First thing that surprised me about this movie was that I had an easier time understanding and putting pieces together in the silent movies we've watched. I had a difficult time understanding the fights, motive, reason, and conclusion.
First of all, Chapaev probably appealed to the masses due to its portrayal of ideal Soviet life. It gave people a hope that that's what life was leading up to, no matter what the circumstances were presently.
A main similarity that I noticed between Chapaev and Battleship Potemkin is the portrayal of the pro-tsarist soldiers. In both movies, these soldiers are rigid, upright, and seemingly unwavering [except during retreat].
Simultaneously, the communist soldiers were portrayed as more natural, with more movement and 'fluidity'. They are easier to relate to as human beings.
Given all of the complex dialogue, arguments, and battle plans, without sound the movie would be hard to follow. I found it slightly depressing that Petka, my opinion of the main hero, died in the end. He was hero because of his courage to save his love, but risk losing her and his life for Ivanovich's life. Although I realize that not all movies have to have a "happily ever after," I still felt as if his death at the bitter end was unnecessary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think the historical outcome of Chapaev's story necessitated the tragic ending. I agree that Petka was a great character, and probably because he was designed to be since he represented the younger generation, that is the audience. I admire how he showed mercy to the White soldier who eventually defects.
I didn't think the movie was too hard to follow, but I agree that since the movie was heavy on the dialogue it would've been incomprehensible without sound...though maybe a lot shorter.
Post a Comment