Skip to main content

Why Battleship Potemkin remains relevant: From Stalinist purges to the war on Ukraine

By Harsh Thakor* 
On December 21, a few days ago, we commemorated the centenary of one of the greatest films of the twentieth century—Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin. A landmark of Russian cinema, The Battleship Potemkin was first shown in Moscow on December 24, 1925. Yet its enduring appeal and relevance are evident in the countless homages paid by filmmakers over the century that followed. Few films have so powerfully stirred the souls of audiences.
Battleship Potemkin was a path-breaking experiment both aesthetically and politically, transcending realms previously unexplored in filmmaking. It stands as a masterpiece that successfully fuses political propaganda with revolutionary artistic technique. Through its classical yet radical structuring of episodes and meticulous dissection of scenes, the film achieves an intense and gripping navigation of human psychology in a moment of historical transition.
This great Soviet silent film profoundly influenced Hollywood and European cinema and continues to be taught in film schools worldwide as a model of cinematic innovation. In 1958, it was voted “the greatest film of all time” by an international panel of critics in Brussels. Pauline Kael famously observed that no other film had achieved such graphic power in its images, using “psychological stimulation” through montage.
Considering how primitive film technology was in 1925, modern audiences remain mesmerised by the impact of this black-and-white silent film. No one who has seen it can escape memories of the famous massacre on the Odessa Steps, particularly the unforgettable image of the baby carriage rolling helplessly down the steps. Potemkin was so effective in its jolting imagery and communist message that it was banned in the UK from 1926 to 1954, amid fears that it might inspire a workers’ uprising.
The Soviet government ordered the film, produced by Mosfilm, to mark the twentieth anniversary of the 1905 Potemkin uprising, which Lenin regarded as proof that sections of the armed forces could side with the proletarian revolution. Eisenstein believed that political revolution demanded a revolutionary aesthetic and a new cinematic language.
Following the success of his 1924 debut Strike, Eisenstein was commissioned in March 1925 to make a film commemorating the 1905 revolution. This widespread uprising, born of poor working conditions and deep social discontent, swept across the Russian Empire and challenged imperial autocracy. Although the revolt ultimately failed, its memory endured.
Originally titled The Year 1905, Eisenstein’s project was conceived as part of a nationwide cycle of commemorative events across the Soviet Union. The aim was to connect progressive moments of pre-1917 Russian history—especially the general strike of 1905—to the fabric of new Soviet life. The original screenplay dramatised ten distinct historical episodes, including Bloody Sunday, anti-Semitic pogroms, and the mutiny aboard the battleship Prince Potemkin.
Eisenstein
Principal photography began in the summer of 1925 but yielded little success. A frustrated Eisenstein moved the crew to the southern port city of Odessa, where he abandoned the episodic structure and refocused the film on a single event. The revised screenplay centred exclusively on June 1905, when sailors aboard the Prince Potemkin rebelled after being ordered to eat rotten, maggot-infested meat.
The mutiny and its aftermath were structured into five acts. The opening two acts and the concluding fifth closely followed historical events—the sailors’ rebellion and their eventual escape through a squadron of loyalist ships. The two central acts, depicting the solidarity of Odessa’s citizens with the mutineers, were largely fictionalised, though loosely inspired by real events.
These central episodes, particularly the fourth act with its harrowing depiction of a massacre against unarmed civilians, infuse the film with immense emotional power and moral authority. The Odessa Steps sequence, though largely fictional, integrates historically grounded themes from the original screenplay, especially those highlighting anti-Semitism and the brutal oppression exercised by Tsarist authorities.
The film opens with the battleship cruising the Black Sea, where the crew rises in revolt against its officers. It then depicts Tsarist troops marching down the vast Odessa Steps, firing indiscriminately at fleeing civilians and killing countless people. News of the uprising reaches the imperial fleet, which advances toward Odessa to crush the rebellion. In a climactic moment, the sailors steer the Potemkin out to confront the fleet, hoisting the red flag and signalling, “Join us.” No shots are fired.
The massacre on the Odessa Steps remains the most defining sequence of Eisenstein’s masterpiece. The dramatic shifts within the scene—from a joyous crowd to sudden chaos, from panicked workers tumbling down the steps to the accelerating baby carriage, from the shattering of a woman’s spectacles to her lifeless collapse—epitomise a revolutionary experimentation in cinematic form.
Eisenstein was a leading exponent of Soviet montage theory, which relies on the juxtaposition of images to intensify tension and meaning. Through rapid cuts, varied camera angles, and contrasting viewpoints, he creates suspense and emotional shock. Terrified faces of civilians are set against the faceless, mechanical advance of uniformed troops. A military boot crushes a child’s hand; a woman is shot, a bullet piercing her glasses—images designed to convey the utter helplessness of the people.
The film’s influence extended far beyond cinema. Edmund Meisel’s original musical score inspired musicians ranging from the Pet Shop Boys to Michael Nyman, while Dmitri Shostakovich’s later synchronisations powerfully echoed the violence on screen. Aleksandr Rodchenko’s posters for Battleship Potemkin, created in 1925, stand as iconic works of Soviet Constructivist art.
Battleship Potemkin can also be seen as an exploration of collective memory, igniting emotional responses through which past and present are synthesised. A century later, Eisenstein’s negotiation with history remains inseparable from our own processes of remembrance and interpretation.
Even today, the film’s core message—resistance to power and oppression, and solidarity with the marginalised—retains deep relevance, especially amid widening global inequalities. At the same time, Eisenstein’s revolutionary idealism and vision of a better society may seem diminished against the backdrop of later betrayals of those ideals, from the Stalinist purges of the 1930s to the devastation unfolding in contemporary Ukraine. What modern viewers perhaps need is a reinvention of the film’s original message, reaffirming resistance to domination and the dignity of the oppressed.
Eisenstein’s pioneering concept of “dialectical montage,” which juxtaposes conflicting images to produce new emotional and intellectual meaning, closely parallels Marxist ideas of historical change through contradiction and struggle. The film functions as an act of collective memory, linking the 1905 uprising—viewed by Lenin as a precursor to the 1917 Revolution—with the ongoing human quest for a just and humane society.
Ironically, Eisenstein’s international acclaim did little to shield him from repression at home. As the 1920s gave way to the 1930s, Stalinist cultural policy turned sharply against him. His dynamic, dialectical approach clashed with the rigid doctrine of Socialist Realism, which demanded linear narratives, heroic individuals, and unambiguous political messages. Several of his projects were halted, others taken out of his control.
A century on, Battleship Potemkin endures not merely as a historical artefact, but as a living testament to cinema’s power to challenge authority, shape consciousness, and give voice to collective struggle.
---
*Freelance journalist

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava   Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor*  Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.