LIMSwiki

Posted on July 23, 2020 By Robert Payne

Page contents not supported in other languages.

available non-proprietary format?

Isn't this movie available somewhere in a non-proprietary format? Copyright has expired, so it's legal to put a link to a good quality version on Wikipedia. I tried looking on Archive.org, but they don't have it (yet?). Guaka 16:14, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, they do now [1], though I haven't tried downloading it so I don't know what the quality's like, or if there's a better version somewhere. --Estrellador* 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it for free on hulu.com in May 2011. However, the score was not the original - Dmitri Shostakovich music from 1957 has been added (among others). I can't tell what other edits may have been done from the original since I have no reference to compare to. Its a decent movie, yet I wonder about the editing by propogandists over the years.--74.107.74.39 (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russian

It is usually written in simplified form Потемкин in Russia (instead of Потёмкин), but it is still pronounced in English "Potyomkin", not "Potyemkin" (in fact, it is pronounced "Patyomkin" because of unstressed "o") Pibwl 23:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In English it's pronounced "Poh-tem-kin" because we don't know any better :P D Boland (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review poor

The Maoist International Movement review here is actually a fairly poor-quality and perfunctory review. There is a brief biography of Eisenstein and only a paragraph or two about the movie itself, focusing mostly on one or two very minor details. From reading this review, a reader would get very little idea of the historical significance of the film or even what the film was about. My personal opinion is that this is not a worthy external link. -- Curps 18:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Historical context" section removed

The whole section removed.

Being released in 1925, it has been suggested that the film was a response to the social disorder of the Russian Civil War. 1921 had seen the Kronstadt Rebellion, a naval revolt in St Petersberg, in response to the War Communism policies of Bolshevik rule. The release of the film could be seen as part of an ongoing attempt to pacify and rehabilitate the Navy and the Russian people as a whole.

This is a speculation. mikka (t) 18:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere

Page about the December 5 says, that it was premiered on December 5 1926, however the film was made in 1925. What is the truth behind this? --romanm (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A hit or not a hit

An anon tries to add a change that the movie was not a hit with Russian audiences and even added a strange reference ("Ivan the Terible"; without actual quote ). Either he is simply trolling or doesn't understand the time and place. Any new film was a hit in Russia in 1925. there were not so many of them. You were watching what you got. And it was to the tastes of workers and peasants. And probably not to the tastes of refined esthets. `'mikka (t) 21:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Russian Masses did not understand or enjoy Potemkin:

"[Eisenstein] was disappointed when Potemkin failed to attract masses of viewers." Neuberger, Joan. Ivan the Terrible. London 2003. pg 7

"No thinking filmgoer can remain unmoved by Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin (more popular abroad than in Russia)...But the masses did not repsond with enthusiasm to the language of montage because of its conceptual and stylistic difficulties." Stites, Richard. Russian Popular Culture. Cambridge 1992. pg 55

"History as parable: Christmas Eve, 1925, the Moscow premiere of Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin. Two weeks later, it opens to the Russian public on the same day as a splashy American production of Robin Hood. In just a few weeks Robin Hood is a box-office hit, while Potemkin is 'quietly pulled from the grubby, second-rate cinemas where it had been playing to almost deserted houses.' Eisenstein has bombed." http://www.goodreports.net/reviews/moviesandmoney.htm

And from the entry here at Wikipedia on Eisenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Eisenstein): "Furthermore, Eisenstein's experimentalistic films, while successful critically abroad, were not terribly interesting to Soviet film audiences, who wanted action films with comprehensible stories. The average Soviet simply wanted a version of The Mark of Zorro or Metropolis with the hero a Communist and the villain a Capitalist."

Russian people did not enjoy Russian films during this time period. Most of the movies they went to see were American films.

