The Kuleshov Effect, Ruined

Famously, Lev Kuleshov spliced together some bits of film. Specifically, he took a shot of an actor, with neutral expression, looking downwards, and cut in a shot of a bowl of soup on a table, then cut back to the same shot of the actor. When he showed this short sequence to an audience, they thought it was a bit short for a film. But they also interpreted meaning into the actor’s expression: he’s horny, they thought.

Then Lev daringly removed the shot of soup, which was then distributed around the Transcaucasian Federation to show them what soup looked like, and substituted a shot of a woman on a divan. Audiences again thought this film was rather insubstantial, but better than the soup one, and again considered the actor’s frozen expression before and after the new shot and again supplied a meaning: he’s sad, they thought.

Then Lev, drunk on the heady wine of revolution, removed the sexy woman on the divan, which was then shipped to Tajikistan to show them what divans looked (“Comrades, focus on the divan. Ignore the sexy woman! IGNORE HER, I SAY!”) and in their place was inserted a shot representing a dead child. When this film was shown to audiences they again thought it was too short, and a bit depressing, but again they interpreted meaning into the actor’s unchanged expression: he’s hungry, they thought.

I may have got some of the details wrong there, but you get the gist.

Until just recently I hadn’t really examined a vital element of this famous experiment. We know that the original footage is long lost. Being so short, it may have slipped down the back of some forgotten communist settee, but the point is, many text books describe it as starring “a famous Russian actor.” I’d forgotten that it was Ivan Mosjoukine.

I mean, this changes everything. We can definitely now be morally certain that when Ivan Mosjoukine looked at a bowl of soup with an unchanging expression the emotion the Soviet audience projected onto his supposedly impassive face was “Give us a kiss.” When he looked upon the woman reclining erotically upon her divan, the audience read into his expression the words “I’m absolutely gorgeous.” And when he gazed at the child in the coffin they all read his unaltered features as signifying “Ee, I fancy myself rotten.”

My first novel, We Used Dark Forces (A Whitsuntide Science Adventure) is here. I’ve cut the price of the Kindle edition for anyone who wants to start at the beginning.

The sequel, Is Your Journey to the Centre of the Earth Really Necessary (A Whitsuntide Science Adventure) is here.

And the new one, Kill Baby Hitler! (A Whitsuntide Science Adventure) is here.

You can read them in any order, and I hope you do.

8 Responses to “The Kuleshov Effect, Ruined”

  1. Elisabetta Girelli Says:

    But the man in the photos is empathically not Ivan Mozzhukhin. Never has been. I’m always confused as to why Ivan is brought in – unless the reference is to indeed lost footage? then who is the man in these images?

  2. I should have made clear, the man in the photos is from a much more modern reconstruction (as the original is lost). I don’t know who he is, possibly Billy Corgan from the Smashing Pumpkins?

    Mosjoukine is reliably recorded as having indeed been The Guy in the original experiment.

  3. bensondonald Says:

    Variations on the experiment:
    — Use one celebrated actor and one less respected actor, say Bette Davis and Aquanetta, caught in neutral outtakes. Would audiences identify Bette as giving the superior performance?
    — Do a whole film where the central actor was playing a given script, unaware everything but his own face and lines would be replaced with a totally opposite script. Say, a guy playing a subtle psychopath had his performance plugged into a cheery romcom as the unironic hero. Not sure what it might prove but could be fun.
    — Shooting a film with cast and perhaps crew understanding it to be a comedy, when it’s written to be edited and scored as a grim straight drama.

    Thinking of “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid”, a mild amusement in which detective Steve Martin interacts with stars from classic noirs. Much of the joke is recognizing the clips and the cleverness of the execution, like watching W.C. Fields’ juggling act.

  4. I think Bette would still win in that example. Much of being a movie star involves having the kind of face that an audience projects interesting emotions onto. Ben Affleck not emoting would be less interesting than Lillian Gish not emoting.

  5. driccuito Says:

    AND HERE WE ENTERETH INTO THE SACRED DOMAIN OF… PLASTICITY! FORM! THE HUMAN NOGGIN!

  6. And ALL-CAPS!

  7. driccuito Says:

    I REALLY THINK ACTING IS PHYSIOGNOMICAL.

  8. Or… it’s about projection by the audience, combined with the actor’s ability to influence that projection through expression or physiognomy, and the various filmmakers’ abilities via editing and lighting and lens and angle choice.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.