Well I was very impressed with this film, now not to say that the special effects were great, but that's to be expected of an early film. Now on to the pro's of this movie. Well first off the story is amazing; that of Chapaev the great commander of the Russian Red Army, and his adventures. It also goes upon the love story Petka and Anka. Though it is sad to see both Petka and Chapaev die in the end. Other pros for me include the camera work and the actual decent special effects for that era. Con-wise I really can't think of much to say. Actually I can't think of anything...
So now on to some of the questions. Well Chapeaev was able to appeal to the public in the sense that he was like Hitler, a man of speech. It is especially seen when he talks to the public about the soldiers raiding the town and robbing it. He is given thanks to them for making his soldiers return the stuff they stole. By this he gains appeal from the public and they begin to like Chapaev. Now had this been in silent format I can't say how much I would have liked it. You really couldn't have gotten as long as a movie as well as the same feeling from silence and intertitles. Last off the ultimate hero is definatley Chapaev, without him the Red Army would have not gotten anywhere. Though he is saved by Petka, he was able to inspire the people and his soldiers to victory.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is indeed striking how silent films (such as the sixty-nine minute Potemkin) can often seem longer than sound films (take the ninety minute Chapaev, for example). I'm not sure why this is. The only thing I can figure is that our mind is occupied in absorbing linear sounds to the extent that it often fails to notice the passage of time. Whereas this process of "losing the time" is not so easy when it comes to taking in visual impressions.
ReplyDelete