Leofwine_draca TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD is a documentary-style retelling of the Russian Revolution that saw the rise of Lenin and his Bolsheviks and the overthrow of the royal family. It comes across as a piece of propaganda and was directed by Russia's most famous director, no less than Sergei Eisenstein. The situation was a complex one and that complexity comes across well in this fast-paced silent film which is packed with memorable imagery and epic-feeling crowd scenes.

Joe M As dubious as may be its initial claim to be a completely accurate historical depiction, Eisenstein's October is nonetheless a tremendous creation, expertly weaving its clear message through epic stagings and symbolic montage. Every scene in the film is designed to draw viewers into the Bolshevik ethos, from the heart-wrenching deaths of protesters and their horses at the hands of machine guns and bourgeoisie umbrellas to the triumphant arrest of the provisional government upon the storming of the Winter Palace. Among October's most striking characteristics is its use of montage. Early in the film, scenes of the WWI front show the suffering of Russian troops. Later, as distinguished figures march through the opulent Winter Palace to form the provisional government, the "historical" footage is punctuated by scattered shots of a peacock flaunting its plumage. Likewise, as Kerensky ponders his own grandeur, he is superimposed with a statue of Napoleon, a ruler who famously fell at Russia's hands. Most powerfully, the statue of Emperor Aleksandyr III is dismantled at the start of the film, and seems to reassemble itself as the bourgeois provisional government assumes power. The symbolism is used to great effect, and clearly demonstrates the movie's thematic take on many events in the film. Shostakovich's excellent soundtrack is an incredible asset to October. The score highlights each scene's mood, infusing the film with sadness, excitement, and the joy of victory. Sounds played over the music further reinforce the film's theme. At various points, viewers hear people marching, crowds cheering, and guns rattling. Not only does this engage the audience, but it also gives the impression that in a film of limited sounds, only those made communally–by the Soviet people as a whole–were truly important. October does conveniently portray the Bolsheviks' rise to power in an evidently idealized manner, but it does so with great skill and grace, producing–with the aid of a large budget and thousands of extras–breathtaking (if not wholly accurate) recreations of events in the October Revolution. Soviet audiences must have been truly moved by October's cinematography and score, and future audiences will almost certainly continue to appreciate their work.

manjavhern I saw this film for film history class and hated every second of it. The movie is so full of symbolism and fast editing that you can't enjoy it unless you have an extensive knowledge of the time period in what is being shot and the director. The people who were there for the revolution didn't even understand the film. I mean come on if they couldn't understand it, how am I supposed to enjoy it when I don't have the slightest idea of the Russian revolution. Not to mention the film is major long! It gave me a headache and as soon as it ended I ran for the door and did not look back. If someone wants you to watch this movie just run the other way and don't look back. You'll thank me later. The film is good on editing, but other than that I could not enjoy it. I could not get a sense of character development nor could I identify any characters for that matter. There is no sound, no color, just fast paced movement and random symbolism scenes cut in. Everyone I talked to in my film classed agreed it was one of the weakest and most boring movies we saw in class, and I agree with them. There are those that enjoy this movie, right on man, but don't try to tell me why because I honestly saw it, judged it, and have already made up my mind. I will never watch this movie again.

azuremorningsky The film Oktyabr tells the story of the overthrow of the provisional government by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Being a history enthusiast I was excited to see this film in film class, but by the end of the movie I was extremely disappointed. The movie was far from being historically accurate and showed more like a recruitment film for the Bolshevik cause. Every group other than the Bolsheviks in the film are depicted as cowardly, stupid, ugly, incompetent ,evil or a mixture of all five . I would go as far to say that the provisional government and the bourgeoisie was depicted as comically evil, grinning fiendishly while killing the herculean exemplar Bolshevik man with umbrellas or gunning down idyllic peaceful protesters. In contrast every Bolshevik man, woman and child is shown as the summit of human purity and self sacrifice working only to better the Bolshevik cause. The film is on its most basic level propaganda, produced during the height of Stalin's Russia.While the accuracy of the historical account is questionable at best and outright revisionist at worst the film can be praised for its advanced film editing techniques. The director of the film Eisenstein was a genius film editor and the movie is riddled with complex film tricks. Eisenstein famously used montages throughout the film in order to get across highly sophisticated symbols. In fact the film was criticized at the time of its release for using too much symbolism which was seen as too difficult for the average Russian peasant to understand.To sum up my opinion of the movie if you enjoy historically accurate movies look somewhere else but if you are interested in the origin of complex film editing you have come to the right place.