1920s Russia
During the 1920s, the Soviet Union was undergoing great upheaval. Under Tsarist rule, it had been an autocratic and capitalist nation, but 1917 brought revolution by the Communist Bolsheviks. This sparked a prolonged period of Civil War between the Bolsheviks and those still loyal to the Tsarist regime, resulting in the destruction of trade, agriculture, industry and film production. The Communists eventually seized power and by 1922 the Soviet government was under Lenin.
Despite the Communists’ power, much of the population remained to be convinced of the benefits of a Communist state. The Bolsheviks recognised the potential of film as an agent of social change, or an instrument for the dissemination of ideas, and reorganised the Soviet film industry so that films could serve as propaganda. Cinema was an effective medium for this, as it was cheap, portable, graphic and more powerful than other methods of communication. It was also accessible by the mostly illiterate and uneducated peasants, who were exposed to and persuaded of the Communist ideology via films shown on agit-trains, which were sent into the countryside.
Battleship Potemkin
Battleship Potemkin (Sergei Eisenstein, 1925) is an example of Communist propaganda, although it was declared as being pitched far above the intellectual level of most peasants. Nevertheless, it represents Communist messages, being based on a mutiny by Russian sailors at Odessa in 1905, but manipulating this event to correspond with 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. This shows how far the government was willing to distort reality in order to promote its views; Eisenstein effectively rewrote history to fit in with a Communist ideology.
Soviet Montage
With it, Communist propaganda film brought a revolutionary and innovative cinematic style, known as Soviet Montage. The mise-en-scene frequently consisted of machinery and crowds of people, to indicate unity, the power of numbers and organised action towards a common cause. Soviet Montage can be considered as quite advanced compared to other film movements that were developing at the time in other parts of the world, such as German Expressionism, because of the wide variety of camera angles and distances used and its unique style of editing, which encouraged an active audience response and intellectual input from the viewer. Central themes tended to be the importance of action, and conflict as a means to an end, to support the propagandistic purposes of the productions.
'Odessa steps' sequence
The distinguishing features of Soviet Montage are perhaps best illustrated by the seminal ‘Odessa steps’ sequence in Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin. 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. This ‘intellectual montage’ occurs frequently in the ‘Odessa steps’ sequence, but in particular when three images of stone lions are inserted seemingly randomly into the scene: one dormant, followed by one roused, followed by one alert and active. This is highly symbolic, as it does not fit into the ‘world’ of the film that Eisenstein has already created, but elicits an intellectual response, almost acting as reaction shots of the audience and suggesting the potential strength and power that they could wield in the revolution. The contrast that these shots create also adds to the theme of conflict in the film, and these messages encourage viewers to consider themselves an active part of their community, or class, and a vital component in the revolution that will, according to the filmmakers, create a more beneficial society for everyone. The on-screen conflict very much reflects the existing conflict that Russian society was undergoing at the time of the film’s production.
As well as including objects that do not seem to belong in the space of the film, Eisenstein further plays with time and space by disrupting the temporal continuity. There are many instances in the climactic ‘Odessa steps’ sequence when plot duration and screen duration come into conflict; that is, when an event lasts longer or shorter on screen than it would in reality. For example, the section in which a mother is shot and falls on her child’s pram, sending it hurtling down the Odessa steps, is prolonged. However, this is not achieved through a more conventional method such as slow-motion, which may have further jeopardised the realism and believability of the film; Eisenstein creates the effect through editing: cutting between different parts of the action in order to extend the audience’s anticipation and increase the tension of the sequence. This adds to the film’s political agenda by allowing the audience to dwell on this particular event, forcing it to sympathise with the mother and baby and illustrating the brutality and mercilessness of the Tsar’s soldiers: a key argument favouring Communist rule.
Movement is also important in this sequence in conveying the government’s ideology. The soldiers are always seen moving swiftly and systematically down the screen, indicating their menace and power over the victims of the massacre. The civilians also flee in this direction, and the only opposite movement, of the small gathering of people who plan to “talk them out of it” and the woman who confronts the soldiers with her wounded son, seems feeble and slow in comparison, and is easily crushed by the soldiers’ momentum. This emphasises the film’s theme of strength in numbers, insisting that without uniformity and a mass of members of the same group or class, we are powerless.