<by user:128.211.176.167>

The change is restored, although I find the quotes above not especially convincing. That Robin Hood was more attractive I may believe, but the whole description of the events fits American movie business model, rather than Soviet propaganda film model. `'mikka (t) 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, its simple. The ideologoy of the Americans and the Russians was different. However, not every Russian was fully literate in Marx, most of them were average joes who want to watch an action movie. Just like today, most people, no matter the country, want an action movie or a comedy or something not artistic, perhaps more so in the Russian 20s. All proletariats, less educated and wanting more to escapism from their horrible lot in life. Very likely the people who voted it one of the best movies in the world are closer to the bourgeois than the proletariat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.16.133 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less than perfect ratings by critics suggest some flaws, but none are cited in the main article. I consider it to be a great movie, but perhaps it does not stand the test of time, or some other matter? I'm waiting on more critical vision than mine.--68.188.183.91 (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lookey Likey

Poster of The Battleship Potemkin

Sorry to be frivilous for a moment - but does the chap in this poster look like Ronnie Barker to you? --kylet 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be frivilous either, but this is the most boring movie ever made. --Ymallet 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you've never seen any of Andy Warhol's (or almost any other) experimental films. Go watch Empire or Sleep and get back to us on boring. Litch (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be frivolous as well, but Wikipedia is neither a blog nor a forum. Cmapm 16:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully agree with the Ronnie Barker comment. Also, although I have not seen the film in its entirety, it does sound pretty boring. As for the last comment: well that's just where you're wrong I'm afraid. Sorry mate! Dr Spam (MD) 07:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influences

One cannot forget Bonnie and Clyde, the film, when Warren Beatty is shot in the eye. This sequence comes from the film. Saxophobia 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]


In 1928 director Boris Barnet parodied the Odessa Steps sequence in "The House on Trubnaya Square" as a chase for a runaway duck causes havoc in Red Square.Saxophobia 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Note the problem with note 4. Looks like someone messed up the reference syntax --Droll 03:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.Cop 633 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While finding both the new location of the dead link for reference 1 (and confirming that this was the same review by finding it in the Internet Archive) I ended up discovering that this reference doesn't support the claim. I've removed it from the intro paragraph and added the "citation needed". Could someone double-check me and check to see if it's relevant to the the second place it is used as a citation? Here are the URLs for your convenience. New location: http://www.amc.com/movie/1925/Battleship+Potemkin Internet Archive as confirmation: https://web.archive.org/web/20111123151406/http://www.filmcritic.com/reviews/1925/battleship-potemkin/ 98.246.192.51 (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Kill the Jews"?

Can anyone explain as to why, at about minute 42, a well-dressed man in the crowd randomly shouts "Kill the Jews" as they are rallying in support of the sailors? That just seems really odd, and maybe it should be mentioned in the article.

Rebelyell2006 18:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a reference to the Tsarist regime's use of anti-semitism to try to direct popular anger away from them. Notice how before that scene, one of the main speakers says, let nothing divide us or something of that sort (ie, don't let ethnicity divide us), and notice how the well-dressed man was brutally beaten afterwards. This could actually be a reference especially to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was commissioned by those against the Russian revolutionary movement and tried to point to Jews as the cause of the world's problems instead of the repressive regimes that fueled revolutionary resentment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article.

