end, and the Brera looked like a toad. The beautiful 8C and 4C improved matters, and the 156 was a good looking car with some clever details penned by the great Walter da Silva*. Unfortunately its replacement, the current Giulietta, at least from the side, just looks like a nicer Fiat Bravo. The 159 was handsome enough, but Alfa enthusiasts were looking forward to its replacement, the Giulia. Unofficial visuals promised an exciting looking car with sharp lines and coupe styling which could have been the Italian firm’s more adventurous answer to the rather dull German and Jaguar compact saloons.

imageimage

hp2_0_0

The new Giulia, outside the Charles Correa designed Fundaçao Champalimaud Research Centre in Belém, near Lisbon – a new Italian car photographed in Portugal!

Now it has been launched – oh dear. What has emerged is a dated design with zero Italian flair, looking nothing like the visuals but more like a mish-mash of all the other conventional sporty saloons, perhaps deliberately so. Only the grille gives a clue that it is an Alfa Romeo! From the side it resembles a BMW 3 series, and the back end is heavy and ungainly without the expected sleek coupe looks. Let’s hope the actual coupe version turns out better. Italian cars can’t compete with the Germans on reliability and perceived quality so they must at least be beautiful! Sadly, the new Giulia is just too ordinary looking to be the game-changer that Alfa needs for its grand plan to produce 400,000 cars a year by 2018.

*not Walter de Silva, as is so often written by ignorant journalists, and Wikipedia!

UPDATE: August 2017

Sadly I was right, sales have been disastrous throughout 2017 with less than 2,500 sold in the US so far compared to around 23,000 very boring BMW 3 Series. I have only seen one in my area in the last 12 months, and dealers are already offering massive discounts. Sadly, it looks like another Alfa flop.

Top lh image from Image Lab 

Top rh image by Thorsten Krisch

Main image by Alfa Romeo; for other official pictures –

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/alfa-romeo/giulia/86267/new-alfa-romeo-giulia-revealed-official-pictures#4

Posted in Auto Design, Automotive Design, Car Design, Italian Design | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Disappointing Designs – Alfa Romeo Giulia

Golden Silver – The Beauty of Nickel Plate

Around the early 1930s shiny metal things began to look colder and brighter when chromium plating replaced the soft golden tones of nickel plate. You can clearly see the difference looking at these otherwise identical Leica Elmar lenses (if you can’t, the nickel plated one is on the right!).

IMG_4842

My 1912 Triumph hub-clutch motorcycle with many parts in silvery nickel plate. Imagine how different the effect would be if these were in shiny chrome!

july 060004

More veteran (pre 1914) motorcycle parts in ‘dull’ and ‘bright’ nickel plate*. A beautiful Powell and Hanmer of Birmingham #125 acetylene headlight on the right. As this was one of P&H’s more expensive models the whole light is finished in nickel.

imageIMG_4837a

A complete P&H motorcycle acetylene lighting set in the more usual combination of black enamel and nickel plate, restored by the author. The carbide generator is on the lhs with the container for the calcium carbide next to it. Small pieces of calcium carbide are placed in the bottom container of the generator, and water put into the top part. The top ‘dial’ adjusts the amount of water dripping on to the carbide generating acetylene gas which is fed to the front and rear lights via orange rubber tubing.

image

Early avant-garde tubular furniture in the 1920s was nickel plated. Marcel Breuer Model B3 chair 1925 (lh), Eileen Grey ‘Satellite’ mirror (rh) and E1027 side table from 1927. All are still being made today, but now in chrome.

IMG_4825IMG_4822

IMG_4893

Trims and fittings for most high end industrial products were finished in bright nickel plate from the late 19thC to the end of the 1920s. This is an Olivetti M.20 typewriter from 1928 (Italian Royal Navy livery)……..

imageimage

……..and a very smart Murer & Duroni folding camera from 1910.

image

Nickel plate began to fall out of favour in the late 1920s when chrome plating (invented in the US in 1924) became more popular. It was a harder finish and did not need constant polishing to maintain a shiny surface. Chrome plate became synonymous with the fashionable style of Art Deco in the 1930s and reached its apogee with the extravagant American automobiles of the 1950s.

Nevertheless, nickel plate is still a popular way to finish musical instruments, and customised vehicles. It is also widely used in engineering and architecture. Thomas Heatherwick, of Olympic cauldron fame, has designed large seating units from extruded aluminium which is then nickel plated for maximum wear resistance and visual effect.

FLUGELHORN

This is a great looking bike, based on a Yamaha XV920, custom made by John Ryland of Classified Moto in the USA. The nickel plated fuel tank is from a Benelli – a traditional finish brought right up to date!

image

The process of nickel plating

Nickel is a chemical element with symbol Ni. A silvery white lustrous metal with a slightly golden tinge, it was first classified as an element by the Swedish scientist Axel Cronstedt in 1751. Nickel is generally found with iron ore, and Earth’s inner core is thought to be a mixture of nickel and iron. The largest producers of nickel are Canada, the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, and Russia. The small South Pacific island of New Caledonia has around 10% of the world’s nickel reserves. Apart from plating, nickel is used in coins (the US ‘nickel’), stainless steel, batteries, guitar strings, and with other metals as an alloy.

Nickel electroplating is the process of depositing a thin layer of nickel on a metal part for protection against corrosion and wear, and for decorative purposes. The process uses an electrical current to dissolve the nickel (the anode) in an electrolyte solution which is then transferred to the metal part (the cathode). Both are connected to the current directly and via the electrolyte bath making an electrical circuit. The solution in the bath is extremely toxic, containing metal salts, potassium cyanide, phosphates and other chemicals.

This method of plating a metal object with nickel was developed in the mid 19thC once there was a reliable method of creating an electrical current. Its protective and decorative qualities made nickel plate the ideal finish for early vehicles and it was used on bicycle handlebars and pedals, car and motorcycle accessories and parts, over a steel or brass substrate. A nickel plated revolver, often with decorative engraving, was the gun of choice for stylish cowboys and gunslingers in the Old West.

Electroless nickel plating is the most commonly used process now. It uses a controlled chemical reaction to deposit the nickel coating avoiding the toxic bath and electrical current needed for electroplating. Because of its resistance to corrosion and even thickness enp is used for high quality engineering components in the aerospace, automotive, healthcare, marine and defence industries (see link below for more information).

* Nickel plating can be either ‘dull’ (satin) or ‘bright’ (polished). Dull plating, which is tougher and has better corrosion resistance, is created with additives or emulsifying agents in the plating bath which etch microscopic ‘pock marks’ in the surface making it non-reflective. Bright or polished plating is made by adding organic brightening and levelling agents to provide a smooth shiny finish. It is obviously more vulnerable to scratching (nickel is much softer than chrome plate) and if kept outside will often need polishing regularly to maintain the finish, otherwise it ends up looking like dull plating.

Credits and Links:

The industry handbook with everything you need to know about nickel plating:

http://www.nickelinstitute.org/TechnicalLiterature/Reference%20Book%20Series/2014NickelPlatingHandbook.aspx

An interesting site for a UK specialist in electroless nickel plating who was involved with Heatherwick’s seating:

http://www.electroless-nickel-plating.co.uk/

Olivetti M.20 restoration by Guy Pérard:

http://www.typewriter.be

Nickel plated flugelhorn from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Pistons-Flugelhorn-Mouthpiece–Nickel-Trigger/dp/B00HU7KZP6/ref=sr_1_4/184-9776434-6968736?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1435772562&sr=1-4&pebp=1435772567266&perid=0AHZ3D1T6YZTR9E8QVPC

Link to Classified Moto website with a wonderful collection of custom-made motorcycles, many with lovely nickel plated tanks:

http://www.classifiedmoto.com/bikes/

Article about the custom Yamaha made by Classified Moto:

http://www.bikeexif.com/yamaha-xv920

Photograph of the Yamaha with the kind permission of Adam Ewing

http://www.adamewing.com/

Posted in Design, metal finishes | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Golden Silver – The Beauty of Nickel Plate

Delightful Designs – Arteluce Bean Bag Light

Arteluce Model 600p light – Gino Sarfatti 1966

Designed in that ‘Golden Age’ of Italian design* nearly 50 years ago, it still looks startlingly modern today**. A brilliantly simple concept, taking advantage of the leather and metal-working skills of Northern Italy, the design combines a small leather bag containing lead shot with a lacquered metal shade (in black or white). The soft weighted base allows the light to be positioned at any angle. It also feels satisfyingly heavy at 1.25 kg. It is only 210mm high, and the leather ball is 65mm in diameter.

IMG_4739

Gino Sarfatti (1912-1984) was a Venetian designer best known for designing modern variations of the traditional chandelier for Flos and Arteluce, many of which are still in production. The bean bag light was a design departure for him, and the one he is probably least known for, but a great favourite with Italian design addicts.  What a shame it is no longer made (though I doubt the lead shot would be allowed today!). I still have this one, bought in the 70s, but wish I hadn’t given away a 600g version (slightly larger, without the shade) when the leather bag split open scattering lead shot everywhere!

