I'm having a difficult time coming to grips with Arsenal. The film follows a coherent narrative: a WWI soldier, Timosh, returns from the front to his hometown in Ukraine and sides with the Bolshevik workers in his former factory against a nationalistic anti-Soviet uprising. However, the story lacks narrative logic in a way that bugged me – a train carrying demobilized soldiers stops, the train is threatened by nationalist soldiers, the train starts again, the train has faulty brakes, the train crashes – scenes occur without any particular regard to the preceding context or the overall storyline. Add to this a dash of avant-garde styling – images of people apparently frozen in place, strange camera angles – and the effect is quite disorienting. Thematically and ideologically, though, the film is successful. Arsenal is remarkably even handed with regards to the conflict between the nationalists and the Bolsheviks. In one scene, a Ukrainian soldier laments "three hundred years of Russian oppression," to which a Russian soldier quite reasonably asks, "What did I do?" A frustrated peasant attacks his gaunt horse, to which the intertitles respond, "You're hitting the wrong one, Ivan." Ukrainian aggression against the Soviets is depicted as misguided, rather than malicious. All people, not just Ukrainians or Russians, are shown mourning and starving at the hands of the Germans and the negligent Tsar at the beginning of the film. Timosh's decision to side with the communists over the nationalists is not divisive; in the end he identifies himself as "a Ukrainian worker" to a nationalist squad, whose bullets he miraculously survives. Communism is universal, and the Bolsheviks do not deserve to be the target of nationalistic ire stirred by the Imperial era. The metaphor is obvious, but is refreshingly unintrusive for a revolutionary film. Arsenal is not easy to watch, but has more complexity to it than one might expect from a work of state-sanctioned cinema.
19 Reviews
Great and powerful images and scenes
valadas30 January 2023
Another great Soviet silent movie. In silent movies the most important thing is the visual scenes and this excellent movie has them in a very expressive way mainly the face expressions of all the people in closeup. This is the story of Timosh, an ukrainian soldier that after surviving a train accident comes back home by the end of World War I and finds the Soviet revolution in progress but with much inside struggle between nationalists and collectivists. He begins to suport the Bolsheviks which brings him the opposition of local authorities. It is a stupendous brilliant movie that keeps the permanent attention of al viewers.
Innovative, but sloppy
the-antichrist-is-near23 February 2023
To start with the most important thing: this movie is pure early soviet propaganda; putting the enemies of the state in a bad light and highlighting the bolshevik's achievements. With that said, I don't want to judge this movie on the political correctness of it's message, but purely on if it's good as a movie.
A slow and rather abstract start points out one problem; it's hard to put the pieces of the storyline together without prior knowledge about the Kiev Arsenal Uprising. With basic knowledge of the history of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union you might think it's a movie glorifying the revolution that brought Lenin into power. A side-note is that silent movies are probably not the best vehicle to tell a story that requires a lot of explanation.
The minimalist start slowly picks up (as did the score from 2015) when the train literally starts moving. The train crash and the moments leading up to it resemble earlier cinema's slapstick, especially in contrast to the start of the movie.
This is where the movie draws the viewer in more, with innovative direction and use of light, and beautiful cinematography. Many scenes seem way ahead of their time.
A 7 out of 10 is the maximum I feel I can give this movie though, mostly because of it's sloppy editing. You would think that with the care Dovzhenko put into directing this film, he would take even more care with the editing and polishing it up before releasing. Even though Arsenal also has moments where the futility of war and the excessive, sometimes unnecessary violence is shown; maybe the sloppy editing is also a sign of the propaganda nature of this film. Furthermore one could argue that in some (or too many) scenes Dovzhenko tries to hard to be edgy and avant-garde, which seems to work counter-productive in the movie as a whole.
A slow and rather abstract start points out one problem; it's hard to put the pieces of the storyline together without prior knowledge about the Kiev Arsenal Uprising. With basic knowledge of the history of the Russian Empire/Soviet Union you might think it's a movie glorifying the revolution that brought Lenin into power. A side-note is that silent movies are probably not the best vehicle to tell a story that requires a lot of explanation.
