Lotman and Eisenstein Response

Reading Lotman's theory of semiotics in the appearance through cinema shots was quite thorough. He takes the idea of shot usage in films and emphasizes that meanings are generated as a language structure is to the audiences. I understand though he takes a completely literal approach to this idea when he said nothing was accidental in film shooting. For the most part, I completely believe in this theory in the sense that we do watch the same film more than once to generate even deeper meaning from it. We'd even look at films we'd consider bad by social standards to dissect why and how did these films go so bad by becoming critics in our own sense of fulfillment.

Eisenstein's theory of montage is a sound one. Although I don't necessarily agree to this type of approach to defining montage as he does. I look at both these ideas of montage, one linking together a series of similar themes and the other idea of collision as the high point of emotional responses. In my opinion, both of these ideas can very well define montage as we general see it essentially. As I was reading Eisenstein's reasoning for the difference, I kept getting this idea that he was talking about a higher standard of montage rather than a different meaning altogether from his friend's idea. The very high point of montage and the low point, that's how both of these ideas of montage can exist rather than separating from what they essentially show us.