The Battleship Potemkin.

The Battleship Potemkin

The film Battleship Potemkin was completed in 1925, eight years after the Russian revolution. In 1923 Trotsky noted: “The fact that we have so far, not taken possession of cinema shows how slow and uneducated we are .. This weapon, which cries out to be used, is the best instrument of propaganda” (Taylor, 1998 p.35). The new era called for new films that would be able to compete with Hollywood imports and support the communist regime. The answer was montage film a method developed by Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov and others. As other forms of art (Mayakovsky - literature) the new films were “as innovative and experimental as the times” (Petric 1987 p.1). The films were inspired by Italian Futurism (Marinetti), Constructivism as well as the first great film directors.

Eisenstein intended to film a whole chronicle of the 1905 revolution, but in the end he picked one of the events. The event itself was not at the centre of the revolution, but was rather symbolic and heroic at the same time. The film served the regime and the revolutionary ideas. Eisenstein ‘adjusted’ some of the historical facts “for the purposes of propaganda and art” (Sinclair 1968, p.6) However, when we watch Potemkin we realise that Eisenstein was both a devoted communist with revolutionary ideas and a great admirer of classical drama and literature. The film has a similar structure to that of a classical tragedy (Mayer, 1972 p.5) the different acts conflict with each other.

Conflict, for Eisenstein, was a basic element of his montage technique. He combined pieces of film or shots in a way that they generate a new meaning, a new feeling. Shots do not make a film but conflicts between different shots or groups of shots do (Mitry, 1998 p.144). A conflict can be achieved by different means: a conflict within the shot, the length of the shots, light, graphic lines; a conflict between different shot sizes. Following Eisenstein principles, the main focus of this shot-by-shot analysis is the conflict itself. The analysis then enables us to put the short sequence in a wider context; we will be able to find broader social and artistic aims.

Drama on the Quarterdeck – The Execution

A few sailors are to be executed for complaints about rotten meat. The firing squad (the marines) is lined up in front of them. The captain showed his brutality by chasing some of the crewmen away from the escape route. He orders to bring in tarpaulin. The sailors are now covered in tarpaulin. The lined up guardsmen stand with the battleship cannons in their back. We have some signs of the marines being disoriented: one of them looking away, later on we see the whole group one of them is clearly agitated, while some of them look down. We also get a chance to see the other side of the battleship in a reverse shot. Two cannons are gazing straight into the camera. This is followed by an overview shot of Potemkin floating in calm sea. We also meet the priest, rather a caricature figure.

A Shot-by-Shot Analysis

The officer gives his order (close up). Before we saw him in almost identical shots. He stands set against the sea line, touching his moustache and smiling. It seems that carrying out the order gives him pleasure. Cut to.

The intertitle reads “At the tarpaulin – Fire!”. It is very symbolic: the poor crewmen now become tarpaulin; they ceased to be human. This is how the higher ranks perceived them all the time and that is how they demand the firing squad to see them. Just tarpaulin. As Swallow documents, Eisenstein treated intertitles ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

A Shot-by-Shot Analysis

The marines, shown in a low mid shot (their heads cut out by the frame) lift their rifles. They seem to be machines strictly obeying orders. The conflict here is within the frame - not showing someone’s face stirs up curiosity of the audience.

In the next shot taken from above the marines load their rifles. The distance of the camera and the characters is the same but the combination of the two different shots is quite significant. While in the first shot the low angle makes the marines look more solid and remote, in this shot we see their faces – they are not anonymous crowd anymore but people with responsibility.

The same action is shown in the following shot (mid shot) this time taken from a different angle: the soldiers raise their rifles. Eisenstein used one of his montage techniques: he repeats the same action to create more suspense. Eisenstein also deliberately crosses the line (180º degree rule): the action does not seem to have a natural flow and is therefore disturbing for the audience (a conflict).

The three shots above are very short. Their relation might simply emphasize the situation. The first two shots show incomplete action: Eisenstein claimed that the best shots for montage are incomplete (Mayer, 1972 p.13). The tension does not fade away until the action is complete in the third shot.

