Benefit
Bluelighter
The Battleship Potemkin is Sergei Eisentein's classic "Soviet montage" film.
What is the Soviet montage theory? Well apparently, a consensus was hard to come by but in the 1920s Eisenstein emerged as the most prominent theorist when he wrote an essay stating that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not next to the other, but on top of the other." Um... alright.
Now, it seems to me that all filmmaking (unless, like Rope, it's composed of one single long shot) by definition is montage because it's assembling a series of independent images into a unified narrative in order to compress or dilate time, provoke an emotional response, convey a message, etcetera. Apparently the theory of montage acknowledges that theoretical reality, and then goes on to further classify montage filmmaking into five sub-categories: Metric, Rhythmic, Tonal, Associational and Intellectual, all of which are distinguished by their own unique set of criteria. Or something.
The bottom line is that the notion of "Soviet montage" filmmaking appears to be something that was concocted by academics and early 20th century cinephiles who felt it was necessary to codify the intellectual properties of the films they were making. Unfortunately, these theories are rather obtuse and don't yield much insight at all. University English professors may disagree, but there is such a thing as overanalysis and academics will never relinquish their love of contradictory and incongruous theories. Sure, you can say Eisenstein was the first person to give montage filmmaking a name, but DW Griffith was doing "montages" 10 years earlier. What's in a name anyway? Freud gave the study of human behavior a name, but most of his theories are utter nonsense.
If you ignore all the theoretical gibberish, you have in Battleship Potemkin a truly terrific visual composition, especially for the time period (1926-27). This is easily the best silent film I've ever seen (only seen about 6). It exceeds Fritz Lang's Metropolis in terms of visual structure. Long-term influence is about even for both.
Battleship Potemkin, produced in Soviet Russia in the years following the Revolution, is (surprise!) a revolutionary film about abused sailors who rise up in mutiny. A sympathetic town is then subject to government sanctioned killing due to its rebellious nature (how poignant given the situation in Burma). The plot and message are simple (oppressed vs. oppressors). Visually, it's very innovative and engaging. I compiled my own soundtrack, which always helps greatly with silent films, but there were times when the visual composition alone was enough to grab my attention.
The film is divided into 5 episodes. The most famous is the Odessa Steps sequence, in which numerous civilians are gunned down on a big set of stairs. The camera work here is excellent; there are even some tracking shots, and the perspective varies throughout the sequence. Certain elements are framed in very balanced proportions, while others have a less symmetrical feel, depending on what the director is attempting to convey with each shot. This same principle is applied throughout this episode, not just on the steps.
My favorite episode is the 2nd one, called Drama At The Harbor, in which some rebellious sailors are lined up to be shot. This is the most salient example of the montage theory, as the build up to the shooting of the sailors includes quick-cutting between images of rifle points, the ocean, a trumpet, a flagpole, all intended to compress the action into that single moment and amplify the emotional intensity. It's pretty effective, and you can see how Eisenstein is experimenting with montage and visual technique in a way that hadn't been done before.
Overall, the film was easier to sit through than Metropolis (it's only 85 minutes), and the visual composition was genuinely impressive. There are quite a few scenes that will stick with you. Specifically, the editing and cinematography are of very high technical quality, and I can understand why Eisenstein is closely associated with the montage. However, an overabundance of intellectual codifying tends to weigh down the soul of a film, and this film deserves better than that.
What is the Soviet montage theory? Well apparently, a consensus was hard to come by but in the 1920s Eisenstein emerged as the most prominent theorist when he wrote an essay stating that "montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots" wherein "each sequential element is perceived not next to the other, but on top of the other." Um... alright.
Now, it seems to me that all filmmaking (unless, like Rope, it's composed of one single long shot) by definition is montage because it's assembling a series of independent images into a unified narrative in order to compress or dilate time, provoke an emotional response, convey a message, etcetera. Apparently the theory of montage acknowledges that theoretical reality, and then goes on to further classify montage filmmaking into five sub-categories: Metric, Rhythmic, Tonal, Associational and Intellectual, all of which are distinguished by their own unique set of criteria. Or something.
The bottom line is that the notion of "Soviet montage" filmmaking appears to be something that was concocted by academics and early 20th century cinephiles who felt it was necessary to codify the intellectual properties of the films they were making. Unfortunately, these theories are rather obtuse and don't yield much insight at all. University English professors may disagree, but there is such a thing as overanalysis and academics will never relinquish their love of contradictory and incongruous theories. Sure, you can say Eisenstein was the first person to give montage filmmaking a name, but DW Griffith was doing "montages" 10 years earlier. What's in a name anyway? Freud gave the study of human behavior a name, but most of his theories are utter nonsense.
If you ignore all the theoretical gibberish, you have in Battleship Potemkin a truly terrific visual composition, especially for the time period (1926-27). This is easily the best silent film I've ever seen (only seen about 6). It exceeds Fritz Lang's Metropolis in terms of visual structure. Long-term influence is about even for both.
Battleship Potemkin, produced in Soviet Russia in the years following the Revolution, is (surprise!) a revolutionary film about abused sailors who rise up in mutiny. A sympathetic town is then subject to government sanctioned killing due to its rebellious nature (how poignant given the situation in Burma). The plot and message are simple (oppressed vs. oppressors). Visually, it's very innovative and engaging. I compiled my own soundtrack, which always helps greatly with silent films, but there were times when the visual composition alone was enough to grab my attention.
The film is divided into 5 episodes. The most famous is the Odessa Steps sequence, in which numerous civilians are gunned down on a big set of stairs. The camera work here is excellent; there are even some tracking shots, and the perspective varies throughout the sequence. Certain elements are framed in very balanced proportions, while others have a less symmetrical feel, depending on what the director is attempting to convey with each shot. This same principle is applied throughout this episode, not just on the steps.
My favorite episode is the 2nd one, called Drama At The Harbor, in which some rebellious sailors are lined up to be shot. This is the most salient example of the montage theory, as the build up to the shooting of the sailors includes quick-cutting between images of rifle points, the ocean, a trumpet, a flagpole, all intended to compress the action into that single moment and amplify the emotional intensity. It's pretty effective, and you can see how Eisenstein is experimenting with montage and visual technique in a way that hadn't been done before.
Overall, the film was easier to sit through than Metropolis (it's only 85 minutes), and the visual composition was genuinely impressive. There are quite a few scenes that will stick with you. Specifically, the editing and cinematography are of very high technical quality, and I can understand why Eisenstein is closely associated with the montage. However, an overabundance of intellectual codifying tends to weigh down the soul of a film, and this film deserves better than that.
