Re-read the Ebert essay I handed out to you on Monday. Please discuss the following in at least two well-developed paragraphs:
"The Battleship Potemkin is conceived as a class-conscious revolutionary propaganda, and Eisenstein deliberately avoids creating any three-dimensional individuals (even Vakulinchuk is seen largely as a symbol). Instead, masses of men move in unison, as in the many shots looking down at Potemkin's foredeck. The people of Odessa, too, are seen as a mass made up of many briefly glimpsed but starkly seen faces. The dialogue (in title cards) is limited mostly to outrage and exhortation. There is no personal drama to counterbalance the larger political drama."
Do you agree with Ebert? If so, why do you think Eisenstein chose this format for his film? Explain how the editing and the shots give meaning to the Marxist, revolutionary propaganda in the film and whether or not you think three-dimensional characters would have added to or subtracted from the message. In addition, analyze a 5 minute scene or sequence to show the power of Eisenstein's editing style. Be sure to use specific examples and speak cinematically in your paragraphs.
Here is another article that may be helpful to you:
Enjoy the weather and take a couple of hours to watch a good film this weekend.
I think Ebert’s analysis of The Battleship Potemkin is very accurate. The description of The Battleship Potemkin as a “class-conscious revolutionary propaganda” is very insightful to the overall meaning of the work. I believe that Sergei Eisenstein chose his montage editing style in order to incorporate some chance individual plights or personal battles while still capturing the overall mentality of the crowd. The scene that I chose to analyze was the famous Odessa Steps sequence. During this scene which begins at about 48:43 and ends at 55:21, Cossack soldiers massacre innocent civilians as they desperately try to flee. Aside from a title card reading “Suddenly”, the first shot is close up of a woman spotting the soldiers. The following sequence is a montage of shots that depict civilians desperately racing down the steps. The soldiers are shown from a high angle shot from behind their line as they methodically march down the steps. In contrast, the civilians are shown from a lower angle for the most part as though they are being viewed from the bottom of the steps. Eisenstein clearly utilized many different camera angles and edited massive amounts of footage together in order to depict the struggle. Perhaps the most memorable instances of this sort of style are as the baby carriage rolls down the steps or the mother approaches the soldiers with her wounded son and is shot. During these two struggles the camera cuts to the horrified expressions of various onlookers to the scene which serves to highlight the unthinkable brutality that the Cossacks are clearly capable of.
ReplyDeleteIntroducing three-dimensional characters would have subtracted from the mentality that Eisenstein was trying to emphasize throughout the film. Marxist philosophy revolves around an egalitarian society that operates under a system of “what’s best for one is best for all”. Thus, by injecting complex characters with their own motives and personal dramas, Eisenstein would be undermining the faceless society that he hoped to inspire the Russian people to further achieve. Instead, by uniting all of the sailors and peasants and making them into nameless but oppressed masses (all the while implicitly comparing him to the small number of dominating officers, or in the peasants case, soldiers) , he is able to illustrate the enormous disparity of power that the Russian people possessed under the Tsarist regime. The Battleship Potemkin is an extremely important propaganda film for the way that it subtlety influences its viewers to rebel against oppressive government, a feat which Eisenstein pulls of through powerful montage sequences and editing.
In his essay, Roger Ebert accurately touches upon Eisenstein’s belief that a film has the greatest impact when images are juxtaposed against each other. This idea is exemplified by the montage editing that Eisenstein employs in “The Battleship Potemkin.” Eisenstein avoids creating three dimensional individuals by cutting brief shots of individual human suffering (the women shot on the Odessa steps) with shots of the disillusioned masses moving together, highlighting the collective hero of the film: the russian masses attempting to overthrow corrupt Tsarist Russia. This equalizes all of suppressed Russia, as opposed to making the film about one person. I feel that this technique was appropriate as it captured the Marxist belief in revolution led by the people, specifically the lower classes. This belief was centered around the need for the people as a whole to revolt, not the will of an individual. Although the shots of individuals provided the viewer with sympathy and means of a more personal identification with the revolution, Eisenstein chose not to expand on their story lines. If Eisenstein had made these individuals three dimensional characters in the film, it would not have had the same “power in the masses” effect, thus subtracting from the main focus of the film: the power of a strong group mentality. In this way, his decision to juxtapose the shots of individuals with those of the Russian masses is easily understood, and ultimately appropriate.
