MovieChat Forums > Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925) Discussion > I've seen it... more than once... have n...

I've seen it... more than once... have no idea how to rate it!

posted 11 years ago by FinnurE
12 replies | jump to latest

There have been really, really few films that have made it absolutely impossible for me to settle on a rating but Potemkin is one of them (A distinction it shares with Funny Games U.S, Eraserhead and Hausu). It's not that I think it's bad, it's not that I think it's good either. I just can't form an opinion because I lack a frame of reference. I didn't experience the cold war, I didn't experience life under a monarch, I didn't experience a revolution... but I did witness the fall of communism and I did see what a glorious and utter failure it was.

But that doesn't really matter as the actual quality of the film goes now, does it? But then it's the culture at the time of release. What other films were being show in the USSR at the time, what progress had been made in filmmaking in that part of the world? Is the historical importance of Potemkin overrated or justified? I haven't seen a single other film from the USSR (or just anywhere else than USA for that matter) from that time period, so I just don't know enough about that either!

I'm left with the only measure of judgement available in this case and that is, how did the film strike me personally, just on an individual, out of context with everything except myself and own experience level? I'm really not sure either! I certainly didn't love it. But that's probably because I've been spoiled by the advances of the medium made since its release, so that's hardly fair. In all honesty the whole experience was just kind of underwhelming, like some ritual I had to go through without actually thinking much of whether I liked it or not.

I could just listen to the film historians and people "in the know" and give it a 10 but then I wouldn't really be honest. I could give it a 3 or a 4 based on my personal enjoyment of it, or I could give it a 7 or an 8 based on what I do perceive as groundbreaking film-making technique. I think I'll settle for a 7 for now but please give me suggestions about how to get a better context and mindset to view this film.

[–] oh_no_mrbill 11 years ago

I pretty much agree with you.

Honestly it reminded me a little bit of Citizen Kane. The film techniques were clearly revolutionary for their time. Particularly the editing: quick cuts, juxtaposition of images (the old woman getting killed intercut with the baby carriage falling), etc. The imagery was very striking as well. It was put together in such a way that you genuinely feel tension build to a nearly unbearable level; you were horrified by the soldiers' actions and sympathized with the rebels. It had a visceral kind of power that was probably a revelation in 1925.

The other thing that it has in common with Citizen Kane, for me, is that the story never really grabbed me. I was somewhat uninterested up until the Odessa steps (which blew me away). So it was very technically impressive (like CK) but I didn't really connect with it. Maybe if I was Russian...

[–] IMDB_Vits 10 years ago

Although technical achievements have to be in consideration, one also has to judge how they've stood the test of time. There are many movies with special effects (mostly non-CGI) that still look good today... and even better than modern some modern movies.

It's kinda like in HUGO where they show Georges Melies' films. A lot of people have said that they were touched by that scene, even though they were noticeably old.

With this movie I had already read a recap of its specific achievements, but I still enjoyed the plot as much as a modern one. Yes, I did have to remind myself the time period, but only a couple of times. If that didn't happen to you at ANY moment, then you're justified to give it a low rating. I gave it a 10, and I gave CITIZEN KANE a 6 because its technical achievements could only distract me from the plot problems for a limited amount of time. I gave SINGIN' IN THE RAIN a 10 because I didn't even have to remind myself of the time it was made, but I gave GONE WITH THE WIND a 7 because only the final hour was great (enough to redeem the rest), and "2001" a 1 because its special effects couldn't compete with the pretentious (if creative) directing.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

2001 had imo very gripping story. I admit the last part of the film was as pretentious as it gets but before that it was one of the most exciting films I have ever seen. 2001 really had the atmosphere spot on. It certainly does not deserve a 1.

Also I don't understand how you rate Rear Window, The Birds and Rosemary's Baby - 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Meanwhile giving something called "Lesbian vampire killers" a 9. Hello... anybody home? :)

And what's the deal giving in general a 1 to around 20% of the films you have seen? I've probably seen only a couple films that bad...

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

1) Typo!

I actually gave "2001" a 3.
2) LESBIAN VAMPIRE KILLERS is a horror comedy. I wasn't comparing it to those horror thrillers when I rated it. THE BIRDS' ending is the rare one that ruins the entire movie. Here are my review of REAR WINDOW and comment on ROSEMARY'S BABY: http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.cl/2012/01/rear-window_22.html / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAING7Bj6Gc
3) Film is a mass product, which means that the majority will always be bad. However, that's a good thing. When I watch a movie that I feel deserves a 10, it feels extra especial because of how rare it is.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

:)

Ok, if I got your criticism on those films correct...

