I found the “Battleship Potemkin” intriguing in the way that the dialogue was presented. Usually, I do not stay interested in silent films or non speech films. Although, as the film progressed I started to read the body language which is done to any silent film and noticed presentation of dialogue. The way in which the dialogue was shown, black background with big white letters, placed emphasis on the speech. The dialogue was also emphasized because there was less dialogue shown than was actually being said through the movement of lips. The emphasis on the speech in the play kept me intrigued in the film and the overall plot.
Another part of the film that I found very interesting was the scene of the town of Odessa gathering and walking to the pier. I noticed that there was a lot of film focused on the town walking of stairs and pathways together. These were powerful images that emphasized the unity of the town. These images were paralleled to when the public were chased by Russian soldiers. The child shot in cold blood, stroller rolling down the stair without a mother, and overall terror of the people were images focused on. These images indicated the breaking of the unity that was shown in the previous scenes.
Overall, “Battleship Potemkin” had great film work and amazing scenes that are all essential to the film.
I noticed the theme of speech throughout the film. I originally thought that the choice of silent film was intentional but I researched it and found out that audio in film was only discovered in 1927. Either way there were references to speech and I think choosing the medium of film to explore a situation of lack of free speech. I think the montage aspect of the film also helped this process.
The presence of speech in the film is very interesting to point out. Even though lips move throughout the film, the use of closed-captions is relatively sparing. So, the viewer pays attention to the words on the screen. Because of this minimal usage, Eisenstein can be sure to portray the core messages of the film in these words. A good example of this moment is when the firing squad is about to shoot the disobedient sailors, and Vakulinchuk says something along the lines of, “Brothers! Who are you firing at?”. Eisenstein is able to capture so well the spirit of the mutiny in few words. I think this aspect of the film is one of the reasons why it is so masterful.
Something interesting when you consider the text of this film, is we have to remember although it is art of the highest level, films of this era are propaganda to serve the soviet government. The whole film would have had to been censored and combed over, and it’s very creation and funding was for the purpose of serving the soviet state. So this text, its simplicity, it curt punchiness, is all the product of this film being for the people, and with a easily digestible message. It is interesting to compare Eisenstein’s film to another Russian great film maker Tarkovsky, who, oppositely, is allowed to be more abstract and artistic.
I often find it difficult to actively watch silent films as well. The chosen soundtrack in this film really augmented the viewing process for me and pushed the narrative forward. In class, Professor Gillespie mentioned that the soundtrack we heard in the movie is not the original. I would love to hear the original soundtrack with the film and see if it has the same effect. One moment that really struck me was the scene when the crew members are washing plates, and the shot settles on a plate that reads ‘Give us this day our daily bread’. We then see a reaction shot of the anger building in the man washing the dish. The first line in the prayer before meals is ironic because the army can not even feed the crew well and there seems to be God to help them. All of these complex realities are depicted in a masterful minimalist manner!
All great comments on the use of the intertitles in this silent film and the careful curation of the text and dialogue that appears on them! Brennan’s point about the propagandistic purpose of the film having shaped this text is very well-taken. But yes, Colby is correct in saying that this was not an artistic choice per se, but a historically conditioned one. This film was made in 1925, and the first Soviet film with sound was not made until 1931 (Eisenstein’s first sound film was Alexander Nevsky, made in 1938).
Also, Xander, I wanted to pick up on your second point about Eisenstein’s incredibly skillful and affecting use of an alternation between crowd scenes and closeups of individuals and their individual stories. This is really a hallmark of his cinematic style and helped to create the Soviet idea of the “masses” as hero, which becomes central to socialist realism (we will discuss this soon in class!).
Thanks, Xander, for these thoughtful and perceptive comments. I’m glad you enjoyed the film!