Frame Composition in Ukrainian Film Theory of the 1920s and the Experience of Other Arts

Author

Larysa Naumova

Abstract

This article explores a pivotal aspect of film construction: the composition of the cinematic frame within the context of Ukrainian film theory during the 1920s. Ukrainian film theorists align the cinematic frame with other artistic frameworks, thus placing frame composition within the realms of fine arts, photography, and even architecture. According to Ukrainian researchers, the expertise garnered from these art forms holds significance for the evolution of film, particularly in the 1920s. The assessment of lighting, diverse rhythmic patterns, and the study of stylistic frame composition amalgamate cinema with other art forms that have already grappled with these challenges extensively. The writings of Ukrainian film theorists, notably Leonid Skrypnyk as their foremost representative, underscore the pressing issues concerning cinematic frame composition in relation to other arts. By drawing from the experiences of preceding artistic traditions within cinematic practice, they advocate for stimulating further advancements in cinema.

Keywords

Leonid Skrypnyk, Oleksii Poltoratskyi, cinema, Ukrainian cinematography of the 1920s, frame, frame composition, film theory, Ukrainian film theory of the 1920s, montage, rhythm.

Introduction

The purpose of the article is to shed light on the lesser-known works of Ukrainian film theorists, highlighting the originality and innovation of their inquiries into film frame composition. Ukrainian practitioners and theorists of film art integrated theoretical and practical insights from various art forms, including fine arts, easel painting, photography, and architecture, to address the practical challenges of emerging cinema. In their endeavours, Ukrainian film theorists and practitioners tapped into historical precedents and contemporary developments from both Western European and Eastern art scenes. Of particular interest are the allusions to the latest advancements in both art theory and practice.

The evolution of Ukrainian cinema is intimately intertwined with the activities of the All-Ukrainian Photo and Film Administration (VUFKU), a robust state cinematographic organisation that operated from 1922 to 1930, overseeing all aspects of film production. The very active operations of VUFKU during its eight years of operation significantly fueled the growth of Ukrainian national cinema. Notably, VUFKU’s activities fostered the development of a vibrant practical and theoretical cinematic milieu. Even individuals from outside this sphere, upon entering and collaborating within this environment – whether directors with cameramen, artists, et al. – began, consciously or unconsciously, to immerse themselves in it, producing works that harmonised stylistically and initiated their own explorations within the broader experimental framework, alongside their Ukrainian and Russian counterparts working within the studio during that period.¹

Prominent Ukrainian directors such as Oleksandr Dovzhenko, Ivan Kavaleridze, and others refrained from producing theoretical studies or conducting analyses of their own films. However, a significant number of Ukrainian film theorists were actively engaged in practical investigations. These theorists participated in film production across various capacities, working within VUFKU factories and creative teams, thus gaining first-hand insight into the entire filmmaking process and actively contributing to it. Hence, the approach adopted by the Ukrainian-Canadian, Bohdan Nebesio, appears apt and pertinent. Nebesio’s method involves extrapolating theoretical studies by Ukrainian theorists of the 1920s onto Ukrainian films of the same period (Nebesio 1996), particularly highlighting Leonid Skrypnyk’s 1928 work Narysy z teorii mystetstva kino [Essays on the Theory of Film Art] (Skrypnyk 1928) and its resonance with Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s late 1920s films Zvenyhora (1927, VUFKU, Ukraine), Arsenal (1929, VUFKU, Ukraine), and Earth (1930, VUFKU, Ukraine).² In essence, both practical and theoretical endeavours unfolded in tandem within the shared environment of the VUFKU.

Significant theoretical works on cinema emerged in Ukraine during the 1920s, coinciding with the development of Ukrainian national cinema. The evolution of film theory in Ukraine advanced alongside practical research and experimentation. Yet, Ukrainian researchers in film theory also sought to identify critical and promising avenues for the continued practical advancement of cinema within Ukraine.

The concept of the frame emerged as one of the pivotal themes in Ukrainian cinema theory during the 1920s, explored extensively by numerous Ukrainian researchers in their theoretical works. Indeed, the frame and its composition establish a cornerstone of theoretical inquiry in Ukrainian cinema during this period. Specifically, the rectangular form of the frame is likened to fine art or photography, rendering principles from these disciplines highly relevant for the practical construction of cinematic frames.

