Bronenosets Potemkin/Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Country: Soviet Union

Released: December 21st, 1925

Genre: Propoganda, Historical Fiction

Directed by: S.M Eisenstein

Written by: Jacob Bliokh

Produced by: N.F. Agadzhanova-Shutko

I've heard Bronenosets Potemkin described as "the most influential propaganda film of all time," and it certainly feels that way. Everyone who I've mentioned it to has at least heard of it to some extent if not actually seen it. This came as a great surprise to me because I had never heard of it before. Now suddenly everyone's acting like it's the new Citizen Kane or something. Such is the fame of this movie that I was warned to approach with caution lest I offend anyone.

Well rest easy friends, for while it may not be all that entertaining Bronenosets Potemkin is as good as people make it out to be. 

If you ever wanted to see what porn for cinematographers or film scholars looks like this is it. This is every editor's wet dream. This is the Deep Throat of film editing and camera work, at least if blowjobs were also metaphors for the oppression of the working class... which now that I think about if could be an interesting conceptual piece. Get on it film students!

Damn, now I just want to talk about the plot of Deep Throat. For those wondering the story follows famed adult star Linda Lovelace as a sexually frustrated woman who is unable to achieve orgasm. She visits a sex therapists who discovers that her clitoris is located in the back of her throat. Because of course it is. After, ahem, "treatment," the therapist contracts Linda as his secretary and she proceeds to "treat" a long series of clients with her newfound skills. The film apparently ends with the caption "The End. And deepthroat to you all," which is the probably greatest thing I've ever heard.

Wait what am I doing? There are Tsarists to overthrow and here I am talking about a porn flick from the 70s! We'll revisit Deep Throat in a Special Feature segment maybe, right now it's time to talk about the far less titillating Bronenosets Potemkin.

The films tells a fictionalized account of the mutiny of the Potemkin, a pre-dreadnought warship that was part of the Russian Black Sea's fleet. During the Russo-Japanese War moral was at an all time low across the country as the Russians were handily getting their asses whooped by the recently industrialized Meji military. Largely manned by raw recruits, a mutiny was called on the ship after the sailors were served rotted meat infested with maggots and were threatened to be executed after they refused to eat. The ship, now under the control of the mutineers, made it's way to Odessa, where a mass strike was in effect. Eventually, after managing to elude capture, the ship escaped to Romania where the crew was offered asylum. The mutiny on the Potemkin is seen as the start of the 1904 revolution in Russia, significant as it resulted in the enactment of sweeping political reform like the establishment of a elected political body (the Duma) the creation of a multi-party system, and the establishment of a Russian constitution. More importantly it's seen as a prelude to the eventual 1917 revolution that overthrew the Tzar and established the Bolshevik government. Which is why I was bemused to found out that the ship was apparently scrapped in 1923 by the Soviet government. You'd think they of all people would try to preserve such a symbol of communist, anti-tsarist history but I guess times were tough in Russia in the 20s... and in every other time period for that matter.

The film recreates the story fairly well early on but later succumbs to more fantastical elements. This is natural considering it's a propaganda film and the real world resolution is a bit uninspiring. Besides, I looked up information about the mutiny and the strike in Odessa and it seems that they were... mostly accurate. Again, hyperbolized for the sake of the story but if Ben Affleck can play a Mexican guy in Argo with no one giving a crap then who am I to judge? That being said though there is the occasional historical hiccup. For example, my favourite scene in the movie is when the sailors are whipping up the crowd in a revolutionary fervor and someone yells "kill the jews!" (which I'm just starting to realize must sound weird out of context). The movie comes to a screeching halt and we see the town's folk glare at the guy in horror and anger before beating him up. While this is compatible with Communism's atheistic views it no where near accurately represents actual attitudes of the time. Hell, there was actually a pogrom in Odessa in 1905!

Wait what am I doing? This is a Russian propaganda film in 1925! I should just be thankful that when the guy yelled "kill the jews" the leader of the mutiny didn't wink and reply "way ahead of you" before cutting a burning synagogue. Kudos for being progressive, movie.

Story wise though Bronenosets Potemkin suffers from the same problems of Statchka. There are no specific characters to really graft on to, the story, while more optimistic than it's nagging predecessor still feels preachy, and the narrative gets a little schizophrenic at times, not really taking a moment to breathe. These add up to a rather unengaging plot.

All this being said though Bronenosets Potemkin is still a great movie, solely thanks to it's filmmaking techniques. Yes, they really are that good. While I don't think I'd watch it again or ever recommend it to anyone who's not a film buff, the movie really is something to behold. Like Der Letzte Mann this feels like a step forward in exploring what can be done with a camera. Einsentein doesn't just use the camera to show a story, he uses it to tell a story and there is an important distinction. Early scenes on the ship use close, intimate shots, focusing on the sailors faces, or their hands, or the rotted meet they refuse to eat. The heavy use of these close-ups and selective focuses creates a sense of claustrophobia that reflects what these characters must live through being cramped within the confines of their ship. It's not until everyone is gathered outside on the deck that we are treated to a wide shot, which emphasizes the change in environment. 

The famous Odessa Step sequence is probably the most obviously innovative moment of the film and the (premature) climax. Troops march down on protesters, firing indiscriminately as the poor townsfolk flee down the steps in terror. The editing is fast and frenetic, emphasizing the terrified frenzy of fleeing bodies. In under a minute we go from a wide shot of the panic to a close up of a trampled child to a POV shot of a civilian tumbling down the steps to a low angle shot of the soldier's boots to a close up of a bleeding woman's face and then back to the wide shot. We're barely left any time to process what we're seeing, leaving us with a semi-abstract understanding of the horror unfolding, letting it fester emotionally rather than visually. I especially like a shot of a woman walking up to the soldiers and pleading for them to stop. We don't see the soldiers themselves, only the tips of their bayonets and their shadows which stretch down the steps. Keeping the soldiers consistently faceless like this allows the audience to project their own image of them onto the film and adds to their nefarious nature. Unfortunately after this sequence the movie quickly loses steam. There's still some interesting techniques like only displaying the ship and it's sailor's dark silhouettes as they prepare for battle at night, symbolizing the encroaching darkness that is fast approaching, but despite these cool moments though they can't really live up to the awesomeness of the Odessa Steps (which, fun fact, utilized the first every example of the "runaway baby carriage" trope that's cliched today).

Despite it's problems I enjoyed the movie. Again, it's not something I'd ever really recommend to anyone unless they want to go into filmmaking or are really interested in the subject, but otherwise it's really easy to see why this movie is cited as a milestone.

Oh, and before I forget: Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!