How and why did the accounts of the storming of the winter palace in October 1917 differ in the film October and in the book : “A people’s tragedy : The Russian revolution 1891-1924 “ ? A- Plan Of Investigation The focus of the study is on the accounts of the storming of the winter palace on two types of information. The study focuses on the tragedy of October 1917. This will be connected to the analysis of the present day issue of peoples thoughts and opinions on the storming. I will look at the different interpretations of the storming on the winter palace.
I will use several primary resources including the film “October” and the book “A people’s tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924”. I will also gather information from various authors on their different interpretations on the topic. B- Summary Of Evidence : October: Ten Days That Shook the World; is a Soviet film premiered in 1928 by Sergei Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov, referred to simply as October in English. It is a celebratory dramatization of the 1917 October Revolution. The title is taken from John Reed’s book on the Revolution, Ten Days That Shook The World. A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924 is an award-winning book written by British historian Orlando Figes. First published in 1996, it inflects Russian history from the Famine of 1891-1892, the response to which, Figes argues, severely weakened the Russian Empire, to the death of Lenin in 1924, when “the basic elements of the Stalinist regime – the one-party state, the system of terror and the cult of the personality – were all in place”. A People’s Tragedy won the Wolfson History Prize, the WH Smith Literary Award, the NCR Book Award, the Longman/History Today Book Prize and the Los Angeles Times
The Term Paper on Origins And Progression Of The Russian Revolution
The origins of the Russian Revolution can be explained in terms of the peasant consciousness of land which can be traced back to 1861. Russia had been the last country in Europe to abolish serfdom; nevertheless, Alexander II’s emancipation edict of 1861 though earning him the title Czar Liberator, had left peasants feeling cheated. The Russian Revolution of 1905 failed to solve the land issue, ...
Book Prize. October has often been called a work of propaganda. Just as often, fiction. Characteristic, even typical of the attitude of historians is that of Orlando Figes in his recent history of the Russian Revolution, who labels it “Eisenstein? s brilliant but largely fictional propaganda film. ” Part of such a judgment begins from the fact that Figes, like most historians who mention the film, focuses attention on a single part, the climactic, and highly fictionalized “storming” of the Winter Palace. (which more later).
But another part of such a judgment is surely due to our intellectual tradition.
Or our prejudice. We understand History to be words on a page not images on a screen. History is something we move through at our own pace, a text we can analyze at leisure, not an assault of moving images and sounds that rush by us at twenty four frames a second. Yet a century and more after the invention of the motion picture, a good deal of history (or interpretations of the past) is delivered in just this way. One wonders: can we historians continue to dismiss the visual media as a way of making the past meaningful? Or can we find in films have some sort of visual / historical integrity of their own?
And might it be worthwhile to accept some of these works of visual history into our historiography? Labels aside, the story October tells and the way it tells that story are surely part of a long tradition of explaining why and how the Bolsheviks took power. One might even argue that October has a significant role in creating that tradition. Images from the film — crowds scattering from the gunfire of soldiers on the Nevsky Prospekt during the “July Days” or the “storming” of the Winter Palace — have been used in newspapers, magazines, and books to illustrate the revolution.
In some more general way, the film seems to hover over all later interpretations of what John Reed labeled the Ten Days That Shook the World. Many historians of the Russian Revolution, even today, feel the need to mention Eisenstein? s film, if only to dismiss it – usually as great art but poor history. How does October relate (to) October? What sort of history does it propose? What interpretation of the Bolshevik Revolution does it convey? To answer these questions –and to suggest how other films might possibly be seen as vehicles for history– it is necessary to go beyond the micro level of the individual image.
The Term Paper on History Of Christian Interpretation
A Brief History of Christian Interpretation From Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, by Klein, Blomberg, and HubbardaPATRISTIC PERIOD (a. d. 100-590) o From the death of the Apostle John until Pope Gregory I, 590 a. d.o "Patristic" in that it features the contributions of the so-called Church Fathers. o The period in which the N. T. canon was developed, O. T. was still the primary ...
Beyond the referential level of the individual fact. To answer them we must consider the film not merely as a collection of true or false individual assertions, but, like all works of history, as an argument about and interpretation of the historical moments and events it describes. That means we must situate it within the larger discourse of history, that ongoing and huge body of data and debates about the causes, course, and consequences of the Russian Revolution. To evaluate October as history, it is necessary to see how its interpretation fits with the seventy-five year tradition of representing October. C- Evaluation Of Sources:
