Russian director Sergei Eisenstein’s powerful retelling of the 1917 Russian Revolution, “October” is an acknowledged masterpiece in the use of editing, lighting, camera placement and mise-en-scene. An absolute must for any film connoisseurs collection.Officially produced to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the Russian Revolution, October quickly became another of Sergei Eisenstein’s experiments in film form. As in his masterpiece, Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein uses explosive montage to create the spirit of revolution–in this case, the events in St. Petersburg during the months leading up to the Bolshevik revolt. Eisenstein’s insistence on speaking the language of pure film (deploying space, shadow, movement, and rhythm to create his meaning) shoves his mad rush of images straight into the viewer’s eye. A worker’s rebellion in the streets, followed by the raising of bridges to isolate their neighborhood, becomes a visual symphony of panic. The film has also been known as Ten Days That Shook the World, its release title in the U.S. (borrowed from the book by John Reed). Its value as propaganda can be debated, but October is incredibly dynamic as film art. –Robert Horton
List Price: $ 24.99
Price: $ 11.42
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on Days
December 24, 2010
#1
Refined but difficult,
Rating and reviewing movies like these are often difficult for the average critic. On one hand, they’re done absolutely brilliantly done in ways that take one’s breath away; on the other hand, how much credit can you give to a movie that is pure propaganda, especially propaganda for something the reviewer doesn’t agree with?
This “realistic re-enactment” of the events of October 25th, 1917, is actually anything but realism. Instead, it is a harrowing and amazing Romantic experience. This is not to say it’s bad–it’s brilliant! The direction and editing on this film are much more refined than Eisenstein’s previous and much-more-heralded film, Brenonsets Potyemkin (Battleship Potemkin), and it has a whole lot more symbolism and focus on literary devices. His fast-paced cutting is not as disjunctive as previously; instead, it works to shock the viewer with the juxtapositions. I don’t think I shall ever get the quick back-and-forth cutting between that one soldier’s face and the firing machine gun ever out of my mind. It’s just that powerful.
This movie is so good, in fact, that it makes me proud to be a Bolshevik… and I’m not, not in any way or form! How’s that for being a powerful, well-done movie? The Birth of a Nation didn’t effectively make me proud to be a Klansman, for a comparison…
Because of its intense political alignment, I can’t see everyone appreciating this film. There will always be those out there who say, “Ah, it’s only Communist propaganda” (which is right) “so it’s not even worth watching…” (which is wrong). For those who are looking for a magnificent cinematic experience, however, this movie is a fine choice indeed.
–PolarisDiB
Was this review helpful to you?
|December 24, 2010
#2
Seminal Eisenstein,
This movie is not exactly designed for casual enjoyment. It’s no surprize that it was not very popular when it was first released. Eisenstein takes a fairly intricate, if not convoluted, episode in history and recreates it through a maddening pace of of montage intercut, while establishing no particular characters to build any story around. So the film must be appreciated almost solely for the technique of its brilliant director (along with an excellent Shostakovich soundtrack). Not a great date flick, this is an ideal DVD for students of film history to challenge themselves.
Was this review helpful to you?
|December 24, 2010
#3
Revolutionary in form and content,
October shows both the revolutionary nature of Eisenstein’s cinematic style, and the revolutionary nature of the story told. His further use and development of montage (after “Strike” and “Potemkin”) allow Eisenstein to discuss one of the most profound events of modern history, the Russian Revolution. Though the rise of Stalin obscured Eisenstein’s ability to accurately depict the revolution, the original version stands out as one of the more detailed and accurate accounts (One note: the actual insurrection, the storming of the Winter Palace, resulted in less bloodshed and death than did the filming). Eisenstein portrays the tsar and his bureaucracy as corrupt, inept and cynical; and portrays the provisional government as a bunch of opportunistic liars, bound to the forces of domestic and foreign capital. The force which was able to defeat the old rulers thus became the mass of workers and peasants, led by the Bolsheviks (note: daringly enough, Stalin is accurately left out of the leadership of the Revolution, with Lenin, Trotsky, and the Party as the leadership of the Revolution). A must see for those interested in social change and the labor movement, cinematic and artistic brilliance, or a combination of the two.
Was this review helpful to you?
|