Leonid Skrypnyk, a prominent Ukrainian film theorist, while conceptualising cinema as an independent art form within the framework of studying film language, delineates its specific expressive tools as “formal means utilised by a film artist in their work”.

The primary “colours” of this palette encompass: 1) photographic interpretation, serving as the ultimate method for shaping the entire work during film creation;³ 2) editing, which involves organising individual visual elements; 3) the formal composition of the frame; 4) shifts in perspective on the subject, and so forth. (Skrypnyk 1928: 16).

Overall, Bohdan Nebesio (Nebesio 1995-96: 67-77) underscores the significance and merit of the research conducted by Ukrainian film theorists during this period, particularly lauding Leonid Skrypnyk’s 1928 Essays on the Theory of Film Art. Oleksiy Sinchenko echoes this sentiment, offering high praise for Skrypnyk’s contribution (Sinchenko 2016). Similarly, Oleh Ilnytskyi acknowledges Skrypnyk’s dual engagement in both literary and scientific endeavours (Ilnytzkyj 1997: 316).

The Concept of the Frame in Ukrainian Film Theory

A contemporary of Oleksandr Dovzhenko, the French journalist, film critic, and later film director, Jean Vidal, noted in 1931 a peculiarity of the method Oleksandr Dovzhenko employed in his film Earth: “He often creates like a painter, and this is what gives the image an incomparable plastic quality (the dance of a young man in the moonlight, the apples irrigated by rain).” (Vidal 1931: 6). Gilberto Perez, a scholar exploring Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s later works, offers insights into the composition of the frame in the director’s films overall. Perez notes,

Dovzhenko’s style is based on sameness: a sameness established in discreteness. The space within the frame, a space which he makes us regard, in every shot, as self-contained and complete, becomes with him a kind of constant, a common ground which different things, located in different places, successively occupy (Perez 1975: 79).

The importance of meticulous framing is also recognised by Ukrainian film theorists, who assert,

It is possible to construct temples, hanging palaces, flying gardens, waterfalls, and other luxuries, and it is possible to achieve significant value in the picture with much less ‘swing’ for staging, by paying special attention to the plastic and picturesque aspects of the frame (Sobol 1926: 8).

A frame is not a line of a literary work; rather, it is an actual moment of a game-gesture, depicted graphically. [...] Given the illustrative nature of the frame, the author must consider the complexities of visual perception. When working on the frame, they should envision each moment of it as a static mise-en-scène, and only then imbue it with life through gesture and action (Borysiv-Vladymyriv 1926: 8).

A frame, akin to a well-crafted sentence in a compelling story, ought to hold intrinsic value. Each frame within a film should not only convey clarity and expressiveness in advancing the plot but also possess artistic independence. It should stand alone as an artistic entity, akin to an easel carving, capable of being evaluated separately from the entire movie.

The question of artistic frame design emerges as one of the paramount objectives in cinema (Sobol 1926: 8).

This is how Ukrainian researchers in the second half of the 1920s emphasised the significance of the frame in cinematic art. The quotations above broadly encapsulate the prevailing sentiments regarding the frame and its composition within the Ukrainian cinematic milieu of that era. The meticulousness evident in both the theoretical exploration and the practical implementation of frame composition by directors reflects a consistent approach.

As Ukrainian film theorist Oleksii Poltoratskyi asserts:

Film stylistics, that is, the system of means to make film footage perceptible (in parallel to literature: literary stylistics makes the text of a literary work tangible), is a problem of great importance and a very significant area of film theory (Poltoratskyi 1930: 9).⁴

In this definition, two crucial points emerge. Firstly, the concept of film stylistics entails the imperative to render film footage perceptible, not merely artistically comprehensible but fundamentally perceptible. However, Poltoratskyi’s approach cannot be accused of excessive sensuousness. In his theoretical study Panfuturism, developed between 1928 and 1929, he observes,

…despite the naivety of the statements made, one of Poltoratsky’s thoughts is quite consistent: he does not recognise either the aesthetic specificity of art or its role in shaping human sensuousness. Moreover, such essential aspects of art as aesthetics, sensuousness, empathy, and content are supplanted by Poltoratskyi’s absolute emphasis on its inherent ideological function. Simultaneously, it is quite realistic that the “ideological” function – interpreted by the Futurists⁵ – is equated with the essence of art (Kholodynska 2016: 28).