The minimalist start slowly picks up (as did the score from 2015) when the train literally starts moving. The train crash and the moments leading up to it resemble earlier cinema's slapstick, especially in contrast to the start of the movie.
This is where the movie draws the viewer in more, with innovative direction and use of light, and beautiful cinematography. Many scenes seem way ahead of their time.
A 7 out of 10 is the maximum I feel I can give this movie though, mostly because of it's sloppy editing. You would think that with the care Dovzhenko put into directing this film, he would take even more care with the editing and polishing it up before releasing. Even though Arsenal also has moments where the futility of war and the excessive, sometimes unnecessary violence is shown; maybe the sloppy editing is also a sign of the propaganda nature of this film. Furthermore one could argue that in some (or too many) scenes Dovzhenko tries to hard to be edgy and avant-garde, which seems to work counter-productive in the movie as a whole.
Filled With Interesting Images & Themes
Snow Leopard4 January 2005
While often a bit obscure, this Dovzhenko classic is also filled with interesting and often thought-provoking images and themes. "Arsenal", as with his better-known feature "Earth", defies easy description. "Earth" is probably the more artistic of the two, but "Arsenal" is more complex, and it might also be a little closer - at least in places - to a conventional narrative.
The first ten minutes or so of "Arsenal" are quite abstract, with a succession of mini-montages depicting a variety of subjects. It would be hard, and perhaps inadvisable, to assign a specific meaning to all of the symbols, but they are clearly meant to convey some general ideas that apply to the story that follows, which is set in the Ukraine as World War I (or the Great War) is coming to an end.
The war sequences might be the most memorable part of the movie, and the chilling "laughing gas" sequence is a more compelling comment on war than are the great majority of complicated carnage-filled scenes in other movies.
The main story starts with the demobilization, and it is clearly influenced by Dovzhenko's own perspective. He does his very best to resolve two seemingly contradictory priorities, with his devotion to the Ukrainian people and his support for the Soviet state. He uses all his skills, with interesting montages and other techniques, including some creative camera angles that would even have impressed Orson Welles.
As politics, not all of it is convincing by any means, but as cinema, it is quite interesting, and at times it provides good food for thought. The specific issues considered in the film may be limited to their own time and place, but in asking what is best for his people, Dovzhenko also raises some broader issues that allow the movie to retain some relevance in later eras as well.
The first ten minutes or so of "Arsenal" are quite abstract, with a succession of mini-montages depicting a variety of subjects. It would be hard, and perhaps inadvisable, to assign a specific meaning to all of the symbols, but they are clearly meant to convey some general ideas that apply to the story that follows, which is set in the Ukraine as World War I (or the Great War) is coming to an end.
The war sequences might be the most memorable part of the movie, and the chilling "laughing gas" sequence is a more compelling comment on war than are the great majority of complicated carnage-filled scenes in other movies.
The main story starts with the demobilization, and it is clearly influenced by Dovzhenko's own perspective. He does his very best to resolve two seemingly contradictory priorities, with his devotion to the Ukrainian people and his support for the Soviet state. He uses all his skills, with interesting montages and other techniques, including some creative camera angles that would even have impressed Orson Welles.
As politics, not all of it is convincing by any means, but as cinema, it is quite interesting, and at times it provides good food for thought. The specific issues considered in the film may be limited to their own time and place, but in asking what is best for his people, Dovzhenko also raises some broader issues that allow the movie to retain some relevance in later eras as well.
