Welcome to the Critical Approach to Cinema blog! My name is Harsh Deshmukh, and I will be your TA over the course of this summer's class. After you watch each film, be sure to come back to this blog and read my thoughts on the film. You definitely won't enjoy each film that we watch this semester, so feel free to use this as an outlet to explain why you did or didn't enjoy it. This blog is meant to get your general reactions on the table before you go over the more intricate details with Professor Ratekin.
To start the course off, we have a Russian silent film called Battleship Potemkin. How many have you have seen this film?
Perhaps a better question is, how many of you have ever seen a silent film? Unfortunately, in today's fast-paced, explosion-friendly box office environment, many filmgoers just don't have the time nor the patience to deal with a film without dialogue or sound effects. What did you notice about how a silent film compares to a "talkie"? One aspect that always sticks out to me is the acting style, which seems almost cartoonish and over-dramatic at times. It always reminds me of Charlie Chaplin, which I used to love watching as a child.
One of the aspects of cinema that you'll need to wrap your heads around is that these films have to be created. The person given this task is the director. For Battleship Potemkin, it's necessary to understand the pioneering genius of Sergei Eisenstein. A Russian filmmaker very rooted in communist beliefs, he was an early advocate for the medium of film itself. From the early days of cinema, many people (including the film's inventors themselves) felt that "moving pictures" were a passing fad with no future value. Most audiences could not understand why films were so much different from stage plays. After all, both have actors, sets, lighting designs, and an orchestra -- so why is cinema so much different than the theater?
Eisenstein set out to explain the distinction between the two with Battleship Potemkin. Watching the film today may not seem like anything special, but think about watching it in 1925! See the way Eisenstein takes care in making this much more than just a filmed stage play? What did you notice that would separate this movie from a stage production?
One of the most obvious distinctions that differentiates stage and screen involves the use of the montage. This effect allows quick cross-cutting to tell multiple angles of a story that would otherwise prove impossible to replicate on the stage and/or reality. Think about some montages you've seen before. They're quite common now, but why would a filmmaker want to employ this technique? What's the benefit of cutting a story across time and space in rapid succession? How is it used differently in different genre? For example, romantic comedies vs. thrillers (like the ending of The Godfather)?
In addition to the influence of Eisenstein on the medium, Battleship Potemkin is also a full-fledged piece of Soviet propaganda. It's easy to be swept away into the Communist fervor of the picture; the Tsarists seem so evil, while the abused sailors appear so innocent. After watching the extermination of an entire town during the famous Odessa Steps sequence, many became convinced that communism was the solution to their problems. Interestingly enough, Eisenstein wanted to change the soundtrack to the picture every 20 years so that the heavy messages could be passed to each new generation to astounding effect. Like every good piece of propaganda, however, Potemkin manages to overlook the major problems of communism in favor of a grand image of the homeland. Would you have been swept away by this spectacle if you were living in Russia during the 1920's? Start thinking about what makes a movie propaganda. Consider films like Die Hard or High Noon - what American values do they push onto the global marketplace that could be considered in other countries as US propaganda?
Upon the film's original release, Battleship Potemkin was banned in several countries for overtly pro-communist themes. It received "X" ratings for several years (the equivalent of NC-17 today), and has only been more widely seen and distributed over the past few decades. Today, it has a reputation as the finest propaganda picture of all time. How do you think the propaganda nature of Battleship Potemkin plays into its overall legacy? Does it matter that this film is pro-Communism? Can it be appreciated without acknowledging this? Why or why not?
If silent movies are not your thing, I completely understand. Believe me, their dated nature makes them extremely boring at times. However, I hope you found a few things to enjoy in your first film viewing this semester!
For Further Reading:
Roger Ebert's Great Movies essay on Battleship Potemkin
How Battleship Potemkin Influenced Star Wars
To start the course off, we have a Russian silent film called Battleship Potemkin. How many have you have seen this film?
Perhaps a better question is, how many of you have ever seen a silent film? Unfortunately, in today's fast-paced, explosion-friendly box office environment, many filmgoers just don't have the time nor the patience to deal with a film without dialogue or sound effects. What did you notice about how a silent film compares to a "talkie"? One aspect that always sticks out to me is the acting style, which seems almost cartoonish and over-dramatic at times. It always reminds me of Charlie Chaplin, which I used to love watching as a child.
One of the aspects of cinema that you'll need to wrap your heads around is that these films have to be created. The person given this task is the director. For Battleship Potemkin, it's necessary to understand the pioneering genius of Sergei Eisenstein. A Russian filmmaker very rooted in communist beliefs, he was an early advocate for the medium of film itself. From the early days of cinema, many people (including the film's inventors themselves) felt that "moving pictures" were a passing fad with no future value. Most audiences could not understand why films were so much different from stage plays. After all, both have actors, sets, lighting designs, and an orchestra -- so why is cinema so much different than the theater?Eisenstein set out to explain the distinction between the two with Battleship Potemkin. Watching the film today may not seem like anything special, but think about watching it in 1925! See the way Eisenstein takes care in making this much more than just a filmed stage play? What did you notice that would separate this movie from a stage production?
