October: Ten Days That Shook the World

Dry as dirt, about as exciting as a school lesson. I'm sure a film scholar could point to a dozen things that make it noteworthy, and a historian could comment on its political significance, but for me it was little more than an exercise in montage filmmaking. I have no doubt that it was influential, and it sports a few intriguing images, but I could never get involved with it.

Pretty typical Eisenstein propaganda piece with his normal strengths and weaknesses. Energetic, impressive in scale and scope, lots of great close ups of people's faces with interesting lighting, but no real creation of interesting characters. I think this probably played better at the time to people who had lived the events, as it seemed to require quite a bit of foreknowledge of the events outside the broad outlines to keep up with the plot.

has historical interest, but is otherwise dull and poorly structured and edited to such an extent that it is hard to discern what is happening unless you're familiar with the material. nowhere near eisenstein's other russian revolutionary films, battleship and strike.

It's hard for me to latch onto something that I can really care about in this movie. I know this is a familiar complaint about Eisenstein's work, but to me this all just seems like an exercise in formalism. But while October can be tedious, it's also intellectually involving. I don't think the way it exaggerates events for dramatic effect is all that unethical. One could easily argue that the film is a subjective depiction of the revolution from the point of view of the revolutionaries.

A one-sided history told through a visual whirlwind. Eisenstein's talents are on full display, but so is his brutish lack of subtlety.

I feel slightly brainwashed. Although the film does get bogged down in the (quasi-)historical minutiae, the sharp edits and montage makes it feel like something important is happening. The print's muddiness makes it hard to catch all the references. There's also an odd sense of humor scattered throughout.

I have to confess that one issue I have with Eisenstein's epic portrayal of the October Revolution is that I couldn't really follow the plot, so to speak. That's not really a fault with the film. It's a film made a decade after the events depicted for an audience that was mainly there. It's not a surprise that viewing it a century later, I can't easily follow along. That said, I was fine not following along. Eisenstein's images and his startling editing are riveting enough.

It's alright, but more than a little obtuse - especially if you're not familiar with the actual events.

This achieves the scale and tone it was aiming for with its quick cuts of teeming crowds with nary a trained actor in sight, but I can't say that the montage has quite the rhetorical punch of Eisenstein's last couple films, or several other proponents of the style—this was about the time of Gance's Napoleon, after all. It doesn't help that the repainting of Kerensky as an Orthodox right-wing crypto-Tsar in waiting is as absurd as it is heavy-handed, but that's Soviet propaganda for you.

Takip etmesi çok zor bir film bence. Proletarya sıkılabilir, not edilsin.

Kinda hard to follow. Great editing per usual.

82.00

The editing gave me a headache, but it shows nicely how february was the wrong revolution and october the right one, but still, the editing gave me a headache.

The October Revolution is really brought to life by Eisenstein's awesome cinematography, and the loyal sets and casting of war veterans, facilitated by proximity in time. Being lopsided Soviet propaganda, aimed to glorify a manufactured historical account, the film does get boring by some point.

The fastest cut in the East.

Viewed August 7, 2016. Anthology Film Archives' blurb for this movie stated "'Intellectual cinema' starts here." Color me intrigued. This is likely the zenith of Eisenstein's theory of montage, a whirlwind of visual metaphors and striking ideas, so focused on the assemblage of its images that the title cards mostly just exist as historical context for more charged symbolism. It's a rousing portrait of revolution, and a key example of political & historical filmmaking. Of course, people hated it.

Showcases even more than his other 20's work(maybe) the importance of cinema as an art form/tool to craft a narrative. Probably the most important film maker??

Equally as important to cinema as his other 20s work.

Hard to follow at times but brilliant nonetheless.

First part of the film contains perhaps the best montage editing of all time, while the last hour is tiring in its accounts of historic events.

No doubt it's an exercise in formalism, but what he does with formalism here is fantastic and awe-inspiring.

Extremely impersonal. Eisenstein apparently didn't yet believe in moderation. The montage and its pace are cranked up to 11.

Very powerful film, loved it. And Shostakovich's score fits perfectly - less can be said about the added sound effects though.

#345

The last part blended in all together for me. There were a few interesting scenes, but overall was bored.

Some of this frantic editing in "Oktyabr" can really make your jaw drop (well, if you are still awake that is). Eisenstein once again makes a film that is both passionate and impersonal -its fiery propaganda can inflame even the uninitiated, while the lack of narrative focus puts them to sleep just as handily. The film is a classic and a colossal bore too -impressionistic, astoundingly made, but since I'm neither a critic nor a film historian, I think I'm entitled to the right of not loving it.

My largely ambivalent relationship with the work of Eisenstein continues here. On one level, the incessant and spirited cutting is dazzling to the eye, injecting life and vigor into this story of revolution. On the other, the film is blatantly manipulative, wearing its questionable political ideals on its sleeve, mocking the opposition and eliding the less savory details of the story the would add some much needed complexity to the proceedings.

Too dry to convince me it's a masterpiece, but the form is exciting and the editing, electric.

332

The visuals, especially at the beginning and the end, are very striking and the story of the revolution is interesting but the film still comes out feeling somewhat dull.

292

# 307

Another one of Sergei Eisenstein's brilliant films, October (Oktyabr) tells the story in a type of documentary style the fall of the provincial government and the ultimate strike of the Bolsheviks in October against Karensky and the provincial government. It is an absolute brilliant film, but for some, its politics might be hard to handle.

An evolution of the montage from Potemkin as one example, better melodrama than Griffith another, October revels in the possiblities of cinema. It's tone is decidely Marxist but it's less overtly Leninist in theory than it's subject suggests.

Brilliant. Even better than _Battleship Potemkin_. Everything about this movie is so beautiful, right down to the Shostakovich score... to the point where I no longer cared that it was Commie propaganda. One of the very finest films ever produced

To some degree October achieves the same invocation of emotions within oneself through masterful filmmaking, but it drags along where Potemkin and Strike don't.