Second, the quotation does not pertain to the film as a whole or to a montage phrase but rather to the smallest narrative unit in cinema – the film frame. Poltoratskyi pays homage to this minuscule structural component of a screen work and attributes its significance, among other factors, to its capacity for emotional impact on the viewer.

In his theory of cinema, Oleksii Poltoratskyi further categorises all shots comprising a motion picture into three primary groups: “These three elements – objective, subjective, and figurative shots – constitute the entire stylistic arsenal of the visual elements of a motion picture. The proportion of each of these types varies” (Poltoratskyi 1930: 11). Poltoratskyi highlights the varying percentages of these techniques in each specific film and expresses skepticism regarding the feasibility of a film grounded solely on a single technique.

Thus, we encounter a certain law here, and to disregard it is to unwittingly circumvent the great achievements of cinema art, for the proper organisation and correct distribution of visual elements are matters of the meticulous technical and artistic arrangement of the entire film (Poltoratskyi 1930: 12).

N. Sobol also emphasises the potential for influencing the viewer at the level of shaping a movie frame.

The more vivid this impression, the deeper it embeds in the viewer’s memory. How can this effect be attained? What constitutes an artistic shot? The primary method involves consciously leveraging the experience of painting, namely, spaces, volumes, and light. Every frame must possess its own plastic idea.⁶ This signifies that it harbours its unique harmony of shapes and lines that yield a distinct impact on the viewer.

This effect can and should be utilised to enhance the content. For instance, a series of horizontally composed frames creates an impression of stillness and calm. However, if a moment constructed along a diagonal is inserted between them, it conveys a sense of movement and unease. (Sobol 1926: 8).

It is worth noting that the stance of Ukrainian film scholars differs fundamentally from the theoretically defined position of the Russian Soviet montage school, which typically encompasses Ukrainian directors within Soviet tradition. As mentioned earlier, Ukrainian film theory and practice evolved in parallel. Therefore, we should also examine the disparities between Ukrainian and Russian film practices regarding their theoretical approaches to the cinematic frame.

Russian formalist film theorists of the 1920s did not consider the composition of the frame in general but focused mostly on its content and semantic meaning. Boris Eikhenbaum writes, “The semantics of the frame as such rarely appear separately; however, individual details in the composition of frames related to photogeny sometimes carry independent semantic significance. Nevertheless, the primary semantic role, of course, belongs to the montage…” (Eikhenbaum 2001: 35–36). Or, as Tynianov puts it: “A frame, constructed according to the principles of movement, is far from the material reproduction of movement – it gives a meaningful representation of movement” (Tynianov 2001: 42).

Soviet Russian montage theory generally does not acknowledge the independence and completeness of the frame. In particular, the pioneering theorist, Lev Kuleshov, underscores the “relative completeness of the frame”. A single frame loses its independence and value as it becomes part of a montage sequence and becomes entirely reliant on the neighbouring frames within that sequence: “A movie frame is not a photograph. A frame is a sign, a letter for editing.” (Kuleshov 1929: 79). Furthermore, he elaborates, “If there is a thought-phrase, a part of the plot, an element of the entire dramatic chain, then this thought is expressed, laid out by frames-signs, like bricks...” (Kuleshov 1929: 100). For Sergei Eisenstein, the preeminent theorist and practitioner of Russian Soviet avant-garde cinema, the frame, although a hieroglyph with multiple meanings, is primarily “an element of montage” (Eizenshtein 1964b: 289). Hence, for Russian film theorists in the 1920s, the frame held importance not in isolation but solely within the context of a cohesive montage structure and was perceived (including its composition) solely from this standpoint.

Leonid Skrypnyk, a leading Ukrainian film theorist, conceptualises the formal composition of the frame:

Cinema operates with elements of composition that are in motion. The formal composition of the frame must be inherently integral, and there are no laws governing such composition (theatrical and ballet compositions are constructed on entirely different principles: three dimensions, colours, ‘framelessness’, constant viewpoint) (Skrypnyk 1928: 17; emphasis original).

The “Eisenstein-Pudovkin” theory of montage,⁷ which Leonid Skrypnyk adopts as a starting point for his analysis, posits that all objects in our surroundings serve as material for filming. The material for crafting a film already exists in the form of filmed objects, which are perceived from a precisely defined perspective—namely, that of visual attractions.⁸ Skrypnyk further asserts, “And a film is a certain way of organising the right amount of the right attractions” (Skrypnyk 1928: 18). However, the Ukrainian researcher proceeds to develop a distinct strategy for evaluating the frame in cinema, diverging from the Russian approach.

