Battleship Potemkin

[slimjim]

I'd never seen it before and I'm in my mid 30s. I'd read so much about it I knew I must see it some time, so when it was on BBC Four the other night, I got quite excited. But now I feel a bit flat. I didn't think it was the great thing that I had been led to believe. Yes, there was plenty of good stuff (the tension of the stand-off at the front of the ship mounted very nicely, the scenes of the crowds in Odessa steadily growing because of one body in a tent, and the Odessa Steps scene was unforgettable) but I just thought it was nothing special. I'm a bit right-wing, so maybe I didn't sympathise with the tone of it (it's a bit extreme to try and take over a whole country because of a few maggots in some meat! - joke btw). The tension in the ending was a bit rushed and the whole story was very simplistic. Should I be impressed that it dates from the 1920s and allow for this? Does anyone else agree that it isn't that special or have I missed something?

[jenky]

Not an unusual reaction to this film. It's often the same when people first see Citizen Kane. You've been told by those 'in the know' that these are the best ever films and it can be hard to see why. Ususally it is because of the techniques pioneered in the making of these films and the fact that they have gone on to become industry standard. Some of the camera panning shots, and subsequent editing in both those films was ground breaking at the time and now is commonplace. This is where the hypes stems from. You don't have to love the film - just appreciate that this is where 'it all began' as it were. hope that makes sense.

[flashpig]

It is one of those films which you have to say wow and speak all of that ***** guff about. It's not that great, but if you pick a few lines from a textbook and go on about it and how great it is it's meant to make you look really intelligent. It's like foreign films, you just have to drop it into a conversation and hope this fact will impress people, despite the fact that, Norweigian or not, it is just a film. But the fact that it is dead old is pretty cool, because it isn't as bad and primitive as you might imagine.

[Brugel]

I'm a bit right-wing too but I don't think that's got anything to do with it- you don't have to be a communist to sympathise with the plight of sailors given maggot-infested food. I think the real problem is the obvious one: it's a silent film and silent films just are different. As well as the obvious contrasts there is also the fact that they use editing differently; have different acting styles; and don't have any of the loud music and noisy special-effects you get in a typical hollywood blockbuster. It would be interesting to find out whether you've seen a lot of silent films- often immersing yourself in them makes a difference to how you view them. Personally, I think it's a great film and I'd also recommend "The Birth of a Nation" (very offensive); "Sunrise" and "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". But just don't watch them after you've been to see the latest Tom Cruise film.

[alisa]

This film has a place in my family history as it was the first date and first film that my father took my mother to see back in the late 1950s. She too was not impressed but my Dad was involved with a left-wing film society so he liked to see these films. Fortunately he made a much better impression on her than the film did!