The first thing I noticed in Battleship Potemkin that was different from the three silent films we watched yesterday is that there were a lot more intertitles. I think this is because this movie is longer and goes into more detail than the other three, so the audience is given more dialogue. Also, because Eisenstein uses montage, the audience is able to get a better idea of what is going on from many different angles, instead of watching a long scene where the camera angle never changes.
The music in Battleship Potemkin was also much better than the music in the three silent films from yesterday. It seemed to follow the drama in the story more than the music in the other films did.
Another thing I noticed about this film is that there is a huge focus on the message Eisenstein is trying to convey. There does not seem to be any personal drama, and we do not get to know any of the characters very well. Instead, they are mostly seen as large crowds, like the men on the ship, or the citizens on the Odessa steps. Because Eisenstein does not allow us to get to know any of the characters individually, we are forced to focus on the message of the film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"Because Eisenstein does not allow us to get to know any of the characters individually, we are forced to focus on the message of the film."
Or perhaps this suggests that the mass itself is becoming a character. Can you see why such a phenomenon could be important for a Communist film--esp. in a state that promoted the collective at the expense of the individual.
Post a Comment