Monday, January 12, 2009

Chapaev

I thought Chapaev was very good. It was almost like watching an old western with Clint Eastwood! The most obvious difference between this and Battleship Potemkin is the sound. The sound makes the movie better and doesn't make the audience guess what everyone is saying. I think that this movie wouldn't have been as good as it was if it would of been silent. The battles would of been good to watch, but the sound of the guns just make them so much better.I think the relationship between Chapaev and Petka is quite good, but I couldn't really say how close they were. Petka does go back to save him at the end of the film and helps him to the river. Petka and Anka "find" love through working on the mini gun. If he would of survived, it seemed like they would of been together. To me the hero was Chapaev. He lead the troops through the whole movie. Petka would of been a close second because of him going back to save Chapaev. It seemed like the Reds and Whites war was kind of like of Revolutionary War with the Reds being the new settlers and the Whites being the Red Coats. Even the fighting style were similar with the gorilla type war fare and the lines of the Red Coats.

2 comments:

  1. I also agree that it is remarkably similar to the old western films that we had here in America. I also agree with your point about the sound helping the movie out much more than it could ever hurt it. Without the sound I wouldn't have enjoyed this movie nearly as much.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't you think the sound of Chapaev's voice helps a lot in establishing and presenting his character? I'm not sure it would have been as easy to do that in a silent.

    ReplyDelete