Que viva Eisenstein!

I read the reviews for this film by the other writers here and some are so spot on and well informed I feel a bit intimidated writing this short review. This film by Director/writer: Peter Greenaway is spellbinding, modern, surreal, and above all, as other writers expressed, captures the inner spirit of Eisenstein's genius.

Just as Guanajuato is geographically located in the center of Mexico this story is focused on Eisenstein discovering his personal center. He wanted to be accepted by Hollywood and they rejected him. In Soviet Russia he glorified the revolution with his film "October" and everyone saw him as an artist but he had to hide the person the artist is. He was a great artist of the cinema but here in Guanajuato Eisenstein finds himself and realizes he doesn't need the approval of his peers to be the person he is. With the companionship of his Mexican guide 'Palomino', performed so wonderfully by Luis Alberti, Eisenstein gives into his own desires, his own needs, and is given the chance (though briefly) to be himself physically, artistically, and intellectually.

If anyone wants to see the art of Eisenstein just find one of his movies and you will be stunned by it's grand yet simple photography and story. If you want to see an element of 'the man' that created these remarkable films catch this movie. Here the artist brakes the shackles others have place upon him. But in the end he must return to Soviet Russia and back to judging eyes that are so symbolically shown throughout the movie by the three Mexican men in traditional dress. They represent the establishment, society, they eyes and minds that judge all who try to be who they really are.

Great cinema for the thinking person!

Ordinarily I can take Peter Greenaway or leave him alone -- chiefly the latter. But he really scores this time with a story that has longed to be told.

As is known Sergei Eisenstein hoped to work in Hollywood in the early thirties just as sound came in. But thanks to aright-wing campaign (plus its own lack of imagination) Paramount Pictures was scared off from making films of with of the scripts the great Russian director had written : an adaptation of Dreiser's "An American Tragedy" and an original historical drama "Sutter's Gold." The novelist Upton Sinclair stepped in and elected to back a film Eisenstein wanted to make about Mexico. But he knew nothing about film production and less about Eisenstein's highly improvisatory working methods. Under-budgeted and best by problems the shoot was brought to a halt when Sinclair's brother-in-law, Hunter Kimbrough discovered SME was having too much fun south of the border. Moreover he got a gander at the great man's cache of frankly gay pornographic drawings. Eisenstein not only never got to edit "Que Viva Mexico" -- he never even saw the rushes. He returned to Russia where he made "Alexander Nevsky" and "Ivam the Terrible" Sinclair meanwhile had the "Que Viva Mexico" footage sliced and diced into travelogues.

This is the backdrop of what Greenaway has done which s to present Eisenstein's Mexican sojourn as a sexual awakening. He falls madly in love (and lust) with a handsome guide. Greenaway brings the full bore of his visual imagination to telling this tale with multiple images and lighting the likes of which hasn't been seen since Sternberg. Elmer Back is superb as SME and Luis Alberti is equally great as his love interest. Not to be missed.

I have not seen any of Greenaway's previous movies, and while I have seen Potemkin, I barley knew anything about (the actual) Eisenstein going in.

What I loved about this movie: The editing is fantastic. It plays around with the format, having real life photos of the characters and the locations next to characters as they are mentioned, playing with angles and positions of the characters, experimenting with colors, and obviously, using montages in a great way. I hope this is all based on Eisenstein's actual writings about the subject, as it is clear that he has thoughts about what movies can do with these tools.

That's the one positive thing I have to say about this movie. The characters are stylized into cartoon characters, and the dialog is boring and unengaging. The actual storyline is very forgettable. Greenaway chose to have the movie focus on Eisenstein's experiences in Mexico, but did not include any of the actual movie-making Eisenstein did there. To me, that would have been a more interesting movie - but I can understand that Greenaway had a different vision for this story.

The sexual scenes were graphical, but not grotesque or provoking (unless you are provoked by homosexuality).

I think I've discovered the opposite of self-care: watching a deep-cut Peter Greenaway film late at night because you can't sleep.

Eisenstein in Guanajuato is that film. It was odd, sometimes frustrating, but definitely interesting. I wouldn't know who to recommend it to, if anyone. If I met an alternate version of myself from another universe, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to him even. But I don't entirely regret watching it. It lost me times, won me back, lost me again, then felt interesting again, and so on and so on until the movie just sort of ended.

At least age hasn't number Greenaway's capacity to provoke and have fun, because Eisenstein in Guanajuato is one of his more light-hearted efforts, imagining a short period of time in the life of famed filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein.

The lead actor, Elmer Bäck, kind of matches Greenaway's energy, but I think this film would've been something else entirely if Rob Schneider had been cast as Eisenstein. He kind of looks like him. The marketing could've just taken that South Park gag - "Rob Schneider is... Sergei Eisenstein!" Maybe in another universe. If I met my alternate self from that universe, I'd tell him to drop whatever he was doing and watch immediately.

After the relative disappointment of "Goltzius" (was that made with any budget at all?) - this felt to me like a great return to form for Greenaway.

Clearly here he had enough money to put his talents for framing, colour and composition to great effect. Also, I thought that the two main characters were very well-cast and imbued the story with real depth; as did many of the supporting actors, such as Palomino's wife, and the bell-ringer (the only jarring note for me being the guy playing "Hunter" - who mostly seemed to be standing stiffly waiting for his next line...).

As others have noted, this is not the film you need if you want lots of "Eisenstein on set, directing" footage, but for me there was plenty of implied and explicit context regarding his standing in Russia, support in the USA and the point in his life he'd got to at the time. Well worth a viewing.