The Battleship Potemkin - Essay Example

How does the film take on authority? How does film create an illusion about real events? Consider the montage theory of filmmaking and discuss issues that result from cinematic re-creations. Apply these questions to the film Battleship Potemkin. How might these questions apply to documentary filmmaking today? In films by Ken Burns? Michael Moore? Morgan Spurlock? Why is it important to view even documentary films with a critical eye?

Mosfilm’s “The Battleship Potemkin” is primarily an early 20th-centuryth century film that is critically acclaimed for having exhibited one of Russia’s turning points during the Tsarist regime of 1905. Director Sergei Eisenstein thought beyond the typical box of intending to bring across mere entertainment and art that registers to mind with common fashion. It occurs as if a rare mutiny of a crew against their officers demonstrates a challenge to shift the normal course of a national timeline from an object of faint dark memory to one of haunting suspicion. In paying tribute, thus, to the party or side of the event that he thought deserved justice, Eisenstein came up with a project of revolution rather than “The Battleship Potemkin” in the usual outfit of a remarkable silent film.

More than focusing on the aspect of commemoration and chronology, Eisenstein may be recognized to have employed an editing technique that could generate a subject of moving power. Accordingly, the director renders “The Battleship Potemkin” to take on authority by engaging his audience into a stream of perception that could not seem to help impact feelings and ideology in the viewing process. Despite the total absence of voice from each character involved, the film manages to convey its potential through the musical score or the choice of orchestrated sound effects which suitably fit individual acts from a wide range of tempo and intensity. Instrumental rhythms used vividly reflect the thematic message of socio-political struggle with acute notes where appropriate, scene after another. Besides music, Eisenstein made it a point to work with flashes of sharp images that readily stick to memory along with interval words or phrases that are rich with direct expressions of human nature. As such, lines like “We’ve had enough rotten meat” with a tone of utter indignation when men of the ship protest for decent food free of worms and “The men refused to eat the soup” being “seethed with rage” altogether form a picture of the crew’s reasonable cause behind the insurrection.

Moreover, “The Battleship Potemkin” becomes capable of establishing some degree of illusion to the actual events by adopting a technique whereby certain real-life details are either omitted or elaborately sensationalized so as to create illusory figures that possess a high tendency to replace any formerly imagined cases of truth. This is particularly evident in the manner Eisenstein necessitates incorporating the “Odessa Steps” sequence illustrating the massacre of civilians along the Potemkin stairs or Primorsky which did not, in reality, take place. At this stage, Eisenstein puts in the application the ‘montage’ theory to reconstruct a perspective of the original occurrence mind by showing imagery that is juxtaposed or edited in rapid progression, magnifying visceral influence among the viewers. Image capture at an abrupt pace seems to accumulate into compressed narrative information sufficiently compact and poignant to enkindle mixed sentiments of rebellious anguish and sympathy, especially after the occasions of watching the baby carriage running away as well as the sight of the three cherubs at different angles presumably in punching mode. Eventually, such cinematic recreation bears the capacity of exaggerating the idea of oppression, in this case, to the extent that the viewing public can be stirred to yield to strong emotional and perhaps, philosophical change of insight.

The apparent objective of the montage concept is conducive to biased moviemakers and must be taken advantage of with serious caution by documentarians who endeavor to keep a neutral position in presenting historical records of crucial veracity. Documentary films by Ken Burns, however, utilize nearly similar effects that are valid in the sense that every piece of information delivered is available in actual reality. Burns has been able to encourage criticisms of his creations by the strategy of embedding still photos in movies for which he could opt to accompany slow zooming and panning approach to frames that fade in the course of transition. Illusions executed around real occurrences marked by history manifest as well in Michael Moore’s documentary efforts with “Fahrenheit 9/11”, “Bowling for Columbine”, and “Sicko” all of which were top-grossing projects, having drawn a large population of viewers to the heart of sensibilities. Likewise, the docudramas “Super Size Me” and “30 Days” by Morgan Spurlock earned recognition for Spurlock’s unique style which enabled both works to obtain control of shaping audience perceptions.

Documentary films should require a critical eye for one to be able to distinguish properly between the application of manipulative concepts and adherence to the principle of factual presentation. Where there emerges manipulation of effects to make true appear as false or for negative to come out as positive and vice versa, then the documentarian is at high risk with professionalism in living up to the aim of fair and impartial journalism. Critiquing such film type would address the issue of fabricating evidence and other corrupt practices in the media that need to cease for the welfare of the nation in general.