Given that cinema presents viewers with what is captured on film (essentially, a photograph), the matter of formal frame composition – its visual design – is paramount in cinema (Skrypnyk 1928: 48). Skrypnyk emphasises, “The art of formal frame composition is indispensable for creating visual attractions. The art of editing is fundamental for shaping the entire film” (Skrypnyk 1928: 65).

Basic Principles of Frame Composition in Cinema

According to Leonid Skrypnyk, the concept of “beauty” immanent in art is increasingly crystallising into a formula of “simplicity and expediency”: “‘Simplicity’ in film composition is inherently linked to expediency: clear, understandable, the simplest, and most appropriate filling of the frame with the material that needs to be shown” (Skrypnyk 1928: 48). It should be noted that these requirements of simplicity and expediency are fundamental concepts of the constructivist method.⁹ As a futurist, Skrypnyk consciously refers to constructivist aesthetics. However, it is essential to remember that “in cinema, there is nothing outside the frame, only emptiness and darkness”.

The main elements to consider when composing a shot are: 1) external compositional (non-relational and visual), 2) purely semantic, and 3) rhythmic.

The external course of the frame composition is determined by the following main means: a) the point (and direction) of view of the lens, the length of the focus, b) light, which is mainly included in the three-dimensional composition. Here, it is appropriate to refer to the experience of photography.

A composition of lines and monochromatic areas is two-dimensional. The introduction of chiaroscuro into it makes the viewer perceive it as three-dimensional. [...] We must remember that in the future we will have to create a theory of film composition that is only three-dimensional, because unlike photography, film composition not only uses chiaroscuro but also has movement in three dimensions (Skrypnyk 1928: 49).

The role of light in shaping the three-dimensional composition of a frame in cinema is a common theme in Ukrainian film theory. In particular, the same methods are discussed in the article by Alf Artist and the Art of the Frame (Alf 1926).

Thus, movement, light, and shadow determine the three-dimensionality of a film composition. For a photographic composition, light and shadow are the factors that create its three-dimensionality.

Compared to the painting composition, the composition of the frame is integral, consisting of the sum of the compositions of each individual cell, which will give the “sum of the composition of the entire meter”. The composition of each such cell can be the opposite of the canonical painting composition.

M. Borysiv-Vladymyriv notes the important defining features of the frame: its rhythm and graphics. The graphics of the frame as a research topic has yet to emerge, but based on the fine arts, graphics are broader and more democratic than painting. “Frame graphics is the work of the director, architect, cameraman, and lighting designer.” (Borysiv-Vladymyriv 1926: 10).

Leonid Skrypnyk, by analogy with the definition of painting, proposes only one law for frame composition:

the goal of film composition should be to give the viewer the impression of a clear and expedient movement that would be in organic and harmonious connection with all other movements and fixed elements of the composition; this main dominant movement (there may be several of them, of course, or one movement may unite several objects, etc.) should be composed in exact accordance with the meaningful task of this piece of film, and should be based on a certain, also set rhythm (Skrypnyk 1928: 50).

According to Leonid Skrypnyk, the scale is the first thing that determines the meaningful line of a composition. Then comes the point of view. The next stage is lighting. Rhythm is of particular importance in the composition. Ukrainian film theorists pay special attention to rhythm as an element of frame composition. It should be noted that Louis Delluc in his work Photogénie notices rhythm and associates it with the movement of not only objects but also shadows, light spots, etc., as well as with film editing; however, he does not attach any great importance to it in the context of the overall construction of a cinematic work (Delluc 1920).

Rhythm in the Composition of a Film Frame

I pay special attention to the shots composed in such a way that the background of the pavilion creates a mood for the shot, forms a rhythm, and is in perfect harmony with the rhythm of the actors (Borysiv-Vladymyriv 1926: 10).

Thus, the viewpoint of Ukrainian film theorists on creating the rhythm of a shot is grounded in the composition of the shot and must align with the rhythm of the actors’ actions.

