A Review of the Films "The Russian Revolution 1917" and "The Paris and Rome Revolutions 1968"

Article by Kate Banks. Edited by Liam Geoghegan. Additional Research by Lauren Puckey. 

After all the excitement and turmoil represented in “The Russian Revolution 1917“, “The Paris and Rome Revolutions 1968” always had a lot to live up to. Have audiences really been convinced of a genuine political transformation as they were by “1917“, or were they sadly disappointed?

“The Russian Revolution 1917“, directed almost entirely by Vladimir Lenin, gained such a popular following amongst Marxists, and indeed acquired a much wider fan base in the proceeding years, undoubtedly meant that this year’s release, “The Paris and Rome Revolutions 1968“, always had a tough act to follow. Indeed, Ronald Suny, a renowned expert in this genre of cinema, has praised the director for creating a sense of long term class polarisation and social unrest, as well as an impression of “bottom-up” worker unity. Moreover, many other respected critics such as Graeme Gill and Leopold Haimson are in consensus with Suny in their belief that “1917” is so well made and directed that audiences truly believe that the events they view on screen depict a genuine revolution, supported by the masses. 

It is perhaps because “1968” was produced by a large collaboration of directors, including radical Parisian student Daniel Cohn-Bendit, that it lacks the potency and believability of the previous film. Some critics have argued that the later instalment fails to persuade audiences of mass worker involvement in the way that its predecessor did. Indeed, the cast of 25/30,000 Petrograd workers used in “1917” created deeply powerful imagery which translated well to the screen, contrasting starkly with “1968“, in which five million workers were said to be on strike, but this simply has not been portrayed by the directors. 

This is a shame as the film begins very promisingly, with the dramatic “night of the barricades scene”, which depicts students blockading themselves within the Sarbonne campus of the University of Paris, despite heavy-handed retaliations from the police. The tension is then heightened even further with the subsequent sympathy protest organised by Parisian worker; especially in scenes in which they take over factories, radio and even television systems. The actors playing workers give convincing performances of sharing student frustration at the centralised nature of the Paris University and the French government itself; however, these portrayals are rendered ineffective by the extremely dissatisfying ending. Although the expulsion of Cohn-Bendit, the government regaining control within a week and the huge Parliamentary victory by the Gaullists may be a more realistic outcome, audiences and critics alike are left cold and with the feeling that they may have just wasted two hours of their lives watching a film without consequence. 

Furthermore, the great amount of press coverage surrounding last week’s premiere ensured that audiences could not help but feel underwhelmed by “1968” and that the film had been over-hyped by the media. “1917” captured the imaginations of audiences worldwide as the director, well known for his accurate portrayal of conflict and class struggle, conveyed a sense of worker unity to such an extent that viewers believe that the climactic scene, “the storming of the winter palace”, was a genuine culmination of long-entrenched class conflict. In contrast, “1968” falls down dramatically in this area as audiences fail to believe that the revolutions had come about as a result of widespread political unrest, but rather come to the conclusion that the events depicted in “1968” represent a cultural revolution at best. 

However, Cohn-Bendit and others have hit back at these criticisms, arguing that the cultural changes represented in their film should not be discredited, as they were intended to represent deep and lasting societal transformations which a revolt can inspire. “1968” is meant to encapsulate the power of youth and Cohn-Bendit summarises this perfectly: ‘we were like Prometheus. The world belonged to us. And we were in the position to carve out a different world.’ Therefore, perhaps critics have been too quick to label “The Paris and Rome Revolutions 1968” a cinematic failure, maybe audiences have been too quick to compare it to “1917“, which on further analysis is a very different piece of cinema and is intended to serve a rather different purpose.

However, although the locations of Paris, Rome and Turin have been used to great effect, they somehow lack the grit and an unquantifiable revolutionary quality achieved by the setting of St Petersburg. The extras in “1917“, who play radicalised urban workers and dissatisfied peasantry, appear to genuinely desire sweeping and unrelenting change; whereas those playing workers and students in “1968” do not portray the same fervour and passion, and, although this may be intended by the director, audiences can not fail to engage more deeply with the first film. Therefore, although the two films are very different and must be treated as such, comparisons have been, and will continue to be, made and one cannot help but feel that the plot of “1968” lacks the tension and atmosphere created in the previous film. 

← Back to Volume 1

← Back to Issue 1