Director: Sergei Eisenstein
Year: 1928
Runtime: 116 min
Source: Kanopy
The third Eisenstein film on the list, this one doesn't speak to the gut in the same way as Battleship Potemkin or Strike. Despite the characteristically frenetic pacing, October feels like the most intellectual of his films so far, dealing in symbols (which are occasionally as subtle as a hammer) and analogies. Although not much beloved at the time - the film makes allusions that depictions of the October Revolution were commonplace at the time - it feels pretty fresh today. But also, it's a bit tricky to evaluate as someone with limited foreknowledge of those events - the exaggerations and inaccurate portrayals are hard for me to judge.
Although it's an interesting film and a fascinating historical document, Eisenstein as usual isn't really interested in storytelling, and while that works for Potemkin, I'm not sure it works here. Certainly, history is a messy tangle of motivations and processes, and to some extent Eisenstein evokes that reality. But for a non-expert, there's nothing to help the key characters stick in our minds. Even Lenin would seem to my eye to be a complete cipher, only visible in flashes.
The closest analogue to Eisenstein in modern film are the late Godard films. They're both dense, strange, and fascinating, but ultimately I feel after watching one like I'm struggling to follow along with a mind that stays ten steps ahead, and isn't interested in helping me follow.
Year: 1928
Runtime: 116 min
Source: Kanopy
The third Eisenstein film on the list, this one doesn't speak to the gut in the same way as Battleship Potemkin or Strike. Despite the characteristically frenetic pacing, October feels like the most intellectual of his films so far, dealing in symbols (which are occasionally as subtle as a hammer) and analogies. Although not much beloved at the time - the film makes allusions that depictions of the October Revolution were commonplace at the time - it feels pretty fresh today. But also, it's a bit tricky to evaluate as someone with limited foreknowledge of those events - the exaggerations and inaccurate portrayals are hard for me to judge.
Although it's an interesting film and a fascinating historical document, Eisenstein as usual isn't really interested in storytelling, and while that works for Potemkin, I'm not sure it works here. Certainly, history is a messy tangle of motivations and processes, and to some extent Eisenstein evokes that reality. But for a non-expert, there's nothing to help the key characters stick in our minds. Even Lenin would seem to my eye to be a complete cipher, only visible in flashes.
The closest analogue to Eisenstein in modern film are the late Godard films. They're both dense, strange, and fascinating, but ultimately I feel after watching one like I'm struggling to follow along with a mind that stays ten steps ahead, and isn't interested in helping me follow.
Comments
Post a Comment