What did this shot try to convey? What is the meaning of this?

hi adum, nice digits
how has your dogfucking business been doing lately?

what do you think?

The brutality and heartlessness of the Tsarist regime.

you made me choke on my beer

Is it your first day of film school? I'm not helping you with your homework.

The Tsars were just as bad as the sailors on Potemkin and the citizens of Odessa were in the wrong for helping the sailors revolt

Attached: moe-green.jpg (720x480, 198K)

; )

Attached: 1559550916795.png (720x442, 276K)

>tfw you outright invent atrocities out of thin air to justify the exponentially worse atrocities your ideology is actually responsible for

true smokescreen-kino

t. Khmer Rouge-san

Based.
Worthwile cinema started in the 70s.

retard

Attached: Hey Khmer Rouge check out my new gla-.png (680x608, 422K)

That this whole thing didn't happened and was made up for the movie, but was presented like it did. It's an unabashed propaganda film.

>It's an unabashed propaganda film
Yes, and..?

She got shot in the eye man

Unironically, it was supposed to induce shock with its gore.
That specific massacre, on the Primorsky Staris didn't happen, but the Potemkin rebellion did, along with a bunch of other tragedies between Russian troops and civilians.
It's not like the Russian civil war happened just on lies and tall tales, after all, and agitprop films like this one helped Russians rationalize why they seemingly had to go through all of the violence that happened-- the propaganda message, is that they suffered "in order to achieve communism", even though prewar political repressions were widespread and for any number of reasons. Repression of communists, just represented a fraction of all the atrocities that were going around-- look at Bloody Sunday, for example. This movie was released in 1925; twenty full years after the Potemkin rebellion, and about two years after the Soviet Union was properly established-- after the civil war had happened, but before all of the massive purges, kulak-hunts, and the holodomor. It was trying to justify the violence and suffering of the former, as a communist experience, before the latter repressions and violence even happened.
The Russian Revolution wasn't a one-on-one fight between monolithic evil vodka drinking commies and the noble-but-misguided Tsarist regime that /pol/ likes to pretend it was, but a huge fucking mess between a lot of different groups, none of whom could predict who was actually going to come out on top in the end. Films like Potemkin were necessary to qualify to the masses that their civil-war suffering necessitated a regime change, rather than some way to obfuscate the history. That started to happen a few later

she got made into the mafia

Well known Soviet propaganda. The massacre on the Odessa steps as seen in the movie is a fabrication, though the many cuts and the rhythm during this sequence is among the earliest and most effective uses of the montage. Eisenstein would go on to make much better films later in life.

He ain't gonna be TALKIN' to Barzini no more...

not sure why people say it's propaganda like that's a negative when the film is renowned for its form, not its ideas. it's known that the film wasn't even very effective at amassing a following when it came out; most of its praise in that time came from overseas.

>it's a bad movie because it's PROPHAGANDA there was NEVER a massacre on the odessa steps

>not sure why people say it's propaganda like that's a negative

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 85K)

>that image
mmm yeah go back to Yea Forumseddit sweaty

the fast cut is supposed to mimic the impact of a bullet without actually showing the bullet enter and exit the woman's eye, because cinematic effect is greater than mere visual semantics. it's also self-referential to the agitprop nature of soviet art, and of the burgeoning power of the moving image literally tearing open the eyes of viewer. one could also read the eye as symbolic of the anus (pupil = sphincter) and the bloody hole the aftermath of sodomy