One of the most obvious distinctions that differentiates stage and screen involves the use of the montage. This effect allows quick cross-cutting to tell multiple angles of a story that would otherwise prove impossible to replicate on the stage and/or reality. Think about some montages you've seen before. They're quite common now, but why would a filmmaker want to employ this technique? What's the benefit of cutting a story across time and space in rapid succession? How is it used differently in different genre? For example, romantic comedies vs. thrillers (like the ending of The Godfather)?
In addition to the influence of Eisenstein on the medium, Battleship Potemkin is also a full-fledged piece of Soviet propaganda. It's easy to be swept away into the Communist fervor of the picture; the Tsarists seem so evil, while the abused sailors appear so innocent. After watching the extermination of an entire town during the famous Odessa Steps sequence, many became convinced that communism was the solution to their problems. Interestingly enough, Eisenstein wanted to change the soundtrack to the picture every 20 years so that the heavy messages could be passed to each new generation to astounding effect. Like every good piece of propaganda, however, Potemkin manages to overlook the major problems of communism in favor of a grand image of the homeland. Would you have been swept away by this spectacle if you were living in Russia during the 1920's? Start thinking about what makes a movie propaganda. Consider films like Die Hard or High Noon - what American values do they push onto the global marketplace that could be considered in other countries as US propaganda?Upon the film's original release, Battleship Potemkin was banned in several countries for overtly pro-communist themes. It received "X" ratings for several years (the equivalent of NC-17 today), and has only been more widely seen and distributed over the past few decades. Today, it has a reputation as the finest propaganda picture of all time. How do you think the propaganda nature of Battleship Potemkin plays into its overall legacy? Does it matter that this film is pro-Communism? Can it be appreciated without acknowledging this? Why or why not? If silent movies are not your thing, I completely understand. Believe me, their dated nature makes them extremely boring at times. However, I hope you found a few things to enjoy in your first film viewing this semester!
For Further Reading:
Roger Ebert's Great Movies essay on Battleship Potemkin
How Battleship Potemkin Influenced Star Wars
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this film, as I haven’t watched many silent films. Although at times I found my attention was drifting, the music would pull my focus back to the action. It seems like music serves a different purpose in silent films than it does now. Scores were created with the intention of moving the plot along in a way that helps the audience to understand the context of each scene. In this film, the music drove my focus and determined my reaction to the action. For example while the men sleep, a soft lullaby is played, but during the commotion on deck over spoiled meats the music swells and relies heavily on cymbals and brass. I enjoyed the dramatic acting, mostly because I thought it was comical. However, it served a clear purpose and filled in a lot of the gaps that the absence of dialogue.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the film had some clear communist undertones. The fact that the movie doesn't have a set protagonist, it’s all for one one for all philosophy, and Eisenstein’s choice to condemn religion by presenting the ship’s priest as ugly and unkempt shows how important communism themes were in the movie. - Matty Henry
I felt as though the first half of the film moved particularly slowly. Some of the montages and the big fight scene could have been a little bit shorter and still had the same effect on the story. I grew up watching silent films as a kid, and one of the main benefits of silent films for me has always been that without dialogue, silent films are generally more action-heavy and expressive than some more modern films. However, I just didn't find that to be the case in the first two parts of this film. For example, the man who gets flogged while he's sleeping looks more confused about being woken up than anything, so I found it hard to be outraged on his behalf. I never got very attached to Vakulinchuk because of the film's emphasis on the group as a whole, so I didn't really care that much when he died. I also think that this portion of the film wanted me to root for the sailors in large part because they were on the side of the communists, not just for the reasons that we are explicitly shown on screen. Not being a twentieth century Soviet, I wasn't particularly attached to the cause for it's own sake, and I'm not sure that just the meat on its own was enough for me to become invested in whether or not they mutinied.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after the ship arrived in Odessa, I began to enjoy the film a lot more. The story begins to move a lot faster, and the acting becomes more expressive and emotional. Even the music was more engaging in the later portion of the film. The scene on the stairs in particular moves along much better than the original fight scene and the visuals of children being trampled and strollers falling down the stairs evoked a lot more sympathy for the rebels than the actual rebellion did. These later portions of the film did a better job of standing on their own, without relying on any sort of previous sympathy to the communist movement.
-Carol Neuhardt
Coming from a background of watching Bollywood and superhero movies, watching "Battleship Potemkin" was a radical experience for me. Although I have watched black and white films before, watching a silent film was a novel experience. It was strange listening to the music score instead of the people, it was almost disconcerting. Not being able to hear their voices made it difficult to understand the reactions of the characters, because I depend on hearing what the characters sound like and what tones they use to understand the scene. It made me less empathetic towards the characters also. The film was intriguing because of its event-based narrative but the film did not interest me as much.