ReplyDeleteEisentein’s montage editing style is exemplified by the scene immediately following the return of the Potemkin when the masses visit Vakulinchuk’s dead body and the idea of revolt begins to take them over. The scene, beginning around 37:00 transitions between a series of high angle and birds eye view shots panning the vast crowds of people, to eye level medium or close-up shots of different enraged or saddened individuals encouraging the people of Odessa not to forget what Vakulinchuk died for. The inclusion of shots of different individuals, as opposed to one person, helps to increase the idea of the masses while simultaneously attaching emotion to the revolt (with the inclusion of individuals at all). Eisenstein includes shots of the masses within the many shots of individuals to keep the viewer aware of the magnitude of the upset in Odessa. This pattern, of shots of different individuals or small groups and shots of the masses (memorably the people walking along all of the bridges/ stairs), continues for the rest of Part Three as the idea of revolt takes hold in more and more people. The consistently shifting shot type and content helps Eisenstein to impress the idea of mass revolt upon the viewer, and ultimately increases the film’s revolutionary impact.
Yes, I do agree with Ebert’s claim that “there is no personal drama to counterbalance the political drama”, although I also think that Eisenstein does this purposefully. The film is propaganda so, there really was no need to have the story revolve around certain characters – and it never does. During the scenes on the actual battleship the men are always shown in groups and if there is one character focused on he is never given a name of any specific traits, so that we never get to know these characters. Even during the film’s most emotional scene on the stairs, acts like the young child getting shot and trampled, the shocked mother, or the baby rolling down the steps in his carriage are used for political reasons instead of developing real characters. If we do sympathize for any of the characters it is not for that actual character, it is for the proletariat as a whole. Having three-dimensional characters would have changed the film, but whether not it would help it depends on the usage of the film. If the film was to be used for anything but propaganda than yes three dimensional characters would have helped it, but since it is not than no, three dimensional characters would have made it too personal.
ReplyDeleteThe editing itself is quick cut shots. Never does the camera stay focused on one particular object or person too long. By doing this the characters are seen as relatively unimportant, even interchangeable, as the shot changes from one character to another with little to no change. It also, whether intentional by Eisenstein or not, helps to convey that chaos and disunity of Russia at the time.
Immediately after the “Odessa Stairs” scene the screen fades to black, signifying that that is over, on to the next scene of violence. Using match cuts we see the cannon, and then small towers, then a cannonball fly through the bottom of the tower, destroying it. Smoke fills the air, and shots of statues of angels and lions are put in between the shots of destruction as if they were spectators or even overseers to this act. Part Five then begins with the crew members of the Potemkin figuring out what to do now with their ship. For the most part the men are shown in groups, but once just one crew member is shown on the screen for a large duration of time; this is done to stress the importance of a leader in the revolution. Another crew member who provides the counter point in that they cannot land because no one will join them; also stressing the power that someone can have in suppressing that revolution (which the film is clearly supporting). Once the men decide to meet the squadron they are again shown as a large group, stressing the importance of the support of the majority. They then fade away as they now are completely sold for the revolution. The screen then fades in, but the images are softly lit. Shots of the water now moving, at a much faster pace than before, show that the revolution is coming faster and faster. With this film Eisenstein has used the power of editing to sway the viewer for the cause of the revolution, and to persuade others into seeing the government and military superiors as evil and oppressive.