Rebelyell2006 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^I agree. There's a pretty clear attempt in this article to link Potemkin to the nazis, one which I think is pretty unsupported historically or content-wise in the film. I took out the unsourced claim that it "influenced" Triumph of the Will. The film also likely influenced John Ford and Frank Capra... Regardless of your ideology, this is an enormously important film in the history of cinema and deserves a much better and balanced article. Negatia 20:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason for the "Kill the Jews" shout was a reference to historical reality. There were revolts against the Tsar in many towns and cities in the Russian Empire in 1905, and these included a wave of anti-semitic attacks. Whilst researching the history of Dnepropetrovsk I found a paper on dealing with anti-semitism in the revolt there: see Surh, Gerald, Ekaterinoslav City in 1905: Workers, Jews, and Violence, published in International Labor and Working-Class History No. 64, Fall 2003, pages 139–166.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1, its the other way around - tsar = anti-jews, revolution = pro-jews --Topk (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the leaders of communist revolutionaries during the period were Ashkenazim, having not yet watched this (I'm still buffering it, but Wikimedia is woefully slow today.) I can only assuming it was Tsarist's shouting that? The mere fact we're discussing it is evidence of it's notability and thus it's inclusion is a must. Could someone who has watched this add it in? Historically there is a close link between Ashkenazi Jew's and socialist, communist, and even anarchist revolutions, whether real or imagined. Also at the time the global image of a 'terrorist' was, and for many decades thereafter, associated with left-wing often 'anarchist' European Jewry, who conducted politically motivated bombing campaigns of significant note (documented events aside, the frequency real or imagined was enough that the stereotype persisted for almost a century), fueling anti-Semitic hatred at the time. So with such an anti-establishment stereotype there is no possible way it was revolutionaries calling for the killing of Jews, it would have to have been establishmentarianists. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the fact that the producer (Sergei Eisenstein) of this movie was Jewish, I'm guessing that he was disparaging the antisemitism of Tsarist rule rather than supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.129.205.143 (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Múm

I'm just curious as to if this should mention the soundtrack that was composed by the band Múm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.234.85 (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Violence

The current version of the article says: "the film shocked audiences, but not so much for its political statements as for its use of violence, which was considered graphic by the standards of the time". The statement about violence seems unlikely - compare violence levels with the siege of Babylon in the American film Intolerance (1916).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that was violence in a safely distant past-- Potemkin was namelessly personalised and contemporary. If you went to see an epic spectacle, you expected "Oooh, those wicked ancient people," whereas it was a bit harsher to see it within your own generation. 70.24.197.65 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who plays Potemkin?

Just curious, the ship was broken up in 22, the movie was made in 26 and I doubt Eisentstein was albe to get footage from the real uprising, so who played the Potemkin in The Battleship Potemkin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.16.133 (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bronenosets Rodchenko.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bronenosets Rodchenko.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kino0.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kino0.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title and redirect

Is there a good reason that this page is titled "Battleship Potemkin" and that the page for the actual ship is titled "Russian battleship Potemkin"? It seems to me that for most pages, the convention for movies named after real life entities is "X (movie)" and that whatever the movie is about is what will be shown. So, in this case, shouldn't the title be "Battleship Potemkin (movie)" and the actual ship just be "Battleship Potemkin"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.168.11 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article, this film is among the most influential of all time. In fact, it is quite probable that the warship Potemkin is today remembered because a revolt on it formed the basis for this film. So the film should enjoy higher precedence. When somebody uses the search box, it is 100 to 1 that they want the film, not the ship. That said, why 'Russian Battleship Potemkin' for the ship? Is there a British battleship by the same name? Should it not be 'Battleship Potemkin (Battleship)'? Jose Mathew C (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Sections

The names of the sections in 'Plot' and in 'Film style and content' were different. I have made them uniform. 'Odessa Staircase' is fairly ridiculous. In the other cases, 'Men and Maggots', 'A Dead Man Calls For Justice' and 'One Against All' sounded better than 'People and worms', 'The dead man calls out' or 'The Rendezvous with the Squadron'. Please revert if you disagree. Jose Mathew C (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red Flag?

Just when the battle seems inevitable, the sailors of the Tsarist ships incredibly refuse to open fire on their comrades, externalizing with songs and shouts of joy their solidarity with the mutineers and allowing them to pass unmolested through the fleet, waving the red flag.

I hate to be a cynic, ok, that's a lie. But I have to point out - there aren't many colors in this film. How can we be sure it was a red flag and not a white flag, or for that matter a pink or lavender flag inviting the sailors to the local gay bar for a revolutionary after party of hide the torpedo? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production?

There's absolutely bupkis in this article about the production. How much did it cost? How many extras were used? Were they paid? Who produced it? How did they get access to the ships? How long did it take?216.40.152.27 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tendra?

Where's Tendra?