Leonid Skrypnyk takes a more in-depth approach to examining how to form the rhythm of the frame. He notes that in terms of technical features in cinema, one can distinguish between dynamic and static rhythm. The former is an element of all arts in time, including cinema. The second is the rhythm of painting and architecture. A film composition should work with both types of rhythm. In general, the perception of rhythm is individual, depending on many components: cultural, religious, individual (upbringing, personal characteristics), etc. However, “Rhythm is the shortest way to the viewer’s consciousness; that is, rhythm is an absolutely expedient and therefore obligatory thing” (Skrypnyk 1928: 53).

In the context of film composition, Skrypnyk proposes a distinction between the following types of rhythm: dynamic and static (or imaginary-dynamic).¹⁰ Moreover, the peculiarities of constructing the imaginary-dynamic rhythm can be determined in two different ways: perceptual and conceptual. Dynamic rhythm is the arrangement of elements of influence on the viewer in a certain order in time, considering the purely biological basis of the human psyche. The dynamic rhythm of the composition is determined by the content, just as in editing, and to some extent determines the content itself.

It is important to note that dynamic rhythmic constructions can have completely different degrees of intensity. For an illustrative example, the author provides the case of a train moving along a track located: 1) exactly at the horizon (on the ground) and 2) deep into the screen on the horizon (standing). In the first case, the result will be a uniform movement of monotonous cars in one direction. And the rhythm of this movement will be correspondingly uniform and monotonous. If this shot is shown for a long time, the viewer may become bored or distracted. In the second case, two variants of train movement can be considered: towards the viewer and away from the viewer. When the train moves toward the viewer, due to the increase in the size of the train and cars and their speed according to the laws of perspective, the rhythmic line will gradually increase, which will lead to the viewer’s attention. If the train moves deeper into the frame, the rhythm line will gradually decrease due to the decrease in cars and speed in accordance with the same laws of perspective. As a result, watching the train in the second variant will lead to a decrease in the rhythmic line and a drop in tension that will occur during the perception of this frame.

Determining the rhythm of the frame, as well as the intensity of this rhythm, is of great importance not only for the perception of each individual shot but also for the overall editing.

Unfortunately, rhythmic shots are not very common, and often the rhythm of one shot ‘knocks down’ the rhythm of the second shot. But still, only such observational and analytical work can help us truly understand what rhythm is in a film composition. No words can translate this idea (Skrypnyk 1928: 54).

If dynamic rhythm is a relative concept, then static rhythm is, according to Skrypnik, a completely conditional concept because the category of rhythm is directly related to time, and it is impossible to imagine the autonomous existence of rhythm outside of time. This statement, after all, cannot be fully applied to cinema. By defining cinema as an art that develops over time, Skrypnyk has thus unequivocally affirmed the passage of time as a necessary attribute of cinema’s existence. In this case, even static in cinema has the characteristic of flow.

Leonid Skrypnyk argues that in easel art, it is quite appropriate to talk about rhythm and, accordingly, about rhythmic constructions. Based on the peculiarities of human consciousness, it is quite natural that a person cannot imagine anything outside the flow of time. The concept of time encompasses absolutely every element of human existence. Even a fixed, static picture is imagined by a person as existing in time. It is on the basis of these observations that the concept of “static rhythm” is rooted. Later scientific research led to the conclusion that the perception of a painting or any other static image, even at the level of the physiological work of the eye, is not static.¹¹ The human eye, even when perceiving a static object, makes a huge number of jumping and circling movements. These movements, called saccades, are performed in a split second and are unconscious. However, even during conscious perception, it is natural for people to imagine movements in a still picture, perceiving a line as a consequence of the movement of a point.

In his study, Leonid Skrypnyk refers to the theoretical research of one of the theorists and leaders of constructivism, practising architect Moses Ginzburg.¹² Moses Ginzburg, author of the theoretical work Rhythm in Architecture, published in Moscow in 1923, characterises the representation of the rhythm of a certain curved line as follows:

The drawn line is the result of the translational movement of a point that changes its location in space. But if the line is drawn, the movement has already stopped, and for us, those who perceive the drawn curve, there is no clarity of comprehension of active movement. And yet we perceive a well-known sense of rhythm from this curve, so the element of movement must exist. And indeed, the rhythmic charm that appears when we perceive a given curve is due to the fact that every time we look at it, we are imaginatively repeating the forward motion of a point that once actually performed this active motion (Ginzburg 1923: 13).

