Another year is coming to a close, and though it got off to a very rocky start, and such a bumpy middle, we can all agree it's ending in an unceremoniously shaky fashion. A return to normalcy was attempted, and it failed to take, but it was nice while it lasted, though the nagging sensation of gloom never completely dissipated. Pop culture is still a steamroller that won't let anything get in its way. Any threat of a slowdown in content has since been met with an aggressive new wave (not to be confused with nu wave) of seemingly endless new content to keep us distracted and, if not happy, at least placated. If you were into playing sports or outdoor recreation or big live events or travel, yeah, things are pretty different, but if you just liked retiring at home and chilling out with new books, comics, TV, movies, podcast, music...it's just like old times, if perhaps even more overwhelming.
After spending the past two months of rolling around in the deep fryer of the made-for-TV holiday romance genre, it's time to cleanse the palette, partake in some arts and culture, and build some brain muscle rather than fattening it up. It's time to travel through time, and around the world, partaking in some of the best cinema I've never seen. 10 movies, each a certified classic from some "best of" list or another, almost each from a different country, and one from each decade of the past 100 years of cinema.
10
Battleship Potemkin
1925, d. Sergei Eisenstein - Criterion Channel
The Story (in two paragraphs or less)
Circa 1905 as Marxism is rising in esteem, the sailors on the Battleship Potemkin are not happy with the quality of food. There's no such thing as refrigeration and the meat has gone rancid. The chef is forced to cook borscht but the men refuse to eat it. They are all called on deck by the Admiral, asked to self-identify who did and did not have issue with their meal, and the those that object are judges as insubordinate and threatened with hanging and being shot. But an appeal to the men with guns turns the tide and a mutiny ensues. Though victorious the leader of the mutiny is killed. His body put on display in Odessa with a note: FOR A SPOONFUL OF BORSCHT.
Thousands descend on Odessa in support of the men who rose up against their aggressors, bringing food and love. The rising anti-autocratic sentiment turns ugly as the Cossack host arrives and begins firing on the crowd of people. A child injured. In appealing to the Cossacks for help, the mother is slain. In retaliation, the crew of the Potemkin fire upon the opera house where the Cossack leaders are headquartered. A fleet of warships are on their way to support the Tsarist infantry, and the outsized, outmatched Potemkin heads out to face them only to find they too have become brothers in the revolution.
What did I think I was in for?
I honestly knew nothing about Battleship Potemkin prior to constructing my list to watch for this year's countdown. I didn't know it was made in the 1920s, or that it was black and white and silent. I didn't know it was Russian.
Frankly, I thought it was a 1960's war movie, maybe with a harrowing escapade about the sailors escaping it sinking or something. I didn't know it was basically a story of the first Russian Revolution, but, then again, I barely know anything about the Russian revolution
What did I get out of it?
A lot of questions about what, actually, was going on. Clearly the time period (shot in the mid-1920's but noted early on it's set in 1905) had definite significance, so I had to look it up, and then poked around the wiki-wormhole for a while digging into a bit of Russian history.
I was also curious about what the impact of the film was. Was this actually communist propaganda? A lot of the film seems very aggrandizing towards the usurpers and demonising of their Tsarist superiors. It was actually a commissioned film to commemorate the 1905 revolution, and I imagine was fairly celebrated.
I did find the scale of its production fairly impressive, there are scenes in Odessa with likely thousands of extras which was pretty awe inspiring. The scenes aboard the ship have hundreds of players, and it's evident that most of them are not trained actors. It's also clear, though, that Eisenstein had an eye for both scene composition and dramatic flair. There are some absolutely stellar shots in this.
The fabricated massacre at Odessa is easily the highlight, the film at its most epic, and clearly familiar as its been aped across TV and cinema for decades, most notably in DiPalma's The Untouchables borrowing rather liberally the deal with the baby carriage.
Do I think it's a classic?
There's obviously something to it that, without research, I know I won't get. Just from a cold viewing, I can tell it's influential, many aspects throughout I can see aped in subsequent pop cinema, but having not studied film per se, I can't say specifically what it is that makes it a classic. (Eisenstein is known for his theories of montage, and how editing influences the audience, so without knowing intimately how storytelling progressed before this, it's hard for me to say its specific impact).
The idea of revolution, of the subjugated masses standing up against those who think themselves superior is powerful, and surprisingly underutilized storytelling. The only real example of this that sticks in my head are Conquest of the Planet of the Apes but I know there are others (is Bravehart one? Never saw it.)
Did I like watching this?
It certainly swept me up after a certain point, though I find silent films generally struggle to hold my attention throughout. I liked it's five act structure, and the Edmund Meisel score does a lot of impressive heavy lifting. I took a 10 minute intermission around minute 50, and it felt like a long-ish slog that should be over already, but I was also committed to finishing it, with no thoughts of abandoning it. I definitely want to read more about the time period, the revolution and the pre-Communist historical events that led to modern Russia.
So, to answer the question, sort of.
Would I watch it again?
Unlikely.
You never saw Braveheart? You never saw Mel Gibson in blue face paint yelling about freedom !?!
ReplyDeleteSomething about seeing classic critically acclaimed movies out of content lends itself to "not getting it". Some can easily be absorbed, as cinematography or script or story line is so impactful, you can get where it got its rep. But others, like this, really need the context of film and history and historical impact to impart their message.
When doing my 31 Days of Halloween thing, I finally got around to seeing the "on every best of list" entry Berberian Sound Studio. I didn't get it; at all. I asked my horror movie / cinema buff friend why he liked it, and it was all about context. About the history of Italian horror, and the place sound had in them. Without the context, I was ... less enthralled.
Bravehart never seemed like something I would enjoy, and as time has gone on and I see who the general lovers of that movie are it's even less appealing.
DeleteI agree completely about classics and context. As I'm halfway though my journey through the best-of-the-best in the past 10 decades of cinema, I find myself getting the appeal of some films, which feel so of their time but still so unique, but others I find "of their time" in a way that seems retrograde and hard to parse the continued appeal in a modern selse.