In analyzing ‘The Battleship Potempkin’, Roger Elbert provides a valid explanation of Eisenstein’s techniques in creating what was considered the greatest movie of all time until the late 1950's. Rather than focusing on a specific character or personal story, Eisenstein chose to show the audience the big picture. Although the film lacks three-dimensional characters, it does include brief interludes of individuals or relatively small groups of people to extract a more emotional response from viewers and make it more relatable without drawing away from the film’s overall message. By displaying shots of these individual actions, in alternation with shots of large masses of people, the audience is thus reminded of the realness of each situation. The addition of main, or predominant characters would definitely subtract from the film’s message due to the fact that it serves as Marxist propaganda. The film calls for an array of characters of equal importance because it reflected the view of the country at this time, where all were expected to be the same, individualism was not accepted. Therefore, a main character would defy this reflection and the film couldn’t possibly hold the same meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe power of Eisenstein’s editing style is most efficiently recognized in the Odessa step sequence, which begins around 48 minutes into the film with medium shots of various people, singularly, like a man without legs, a women smiling in glasses, and a little boy holding a basket. However, as the scene progresses the shots become more and more brief while the soldiers march in, “Suddenly” massacring the people shown before. Now, it can be noted that large groups of people are more commonly shown, perhaps to portray the view of the soldiers, as they don’t see individuals for who they are as characters, but rather a single mass in need of being destroyed. Even though some shots of certain sections of the mass are shown, they serve only to liven the scene, making it more dynamic and quick while still holding this soldier POV.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Eberts analysis of the film because i also feel that not creating 3 dimensional characters was good for the film and forced the audience to keep their attention on the main issue. If there would have been 3 dimensional characters created in the film then the audience may have gotten distracted and lose the full idea of the major issue that was going on with the violence. I think he chose this format so that this film will be more centered on the political aspect and so that there would be no confusion about the film, he just wanted to get his major theme out politically with no distractions and non related outside drama.
ReplyDeleteThe editing style throughout this fil i think was fit for the action and story that was occuring. The quick shot changes and the justiposition that was used added to the meaning of the film. The quick shot changes added to the suspense i think and also to show that a lot was going on at one time. Also i feel that the quick pace in shot changes adds to the efect of time going by since ther wasnt a lot of other editing techniques or shoting techniques at this time.I also realize that he never takes a lot of time on shots of an individual and has very limited amounts of shots of individuals.
One scene from the movie was the scene on the boat and the fighters are on the ship and the camera uses close ups and high angle/birds eye view shots a lot so that the viewer can see the full size and population on the ship. Also during this scene as they were fighting one of them was thrown off board into the water and then the camera cuts to a shot of maggots which is completely random but has a connection to the story basically calling them maggots in figuartive language. He did this a couple of times through out the film when he would show randm shots that werent directly in the story line but was in the sequence to show sigificance or conection.
I think that Eberts analysis of “The Battleship Potemkin” is very accurate and insightful. I agree that the movement in unison, and the fact that the story avoids personal drama greatly increases the films validity and stronghold on the viewer. Eisenstein probably chose this format for his film because, for one, it was very different then anything else of that time. He shots move quickly and smoothly, rather than films just years before that were very choppy with a much lower verisimilitude. His wide variety of angles and movement, allow the viewer to be a part of the story. Generally, throughout the film, there will be a shot on just a few people, then the next will be on a whole group. This makes it real, and relatable. This way, he gives tha audience the feelings of individual, yet nameless characters, as well as the emotion of the masses. I think that three dimensional characters would have subtracted from the message of the film. Rather than including characters personal accounts, the narrative is viewed as a perspective whole. This creates a sense of unity, as described by Roger Ebert. Including specific stories and points of view would go against the point that Eisenstein was trying to make. By creating a nameless but potent emotional reaction by the crowd, the ideal about how the Russian people were so oppressed by Tsarist control is readily relayed to the audience. The group mentality would otherwise be missing, giving the films meaning and message much less power.
ReplyDeleteProbably the most popular and recognized scene is that at the Odessa steps. As civlians watch in awe as soldiers begin marching, they are genuinely unaware of what is to come. “Suddenly”, these people begin to flee for their lives and the scene and shots becomes much more rapid. The camera switches to a low angle as you see all kinds of people, including children, running down what seems to be an endless flight of steps. Perhaps because children, and less able bodied people are included to make the audience sympathize with what is happening in the scene. Maybe, if it had been a mass of audlt males, the viewer would not feel as bad. Perhaps this is what Eisenstein was trying to accomplish. As the scene progresses a variety of skewed angles as well as the addition of a high angle is put into the shots. Presumably the most powerful shot in this scene is the wide shot of the massacre. As you see from a high angle, from the soldiers point of view, people in terror as one big whole are running. As the camera switches from the eyes of the oppressed to the eyes of the oppressors, you get short glimpses of the action and message behind it. Other very important portions are the mother and her wounded child, as well as the mother who accidentally pushes her baby’s carriage down the steps as she herself is falling to her demise. This scene is so powerful that even though it is highly out dated in content, it still has the ability to remain close to heart with any modern viewer, such as myself and after reading the responses of my peers, it seems them too. As you watch, you really feel for these people, which would possibly not happen if it were not for this style of editing.
