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

From Kerala to Bangladesh: Lynching highlights deep social faultlines

By A Representative   The recent incidents of mob lynching—one in Bangladesh involving a Hindu citizen and another in Kerala where a man was killed after being mistaken for a “Bangladeshi”—have sparked outrage and calls for accountability.  

What Sister Nivedita understood about India that we have forgotten

By Harasankar Adhikari   In the idea of a “Vikshit Bharat,” many real problems—hunger, poverty, ill health, unemployment, and joblessness—are increasingly overshadowed by the religious contest between Hindu and Muslim fundamentalisms. This contest is often sponsored and patronised by political parties across the spectrum, whether openly Hindutva-oriented, Islamist, partisan, or self-proclaimed secular.

When a city rebuilt forgets its builders: Migrant workers’ struggle for sanitation in Bhuj

Khasra Ground site By Aseem Mishra*  Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is not a privilege—it is a fundamental human right. This principle has been unequivocally recognised by the United Nations and repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India as intrinsic to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet, for thousands of migrant workers living in Bhuj, this right remains elusive, exposing a troubling disconnect between constitutional guarantees, policy declarations, and lived reality.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman*  The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Aravalli at the crossroads: Environment, democracy, and the crisis of justice

By  Rajendra Singh*  The functioning of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has undergone a troubling shift. Once mandated to safeguard forests and ecosystems, the Ministry now appears increasingly aligned with industrial interests. Its recent affidavit before the Supreme Court makes this drift unmistakably clear. An institution ostensibly created to protect the environment now seems to have strayed from that very purpose.

'Festive cheer fades': India’s housing market hits 17‑quarter slump, sales drop 16% in Q4 2025

By A Representative   Housing sales across India’s nine major real estate markets fell to a 17‑quarter low in the October–December period of 2025, with overall absorption dropping 16% year‑on‑year to 98,019 units, according to NSE‑listed analytics firm PropEquity. This marks the weakest quarter since Q3 2021, despite the festive season that usually drives demand. On a sequential basis, sales slipped 2%, while new launches contracted by 4%.  

'Structural sabotage': Concern over sector-limited job guarantee in new employment law

By A Representative   The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has raised concerns over the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB–G RAM G), which was approved during the recently concluded session of Parliament amid protests by opposition members. The legislation is intended to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

Safety, pay and job security drive Urban Company gig workers’ protest in Gurugram

By A Representative   Gig and platform service workers associated with Urban Company have stepped up their protest against what they describe as exploitative and unsafe working conditions, submitting a detailed Memorandum of Demands at the company’s Udyog Vihar office in Gurugram. The action is being seen as part of a wider and growing wave of dissatisfaction among gig workers across India, many of whom have resorted to demonstrations, app log-outs and strikes in recent months to press for fair pay, job security and basic labour protections.

India’s universities lag global standards, pushing students overseas: NITI Aayog study

By Rajiv Shah   A new Government of India study, Internationalisation of Higher Education in India: Prospects, Potential, and Policy Recommendations , prepared by NITI Aayog , regrets that India’s lag in this sector is the direct result of “several systemic challenges such as inadequate infrastructure to provide quality education and deliver world-class research, weak industry–academia collaboration, and outdated curricula.”