One of the 1920's Most Modernists Films - a Masterpiece
Flak_Magnet10 September 2009
Don't be discouraged by this Soviet film's age or obscurity - it is one of the finest movies ever made, and it stands alongside Carl Theodore Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc," as the most modernist film of the 1920's. This is a spectacular visual achievement, and its visionary conception of cinema is moderinism that we've still failed to catch up with. Unlike most recognized masterpieces of Soviet silent cinema (e.g. "The Battleship Potempkin," "Earth," "The End of St. Petersburg," etc.), however, "Arsenal" is a surprisingly approachable film, and its strangeness and abstraction are consistently fascinating. Originally intended as a propaganda film, "Arsenal" is the second component of director Alexander Dovzhenko's "Ukraine Trilogy," and it details an episode in the Russian Civil War (~1918) in which the Kiev Arsenal workers aided the Bolshevik army against the ruling Central Rada. Dovzhenko's approach is somewhat similar to Sergei Eisentein, in that he relied heavily on montage, but his pace was less frenetic, and his Expressionism was more exaggerated. As detailed in the film's academic commentary, Dovzhenko was previously a political cartoonist, and you can see traces of this background in "Arsenal." The characters in this film are caricatures, sometimes grotesque and sometimes funny. Similarly, there is a strangeness and remoteness in "Arsenal," which makes the film's few intentionally lucid passages quite dreamlike. The DVD commentary is concise and informative, and a terrific primer for the first time viewing. If you have any interest in silent cinema, modernism, or film as art, "Arsenal" is a film you SHOULD NOT MISS. ---|--- Was this review helpful?
Brilliant, multi-layered masterpiece
sean45542 September 2007
For several years I had a decent quality print on video and was always fascinated by this film. Very few motion pictures are as visually striking and intense, but little of the story came through. I just purchased the DVD and the audio commentary track by Vance Kepley really illuminated "Arsenal". Undoubtedly the finest commentary I've yet heard. If this classic movie isn't your cup of tea, get the DVD anyway. Dovzhenko was an artist like few others. His work really deserves rediscovery; hopefully future releases of "Zvenigora", "Earth" and "Aerograd" will have Kepley's commentary as well. But even as they are, Dovzhenko's films are truly essential.
all quiet on the Ukrainian front
lee_eisenberg23 October 2015
It goes without saying that silent cinema requires emphasis on the imagery. Alexander Dovzhenko's "Arsenal" is no exception. The look back at World War I over the past year should draw attention to this movie. Like Lewis Milestone's "All Quiet on the Western Front", this movie looks at the futility of war. The focus in the Kiev Arsenal January Uprising in 1918. Probably the most effective scene is the laughing gas: a man artificially laughs while surrounded by all manner of horror, a perfect metaphor for the disconnect between the image and reality of war.
The only other Dovzhenko movie that I've seen is "Earth". I understand that "Arsenal" and "Earth" are the second and third installments of his Ukraine Trilogy. I'll have to see "Zvenigora", as well as the rest of Dovzhenko's movies. Despite the obvious propaganda, this is still a movie that you have to see just for the imagery if nothing else. Like Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin", it contains some of the most unforgettable images in cinema history. Definitely see it.
The only other Dovzhenko movie that I've seen is "Earth". I understand that "Arsenal" and "Earth" are the second and third installments of his Ukraine Trilogy. I'll have to see "Zvenigora", as well as the rest of Dovzhenko's movies. Despite the obvious propaganda, this is still a movie that you have to see just for the imagery if nothing else. Like Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin", it contains some of the most unforgettable images in cinema history. Definitely see it.
Kinetic, shocking, moving.
rob-24221 January 2004
A group of Ukranian soldiers return from World War One to more fighting in the Communist Revolution.
This is an extraordinary, kinetic and moving piece of film making, full of metaphor and of great relevance for people throughout the world today. It isn't necessary to understand the complexities of the times to understand the rich emotional resonance. Particularly innovative is Dovzhenko's use of rhythm and inter-spliced scenes.
I was lucky enough to see a restored version of this at the Cambridge Film Festival 2003, with live musical accompaniment. Particularly memorable scenes are the undefeatable worker, the laughing gas, and the horse team rushing to take a fallen comrade to burial before returning to battle.
This is an extraordinary, kinetic and moving piece of film making, full of metaphor and of great relevance for people throughout the world today. It isn't necessary to understand the complexities of the times to understand the rich emotional resonance. Particularly innovative is Dovzhenko's use of rhythm and inter-spliced scenes.
