What do people think of this?

I think you should compare this movie to other movies of the same era/decade, especially in terms of editing. You will probably understand then why Eisenstein is considered a great filmmaker (great photographer + great editing = what is missing to make him a great filmmaker?).

- A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"It was false anticipation. And then with the ending on the film, the bottom sort of fell out."

That's such a Hollywood attitude. So there were no explosions at the end. Was that a dissapointment for you? Also, Bruce Willis wasn't in it. Sad? I thought it was a exhilerating ending. I mean, the brave sailors of the Potemkin have chosen face the Tsar's fleet out to sink them, their destruction is near certain, the tension builds by cutting to shots like the ship's guns raising in prepartion to return fire, and then at the last possible minute--The sailors on the Tsar's ships join the Potemkin in a display of revolutionary solidarity; the destruction of the old society and the birth of a new one. If that's not exciting, then you really are jaded, mister.
I personaly think that solely relying on emotions to grab an audience is pretty cheap, but this film does contain a lot of genuine emotion, if that's your thing. All the oither posts here seem to agree, so what's your problem, Rosebudsthesled? Any time something is highly regarded by a large number of people, someone will come along do their best to try and tear it down just for the sake of arguing. There, you've made a controvesial statement. Hope you enjoyed that.

“Sad songs are the key that get our tears out of eye jail.”

reply share

add reply

formatting help

It’s overrated, and dated and Eisenstein was no genius, hardly. I get so weary of elitists claims of certain films deemed untouchable or beyond criticism simply because they’re old, and are considered “classics” and it’s almost heresy to say what you honestly feel about them. Balderdash! During it’s day, of course, it was a monumental achievement—but that was then, and this is now.

Sure, Eisenstein was the first to incorporate the “parallel narrative” technique, and usher in a new era in editing et. al. and so forth, but that’s it. Big deal, if he hadn’t done it, someone else surely would have. It’s like getting credit for “inventing breathing”—okay GREAT! Brilliant discovery, now let’s all do it--but somebody had to be the first, and THAT is his only distinction as far as I’m concerned, being first. Other than that what makes him such a genius?

All the “great lessons” Eisenstein, and several other of the “greats” have to teach us about cinema, could easily be compiled on a 3 hour DVD, but that’s sacrilegious to even think! Their various contributions could be readily outlined, observed, absorbed and done in but a few hours time—no need to them to remain on a golden pedestal. His contributions were finite, and much too much significance.

















CountSuckula - formerly known as “ralphended”

reply share

add reply

formatting help

"I have seen the Battleship Potemkin and for the last year I have been thinking about it, trying to really piece together what I think of the movie and of its director, Sergei Eisenstein. And I have come to this conclusion: it is the most overrated movie of all time.

ME: Well, I understand why you find it overrated. For one thing, the Soviet montage style of editing has become so imbedded in filmmaking that its practically invisible today. Secondly, the reputation this film has belongs to an earlier time of film criticism, when political and social elements were considered to be the most important part of a film. That being said, I think the film retains its technical brilliance today, and also tells an interesting and powerful story. I'm not sure which films you feel it is "overrated" in relation to, but in terms of having an international impact on the art form, POTEMKIN is greatly influential and important in that sense.


Before I get several cries of "idiot!" and "moron!" because I know I will, I just want to look at this film from my point of view for a moment.

For me, Sergei Eisenstein is not a great filmmaker. I feel that he is a great photographer though--he knew how to get what he wanted on camera. That is his strength. But it's also his weakness--because by focusing too much on shots, you forget about story. And Battleship Potemkin simply is not a compelling story. With that said, I have nothing against the Odessa steps sequence. Eisenstein created those images brililantly.

ME: I agree that his strength was more as a technical filmmaker. Some feel that this distinction is entirely oversimplifying the multifaceted job of a director, but I really do believe that there are two types of great directors: those who can create a brilliant and innovative film from a technical standpoint, and those who focus mainly on life and the human condition, the story at the heart of the film, and subtle nuances of the actors to carry the film. I would personally put Orson Welles, Godard, Eisenstein, Howard Hawks (mostly) and Alfred Hitchcock in the first category, while in the second, I would list John Ford, Vittorio DeSica, Fellini, Bergman, DeMille (broadly), Chaplin, and Renoir, to name but a few. I find that I tend to prefer films by filmmakers from the latter category, however, I want to make it clear that I am by no means stating one is in any way "better" than the other. D.W. Griffith is a tough call, since he did give us so much technical innovation, but I think at the heart of his films, he was more interested in the characters and emotions. You'll find that sometimes people who prefer the films of directors from the first category tend to find the films of the directors from Category II entirely too sentimental, or even slow moving at times; while viewers who tend to prefer Category II sometimes report finding the films of Category I directors to be too cold and remote from their characters, and too focused on the technical end of direction.



