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 plagiarism to proxy exams: Galgotias and systemic failure in education

By Sandeep Pandey*   Shock is being expressed at Galgotias University being found presenting a Chinese-made robotic dog and a South Korean-made soccer-playing drone as its own creations at the recently held India AI Impact Summit 2026, a global event in New Delhi. Earlier, a UGC-listed journal had published a paper from the university titled “Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis,” which became the subject of widespread ridicule. Following the robotic dog controversy coming to light, the university has withdrawn the paper. These incidents are symptoms of deeper problems afflicting the Indian education system in general. Galgotias merely bit off more than it could chew.

Covishield controversy: How India ignored a warning voice during the pandemic

Dr Amitav Banerjee, MD *  It is a matter of pride for us that a person of Indian origin, presently Director of National Institute of Health, USA, is poised to take over one of the most powerful roles in public health. Professor Jay Bhattacharya, an Indian origin physician and a health economist, from Stanford University, USA, will be assuming the appointment of acting head of the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), USA. Bhattacharya would be leading two apex institutions in the field of public health which not only shape American health policies but act as bellwether globally.

The 'glass cliff' at Galgotias: How a university’s AI crisis became a gendered blame game

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.

Farewell to Saleem Samad: A life devoted to fearless journalism

By Nava Thakuria*  Heartbreaking news arrived from Dhaka as the vibrant city lost one of its most active and committed citizens with the passing of journalist, author and progressive Bangladeshi national Saleem Samad. A gentleman who always had issues to discuss with anyone, anywhere and at any time, he passed away on 22 February 2026 while undergoing cancer treatment at Dhaka Medical College Hospital. He was 74. 

Growth without justice: The politics of wealth and the economics of hunger

By Vikas Meshram*  In modern history, few periods have displayed such a grotesque and contradictory picture of wealth as the present. On one side, a handful of individuals accumulate in a single year more wealth than the annual income of entire nations. On the other, nearly every fourth person in the world goes to bed hungry or half-fed.

From ancient wisdom to modern nationhood: The Indian story

By Syed Osman Sher  South of the Himalayas lies a triangular stretch of land, spreading about 2,000 miles in each direction—a world of rare magic. It has fired the imagination of wanderers, settlers, raiders, traders, conquerors, and colonizers. They entered this country bringing with them new ethnicities, cultures, customs, religions, and languages.

Thali, COVID and academic credibility: All about the 2020 'pseudoscientific' Galgotias paper

By Jag Jivan*    The first page image of the paper "Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis" published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs , Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2020), has gone viral on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding a Chinese robot presented by the Galgotias University as its original product at the just-concluded AI summit in Delhi . The resurfacing of the 2020 publication, authored by  Dharmendra Kumar , Galgotias University, has reignited debate over academic standards and scientific credibility.

'Serious violation of international law': US pressure on Mexico to stop oil shipments to Cuba

By Vijay Prashad   In January 2026, US President Donald Trump declared Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US security—a designation that allows the United States government to use sweeping economic restrictions traditionally reserved for national security adversaries. The US blockade against Cuba began in the 1960s, right after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 but has tightened over the years. Without any mandate from the United Nations Security Council—which permits sanctions under strict conditions—the United States has operated an illegal, unilateral blockade that tries to force countries from around the world to stop doing basic commerce with Cuba. The new restrictions focus on oil. The United States government has threatened tariffs and sanctions on any country that sells or transports oil to Cuba.

Conversion laws and national identity: A Jesuit response response to the Hindutva narrative

By Rajiv Shah  A recent book, " Luminous Footprints: The Christian Impact on India ", authored by two Jesuit scholars, Dr. Lancy Lobo and Dr. Denzil Fernandes , seeks to counter the current dominant narrative on Indian Christians , which equates evangelisation with conversion, and education, health and the social services provided by Christians as meant to lure -- even force -- vulnerable sections into Christianity.