Panserkrydseren Potemkin
”The
Battleship Potemkin” is an iconic movie. One of those movies that many people
will have seen stuff from without actually knowing it and most people will have
heard of it, but never seen the movie itself.
On the
other hand after seeing “Strike” I do not blame anybody for being hesitant
about seeing “The Battleship Potemkin”.
In many
ways “Potemkin” is similar to “Strike”. This is also a movie with a clear
political agenda and it is also sporting the montage style that makes “Strike” (in)famous.
“Potemkin” is also a group film rather than a movie about individuals. But “The
Battleship Potemkin” is a better movie than “Strike”. I can image the group
behind “Strike” met afterwards to evaluate and decided to improve on all the
weak points from “Strike” and the result is “Potemkin”.
First of
all the movie is a lot more tight, especially in the story. We are not
floundering like in “Strike”, but know exactly what is going on, and the story
flows a lot more naturally. This is not a difficult movie to follow. The story
is also a lot more interesting and has a much better grip on my attention.
The sailors
on the impressive battleship Potemkin are unhappy with the management and the event
that sets the story in motion is when the sailors are complaining that their
meat is rotten and crawling with worms. “These are not worms”, says the ship
doctor, “They are just maggots. Wash them away with brine”. That meat is so
disgusting! Yack! This of course gives us a lot of sympathy for the sailors and
they respond in the only meaningful way by refusing to eat it.
The
officers consider this insubordination and are determined to crack down on it
hard. The penalty is monstrous. Those most reluctant to announce that they
enjoyed the soup and step forward, and we are talking 10 to 15 of the sailors,
are covered with a sail-cloth and mariners are lined up to shoot them. The
remaining sailors appeal to their brethren and make them waver and the uprising
is on. The mutiny of the Potemkin is not like the mutiny of the Bounty a matter
of replacing a despondent leadership with a benevolent leadership, but the
replacement of an illegal parasite elite class with the common rule of the
subordinate class, the sailors. It is notable that not a single of the officers
or even petty officers are seen henceforth and also that we see none of the
sailors actually giving orders but rather make common decisions in a comity.
The socialist ideal indeed.
Meanwhile
on land in Odessa the civilians learn about the uprising (it has a nicer ring
to it than mutiny) and mourn the sailor that died a martyr. This draws a large
crowd and the rebellion is about to spread to the town. Before it gets this far
however the Cossacks move in and in what is probably the most famous scene of
the movie they coldly fire into the crowd and kills indiscriminately men, women
and children. The scene is drawn out to maximum effect: The woman carrying the
wounded child in front of the soldiers pleading for mercy and brutally shot
down. The women determined to stop the madness but totally ignored and most
heartbreakingly the young mother killed protecting her infant child in the
carriage, which then rolls uncontrolled down the stairs with a screaming infant
inside.
If there
was any sympathy for the authorities allowing such an atrocity it is certainly
gone now.
For the
Potemkin this has minimal influence. They decide to fight their own battle at
sea instead of sending troops inland and so steam out to meet the overwhelming
force of the squadron sent out to deal with them. These final scenes are filled
with suspense and nervous sweat, but after the Odessa stairs I am almost too
drained to absorb the naval battle.
The
battleship itself is awesome. Eisenstein really had some backing to let him use
a real battleship. The boy in me really got excited about this sailing
fortress. This is potency with a vengeance!
When you
are watching political films you are forced to consider the political message
as well. This is a very non-political blog, yet I cannot help thinking that the
Russian state had it coming. Any society that leaves a lot of people with
nothing to lose is a keg of gunpowder that can go off from a random spark. I do
not think it is a coincidence that most unrest, rioting and revolution takes
place in countries with a large destitute population compared to the middle
class. Once you have tv, car and career opportunities rioting just seems less
attractive.
So you can “The
Battleship Potemkin” as the alibi for revolution or you can see it as a warning
of what happens when you press a population too far, whether it be sailors or
civilians.
Good review. I just saw The Untouchables for the first time this year, which heavily references the Odessa Steps sequence in this movie. I definitely want to go back and watch the original again.
ReplyDeleteThank you. It is too long since I saw The Untouchables. Maybe I should see that again, if nothing else then to catch the reference. These days I see very little but old stuff.
DeleteAgreed. This is a movie I felt more attuned to because of its influence than I did for the story itself. Like a lot of Russian montage, it's pretty heavy-handed in places. But the Odessa Steps sequence is still a wow almost 90 years later.
ReplyDeleteI think that with Strike and October I feel a real disconnect with the story. They are merely a study in style and tecnique. Potemkin is much better storywise and that makes it much more powerful. This one was more than montage. Heavy stuff for sure, not for children.
DeleteI haven't seen Strike yet. I agree with Steve that Battleship Potemkin felt heavy handed in places. It lowered it a little bit for me.
ReplyDeleteI would not go so far as saying that Potemkin is excellent storywise, just that it is way better than the two others.
DeleteThis is one of the first few movies I had to watch in my introductory film class. The assignment was to pick out shots in the film that have been emulated by other filmmakers. Let's just say, our class found a lot of references.
ReplyDeleteWhen watching Eisenstein's work I can't help but think what type of filmmaker he may have been in France or Germany. Without the Soviet message could he be as effective as he was? Who knows...
That is a very interesting question and actually one I asked myself when I saw Ivan the Terrible. He was the master of the tableau, but not of the forward moving plot. Probably it was his luck that he was making propaganda films.
Delete