澳洲管理学论文代写:格斯坦

最初的评论家，除了格斯坦，他简要地提到了最后一幕的宣传性质，也认为这部电影在历史上是准确的。由于只有关于苏联的部分和零碎的信息，美国的口译机构和评论家们想要描绘出一幅新的和未知的事物的图画，并使用了艾森斯坦的人物和他的电影的现实主义。然而，到20世纪20年代末，批评家们重新考虑了苏联电影中的宣传元素。例如，在1928年艾森斯坦的个人资料中，阿尔弗雷德·巴尔公开地解释了俄罗斯政府对波将金和电影制作的参与，以及电影的宣传元素。智力大西洋两岸的似乎相当现实的电影,足以忽略这些元素的宣传,苏联电影导演和赞美他的现实,形成了鲜明的对比,虚构和好莱坞的粗俗的技巧那么鄙视的许多知识精英形象。

澳洲管理学论文代写:格斯坦

Initial critics, with the exception of Gerstein who briefly mentions the propagandistic nature of the final scene, also viewed the film as historically accurate. Given only the partial and fragmentary information about the Soviet Union, the American agencies of interpretation the journalists and the critics sought to sketch a picture of something very new and unknown and used the figure of Eisenstein and the realism of his film to do so. However, by the late 1920s, critics were reconsidering the propaganda elements in Soviet films. For example, in his profile on Eisenstein in 1928, Alfred Barr openly explained the Russian government’s involvement in the Potemkin and filmmaking in general, and the propagandistic elements of the movie. Intellects on both sides of the Atlantic appeared to have been quite taken with the reality of the movie, enough to overlook such elements of propaganda, and praise the Soviet filmmaker for his reality, a stark contrast to the to the fictionality and to the vulgar artifice of the Hollywood image so despised by many of the intellectual elite.