*It was one of the exhibits in the landmark MoMA New York show in 1972 “Italy: The New Domestic Landscape”. Also at the show was the original ‘bean bag’ chair, the Sacco, produced by Zanotta and designed in 1968 by Gatti, Paolini, and Teodoro.

**Brought right up to date with a led golf ball light bulb!

Posted in Interior Design, Italian Design, Lighting | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Delightful Designs – Arteluce Bean Bag Light

Housing Design Crisis

In an effort to improve on the woeful standard of housing design in the UK the last government launched the Building for Life 12 scheme in 2014. It is ‘designed to help local communities become more involved in design conversations and in shaping development proposals. Its 12 questions provide a structure for discussions between local communities, the local planning authority, the developer, and other stakeholders, to ensure that the design of new homes and their neighbourhood is as attractive, functional and sustainable as possible.’ Bfl12 is led by three partners: Design Council (Cabe*), Home Builders Federation, and Design for Homes. It is an accreditation scheme that encourages and commends well designed new housing developments, and judging by the first batch of commended schemes it is partly succeeding. Amidst the dross there are some excellent and imaginative designs with thoughtful planning and landscaping.

*formerly Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

www.builtforlifehomes.org.

Unfortunately these schemes are a drop in the ocean of the 300,000 houses which apparently need to be built every year to cope with the ‘housing crisis’. The biggest house builders, who will reap the rewards of this, have never been known for their interest in good design. Housing for the mass market has been distilled down to a vaguely traditional ‘planner friendly’ style: windows are always ‘traditional’, white with glazing bars and minimal sills; roofs are always pitched, with tile or slate; there are seldom any chimneys; brick is generic and looks like wall paper; to achieve ‘character’ (which sells) and a sort of ‘vernacular’ design, adjacent houses can be in contrasting colours and materials and have different roof levels. For more ‘prestige’ developments a bit of artificial stone can be used for sills or lintels. There is seldom any meaningful effort to suit the design to a particular part of the country – a development in Newcastle generally looks much the same as one in Taunton. Landscaping and sustainability are minimal, and the least the developer can get away with. These criticisms have been made for decades, and little has changed – private house building is stuck in a 1980s time warp!

This is a typical example in Bracknell, SE England, called Jennett’s Park. A huge development of 1,500 homes over 270 acres of farmland, it is being developed by Redrow and Persimmon, two of the UK’s biggest house builders. 200 developments of this size will be needed every year! A very detailed Design Statement was produced by PRP Planners :

“A coherent approach to the detail design of the dwellings is envisaged influenced by a series of timeless principles. The external appearance of the dwellings may either draw inspiration from the best local traditions and styles of Bracknell and district without resorting to ‘historical pastiche’, or explore the best of modern design, either of which should result in a distinctive development.”

You can judge how well this ‘coherent approach’ has succeeded by looking at the finished result. Try to spot any sign of inspiration from local traditions (whatever they are in Bracknell!) or any exploration of the best of modern design.

 DSC08965 DSC08959

DSC08957

DSC08966a DSC08962

DSC08960a

Needless to say, there is absolutely no inspiration of any kind, or anything approaching modern design. The ‘timeless principles’ are those of thirty years ago and the development is so lacking in distinction it could be anywhere in England. The Design Statement was a complete waste of time as the design, detailing, materials, landscaping, and everything else are abysmal. Do the developers care? No, because almost every house sells as soon as it is finished. Do the planners care? No, because all the right boxes were ticked with a Masterplan, Design Statement, and Section 106 agreements*. Do the buyers care? No, they’re delighted to have found a brand new home, and most estates look much the same anyway. The Bfl12 scheme will struggle to have any influence on the design of private housing when there is no incentive to improve it!

*The developer provides schools, playgrounds, infrastructure etc as a condition of planning consent.

Posted in Architecture, Housing, Housing Design | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Housing Design Crisis

Blot on the Landscape – Close-board Fencing

NEC2 b

Is there any more miserable way to mark a boundary than the ubiquitous close-board fence? The cheapest method of enclosing outside space (and looks it) which is why it is thoughtlessly used everywhere. It often blocks ancient routes for wildlife (contributing to the rapid demise of the hedgehog – they wander around 3km at night) and provides no shelter or food for it, looks bland and uninteresting, quickly becomes shabby, and starts to disintegrate after a few years despite being soaked in chemicals. People will spend a lot of money on a fitted kitchen but begrudge the expense of a native species hedge, or a wall of brick or stone, which would fit in with the local scene and please their neighbours or passers-by. This suburban-looking house in the countryside has a fence to match which runs directly in front of the ground floor windows blocking the view, gives no indication of where the entrance is, and has another metal fence directly in front of it! This is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where new development is supposed to “Conserve and Enhance the Landscape”……..!

The cursed stuff is spreading and falling down everywhere……….

DSC08935a

DSC09957

DSC04850

These are typical street scenes these days. Old hedges have been hidden or ripped out and close-board fencing shoved up because of an obsession with privacy and cheapness, with no consideration of how it all looks to everyone else, and what it does to the environment. Hedges are non existent in new developments and there is seldom enough room or incentive to plant them as gardens are so small. This is a truly dreadful new housing estate in Bracknell, in the south of England. The token bit of greenery is derisory (bottom left).

DSC08960a

An interesting modern house spoilt by an inappropriate and uninteresting fence!

DSC00132 DSC00134

The Victorians managed their privacy with laurel, privet and hawthorn hedges which also provided security and shelter for wildlife. Luckily some suburban streets are still holding on to their vegetation. Think of the CO2 being absorbed, and how many birds and other creatures are living in these hedges compared to the previous barren boundaries.

DSC08931DSC08933

Not a typical close-board fence, but what looks like a row of bed headboards as a bizarre way of enclosing another mediocre new housing estate on the edge of the countryside!

DSC00052

As a total contrast to all the dismal efforts above, I recently came across the rare sight of this beautifully cut and laid hedge. It is good to know that there are still some people who care enough, and have the skills (or are willing to spend the money), to make such a wonderful looking boundary. Comprising hundreds of willow stakes and an interwoven willow top row, the hedge plants were cut partly through at the bottom and then interwoven through the stakes. When it is first done it looks quite drastic, but as you can see now (in May) the hedge is bursting into life, providing shelter for birds and animals, food for insects, and a barrier to livestock, as well as giving great pleasure to all who pass by it.

DSC09941 DSC09937

DSC09938

Posted in Blot on the Landscape, Blots on the Townscape | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Blot on the Landscape – Close-board Fencing

Delightful Designs – Alessi Birdsong Tea Strainer

Alessi ‘Tea Matters’ Melodic Tea Strainer – Alan Chan 2010

No other manufacturer would, or could, make such a quirky and delightful product. Ostensibly for straining tea but imagined as a cage containing the strainer in the shape of a bird, all beautifully made in 18/10 polished stainless steel and PMMA (poly methyl methacrylate).

IMG_4626a

The delight is increased when you lift out the strainer and bird song is heard. When you return the strainer to the steel ring support the low voltage circuit is completed and the song switches off. A recessed polished stainless steel tray neatly catches any drips.

The Hong Kong designer Alan Chan describes how he came up with the idea:

“….It was inspired by the social tradition, deeply rooted in Chinese history, with bird fanciers taking their pet birds in exquisite birdcages to tea, as a pastime. The whole object, highly crafted, is an art display in itself.”

Indeed it is!

IMG_4641

Posted in Design, Italian Design, product design | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Delightful Designs – Alessi Birdsong Tea Strainer

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica RASAL and ROSOL Frame Finders

A series of posts celebrating the early Leica camera accessory, ingenious and often beautiful small masterpieces of functional design. Ernst Leitz produced the first ‘system’ camera in 1930 (the Leica 1 Model C), and by 1933 the accessory catalogue ran to over 100 pages. These were so well designed that many were still in production over 20 years later. See the first post for the Leica story.

If you were planning to travel on an airship in the 1930s, go for a joy ride over the beach in a bi-plane, or spend the day at a race track, you would have packed a RASAL frame finder in your camera case rather than the usual VIDOM or Torpedo viewfinder (see previous post for details of these).

IMG_4536

IMG_4570IMG_4537

Main picture of the Hindenburg by the great Leica photographer Paul Wolff. You get a sense of the colossal size of this airship by the windows that the passengers are looking out of, which are the three groups of tiny black rectangles just above the linear bulge on the side of the hull!

Designed for aerial or sports photography it was a simple framing device for various focal lengths of lens which had the great advantage that you could see a subject before it came into the camera lens viewpoint. Ideal therefore for photographing from the air or fast moving racing cars or horses, especially as the other two viewfinders showed the image in reverse.

IMG_3237

The early types from 1933 had marked frames for 3.5, 5, 7.3 and 9cm lenses (in Leitz telegraphic code* RASUK) and also had a detachable mask (RAMET) for 10.5 and 13.5 cm lenses**, both together coded RASAL (the separate mask usually got lost so complete RASALs are quite rare).

IMG_4567

Originally finished in black enamel with ‘Wismut’ engraving (see the previous Leica post for an explanation of this process), by the mid-thirties they were also available in chrome finish for another 4/- (in the UK).

For precise alignment of the longer focal lengths it was necessary to swing down a small pinhole mask over the rear sight.

IMG_4568You could also adjust this sight up or down for parallax compensation. They do look terrific on the camera, especially the early black ones, rather like a modern underwater camera viewfinder.

IMG_4554

IMG_4553 IMG_4552

The post war version (ROSOL) introduced in 1951, only in matt chrome finish, had revised frames for 5 and 9 cm lenses with a hinged mask (for 8.5 and 13.5 cm, then later only 13.5 cm) so you could fold it out of the way, and not lose it. This is on a Leica IIIf vorlauf with 9cm Elmar lens.

IMG_4563

IMG_4562 IMG_4566

IMG_4565 IMG_4564

The ROSOL would have been just the thing for capturing fast moving racing cars such as this Maserati 250F driven by Fangio in the early 50s.

8-bit grayscale flat JPEG file, 3543x2334 pixels (11.81x7.78 inches) @ 300.00 pixels/inch, written by Adobe Photoshop CS

*LEITZ TELEGRAPHIC CODES

Leica aficionados are familiar with the quirky, and sometimes unintentionally hilarious, codes that Ernst Leitz provided for everything that they sold, from cameras and binoculars to darkroom accessories and rolls of gummed paper. In fact this was quite common for manufacturers since the start of the telegraph. You generally paid by the word for a telegram so asking Leitz to send another 6 “Extra long arms for attaching the Leica to the upright of the Large Copying Device with nose for the auxiliary housing” would have cost a lot more than just asking for 6 more VEARMs. It also avoided any confusion between similar products. Generally made up of of five letters some of the codes were loosely based on German words for the item, such as the above example. One of the first lenses, the ‘Hektor’, was named after the lens designer’s*** dog, the code being HEKTORKUP (nine letters)! Some are amusing to English speakers such as NOOKY (close-up device for the Elmar lens), POOHY (red filter), or ACHOO (Leica III camera). The derivation of most, such as VOLIG, VOMIR, VOOAL, VOODZ, VOOWI (enlarging equipment parts), is a total mystery. Not foreseen by Leitz, for modern collectors these code words are a boon when searching on Ebay!

**LEICA LENS focal lengths

There was some confusion in the early days of the Leica when describing the focal lengths of the lenses. In all the catalogues they are shown in centimetres, ie Elmar 5cm. However, on the early lenses it is marked as f=50mm. Similarly with the early 30s Elmar telephoto, shown in the catalogue as 13,5cm focal length but marked on the lens as f=135mm. However, the same period Hektor lens focal length is shown in cm both on the camera and in the catalogue. After the mid thirties the lens markings in cm matched the catalogue. The metric comma was usually used pre-war, with the ‘dot’ being used from the 50s (ie 13,5cm/13.5cm)

***Professor Max Berek, Leitz head of optical design

Photo credits from top:

Hindenburg at Rhein-Main Airport 1936  (Archiv Dr. Paul Wolff & Alfred Tritschler)

(L) Hindenburg casting its shadow over the Brazilian coast 1936 (Archiv Dr. Paul Wolff & Alfred Tritschler)

Paul Wolff was the photographer who did the most to popularise the Leica and 35mm photography in the 20s and 30s with many books and articles. All his negatives were lost in WW2 but a gallery in Salzburg has many of his surviving prints and is apparently publishing a book on Wolff with an exhibition. Timing not known. The photographer and Leica enthusiast Thorsten Overgaard has an interesting piece about Wolff on his blog:

http://www.overgaard.dk/the-story-behind-that-picture-0122_gb-Dr-Paul_Wolff.html

(R) Hindenburg Observation Lounge from a fascinating website about the Hindenberg and other airships  www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors

1930s Fairey Fox bi-plane (Wikimedia Commons – no source)

Fangio and Maserati 250f  (Wikimedia Commons – Author: 玛莎拉蒂 Source: 玛莎拉蒂中国)

Other Opinionated Designer posts on Leica:

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica VISOR, VIDOM, and VIOOH Viewfinders

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica APDOO, WINKO, WINTU, and AUFSU

Miniature Masterpiece – FIKUS Variable Lens Hood

The ‘bible’ for accessory aficionados is ‘Leica, An Illustrated History, Volume III – Accessories’ by James Lager (1998 ISBN 0-9636973-3-1)

Posted in Cameras, Photography | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Miniature Masterpieces – Leica RASAL and ROSOL Frame Finders

Hiroshige at the Ashmolean

The Ashmolean Museum, in Oxford, has a small part of its Hiroshige collection on display at the moment (closes 15th February 2015):

http://www.ashmolean.org/exhibitions/details/?exh=105

The woodblock prints in the exhibition are part of his ‘Fifty-three Stations of the Tōkaidō Road’ series, first published in 1833. It was a treat to see these rarely exhibited miniature masterpieces, and you can spend ages looking at the details of each one which give a fascinating insight into life in this period when Japan was closed to the outside world. Unfortunately the exhibition didn’t have a map of the Tōkaidō Road, and did not mention the huge influence Hiroshige had on 19th Century Western art. This post will fill the gap!

Hiroshige-53-Stations-Hoeido-23-Fujieda-Tokyo-MET-01

Hiroshige-53-Stations-Hoeido-36-Goyu-MFA-02

Utagawa Hiroshige (1797-1858) was one of the two greatest late masters of the Japanese woodblock print, or ukiyo-e, the other being Katsushika Hokusai. He showed talent at an early age and started his career producing prints of beautiful women, Kabuki actors, and famous warriors which were then the usual fare of ukiyo-e artists. His great breakthrough came with this series of illustrations of the post-stations on the Tōkaidō road between the Shogun capital Edo (now Tokyo) and the Imperial capital Kyoto. A journey of over five hundred kilometres, this was the coastal route more or less followed today by the Tōkaidō Shinkansen bullet train. The first map shows the Five Highways of the Edo period, the Tōkaidō being the most important and well-used. Travel, particularly along the Tōkaidō, was a very popular topic in art and literature at the time and the publisher of Hiroshige’s series was undoubtedly cashing in on this with high class souvenir prints of the journey.

JP_-Gokaido

tokaido map

These government controlled stations, or rest places, contained inns, stables, porters, and other facilities for weary travellers, most of whom did the journey on foot. Definitely not walking but carried in palanquins, or norimono, were the daimyo, the feudal nobility, with retinues of 3000 or more who regularly travelled along this route between the two capitals.

This image is of a daimyo procession starting its long journey at the Nihonbashi bridge in Edo (modern Tokyo).

Tokaido_Nihonbashi2

Hiroshige-53-Stations-Hoeido-46-Shono-Edo-Tokyo-M-01

Hiroshige’s images masterfully capture the atmosphere of this journey, in all kinds of weather and during all the seasons. He was superb at creating the effects of rain, snow and wind, in what is a very difficult medium, the carved wooden block. The details in these images are extraordinary with tiny figures in vast landscapes, or every detail in a group of travellers arriving at an inn. There is humour too, with straw hats being blown off in gale force winds, or drunks being ejected from taverns.

Tokaido09_Odawara

1280px-Hiroshige48_seki

The woodblock print was a collaborative effort between the artist, wood carver, and printer, usually commissioned by a publisher for a particular series of prints. The images were hand printed on to hand-made washi paper which enabled the printer to achieve the beautifully subtle shading on Hiroshige’s prints, some of which look like paintings. Each colour was printed by a different block so the registration of each image had to be perfect, an astonishing achievement bearing in mind thousands of these prints were issued.

Hiroshige-53-Stations-Hoeido-16-Kanbara-MFA-02

Hiroshige_matin_clair_d'hiver_à_Kameyama 47TH STATION

Tokaido_Sanjoohashi FINAL STATION KYOTO

Hiroshige and Hokusai had a profound effect on Western art towards the end of the 19th Century, particularly in France. Van Gogh, Manet, Monet and other Impressionists had large collections of Japanese prints, and their work shows both the direct influence of ‘Japonisme’ by incorporating Japanese themes, and indirectly with the techniques of flattened perspective, lighting and atmosphere copied from these prints. This is Van Gogh’s ‘Bridge in the rain (after Hiroshige)’ 1887 (Van Gogh Museum), his interpretation of Hiroshige’s 1857 print ‘Sudden Shower Over Shin-Ohashi Bridge and Atake’. The Japanese pictograms are meaningless but are meant to add to the oriental flavour of the work!

Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Brug_in_de_regen-_naar_Hiroshige_-_Google_Art_Project 640px-Hiroshige_Atake_sous_une_averse_soudaine

Whistler, of course, was highly influenced by Hiroshige, with Japanese styled paintings such as ‘Caprice in Purple and Gold No. 2: The Golden Screen’ 1864 (Freer Collection), which shows his mistress Jo Hiffernan in a kimono looking at Hiroshige prints. His series of Nocturnes in the 1870’s showing nocturnal views of the Thames was also inspired by Hiroshige, including the notorious masterpiece ‘Nocturne in Black and Gold: The Falling Rocket’ 1875 (Detroit Institute of Arts), the subject of John Ruskin’s criticism and the subsequent libel case that bankrupted Whistler. This was clearly influenced by one of Hiroshige’s last prints, ‘Fireworks at Ryogoku’ 1858.

1280px-James_McNeill_Whistler_-_Caprice_in_Purple_and_Gold-_The_Golden_Screen_-_Google_Art_Project

451px-Whistler-Nocturne_in_black_and_gold Detroit Institute of Arts

390px-100_views_edo_098

His 1875 painting  ‘Nocturne: Blue and Gold – Old Battersea Bridge’ (Tate Gallery) is very similar in composition to Hiroshige’s ‘Kyoto Bridge by Moonlight’

440px-James_Abbot_McNeill_Whistler_006 Tate Gallery

kyoto-bridge-by-moonlight-by-utagawa-hiroshige

The architect Frank Lloyd Wright was also a great collector of Hiroshige prints, including the Fifty-three Stations of the Tōkaidō Road, describing the artist’s work as “Some of the most valuable contributions ever made to the art of the world”. In 1906 he organised the first Hiroshige exhibition in the West at the Art Institute of Chicago.

Hiroshige 53 Stations prints from top (not all in Ashmolean exhibition):

22nd Station: Fujieda; 35th Station: Goyu; Leaving Edo: Nihonbashi ‘The Bridge of Japan’; 45th Station: Shono; 9th Station: Odawara – crossing the Sakawa River at a ford; 47th Station: Seki ‘The Barrier’; 15th Station: Kambara; 46th Station: Kameyama; The End of the Tōkaidō: Arriving at Kyoto, Sanjo Ohashi bridge

Links to images of all of the 53 Stations of the Tōkaidō Road:

http://www.fujiarts.com/cgi-bin/encyclopedia.pl?page=hiroshige_fifty-three_stations_of_the_hoeido_tokaido

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifty-three_Stations_of_the_T%C5%8Dkaid%C5%8D

For a description and history of the post-stations (shukuba):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shukuba

For the history and technique of ukiyo-e woodblock prints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukiyo-e

All images via Wikimedia Commons

Posted in Japanese Art | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hiroshige at the Ashmolean

Blot on the Townscape #2 – The Blade, Reading

This is the tallest building in Reading (Berkshire, UK) and so the ridiculous silver cardboard pointy bit on the top can unfortunately be seen for miles around. Quote from the building’s website:

“Sharp thinking…...The curving form of the spire gives a distinctive lift to the skyline, a striking landmark representing the modern face of Reading.”

DSC08721

It isn’t a spire, it’s a spike which has no purpose at all. It isn’t distinctive, it’s banal, and it isn’t striking, it’s an eyesore, but it certainly does represent the modern face of Reading, a town crammed full of third-rate office buildings (though there is at last an interesting looking one by Aukett Swanke under construction). A panel seems to have fallen off to add to the flimsy effect! The bit of scaffold tube strapped to the prow is an aerial I assume as I haven’t seen the developer’s flag up there yet! Perhaps it does nothing like the rest of it.

DSC08730 DSC08736

It is an unpleasantly aggressive form, The Blade being the very appropriate name of the building! Both the ‘spire’ and the top of the building look like the lid of a box or a party hat, an afterthought with no design relationship to the rest. You can imagine the developer saying to the architects (Sheppard Robson, who should be ashamed of themselves): ‘That flat roof looks a bit boring guys, can’t you spice it up a bit…’

DSC08741

DSC08956A

Enjoy the rants about this building (and others) on the Bad British Architecture Blogspot: http://badbritisharchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/blade-building-reading-by-sheppard.html

Photographs by me.

Posted in Architecture, Blots on the Townscape | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica APDOO, WINKO, WINTU and AUFSU

A series of posts celebrating the early Leica camera accessory, ingenious and often beautiful small masterpieces of functional design. Ernst Leitz produced the first ‘system’ camera in 1930 (the Leica 1 Model C), and by 1933 the accessory catalogue ran to over 100 pages. These were so well designed that many were still in production over 20 years later. See the first post for the Leica story.

APDOO SELF-TIMER (1938 – early 1950s)

Until the late ’30s the only way to take a ‘selfie’ with your Leica was to use a crude non-Leitz device such as this early 30s ‘pneumatic’ timer made by Direkt.

IMG_7054

Leitz introduced their delightfully simple timer in 1938. Just less than 50mm long, in Leitz telegraphic/catalogue code APDOO*, the device screws on to the release button of the camera. You turn the disc to set the clockwork timer (around 10 seconds) and pull the top knob (precisely as instructed on the barrel!). When the timer stops a plunger presses the shutter release button below. The large spot on the disc lets you know when time’s up. This is a rare early nickel and black version as most were in chrome and black.

*see RASAL and ROSOL post for explanation of Leitz product codes

DSC08693

IMG_7053a

As it is such a good example, a word about the unique engraving process on early black enamelled Leica cameras and accessories. At first sight you might think it was the conventional white paint engraved lettering on the black finish like every other camera. However, as this is Leica,  filling the engraving is done by an expensive, time consuming, and ancient process they called ‘Wismut’. Wismut (the German for Bismuth) is a brittle silvery coloured metal with a very low melting point which was applied into the engraving after the black enamel had been painted on. Heated slightly (not enough to damage the enamel) it bonded to the bare metal left by the engraved line and the excess was wiped away to leave the neat silvered engraving. Difficult to see from photographs it does have a unique appearance unlike conventional white line engraving. Even though thousands of cameras and accessories were being made every year by Leitz the Wismut process was apparently done by only a few specialist workers. The hand engraved lettering on the APDOO is only around 1.5mm high and is very precise (apart from a badly engraved 2nd ‘a’ in ‘ablaufen’ which shows that even these geniuses made mistakes sometimes!).

This is a 1952 1f with the later chrome APDOO which has a different knob and dial.

IMG_7050

WINKO and WINTU ANGULAR VIEWFINDER (1930-1954)

A brilliant little gadget for looking around corners or street photography. You aim the camera at your subjects but you are looking at right angles to the lens not giving any clue that you are taking their photo. It just has a simple prism inside the barrel.

The WINKO was designed for the Model 1A and 1C, and later non-rangefinder models. This is the earliest version with a large bakelite eyecup.

IMG_7060

IMG_7057

When the Model D rangefinder camera was introduced in 1932, the viewer was fitted with a drop down prism for looking through the rangefinder, and for obvious reasons it now fits to the back of the camera’s accessory shoe. The earliest ones have the WINKO’s large bakelite eyecup.

DSC08566

 DSC08569 DSC08570

wintu

AUFSU REFLECTING VIEWFINDER (1930s)

Another ingenious and useful viewfinder shown on these pages of the 1933 catalogue. More functional looking than beautiful, it has a simple right angle prism like the WINTU but this time for looking down at the top of the camera for low level shots. Only meant for the standard 5cm lens, the front looks rather like a miniature 1950s television set!

IMG_3929

 IMG_4030

Other Opinionated Designer posts on Leica:

Miniature Masterpieces – VISOR, VIDOM, and VIOOH Viewfinders

Miniature Masterpieces – RASAL and ROSOL Frame Finders

Miniature Masterpiece – FIKUS Variable Lens Hood

The ‘bible’ for accessory aficionados is ‘Leica, An Illustrated History, Volume III – Accessories’ by James Lager (1998 ISBN 0-9636973-3-1)

Posted in Cameras, Leica, Photography | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Dismal Designs – Premier Inn

Catching an early flight from Gatwick recently I stayed the night before in the Premier Inn next to Gatwick North Terminal. The nearby car park cost was part of the deal, and it was great to walk next door to the terminal building in the morning.  A design and build contract by McAleer & Rushe, the hotel opened in 2012 and is a fairly innocuous design in coloured metal panels, much the same as the rest of the airport architecture.

However, the convenience was offset by the really vile interior! Not sure if M&R designed it, I imagine Premier Inn’s in-house team did. It must be like staying in a modern army barracks with bleak nondescript corridors and small bedrooms with cheap looking ‘wood’ laminated furniture looking as if it came from Argos. Coat hanging with no doors and nowhere to put other clothes. The television is crammed on to a small shelf and so it is impossible to turn it to face the bed. Who chose those ‘pictures’?? Look at the design mess around the door with a cheap suspended ceiling and wooden plank with a couple of hooks on the wall. Plus the usual Premier Inn faux-matey messages and absurd warnings such as ‘GETS HOT!’ next to the hot tap and towel radiator! A really dispiriting place to spend a night.

DSC08016

b DSC08023

Why do the corridors have to be so horrible (a joint effort with M&R this time)? The building structure (I assume) sticks out at regular intervals making them look even narrower, the lighting and colour scheme are bleak, and there is absolutely no design at all. It is difficult to believe this was built in 2012.

DSC08022

It really is inexcusable for a modern hotel, even from a budget chain, to be so badly designed in every way. Premier Inn’s design team and management need to stay in a Myhotel, any of the German Motel One chain, the John Malkovich backed Big Sleep Hotels, or the Barcelo chain, etc, to see how it could be done. Premier Inn, Travelodge and Holiday Inn are light years behind these interesting European budget chains, stuck in a hotel design time warp of the mid 1970s.

All photos by me.


Posted in Hotel Design, Interior Design | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blot on the Historic Landscape – The Port Meadow Scandal

CASTLE MILL GRADUATE STUDENT ACCOMMODATION, OXFORD

Port Meadow is an ancient area of water meadow by the Thames on the edge of Oxford. Around 300 acres (120 hectares) in area it is still used for grazing cattle and horses, as it has been for 4,000 years. Apart from being an area of Special Scientific Interest (it has never been ploughed up), it has Bronze Age and Iron Age remains which are designated Ancient Monuments. These bare facts show how important it is but don’t give an idea of what a magical place it is. Next to the Thames, covered in buttercups in the summer and mists in the winter, with views across to the ‘Dreaming Spires’ of Oxford University, generations of Oxford folk have used and enjoyed this enormous area of unspoiled land on their doorstep.

oxford-seedo-oxford-port-meadow-parks-gardens-2214-large

portmeadow

Unspoiled that is until late 2012 when local people were appalled to see an enormous white development rising out of the southern part of the meadow. This monstrous collection of barrack-like blocks soon blotted out the Dreaming Spires and began to dominate the view, ruining the atmosphere of isolation the meadow had enjoyed for thousands of years. It transpired that this development of student flats for Oxford University had been given planning permission by the council without any proper consultation with interest groups and residents which is why it was such a shock. Normally for a development that has such a major impact on a SSSI and Ancient Monuments an Environmental Impact Assessment must be made. Astonishingly the Planning Officer, Murray Hancock, stated (in his report which I have seen) that the development was not ‘of more than local significance‘, and was not in a ‘particularly environmentally sensitive location‘. It only “…gives rise to some impacts but these are not significant…” Even worse, the Planning Committee did not question this, despite objections to the scheme from their own Heritage Officer, and granted planning consent. The photo below is from a similar viewpoint to those above and it shows how catastrophically wrong Mr Hancock was!

Castle_Mill_from_Port_Meadow,_Oxforda

The outrage that people felt about this soon found its expression in the Save Port Meadow Campaign which has become one of the most effective local pressure groups in the country. Together with the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England they have built up public pressure to force the University to commission a retrospective Environmental Impact Assessment which has seldom been done before.

This EIA by a team led by Nicholas Pearson Associates was published in October 2014 as an Environmental Statement. It concluded that the Castle Mill development has a ‘High Adverse Impact’ on four heritage assets: The River Thames, the Oxford skyline, Port Meadow and St Barnabas Church (the tower right of centre in the photo below). In other words everything possible it could harm! I wonder what Mr Hancock, the Planning Officer, has to say about this now as he considered it had an insignificant impact! Is he still employed by the council?

The report proposes three measures to mitigate this damage, the most effective one being Option Three. This knocks off a storey from the tall blocks, lowers the roof lines of others, changes the exterior finish to brick, and provides tree screening. A total of 33 student flats would go (around 10% of the total), a small number in return for partly restoring a heritage and landscape site of international importance. Even this drastic measure only reduces the adverse impact on the heritage assets to ‘Medium’, according to the report.

FullSizeRender (1)

Needless to say, the University only wants to do the cheapest option which hardly does anything to repair the damage, consisting only of brick cladding and tree planting – the buildings will still block the views of spires and towers and rise above the tree line. The campaign is now concentrating on putting pressure on the council to insist that the University adopts the best option, Option Three. Link below:

http://saveportmeadow.wordpress.com/

THE CULPRITS:

Architects: Frankham Consultancy Group. Accused of designing a collection of Travelodge and Premier Inn lookalikes on such an important site. A glance at their website would have shown the University that this is exactly the type of thing to expect from this design group.

http://www.frankham.com/projects/housing/cardinal-house-oxford/

The project should not have been given to such a commercial practice and there should have been an international competition for a development overlooking this historic place. A decent architect (yes, there are a few) would have embraced such a project and come up with a scheme that protected the special qualities of the site, retained the views across Oxford, and produced some really fine architecture which is what Port Meadow and Oxford deserved.

DSC04092

There has been much criticism of the Council and University but the people responsible for the appearance of this awful scheme are of course the designers! It is a mystery how they could have come up with something quite so pathetic given a blank sheet of paper and a wonderful site. Why choose white render and shiny grey tin roofs for example, materials which will obviously reflect light? Why line up all the blocks so that they look like barracks? Why have such regimented and hotel-like windows which give the buildings such a cardboard appearance? Why does the famous view over the Oxford skyline have to be totally blotted out? Was there any thought at all given to the setting of these buildings? It is significant that Port Meadow was omitted from their plans of the site! The buildings could have been located anywhere, like an office park outside Basingstoke for example.

DSC04086DSC04079

Client: Oxford University and Professor Roger Ainsworth, the Chair of the University committee that approves all major building projects. Accused of commissioning these architects instead of any number of better ones to design buildings in such a sensitive location, and showing absolutely no remorse about the act of gross vandalism they have perpetrated. On the contrary they believe that providing more student accommodation (which is rented out don’t forget) is more important than preserving the heritage of Oxford. Link below to the most nauseating self-justification propaganda from the University’s Head of Government and Community Relations, Margaret Ounsley:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/local-community/our-thoughts-on-castle-mill

A quote from this to show that the University administration simply does not understand the harm it has done to its ‘Community Relations’ (and why Ms Ounsley should not be in her job):

“The Castle Mill story has become – literally – all about one view, neatly sidestepping many other complex factors, including the social and economic benefits brought to the city, and the fact that we are talking about potentially taking away people’s homes here.”

WHAT AN ABSURD COMMENT – THE SAME AMOUNT OF HOMES COULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITHOUT RUINING THE VIEW BY HAVING A DECENT DESIGN! This is the same disgraceful argument that could have been used if the buildings had been built next to an Oxford College!

DSC04082

Oxford City Council: Accused of gross negligence in not demanding an Environmental Impact Assessment for such an important development next to a SSSI and Ancient Monuments, and granting permission so readily for such third-rate architecture without consulting anyone about it. Incredibly, it advised the University that there were no height limits on the site and there would be no objections to a five storey scheme. Equally incredible, accurate visuals showing what impact such a development might have on Port Meadow were neither provided nor asked for. Also accused of letting the University off the hook by not ensuring that planning conditions are met, and of failing to comply with its own Core Strategy which states that historic views must be preserved.

The former Planning Minister Nick Boles (an Oxford graduate) visited the site in January 2014 and said that the blocks were a disgrace, the worst planning fiasco he had seen as Minister, and called upon the Council and University to apologise. Neither has done so and on the contrary they have done everything possible to justify their joint act of vandalism which is, as one critic said, like building a skyscraper next to Stonehenge!

Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote his poem ‘Binsey Poplars’ as a lament on the felling of some trees on Port Meadow to make way for a railway line:

(Felled 1879)

My aspens dear, whose airy cages quelled,
Quelled or quenched in leaves the leaping sun,
All felled, felled, are all felled;
Of a fresh and following folded rank
Not spared, not one
That swam or sank
On meadow and river and wind-wandering
weed-winding bank.

This was just about a few trees going – what would he have written now? He might have been cheered up though by an article in the Oxford Times on the 23rd December:

“Dons could tell university to knock top floor off flats. With the EIA clear on the damage to Port Meadow, and the consultation making it clear on the damage to Oxford University’s reputation, Oxford Professors are taking charge. The University’s governing body will debate a resolution to take one floor off, in February, and any decision is binding on the University’s administration. As the dons make clear, it is not the University at fault here, but the University’s administration in Wellington Square, and Congregation is the place to hold them to account. With the City Council’s West Area Planning Committee scheduled to consider the University’s mitigation offer in February, it’s going to be an interesting new year!”

UPDATE 11th February 2015: disgracefully, the Dons voted by a large majority not to knock the tops off! Rather depressingly OU students held a protest outside the meeting, not against the desecration of one of Oxford’s most historic places by their University, but against changing the buildings because of the cost! There is still a postal vote to come from all the academics not at the meeting,  but it is unlikely given OU’s track record so far that they will do anything other than vote for the least effective option.

UPDATE 21st April 2015: no surprise, the postal vote was overwhelmingly in favour of not doing anything much. It is now over to Oxford Council to decide if they want to accept OUs proposals. They have asked for further information from the University to justify their response to the EIA, so watch this space………

UPDATE 21st February 2016: The City planners recommended approval for Option 1, the option that does the least to mitigate this disaster, and unsurprisingly it was approved by the pathetic Council who will always roll over in front of the University. It looks like this long-running and shameful saga is at an end despite the heroic efforts of Matthew Sherrington and the Save Port Meadow Campaign with the CPRE. Oxford University has ruined a lovely part of the city, supported by the very people elected to protect it.

