Chapaev (1934)
I believe what made this movie so popular at the time was the fact that it was based on a real war hero. Speaking for myself, I know it is much more interesting to watch a movie based on a true story than those that are not. It's easier to get into it because it really did happen. Furthermore, this was probably one of the first actual war movies for its time. It was probably nice to understand what had gone on, giving people a better understand of war times. I know that movies like "We Were Soldiers" are interesting because you can think we'll my dad, or grandpa went through that, that’s amazing. Plus i feel as though there was a certain 'light heartedness' that made the movie compelling.
Moreover, Chapaev was a very strong willed character in this film. He was stern, and people feared him. I recall at one point it being said that "him and his fame are dangerous," which I took to mean he was a little headstrong sometimes. Although, this did change as the movie went on. Chapaev changed from a stern character to almost a friend to his soldiers. As for Chapaev, I also believe that moviegoers admired him for simply his bravery, honesty, and ability to inspire a crowd. For a man who was completely illiterate two years ago, that says a lot. Furthermore, his relationship with his counterpart also had a propagandistic message. Furmanov challenged Chapaev but when it came down to it he got the peasants on their side, which was important. This showed us how a leader, especially a political one (that could be compared to the Bolsheviks), is very important.
As the movie went on, Chapaev and the character of Patka developed a trusting relationship. They talk as though they are friends, instead of a soldier and a captain. This showed Chapaev cared for his soldiers, which was not prevalent in the White Army. The leader of the White Army, Colonel Borozdin, was portrayed as a greedy, abusive tyrant who cared nothing for his men. They were simply pawns in a game of chess. I recall when Patka (who I believe was one of the two war heroes of this film) was suppose to captured a white soldier and the soldier said my brother is supposed to be killed Patka said “and you’re suppose to fight for them after that?” That was a very compelling statement, and also got the point across that the White Army (who was adorned in nice fighting attire) was the evil one. Finally, Anka was a very important character. She showed female moviegoers that women can be important in the war efforts as well. She was a strong woman who was very helpful in the war efforts.
As for a comparison to Battleship Potemkin, I believe sound did play a role in this blockbuster. Battleship Potemkin was such a compelling movie in my eyes that with sound, I believe it would have surpassed Chapaev. Chapaev had a more direct message that followed a real war hero through a real war. Battleship Potemkin was broader simply having a pro Soviet message, while Chapaev had all of that and more. Although as I stated earlier I believe Battleship Potemkin could have been appreciated with sound, I don’t think Chapaev would have been. We couldn’t have gotten the character change of Chapaev, and the movie would have been very hard to follow in my eyes. Chapaev would have looked almost bipolar without sound the way he would throw temper tantrums and then laughed and sing with Patka. In general, the film was very good and it’s easy to see why it did well.