Arsenal

This is about one of the greatest events in Soviet history: the defense of the Kiev arsenal against anti-Soviet forces. Great honors were bestowed on the defenders, including the Badge for the Defense of the Kiev Arsenal. A must see for Russian history scholars. However, this version could use a cleaner sound track and more subtitles to explain events for the non specialist. Then they could understand it as one of history's great last stands like Westerplatte or the Alamo. I got the impression somebody deliberately reworked the subtitles to reflect today's Russia-Ukraine conflict so as not to offend anybody. There is too much historical revisionism so as not to offend somebody's precious feelings. Neither the Ukrainians or Russians have a great record when it comes to other people's rights. Let it be. Learn the history. It is what it is.

If you like those weird German films from between the world wars, weird art films, horror films, like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" then you might like this. Its silent, from the USSR in the late 20's, B+W, with odd imagery and very surreal. It was supposed to be a soviet propaganda film, but I would say its more a kind of film noire art film. Stark and tragic from a stark and tragic era.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.

One of the classics, a gorgeous film that only in one way is propaganda. The quality of the transfer is good, too.

An early classic.

I'm sure there's plenty of people who would normally pass on this movie, for two reasons: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.

This film is remarkable and enjoyable. It's silent and from a different era, so some of the story elements are portrayed with a heavy hand, but the visuals remain powerful and unique. The director draws characters just from their faces, and powerful action simply from standing still. The plot is linear enough for this kind of art- if you like powerful artistic expression, you'll like this film.

Alexander Dovzhenko's silent war film about the 1918 struggle of Bolshevik workers at a Kiev munitions factory against White Russian troops, which he intermingles with Ukrainian myth. It's an intriguing relic of European filmmaking, clearly influenced by the virtuoso montage editing of Sergei Eisenstein, though it is dated and hampered by the feeling that it was commissioned as propaganda at the time. A multifarious moral examination of war none the less.

The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant. In all, one should view this if they are an art student or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.

its so strange this film is weird

An incredible film that captures the heart wrenching decision making around civil war in Ukraine. Incredible for it's time, a masterpiece.

Good

After scoring a hit with Zvenigora, Dovzhenko comfortably hits his stride with the second film in the Ukraine Trilogy. Now he's let loose with all the facilities he needs to inovate, and in the late twenties, this must have been an astonishing film. For my money, the best of the three, although they all have their highlights.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.

Historique et largement méconnu... et pourtant !A faire connaître car voilà du cinéma qui fait réfléchir...Je ne regrette pas mon achat !