Battleship Potemkin (1925) ****

U. S. Release Date: December 5, 1926 (December 21, 1925 in the U.S.S.R.)

Running Length: 1:14

Rated: NR

Cast: Aleksandr Antonov, Vladimir Barsky, Grigori Aleksandrov, Ivan Bobrov, Mikhail Gomorov, Aleksandr Levshin, N. Poltavseva, Konstantin Feldman, Beatrice Vitoldi

Directer: Sergei Eisenstein

Screenplay: Nina Agadzhanova, Nikolai Aseyev, Sergei Eisenstein and Sergei Tretyakov

Battleship Potemkin is one of the greatest propaganda films ever made. It started out its life as an exercise by Director Sergei Eisenstein to test his personal theories about editing and using montage to instill strong emotion in his audience in regards to the Russian Revolution of 1905. While he wasn't entirely successful in this endeavor there is no doubt that the finished product was meant to portray a specific viewpoint and does so with an agenda in mind.

The film begins on the battleship itself as the men serving aboard are protesting the poor living conditions they have to endure. They sleep in cabins crowded with hammocks that crash into each other as the ship rocks with the waves. In one scene an officer clumsily stumbles through the hammocks, then vents his frustrations on the back of an unsuspecting recruit. During the days things are even worse. The meat provided for the recruits is covered in maggots. The ship's doctor examines the meat and says that it is fine, they just need to wash the maggots off with some brine and it's good to go.

Later, after the men have refused to eat the captain orders his officers to open fire of some of the recruits and a mutiny breaks out. During the ensuing battle the leader of the mutiny is killed. Afterwards his body is deposited on the shoreline of the city of Odessa with a note attached proclaiming that he was killed over a matter of food. This incites the citizens of Odessa to rise up and protest the Tsarist regime that was governing them. Tsarist soldiers attack the townspeople on the steps of Odessa and leave behind a massacre.

The scene on the steps of Odessa is arguably the most influential scene in movie history. It has inspired filmmakers to this day with remnants of that moment found in such films as The Godfather, The Untouchables, and even The Naked Gun 33 1/3. It's almost casual depiction of a massacre instilled abhorrence in the audiences of 1925, not just for the massacre itself but for its depiction in grim detail of the violence and brutality of the Tsarist soldiers. They are seen walking down the Odessa stairs in formation, firing their weapons on fleeing people, while remaining faceless themselves. The camera never gives us a glimpse of their faces, only those of the people they kill. And it's not just adults getting killed in this massacre. Much time is dedicated during this scene to a young boy who is trampled by the fleeing people. His mother picks up his broken body, carries it towards the soldiers pleading that they don't fire. Her pleas go ignored and she is killed in cold blood. Another woman is shot while trying to protect her infant in a stroller. As she falls to the ground the stroller goes down the steps, amazingly not overturning as it passes the bodies of the dead on its way down. We are meant to side with the victims against an almost faceless threat and this scene, despite being completely fictional in an otherwise mostly factual film, does exactly that.

This film was considered a failure at the time as it didn't succeed in swaying the intended audience as much as it was supposed to. However, it was considered a dangerous film by certain groups including the Nazis who prohibited SS members from seeing it and banning it in West Germany, France and several other countries for its revolutionary themes. It wasn't until 2004 that it received a proper restoration re-inserting several scenes and getting proper subtitles that were a more accurate translation of the original Russian text.

It has been nearly ninety years since this film was originally released. After all that time the film never fails to be riveting. It is at times exciting and horrifying and it gets its message across clearly. Even though the massacre on the Odessa stairs never happened in real life it is a scene that sticks in the mind so well that may people have come to think of it as a real event that shaped the revolution. There's no doubt that this film has shaped the minds of filmmakers who have incorporated various elements of it into their own work. It stands up as one of the greatest examples of film making in the history of the art and should be viewed by anyone interested in film history.

Winchester '73 (1950) ***

U. S. Release Date: July 12, 1950

Running Time: 1:32

Rated: NR

Cast: James Stewart, Shelley WInters, Dan Duryea, Stephen McNally, Millard Mitchell, Charles Drake

Director: Anthony Mann

Written By: Borden Chase and Robert L. Richards

1950 was right in the midst of America's love affair with the Western. Shows like Rawhide had dominated on radio and made their way onto the small screen with much success. The Lone Ranger with his silver bullet and trusty sidekick was already one season into its run and holding strong in the ratings. John Wayne was making his films and bringing in audiences. America couldn't seem to get enough of this genre. It wasn't much of a gamble to put together a stellar cast and make a western. Winchester '73 was slated to enter into that arena, make a descent amount of money, and then disappear into the slew of other such films. The producers were so convinced of that that they made a deal with lead actor James Stewart for two pictures, this one and Harvey, that gave him a percentage of the profits. This eventually paid out about $600,000.

At first glance the story is relatively simple and straightforward. Lin McAdam (Stewart) rides into Dodge City with his partner Frank Wilson (Millard Mitchell) to compete in a shooting contest for a brand new Winchester '73 known as the one-in-a-thousand because it is considered to be perfect in every way. They are also in pursuit of 'Dutch Henry' Brown (Stephen McNalley), a man who has a past with Lin that isn't revealed until nearly the end of the film. Lin wins the contest but shortly afterwards is robbed of his new gun by 'Dutch Henry'. Henry in turn loses the gun shortly afterwards while trying to win money for more guns by playing cards. From there the gun makes it's way into several other hands, meanwhile Lin pursues Henry, assists a calvary being besieged by Indians, and assists a woman (Shelley Winters) being escorted by a coward.

The story plays out as a series of vignettes following the gun with the through story of Lin and his pursuit of 'Dutch Henry'. This allows for the focus of the film to shift around from Lin to Henry to a group of Indians and then back to Lin again. While James Stewart is definitely the star of the film he is absent from it for long stretches of time. This actually aids this film as he is given very little as a character. His partner is given even less and would have seriously hampered this film were they in it more. Then again more screen time might have given them more time to establish themselves as real characters and not a couple of generic cowboys. Only the sheer magnetism of James Stewart elevates this character over that roadblock. Likewise Stephen McNalley has little more to do than scowl and shoot at people.

This story is a little deceptive, though. It contains threads of a moral throughout the film, rewarding goodness with life and taking the lives of those who do bad things. This is most evident in the section dealing with Lola Manners (Shelley Winters) and her escort and fiance Steve Miller (Charles Drake). When these two travelers are first attacked by a band of Indians Steve abandons Lola and rides off leaving her to her fate. Only the sight of a nearby Calvary gives him the courage to turn around and help her also escape. His cowardice will come back to haunt him later when the Winchester ends up in his hands for a short while. Similar fates await just about everyone else who gains possession of this weapon. This film is about greed and the punishment meted out for said greed. It is a morality tale that is anything but subtle, yet it works and at no time feels preachy or cumbersome.

This film was successful when it was released back in 1950, so much so that James Stewart walked away with three times the salary he had originally asked for at the time. It's not hard to see why this film resonated with audiences of the day. It was short, clocking in at barely 90 minutes, and light in tone. It had a message that anyone could see and understand, and it had charismatic actors that could elevate the material given them and make characters out of one-note written parts. It played well at the time and still does more than sixty years later.