They were ready to shoot and instead they shouted ''Brothers!!'' and the film ended...................Why was that????
pacino,nicholson,deniro,hanks in a movie by scorcese,written by tarantino...am i asking too much?
They didn't wanted to shoot at their 'brothers in arms'. I thought it's so obvious. And this actually happened in reality, battleship went to Romania without a single shot.
shareYes,but both sides???I mean they had to settle things up in some way...They just got enlightened by the Holy Spirit and realized they shouldn't do it????!!
pacino,nicholson,deniro,hanks in a movie by scorcese,written by tarantino...am i asking too much?
Will you shoot at your brother even if you are ordered to? Both sides thought 'No'. About settling things up... Most of the battleship crew were hanged a little bit later.
shareIf they were unwilling to shoot at the end, why did the soldiers at the Odessa Steps shoot at the defenseless civilians?
shareIf they were unwilling to shoot at the end, why did the soldiers at the Odessa Steps shoot at the defenseless civilians?They were different. The soldiers used on the Odessa Steps were Cossacks, shock troops used by the Tsar when he wanted a massacre or pogrom. Those on the ships were working class draftees.
They were enlightened by a sense of proletarian solidarity.
shareMy point is that it was too easy and convenient...Totally out of the blue,without any reason. It seems as he couldn't find a way to justify the alteration in their intentions.
shareA similar thing happened earlier in the film though, when the soldier refused to shoot the sailors for not eating the soup. They couldn't shoot their brothers either. Although I do agree that was slightly more plausible than the ending. Personally, I had no problems believing it.
As Aristotle said, an improbable possibility is better than an impossible probability, or was it the other way around???
I think you are not understanding that this movie is based on real events. There really was a battleship that mutinied and then faced possible attack from other Russian ships....and when it came down to it...the other ships did not attack. This wasn't some failure of the film-maker of not finding a way 'to justify the alteration in their intentions'....this is what happened in real life in 1905.
Now, if you want to know why no one attacked in 1905...I suspect that officers of the ships ordered their crews to attack, and the crews decided they didn't want to kill their own countrymen. Or perhaps the officers felt that way, too, when the moment came to give the order. It seems understandable, it's not like the Potemkin sailors were traitors, they just didn't like how they were being treated.
There is a larger historical narrative which might help make better sense of it. Apparently a lot of the 'regular' sailors were shipped east to fight the Japanese, and these ships on the Baltic were being manned by conscripts the army rounded up from the local ports. They weren't regular sailors. That probably explains why they mutinied in the first place, they weren't used to the strict military code. And the men on the other ships were in the same situation, so they also weren't regular sailors and also not used to the military code. They probably also had worms for food and thus identified with the Potemkin crew.
[deleted]
"pacino,nicholson,deniro,hanks in a movie by scorcese,written by tarantino...am i asking too much?"
Take out Hanks and take Dustin Hoffman instead and I'm all with you! (Btw I know this is just your signature)