I watched this movie for a class I'm taking, and I've never seen this before. I guess I'm lucky to see this through fresh eyes, as I'm guessing most of you have seen it a million times.
I was impressed with the technical aspects on the film; come on a silent film with those angles, most of the silent films didn't have very interesting perspective, everything was flat. The musical score was really amazing, the picture and the music were in this symbiotic relationship, it was really powerful.
However, there wasn't any character development, people just acted in groups-- no self identities; every action these groups took were very abrupt, almost impulsive, no one stopped and thought about anything.
Great movie nonetheless.
Quote from: Nukie 2 on October 02, 2009, 09:49:55 AM
However, there wasn't any character development, people just acted in groups-- no self identities; every action these groups took were very abrupt, almost impulsive, no one stopped and thought about anything.
Great movie nonetheless.
My guess is that this problems you comment are a result of trying to reflect Communist ideals into film. A western film would probably have focussed on a few pivotal characters somehow simbolising the conflict, whereas the collective mindset reflects better the "class struggle", which is one of the key concepts of Communism. By presenting the rebellion against oppression as a collective, natural process rather than as a revolt carefully planned and carried out by a few key people, Eisenstein is playing along these ideas.
I saw a few of these silent era Soviet films in college, found them rather interesting. They are in most cases blatant examples of propaganda, but at the time Soviet filmmakers were very creative in film editing, to the extent of becoming their own school of thought, as opposed to the western one that eventually prevailed. I remember them being prone to simbolic imagery and unorthodox montages that felt quite natural.
QuoteThey are in most cases blatant examples of propaganda, but at the time Soviet filmmakers were very creative in film editing, to the extent of becoming their own school of thought, as opposed to the western one that eventually prevailed. I remember them being prone to simbolic imagery and unorthodox montages that felt quite natural.
Indeed. While the overall style didn't take hold anywhere else (really, pure continuity editing is the norm EVERYWHERE), many elements of montage editing influenced the entire world. Things like comparative editing, using editing to create symbolism. Like the scenes of butchering in Potemkin. The Russians, especially Eisenstein, basically created this technique, and it is still used extensively today.
As far as the film goes... I think it has some very strong moments of real power, but I felt bits of it dragged on a bit, especially past the Odessa Steps sequence (which is maybe the most referenced film sequence ever). Still, an important film in history, and worth watching for anyone interested.
I watched it once, didn't like it (other than the steps scene), although I admired the techniques. It's of historical importance, but the story really isn't involving (for the reasons Neville astutely pointed out). It's something everyone serious about film should see once, but it's not going to be a favorite for many.
I liked it, I got a little annoyed at how my Film class was laughing at it, only on the premise that it was old.
I'm afraid that's a regular occurrence. I atended a "History of the cinema" class in college for a whole year, despite only receiving academic credit for the first semester, and I couldn't believe how little interes most of my classmates had for the subject. I was one of the few students asking questions regularly, and when our teacher dedicated two sessions to a screening of "À bout de souffle" many of them decided they needed to be somewhere else.
which was better this or nukie 2