I was lucky enough to see a restored version of this at the Cambridge Film Festival 2003, with live musical accompaniment. Particularly memorable scenes are the undefeatable worker, the laughing gas, and the horse team rushing to take a fallen comrade to burial before returning to battle.
Arsenal review!!
Spuzzlightyear13 September 2005
Another montage crazy film by the Russians here. Instead of Eisenstein laying it on thick, we have Alexander Dovzshenko getting into the act with 'Arsenal'. A film about, yes, the oppression of the people against the state! Instead of the Russians, this time we the Ukrainians becoming oppressed. Mainly set in a arsenal factory (!!) the people fight the threat of Government interference! Set to a frenetic score, Arsenal sure must have kept the editors busy with many crazy jump cuts going at a frenetic pace. What does it all mean? Not 100% sure, as some of the obvious symbolism just flew right by me. It's an OK movie if you're into that sort of stuff. (You know who you are).
fascinating method
Lumpenprole27 March 2003
Arsenal seems to be a direct challenge to idea that films are intended to be digested in one sitting. Apparently even Sergei Eisenstein had a tough time making sense of the narrative of some of Dovzhenko's work. Arsenal's narrative only emerges if you concentrate on what you've seeing - comprehending and reassembling the puzzle of the images and movements that Dovzhenko has arranged to create causal and symbolic associations. Dovzhenko's camera is like the eye of God, taking in a half dozen settings, all of them connected though disparate in space and time. Dovzhenko also is perfectly comfortable inserting the fantastic (a talking horse or a faith in communism that deflects bullets) into his retelling of a historical event. I watched the film several times before the plot was clear to me.
I'd recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a whole different approach to story telling. There are many great images and some of the acting is very good (the way Semyon Svashenko glances with disgust at one of the Ukrainian nationalists and slowly reaches out to touch his ribbon, feeling it's lightness, is an example), but there is no easy way of getting past Dovzhenko's style. You have to want to figure out this film. Dovzhenko's narrative technique is as unique as Robert Altman or Tsai Ming-Liang.
I'd recommend this film to anyone who wants to see a whole different approach to story telling. There are many great images and some of the acting is very good (the way Semyon Svashenko glances with disgust at one of the Ukrainian nationalists and slowly reaches out to touch his ribbon, feeling it's lightness, is an example), but there is no easy way of getting past Dovzhenko's style. You have to want to figure out this film. Dovzhenko's narrative technique is as unique as Robert Altman or Tsai Ming-Liang.
Cinema-Poetry
M-Lunatique27 January 2022
Dovzhenko is the one who most differs from his brilliant colleagues, who based a considerable part of the structure of their films on a sophisticated construction of scene montage, Dovzhenko has always followed a more naturalistic line, pure dramatic narrative, poetry and visual beauty, master to its time in capturing natural rhythms, "Arsenal" is a modern classic with a visionary conception, oscillating between raw and immediate images like a documentary and also almost expressionist, exaggerated, playing with framing or inverted symmetries, employing quite varied forms of reach a state of abstraction. Just imagine a cinematographic composition inspired by the classic icons of the Byzantine orthodox code, that is, sacred figures painted on wood with a background without perspective, except that, in place of the sacred figure, a potentially revolutionary worker appears. Dovzhenko adapted the religious "aura" of the icons to the characters emanating from the Marxist dialectical materialism prevailing in the aesthetic-ideological vision of the party.
Not only in the close-up portraits of the heroes, villains and victims of the historical process, but also of objects and nature. Surrounded by a halo resulting from a subtle out-of-focus, the foreground images - faces, flowers, mechanical objects - acquire a "corporeal significance", as defined by a Ukrainian critic, who crosses the Byzantine tradition and refers to the sacredness in pictorial representation. In Europe and in the beginnings of the Italian Renaissance.
These images seem to contain a self-sufficient solidity, almost arousing a sense of touch in the viewer. Cinema-poetry, of course, that articulates itself with the urgency of the historical moment of the socialist revolution to produce an awareness of historical transition and overcoming, sustaining at the same time a fruitful and original subjectivity. The source, finally, to which filmmakers like Tarkovsky, Paradjanov and Sokurov referred.
