What I found most interesting about Battleship Potemkin was the massive leap in cinematography. I could not have (nor am I sure that anyone could have) anticipated the difference montage made in cinema. After watching Bauer's films, with the long drawn out scenes in stationary sets, and camera unmoving, the switch to Eisenstein's Battleship is like night and day. The ability to splice smaller shots into bigger sequences must have left the film community where montage had been all its life. This not so surprisingly in turn enhances other aspects of the film. The film becomes easier to watch when better cinematographic techniques are employed (keeping in mind that montage is only one of these), and because it is easier to watch it is more entertaining, and because it is more entertaining it is easier to convey a message, which, especially in the case of Battleship Potemkin, makes propaganda (if included) more effective. When we are not forced to follow the same scene for an extended period of time, we are able to get a fuller more multifaceted impression of the film. Shots of the ship moving in relation to the water, multiple camera angles, and especially shots of character's faces (particularly important in a silent film where facial expressions can take the place of words) increase the illusion of reality which allows the viewer to enter the world of the film instead of looking at it through a lens. This is not to say that we are seeing a complete world, we still in fact only seeing what the director wants us to see, primarily because they were created for that express purpose, which is probably what ultimately separates film from reality. But then again it is the directorial choices that create an effective propagandistic tool, and when the viewer is entertained it is easier to make that impression, as the Soviets learned the hard way when their initial propaganda films were unpopular.
Overall, Battleship Potemkin is a film that we can buy into, or more to the point perceive as a suitable mock up of reality. This allows a smoother transition between the aforementioned factors of film, with each one enhancing the others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice reflections on the film here. Particularly interesting is the direct connection you draw between the *artistic* value of a film to its *propagandistic* aspect to its *entertainment* potential. You seem to be suggesting here that these elements can cooperate with each other in an almost sequential manner (with one leading to another).
ReplyDeleteA lot of people will disagree with this connection, however. And when you stop to think about it--I think you can easily envision films were fine artistic qualities in a film can complicate it to the extent that its useless (or simply) inappropriate for propaganda. Likewise, a film's propagandistic message might be so heavy-handed that it falls flat as potential entertainment.
So I'm wondering. Do you think Battleship Potemkin might be unique (or at least unusual) in this regard. Or do you think the what you're suggesting here can apply to all films on a more general level?
I think to strain this thought process to the extreme of including all films, is of course saying a little too much, and I agree that there are films which push too far in one of these directions, but I do believe that some aspects of film (these in particular) are inescapable and are ubiquitous in film. It then just becomes a question of how distorted they become in favor of the others.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the leap in cinematography in this film was astounding! It was a relief to watch a film with more action and varied story lines to follow.
ReplyDelete