UPDATE 23rd July 2016: The University has come up with some mitigation measures that were put out for public consulation this month. A lot of thought has gone into the proposals and, apart from the fact the buildings will still block out the views over the city skyline, they will help to reduce the impact of this dreadful scheme.

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/estates/aboutus/news/eventsawards/heading_235241_en.html

UPDATE 4th April 2018: Planning permission was granted for the mitigation alterations but five years after they were built nothing has been done and the buildings are still an eyesore spoiling the views from Port Meadow.

All opinions and comments, unless otherwise shown, are entirely the writer’s own!

PHOTO CREDITS:

Port Meadow before the vandalism (1) courtesy of Cool Places www.coolplaces.co.uk

Port Meadow before the vandalism (2) courtesy of ‘What a Wonderful Dream’- a really enjoyable site for all things Alice:

www.aliceinwonderland.evanderweb.co.uk/150years.html

View with blocks from Wikimedia Commons, photographer JP Bowen

Option Three illustration from the Castle Mill Environmental Statement, Nicholas Pearson Associates http://www.npaconsult.co.uk/about-news.asp?id=102

All other photographs by me.

Posted in Architecture, Blot on the Landscape, Blots on the Townscape, Ugly Buildings | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peter Overs – Emu Dreaming

I recently bought a painting by Peter Overs, an aboriginal artist from the Kamilaroi people, currently living in Alice Springs, in the centre of Australia. Painted with acrylic on canvas, it is quite small, (300mm square) but I was really impressed by its graphic qualities, and the ideas behind it. He was born in 1976, and is one of a newer generation of artists painting traditional aboriginal themes in a contemporary style. He was one of the first of the Kamilaroi to be initiated in tribal ways for over 100 years and has taken the traditional name of Dhinawan Marii, or Emu Queensland. The main subject of his wonderfully geometric paintings (some are very large) is the Emu Dreaming Story which relates to the balance and order of the Universe. The story tells of how the Emu eats the quandong fruit and the seeds get stuck in its beak and feet. As the birds move around the countryside they spread the seeds and new fruit trees grow. Thus both fruit and bird are interdependent. The nutritious and juicy quandong or native peach is a staple food of the bush as well as a source of nuts and oil. The painting shows the movement of the Emu’s feet as it walks around the bush.

image

I bought the painting from the Kate Owen Gallery, in Sydney,  one of the best galleries devoted to Aboriginal Art:

http://www.kateowengallery.com/artists/Pet625/artist-art-list1.htm

They have a great choice of Peter Over’s work, and many others. Easy to post as the paintings are carefully rolled up in a cardboard tube, it arrived in a few days.

For more of his paintings and a good description of the Emu Dreaming story:

http://www.redrockgallery.net/pages/Emu-and-Quandong-Dreaming.html

Posted in Art | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Dismal Designs – new Mini

I had a 1959 Austin Seven Mini as a partner to my 1926 one (below). The proportions of the grille and headlights were just right, giving it a cheeky, friendly appearance suiting such a revolutionary small car, and making it acceptable because it looked like a miniature version of a conventional car of the time (although far more sophisticated in its design and details).

Chummy & Mini in Mews 3

I’m not normally a fan of pastiche, false nostalgia, and reproductions, but  I do like a well considered development of an original idea. Look at how successfully Leica does this. Their current M series is clearly a direct descendant of the original 1950s M3 but is still a beautiful modern looking camera. So when BMW re-introduced the Mini in 2001, designed by the Mini Design Studio under Gert Hildebrand, I thought they reinterpreted the old car brilliantly, though there were moans from die-hard Mini enthusiasts. It obviously had to be bigger to cope with modern safety requirements but the proportions and details had been enlarged in a way which still made the car seem small and nippy looking (of course every other car had increased in size since the late 50s) and cleverly retained the Mini character.  DSC07993

The front was slightly spoilt by the peculiar way the front grille was split by part of the body coloured bumper running through the middle of it – why? Stick-on chrome trims and spotty little lights didn’t help.

Version 2, launched in 2006, greatly improved on this by having a (visually) one piece grille, which looked much more authentic now. The front bumper looked better too, with bolder fog-lights, and it blended in well with the grille and air intake below. All of the panels on this version were different to its predecessor as the car was slightly longer. The rear was also an improvement being more rounded than the ‘kicked-in’ look of the previous version.

MINI First Day (2)

Comparing the original and this version side by side you can see how the design cues of the old one have been used so well in the new Mini despite being much bigger (the photo of the new one has been reduced to match the old). No overhangs – wheels at each corner,  the A and C pillars, the curves of the roof and waistline, and the pert back end. Very clever.

Chummy & Mini in Mews 2 - CopyIMG_4795 - Copy

Then comes version three!! Admittedly difficult to improve on version two but what a disaster! The new Mini design chief Anders Warming was presumably culpable, but influenced no doubt by BMW group’s overall head of design Adrian van Hooydonk, responsible for the hideous Mini Rocketman concept car which looked similar at the front to this one.

IMG_2870a

The front grille now gapes open and has a thick black bumper shoved inside it like a rugby player’s mouthguard. The front bumper moulding is ugly too with an oddly shaped surround to the foglights. The whole thing looks gross, is far too bulky for the front of the car, and reminds me of how the old MGB and MG Midget were ruined by those infamous black bumpers plonked at each end, bearing no relationship to the rest of the body.

There is absolutely no point in having a reinterpretation of something if it no longer bears any meaningful resemblance to the original and becomes a parody of it. This is why the Fiat 500 is so successful and the VW Beetle isn’t.

The Mini version 3 won the Auto Express ‘Car of the Year 2014’ which only goes to show that aesthetics played no part in the judging! I also noticed that the unfortunately named Dezeen on-line design journal features a full-frontal of the ghastly new Mini face to publicise their collaboration with the firm ‘Dezeen And Mini Frontiers’ . No rude critique of this awful design from them yet…..

Mini Mk3 image from Wikimedia Commons by Charles01. All others by me.

Posted in Car Design | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica VISOR, VIDOM and VIOOH viewfinders

I’m completely besotted with early Leica cameras, as you can tell from the header image (1952 Leica 1f red dial with SBOOI 5cm viewfinder and FOKOS rangefinder). There is a watch-like precision, a combination of delicacy and solidity, about them which gives them a character and beauty that no other camera, or any other consumer product for that matter, can match. They are mostly made of plated or enamelled brass (with an alloy body) and the quality of the finish and operation comes from years of manufacturing precision optical instruments prior to the introduction of the camera in 1925. The story of how the Leica was invented is well known, but worth repeating. A brilliant engineer, Oskar Barnack, working for Ernst Leitz in Wetzlar, Germany at the beginning of the last century, designed a miniature camera using 35mm wide cine film, rather than the larger Kodak films, or glass plates, that were common at the time. A stroke of genius was to combine it with superb optics so that the small negatives could be enlarged to the same size and quality as the much larger glass plates. The Leitz head of optical design, Professor Max Berek, developed a 50mm lens for the camera which was so good it was used for the next thirty years (the Elmar lens). WW1 interrupted design on the Leica (LEItz CAmera) and it was launched in 1925 at the Leipzig Spring Fair to great acclaim.

pa240247

It is difficult to overestimate the impact this first modern camera had at the time, as the shape and configuration are so familiar now. Tens of thousands were sold in the first few years of production. Several outstanding photographers started using the Leica and their work quickly dispelled any ‘toy’ like image such a small instrument might have had among professional photographers. A golden age of creative photography and photo-journalism began with the likes of Alexander Rodchenko, Andre Kertesz, Paul Wolff, Arvid Gutschow, Ilse Bing, Robert Capa, and Henri Cartier-Bresson.

The first cameras had a fixed 50mm lens which could not be removed, but in 1930 screw fixed lenses were introduced with the Model C and the Leica became the first ‘System’ camera. In a very short time several lenses of different focal lengths were available as well as a multitude of accessories, some of which could be attached to the camera by another Barnack invention, the slide-in accessory shoe on top of the body, still a part of many digital cameras today (Model C below – with a selection of lenses and a FOFER rangefinder in the accessory shoe).

IMG_6883

As early as 1933 the accessories catalogue ran to nearly 100 pages! Most of these often tiny devices had an exquisite functional quality about them. No product designer was involved, only Barnack, Berek, or Ernst Leitz, and so their appearance is simply a result of the finest possible optical and mechanical engineering – a  perfect example of Form following Function.

This is the first of a series of posts devoted to these miniature masterpieces.

