Chapaev (1/16/19)

     I can very clearly see why this was and still is a hit in Russia, however for me I wasn't really digging it. To compare it to Battleship Potemkin I would say that while this film is slow, it has a more steady than Potemkin in that film it was either breakneck pace or a grinding halt. In this film there is definitely more consistent pacing with climaxes and falling action and the like. This does, however, make it a bit predictable. To me this film had a lot less to digest than the previous two films we watched, however this could be due to the fact that I am really not interested in war or history. Even big blockbuster American war movies are usually not my favorites. I get tired of the good vs evil in such a broad and nationalistic sense. I always love scenes in war films where the young men, even when from opposing sides, sort of see an eye of the storm in the battle can either not kill each other for a minute or work together in any respect. These are bad examples but two that come to mind are Kong: Skull Island and Dunkirk, in the first a Japanese and American pilot land on skull island and while they initially fight it is reveled later they became good friends and worked together on the island to try and escape. In Dunkirk while they are technically on the same side, they do not speak the same language, at the beginning when they steal the dead man's boots and bury his body. I like the camaraderie of war but sometimes it is a little too "hoo rah" for my liking. This is a film I found to be a little bit too much for me.
     It held my attention in the middle I really loved the character of Chapaev I loved seeing his weaknesses and his character. I loved his short temper followed by scenes of almost child-like wonder. While having never heard of him I was really rooting for him, his lack of understanding in some aspects was really charming and while he may have been physically indestructible for most of the film, mentally it was another story. These flaws made him likable and easy to relate to and I really appreciated that, as usually with Commanders in film they are very one dimensional. I'd say the opposing Commander in this film, of the White Army, even falls victim to that a bit, he is very one dimensional, just evil and rude. The young Petka we also get to see grow. All the characters have a humanity to them, they are not just faceless soldiers. We see their flaws and their mistakes, and we see their dreams and wishes, and we see it all be sort of dashed under the pressure of war. A line I found very sad was when Chapaev said after the war they won't wish to die or something like that. It just seemed like it hid a loneliness and depression in the Commander we do not normally see.
     What this film had that Battleship Potemkin didn't is character and plot. That is what makes this film the popular choice. However, there are some things  in Potemkin that are a bit lacking here in my opinion, however this could change after the reading. But I found this film to be a little bit less artistically interesting when compared to other films we have viewed. To me, the characters all had wonderful depth and personality, but as for the technical aspects of film, there really just wasn't much there. No incredibly interesting shots or geometry, no interesting uses really at all of the things that make film an interesting medium. This is all my opinion of course. There are pretty shots, and well done shots, but nothing incredible or artistically stimulating. The similarities between these two Russian war films however are interesting. The scene in Potemkin where the pope averts his eyes from the hardships of the general is mirrored in this film when the eyes of the White Army's Commissar avert the eyes of the pleading servant to the Commander. That was interesting to me. Also the idea of young vs old plays a big part in this film as it did in Potemkin the White Army, "The Aristocrats", the old ways are all old and orderly, but mean and decadent in ways that Communists would disprove of. They don't seem to have any care but for themselves and that is not the Communist way. The Red Army, is young and progressive and full of exemplary characters. Along with this the White Armies headquarters very much resembled the captains quarters in Potemkin even down to both containing a piano and comfy chairs. The fact that both are these are Communist Propaganda films probably plays into why there are similarities between the two, and there are probably more that I am missing as I was very much just drawn into the characters.
     One thing that I was interested in was the sort of odd battles that were taking place throughout the film, not physical battles but mental ones. Arguments of intelligence sort of pop up here and there, along with misinformation and the idea that the captive chef brings up of the "Psychic attack". The Commissar makes the Commander feel lesser when he brags of his knowledge of Alexander the Great, Petka sort of asserts his dominance over the woman Anka, with his knowledge of machine guns that she wishes him to pass onto her. There was a sort of dominance that was needed mentally in this film rather than just physically and I liked this as it definitely set it apart from other war films that I have seen. In those films its just who has the biggest muscles or the biggest gun but in this film the power dynamic sort of goes beyond that. There is special care taken in decision making in this film, in the strategy rooms with the maps, there is always tension between the Commissar and the Commander. There was one scene where someone (possibly Chapaev) hurled an insult at someone else (possibly one of his soldiers) and there was a dramatic pause before he added on "Stupid." I thought this attack on intelligence was interesting in a war film. Even from the opening scene of the bumbling soldiers fishing their rifles out of the water it is very clear that while this is a war of the bodies there is a war of the minds going on as well. This was a very interesting aspect of the film to me and I think it was so because all the characters show their fears and weaknesses, and most of them are mental, not physical, making these intelligence battles more interesting than the actual blood and steel ones.
     One other thing I noticed that may be a stretch was the involving the relationship between Chapaev and Furmanov the Commissar. There was definitely a power struggle going on here, but there were other sort of relations happening between the two. Furmanov was like a teacher, and a mother. A teacher when he tells him about Alexander the Great, and a mother when he tells Chapaev to tidy up. He turns him into the man he thinks the army needs. But I would almost argue that he turns Chapaev into the man that he needs. I always kind of feel there are homoerotic themes in war movies. In class today there was a brief mention of homoerotic themes in Battleship Potemkin I sort of saw them in here as well. There was one scene where they both sat on the ground and looked at a map (I believe) and it almost appeared that they were holding hands. Also with the hug at their departure it seemed all like their relationship was a little more than professional. At the very lest Chapaev saw Furmanov as a father figure, but if you stretch it out a bit it almost seems there is something romantic there. It isn't a stretch to say that Chapaev is lonely, so maybe he finds what he needs in Furmanov after he changes him so much into the clean, smarter man that he is at the end of the film.
     After writing this post and thinking about the film more I have come to appreciate it more deeply, there might even be some contradictions in the post above. I loved the characters and the writing I really enjoyed the small personal moments in the film especially those involving Chapaev and the Commissar. While I stand by my statement that the technical aspects of this film were less than impressive. However I have come around on my description of it as a typical war movie. While the plot structure and events are relatively standard and predictable, the characters and added psychological elements of this film elevate to a point where I can look back at it and say that I enjoy it. I can understand why it beats Battleship Potemkin in the popularity contest. It gives you characters to relate to more fully than in Potemkin however for me the technical aspects of Potemkin win over Chapaev any day.