just watch it!

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

After an initial viewing, Esfir Shub's Fall of the Romanov Dynasty appeared fairly unremarkable in its presentation. Concerning structure, the film chronologically moves towards the fate that is predestined in its title with title cards giving context to the scenes. Without a score to accompany it (the version I watched), it is a fairly dry viewing experience after watching Vertov's 'documentary' Man With a Movie Camera. However, the comparison here isn't very appropriate considering that the aims of the filmmakers were not closely aligned at all. Shub's film compiles archival footage with the intention of forming a coherent historical record. Her objectivity is certainly debatable. The aloofness of the nobility is inter-cut with the toil of laborers in the fields. The full regalia of Russia's leading military men and the white, virginal dresses of noble women are put against the humble shawls of impoverished city dwellers. The individual leaders of the monarchists are featured prominently while crowds of dissidents replace the screen time of the Bolshevik leaders, an attempt by Shub to play on the revolution as populist movement. While the misleading nature of the film is a little off putting (for example capitalists are explicitly blamed for World War I), Shub's patience in the editing room and her ability to showcase tension between estranged classes of people visually redeem the film as a whole.

I knew it was coming shortly… the answer I couldn't bear to see. The Bolsheviks featured in history. To the victors go the glory, even in the face of war and death. Well that's the ending, which comes slinking in to corrupt what would have been a legitimate effort to provide a synopsis of the preceding 20 years accompanied by both reasonably relevant and appropriate visual material. But don't suppose there was any nuance, oh no, the presentation of events both followed a linear progression and were manufactured to fit a revolutionary mindset - though their depiction under the eye of the camera leaves no room for bias. By the first half of the film it is sickening to watch as ever more of the officer corps and nobility flood the screen in their gilded uniforms of either white or black. While this effect is produced partly by sheer repetition (I could not help but close my eyes at one point and instead focus on Bach's Praeludium I which was playing in the background), all the manicured and clean faces of the gentlemen and ladies are sharply contrasted with the dirty peasants and factory workers working in the fields, plants, mines, and quarries while living in hovels. There is no denying that the divide between the upper classes and the common man is stark. The confidence that inspires in the ability and judgment of the Tsar to order the mass mobilization of the "cannon fodder" is correspondingly poor. The reality of war, through the bitterness of winter, featuring the explosions of artillery, the manufacturing of deadly weaponry, and the consequent death of millions, leads to the obvious conclusion: War must stop, and the Tsar must fall.And so it was that in about 5 minutes of film the storming of the palace and abdication of Nicholas II was completed, power transferred, and regime undone. The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty, title of the film, is complete. We could have ended there, the next months of the story left to another documentary, but Esfir Shub decided to press on just as the war did even after February's revolution. The people are mustered and Lenin is seen, figurehead, all chanting "Bread, Peace, Freedom," the clarion call of the Bolsheviks.

Let's get this straight: this is pretty much straight line Marxist history as of 1928, to which I say "So what?" It takes decades to sort out the passions of the events and get a reasonable take on them and even then passions will continue to inflame matters. Consider the discussions of the American Civil War as of 1960. I don't believe that the First World War was started to maximize profits, but as a sort of series of events that would be a comedy of errors if they weren't so horrid.What we do have here, and what should be applauded, is some great historical clips of Russia from before the First World War -- and most of the pre-War film studios were so devastated that many students of cinema aren't even aware there was an advanced Russian film industry before the Great War -- which are beautifully edited. Esfir Shub was one of the people surrounding Dziga Vertov, who was a practicing and practical director while the Academicians were writing texts to demonstrate to the lumpen-proletariat why they should appreciate their editing. As a result, this becomes a well-illustrated history text which tells its story in a comprehensible and engaging fashion. It is the model for how such documentaries would be done for decades, and still are.

Fascinating collection of footage from the years 1913-17 focusing on the Russian Revolution. With an introduction by a Russian historian and cultural expert, it exposed a number of myths about the revolution and in particular, the Bolsheviks.With this gentleman providing a commentary over the footage that's happening and explaining the propaganda behind not only this film, but the three films that I'd seen by Eisentein, presenting them in a completely different light. Filmwise it wasn't anything special, however the informed commentary was riveting and helps you to understand a bit more about what actually happened, even if it only touches the surface.Watched in conjunction with Eisenstein's October 1917, Strike and Battleship Potemkin, these are essential viewing.