Rate: The Films of Sergei Eisenstein

[B-side]

After recently seeing Battleship Potemkin, my first Eisenstein, and being impressed by its sheer force and rallying power, I'm now moving onto Ivan The Terrible today. So let's see those ratings, folks.

[Malickfan]

Besides Potemkin, the only other one I've seen of his is Alexander Nevsky. It was "eh". Too much propoganda for me...which I know is what the Soviet gov't hired him to do.

[B-side]

Besides Potemkin, the only other one I've seen of his is Alexander Nevsky. It was "eh". Too much propoganda for me...which I know is what the Soviet gov't hired him to do.

I was initially, and still kinda am, worried about how overbearing the propaganda would/will be. I was able to enjoy Battleship Potemkin as a powerful rallying cry.

Also, you need an avatar. You want me to make you one?

[Malickfan]

Yeah, I'm trying to think of a decent one. Maybe from The Thin Red Line? Thanks a bunch.

[B-side]

Yeah, I'm trying to think of a decent one. Maybe from The Thin Red Line? Thanks a bunch.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/mrbrightside_album/Avatars/thinredlineavmc1.gif http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/mrbrightside_album/Avatars/thinredlineavmc2.gif http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb202/mrbrightside_album/Avatars/thinredlineavmc3.gif

[Malickfan]

Thanks! Now which to choose.

[B-side]

Thanks! Now which to choose.

If I were to choose, I'd go with the 3rd one.

[Malickfan]

Yeah, gets the nod over the 1st one.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I give Battleship Potemkin an 8. Though, this hardly reflects the energy and sheer power of the images... it's very difficult not to get swept up emotionaly in the plight of the characters. The Odessa Step sequence is incredible, editing is used not only to heighten emotional response, but physically to slow down and extend time. It's incredible. I should see more of his films... then again, I love propaganda

[B-side]

I give Battleship Potemkin an 8. Though, this hardly reflects the energy and sheer power of the images... it's very difficult not to get swept up emotionaly in the plight of the characters. The Odessa Step sequence is incredible, editing is used not only to heighten emotional response, but physically to slow down and extend time. It's incredible. I should see more of his films... then again, I love propaganda

Yeah, a big criticism of Eisenstein is with his lack of a real discernible protagonist. I think this might've been a bit of an issue for me in Potemkin.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Yeah, a big criticism of Eisenstein is with his lack of a real discernible protagonist. I think this might've been a bit of an issue for me in Potemkin.
But in context of his films, having a discernible protagonist goes directly against the ideas he's propaganding? It's about the PEOPLE, not the individuals.

[Malickfan]

Alexander Nevsky takes propaganda overboard. Especially with all the speeches that Nevsky gives.

"Don't you ever invade us Germany!"

[B-side]

But in context of his films, having a discernible protagonist goes directly against the ideas he's propaganding? It's about the PEOPLE, not the individuals.

Absolutely. His films are about rallying. They're about the masses and uniting them against a common foe. But that doesn't really make them any easier to digest.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Absolutely. His films are about rallying. They're about the masses and uniting them against a common foe. But that doesn't really make them any easier to digest.
I've only seen one of his films, so I can't really argue for any others. But Potemkin is incredibly easy to digest, that's why it was and is so successful. It served it's purpose, and said something to not only the masses, but a great chunk of them being illiterate. I don't know, I don't think his films are difficult to "consume", though that doesn't diminish the incredible complexity of them.

[Derek]

Alexander Nevsky takes propaganda overboard. Especially with all the speeches that Nevsky gives.

"Don't you ever invade us Germany!"

You prefer the famed Polish rallying cry, "Come on in, Germany! Make yourselves at home."? :)

Battleship Potemkin - 8.5
October - 7.0
Alexander Nevsky - 5.5
Ivan the Terrible, Part 1 - 9.5
Ivan the Terrible, Part 2 - 8.0

[Melville]

Strike - 8
Battleship Potemkin - 8.5
October - 7.5
Alexander Nevsky - 4
Ivan the Terrible, Part 1 - 5.5
Ivan the Terrible, Part 2 - infinity

[Melville]

Absolutely. His films are about rallying. They're about the masses and uniting them against a common foe.
Definitely check out Ivan the Terrible, Part II. It completely disregards the masses and focuses on its protagonist...going mad with power.