Not only in the close-up portraits of the heroes, villains and victims of the historical process, but also of objects and nature. Surrounded by a halo resulting from a subtle out-of-focus, the foreground images - faces, flowers, mechanical objects - acquire a "corporeal significance", as defined by a Ukrainian critic, who crosses the Byzantine tradition and refers to the sacredness in pictorial representation. In Europe and in the beginnings of the Italian Renaissance.
These images seem to contain a self-sufficient solidity, almost arousing a sense of touch in the viewer. Cinema-poetry, of course, that articulates itself with the urgency of the historical moment of the socialist revolution to produce an awareness of historical transition and overcoming, sustaining at the same time a fruitful and original subjectivity. The source, finally, to which filmmakers like Tarkovsky, Paradjanov and Sokurov referred.
Peculiar, artful, and magnificent
I_Ailurophile5 January 2022
This is a rather curious movie. For all the bleak desolation and depression that present early on, as well as terrible images of war, intertitles and the very visuals within each seen feel peculiarly detached, uninvolved, and nearly surrealist. Each subsequent scene feels disconnected from what follows it - why, there's often a seeming sense of disagreement even from one shot to the next within a scene.. All this is so even as the feature does ultimately constitute a cohesive, coherent whole, a tableau of a particular time and place. I don't think I've seen any other movie to date that depicts wartime events while so emphatically carrying itself with the comportment of an art film, but without question that's what 'Arsenal' represents.
Scenes filled with crowds and extras contrast sharply with many others brazenly sparing of people, décor, or activity. Yet each is built with a keen eye for dazzling shots, and fine artistic arrangement, including marvelous use of light and shadow, unconventional angles, close-ups, and more. In his work as director, helming the production, and certainly in his sharp skills as editor as well, Alexander Dovzhenko exhibits immense capability bordering on outright genius. His screenplay is a little more thorny; I admit it's hard to parse, as the pervasive seeming disassociation between elements results in what feels like a distinctly disjointed narrative. The plot development appears not just uneven in its pace and broad progression, but slightly haphazard, leading one to wonder at points if there's not context or missing scenes that would help to complete the picture with smoother transitions. Even so, the scene writing is robust, with fabulous dynamics and some tremendous moments that play out. And while it's a bit of a bizarre cinematic experience, and difficult for that reason, it's also stupendous for the story that is told.
If you're looking for a straightforward movie, something to relax to or possibly enjoy without actively engaging, then this is most certainly not for you. The silent production and Russian intertitles are the least of an audience's possible obstacles, as the structure, composition, and fundamental content of the film is challenging even before taking into account the subject matter and violence. Still, 'Arsenal' is extraordinarily absorbing and satisfying even with its idiosyncrasies - or perhaps, depending on your perspective, especially in light of them. I will certainly say that a cleaner, more straightforward feature would be easier to watch and recommend - but at the same time, would it be as strangely captivating, and memorable?
Brash, daring, inventive, and defiantly poetic in the most unorthodox of ways, 'Arsenal' is as rich, engrossing, exciting, and rewarding as it is grandiose, ambitious, abstruse, and demanding. But if you're the type of viewer that appreciates the dense, artful side of the movies, then this is most assuredly going to e to your liking. Worth checking out wherever you may find it, albeit for select audiences, and highly recommended!
Scenes filled with crowds and extras contrast sharply with many others brazenly sparing of people, décor, or activity. Yet each is built with a keen eye for dazzling shots, and fine artistic arrangement, including marvelous use of light and shadow, unconventional angles, close-ups, and more. In his work as director, helming the production, and certainly in his sharp skills as editor as well, Alexander Dovzhenko exhibits immense capability bordering on outright genius. His screenplay is a little more thorny; I admit it's hard to parse, as the pervasive seeming disassociation between elements results in what feels like a distinctly disjointed narrative. The plot development appears not just uneven in its pace and broad progression, but slightly haphazard, leading one to wonder at points if there's not context or missing scenes that would help to complete the picture with smoother transitions. Even so, the scene writing is robust, with fabulous dynamics and some tremendous moments that play out. And while it's a bit of a bizarre cinematic experience, and difficult for that reason, it's also stupendous for the story that is told.