BIRDS: ending ruins the whole film.

... Definitely not. It's often quoted as one of the best if not the best ending in cinema history. Truly eerie and threatening. Incredible image! What's wrong with these birds?

REAR WINDOW
:Wrong music, Grace Kelly overacting and motive to kill the wife left in dark.
... I don't remember the music but don't recall it bothering me. Grace Kelly isn't known for her overacting really. The whole idea of the film was that they were not sure, did not know the motives etc - they were just witnessing the events and guessing. As far as I recall the husband and wife did quarrel early on in the film though, but what about... is that really relevant. Not every film has to be wrapped up nicely, especially not something like Rear Window. It was not really a murder mystery in the sense why and how the murder happened - it was more of a mystery whether a murder happened and how to prove it did.

ROSEMARY'S BABY: Too many "normal" scenes. Husband not reacting to pregnancy much.

... I think you are not giving the director and the plot enough credit here.
To my recollection the film doesn't really have unnecessary scenes, everything you see serves a purpose, as normal with great directors such as Polanski. As for the husband not reacting much for the pregnancy - that was obviously ON PURPOSE. Strange reaction just underlined that there was something strange going on... The husband knew and expected the pregnancy... he knew who the real father was. Maybe you just didn't understand the film?

In any case, even if your criticism on these brilliant classics made any sense (which it imo doesn't)... these sort of flaws hardly reward ratings on 1-3 range. Maybe you were just trying to nitpick and come up with anything negative when watching them, it sort of sounds to me like that. Perhaps you should give those films another chance... after you have seen more films. Or maybe the best thing would be to read some reviews about these films and find out why people think they are that great.

P.S. What does film being a mass product mean? Certainly films are not made on assembly line but are instead made each individually. Maybe you meant they are made for masses...

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

Not every film has to be wrapped up nicely, especially not something like Rear Window. It was not really a murder mystery in the sense why and how the murder happened - it was more of a mystery whether a murder happened and how to prove it did.

But it is a mystery. When there isn't an explanation, it's to play with the genre's tropes. Having seen other movies by Hitchcock, I could tell that this was just lazy writing.

To my recollection the film doesn't really have unnecessary scenes, everything you see serves a purpose, as normal with great directors such as Polanski.

I didn't say there were unnecessary. By "normal" I meant that they weren't even trying to be scary nor suspenseful.

As for the husband not reacting much for the pregnancy - that was obviously ON PURPOSE. Strange reaction just underlined that there was something strange going on... The husband knew and expected the pregnancy... he knew who the real father was. Maybe you just didn't understand the film?

I know that he knew the truth. However, in every other scene, he does a good job hiding the truth. He stops acting during what he must consider to be the most important moment of the process?

these sort of flaws hardly reward ratings on 1-3 range. Maybe you were just trying to nitpick and come up with anything negative when watching them, it sort of sounds to me like that.

I do nitpick from time to time, but it's a natural reaction to something I perceive as a flaw. I don't start watching a movie prepared to nitpick just because. The flaws I mentioned with those movies may not have been many, but that's irrelevant. They were bad enough to ruin the whole movie.

Perhaps you should give those films another chance... after you have seen more films. Or maybe the best thing would be to read some reviews about these films and find out why people think they are that great.

I do read reviews of a movie after watching it (that's how I learn on how to review). Before, I check if there's some sort of technical achievement I should know about. Is that why you're telling me that?

I only re-watch movies that I saw too long ago to remember. Otherwise, my mind is set on them. I know there are movies with details that you only notice a 2nd time, but if I don't enjoy it on the 1st viewing, what's the point? Unless you're asking me to follow the herd and grade movies based on what everyone else feels?

P.S. What does film being a mass product mean? Certainly films are not made on assembly line but are instead made each individually. Maybe you meant they are made for masses...

They're not made in the same place at the same time, but hundreds of them are made each year and dozens are released each week.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I only re-watch movies that I saw too long ago to remember. Otherwise, my mind is set on them. I know there are movies with details that you only notice a 2nd time, but if I don't enjoy it on the 1st viewing, what's the point? Unless you're asking me to follow the herd and grade movies based on what everyone else feels?