On this basis, Moisei Ginzburg proposes the name “passive-dynamic” rhythm instead of “static” rhythm, thus effectively denying the possibility for a person having a static perception of any artwork or object in general. Skrypnyk himself stops at the definition of this rhythm as “conceptual imaginary-dynamic”, since the dynamism of this rhythm is present in the viewer’s imagination. The notion of conceptuality is used for the following reasons: the perception of such a rhythm is the result of a completed process of realisation of this object of perception.

In addition, a “static” or “imaginary-dynamic” rhythm can also be felt in the process of perceiving an object. The reason for this is the impossibility of simultaneously perceiving very large objects. The angle of clear vision of the human eye is too small, and therefore, the object is grasped analytically, in small parts. For example, when it is necessary to comprehend a huge building, perception occurs gradually. In this case, the movement of the eye over the object of perception creates a dynamic rhythm in the perceiver.

A large number of windows next to each other in the right order along the right line will give a dynamic-rhythmic impression when the eyes move along this line... I would call this ‘static’ (since it belongs to a stationary object) rhythm a ‘perceptual imaginary-dynamic rhythm’ (Skrypnyk 1928: 55).

The dynamic-rhythmic impression received in this case will be similar to the one received by the viewer when perceiving the moving train in the first example (when the train moves exactly to the horizon, on the ground).

Thus, there are several types of dynamic rhythm, as well as several types of so-called “static” or “imaginary-dynamic” rhythm. All of these types of rhythms must be taken into account when composing a film shot. It should be noted that the tasks related to imaginary-dynamic rhythmic compositional constructions will vary. In the situation of perceptual imaginary-dynamic rhythm, the composition has a similar task as in the case of pure dynamic rhythm. Often, this type of composition is used when showing motionless objects with a moving camera, where the camera seems to reproduce the movement of the viewer’s eye, perceiving the object in parts. In cases where still elements are part of the composition, i.e., they appear motionless on the screen, the significance of this type of rhythm is diminished, as the viewer’s primary attention is directed to moving objects. However, employing such a frame composition requires consideration of the viewer’s limited angle of view. This implies that even with entirely static external characteristics of the frame, the viewer will be compelled to move their eyes around the frame, thereby creating a dynamic nature of the perception process.

In the situation of a conceptual imaginary-dynamic rhythm, the task of a film composition will be akin to the task of any static artwork. The composition should be designed for the progressive nature of the viewer’s perception. Once the viewer has grasped the entire composition, a complete concept imbued with the form of a dynamic rhythm should emerge.

The most challenging task faced by the author of a cinematic work is to merge all varieties of imaginary dynamic rhythms with all varieties of real dynamic rhythms. This merger can result in a harmonious combination in which all rhythms are melded into one common rhythm, amplified, and enriched. Rhythms can also be combined based on the principle of contrast, where one rhythm is emphasised by other, contrasting rhythms. Alternatively, one rhythm may be clearly expressed while the rest serve as an inactive background. However, this falls under the task of the artistic combination of shots – montage.

Considering the issue of rhythm in film composition to be extremely complex, at this stage Leonid Skrypnyk limited himself, in his words, to “formulating the problem”, but this “formulation” already defines extremely important, hitherto virtually unexplored vectors of film theory.

The theoretical concepts of Leonid Skrypnyk, with his constructivist approach and the problems of rhythm, also resonate with the theoretical works of the artist and fine art theorist Wassily Kandinsky, particularly his work Point and Line on the Plane: To the Analysis of Painting Elements.¹³ However, this topic still requires further research.

Conclusions

The works of all scholars discussed here demonstrate an extraordinary interest in the issues of frame composition. In fact, all of them see a direct correlation in the frame construction with the laws of composition that take place in other arts. Most of these theorists refer to fine arts and photography in their analyses. In their views, if the experience of photography is projected into the realm of cinematography as an exploration of possibilities primarily in the domain of light and shadow, then the experience of visual art is relevant mainly in the area of frame composition.

The development of theory in the field of frame composition in Ukraine can be contextualised in the artistic trends and explorations of the time. Ukrainian film theorists argue for the need to connect practice with the latest artistic theories, for example, based on the concept of rhythm and its role in the practical issues of organising the composition of a shot. Therefore, the impact of theoretical research is measured by how it is put into practice. After all, theory is always directed towards practice. The theories presented here are thought to be a solid, stable foundation for further practical research, as well as for the development of the art of cinema in general.

