October

• Film Title: October (Ten Days that Shook the World)
• Original Year of Production: 1928
• Studio: Sovkino
• Director: Grigori Aleksandrov, Sergei M. Eisenstein
• Cast: Vladimir Popov as Aleksandr Kerensky, Vasili Nikandrov as V.I. Lennin Layaschenko as Konovaloz

    The Film October starts out with revolts against the Russian Monarchy during 1917. One of the first images show the statue of Tsar Nicholas being torn down. This paints the perfect image of the times in which the film is trying to depict. Widespread poverty and civil unrest was felt by millions of Russia’s proletariat. During this time of Russia’s history wars such those in Manchuria against Japan in 1905 and World War One left Russia and her citizens tired of war and it’s out of touch government. The government, headed by the Tsar, was unable to get much needed supplies to soldiers as well as paying off the national debt. In addition, workers felt further alienated by the Monarchy and the Bourgeioise and demanded for a social revolution. Eventually the Monarchy steps down and the provisional government, headed by Aleksanr Kerensky, comes into power. However, the provisional government is unable to handle all of Russia’s problems and Lenin and his Bolsheviks aim to seize control. This film primarily portrays the fight for power against Korensky’s provisional government and Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

This film seems to differ from other films on the Russian Revolution because of it’s focus on Kerensky and the provisional government. Although the film focuses a lot on Kerensky it’s biases against him and provisional government are obvious. The provisional government are portrayed as weak and un-assure of themselves. Compared to the momentum filled Bolsheviks, Kerensky and his provisional government are portrayed as fighting a losing battle against the people’s revolution and Communism. The thesis of this film can possibly be different when asking different people. The fact that the film was mostly silent and had very little words leaves more interpretation than films with more dialogue and sound. However, seeing that this film was commissioned by the Soviet government and the persistent portrayal of the people’s Revolution is visual throughout the film, the most logical answer would have to deal with the Revolution. In the film the idea that the proletariat’s revolution under Lenin and his Marxist ideas of class dissolution as a destined end to the Monarchy and the provisional government’s rule are clearly present. For example, when Kerensky was shown leaving the Winter Palace, Kerensky was portrayed as a coward rolling out of town in an automobile pictured with an American flag. Images such as this belittle the opponents of Russia’s Revolution.

Unless one would have actual knowledge of the events of the October Revolution, the film could possibly be viewed as non-fiction. However, it does seem obvious that the film could be categorized as a Bolshevik propaganda film. An example of such propaganda was the portrayal of members of the provisional government as being played by weird and hideous actors. This could have been a deliberate effort to sway the public. Another example that taunts the historical accuracy of the film was the storming of the Winter Palace. The film focused alot of energy and portrayed this as an important act in the collapse of the provisional government. It seems that the actual storming of the Palace was actually less important, dramatic and concise than the film portrays.  Such examples act to withdraw complete historical accuracy by the directors of this film. In conclusion, this film and its message of Revolution against the provisional government at the hands of the Bolshevik were intended to draw popular support for the Bolsheviks and their Marxist ideas of class equality and unification under the terms of propaganda.

Glory

• Film Title: Glory
• Original Year of Production: 1989
• Studio: Tristar Pictures
• Director: Edward Zwick
• Cast: Mathew Broderick as Col. Robert Shaw, Denzel Washington as Trip, Morgan Freeman as John Rowlins and Cary Eweles as Major Cabot Forbes
• Producer: Freddie Fields

The film begins with Colonel Robert Shaw leading the first ever black infantry unit in the American Civil War. During the beginning of the film it becomes apparent that the historical period is very racist. Black people were considered by many northern and southern Americans as not even fit for service. Within the first 15 minutes, a racist joke comparing black soldiers to pigs is made by a white man without hesitation. In another instance, Trip leaves camp in order to pick up a decent pair of boots, however, when he is caught is was subjected to lashing by his drill instructor. When the instructor rips off his shirt highly visible scars from previous lashing are visible across his back. Many black people during this time did not even receive the simplest of education. When marching the drill instructor asked his soldier if he knew his right from his left. When the soldier answered no others admitted the same. Such a lack of basic education supports the fact that these men were seen as unfit for education and of little value until Lincoln's ideas of post-war Reconstruction. However, Glory, according to Rosenstone, is a "dramatic feauture, a form largley propelled by fiction and invention."(39)  As historian Gerda Lerner explains, (357) "Photography, as a mass art form, popular journalism, radio, film, and television have profoundly affected the relationship to people in the past." Glory was a big budget Hollywood film that caught of the attention of the masses at the box office, but its characters and their actions are without any historical accuracy. According to Rosenstone, although there is no evidence of "historical accuracy"(45) to this film, the strong characters and strong thesis make this film an important film in history for the general population. And is this relationship with images in film and other outlets that usually stays in our memory-banks.  

 The main thesis of this work presents itself gradually over the course of this film, and that is we are all equal. The fact that these soldiers are willing to fight and risk death for the Colonial and their nation establishes that fact that we are equal. We are all human. We all breathe, eat, drink, sleep, live and die. Colonel Shaw believes this theory so much in fact he volunteered to lead his regiment’s final assault on Fort Wagner. In some sense, Colonel Shaw believes that he is not just fighting for country, but he also fights for the men of his regiment. This becomes especially true when Colonial Shaw offers the regimental colors to his soldier Trip. When Trip seems hesitant and upset about the offering his superior officer asks why. He basically replied that there will be no winners. So what’s the use of fighting? Colonial Shaw realizes that Trip is right. What does a black infantry man during one of America’s racist periods have anything to fight for? They have almost no rights…no future.

Although this story was well written and has some many elements of racist truth, there is still an entertainment element. For example, Colonel Shaw has to demand for some basic supplies, such as shoes for his soldiers. On the other hand, Colonel Shaw seems kind of soft as a leader, even for a feature film. Although I believe compassion for your fellow soldiers is completely valid, Colonel Shaw takes it to a new level by asking his officers to take it easy on his soldiers, and it just seems his actions are not typical of an army leader. Yet this film is mostly viewed through the perspective of Colonel Shaw and his fellow Union soldiers. Their biases of feeling persecuted by other soldiers and other Americans are valid yet still only present one view. The view that we are all and should be treated equal. For if we can fight and die together, than we should all live under the same principles and liberties as Americans.