If you're looking for a straightforward movie, something to relax to or possibly enjoy without actively engaging, then this is most certainly not for you. The silent production and Russian intertitles are the least of an audience's possible obstacles, as the structure, composition, and fundamental content of the film is challenging even before taking into account the subject matter and violence. Still, 'Arsenal' is extraordinarily absorbing and satisfying even with its idiosyncrasies - or perhaps, depending on your perspective, especially in light of them. I will certainly say that a cleaner, more straightforward feature would be easier to watch and recommend - but at the same time, would it be as strangely captivating, and memorable?
Brash, daring, inventive, and defiantly poetic in the most unorthodox of ways, 'Arsenal' is as rich, engrossing, exciting, and rewarding as it is grandiose, ambitious, abstruse, and demanding. But if you're the type of viewer that appreciates the dense, artful side of the movies, then this is most assuredly going to e to your liking. Worth checking out wherever you may find it, albeit for select audiences, and highly recommended!
Choppy by modern standards
teo-g-georgiev22 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
While I can understand why Arsenal is considered historic, it has not aged well. The scenes at the beginning of the film are confusing - we expect the film to be about the mother, only to find out she has relatively little to do with the film. By the time the main protagonist (Timosh) is established, a good chunk of the movie has passed. The acting is usually superb but drops when it should be at its strongest. It is hard to take the scene with the laughing gas seriously given how obviously the man is just acting. He doesn't move his arms or his body, and seems to only fall to the ground when he's taken off and put back on his glasses a certain number of times. Thankfully, scenes at the end of the movie redeem this level of acting. I'm also not sure what genre the director was going for. The military scenes suggested it to be an action movie, but besides those, I didn't see anything exciting. The movie then tries to be dramatic when one of the characters is about to shoot another in the back of the head, but can't manage. This had to be my favorite scene simply due to its originality. Even then, during the final few moments, when Timosh is being shot at, I couldn't take the movie seriously. His inability to die only reminded me of the final scene from V for Vendetta, and I found myself comparing him to a Ukranian V, with much less impressive equipment. This was the defining moment where the audience has to admit the movie is just too distant from modern audiences to be relatable. Everything it tries to do has already been re-done with better filming, special effects, and actors. It falls flat.
Operatic Near-Masterpiece of Agitprop
effigiebronze8 August 2010
I call this a near-masterpiece because of the basic purpose of it, which is propaganda. This film exists as agitprop, and while it contains phenomenal and ferocious imagery, ultimately the single-minded viewpoint hobbles it as art and undercuts its slight attempts at humanity. While it can be viewed as a Revolutionary piece, exhorting a 'proper' spirit of energy, knowing it was made by a Ukrainian in 1929 while the Stalinist regime was either plotting or bumbling their way to the Great Famine makes this film deeply questionable in a moral sense. The theme of a Ukrainian learning Revolutionary values in the Great War, then returning to destroy the 'corrupt' forces of 'old Ukraine' made me deeply uneasy. That said, the imagery and sequences in this (quite late) silent film are second to none. The toothless, laughing soldier is one of the most stunning single images ever committed to film; and the general pacing, with a deliberate, lingering sense of time, forces concentration on the set-pieces. Much of the film is brutal, inhuman, and cruel. This is both an accurate representation of the setting itself and of the type of violent us-vs.-them propaganda produced by the Soviets at the time. I find this film VERY unsettling from a moral standpoint, something I don't often find myself saying. But, again, the masterful and stunning imagery makes it well worth viewing more than once.
way too "artsy" for its own good
planktonrules12 August 2006
While I have seen and enjoyed similar movies to this one that were silent films about the Russian Revolution, such as POTEMKIN and TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD, I did not particularly enjoy this one. This was mostly due to the annoying and "artsy" way that the director chose to shoot the film. While POTEMKIN excelled in its editing style, this movie used similar techniques with a lot less finesse--in some places, the editing seemed very choppy and amateurish. Plus, and this was truly annoying, the use of zombies throughout the beginning of the film and late in the film really was over-the-top. What I mean by "zombies" is that to illustrate just how depressed and oppressed the Ukranian peasants were, the people stand like mannequins in many scenes. And, they stand like this, unmoving, for a VERY long period of time, while the "evil" Capitalists and exploiters of the masses walk by. Gimme a break! This movie is a wonderful example of style over substance--and it's only a movie for those who enjoy or can overlook the overindulgent direction.