This idea of class solidarity is further highlighted by the representation of the soldiers in comparison to that of the civilians in the ‘Odessa steps’ sequence. The soldiers are identical, uniformed, shooting down the civilians with almost machine-like regularity. We are never shown their faces, which increases the inhumanity they convey and the Tsar’s brutal authority, of which they are effectively an extension. In contrast, the crowd is composed of many people of different classes, ages, ethnic groups and even disabilities; they are brought together simply by revolutionary action. However, their difference is presented as their eventual weakness. They are easily scattered by the unity of the Tsar’s soldiers and the apparently impenetrable line which is never broken; the soldiers frequently step over bodies simply to stay in line. Once separated, the civilians are powerless, and are easily overwhelmed and massacred. Throughout this sequence, the audience is given the strong impression that victory is only achieved through similarity and organised action, a view which conforms to the Leninist ideology that the film is designed to portray.
Opening sequence
Furthermore, this ideology is obvious from the very beginning of the production. The film opens with a quote from Lenin, which immediately introduces us to the political messages that Battleship Potemkin represents. The quote declares the inevitability and acceptability of conflict and social upheaval, and suggests that it should be embraced, provided that it is revolutionary and in favour of the greater good. Although the messages of the film were allegedly too implicit for the majority of the 1920s’ audience, Eisenstein seems to be making no pretences over the purpose of his film; his promotion of Communism is immediately clear. Also significant in the film’s opening are the shots of waves crashing against the quayside. This introduces us to one of the main themes of the film by suggesting conflict literally, but also in the way that it juxtaposes with the machine aesthetic that dominates later in the film. The collision represented by nature in this sequence almost goes so far as to suggest that conflict is a natural state of being, and emphasises the inevitability and naturalness of revolutionary war that Lenin’s quote has previously argued.
The Men and the Maggots
The section, ‘The Men and the Maggots’, introduces us to the workers on the ship, who represent the working class. We first see them asleep beneath deck in hammocks, and the abundance of close-ups reveals their muscular and toned bodies. It is clear that these men are potentially very powerful, but that at the moment their force is not being used. They seem to represent the potential power of every member of the working class and every member of the audience, and would have illustrated to a 1920s’ Soviet audience just how much influence they could have if they took action. It is as though the men simply need something to spur them into activity, and this film will provide the stimulus for the audience’s action.
Another significant sequence in part one is that in which the ship’s doctor examines the workers’ meat. An obvious dislike towards authority and the ruling classes is presented. The fact that the doctor identifies the ‘maggots’ wrongly and insists that the meat is safe for eating suggests that he is unfit for his position of power or even a corrupt authority figure. The rotting meat almost acts as a metaphor for a rotten ruling class. The officers are also distinguished from the men by Eisenstein’s use of cinematography. While the men are always in shot as a crowd and convey uniformity and solidarity, the officers often appear on their own and are presented as almost freakish; they look so different to the sailors in costume and in facial features that they appear almost abnormal in comparison. This sequence again emphasises the power of a collective working class against a corrupt and heartless hierarchy and clearly outlines the ideals that the filmmakers were promoting with this production.
Therefore, Battleship Potemkin can be seen as a response to its production context and the uncertainty and change that the Soviet Union was experiencing in the 1920s in an unusual way. The film is certainly a response to the oppressive Tsarist rule of the early 1900s, explicitly condemning the Tsar and his followers in the messages and values it conveys. However, Battleship Potemkin can be seen more as an agent of change in 1920s Russia than a comment on the change that was occurring; it was designed to inspire action rather than respond to it. Therefore, I would argue that the film, whether successfully or not, is not so much a response to the uncertainty and change of the 1920s, but a means for effecting that change upon the population.
Sources:
David C. Gillespie (2000) Early Soviet Cinema: Innovation, Ideology and Propaganda. Wallflower Press.
Richard Taylor (2000) The Battleship Potemkin: The Film Companion I. B. Tauris.
Birgit Beumers (2009) A History of Russian Cinema Berg.
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