How much is propaganda and how much is history?

No. The storming of the Winter Palace is just a bit of embellished history. The Kerensky government, certainly in terms of central government buildings, such as the Palace, collapsed without much resistance.

Thought, Eisenstein is such a genuis that "artistic licence" may be granted.

_Ten Days That Shook the World_ was written by John Reed during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. In the introduction to the book, which was originally omitted from the copyrighted publication, A. J. P. Taylor explains Reed's relationship to the revolution. Reed was an American socialist journalist on assignment in Russia. While Reed did not actively participate in the revolution, he was ethically invested in its success. Taylor also explains that while Reed's book captures well the heightened emotion and activity of the revolution, his words can by no means be taken as a truthful account of actual events. He explains that "Bolshevik participants, when they looked back, often based their recollections more on Reed's books than on their own memories." (p ix) Sergei Eisenstein went so far as to consult Reed's book in the making of this movie, rather than checking newspapers, news reels, and other publications.

So, to answer your question: while the movie is, indeed, historically based, and many of the events did, in fact, happen, it cannot be stated with confidence that they happened exactly as Reed writes and Eisenstein portrays in his movie.

hi Mr hall said you were a geek!
The winter palace was not stored like the film shows it is quite unaccurate
the film was made to show the people that it was like a major event but nothing major really happened they just sneaked through the back and came out on the people in side by surprise. The only correct information really was the aroura ship firing a blank shell.i have crossed referenced that by the way!
bye.

Maybe this quote from Stalin's biography by Edvard Radzinsky will shed some light on the historical accuracy of this film. "G. Alexandrov, who was then Eisenstein's assistant director, remembered "At four Stalin came into the cutting room. He greeted us with and said "Is Trotsky in your picture?" Eisenstein said Yes. After viewing it Stalin said categorically that the picture must not be shown with trotsky in it." So the great director Eisenstein set to work excising from the film October the man who had been the father of October."

At this time if i recall the events correctly Stalin was preparing to purge the party and indeed the country of the memory of most of the heroes of the october revolution. However, i do think Trotsky was in the movie but they showed him to be a coward. Perhaps the parts of Trotsky left on the cutting room floor were those which showed him in a better light. And as for the portrayal of the Provisional Government, it really depends on who's version of history your willing to accept.

The film does reconstruct the events of 1917 from a Bolshevik perpsective. It also does, sort of, stick to the facts until the last twenty minutes or so. BUT the climax of the film, the storming of the Winter Palace, does appear to be a work of ficiton. It is true that the Aurora did fire a blank shell to signal the start of the attack. But, that appears to be one of the only facts that Eisenstein stuck to. The scene where a brave sailor climbs on the main gate urging his comrades on, is complete fantasy. According to a Winter Palace tour guide I spoke to, and Orlando Figes, in Natasha's Dance, this wasn't the gate or door way that the Bolsheviks used to get into the Palace. They acutally entered using a side staircase and door.


One needs to consider the reasons why the film was made, and the climate in which it was made in to understand why Eisenstein purposely got things wrong. By 1927 the Communist State was celebrating 10 years of power. The Bolsheviks did not have the full backing of the people when they seized power in 1917. They didn't gain the majority of votes in the elections of November 1917, The Social Revolutionaries did. But Eisenstein hints the Bolsheviks had mass support by showing hundreds of workers and sailors streaming across the square in front of the Winter Palace. Did he include this to legitimise the Revolution?

In any case Eisenstein couldn't end his master piece by recreating the real event: a shambolic, almost embarrassing, but ultimately successful small scale coup. He perhaps knew that he needed to end his film on a high. Maybe this is why he chose to recreate the storming as a brave struggle involving thousands of workers?

Propaganda filth, as subtle as a fallen bridge.





If the Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard, It can also be like a chicken-pox mark.

Part a historical account, part propaganda. What really matters it's that "October" is a masterpiece from Eisenstein. And BTW it's much better than 99% of another "propaganda" films from any other country, then and now.

This film is an artistic piece of work, made at the service of an oppressive totalitarian regime. This is in no ways a documentary. However, by being able to shoot his scenes in the real locales so soon after the events portrayed, there is a certain realism. The issue of historical accuracy is almost impossible in the regard of the Soviet Union, everything involving the revolution has more to do with factional affiliation and internal squabbling rather than the realities of the situation.

I place it in the same category of silent film fantasia as Abel Gance's 'Napoleon' film or the 'Birth of a Nation', both have a certain socio-political orientation hindering objective truth from being told.