By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.
By the way, the DVD for this film is improved, somewhat, if you leave the audio commentary on. This makes the movie easier to follow and gives a few interesting insights.
Eye whipped into motion
chaos-rampant6 September 2011
It boggles the mind to contemplate how far back was cinema set with the advent of sound; not sound per se, but the whole political environment that was concurrent at the time. So many fascinating experiments with film were afoot by the late 20's and would be put on hold for the next twenty, thirty years.
With DW Griffith ten years before, cinema was a transliteration. The narrative was straight-forward, time, even when broken apart, was a straight line that rushed towards climax that revealed our placement in destiny, the chain of causality was clearly defined - this begat that, and we perfectly understood why. Film was merely a tool of chronicle, with the gods - the mechanisms above - and shadows - the internal image outwardly recast - largely taken out.
But just ten years later, something like this was already so far ahead. So, the causality of events is left to our sphere of imagination, narrative is fragmented, purposely eliptic into modernist abstraction. Images require our folding in them to be complete with meaning, or channel their imports across different levels of experience; there is a scene of men rushing on horses to bury their comrade, they could be rushing into a number of things; and back at the weapons foundry where a strike is holding up, eloquent shots of machinery whirring in motion suggest afoot the social machinations at large. Life here is not passed down to us whole, with purpose or meaning; but is rather the process of coming into being.
This is far-reaching stuff in terms of what can be done with cinema. It posits that the image can directly depict private, inner states and larger, collective worlds as bound together by common soul - the oppressed peasants motionless like zombies, the military officer mechanically shooting at partisans. The shots of galloping horses are frenzied, but up above the clouded skies ebb with time. So, what started only a couple of years before in Soviet studios had reached this apex; image was engineered - or perhaps intuited in the case of Dovzhenko, who was the least of the theorists - to unify vision. The empire is inland as well as out, and stretches across the one space.
There are few words in all of this, our safe passage with logic is made perilous, adventuresome. Germanic cinema offered us the world of noir and I am grateful to them; but when it comes to what we often call 'pure cinema' as a quick resort, they could not match here - or France.
Oh, there is The Last Laugh, which is a marvellous study. But purely in terms of images Dovzhenko is worth two or three of those.
With DW Griffith ten years before, cinema was a transliteration. The narrative was straight-forward, time, even when broken apart, was a straight line that rushed towards climax that revealed our placement in destiny, the chain of causality was clearly defined - this begat that, and we perfectly understood why. Film was merely a tool of chronicle, with the gods - the mechanisms above - and shadows - the internal image outwardly recast - largely taken out.
But just ten years later, something like this was already so far ahead. So, the causality of events is left to our sphere of imagination, narrative is fragmented, purposely eliptic into modernist abstraction. Images require our folding in them to be complete with meaning, or channel their imports across different levels of experience; there is a scene of men rushing on horses to bury their comrade, they could be rushing into a number of things; and back at the weapons foundry where a strike is holding up, eloquent shots of machinery whirring in motion suggest afoot the social machinations at large. Life here is not passed down to us whole, with purpose or meaning; but is rather the process of coming into being.
This is far-reaching stuff in terms of what can be done with cinema. It posits that the image can directly depict private, inner states and larger, collective worlds as bound together by common soul - the oppressed peasants motionless like zombies, the military officer mechanically shooting at partisans. The shots of galloping horses are frenzied, but up above the clouded skies ebb with time. So, what started only a couple of years before in Soviet studios had reached this apex; image was engineered - or perhaps intuited in the case of Dovzhenko, who was the least of the theorists - to unify vision. The empire is inland as well as out, and stretches across the one space.
