In this in this classic example, Eisenstein intricately weaves the formal devices of montage, lighting, shot length and art direction to create a distinctive relationship between the story, plot and style. The sequence here begins with the title “suddenly” and is followed by a shot of a female which, as the scene unfolds, has no spatial relationship with the unfolding events. The viewer is then bombarded with series of shots cutting from close-ups to wide angles each telling their own story culminating in a group of images uniquely reflecting the angst and dismay of the characters within the story. Further, Eisenstein continuously intercuts the wide angle shot of the oppressors marching down the steps in the view of the great statue, when this is juxtaposed with various shots of the fleeing public, the viewer is presented with a complex arrangement of tonal montage whereby films form relates directly to the chaotic nature of the narrative. Here we find all the formal elements of the scene working in unison, each shot angle relates to each shot length which relates directly to the deformation of the fabula through the use formal technique. In essence, each element transfers effects onto one another, each gives responses to one another in the culmination of a whole experience. This is an example of the true, and I believe, intended value of formalism’s approach to narrative, where form is equal to content and the style is in direct dialogue with the story.

Perhaps the most influential and thorough consideration of formative film theory comes Sergei Eisenstein himself. Other prominent figures within this movement include, Rudolf Arnheim, Hugo Munsterberg and Bela Balazs, but undoubtedly the greatest contribution comes from the Russian theorist and Filmmaker for his sheer tenacity and remarkable intelligence. The concept of cinematic form is central to Eisenstein’s philosophies as both a theoretician and Filmmaker. In his essay ‘A dialectic approach to Film Form’ he notes that “art is always conflict” (Eisenstein, 1949, p46). In this statement, conflict as a dialectic principle which seeks to discover the syntax of filmic expression and create oppositions, or collisions, within films form to create meaning (Taylor, 1998, p94). He is able to recognise that the aesthetics of film work in unison with narrative and plot to create a system where the processes of storytelling and visual techniques of the medium are in constant flux. In essence, Eisenstein is searching out methods to deconstruct the nature of reality into components for the director to fashion (Dudley, 1976, p46). These components are then facilitated or reconstructed through the use of formal attributes unique to the medium in a complex interrelated system. In this sense, Eisenstein utilises film as a canvas to communicate a perspective of reality rather than reality itself. It is no surprise then that documentary, a mode filmmaking born on the principle to record and document reality as it is, could be seen to represent an opposition to this. How could the two definitions possibly correlate?