Rhythmic Emotion

In his essay "Methods of Montage," Eisenstein explains what he believes to be the five forms of montage. The Metric Montage, Rhythmic Montage, Tonal Montage, Overtonal Montage, and the Intellectual Montage all employ different techniques that can each be used to serve a different purpose cinema, yet they all have an essential connecting factor. There's an underlying rhythm to them all. For even in Tonal Montage Eisenstein says “tone is a level of rhythm” (p.81). Is it safe then to assume that Eisenstein believes rhythm to be the foundation of montage? Earlier on in the essay he stated, “(the beats) clarity can bring into unison the “pulsing” of a film and the “pulsing” of the audience. Without such a unison there can be no contact between the two” (p.73).  Is he then saying that this rhythm in montage is necessary for there to be any emotional connection with the audience? That the rhythm of the montage determines the emotion of the film and how well the audience is able to grasp it? Is Eisenstein implying that there is a rhythm in cinema, without which, the audience is unable to emotionally connect to the film?

Too 'Real?'

In "Film Director's: A Revolution" by Vertov, he explains how until then, film had been limited by the director's through their imperfect human eyes (258). He talks about how "up to today we have coerced the film-camera and made it copy the work of our own eyes" (259) and how, instead, film-makers must realize that "the cinema-eye lives and moves in time and space, apprehends and fixes impressions in quite a different way from that of the human eye" (259). He suggests that film-makers must realize such, and act upon it as viewers do not want to see that which they endure everyday. Instead, they want to "flee from the prose of life" (261). As such, anything relaying 'normal life' should not be shown as would be seen from the human eye. While I agree that viewers regard film as an escape from the everyday routine, I believe that a mixture of both views from the human eye as well as the cinematic eye is best, as it allows the viewer a sort of grounding with which to gain their bearings, so that the viewer can better understand and relate to what is happening on screen. But if Vertov is so intent on distracting the viewer from their everyday lives, then why make "Man with a Movie Camera"? Does the way in which the camera presents the day to day activities create enough of an illusion for Vertov and the viewers that it is no longer counted as 'real'? At what point does it become the 'cinematic eye' in it's purest sense rather than a camera constrained by the human eye?