Considering the classic and unique role of Vertov's works, the two articles analyze those works in a similar pattern by discussing everything from the social contexts to aesthetics of movie itself. But they focus on slightly different standpoints. It seems that Feldman's essay focuses more on the aesthetic part while Petric's essay focuses more on the political influence on Vertov's works. As Feldman essay's title indicates, the major topic of his essay is to explore Vertov's formalism, which gradually leads to shape his value on film production and essence of movies. Vertov did not regard films simply as recordings, or a collection of traces (which actually contradicts to my former understanding of documentary films), and he, as…show more content… This idea anchors to lots of dramatic cuts including montage, reversed editing, speed-up editing and slow motions Vertov applied in "The Man with a Movie Camera". Talking about the structure, Feldman mentions another key element in Vertov's work, his experiments with sound. As Feldman says, "he was not attempting to just record the sound but to recompose those sounds and define the musical composition as a scientific or mechanical process" (Feldman, P43). This also links to the theme of "The Man with a Movie Camera", a film of how a cameraman makes a movie including every details of shooting and editing. The above ideas all guides us to understand Vertov's formalism and futurism. He is not only arguing that "art is a machine", but machines are made by people and art is the labor that people see on the screen (Feldman, P43). By comparing Vertov's works with Ruttmann's film (I think here
