Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Reviews
Product Description
Soldiers return to Ukraine to find their homeland teeming with strife and dissension, gripped in a conflict between nationalist forces and communists. One faction of soldiers, led by Timosh (Semyon Svashenko) supports the communists and takes command of a munitions factory at Kiev, converting the weapons arsenal into a fortress. Still reeling from the trauma of war, Timosh and his comrades engage in a violent crusade that soon spreads across Ukraine. A country of farms and villages gives way to killing fields. Modern warfare, with its guns, bombs and trenches scars a landscape rich in hundred years worth of tradition.
A 'white hot war film' in Jonathan Rosenbaum's words, Arsenal is placed alongside Battleship Potemkin as the great revolutionary masterpiece of Soviet cinema. Its frank depiction of violence as well as its fantastic lyrical imagery established Dovzhenko as the least ideological and most experimental film-maker of his age. The reach of its influence stretches from the works of Sergei Parajanov to Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York.
Review
This ambitious film has evoked comparisons with Picasso's Guernica for its angry, compassionate, complex depiction of war and is full of unforgettable images --The Guardian
Customer Reviews
Knowing about the history of this time is helpful, but not essential (although it will probably take watching it at least twice to take it all in). This period was a confusing time in Ukraine, but the various groups can be distinguished by their clothing. As simple as it may be, their clothing are a giveaway of who they support. There is a group that resurrected 17th century fashions wearing zupons -- but instead of matchlock pistols they have revolvers. And probably as polar opposite to that are the Bolsheviks, who are ultimately portrayed as the "heroes" of the film. The main characters are obviously all workers and revolutionaries as Dovzhenko himself was a Ukrainian but supported the Soviets.
Ukrainian history is a bit confusing and complicated, especially at this time period. It isn't simplified in this movie, but it also isn't made terribly complicated by mentioning too many names, dates and places. The movie mentions there were four wars in four years, but doesn't get into any more details than that. The bottom line is there were a number of groups within the country that supported various political ideas. Although by no means did I think the whole film was propaganda, but a few parts are unmistakable for anything else. All in all, the movie amazingly brings to life this time period, but as it was actually made not too long after the actual events took place, it is more powerful than if something along these lines were made today.
Films this old are only ever going to have a small modern audience, and a critical one. This film still does the business. If you know nothing of Soviet silent cinema but the Battleship Potemkin, see Dovzhenko's trilogy.
1) It's silent.
2) It's Soviet propaganda.
See it anyway. Dovzhenko's visual style is bracing, showing an astounding range of black-and-white palettes, from dusty grays to hard-edged chiaroscuro effects. His editing is even more audacious than that of his countryman, Eisenstein; parallel narratives, extended atmospheric montages, long, tense scenes suddenly bursting into flash cuts of near-subliminal effect.
Yes, the narrative line is somewhat confusing, with juxtapositions of abstract battle scenes, flurries of political agitation, allgorical action, and stark, fable-like tableaux. But keeping in mind that Dovzhenko is trying to capture the transition of an entire country from war to chaos to corruption and back to war again actually can help wean the viewer off of the need for a linear story. Unlike a lot of standard movie fare, "Arsenal" actually makes more sense the more you think about it: the dream-like structure gives the movie a marvelous retrospective clarity.
And, yes, the movie is propaganda, but it is far less didactic than most other examples, not to mention leavened with instances of black humor that give the film a curiously independent, humanistic streak. (There was only one scene that made me wince in light of later Soviet history.) In the end, Dovzhenko seems less interested in winning converts to his cause than in simply giving the viewer a chance to experience what it's like to be in the middle of epochal change. It's also a movie that at times is positively giddy at the possibilities of the medium. A real breath of fresh air, even now.
Don't watch it if you are depressed or on drugs ! From the same era as "Nostaferatu". Spooky. Fortunately the film includes a film historian's commentary you can listen to if you like, and I would suggest that one use it, as it is very informative to help put the techniques and intent of the director into perspective, otherwise one might think a chaotic psycho made this film.
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