UNIVERSAL VIEWFINDERS

The viewfinder in the standard camera is a ‘reverse Galilean’ type with an angle of view suited to the 50mm lens (this focal length was chosen because it approximated to what the eye sees) and so for a wide-angle or telephoto lens another viewfinder would be used. The first ‘Universal’ type (ie for lenses of different focal lengths) introduced in 1931 and generally known as a Torpedo Finder, and by Leitz as the ‘Small Universal Viewfinder’, had etched lines on the glass lens so that you could estimate the different fields of view for each focal length. There was only a single prism which made the image the right way up, but it was reversed left to right. They came in a variety of types (same exterior) to suit different lens combinations (Leitz catalogue/telegraphic codes*: VISOR, VISIL, VISET, and others).

*See RASAL and ROSOL post for explanation of Leitz product codes

FullSizeRender

FullSizeRender(1)

IMG_6435Leica 1 Model C with 9cm* (uncoupled) f4 Elmar

IMG_6428

A great portrait by A Skurikhin taken in 1933 of Alexander Rodchenko looking through a torpedo finder (with a FOFER rangefinder clipped into the accessory shoe) on a Leica 1 Model C with 135mm* Elmar lens (or possibly a Hektor although it was only introduced in 1933). This is the same combination as the image above. Rodchenko bought his first Leica, a 1A in late 1928, and was using this Model C a few years later to photograph Stalin’s notorious White Sea Canal project. There is a photograph of him in 1936 with both cameras around his neck. The same year he bought a Leica III.

*cm and mm seem to vary on early lenses and in the first catalogues

IMG_5833

The second version introduced in 1933, the Large Universal Viewfinder (or VIDOM), had an adjustable black mask which could alter the actual opening you looked through by rotating the ribbed ring at the front (the rear ring rotated the mask for using the camera vertically). So for the wide angle lens it was fully opened up giving you a wide view, and for the different telephotos it was gradually reduced in size approximating to what you would see on the negative. For the longest telephoto (135mm marked on the lens but shown as 13,5 on the viewfinder), you squinted through a tiny opening. The image was still reversed however. The VIDOM also had a clever cam operated parallax adjustment which altered the angle of the viewfinder depending on the distance you were from the object being photographed. Look at the exquisite details on this tiny device. This is the earliest version in nickel and black enamel, which is the one I like best. Later ones were partly or all chromed.

DSC08522DSC08523

IMG_4043

On the left is the brilliant but now sadly forgotten Paul Wolff with a later chrome version of the VIDOM. With his books and photographs Wolff was probably the photographer who did the most to promote the Leica and 35mm film photography in its early days. His 1937 book ‘Arbeit’ (Work) is a masterpiece of industrial imagery (it could be criticised as Nazi propaganda like the films of Leni Riefenstahl, but there is no apparent glorification in these images, just an aesthetic appreciation of work). On the right is Yevgeny Khaldei, the Russian photographer who produced some of the outstanding images of WW2, including the raising of the red flag over the Reichstag, and the Nuremburg trials. His Leicas also have chrome VIDOMs attached.

IMG_2789

image

The third and final version was introduced in 1939, code name VIOOH, and incorporated another prism which enabled the correct image to be shown. It was produced, almost unchanged, for 25 years, only ending production in 1964.  This is a 1954 Leica IIIf Vorlauf (with self timer) with a 9cm Elmar lens, FIKUS adjustable lens hood, and VIOOH on top, one of the most beautiful combinations of materials, finishes, and precision components ever assembled in a consumer product. Steve Jobs was apparently inspired by these Leicas when the iPhone 4 was being designed. Not much of a comparison though!

image

IMG_2178 IMG_2176

IMG_2179

image

Probably the most celebrated Leica with a VIOOH is the one above right belonging to Alfred Eisenstaedt, one of the greatest of photo-journalists. His best known image is the snatched shot of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square, New York on VJ Day 1945. All of his work is outstanding from early photographs of Goebbels before and after realising that Eisenstaedt was Jewish, to images of Hiroshima, and the best ever portraits of Sophia Loren and Marilyn Monroe.

This series IIIa VJ Day Leica was sold in 2013 for 114,000 euros. He used the same camera for one of his last photo-essays, of the Clintons, in 1993! If you don’t know of him have a look on Google images or the Life photo archive, hosted by Google and Getty Images:

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/editorial/alfred-eisenstaedt-pictures

A link to this famous camera and photographer (and one of the best photography blogs):

http://elrectanguloenlamano.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/alfred-eisenstaedts-leica-iiia-which.html

Eisenstaedt Leica photograph from Westlicht Photographica Auction, the best regular auction site for all things Leica, especially rare and unusual ones:

www.westlicht-auction.com

The photographer and Leica enthusiast Thorsten Overgaard has an interesting post about Paul Wolff:

http://www.overgaard.dk/the-story-behind-that-picture-0122_gb-Dr-Paul_Wolff.html

Link to:

Archiv Dr. Paul Wolff & Alfred Tritschler

For really good images and descriptions of these viewfinders:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/Leica_RF/Leica-Finder_A.htm

For an excellent technical description of various types of viewfinder:

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/looking_forward.htm

Other Opinionated Designer posts on Leica:

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica APDOO, WINKO, WINTU, and AUFSU

Miniature Masterpieces – Leica RASAL and ROSOL Frame Finders

Miniature Masterpiece – Leica FIKUS Variable Lens Hood

The ‘bible’ for accessory aficionados is ‘Leica, An Illustrated History, Volume III – Accessories’ by James Lager (1998 ISBN 0-9636973-3-1)

Posted in Camera, Leica | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Alessi Makes Serious Coffee

Alessi Neapolitan Coffee Maker – La Tavola di Babele

Another one of Alessi’s beautiful masterpieces of design and construction. It only makes a few small cups of delicious coffee and there are a lot of things to clean afterwards, but what a delightful shape and concept! Designed over eight years, and after many prototypes, by Riccardo Dalisi, and produced from 1987, it has a timeless design which could be from the 19thC, but looks completely fresh today.

DSC08497 - Copy

Alberto Alessi describes the project in ‘The Dream Factory’, Koenemann, 1998:

“His research into the Neapolitan Coffee Maker was the longest in our history: over the years it led to one book and over two hundred fully working prototypes in tin. Wearing a beret and clothes straight out of a neo-realist film, continuously turning over new ideas and trying out new ways of making things work, Dalisi has not been an easy person to manage, but this was a very important project for us indeed. It enabled us to open up our manufacturing world even more to the conceptual experience of the artisan, it taught us to dilute our certainties in a fragile and poetic light, which is so necessary when working on extremely deep-rooted household rituals”.

It is difficult to imagine an industrialist in any other company, in any other country, writing this!

The paperwork that comes with the pot also has some typically Italian descriptive writing:

“The Neapolitan coffee maker was designed by Riccardo Dalisi in the course of research into this method of making coffee. The research project lasted from 1979 to 1987 and was awarded with the XII Compasso d’Oro 1981 prize. Made of 18/10 stainless steel with “canaletto” walnut handle this coffee maker makes a unique coffee – very aromatic, and incomparable to any other. Furthermore it attempts to recover the calm ritual of a different way of making coffee – that of the venerable ‘machinetta a rovesciamento’, or reversable coffee maker. Invented in Naples (probably at the beginning of the nineteeenth century) the Neapolitan coffee maker, as it was called, was common throughout Italy in the first decade of the Twentieth Century.”

and

“….An authentic Neapolitan talks to his coffee-pot, with which he has an empathetic, sensual, emotional relationship. It is precisely this dialogue that Dalisi has decided to produce on an industrial scale….”.

Coffee in Italy is a very serious business!

DSC08499A

The ritual of using the contraption is as follows:

1. Fill the lower container (A – Caldaietta) with water, bringing the water level to 2.5cm below the small hole at the front.

2. Fill the top of the filter (B – Filtro) with coffee, ideally with hand-ground coffee made with the traditional wooden coffee grinder.

3. Close the filter with the micro-filter (C – Microfiltro).

4. Insert the filter into the Caldaietta

DSC08495

5. Turn the coffee jug with spout (D – Caffettiera) upside down and fit it on to the Caldaietta.

DSC08496

6. Place the whole assembly on to the stove.

7. When the water in the Caldaietta starts to boil a few drops will sputter from the small hole below the rim. At this point remove the coffee maker from the heat and turn it upside down. This starts the filtering process which lasts for approximately 9 minutes.

DSC08497

8. You may serve the coffee with the Neapolitan coffee maker either assembled or just with the Caffettiera.  A separate lid is supplied for the top of the pot.

DSC08494

After all that you deserve a good cup of coffee, which it certainly provides. There isn’t a lot more in the pot so you have the pleasure of starting the whole process all over again. Perfectly suited to the Italian Slow Food movement, and a lot more civilised than sticking a capsule into a plastic coffee-maker!

Posted in Design, Italian Design | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Blot on the Townscape #1 – Oxford

Looking at this horror in the centre of the city you might think it was an electricity sub-station with those gates,  or even University squash courts. But no, it is a block of flats in an area of Victorian terraces between the Cowley and Iffley Roads!