Vakulinchuk and sailors (in close up) bow their heads. That is an act of lost hope: there is nothing left to be done for their comrades. The conflict between this shot and the previous scene is in its length. The shot is slightly longer which gives more importance to Vakulinchuk. The conflict is also between the direction of the two actions: the marines raise their rifles - soldiers bow their heads.

We are then following other sailors in mid shot who retreat from the scene. The movement signifies that the characters do not have enough courage.

The mourning scene is then interrupted: we see the seamen under the tarpaulin in a mid shot. Two figures seem to fall down or they fall on their knees to pray for mercy. The railings behind them trap them; there is no escape.

More seamen mourn as we see them in a close up. The execution is symbolic, a few would die, but all will suffer.

We found the firing squad in the same position. The shot seems identical to the one described above. The marines have their rifles ready; the time stands still. Eisenstein “sensed that in a highly charged situation deliberately bringing unresolved action to a temporary halt increased the tension” (Mayer, 1972 p.8). The real time is in conflict with the cinematic one. For the witness of the original events, this must have been the longest moment in his life. Eisenstein lets his audience experience the same drama.

We move to three high rank officers shown in a close up. They seem to be indifferent to the destiny of the sailors. No doubt crosses their face they stand straight.

The shot that follows is that of the priest (close up). The priest starts moving the cross. The scenes with the priest are different from the whole sequence. He is usually shown in a low shot or in a close up with dramatic sky behind him. The space seems different as though the priest is not aboard the ship: the shots do not respect the screen direction as set up in the establishing shot (eight shots before the analysed sequence). This makes him seem remote from the destiny of the sailors. The character himself embodies a conflict; he is rather untidy, fanatic defender of his belief.

The camera then focuses on the cross (extreme close up). This is the only case in the analysed sequence that matches on action. However, this time the cross is in priest’s right hand. Probably just a mistake, but it could have connotations as fraud or swindle. Or it could be used to create conflict between the two shots – Eisenstein’s revolt against cinematic conventions. The cross might also stand for death or fate. The seamen cannot escape their fate. Their life was bound to be a misery and the fate claims its victims again: the class struggle is not possible.

In a close up shot, the officer seems to wink. He might be looking at the priest. Their eye lines seem to match. If it really is so (which is difficult to judge since the close up of the cross interrupts the continuity) the priest and the officer are unified, they stand on the same side.

We see the officer tapping his sword in extreme close up. The officer is aware of his weapon, of his strength. This time it is clear: the priest stands on the same side as the officer: his wooden cross; a weapon that killed many innocent people in the history is compared to the weapon of the officer.

The major conflict in the above scene is between the first group of shots (those of the mourning men and condemned sailors) and the second group (the officers, the priest with the cross and the officer in command). The first group are the positive characters: they all show compassion and unity. The others are negative characters unified by gestures, signs and colour. The shot in between, the marines, still have to decide which side they belong to. They stand in the middle, facing the condemned sailors and fulfilling orders while feeling the power of the “white” mass (the sailors) behind.

The framing of the next shot is identical to the first shot of the sequence analysed here: the officer gives another order. Eisenstein again does not respect the timeline. The crewmen ought to be dead by now, but the officer does not seem to be agitated.

The tarpaulin in a long shot shakes. One of the sailors falls down. This is a little game the director plays with our nerves. It seems like the soldiers have just been shot.

In the next mid shot the officers stand lined up. Again the shot framing cuts off their heads, which instigates a conflict within the shot.

This is followed by a mid shot of the marines; we see their bodies, not their heads. The frame composition is almost identical to the previous frame. Since both of the shots are very short it seems as if it were the officers who raise the rifles: the officers are blamed guilty for the execution. The shots are unified in framing but the characters clash.

The firing squad aims – this is a reverse shot of the previous shot. What we see is again crossing the line conflict. By doing so Eisenstein also manages to ‘double’ the numbers of the firing squad.

One of the men from the firing squad raises his head. He is clearly distracted. Shown in a close up, he becomes an individual; he has doubts and is reluctant to shoot. The soldier now represents the whole firing squad; Eisenstein uses him to show the feelings within the marine group. This shot is very different from the two preceding shots and from the following one. The conflict is in a shot size, angle and framing. All these differences give him extreme importance in that particular moment.

