During the 1920s, Russia experienced a seminal and inspirational cinematic movement as a result of the social and political upheaval that the country was enduring at the time. In the Soviet Union, the need to persuade the population of the benefits of the developing Communist ideology resulted in propaganda films such as Strike (Eisenstein, 1924) and Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein, 1925). Films from the movement can certainly be considered expressive; they consistently reject the closed romantic realism of Hollywood and convey their messages through the film’s look and style rather than its content.
Soviet Montage cinema appears to reject a classical narrative model as it does not centre on the journey of one individual, or a protagonist. Instead, in both Strike and Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein uses ‘typage’. In Battleship Potemkin, the large group of sailors become almost one, main character; they are dressed in identical uniforms, are indistinguishable and all individuality is lost. The sailors represent the working class and convey the idea of class solidarity and unified action that the film was designed to promote. In Strike, which is in many ways a lot more satirical, these ‘types’ become almost caricatures. The bourgeoisie is portrayed by grotesque and obese middle-aged men who are obsessively materialistic, firmly, and in my view very effectively, illustrating Eisenstein’s and the Soviet government’s views on capitalism. Through this, then, 1920s Soviet cinema focuses on the power and potential of a group and their collective intentions.
The narrative structure of Soviet Montage tends to be linear and chronological, divided into parts, making it arguably less expressive. However, Eisenstein uses history in an unusual way to support the main theme of Battleship Potemkin, that conflict is vital for the greater good. He based the film on a real mutiny by Russian sailors in 1905, but manipulated the event to correspond with Communist ideals; the attempted revolution was, in fact, unsuccessful, and in reality the ship sank, but the film portrays it as a victorious and inspirational event, effectively re-writing history to fit in with the propagandistic purpose of the production. This can be seen as an expressive and very effective means of storytelling; the way that the film changes history emphasises the potential ability of a unified working class to achieve anything.
The Russian audience, in spite of the explicitly suggested barbarity of the Tsar’s autocratic power, are also encouraged to embrace a leader, but this time one of a different kind. The leaders in Strike and Battleship Potemkin are revolutionary ones, from the proletariat itself, and visually and ideologically indistinguishable from the rest of the group.
In terms of its aesthetics, Soviet Montage cinema is expressive since it relies heavily on symbolism to relay its messages. The visual symbolism in the films is ideological, as, for example, the ship in Battleship Potemkin almost acts as an analogy for society, with the sailors explicitly representing the proletariat, and the officers the bourgeoisie. Also, the shot in Strike in which one of the capitalists uses a lemon squeezer is an obvious metaphor for the upper classes exerting power over the working class. This technique lends the films a less naturalistic feel and, as a result, adds a degree of expression to them.
One of the most frequent uses of symbolism in Soviet Montage, possibly most obvious in Strike, is the machine aesthetic. The mise-en-scene is dominated by machinery throughout the film, and in particular by the wheel, and this is linked to the working class. The wheel conveys unity, strength, revolution and social change and the inextricable link suggested between man and machine emphasises the idea of a single group working for a common cause.
However, the defining technique of Soviet Montage is the editing style that it originated, in which the conflict that is such an important theme of the films is manifested in their style. Eisenstein believed that by juxtaposing conflicting images that did not seem to logically correspond to or follow on from each other, by editing them together, the audience would reach a higher stage of ‘truth’; the images would collide to create a new meaning. A perfect example of this is the closing sequence of Strike, during which a bull being slaughtered is inter-cut with the massacre of the workers. This technique encourages the audience to be active, as, because the shots of the bull do not fit in to the ‘world’ of the film that Eisenstein has already established, the audience has to work to make meaning out of the apparently unrelated images. This so-called ‘intellectual montage’ can be considered expressive as it was an entirely original technique at the time.
However, much of the montage used, especially in Battleship Potemkin, was a lot more subtle than this example, and for this reason the film was declared as being pitched above the intellectual level of most peasants, who were the target audience for the production. Therefore, this means of storytelling is arguably not particularly effective, as it meant that the film was relatively unsuccessful in its purpose.
Liz Cooper - A 22 year old media graduate from northern England, Liz now lives in London where she undertakes freelance television and writing work. A ...
Join the Conversation