Remix Culture students are finishing up their 250 word project descriptions and their video previews, so today’s class is mostly going to be a workshop were we can all get on with it and raise any issues that have come up.

I do want to show everyone the Kuleshov effect, which I think is particularly relevant to the people working on the manipulation of reality and on remixes of videos. Lev Kuleshov was an early Soviet filmmaker who set up a simple experiment: he showed an audience a film that showed the same footage of a man’s face three times – but each time followed by a different image: a bowl of soup, a dead body and a half-naked woman.

Each time, the audience interpreted the man’s expression differently, showing that the meaning of an image or sequence of images is as much in the images it is surrounded by as in the image itself.

You can read about the Kuleshov effect in pretty much any book called something like An Introduction to Film Studies, and if you’re writing about remix video in any sense you should definitely read a little more about this and other theories of video montage.

(I wonder whether we should all study cinema montage theory a bit more? After all, film editing is always a form of remixing, I suppose?)

Here’s a brief video of Hitchcock explaining (and demonstrating) the Kuleshov effect, without mentioning Kuleshov.

Montage was a major part of 1920s and 1930s Soviet film theory. The Odessa Stairs scene in Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin, where images “collide” and create new meanings is probably the most famous example:

If there’s interest, we can talk more about film montage in the upcoming weeks.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

1 Comment

  1. Rhodri ap Dyfrig

    Bore da! How cool is the Kuleshov effect? Jill Rettberg on Remix culture and editing techniques. http://jilltxt.net/?p=2425

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.