DSC08008

I would think of early 1990s vintage,  you can imagine the elevations drawn up by a first year architecture student of the time with that roof design, but didn’t anyone do a perspective? What was the reason for all those lumpy volumes crashing into each other? We will never know. The end elevation is a blank canvas on to which a random assortment of ventilators and lights have been scattered. The views out wouldn’t be great but perhaps the poor souls inside might like to have had a bigger window or two for some fresh air. Maybe they have at the back overlooking the car park. The period dreary brown/red multi brick was presumably chosen to go with the fashion at the time not the London stock and red brick of the nearby terraces.

Why pick on this one for the first post in the series?  It is a typical example of the thousands of anonymous, dreary, small-scale brown brick/brown windows buildings shoved up by developers and councils without any care or thought that have blighted most of our towns and cities.

Most think of Oxford as the ‘City of Dreaming Spires’ but this is only a small part of the centre. Apart from a few pleasant areas where the wealthier academics live much of it looks dreadful. The University is also guilty of many abominations to be featured in later posts.

Posted in Architecture, Blots on the Townscape, Ugly Buildings | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Great Designers Remembered – George C Blickensderfer and the First Portable Typewriter

Recalling brilliant designers and their creations from the past.

George Canfield Blickensderfer (1850-1917) and the Blickensderfer No. 5       

blickens

A memorable name for such a prolific inventor!  Born in Pennsylvania, USA, he moved to Stamford, Connecticut after his marriage. While working as a textile salesman to pay the bills he was constantly coming up with ideas in the workshop at the back of his house, including the electric passenger lift, which he patented in 1888. This period was a golden age of early technology, and the typewriter was just beginning to find a place in the office and home. Remington dominated the market, but these early machines were heavy, clumsy and expensive. The biggest problem was that almost all had the type-bars swinging up from below which meant that the typist could not see what was being typed, and the bars had a tendency to jam.

Blickensderfer set out to improve the fundamental design of the typewriter and developed the idea of a round ‘type wheel’ or small drum, instead of type-bars. It had three rows of characters for lower case, upper case, and symbols. By just pressing a key users could easily switch between the rows. The wheel could also be removed and replaced with others with dozens of different languages and symbols. This was seventy years before IBM came up with a similar idea with the Selectric typewriter in 1961 with its interchangeable ‘golfball’ typehead. The type wheel design instantly solved the problem of keys jamming as there weren’t any, and you could see what you were typing!

The first Blickensderfer typewriter using this idea was patented in 1891, and launched at the 1893 Chicago Fair at a price of $100, which competed with the better quality machines of the time, although far more advanced and sophisticated. He also hedged his bets by exhibiting a simpler but less conventional machine at a much lower price of $35 (equivalent to around £600 today). This machine, the Blickensderfer No. 5, had only 250 or so parts, compared with the 2,500 of a typical office machine. It was an instant success at the Fair, and the huge amount of advance orders enabled Blickensderfer to expand his factory in Stamford. Over 74,000 of this model were eventually produced over the next two decades.

DSC07618

The type wheel is used with an ink roller, rather than the usual ribbon. So when you press a key the type wheel revolves to the chosen character via levers and gears and descends to hit the paper, rubbing against the ink roller on the way.

You can also see that the keyboard has an unusual configuration of letters, not the QWERTY layout invented at the same time as the original pioneer typewriter, the Sholes & Glidden, to prevent the type-bars from jamming. Because the No. 5 does not have type-bars there was no need for this layout and GCB completely re-thought the typing process and came up with his DHIATENSOR ‘Scientific’ keyboard layout, which groups all the most commonly used keys together. There was some resistance to this from buyers and he eventually gave in and offered the QWERTY layout as an option.

DSC07620

The machine is tiny, only around 280mm wide and weighing under 3kg. Available with a wooden carrying case it was the world’s first portable typewriter and, I would argue, the very first personal communications device which could easily be carried around (not counting the fountain pen!). Early publicity shows the ‘Blick’ being taken on an outing to the local woods (although why you would want to type there is not made clear!).

As well as in the home ‘Blicks’ were used extensively by journalists, travelling salesmen, and the military. Here is a great period ad. showing a later model in use in ‘Foreign Parts’ by a Reuters correspondent.

2014-03-24 18.28.12 2

The genius of the design lay not only in the revolutionary typing system, but in the way the chassis, the heaviest part of the machine, was made as small as possible (in cast iron at first) with the keys and carriage projecting from it, giving it a delightful spidery appearance. Other space and weight saving devices included the aluminium space-bar which folds up to fit into the case. The bell doubles up as the right hand platen (roller) knob, and the paper support is removable. The body is so small that the maker’s plate assumes a greater significance than usual having a big effect on the appearance, and GCB did not skimp on the design as you can see below.

DSC07619

The original design was so good that there was little significant change during its production life except that in 1901 an aluminium No. 5 was produced weighing under 2.5 kg  (one of the first uses of aluminium in mass production), with one later version called the ‘Featherweight’ (below). A deluxe model, No. 7, with a smart oak case and wrap around space bar was made from 1897, but this and the following versions of it never had quite the same minimalist appeal.

$_57 (3)

French versions of the No. 5 and No. 7 were assembled for a short time under licence in the late 1890s under the name of Dactyle, with the evocative Art Nouveau nameplate changing the character of this American machine to suit fin du siècle Paris.

$_57 (20)

Blickensderfer died in 1917 (as a result of overwork, so it was said) and the business, already in decline because of the war and increased competition from more conventional portables, closed in 1919 after nearly 200,000 ‘Blicks’ had been made. Various attempts were made to resurrect the company, and in 1928 Remington re-introduced the No. 5 for a few years as their own brand of portable, giving the 1893 design a production life of nearly 40 years!

Not only had Blickensderfer invented the first portable typewriter and pioneered the use of mass-produced aluminium, he also invented and produced the first electric typewriter as early as 1901! It was not a great success as it was too far ahead of its time, particularly as the electricity supply was often unreliable and sometimes only on at night.

A genius, brilliant inventor and designer, George C Blickensderfer deserves to be better known, and at least one of his masterpieces, the beautiful little Blickensderfer No. 5, should be in design museums alongside the Olivetti Lettera 22 and Valentine. It was far more significant than both of these famous portables.

The Blicks are from a private collection. The only book about GCB and his creations is ‘The Five Pound Secretary’ by Rob Blickensderfer (a relation, obviously!) and Paul Robert. It is a mine of useful information, and a great source for this post. The book is available from the Virtual Typewriter Museum, run by Paul Robert, a fascinating site for typewriter and design enthusiasts.

http://www.typewritermuseum.org/lib/library_bookshop_blick.html

More information about GCB and the factory is on the Stamford Historical Society website, also an invaluable source for the post (photograph of GCB in the 1890s courtesy of the Society’s web page):

http://www.stamfordhistory.org/blickens.htm

A good summary of the history of Blickensderfer is at:

http://www.portabletypewriters.co.uk/portable_typewriters_blickensderfer.htm

A good detailed bio of GCB on an Erie, Pennsylvania Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.614840275222969.1073741874.268770283163305&type=3

Posted in Typewriters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Constructivism in Tenerife!

I came across this interesting building in the architectural wasteland of South Tenerife. An old apartment block overlooking the beach in Los Cristianos, it has an early Soviet Union Constructivist flavour about it. Rather a clever concrete structure, there is a central column on each balcony supporting the accommodation unit above (deliberately emphasised by the glazed panel above the non-structural dividing wall). The cantilevered rooms at the ends were maybe a bit ambitious and a skinny steel structure props them up!

DSC08376

The interlocking circular rooms and balconies with the semi-circular plan create intricate three-dimensional elevations, particularly viewed from the sea.

DSC08386

That staircase is terrific with its alternating flights, exposed structure, and curvaceous plant-room on the top. No one I asked had a clue who designed it and when (1960s…?) and I can’t find anything on the web. Unlike the real Constructivist gems in Russia this building is well looked after, with a sympathetic paint scheme.

DSC08049a

DSC08048

Posted in Architecture, Spanish Architecture | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dismal Designs – Fiat Fiorino

Over the past few years Fiat has produced a string of boring or hideous van designs in equal measure. The Doblo was bad enough, but look at the truly grotesque front end of the new Fiorino. It looks like Popeye’s chin, completely out of proportion to the rest of the van. You can clearly see the join where the whole thing is grafted on to the body. The Fiorino was designed jointly with Peugeot Citroen and generally looks much the same as their two vans, but it is the Fiat’s body-coloured lump and gaping mouth which make it their ugly sibling. Why are small vans so uninspiring, even new electric ones where there are few design restrictions?

DSC08397

Thankfully none is quite so bad as the nasally challenged 1990s Daihatsu Midget which also resembles a cartoon character! It looks home-made but they race these in Japan……

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/daihatsu-midget-racing-is-your-new-favourite-motorsport/

Daihatsu_Midget_II_Cargo_001

Photo credit:”Daihatsu Midget II Cargo 001″ by Tennen-Gas –  Wikimedia Commons

Posted in Car Design, Vehicle design | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment