User Reviews

This film is highly reminiscent of Eisenstein's later work, POTEMKIN, in that it looks like like a typical historical film but more like a re-creation of the events--much like a documentary. However, like POTEMKIN, it too is a very politically driven propaganda film. While most of the moments on film are pretty realistic, Eisenstein and Alexandropov also intersperse little scenes that portray the Communists as noble peasants and the Kerensky government as patently evil. While depicting the Czarist regime that preceded the Kerensky government as evil is pretty accurate, the story of Kerensky isn't quite that cut and dry. While he did create his own downfall due to the foolish decision to continue the war against Germany after the May Revolution (the non-Communist revolution of 1917 that sought reforms and forced the czar to abdicate), Kerensky and his men weren't quite the evil pigs they were depicted as in the film. But, of course, considering the October Communist Revolution was still recent history when the film was made, this sort of hyperbole is rather understandable. Plus, given the control exercised over the Soviet film industry, it is doubtful that Kerensky and his cronies could have been depicted any other way.

Particular standouts in the film are the interesting and very imaginative camera-work as well as the brisk pace and realism of the film. About the only negatives (other than the way they depicted the Kerensky government) were the excessive use of some footage to make a simple point--such as showing men scrambling out of a doorway again and again and again to let the audience know people are pouring into a room or returning to the same shot repeatedly. At the time, this was pretty forgivable and normal, but today it appears, at times, like it could have used a bit tighter editing.

In documentary style, it depicts the historical deeds in St Petersburg , Petrograd are re-enacted from the end of the monarchy in February of 1917 to the end of the provisional government and the decrees of peace and of land in November of that year. Lenin returns to St. Petersburg from exile in April . Huge crowds meet him at the Finland railway station, and he delivers a firing speech . In July, counter-revolutionaries put down a spontaneous revolt, and Lenin's arrest is ordered by President Alexander Kerenski and the military commander-in-chief Kornilov . By late October, the Bolsheviks are ready to strike . As Bolsheviks and other small parties - as the sailors of Krondstat- that participated in the overthrow and take the Winter Palace .While the Mensheviks vacillate, an advance guard infiltrates the palace . Anatov leads the attack and signs the proclamation dissolving the provisional government : All power to Soviets .

The film describes the increasingly chaotic days until the victory of the Bolsheviks over the Mensheviks : ten days will shake the world . Extensive use is made of montage that expresses ideas by editing in frames of things from outside the setting or unrelated to the narrative . As directors Sergei Eisentein and Grigori Aleksandrov use a technique named "intellectual montage", or attraction edition , as the editing together of images of apparently unconnected objects in order to create and encourage intellectual comparisons between them . The frames often contrast faces with still objects . The visual setting is overwhelming : enjoyable sculptures , wide exterior views which encompass roads, canals, masses of people and armies, extended interior views, beautiful decorative objects and art works like Rodin's sculptures . Special mention for the the brethtaking shots of the drawbridge and with a dead horse hanging . It is well re-enacted with impressive human masses, a cast of thousands , an innovative edition , including a great number of close-ups and spectacular backgrounds . At the end takes place a crushing final strike as small warship -Cruise Aurora- enters the city river and posts itself close to the Winter Palace .



This documentary was well based on historical events : commonly referred to as Red October, the October Uprising, the Bolshevik Revolution, or the Bolshevik Coup, was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolsheviks and Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917. It took place with an armed insurrection in Petrograd on 7 November (25 October, O.S.) 1917. It followed and capitalized on the February Revolution of the same year, which overthrew the Tsarist autocracy and resulted in a provisional government after a transfer of power proclaimed by Grand Duke Michael, brother of Tsar Nicolas II, who declined to take power after the Tsar stepped down. During this time, urban workers began to organize into councils (soviets) wherein revolutionaries criticized the provisional government and its actions. After the Congress of Soviets, now the governing body, had its second session, it elected members of the Bolsheviks and other leftist groups such as the Left Socialist Revolutionaries to important positions within the new state of affairs. This immediately initiated the establishment of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, the world's first self-proclaimed socialist state. On 17 July 1918, the Tsar and his family were executed. The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks, who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military Revolutionary Committee began the occupation of government buildings on 7 November 1917. The following day, the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia) was captured. The long-awaited Constituent Assembly elections were held on 12 November 1917. In contrast to their majority in the Soviets, the Bolsheviks only won 175 seats in the 715-seat legislative body, coming in second behind the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which won 370 seats, although the SR Party no longer existed as a whole party by that time, as the Left SRs had gone into coalition with the Bolsheviks from October 1917 to March 1918. The Constituent Assembly was to first meet on 28 November 1917, but its convocation was delayed until 5 January 1918 by the Bolsheviks. On its first and only day in session, the Constituent Assembly came into conflict with the Soviets, and it rejected Soviet decrees on peace and land, resulting in the Constituent Assembly being dissolved the next day by order of the Congress of Soviets. As the revolution was not universally recognized, there followed the struggles of the Russian Civil War (1917-22) and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922

This story of the October Revolution in 1917 Russia really moves along. It's never boring. The images are innovative enough to be startling at times.

Here we are introduced to Kerenskiy, head of the provisional government that took over after the, er, downfall of Tsar Nicholas. Actually, I gather that, as in most cases of revolution, everything was confused and there were actually a series of mutinies, protests, violent demonstrations, and all the rest of that sad lot until the Bolsheviks finally won and established a communist state.

What a visual pageant! We first see Kerenskiy, who is one of the villains of the piece, in close up, his face lowered, wearing the sinister grin of an alligator. Then, BANG, and he and his cronies are intercut with shots of a bronze peacock, jerkily lifting its head, looking around, and spreading the feathers of his magnificent tail. We get the picture, so to speak. If we don't -- not to worry. Eisenstein a bit later gives us a shot of Kerenskiy standing with his arms folded, a frown on his features. Then a cut to a statue of Napoleon in exactly the same pose.

Do we have any doubt about a particular general? The doubt is resolved when we witness an ornate statue of the former emperor, once torn apart, now being reassembled by running the film backward so that, piece by piece, the hated Tsar turns whole again.

At about the half-way mark a fuse blew in my brain and I was overcome by bafflement. I lost track of who was who because I don't know enough about the Russian revolutions. Figures blended into one another. Red Russians and White Russian morphed into Pink Russians. "TURNCOATS!" screams the title card. Turncoats against whom or against what? Here comes General Kirinov on his white steed. Should I applaud or boo? I know I'm supposed to be doing one thing or the other because, besides being a treat for the eyes -- man, is this propaganda. I suppose it ends with the victory of the Bolsheviks and the establishment of a communist state based on the theories of Karl Marx, who never visited Russia himself. I wonder if the audience of 1928 would have cheered as loudly if they could have foreseen the years under Stalin, who may have been responsible for more Russian deaths, pointless deaths, than Hitler?

I think that Sergei Eisenstein, who has (rightfully) been credited as one of the grandfathers of modern cinema, is sometimes forgotten as someone who can really direct great epic scenes along with making them expertly edited. The filmmaker here knows he's pushing along an ideology, one that is not only encouraged but all but required of him to give to the public. But he also knows that to put out the message there needs to be some conviction, surprise, something to catch eyes as the information's already known. Perhaps even to a greater extent than Battleship Potemkin, October: Ten Days That Shook the World puts on display a director with total confidence not only in his flourishing, insistent style, but in that of his mostly non-professional actors, crowds, real-locations, sets, and his crew. It's one of the most assured pieces of silent film-making I've ever seen, and it's taken a few viewings to take in everything in one sitting (I ended up watching half an hour, and then sitting back trying to remember everything I just saw, or thought I saw).

Some uses of montage in the film- make that most if not all- rival those of even the better editors working in commercials and music videos today. Like those editors, they're working with images meant to be dynamic and to the point. Here it's the story of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia, where Lenin took control of the reigns of the provisional government with left the country at a stand-still in poverty. Or, at least, that's how the film would definitely lead things onto. Watching a film like this and seeing 100% accuracy is irrelevant. But watching it to get a sense of what cinema is supposed to- and can do- with tricky subject matter, is completely worthwhile. Some of these scenes are just pure masterpieces of crowd control; when the people mass together in the town square, for example, one might immediately think of the Odessa stairs from Potemkin. Here, however, there's more than one chance for such operatic takes on harsh realities. The beginning- where they tear down the statue- is striking enough. But just watch when the crowd has to disperse and runs around early on in the film, or especially the storming of the Winter Palace. Could you do the same material with computers today? More than likely, but not with the same conviction and 'this-was-really-happening' feel that a camera (recreating) on the scene could get. And, sometimes, as when the monument/statue gets 'put back together', it's almost amusing but still convincing of what the medium can do.

And soon enough Eisenstein reaches his climax, the immense lot of 10 days that brought the country to a peak of change and possible prosperity for its people. It's like October for the Russian people of the time is like a thousand or so snapshots of that time and place in the world. The one point that Eisenstein poses for his viewers- not just for his of-the-period silent film crowd but for those watching today- is that he is not making it boring for those who can give themselves to the images, the moments taken with some shots more than others. Anyone getting into editing, I think, should see at least some of Eisenstein's films to get an idea of where the smoke of post-modern film-making generated. October is probably one of his prime examples; if you want to watch it for purely historical or political contexts it may be hit or miss depending on point of view, but it is hard to see as a misfire in telling a story using spectacular and imaginative compositions with the frame, lighting, and with specific, profound musical accompaniment by Edmund Meisel.

American John Reed, who never met a Bolshevik he didn't admire and trust, wrote a still spellbinding first-hand account, "Ten Days That Shook the World," of the November (October in the Old Style calendar) revolution that ended Russia's Provisional Government. Directors Sergei Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov dipped into Reed's almost breathless panegyric to the quixotic and jumbled events that led to the capture of the fabled Winter Palace for the epic, "Oktyabr" (shown here as "October").

Whatever Aleksandrov's contribution, this is emphatically and unmistakably Eisenstein's film and it's a masterpiece. Tracing the increasingly chaotic days from the overthrow of the Romanovs until the victory of the Bolsheviks and their foolishly trusting partners, Eisenstein's 1927 movie freezes the mood and emotions of one of the most turbulent episodes in Russian, indeed in world, history.

A signature technique of Eisenstein is the fast pan from enormous, fluid and raging crowd action (here occasionally taken from news film but more often staged with a cast of thousands) to a closeup of faces that reflect deep emotion. As in "Battleship Potemkin," dealing with an earlier phase of the unraveling of tsarist Russia, Eisenstein's heroes are the proletariat, poor but possessed of a fierce and empowering nobility. The bourgeoisie are inflated, food and drink-sated fools, their supercilious natures reflected by expressions bordering on the imbecilic.

With Eisenstein's films, viewers tend to remember several scenes that most exported his vision. Here a dead horse and a long-haired young woman, killed as she joined in a workers' protest, undergo a slow passage from the deck of an opening bridge into a river. It's harrowing, unforgettable.

Lenin is, of course, a hero. The hero. Trotsky, on his way to banishment and eventual assassination, is shown as a weak would-be compromiser, actually a mild obstacle to the march of the Soviets to power. I bet he didn't like this movie.

Contrasting peoples' moods with still shots of objects was always an Eisenstein trait. The workers are juxtaposed with weapons, streets, bridges. The feckless Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government, is pictured against statuettes of Napoleon. Depicted as a coward he abandons his cabinet in a car bedecked with a small American flag. The flag is shown several times. I wonder why. And the poor tsar and tsarina, soon to be brutally murdered with their children and servants at Ekaterinburg, have their framed photos alternated with those of their imperial commode.

Dmitri Shostakovich, not simply the greatest Russian composer of the last century but also one of the world's finest, was ideologically and creatively in tune, no pun intended, with Eisenstein and officialdom's retrospective paean to the Bolshevik overthrow. In 1927 he was years away from being Russia's most endangered composer because of the whims of the madman, Stalin (who isn't in this film). His score is hardly his best work, not even his finest film music. It is an effective accompaniment to the action.

Originally a silent film, the added-on soundtrack has virtually no speech but the sounds of marching, running, trains, guns and other objects enliven the picture, now faithfully and well-restored.

"Oktyabr" is, of course, a political polemic and the history portrayed is what the party ordained as truth. Eisenstein was a brilliant innovator but he was no counter-revolutionary deviationist and wrecker. He adhered to the party line and so does the movie.

The restored print is making the rounds of film societies and art theaters and should, if possible, be viewed on a large screen. But even on a TV set "Oktyabr" will reach out and grip the viewer.

10/10. A milestone in film-making.

Few films have this much bitterness, and few filmmakers have the correct balance of passion and creative talent that Eisenstein had. That is what makes this film such an important achievement in the history of cinema.

Here, it is the notion of time and space that is at the forefront of the director's concerns, utilising what artist Derek Jarman once dubbed 'a way of viewing the past by way of the present' in order to recreate the 1917 revolution; complete with thousands of extras and a never before seen approach to scene layering and editorial juxtaposition. Eisenstein himself had set the bar for this kind of thing with the much-imitated Battleship Potemkin (1925), though the experimentation here is much more revolutionary, what with the combined number of cuts, the constant switch between camera angles and location, and also in the repetition of montage.

This was all new when first released, and it still seems fresh today. Others have mentioned the debt that filmmakers like Jean Luc Godard, Nicolas Roeg and Steven Soderbegh owe to this kind of editing. Godard, Resnais, Roeg and Cammell all attempted to elaborate on the cinematic notions of this film, though you could perhaps argue that they failed to attach their creativity to a story with this much emotional resonance. Who cares if the underlining political and historical accuracy are true to the time? If we are willing to forgive Eisenstein for breaking narrative continuity then why do so many viewers refuse to disengage from cinematic distortions of reality?

This is a notion made all the more impressive due to the documentary-like nature of the film, and the raw aggression that the filmmaker gets from his extras. Here it is the contrast between what we view as real and what we know to be a façade that really tugs at the heartstrings. Surely the massacre and the image of the slaughtered horse dangling lifelessly from the toll bridge is one of the saddest scenes in the history of film; again, because of the film's roots in reality and the passion of the filmmakers.

October isn't just a film; it's a continuation in the growth of film as an artistic medium. It's also a wonderful, though often shattering story that should be seen by all; definitely a film that works on an emotional level, as opposed to the psychological.

I have always been interested in Eisenstein but this is the first film of his which i have seen. The way he uses the camera is magnificent as well as the commandeering of so many extras. How did he do it??

The use of extras is very important however as it portrays the scale of the bolschevik revolution and the different factions of people involved within it.

The added emotional guidance of music increases the involvement and response to the film, although i must admit to losing my way occasionally due to the rapid shifts between different peoples within the revolution.

Overall, well worth the watch and surely very influential in its camera technique and scale.

This, Eisenstein's third film, represents the peak in development of his montage technique. It is arguably the "biggest" film he had made to date in the sense that it was made with the largest number of extras and highest budget he had yet handled. Also, it steps further into the characterlessness of his previous silent films, being in many ways closer to a documentary than a historical feature.

The montage in October is taken to new heights. In an early scene in which a machine gun regiment opens fire on a demonstration, incredibly rapid editing back-and-forth between a shot of a gun barrel and the mean look on the gunner's face suggests both the action and the sound of the gun. Another aspect of the montage which Eisenstein makes extensive use of in October is expressing ideas by editing in shots of objects from outside the setting or at least unrelated to the narrative. For example, images of the Tsar's clockwork toys are spliced into a scene in which the highly unpopular provisional government ministers meet together. In another scene a series of increasingly primitive looking religious statues from all over the world are paraded to ridicule the church. While often ingenious, this crosscutting can sometimes be a little heavy handed and obvious. For example, do we really need to flit back and forth so many times between a shot of Kerensky and a statue of Napoleon to understand what is being implied? As well as the allegories conveyed through montage, there are also a few metaphors in shot composition or basic action. When the red guards are ransacking they have a laugh amongst themselves when pulling a decorative cushion off an ornate chair reveals a commode. There are also plenty of Eisenstein's trademark funny faces – particularly ugly or bizarre looking actors are cast as people Eisenstein wanted to appear ridiculous, such as the Mensheviks and provisional government ministers.

Eisenstein's direction of crowds is, as ever, flawless. So much so in October that parts of it have been mistaken for actual historical footage of the revolution. A very convincing look-alike of Lenin also pops up from time to time, although I have to say the guy who plays Trotsky looks more like a young Rolf Harris. The events portrayed do seem to be largely historically accurate, albeit from a skewed angle. The Bolsheviks are hero worshipped out of proportion to their actual importance at the time, and Eisenstein constantly promotes the Leninist notion that the masses cannot progress without the guidance of the party. Still, this was the philosophy of the dictatorship in which Eisenstein was operating.

October may be the most technically proficient and finely crafted of all Eisenstein's films. However, it lacks the humanity of Strike and Battleship Potemkin. It's an incredible film, just highly impersonal, which can make for difficult viewing. One final note – the only version available on DVD here in the UK is from Eureka, which as well as having no extras has some terribly translated intertitles, although I understand there are very nice editions of all Eisenstein's films available on Region 1 from Criterion.

Not quite the masterpiece of Bronenosets Potyomkin, but nevertheless a fascinating look into the past. Several magic moments, very strong beginning for example, but unfortunately somewhat lack of structure and excitement towards the end. Shocking but flawed. Shostakovich's excellent music (Symphony 11 and 12 "The Year 1917") contributed strongly to the viewing experience.

3/4

I first saw this film in the late 80s at the NFT (UK National Film Theatre) with a piano accompaniment. The print was scratchy and the inter-titles longer than several of the scenes. I was expecting it to be interesting as an example of Eisenstein's use of montage and cross-cutting (and indeed the audience seemed to be composed mainly of film students), thus worthy and perhaps a little dull. Instead, I was stunned. Now released on DVD with a Shostakovitch score and sparse sound effects, the film is revealed as masterpiece which surpasses both Battleship Potyomkin (1925) and Alexander Nevsky (1938) in its use of these two, and many more, filmic devices.

It's a young man's film and completely of its time and place, that is to say it gives a romanticised and idealised view of the Bolshevic revolution and its origins. The Tsar is directly compared to a horse's arse, Lenin harangues from the front of a steam engine, the proletariat are the true beneficiaries of the revolution. Statues fall apart and are re-formed in reverse motion, the people re-enact the storming of the winter palace (and climb its real gates), the battles cross-cut from faces and hands to carefully staged set pieces. In the second most famous sequence in early film history (the other being the Odessa steps from Potyomkin), a young woman's hair flops over the edge of a rising bridge while a cart and dead horse drop into the water.

The film is politically naive but decades ahead of its time in every other respect. The young people who inhabit these pages might like to compare its editing and pacing with that of the average music video and CGI-driven special effects film. I contend there is essentially nothing in these which they will not find in Eisenstein, and in October (Oktyabr) in particular. Yes, it's black and white, and silent but for the lately added score, and yes, it's from the early 20th century (by no means the earliest history of film), but it still stuns after repeated viewing. This is where modern film-making started, and everything we think we know about it (slow motion, montage, cross-cuts, reverses, you name it) had its origins in Eisenstein. The inter-titles (not sub-titles) still go on too long, though.

Fascinating Russian silent feature which is interested in the final moments of the Russian Revolution which brought the Communist to power. Film was part of a series involving Revolutions and protests which included Strike(1924) and Battleship Potemkin(1925). Interestingly, film puts a lot of the attention of Trotsky than Lenin. He(Trotsky) is portrayed as one of the heros of the revolution as well as a great Russian figure. Striking use of montage helps give the film its artistic flavor. One of the ten Russian silent films from the 1920s. Acting is nothing special yet gains the viewer's attention with the passion and emotion eched on by the performers. Was not popular with the Stalin regime because of the popular depiction of Trotsky. The beginning of a battle of censorship between Eisenstein and Stalin which resulted in disfavor for the Soviet filmmaker in late 1940s. Scenes that involved Trotsky who after all was Stalin's enemy were cut from the picture. These scenes with Trotsky were later restored years after the death of Stalin. Sergei M Eisenstein was fortunate not to be part of the people including artists who were arrested and either excuted or serve long jail terms during the 1930s for mentioning the name of Trotsky. Eisenstein was a genius at puting together a film and understanding the importance of images to fit a theme. After making this film he made an attempt to make it in Hollywood which didn't pan out. He had trouble getting projects green lighted possibly to the fact that Sergei wanted to make his own films, his way and the studios wouldn't not let him do it. I find it amazing at how many great foreign filmmakers who failed finding a niche in Hollywood because of their refusal to do what the studios want. A poginolty directed motion picture with a breathtaking moment in the taking of the big palace. Some of the film's ideas are also present in Alexander Nevsky(1938). It builds on motifs and themes that were disscussed in Strike(1924). From 1927 onward, Sergei M Eisenstein would only make a handfull of films. Oktyabr/October(1924) is a masterful protrayal of a period in Russian which lead to bad times contary to hopes of many Soviet revolutionaries.

To mark the tenth anniversary of the overthrow of Russia's Provisional Government by the Bolsheviks (dubbed 'the October Revolution'), the Soviet government commissioned a propaganda film to be made depicting the events by Sergei Eisenstein. Fresh off the success of his masterpiece The Battleship Potemkin (1925), Eisenstein was seen as the ideal choice to celebrate one of the most significant revolutions in recent history. American John Reed's book Ten Days That Shook the World was the main inspiration for the film's execution and style. The final film, however, was not to the government's liking, describing it as unintelligible to the masses, with Eistenstein taking full advantage of his freedom of artistic expression. The result is a rapid and highly detailed account, full of Eisenstein's trademark fast editing and metaphorical cutaways.

It is useful for the viewer to have at least some prior knowledge of the events that took place and the various figures and parties that were involved, as Eisenstein quickly switches his focus from the lower classes, to the Bolsheviks and Lenin (Vasili Nikandrov), and to the Provisional Party and its leader Aleksandr Kerensky (Nikolay Popov). Even with my, admittedly somewhat limited, prior knowledge, I found the film confusing at times. This, however, is more of a damning indictment of my level of intelligence than a criticism of Eisenstein's abilities as a story teller. I would even go so far as saying that modern film- making was created here, as I have to see a pre-1928 film that is quite so technically innovative as this. It is part reconstructed documentary, part artistic interpretation.

It may not be quite up to the epic scale of Potemkin or his two Ivan the Terrible (1944/1958) films, but October does include a set-piece that eclipses even the Odessa steps sequence in Potemkin. After the government have beaten back a workers demonstration, many lay dead or dying. The bridge that they lie on begins to open from the middle, and we see a woman's corpse lie motionless, her long hair being lifted up by the opposing side of the bridge. And a dead horse, still attached to its cart, hangs limply from the edge, eventually falling into the river. It's a quite brilliant moment from Eisenstein, who, seemingly without effort, allows the audience to make an emotional connection to a historic event without having to establish any characters in and amongst the chaos. Not the Soviet masters finest achievement, but certainly his most visually impressive, and possibly the most exciting.

www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

With detailed and interesting settings, carefully planned montages and other techniques, plenty of realistic action, and an obvious enthusiasm of the director for the subject, this is an exciting portrayal of a tumultuous time. It's well-crafted, and the pace never lags. Each scene is so realistic and interesting that it gives you a definite feeling of having been there in the summer and fall of 1917, watching history unfold.

The movie leaves no doubt as to its perspective, but aside from a few overstated opinions in the titles, it rarely seems forced or heavy-handed. This really was a time filled with many tensions, high emotions, and sudden changes, and its portrayal of these is thoroughly believable. If anything, it probably distorts and stylizes history rather less than do the vast majority of the 'historical' movies that are made in the present era. The film does also assume that you know a certain amount of the background to the events that it depicts (background that its intended audience would certainly have known well), and anyone who does not remember the main figures and issues would probably enjoy the movie more after a brief review of the history. But it would hardly be necessary to know everything, since the story is told with such skill and detail.

There are many specific details that could be praised, and many sequences that are especially absorbing. It's a movie that deserves to be seen, and not just by those of us who are interested in silent films and history. In terms of history, later events called into question many of the assumptions and motivations behind the events and characters depicted in "October". But in terms of cinema, it cannot be questioned that this is an excellent film.

Even though this masterpiece was created in 1928 it will completely blow you away in today's high tech computer graphic world! Even if you do not care for the story Directors: Grigori Aleksandrov and Sergei M. Eisenstein have created a photographic dream, almost surreal silent imagery, that will have your eyes locked to the screen.

If you want a more studious look into the background of this historical movie there are other writers here in the review section that have written wonderful reviews of this move. But if you want to feel the emotion, the peasants frustration, the activist anger, the boredom of the lazy uncaring ruling class, then please watch and absorb this wonderful movie.

It is a privileged to see this film and thank goodness it has been preserved as so many films from the early 20th Century have deteriorated or are completely lost.

all of the places and rooms still existed at the time and were basically still in the same state as 10 years before, during the actual events. It of course helps to give the movie a certain bit of extra and adds to the realism of it all. Most of the people in this movie actually participated during the real revolution, including revolutionist 'hero' Nikolai Podvoisky.

What I like about the movie is that it's completely made in documentary style. It doesn't really focuses or any main character, or tries to tell a story in a cinematic scripted way, even though it obviously dramatizes and romanticize elements, such as the storming of the Winter Palace. Some sequences really look as if they were actually shot in 1917, during the actual events. No wonder that some sequences from this movie are often used in real documentaries about the Russian revolution.

Still of course the movie also features Communist propaganda in it. After all, this movie was made in honor of the 10th anniversary date of the Russian October revolution. In its core it's a pretty patriotic movie to watch but how could you mind if it's done in such a beautiful way. Stalin himself also closely kept an eye on the production of this movie and actually ordered to remove most of the sequences featuring old comrade but later turned 'enemy' Leon Trotsky. It's funny how only the sequences that make Trotsky look 'bad' and weak were kept into the movie.

Some of the camera-work is totally amazing! The movie features some beautiful and innovative compositions, also often with the purpose of symbolism. The fast editing is also present once more and truly helps to tell the story in this case. The directing, camera-work and editing are the reason that this movie works out so fantastically and is an absolute delight to watch.

The mass-sequences, as you would expect from an Eisenstein movie, are grand and spectacular looking. Literly thousands of extras were used for this movie, with of course as the ultimate highlight the storming of the Winter Palace at the end.

Really one of Eisenstein's best work and great if you want to learn about the Russian October revolution and the events leading up to it in 102 minutes, as long as you're also capable of watching past the propaganda elements of the movie.

10/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

October is a dramatized version of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. If you're planning on watching this, be sure to read up on your history of the event before hand. I really wish I had brushed up on the details of the Soviet revolution before watching this. I've read that Eisenstein stretched the truth often and took lots of liberties when making this. This is understandable. He changes the truth to make the story work better for an exciting movie and also because this is a pro-Soviet film.

For those used to the Hollywood style, this can be tough to enjoy. October is filmed to like it is a documentary and we are constantly being introduced to many minor unnamed characters who are then never seen again. Its Hollywood counterpart would be a movie like The Longest Day, about the invasion of Normandy in WWII. In The Longest Day, we are also introduced to real historical figures and fictionalized minor characters, but unlike October, we really feel like we get to know them all. And movies like The Longest Day in Hollywood are not filmed like it were a documentary. I felt as if I didn't care as much for what happens to the many characters of October. However, I would probably feel much differently if I were a Bolshevik sympathizer during the time of its release.

There is some very interesting symbolism all throughout this movie. There is a scene were troops of the Provisional Government fire machine guns on a crowd of Bolshevik supporters and the draw bridges in the city are raised. First of all, the editing is very interesting – quick cuts between the machine gun's muzzle and the machine gunner creates a great effect and helps emphasize what you're seeing playing out in the scene – a crowd being mowed down by machine gun. A white horse is standing on the bridge and is shot and killed. Its body falls down into the crack of the separating parts of the bridge and is hoisted up with the one half of the bridge. It's a disturbing image – a symbol of what is happening to the Bolsheviks under the Provisional Governments rule. This is just one example of interesting symbolism throughout the film.

The Montage style takes some getting used to. I get more enjoyment out of watching a traditional drama, but the great symbolism is great to see. For what it is, it is very good and gets a 9/10. It is also good to put yourself in the shoes of audience that was intended for and the time period.

Sergei M. Eisenstein is such an enigma. He's simultaneously one of the most frustrating and most beautiful filmmakers in the history of cinema. His films are blatant propaganda of the most shameless variety, and yet, Eisenstein's mode of visual storytelling is absolutely exquisite. Formally, he's truly one of the greatest masters of cinema to ever live. In that regard, he belongs right next to names like Mizoguchi, Ozu, Bergman, Fellini, and Tarkovsky. In any other regard, he does not. Consequently, whether or not Eisenstein appeals to you will probably depend largely on which facet of cinema most engages you as a viewer: form or content.

Those who find that their cinematic standards for quality rely mostly on content will probably be annoyed and unimpressed by Eisenstein. The jingoistic propaganda in his films beats you over the head the instant the film begins, and never relents. Eisenstein had absolutely no sense of things like subtext, character development, or applied themes. The content of his films is about as shallow as you'll find anywhere in cinema. On that level, Eisenstein's films generally amount to a Soviet cheerleading session.

That being said, I'm not sure there's ever been a greater master in the history of the cinema when it comes to the visual, formal aspects of filmmaking. Eisenstein was a true artist. His eye for compositions was as masterful as any other filmmaker that ever sat in a director's chair. On a visual level, Eisenstein's films are an absolute treasure and are truly awesome to behold. Therefore, viewers who are most affected by a film's form, and not its content, will likely have a very deep appreciation for Eisenstein.

Finally, for viewers like myself, who are equally engaged by form and content, Eisenstein remains the most confusing of all directors. On one hand, I find myself disgusted by the obtrusive propaganda in his films; on the other hand, I find myself completely enamored with his gifts as a director, as a formalist, as an artist. He is very much like fellow Russian filmmaker Mikhail Kalatozov in this way. Both directors polarize viewers for this very reason. I don't think Kalatozov was quite as shallow in the content department as Eisenstein was, and I don't think he was quite as brilliant in the form department, but his overall combination of shallow propaganda and stunning formal brilliance is similar to Eisenstein's.

In this respect, "October (Ten Days That Shook the World)", Eisenstein's third film, is very much like any other Eisenstein film. The film was actually co-directed (and co-written) by Grigori Aleksandov, who had collaborated on Eisenstein's debut film, "Strike", as a co-writer. Eisenstein's second film, "Battleship Potemkin", is probably his best known film, and is generally considered his masterpiece. Of these three early silent films by Eisenstein, however, I might choose "October" as the best of them. It's very close, but I give the edge to "October" over "Battleship Potemkin" simply because Eisenstein's visual finesse is even slightly more impressive in "October" than it was in "Battleship Potemkin". With Eisenstein's first three films — "Strike", "Battleship Potemkin", and "October" — I've found that each film is a slight improvement over the last in terms of sheer formal mastery. Some of the shots and compositions in "October" (in fact, just about every single one of them) are simply amazing, not just for 1928, but by any standards at all, from the birth of cinema all the way through today's age of digital filmmaking. And as with any true master of filmmaking, it's not just the utter beauty of the shots that's so impressive; it's the way that the director uses those shots in the syntax of a visual language that only cinema can provide.

Eisenstein arranges images and intertitles in such a way as to truly create his own cinematic language, much like Godard would do decades later. The cinematography in Eisenstein's films is gorgeous — the compositions impeccable — but he doesn't move his camera much, and a great deal of the work is done in the editing room. That's where this language is truly spoken. Eisenstein revolutionized the art of editing and montage in cinema.

"October" opens with an image of revolutionaries charging up a grand set of stairs to topple a massive statue of the Tsar. The stairs look similar to the Odessa steps on which the civilians were slaughtered by Cossacks in "Battleship Potemkin", and so there's an interesting (and possibly intentional) duality here. In "Battleship Potemkin", the people were massacred as the soldiers advanced on them ruthlessly and inhumanly, forcing them down the stairs. Now, in "October", the film begins with the people charging back up the stairs, reclaiming the power that was taken from them under the Tsarist dictatorship.

Despite the title of the film, "October (Ten Days That Shook the World)" actually takes place over about nine months, in the year 1917. It begins with the February Revolution, in which the Tsarist autocracy was overthrown and replaced by a provisional government of aristocrats and nobles, which itself was overthrown that same year in the October Revolution. The film spans these two revolutions.

If you haven't seen Eisenstein before, it's difficult to explain his style of cinema. It's something that really needs to be seen to be understood. The best way to explain "October" is to say that, if you've seen "Battleship Potemkin", this film is very similar in style to that one. If you haven't seen "Battleship Potemkin" or any other Eisenstein silents, then you probably should — like him or not, he's a massive figure in the history of cinema — and although "Battleship Potemkin" is considered his masterpiece, I think "October" is as good of a place to start as any other.

Overall, this is a good film. It's filled with both master touches and conspicuous shortcomings, but the former outweigh the latter significantly.

RATING: 7.00 out of 10 stars

When director Sergei Eisenstein received a commission from the Soviet government to produce a film commemorating the 10th anniversary of the 1917 Revolution, he designed a unique movie not focused on one particular character nor did it have a normal storyline. Instead, the 'heroes' were the masses, the concentration of people who banded together in what Eisenstein saw were unjust and greedy governments in Russia, both the Tsarist and the Provincial one that followed the overthrow of Czar Nicholas.

His finished film, January 1928's "October: Ten Days That Shook The World," is delivered by a series of montage sequences. Eisenstein divided his movie into segments, each concentrating on individual chronological events, from the deposition of the Czar, to his successors, the Provisionals, to the complete takeover of the region by the Bolsheviks. In each phase, instead of concentrating on plot development, Eisenstein set a pattern of conflicting montages, quick edits establishing in his viewers' minds a sentiment of that unsettled time.

He presented clips of stationary statutes or objects, juxtaposition with humans, making them symbolically linked. Some of these sequences are what the director labeled "intellectual montages," where a series of cuts of unrelated objects are connected to create an intellectual comparison between them. For example, stand alone shots of a peacock don't appear to mean anything. But when Eisenstein connects the peacock with clips of the Provisional leader, the viewer sees that person as a preening, self-conceited mechanical peacock.

One of "October's" highlights is the reenactment of the assault on the Winter Palace by the Bolsheviks. In 1920, the Soviet government staged how the leaders saw the event three years earlier the storming of the palace's gates, setting an example for Eisenstein to replicate it on film. Hiring 11,000 extras, the director's recreation of the event seen on celluloid is certainly impressive. But the truth of the matter was the October 1917 takeover of the government by the Bolsheviks that fateful day was simply done by a small group of rebels slithering through a side gate and up a set of stairs to occupy the governmental seat. In fact, more people were injured filming the reenactment for Eisenstein than were hurt in the actual event.

Eisenstein proudly showed the government heads his finished film. However, they weren't bowled over by his rather radical format. First, they insisted he cut any reference to Leon Trotsky, who was recently purged by Joseph Stalin and sent packing his bags. That removed 25% of the film. Also, they wanted a movie that would appeal to the entire population, not only to the intelligentsia. Despite its reservations, the government decided to release the film. The public didn't embrace "October" as it did director Vsevolod Pudovkin's "The End of St. Petersburg," the other movie funded to commemorate the 10th anniversary celebration. Upon seeing "October," Pudovkin had a different opinion on the movie, saying "How I should like to make such a powerful failure."

Today's assessment of Eisenstein's monumental work is hugely favorable. Film historians recognize the brilliance of the methods the Soviet director manipulated his images to control viewers' thoughts and feelings. The editors of '1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die' recognized the power of "October," so much so they included the film in its reference book.

October is another technically perfect masterpiece of Sergei Eistenstein that is though a little bit more radical and propaganda orientated than his previous works as the censorship and state control in Soviet Union heavily increased during that period. Note that Eisenstein would later be censored for other movies and that there would be way more radical propaganda movies than this one which can still be categorized as part of the early Soviet Union's revolutionary cinema. If you collect some background information and know about the historical context, you can watch this movie without problems as you won't get brainwashed by it in the end. Nevertheless, this is not an entertainment movie as there are lot of scenes and many different characters and events that need your full attention. The topic of revolution and violent rebellion hasn't changed though and is once again a main topic of one of Eisenstein's movies.

From the artistic point of view, Eisenstein has improved his philosophy of cinema and introduces the intellectual montage to one of his full length features. You have a sequence of many short and fast cuts where you can seen images of religious symbols and after this or in alternation with this the statue of a tsar. This means that Eisenstein compares the numerous gods of different cultures in a profoundly atheist Soviet Union to the megalomania of the repressive tsars in a period of tyranny. The movie does the same thing when it compares the wasteful shine of tsarist dishes to a dumb and indoctrinated army in the next moment. Another good example is the fact that a tsarist officer is compared to Napoleon.

Visually, there are many impressive images and scenes in this movie even if is not a intense as Battleship Potemkin was. The scene where a helpless horse falls down a bridge is pretty emotional for example.

The movie is longer than Battleship Potemkin but very detailed and includes many historical details, crowds scenes and diversified characters. That's why the movie doesn't get too boring and is still enjoyable to watch nowadays.

In the end, this movie is not as essential as Battleship Potemkin was but if you liked the style of Eisenstein's first international success, you can't go wrong with this one and learn a lot about Russian history, culture and ideology.

This review is of the 103 minute version of "October" with the Shostakovich music on a DVD obtained from Netflix in 2010. (This is seemingly the only version easily available in the U.S. A different version that's fairly similar (but still not identical) to the original "Moscow" version is supposedly available in some places in Europe.) After watching just a few minutes, I was powerfully reminded of two other films:

Like "Triumph of the Will" by Leni Riefenstahl it makes great use of black and white, contains lots of military order and crowd scenes, was assisted and paid for by a government, is accompanied by stirring music, is about people who are dead and no longer anywhere near as relevant as they once were, is by a director very sympathetic to the cause of the political paymasters, and is generally regarded as a "propaganda" film. It definitely has artistic merit, with lots of then-new cutting techniques that gave the camera itself an eloquent and unmistakable editorial voice and that (in more subdued form) have become part of the mainstream. But the content is so obviously propaganda --all too often just plain silly-- that only the arresting images kept me from laughing out loud every few minutes.

I don't fully understand why "Triumph of the Will" is denigrated even now (and wasn't originally picked up by any U.S. distributor), while "October" (even though never all that popular) is sometimes regarded as a "masterpiece". (Note though that decades ago "October" was treated more harshly in the West; originally it was banned in the U.K and somewhat censored in the U.S.) Perhaps the legacy difference is because the ideological attractions of "Triumph of the Will" can sometimes hide below the level of perception, while those of "October" are so blatant and silly they almost demand to be ignored.

Like "Revue" (Soviet archival footage, mostly from the Kruschev era) edited by Sergei Loznitsa it once again makes great use of black and white, uses excellent cinematography throughout, has a lot of closeups of faces, shows people from a very wide range of genetic backgrounds, is often noticeably narrowly selective in its material, and fairly often communicates to us modern viewers very different ideas than what was obviously "intended".

Like any silent film that wants to convey a moderately complex story yet not be interrupted by too many inter-titles, "Ocbober" says a lot through visuals and visual symbols that key into background knowledge the viewer already has. Unfortunately people in the U.S. almost a century later often don't have that necessary background knowledge (so they typically don't even understand how long a period of time the film covers, or that the film easily divides into five relatively independent "acts"). Something like a very detailed guide document or a commentary track by a historian (or maybe even copious additional subtitles) is needed. Without something more, for most of today's U.S. citizens the film is largely incomprehensible.

(This Balkanized Region 1 version -which was long ago cut and even censored in now-forgotten ways- doesn't help either. But the bottom line is that seeing a better version would _not_ improve the experience of "October" all that much. I'm afraid even the original "Moscow" version would be largely incomprehensible to today's U.S. rank and file.)

This presentation of this film also suffers from the typical problem with very old films: the wrong speed. The film was obviously shot at a lower frame rate (maybe as low as 16 fps). But as is typical, it's apparently been transferred to modern equipment using the same 2:3 pull-down used for 24 fps material to NTSC (rather than a more appropriate pull-down pattern that would display the material at the approximately correct speed). So as is typical, all actions seem hurried and jerky, throwing a pall of "unreality" over everything.

This film feels like a compendium of Soviet "founding myths". It must have been very convenient having so much material in one spot and in such an accessible format. It's too bad the analogous U.S. film was "lost" (you know the "lost" film I'm referring to, right? the one where Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson catch George Washington falling out of a cherry tree, they all go off to drink non-tea, while doing so they draft the constitution on a napkin, and then they use pea-shooters to secretly harass some nearby Redcoats:-)

For film history buffs and film technique geeks this is a must-see. Film theory doyens will find this film to be an excellent illustration of many of Eisenstein's own stated formalisms. And serious students of history will enjoy minutely comparing these "stories" against the "real" record, especially to gain insight into what was most important to those in power ten years later. But the rest of us will just have an awfully hard time getting into this film.