Battleship Potemkin

Open up any film text book and near the beginning, there will no doubt be a reference, or a chapter concerning "Battleship Potemkin". This film was one of the game changers; like "Birth of a Nation" before it, and "Citizen Kane" after it, it influenced the ways movies were made. Even if you have never seen a piece of "Potemkin's" celluloid, you must be familiar with the famous "Odessa Staircase" sequence, often called the most famous scene in movies. This is the sequence where thousands of Russian peasants are run off the mighty steps at Odessa by Cossacks with guns. It's famous for its brutal images, but perhaps even more famous for its use of editing and montage, which found its way into the basic film language. But there's something I always found off putting about "Potemkin", I can understand its influence and importance, but I'm not sure if I've been profoundly moved by it.

"Battleship Potemkin" tells the story of the famed Russian battleship mutiny of 1905. It was there that the sailors of the ship took command from the officers after they were tired of being malnourished and mistreated.In the film, the mutiny causes an uproar with the peasants of Odessa who also rebel and stir a revolution within Russia. This revolution causes the attack on the Odessa staircase, but it ends with the Battleship gaining sympathy with the other ships as they join together in brotherhood.

The interesting thing about "Battleship Potemkin" is how it seems to document these historic events into a fictional, and propaganda context. The film doesn't follow a series of characters, it doesn't seem to be interested in getting invested with who they are, but rather what it is they are fighting for. By doing this, the film is saying, it's not the individual who's important, but rather the people as a whole. There's nothing wrong with saying that, "Potemkin" wouldn't be the first film to do that, but as someone watching the film I felt a disconnect with it.

"Battleship Potemkin" is a film with an agenda, a political agenda, and maybe it's because I'm not a political person, I didn't feel much sympathy with what they are saying. The opposing faction could just as well make a film which is an argument against what "Potemkin" is saying and so on and so on. That's the problem I find with propaganda films. The best propaganda films I would say come from Frank Capra who could be political but he adds human characters who could be likable and sentimental so it's easy to get on their side.

What "Potemkin" does very well is go along like a fine oiled machine, not unlike its own battleship. The director of the film was Sergei Eisenstein, who was the Godfather of Russian cinema. Eisenstein seems more obsessed with wowing us with this new found film technique of his. He brings about a new storytelling element with his use of montage which are quick cuts to get the audience more involved. The ultimate use of this montage is in the Odessa staircase sequence. It's here Eisenstein is able to get us involved with the human suffering by being able to concentrate multiple stories on the staircase at one time. The editing is swift and effective, Eisenstein is a master at building tension within the frame, the technique is almost invisible, it's only later if you break down the sequence of events do you understand why you become so invested with this scene; no doubt Hitchcock was strongly influenced by this technique.

But still I would argue the effect of this film is largely mechanical, mostly because, the Odessa sequence no withstanding, we are meant to stay away at a distance. Eisenstein seems like a cold director who doesn't let us in in any way. That could be the difference between him and Hitchcock. Despite his reputation as a cold director, Hitchcock did like his characters and he seemed to like his audience as well in order to let them in on the fun.

Perhaps part of the reason I feel this way towards "Battleship Potemkin" is because I'm fatigued by it. I've seen it about as many times as I suppose one should. I can't get anything else from it. I've also seen films by Renoir, Ozu, and Truffaut, who put more of a human touch on their films, and I tend to favour them.

I don't deny the power of "Battleship Potemkin" or its importance on film history, anyone who loves film should see it, there is a beauty to its mechanical way of telling a story. The Odessa scene alone should be studied by anyone who wishes put together a sequence. This was a time where film was still very young and taking its shape, and "Battleship Potemkin" took the kind of leaps this artform had to go in order to grow. I like revisiting films like these if only as a back to basics reminder; what other leaps and bounds are left to explore?