I think that Eberts analysis of “The Battleship Potemkin” was completely accurate. Elbert provides logical and valid explanations for the use of Eisenstein’s techniques in creating this ground breaking film. Instead of focusing on a specific character or person in the story, Eisenstein attempted to create pictures. He used mass amounts of people moving in unison, such as in the scene shot from an arial view of the ship with all the men gathered and the scene at the Odessa steps with all the civilians scrambling for their lives. Like what Alison previously stated "...under a system of “what’s best for one is best for all”. Thus, by injecting complex characters with their own motives and personal dramas, Eisenstein would be undermining the faceless society..." Adding individuals to this story, rather that massive amounts of people that act and feel the same way, would have created a plot centered around that one individual. Because his technique, you felt the pain of the people as a WHOLE.
ReplyDeleteEisenstein editing style can be scene in almost every scene of the movie. One scene in particular is where the men were all gathered around the maggot infested meat complaining. In that very scene, the same action was shown from several different angles, but cut together as if it all was happening at different times. It was made to build tension, as it showed the anger of all the men compared to the nonchalant attitude of what appeared to be one of the more powerful commanding officers. This continues the concept of the important of the mass compared to the individual through Eisenstein's use of different camera angles which showed the anger of not just one sailor, but the group as a whole.
Egert's analysis of Eienstein's technique is very accurate. I agree with Egert's observation that Eisenstein used experssive movement, exeeding the norms of realism for the enjoyment of the viewers. Eisenstein wanted to engage his audience in his films and further exploit the Soviet. The editing Eisenstein used in the film was perfect for the puepose of the film. It is used as propaganda of the 1905 revolution in the Soviet and he was abl to stress effects of the revolution thruough his editing. The quick cuts also grabbed the attention of the audience. Three dimensional characters, in the case of Battleship Potemkin, do detract from the meaning at all. They infact help Eisenstein portray the purpose of the film because the veiwers are not distracted by plot or specific/main characters. The Film is suppoesed to be almost in the form of a documentary, so if there were three-dimensional characters that would detract from the film
ReplyDeleteThr scene on the Odessa steps is considered one of the most moving scenes, wining the sympathy and respect of the regime. The low angle used on the tsarist troops as oppsed to the high angle used on the people is one technique
eisenstein took advantage of to portray the tsarist power.
Battleship Potemkin is a revolutionary propaganda film created to draw support to the new Bolshevik regime that had, at the time of the making, just recently overthrown the long-reigning monarchy of the Tsarists.
ReplyDeleteDue to the nature of the message being communicated: that the people must rise up as one and overthrow the class restrictions placed upon them by the bourgeoisie, no one character is developed any further than a simple means to advance the plot. One of the only characters named, Vakulinchuk, is simply the vehicle of the collective voice of the people. No back story is revealed, no significant personality is developed and it is all for the purpose of highlighting the primary principle of communism: that all men are truly equal and should be treated as such.
Editing cannot be ignored, for this film is often considered one of the first examples of montage editing, pioneered by Soviet director Sergei Eisenstein. Using fast paced editing that focuses on everyone, yet no one in particular, the editing gives the impression of an event much greater than the individual; something that Eisenstein surely intended to do. Moving beyond the singular struggles of one or two characters, Potemkin instead displays the conflict as a universal one. One is meant to believe that every member of the proletariat has a part to play. Giving significance to individuals would diminish, and most likely destroy, everything that Eisenstein was trying to accomplish.
Both of these components: the montage editing and the portrayal of the crew of the Potemkin as something greater than face value, come to a climactic and beautifully executed finish in the scene on the Odessa Steps. A man is shouting to the masses, seemingly telling them about the struggle of the proletariat and the need to rise up. Various shots of people nodding in agreement are interspersed. Finally moved to action, thousands of people are seen marching in the street and down the Odessa Steps in a nondescript mass of people. It isn't very long until Tsarist troops arrive to quell the rebellion. Compared to the masses, the troops are orderly, march in step and function with a machine like precision. The fact that they too are shown as a whole illustrates that this is destined to be class warfare, one group against another. As more and more people are slaughtered and the panic rises, the shots become progressively shorter until they blend together.
Everything done was done for a reason, to achieve the message that the people aren't alone and that it is truly a universal struggle. The fact that it was done so expertly, and that it used many techniques that hadn't been developed, further adds to its well deserved fame.