I just don't think that Eisenstein gets the story through the way he should. The ending for me was very anti-climactic. I've heard that the movie is based on non-fiction and that's how it happened, but for me it was a bit of a letdown because I kept feeling that throughout the final third they were doing a slow build up to build up to some huge finale and then there was none. It was false anticipation. And then with the ending on the film, the bottom sort of fell out.


ME: British critic Gilbert Adair equated silent films with "stories told round a campfire". Meaning, silent films do not need to move from point A to B as neatly and concisely as sound films (which, incidentally, has more to do with the way dialogue scripts must be written so that everything "works out on paper", as Lloyd Fonvielle, I believe, said.) Many people find silent films to be slow going for this reason, but I think it is an immeasurable strength.



I don't want to completely trash the movie because I'm not one of those guys who goes "worst movie ever!!!!!" but I just feel mixed on this movie. And on Eisenstein in general.

What do you all think?"

ME: I certainly understand where you're coming from, but a little context is important and I think if you watch this film again, try to adjust to the pace a little more and it might play better for you. Incidentally, Eisenstein's later sound films, ALEXANDER NEVSKY and IVAN THE TERRIBLE, play very much like silent films with sound.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Actually the late Stanley Kubrick might agree with you to a degree.

He once commented, "Chaplin had such a simple cinematic style that it was almost like I Love Lucy, but you were always hypnotised by what was going on, unaware of the essentially non-cinematic style. He frequently used cheap sets, routine lighting and so forth, but he made great films. His films will probably last longer than anyone else's. You could say that Chaplin was no style and all content. On the other hand, the opposite can be seen in Eisenstein's films, who is all style and no content or, depending on how generous you want to be, little content. Many of Eisenstein's films are really quite silly; but they are so beautifully made, so brilliantly cinematic, that, despite their heavily propagandistic simplemindedness, they become important."

As for me I think that films, like all other works of art, have a purpose and that purpose is NOT always to entertain. Take a Russian Orthodox icon - it certainly isn't there to entertain but it is a work of art nevertheless. Contrast that with the Sistine chapel, it inspires emotion and religious fervor but it is also aesthetically pleasing. This particular film was made specifically to spread the communist/socialist ideals and it has a unique style all throughout because the structure itself tries to mirror Communist ideology - from a single protester to a battleship, from a battleship to a town, from a town to a fleet - and then logically this would continue on through from the fleet to the nation, from the nation to the world. Like many other great works of art it does not complete the story nicely and neatly at the end, though it does provide an ending and catharsis because the viewer (presumabily outraged enough at the bourgeoisie and supporting the workers of the world) would himself provide the ending by rising up in the class struggle. This itself is still a very relevant theme, though old style communism is all but dead, socialist societies and the developing and third world countries would view a film like this with very different eyes.

(Actually I was really hoping for a big naval battle at the end myself when I first saw the movie)

I think it's not in the film itself but what was accomplished by and through the film and how it influenced future directors. I was stone bored through Birth of a Nation and the other earlier films in my Film class but I was wide awake through this one because a) it looked 'modern' in its shooting and editing and b) the theme is a relevant one where I live (it's a 'third world country' so to speak).

Good works of art inspire thought. Great works of art inspire action.

Tom516

reply share

add reply

formatting help

it depends on your definition of 'story': introduction, climax, resolve? or did you see the people? how they were like water, rivers, waves, the seas? that's story too.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

For 1925 (and still) it was a silent, black and white masterpiece. I don't know if it's the best, but it's way up there.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Battleship Potemkin simply is not a compelling story.

Really? I cried. For real.

The ending for me was very anti-climactic. I've heard that the movie is based on non-fiction and that's how it happened, but for me it was a bit of a letdown because I kept feeling that throughout the final third they were doing a slow build up to build up to some huge finale and then there was none. It was false anticipation. And then with the ending on the film, the bottom sort of fell out.

A part of me would've prefered if they had fired that cannon because it would've been unexpected. Yes, that last part was a letdown compared to the previous one (Odessa), but by that point I was into the story. And after all the sad and shocking moments, I was relieved to see a happy ending. And sorry to be "one of those people" but... Well, it was made in the '20s, where there were different standars. Besides, by that point, there had already been enough groundbreaking moments (those that weren't seen in movies back then).

reply share

add reply

formatting help