Oktober
I do not
think I will ever become really good friends with Eisenstein. ”October” is the
third on the list and concludes the silent contribution from Eisenstein. It is
also the most difficult of the three.
In this one
Eisenstein takes his particular style to the extreme. The other two on the
list, “Strike” and “Battleship Potemkin” were also heavy on the montage style,
but here he is going absolutely banana. Eisenstein is trying to tell a story by
using symbols, metaphors and caricatures. All very arty. The door to the Winter
Palace is a peacock showing its feathers. The big statue of the zsar is a
symbol of the old regime. Taking it apart is the object of the revolution.
Putting it together again is the work of the “counter revolution”. We already
saw in “Strike” how animals are used to symbolize people. Here not only people,
but concepts, emotions, places have a symbolic equivalent. The military boots
are the symbols of oppression, the Napoleonic statues symbols of imperialism.
We see a
lot of people shouting and a lot of slogans as intertitles, which give a
feeling of action and urgency. Too bad that the subtitles often became white
upon white, making it impossible to read them. Unfortunately it is necessary to read them because
Eisenstein wants to show us all the fractions, all the decisions and meetings
and riots and eventually the only this that keeps it from becoming a blur is
the labels on the intertitles. Otherwise it is just a lot of shouting angry
people.
“Oktober”
is an example of how history is written by the victorious. Not for a second are
you in doubt who are the good guys and who are the baddies. Since this is
supposed to give a historical account of a monumental event this kind of bias
rub me in a really bad way. With even a fleeting knowledge of the Russian
Revolution you would be aware that things were not exactly that black and
white. Especially Kerensky is getting vilified and it is also clear that when
this movie was made Trotskiy was also long out in the cold.
So “October”
is made to agitate the masses, to show the Soviet proletariat what a glorious
victory they won against a corrupt and evil regime (here Kerensky’s provisorial
government and the Zsar empire is just the same thing), hurrah hurrah.
Unfortunately I think only an intellectual elite and a political one at that
would have fully understood the movie. The rest would just have become confused
and honestly bored. You can only see so many shouting people in a movie.
Without a focus, where is the common viewer supposed to find the thread? If
somebody out on the factories were thinking that somebody is actually laughing
at them, I would not blame theme.
For me I
had some difficulty focusing my attention on the movie. It kept drifting and it
was not only because it was late in the evening. There were some highlights.
The Women’s Death Battalion for example. Some really bad-ass bitches. Or the
central Asian soldiers from The Savage Brigade. They were awesome. But in between?
Yaawn.
Outside of the Soviet Empire, only a historian or a political scientist could understand this. However, I strongly believe that Eisenstein made this film with the sole purpose of indoctrinating the Soviet people and for other world-wide communist organizations to show at their recruitment meetings. Oktyabr is one of his weakest entries in the book, though.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what the proletarian masses in Russia were thinking when they saw this movie? Did they get it? As a propaganda film I think it failed. You need some clear cut messages and this is just too arty and too confusing.
Delete