ReplyDeleteTo focus more on the production of the film, what distinguishes this film from other narratives is how the story-telling is more dependent on showcasing the event. There is no clear protagonist, the film does not follow specific person's story, but focuses on the general crew. Although the director points out Vakulinchuk as the leader of the mutiny, he is not the main character whose story we follow. The director utilizes montages to portray this, it is his tool for properly showcasing what had happened during that uprising. While montages are used in films today, it is more tool for fast forwarding by quickly showing a series of events that had happened in between scenes the characters develop. Montages are more a technique used within the narrative than an actual storytelling format.
The propaganda in this film was well-done, the message was not completely overt-- it was compelling. The USSR citizens at that time must have felt empowered by this film because of it represented the struggle that the revolutionaries went through and while it was an failed attempt, it speaks to the resilience of the people to be able to overcome it. To me, the pro-Communist legacy speaks more to the message of the film and is important when taking that in to context. While there are concepts such as that are more universal than strictly communist, such as the theme of revolution, this film is inherently a propaganda for the Communist agenda, and should be acknowledged as so.
This film was my first full silent film I have watched. To be completely honest, I am not a big movie-watcher, but I wanted to learn and appreciate what seems to be a major industry that people enjoy and appreciate. Reading the chapter helped me grasped the history of films and how progression is made. How the scenes were rapidly shown was a intriguing way to show the plot of the story, without taking too much time. I did however think it was drawn out in scenes where people of Odessa were running down the hill. It felt as if the filmmaker showed the same scene of the people in hurry running down stairs over and over again to create suspense. I am under the assumption that it played out that way to show the frustration and the uproar of the citizens and sailors. The film showed much of the characters facial expressions that were a bit odd and confusing to me since I could not fully understand what they were feeling. I saw that even with the little boy becoming stuck on the ground and people running over him while his mom watched in terror was a way to evoke emotion and sympathy for the viewers. Some men showed themselves smiling or laughing when sailors were sentenced to fire. I was able to distinguish the two sides within matter of the conflict starting. When Vakulinchuk was killed and taken to land, the emotion of the film began to unravel. I began to feel with the citizens and caught myself immensely intrigued in what would happen next. Although the film did not stick with any specific individual for a long enough time to show truly what one was feeling or doing, there was a sense of unity along with it and it did a good job of showing it. The set designer established scenic realism by constructing and creating an accurate depiction of what it would be like inside a battleship. The use of natural lighting and directional lighting were both apparent in the film. The outdoor scenes utilized natural lighting and was illuminated by the sun/daylight.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, it was fascinating on how silent filmmakers create tension by going from scene to scene in a quick manner. I enjoyed the way I could keep up with the plot even though the only sound present was music to create mood.
-Alicya Simmons
I don't think that I would have ever watched Battleship Potemkin alone, but with the reading notes that professor Ratekin gave us, coupled with the textbook chapter, I had an enjoyable time looking for examples of mise-en-scene or defamiliarization techniques. I haven't done any exercises of this kind since I watched Baz Luhrmann's adaption of Romeo and Juliet in high school, however, I was surprised that I found myself thinking back to the kind of skills I used when analyzing theater. I really love when films/plays use water as symbolism, because I always find myself understanding the message because all humans can identify with calm or stormy water and it helps set a mood.
ReplyDeleteI was worried that this film was going to be unbearable, because I was went to an event with a friend at the Russian embassy where I watched a four hour silent film that had no real plot, only psychedelic jump cuts. Where there were similarities between that film and Battleship Potemkin, Battleship Potemkin engaged me once I was guided to analyze it.
Sabrina Barton
Interestingly enough, I stumbled across some Soviet propaganda cartoons from the 1970s on a strange corner of Youtube loaded with old propaganda footage. The major difference I see, between the Soviet propaganda of the 1970s versus Battleship Potemkin is that where Potemkin is pointing inward, highlighting the strengths of the communist movement and pointing out the flaws of capital-labor dynamics as well, the propaganda of the 1970s is outwardly based, directly criticizing the United States and it's practices, in an almost surreal fashion. To me this just speaks volumes about the fact that art, even propaganda, is an extremely reflective and important way to understand a time period. Battleship Potemkin reflects on the time it was made in 1925, when the Soviet Union was in its infancy and prior to the rise of Stalin, looking inward to realize its greatness.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I overall enjoyed Battleship Potemkin and was amazed at not only the shot composition, but the editing as well. Eisenstein was working through manually clipping and stitching the film together, a laborious and meticulous process. I have tremendous respect for the way multiple shots at a plethora of angles were utilized and seamlessly incorporated into the film. I also enjoyed the textual blurbs, while they may have been lost in translation. They are short and to the point, almost Hemingawayan, with phrases like, "Down with the tyranny!" and "To the bottom to feed the worms!" While I believe this is done in an effort to keep the pace of the film up by having the text utilized in short, small blurbs; I believe it is effectively done.
Matthew Schilke