Is that the Tendra Spit? In 1905 it was an island, but now it's a peninsula?

I think the article might be slightly more valuable if this were clarified. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battleship Potemkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battleship Potemkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

horsecar?

The fourth paragraph of §Production begins

Eisenstein began with filming in Leningrad and had time to shoot the railway strike episode, horsecar, city at night and the strike crackdown on Sadovaya Street.

How does "horsecar" fit in there, either plotwise or syntactically. Are there any scenes with horsecars? --Thnidu (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

unreadable lists

The first paragraph of § Treatment in other works of art contains two long linked lists of films with the linked names of their creators, so tightly packed that they are hard to read and comprehend. I am about to change those to bulleted lists for ease of reading, and adding corresponding linebreaks in the wikicode for ease of editing.

Since this change may be controversial, here is a copy of the paragraph as it now appears:

The scene is perhaps the best example of Eisenstein's theory on montage, and many films pay homage to the scene, including Terry Gilliam's Brazil, Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather,[1] Brian De Palma's The Untouchables,[1] George Lucas's Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith,[2] Tibor Takacs's Deathline, Laurel and Hardy's The Music Box, Chandrashekhar Narvekar's Hindi film Tezaab, Shukō Murase's anime Ergo Proxy, The Magic Christian and Johnnie To's Three. Several films spoof it, including Woody Allen's Bananas and Love and Death, Zucker, Abrahams, and Zucker's Naked Gun 33+1⁄3: The Final Insult (though also a parody of The Untouchables), Soviet-Polish comedy Deja Vu, Jacob Tierney's The Trotsky and the Italian comedy Il secondo tragico Fantozzi. The 2011 October Revolution parade in Moscow featured a homage to the film.

--Thnidu (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Iconic movie scene: The Untouchables' Union Station shoot-out". Den of Geek. November 16, 2011.
  2. ^ Xan Brooks (1 February 2008). "Films influenced by Battleship Potemkin". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 October 2016.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odesa

For some reason, user Mellk wants Odesa spelt as "Odessa". It is a Ukrainian city, it should be spelt the Ukrainian way. I appreciate the user is Russian and may prefer the Russian spelling, but they are free to refer to any Russian city by their Russian name. Odesa is a Ukrainian city. Odesa is the main spelling of Odesa now, including on Wikipedia. The user should respect this. I'd like to mention the user is trying to impose Russian spellings for the following pages also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa_in_Flames https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Kievan_Rus%27 78.199.138.115 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article of the film is titled Odessa in Flames, not Odesa in Flames. For Christianization of Kievan Rus', there is clear consensus to use "Kiev" in this context (see WP:KIEV). Also, do not make assumptions about other editors. Mellk (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title is from Italian, translated into English. Odesa in English is Odesa.
As for changing Odesa to "Odessa" in an article about Battleship Potemkine, a Ukrainian film made in Ukraine, what am I supposed to assume? He has a pattern of going over articles about Ukraine and imposing Russian spellings to Ukrainian cities. The spelling "Odessa" is both incorrect, immoral, genocidal and tasteless. It shouldn't be encouraged for a major piece of Ukrainian culture. The Odesa Steps are a monument that still exists, the Odesa of the film is the same city as today, so why the archaic, Russian imposed spelling? 78.199.138.115 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Ukrainian film. Also, if you personally find "Odessa" incorrect, immoral, genocidal and tasteless, this is completely irrelevant. Mellk (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So information being "incorrect" is completely irrelevant?
So the film shot in Ukraine isn't Ukrainian. Please tell me where it is from then. Do you have an alternative Odesa in mind? I'd be grateful for you to enlighten me on this matter. 78.199.138.115 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Support the July proposal to merge the poster page (Battleship Potemkin (poster)) to here, for short text and context. It would make a neat section, possibly under Distribution, censorship and restoration, although as a top-level subheading (given its importance in art history) would be fine too. Klbrain (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battleship_Potemkin

    by Robert Payne

    Follow me opinions Website

    Related Posts