Dezertir

At first glance, this seems like a typical example of Soviet montage. The plot for one, after the strike of German dock workers is broken by owners and police they decide to send a delegation to the Motherland to be taught about revolutionary practice. The camera physics, most pertinently and as striking as ever, the eye wrestling control of images from bourgeois reality to assemble a new world. But there is something else here, for the first time.

There is sound. The eye is no longer mute but singing.

Now when sound was finally introduced, it was enough that an extra texture gave depth to the illusion of moving images. The effort was and continues to be for realism. It was noted very early on, that good sound renders the whole thing uniquely alive and vibrant, which is a true and tested notion taught to aspiring filmmakers. We may not fully appreciate the effect but take away sound, and it all becomes strangely unreal - dreams are soundless.

Normally in films, sound is employed as a ballast, and good sound usually means a detailed background, a rich carpet to walk on. Not so for the Soviets.

The main experiment is controlled, agitated hearing. Pudovkin had theorized about it, in the same manner as film ought to work, film sound should facilitate rhythm, musicality. This means that it is no longer a natural extension that corresponds with a view, but is continuously relocated, realigned, repurposed, shifting often independent of images.

As workers tirelessly pound away at the steel hull of a ship, the blistering barrage of their thrusts is a little out-of-focus. Disembodied voices scream at a rally, as though collectively produced and facilitated by each furious cut. There are stretches of pure silence without any reassuring ambiance from surrounding sounds.

As with film syntax of these guys, the effort has been largely to read the radical experiment as avant-garde exercise, independent of ideological fervor, here presaging musique concrete. We can do better.

Musique concrete just so happens to have cinematic roots in Epstein. Epstein rested on the discovery of a modern world that was only possible because the eye could float in unique ways with the advent of the camera. Internal views were possible, granted by these hitherto unknown, uncanny flows. The Soviets were equally radical but committed soldiers.

Note what Kuleshov did in the famous effect named after him. He took for effect the most iconic face of pre-Revolutionary Russia and exhibited that it was, in fact, empty. Point being this; every notion is formed in the space leading up to the eye and by gaps in perception. You need not control the flow, merely the gaps. Montage was invented.

So when Pudovkin is showing a young communist girl intruding with syncopated yells in the policed harmony of bourgeois narrative, rendered with symphonic, soft music to accompany the orderly traffic of luxurious automobiles under the austere gaze of a traffic warden, and is finally arrested by police, thus silenced from the soundtrack, he is very cleverly pointing to the fact that conventional reality is a broadcast that you control. To usurp control away from the official channel means a struggle, a bloody fight. Pudovkin's musicality - on top of the visual eye - is hence atonal, dissonant, disharmonic, implying imperfect nature, unfinished process.

Oh, the montage is astonishing and on par with anything Eisenstein did. But I will cherish this as one of the most important films for sound alone, and I'm so stoked I will be surveying more of these early Soviet sound films.

And a parting irony, to further cement why these films ought not to be museum exhibits for comfortable appreciation. The film depicts German struggles in the early 30's, asserting as main enemies of the revolution the Social Democrats. This was the Party line from Moscow and continues to be in most cases. German elections of '32 gave the combined Left - communist and social-democrat - 222 seats, just 8 short of Hitler. His enemies divided, Hitler carried the election. Four years later he commissioned from Riefenstahl the broadcast of a new national identity.

A fascinating document of the great Pudovkin and his first sound film. Pudovkin, also a great Russian montagist/theorist like Eisenstein, is usually more accessible in his films. Pudovkin (in his "End of Saint Petersburg" as well) focuses on single working-man characters, while Eisenstein films are usually more concerned with larger issues of class, composition and space, and focus on historical figures bigger than life (Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible).

"Deserter" follows the trek of a German worker who decides he can't keep working after a strike is called at his shipyard, to feed his family and for the continued glory of his homeland (Germany). Torn between hunger and solidarity for his fellow workers, he finally is sent to Russian to learn some lessons in socialism and comes back - not a deserter, but a hero. He's the seed of a new Socialist unity among the workers. The two most interesting aspects of this film is that it has a German striker as the lead protagonist, probably allowing Pudovkin to show his hero having doubts about the "cause" more easily without getting in trouble with the authorities; and also the use of sound.

It's very primitive, with sound cutting in only when needed for dialog or sound effects for emphasis. It reminds me of the sound version of Hitchcock's "Blackmail," which has a similarly uncertain feel to when and how to use sound. (For the record, generally Hitch nails it, and advanced the art tremendously.) Image's DVD print has missing frames every so often, and black leader is edited in to keep the soundtrack in sync, an annoying tactic when black flashes pepper some scenes. Pudovkin is also flirting with way-too-quick flash-cuts, akin to Dziga Vertov's work.

Nevertheless, "Deserter" is powerful agitprop cinema from one of the Russian masters. Its political force is driven home by following a worker truly torn by unfair circumstances to the point of abandoning his fellow workers and family. It humanizes the struggle many Russian political filmmakers and montagists tried to capture in their important work in the 20s and 30s.

Until a cleaned-up print (or carefully trimmed and re-timed one) can be produced and released, Russian film aficionados should not miss this film.

I'm not familiar enough with Russian cinema, but it's obvious Dezertir and Bronenosets Potiomkin have a lot in common. the style, for instance. and the story too. the acting performances are the same as in all Eisensteins movies. so what can I say about Dezertir? Everything is the same as Eisensteins, even the montage resembles his cinematographic power. by the way, did I already told you about how boring Dezertir is? everybody says recognizable things, but in fact, it's exactly because we already know these situations that Dezertir is just a copycat of better pictures. A lot of close-ups can't rescue it. and it's irritating there's no lyp sync. I am really sorry I spent my money to see this BEEP. when the characters start to work (or, because of the story, begin to stop working), it's being seen with some nice music on the background. yes, the music is the best thing that can be said about Dezertir. I also liked the policeman, but rather for his uniform than for his acting or role in the story. you can easily go to the toilet without missing important information. okay, so maybe I complain a lot without seeing the movie in its right historical point of view. I don't care. that argument means we all should adore old pictures, which is not the case.

I am a great admirer of Pudovkin. People like to throw out the term "poetic film" to anything that doesn't always follow logically, but he understood emotion cinematic ally, not just visually or abstractly. Eisenstein's transition into sound required a total reevaluation of his intentions as a director, and it seems as if Pudovkin didn't recognize the need for this consideration. But this is still a worthwhile film, especially when seen after "Petersbourg." The layering of the political content is admirable for getting it's self-criticism past the censors. But yes, the sound is sloppy and the magic of his silents is audibly swept away. It would seem that he would also reevaluate his own intentions for his later sound films, and this may have been a necessary part of that development.

3 out of 5 - Some strong elements