file under: 2 silents
after finally seeing battleship potemkin, it was hard for me to believe two things:
1) that the film was shot 4 years after nosferatu, which i popped in immediately afterwards in order to kind of compare technical aspects. potemkin may lack some of what can only be described as the charming indie-eaque fx of nosferatu, but it seems to be light years ahead in nearly every other category.
2) that the battleship used in the film was made 20 years before filming began. seriously, the ship looked so modern i had to brush up on such terminology as pre-dreadnought vs. dreadnought battleships during the course of an investigative maelstrom. i'm sure that was part of the allure of basing a propagandistic film around the ship, the tidy historical event of the rebellion itself notwithstanding. using the ship's clean lines and massive volumes as a clear symbol of modernity in the service of communism was a truly masterful touch.
that doesn't necessarily make potemkin a better film (i think they're both incredibly great), but it is staggering to see the obvious differences between the two onscreen. admittedly, that may have to do with the copy of nosferatu that we own more than anything else, as the film's public domain status means the market has been flooded with cheap copies made prior to a restoration it underwent in 1994. in fact, all of the original prints and negatives of nosferatu were to be destroyed as part of a lawsuit settlement with bram stoker's widow! something clearly survived the ordered annihilation, though. much like the undead, IT WOULD NOT BE SO EASILY DESTROYED!
on top of that, the version i saw of potemkin was apparently from a 1976 restoration, so there's that to consider as well. but does that account entirely for the difference? i doubt it.
1) that the film was shot 4 years after nosferatu, which i popped in immediately afterwards in order to kind of compare technical aspects. potemkin may lack some of what can only be described as the charming indie-eaque fx of nosferatu, but it seems to be light years ahead in nearly every other category.
2) that the battleship used in the film was made 20 years before filming began. seriously, the ship looked so modern i had to brush up on such terminology as pre-dreadnought vs. dreadnought battleships during the course of an investigative maelstrom. i'm sure that was part of the allure of basing a propagandistic film around the ship, the tidy historical event of the rebellion itself notwithstanding. using the ship's clean lines and massive volumes as a clear symbol of modernity in the service of communism was a truly masterful touch.
that doesn't necessarily make potemkin a better film (i think they're both incredibly great), but it is staggering to see the obvious differences between the two onscreen. admittedly, that may have to do with the copy of nosferatu that we own more than anything else, as the film's public domain status means the market has been flooded with cheap copies made prior to a restoration it underwent in 1994. in fact, all of the original prints and negatives of nosferatu were to be destroyed as part of a lawsuit settlement with bram stoker's widow! something clearly survived the ordered annihilation, though. much like the undead, IT WOULD NOT BE SO EASILY DESTROYED!
on top of that, the version i saw of potemkin was apparently from a 1976 restoration, so there's that to consider as well. but does that account entirely for the difference? i doubt it.
posted by pf at
12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home