In the next shot all our hopes seem to be lost again. Shown from below the marines aim again.

The cross is shown again in extreme close up.

This is followed by a fast succession of three shots: the life preserver, the front of the ship and the trumpet. The shots stir up the imagination of the audience and create mores suspense. The life preserver gives certain hope. It’s a life saving device. The conflict between the shot of the cross and the life preserver is not only in length, but also in shape. The cross signifies death while the life saving device is a symbol of life. The ship can be an instrument of life or death. The trumpet is either waiting to announce the death of soldiers or to call for new order on the ship a new order in society.

Apart from two characters the crewmen are one power. In the communist ideology the power is in unity, individuals mean nothing. One of the characters serves Eisenstein to display the doubts of the marines. The other Vakulinchuk serves only as the ignition of the mutiny. Firstly he bows his head, but later looks up: a decision takes place. The longer shots also give him more importance, he is the man to follow and we already know that other sailors probably respect him: the shots are composed in a way that Vakulinchuk has always some other soldiers behind his back. They support him, without them he would never be able to stand out. The shots of Vakulinchuk and other soldiers are usually brighter. The negative characters are shown as individuals and embody many characteristics that the communist regime associated with their main enemy - the upper classes. As well as in Strike (the factory owner), some of the characters are fat (the priest, the captain), mean (the officer) and brutal (the captain). The negative characters in Battleship Potemkin often look straight into the camera, smiling or posing (the officer, the priest). They are putting on a show: a show of death, their joy not a duty. The positive characters are shown in more objective documentary-like shots. The acting is rather melodramatic, as I suggested in the introduction this is based in Eisenstein’s theatre relations and is quite typical for a silent film. Actors and non-actors act to emphasize conflicts they do not try to be realistic.

The battleship with all the characters symbolizes the whole society. There are two groups here: workers represented by the crewmen and upper classes – the officers. Atheism the basis of communist belief is also present: the priest does not represent God, but is a ridiculous reminder of superstition. The majestic ship is Russia, first controlled by the tsarist group aiming its own cannons at its own people, later on the Russian people prove to be able to sail it (a reference to the October Revolution in 1917).

Bibliography

Aumont, J.1987. Montage Eisenstein, London: BFI.

Mayer, D. 1972. Eisenstein’s Potemkin: A Shot-by-Shot Presentation, New York: Da Capo Press.

Mitry, J. 1998. The Aesthetics and Psychology of the Cinema, London: The Athlone Press.

Petric, V. 1987. Constructivism in Film, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, A. 1968. History In Eisenstein, The Battleship Potemkin quoted in Severson, G. Historical Narrative in The Battleship Potemkin (www.carleton.edu/curricular/MEDA/classes/media110/Severson/essay.htm)

Swallow, N. 1976. Eisenstein, Ipswich: Acolortone Ltd.

Taylor, R. 1998. Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, London: I. B. Tauris & Co.

Eisenstein admits the influence of the great director “particularly Intolerance, in his work and in the development of Soviet montage. It is not difficult to see the links between the rapid cutting and ..to the kinetic editing of Potemkin” (www.geocities.com)

The different principles of montage are too complex to be described in this analysis

The sequence only contains clear cuts, no dissolves or fadeaways. In the following shot-by-shot analysis I therefore omit the description of each cut itself.

In October Eisenstein uses intertitles as another element of montage.

He used the same technique in “Smashing the plate” scene in the first part of the film and in the Odessa steps sequence.

According to Aumont Eisenstein uses clerical figures as “a kind of portable cloak for ironically covering over those affects that are little too violent, or “implicating” (1987 p.4)

Mayer claims that this is a different officer, but I do believe that it is the same squad commander we saw before. Anyway the difference has very little to do with the narrative.

Eisenstein preferred to violate reality in order to reach a more intense truth, turning the image into a kind of symbol detached from its immediate context (Shklovsky in Mitri, 1998 p.146)