[Yxklyx]

Strike - 9
Potemkin - 8
October - 6
Romance sentimentale - 5
Alexander Nevsky - 6
Ivan the Terrible: Part I - 8
Ivan the Terrible: Part II - 7

[Mysterious Dude]

Battleship Potemkin (1925) ****
Strike (1925) ****
October (1928) ****
Alexander Nevsky (1938) ***
Ivan the Terrible, Part I (1945) ***
Ivan the Terrible, Part II (1958) ***
Que Viva Mexico! (1979) **½

I can never decide which one of his silent films I like the most.

[Amnesiac]

I've only seen Strike and October.

Both need a re-watch (been about a year) but I found myself much more engaged with Strike.

[B-side]

Definitely check out Ivan the Terrible, Part II. It completely disregards the masses and focuses on its protagonist...going mad with power.

Yeah, I've got that here at home. I just got done watching Ivan The Terrible I and I've got some seriously mixed feelings. I found parts of the last half hour of the film to be rather excellent. The scenes in the globe room, if you will, were rather effective in conveying his constantly inflating and overbearing nature. The shadow play in particular was great. As deliberate as one might call it, it was utilized perfectly, and when the film settled down to study the character it was at its best, I thought.

[B-side]

I've only seen one of his films, so I can't really argue for any others. But Potemkin is incredibly easy to digest, that's why it was and is so successful. It served it's purpose, and said something to not only the masses, but a great chunk of them being illiterate. I don't know, I don't think his films are difficult to "consume", though that doesn't diminish the incredible complexity of them.

I'm saying that I can see how the lack of a discernible protagonist would lend itself to alienation to certain viewers, and just a sense of coldness amongst others, perhaps. It's not that Potemkin is so steeped in impenetrable symbolism or something of that sort that it's difficult to get into, but it is a bit... harder to sell a crowd of unknowns as the protagonists of a film rather than a single person, reprehensible or not.

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, that's interesting. I suppose that is the case with most of the Soviet Montage cinema I've experienced. And, being a staple of predominant cinema, I imagine many would find this lack of a discernible protagonist to be at least somewhat alienating. But there is a substitution for the generic protagonist and the general form is there. The singular protagonist, by necessity of the propagandist aims of the films, must shuffle backwards into the collective. The typage of working class folk and those opposing bourgeois is pretty important for these films, if I recall correctly. There's little concern for individual characters in any meaningful sense.

And then there's the influence of constructivism, too. In Strike, for instance, you lose the idea of man as autonomous unity ... but rather one element of a larger machine.

[B-side]

Yeah, that's interesting. I suppose that is the case with most of the Soviet Montage cinema I've experienced. And, being a staple of predominant cinema, I imagine many would find this lack of a discernible protagonist to be at least somewhat alienating. But there is a substitution for the generic protagonist and the general form is there. The singular protagonist, by necessity of the propagandist aims of the films, must shuffle backwards into the collective. The typage of working class folk and those opposing bourgeois is pretty important for these films, if I recall correctly. There's little concern for individual characters in any meaningful sense.

And then there's the influence of constructivism, too. In Strike, for instance, you lose the idea of man as autonomous unity ... but rather one element of a larger machine.

Oh, absolutely, and I agree. Eisenstein is largely concerned with shuffling these characters around as part of a larger fold, it would seem. Keep in mind, I can only speak of what I've read of his intents and ideas, as well as citing Potemkin as my own viewing experience of his films lacking any real protagonist. I wouldn't say that Eisenstein's lack of single, or even a few, clearly defined protagonists is something worthy of a lot of critique in and of itself, but moreso in how it's used, I suppose. Eisenstein likes crowds and groups; people uniting under a common cause or to take down a common foe. It all falls under his desire to ignite passion in people, especially those that sought change.