Soviet film theory (Eisenstein, Kuleshov, Vertov) revived in the 1970s — form over content, montage as cinema's true language. Rejects literary narrative.
The Soviet montage theorists of the 1920s — Eisenstein, Kuleshov, Vertov — worked with a radical idea: film is not literature with moving images, but an independent language whose grammar lies in montage. The cut creates meaning, not the shot alone. This idea disappeared after Stalin but was rediscovered and systematized in the West in the 1970s — not as a historical reconstruction, but as a theoretical tool for contemporary thinking about form.
Neoformalism I refers to the direct reception and codification of these theories by Western film scholars (especially in the USA and France): they studied montage techniques, analyzed cutting sequences, and examined how frame rate and rhythm generate affect — without psychological drama or narrative logic. Neoformalism II then denotes the practical application of these findings in the experimental and independent film practice of the 1970s/80s. Filmmakers like Hollis Frampton or Straub/Huillet consciously employed cutting methods that *compel* viewers towards form, not towards plot following.
On set and in the editing room, this means concretely: montage is recognized as composition. A long, unmotivated cut between two shots creates a tension that can be more psychological than any dialogue. The length of a shot is not a dramaturgical problem, but a formal decision. The relative movement between images — see Kuleshov effect — determines reception more strongly than the content of any individual shot. This changes how one shoots: one doesn't need perfect performances or the clearest composition in the shot itself, but material that functions *in relation*.
Practically, a neoformalist mindset leads to radical economy: long takes, minimal cuts, conscious repetition, variation, and contrast instead of transitions. The opposite of classical editing rules. Anyone who wants to understand today why some films feel "slow" even though they are technically correctly edited — or vice versa, why fast cuts are calming rather than exciting — is automatically thinking neoformalistically: form before effect, structure before feeling.