I have seen that montage sequence from Potempkin. The one with the statue of a lion. And I have always been fascinated by the dissonance between how I interpret it and how everyone else says it's to be interpreted.
In my eyes the lion looks terrified. First sleeping. Then awoken and chocked. Implication there that the lion represents the sitting government and the outcome becoming that suddenly, the people in power have to take notice to this civil unrest lest full blown revolution will happen and the mob will take over. Think of it like Scar noticing the hyenas finally being fed up, ganging together to take him out one night when he's sleeping.
But the one analysis I always read is that the lion is supposed to represent the revolutionaries who was once cowered but now has risen to fight for their rights. Finally the fury of the people has awoken. This interpretation has for me always been a bit strange since the facial expression of the lion doesn't look like fury at all.
Also, in my eyes. The way the preceding shot is set up. With the destruction to the left and the lion seeing it on the same side I have seen it as the destruction was the thing that woke it up. Not that the lion was part of the destructive force in the sequence. Although even Eisenstein himself has written that the official interpretation is the correct one.
In short, whenever I see deep discussions about films and sequences. I am often reminded of this sequence and the discrepancy between my view and everyone else. And also that even if I as the filmmaker sets up a shot in a way that I think is totally obvious in its symbolism I cannot be sure that the viewer will necessarily pick up on things the way that I wanted. Film is 24000 words per second. But what words, that seems to be very hard to predict.
In even shorter. I wouldn't necessarily read too much into anything in a film. :P
Or, as I've said for some time now: "Americans cut to hide things, Asians cut to show things"
And one other reason why almost noone in Hollywood shoots action like Jackie is his complete disregard for his own personal safety. Noone in their right mind would insure a Jackie-Chan film. Getting his film-schooling in an era long before effective digital wire and rig-removal and most of the time doing spectacular death-defying stunts on (in American standards) indie-budgets. Resulting in often very real and dangerous feats for the cameras to pick up.
You need a shot of Jackie flipping over a spinning saw-blade? Then Jackie flips over a spinning saw-blade.
You need a shot where Jackie skates under a rushing truck? Then Jackie skates under a rushing truck.
You need a shot where Jackie falls through 3-5 stories of curtains onto the ground? Then he does it... TWICE! Because he'a perfectionist and wasn't happy with the first one where he almost crushed his back.
You need to show Jackie eat blazing hot peppers, spit them out on his knuckles and punch his opponents with secondary pain inducers then.... ok, he could have probably easily faked that one... but he's a method actor. And he budgets his movies with expected visits to medical infirmaries.
This is a guy who shot a good portion of Rumble in the Bronx with a broken foot.
Which brings me to my favorite quote as he's recounting his meating with his idol, Stephen Spielberg. Having heard how they made the dinosaurs jump after the actors using computers. Spielberg then asked him how he made the shot in Rumble in the Bronx where he jumpet across an alley from one ceiling to a balcony on the other side. And Jackie just beamed happily:
"I said, No no no, Stephen, much more easy! 'ACTION! ROLLING! JUMP! CUT! HOSPITAL!' "
I think you have misunderstood the filmriot-tip there. If it's the same tip I'm thinking of then the method is more of a hidden jump-cut rather than a cut to another angle. As in, when swinging a punch you cut out a couple of frames just before the hit. But still holding the same shot. And its a trick that even Jackie himself has freely admitted to using to make punches and kicks seem more powerful together with slight undercranked cameras.
But yes, I do agree about repeating the action slightly just to give us a chance to reorient our eyes. And Jackie has also been extremely non-shy about this. Sometimes showing the same stunt from several angles after each other. But we don't mind the extra instant replay. It's totally worth it. :D
Well, it actually is two very different things. Or rather, three. Interpolation, refresh-rate and response-time that is getting mixed up for a lot of people.
1. Refresh-rate is simply the amount of times that a monitor will redraw an image. Most projectors and TV's nowadays can cruise at upward of 120 hz and more. And we as viewers would accept it. The higher the rate, the lower the strobe. But I'm not talking about movement-strobe, but rather strobe that can be likened to cheap fluorescent bulbs and the funky lights on the disco. The higher the Hz, the lower, the amount of black screen per refresh you are watching. THIS is basically what the multiblade-shutters on film-projectors are made for. To lessen the strobe compared to a straight 24 hz single-bladed 180 degree shutter. Find an old CRT computer-monitor capable of only 50Hz and relive-the migrane-inducing strobe when trying to read a document in word.
The image, it's worth to note here, doesn't have to change 120 times per second. But the monitor will read out the video-memory 120 times per second and refresh the screen content anyways. The screen doesn't care or know if it's different, it will just do it.
2. Interpolation, on the other hand, is another beast entirely. This is what's doing the damage. This takes the frames from the video-stream and tries its best to estimate the motion if it was shot in a higher fps. The problem is multifold, because the filmmakers chose the rate for a reason. And on top of that it needs to work in real-time. So it not only robs you of the filmmakers intent, but also, it does so in a way that just barely looks like motion to begin with. Leaving you with something that looks like a cheap sopeopera shot with a dreaded smear-filter over anything moving. And god help you if the film is grainy or contains stroby scenes (I'm looking at you Gaspar Noé), then the difference between the frames are so great that the smear-algorithm breaks down completely.
3. Then we have this notion of response-time. Which started to come on the boxes of flat-screen monitors. That is a different thing than refresh, somewhat. It's basically a refresh without having to blank out the screen with black between frames. And it makes it so that we can have a 50hz screen that doesn't induce migranes. Early cheap screens had so slow response-times so slow, though that motion would ghost drastically. Not really an issue on modern sets, though.
So, in conclusion. Keep the ability to refresh the screen in hundreds of hz without strobing this, for future-proofing. But just get rid of the interpolation, it has and will always have a habit of making us all look bad.
My two cents.