Larysa Naumova
Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sciences
naumova@udu.cas.cz

ORCID: 0000-0001-7634-0923

Translation of quotations by Olha Svyripa

Bio

Larysa Naumova graduated from the Kyiv National I. K. Karpenko-Kary University of Theatre, Cinema and Television with a degree in Film and Television Directing, and has worked as an independent director across various studios in Ukraine. She earned her PhD in Philosophy at V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, where she defended a dissertation titled Spectacle as a Cultural Phenomenon: Philosophical Aspect, within the field of Philosophical Anthropology and Philosophy of Culture. She previously held the position of Associate Professor at the Karpenko-Kary University. Since 2022, in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, she has been based at the Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Her academic interests include screen spectacle as a cultural phenomenon, screen arts theory, film history and theory, the history and theory of Ukrainian cinema, and the Ukrainian film avant-garde.

Bibliography

Carpenter, R. H. S. 1988. Movements of the eyes (2nd edition). London.

Delluc, Louis. 1920. Photogénie. Paris.

Ilnytzkyj, Oleh S. 1997. Ukrainian Futurism, 1914–1930. A Historical and Critical Study. Cambridge, MA.

Kandinsky, Wassily. 1926. Punkt und Linie zur Fläche. Beitrag zur Analyse der malerischen Elemente. München.

Martinez-Conde, Susana, Macknik, Stephen L., and David H. Hubel. 2004. The role of fixational eye movements in visual perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(3): 229–240.

Nebesio, Bohdan Y. 1995–96. “The Theoretical Past of Cinema: Introducing Ukrainian Film Theory of the 1920s”. Film Criticism 20 (1–2): 67–77.

Nebesio, Bohdan Y. 1996. The Silent Films of Alexander Dovzhenko: A Historical Poetics. Ph.D. diss., University of Alberta.

Perez, Gilberto. 1975. “All in the Foreground: A Study of Dovzhenko's Earth”. The Hudson Review. Vol. 28, No. 1. Spring, https://doi.org/10.2307/3850551.

Rolfs, Martin. 2009. “Microsaccades: Small steps on a long way”. Vision Research, 49(20): 2415-2441. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.010

Vidal, Jean. 1931. “La terre”. Pour Vous 160 (10 décembre): 6.

Yarbus, A. 1967. Eye movements and vision. New York.

Альф. 1926. “Художник і мистецтво кадру”. Нове мистецтво 23 (32): 4–6.

Борисів-Владимирів, М. 1926. “Мистецтво кадру”. Кіно 4: 8–10.

Гинзбург, Моисей. 1923. Ритм в архитектуре. Москва.

Горпенко, Володимир. 2003. Монтаж: Кіно. Телебачення. Київ.

Зинченко, В.П., Вергелес Н.Ю. 1969. Формирование зрительного образа. Москва.

Кулешов, Лев. 1929. Искусство кино. Ленинград.

Наумова, Лариса. 2012. “Російський радянський конструктивізм як творчий метод радянської культури 20–30 років ХХ століття”. Науковий вісник Київського національного університету театру, кіно і телебачення імені І.К. Карпенка-Карого: Збірник наукових праць 10: 79–96.

Наумова, Лариса. 2017. “Фільм М. Шпиковського Хліб. Тенденції і впливи”. Науковий вісник Київського національного університету театру, кіно і телебачення імені І.К. Карпенка-Карого 20: 98–108.

Полторацький, Олексій. 1930. Етюди до теорії кіна. Київ.

Рудь, И.Д., Цуккерман, И.И. 1974. “О пространственно-временных преобразованиях в искусстве”. Ритм, пространство и время в литературе и искусстве, 262–274. Ленинград.

Сінченко, Олексій. 2016. “Кіномова і/чи «сума мистецтв»: кінознавчі рефлексії Леоніда Скрипника”. Journal of Philology, History, Social and Media Communication, Political Science and Cultural Studies: Spheres of Culture. Volume XV, ed. Ihor Nabytovych, 478–486. Lublin.

Скрипник, Леонід. 1928. Нариси з теорії мистецтва кіно. Харків.

Соболь, Н. 1926. “Художнє оформлення кадру”. Кіно 9: 8–10.

Тынянов, Юрий. 2001. “Об основах кино”, 39–59. In Поэтика кино [1927]. Санкт-Петербург.

Холодинська, Світлана. 2016. “Олексій Полторацький як теоретик українського футуризму”. Science and Education a New Dimension. Humanities and Social Sciences 108, IV(17), I: 23–29.