You're right, you should rate the films as you feel is right not how the others think.

I'm just hoping you'd somehow see the light. :)
They're really good films. Maybe see them again after some time has passed...

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

I'm just hoping you'd somehow see the light.

I'm sorry, but that's what a religious fanatic would say to convert me, which contradicts your other comment about me having the right the right to rate films as I feel is right.

They're really good films.

I know. Giving them bad grades isn't a way to imply that they're bad films. I don't like them, but I know why others do.

[–] Rizzyay 9 years ago

Couldn't agree more!

I've been watching silent films recently to increase my knowledge of movie history. Some films are really hard to rate, and Potemkin is propably the most difficult.

I gave it a 5. Its not that I don't respect the huge impact it has had on film-making, or the ground-breaking montage editing technigue. But frankly, the story itself was ridicilious. Not only was it illogical, it was SO obviously propagandistic, that it almost makes a 21st-century-viewer vomit.

And there were so many storytelling problems! Most importantly the Odessa massacre. We never hear from them again when the ship sails off (pretty cowardly if you ask me), so I suppose we have to assume the slaughter still goes on. But doesn't that make the crew look kinda bad, to leave 'em civilians there to die?

I don't know, it just feels like the different sections of the story didn't really work well together. But maybe someone who loves this movie can show me if I am mistaken?

[–] MegaChaosGelee 9 years ago

I totally agree with the OP and Rizzyay. I acknowledge and appreciate the movie as a groundbreaking marvel on a technical level. We owe much to it and Eisenstein.

Still, from a storytelling perspective, I found it almost mind numbing. I conceive movies as an art form of narrative entertainment first, and in this sense, Battleship Potemkin was too much soviet/communist style, i. e. missing characters as individuals with their own personality, a protagonist to identify with etc. - it's always more about uniform and bland GROUPS of people championing a greater goal.

In this respect, it was not revolutionary, but in my opinion even a big step backwards. I found D.W. Griffith' Broken Blossoms highly emotional, deeply touching and immersive, and that's from six years earlier! You can throw massacres and Odessa step sequences at me all you want, it doesn't matter much when it's about people or groups of people I know nearly nothing about through the film itself, and therefore don't really and wholeheartedly care for their fate. One can indeed describe Battleship Potemkin as kinda cold and "abstract". In some ways, it feels more like a (fake) documentary, which was the purpose of it as propaganda.

I think I would give it a 6 out of 10 overall. Its an important movie, but not a really appealing one to me.

[–] The_TJT 8 years ago

I think a good reference would be how a silent film compares to Chaplin's masterpieces - which are still great. For example "City Lights" and "Modern Times". I have those at 10 and 9.

I don't really care much about filming techniques or how groundbreaking they were at the time; it does not affect my enjoyment for the film.
What I do often pay attention to though is photography since that DOES have a bearing how much I enjoy the film visually, imo Potemkin was pretty powerful in that aspect... the images were good and often great, for example...
faces in the crowd, shot child on stairs, the soldiers' boots and shadows, the cannons and the final scene where the ship practically runs over the viewer. I think Potemkin had lots of impressive photography - even today!

I also noticed some innovative camera angles (dead sailor's tent, under a bridge etc), which imo added to the feel of the film occasionally.

As for Citizen Kane; it is imo one of the most boring films I have ever seen. I actually fell asleep when trying to watch it the first time. I don't care about its filming techniques since those have been surpassed a long time ago and are not a reason to enjoy the film for modern viewer if for a viewer of any era. Camerawork should be something that serves the film and not vice versa. Citizen Kane does have some good looking lighting and imagery but that can not save the film for me. Ingmar Bergman said that Citicen Kane is boring and Welles can't act. I fully agree with Bergman there.

I rated "Potemkin" 8/10: It has dated somewhat story telling wise but regardless I found it to be rather gripping and it did have some interesting imagery. Yes, it is propaganda but I knew that beforehand - and found it to be rather fascinating in its genre.

I have Citizen Kane at 4/10.

A great image does not get old - filming techniques do.

[–] HalBanksy 8 years ago

I never really connected with Chaplin films. Only one I really liked was 'Modern Times' (which I did think was amazing.) I find that Buster Keaton films have aged a lot better, but I know I'm in the minority there.

There are some types of films I simply don't understand the appeal of. Same with Monty Python. I detest those - but at least Chaplin must be respected on a technical level.