There are few words in all of this, our safe passage with logic is made perilous, adventuresome. Germanic cinema offered us the world of noir and I am grateful to them; but when it comes to what we often call 'pure cinema' as a quick resort, they could not match here - or France.
Oh, there is The Last Laugh, which is a marvellous study. But purely in terms of images Dovzhenko is worth two or three of those.
As heartfelt and sincere as this movie is...
dwpollar23 March 2002
1st watched 3/23/2002 - 5 out of 10(Dir-Alexander Dovzhenko): As heartfelt and sincere as this movie is it was hard to understand as a silent movie without a screenplay in hand. I guess that's how I am able to judge this film. I realize that it is a breakthrough find and wonderful restoration of a monumental film about the Russian revolution but this doesn't make it a good movie in narrative. There is some wonderful imagery and ideas represented about non-violence that the filmmaker displays but again this doesnt' make a wonderful movie. Probably a good movie for the collector and possibly historian, but not necessarily for the film movie fan.
Interesting narrative and not much else
ametaphysicalshark1 July 2008
Aleksandr Dovzhenko was not a bad director but I consistently find his films to be choppy, poorly-paced, and fairly uninteresting, making him one of my least favorite propaganda filmmakers. Of course, many would attack me for daring to dismiss Dovzhenko as merely a propaganda filmmaker, but all three of his films that I have had the chance to see have undoubtedly been propaganda, although "Arsenal" is perhaps less obviously propagandistic than "Earth" or "Aerograd" are.
"Arsenal" features several arresting sequences and an interesting narrative from a stylistic viewpoint, but beyond that it really is rather void of any substance (which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't trying so hard to be a grand statement about how great communism is). There's also some awful, awful scenes where Dovzhenko seems to think a lot of emaciated-looking people staring into space makes for great drama.
The only ares of "Arsenal" worth any significant praise are the war scenes, which feature the famed and excellent 'laughing gas' sequence, and the scene with the horse team rushing to bury their comrade before going back to battle. Other than that, there's some captivating editing in the early stages, before it becomes laughable later on as Dovzhenko insists on editing every other scene the exact same way.
"Earth", despite being fairly sickening when you understand the aftermath of the actual events it was arguing in favor of, was a captivating and intriguing film. "Arsenal" is, much like "Aerograd", fairly worthless outside of using some interesting editing and forming a different sort of narrative from the norm, and even at a mere 70-odd minutes a real chore to sit through.
4/10
"Arsenal" features several arresting sequences and an interesting narrative from a stylistic viewpoint, but beyond that it really is rather void of any substance (which wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't trying so hard to be a grand statement about how great communism is). There's also some awful, awful scenes where Dovzhenko seems to think a lot of emaciated-looking people staring into space makes for great drama.
The only ares of "Arsenal" worth any significant praise are the war scenes, which feature the famed and excellent 'laughing gas' sequence, and the scene with the horse team rushing to bury their comrade before going back to battle. Other than that, there's some captivating editing in the early stages, before it becomes laughable later on as Dovzhenko insists on editing every other scene the exact same way.
"Earth", despite being fairly sickening when you understand the aftermath of the actual events it was arguing in favor of, was a captivating and intriguing film. "Arsenal" is, much like "Aerograd", fairly worthless outside of using some interesting editing and forming a different sort of narrative from the norm, and even at a mere 70-odd minutes a real chore to sit through.
4/10
Not Enough Bang
osloj7 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
*Plot and ending analyzed*
The film itself is only a compilation of senseless scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia.
I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928), but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or even the common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one-arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested, but this would not be it, although the method of the director is quite brilliant.
In all, one should only view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.
Everyone else should probably avoid it.
*Plot and ending analyzed*
The film itself is only a compilation of senseless scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia.
I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928), but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or even the common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one-arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested, but this would not be it, although the method of the director is quite brilliant.
In all, one should only view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.
Everyone else should probably avoid it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
