Libyans dream of being this rebellious

Rating: 5/10 (1 July 2011)

1925 was 86 years ago. That was when Sergei Eisenstein's 'Battleship Potemkin' was first released. Hailed then as an exemplary piece of propaganda the film continues, in the minds of many cineastes, to stand the test of time.
As the opening credits rolled, I had this sort of giddy feeling, a feeling that I was experiencing history. This feeling soon faded. Most of the audience were people closer in origin to 1925 than me. That's not to say you have to be 'old' to watch and enjoy 'Battleship', but it's no coincidence that most of those lovely folk were in fact 'old'.
People will debate on IMDb and elsewhere about how relevant the themes remain and how it endures as a seminal piece of film-making (it clearly inspired Brian De Palma's train station sequence in his 'The Untouchables'), but the ultimate question when judging any film is 'Is it enjoyable?' My answer is: It isn't.
The episode – four, I think it was – called 'The Odessa Steps' was the only sequence I, if not enjoyed, then certainly didn't roll my eyes at. It's the scene where a vast army of Odessans rise up against the tyranny under which a sailor is killed, and are then routinely massacred by Tsarist troops. It comes on suddenly and is relentlessly violent. It's a familiar boast from directors nowadays, but it boggles the mind to think how Eisenstein controlled such frenzied scenes.
Look closely at the praise and you'll see that critics only really praise this episode. Why? Is the rest of the film not as impressive to them? Can a film really be considered among the greatest based on any one scene? Of course not.
If until then I had enjoyed the film, I would have felt cheated by the ending. Without spoiling it, there is a fairly effective crescendo of tension before a highly anticlimactic climax. I thought afterward that, were this story one of fiction, ending on the steps could have been a much more powerful ending. Allowing the oppressors the victory would have been the stronger condemnation of tyranny instead of the convenient real-life one Eisenstein understandably went with, given the era he made it in.
Even Roger Ebert, whom many consider to be the greatest of all living critics, demonstrated not a fine balancing of opinions, but a contradiction. After praising 'Battleship' to the hilt, he ended his review by saying, 'The fact is, Potemkin doesn't really stand alone, but depends for its power upon the social situation in which it is shown... it suffers when it is seen apart from its context (just as 'The Graduate', by striking the perfect note for 1967, strikes a dated note now). It needs the right audience.'
Unless you have an assignment to write on this film, don't feel compelled to see it. I can't recommend it because on this occasion I can't even say I was at least glad to have had the experience.
www.scottishreview.net