Эйзенштейн, Сергей. 1964. “За кадром”, 283–296. Іn Сергей Эйзенштейн. Избранные произведения в 6 т. Т. 2. Москва.

Эйзенштейн, Сергей. 1964. “Монтаж аттракционов”, 269–273. In Сергей Эйзенштейн. Избранные произведения в 6 т. Т. 2. Москва.

Эйхенбаум, Борис. 2001. “Проблемы киностилистики”, 13–38. In Поэтика кино [1927]. Санкт-Петербург.

Transliteration of Ukrainian and Russian bibliography

Alf. 1926. “Khudozhnyk i mystetstvo kadru”. Nove mystetstvo 23 (32), 15 chervnia: 4–6.

Borysiv-Vladymyriv, M. 1926. “Mystetstvo kadru”. Kino 4: 8–10.

Eikhenbaum, Boris. 2001. “Problemy kinostilistiki”, 13–38. In Poetika kino [1927]. Sankt-Peterburg.

Eizenshtein, Sergei. 1964a. “Montazh attraktsionov”, 269–273. In Sergei Eizenshtein. Izbrannye proizvedeniia v 6 t. T. 2. Moskva.

Eizenshtein, Sergei. 1964b. “Za kadrom”, 283–296. In Sergei Eizenshtein. Izbrannye proizvedeniia v 6 t. T. 2. Moskva.

Ginzburg, Moiseji. 1923. Ritm v arkhitekture. Moskva.

Horpenko, Volodymyr. 2003. Montazh: Kino. Telebachennia. Kyiv.

Kholodynska, Svitlana. 2016. “Oleksii Poltoratskyi yak teoretyk ukrainskoho futuryzmu”. Science and Education a New Dimension. Humanities and Social Sciences 108, IV(17), I.: 23–29.

Kuleshov, Lev. 1929. Iskusstvo kino. Leningrad.

Naumova, Larysa. 2012. “Rosiiskyi radianskyi konstruktyvizm yak tvorchyi metod radianskoi kultury 20–30 rokiv XX stolittia”. Naukovyi visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu teatru, kino i telebachennia imeni I.K. Karpenka-Karoho: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats 10: 79–96.

Naumova, Larysa. 2017. “Film M. Shpykovskoho Khlib. Tendentsyi i vplyvy”. Naukovyi visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu teatru, kino i telebachennia imeni I.K. Karpenka-Karoho: Zbirnyk naukovykh prats 20:. 98–108.

Poltoratskyi, Oleksii. 1930. Etiudy do teorii kina. Kyiv.

Rud, I.D., Tsukkerman I.I. 1974. “O prostranstvenno-vremennykh preobrazovaniyakh v iskusstve”, 262–274. In Ritm, prostranstvo i vremia v literature i iskusstve. Leningrad.

Sinchenko, Oleksii. 2016. “Kinomova i/chy «suma mystetstv»: kinoznavchi refleksii Leonida Skrypnyka”. Journal of Philology, History, Social and Media Communication, Political Science and Cultural Studies: Spheres of Culture. Volume XV, ed. Ihor Nabytovych, 478–486. Lublin.

Skrypnyk, Leonid. 1928. Narysy z teorii mystetstva kino. Kharkiv.

Sobol, N. 1926. “Khudozhnie oformlennia kadru”. Kino 9: 8–10.

Tynianov, Iurij. 2001. “Ob osnovakh kino”, 39–59. In Poetika kino [1927]. Sankt-Peterburg.

Zinchenko, V.P., Vergeles N.Iu. 1969. Formirovanie zritelnogo obraza. Moskva.

Filmography

Dovzhenko, Oleksandr. 1927. Zvenyhora. VUFKU.

Dovzhenko, Oleksandr. 1929. Arsenal. VUFKU.

Dovzhenko, Oleksandr. 1930. Zemlia / Earth. VUFKU.

Suggested Citation

Naumova, Larysa. 2025. “Frame Composition in Ukrainian Film Theory of the 1920s and the Experience of Other Arts”. Apparatus. Film, Media and Digital Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe 20. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17892/app.2025.00020.380.

URL: http://www.apparatusjournal.net/

Copyright: The text of this article has been published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This licence does not apply to the media referenced in the article, which are subject to the individual rights owner's terms