Western vs Soviet films...

[Hexen]

Can anyone point out the main differences between Hollywood/Western films and Soviet films?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Soviet films, if you're talking about propaganda, mostly about the workers and the revolution.
Western films are pro-american army which isn't that different from the films about the red army.
So if you think about it Soviet films are mostly pro-communism pro-CCCP and western films are mostly pro-USA pro-Army.
I think that's about it.

[Rooster]

I'm not an expert on this but soviet films tended to invert American films. For instance, in a soviet western, it would be the Indians who are the good guys and the cowboys the bad guys. Soviet film generally wasn't as technically advanced as western stuff. Early cinema in Russia was more artistically avant-garde though and developed techniques like montage. You can actually see a real heavy use of this in many Soviet films. It was bored and became an internationally accepted method though but it wasn't used to such an extent as the Soviets. Hitchcock was a big fan of it and he made a short documentary about his technique and he talks about this. I'll see if I can find it.

ruoPT9JeYHA

I should also point out that early soviet cinema tends to be the best. With the introduction of collectivisation on the film industry and censorship in the 30s, film became rather stagnant. Lots of socialist realism stuff. And it became rather formulaic as a result. The industry did pick up again in the 60s and got a little more creative but it never really matched the early stuff in my opinion. A couple of films worth watching are Battleship Potemkin, October and Man with a Movie Camera. All are great examples of montage, especially Man with a Movie Camera as the whole thing is just montage. Ivan the Terrible is also a great film even though cinema was well into the censorship phase here and Stalin worship. Potemkin and October were both cut, removing all of Trotsky's roles for instance. Less so in Potemkin and more so in October. Incidentally, you can find all of these works on youtube. I had the pleasure of seeing Potemkin in the cinema. It's a really great film.

[Hexen]

I always knew that there was something wrong with Hollywood films (also films made in the west) and eversince I watched a documentary on Soviet cartoons and looked back at Hollywood/Western films/cartoons I see a huge difference as if each society has their own paradigm bubble.

I guess this is why (and where I got the idea) that we never see a Pro-Socialist/Communist (even a pro-feminist/worker) film made in Hollywood (although I'm not so sure about independent films though) or hell even a accurate depiction of a Post-Revolutionary society (which they instead depict a "Hive-Mind" and also have you ever noticed in Hollywood they keep banging the "Human Nature" falsehood drum over and over again?).

I guess in the future if I run into any ignoramus who says "Hollywood is Anti-Capitalist" I would point to them to any Soviet made film and have them come back to Hollywood and compare the two.

Anyway here is a list I noticed about Hollywood films....

1. They demonize Unions

2. They have white male protagonists (symoblizing those who control the modes of production which happen to be wealthy white christian males as if Hollywood films are made for them or the films are made through their lens)

3. Females are often supporting characters (their either divided into two archetypes, the damsel & distress or the femme fatale...which goes back to the Eve and Lilith midrashism which shows how deeply embedded Abrahamic faiths is in western society)

4. Racial stereotypes (well let's not forget that the very first Hollywood blockbuster was a KKK propaganda film...let that set the tone).

5. Usually have "Good vs Evil" plotlines (again goes back to Christianity and they adopted this mindset during the Cold War since if you ever noticed that the 80s cartoons followed this same formula).

6. Everytime there is a supernatural themed film, they always use Christian mythology instead of various other mythologies they can be using (or even if there is a film based on another mythology, it is often Hijacked by Jesus (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HijackedByJesus)).

7. Not to mention I pointied out before, "horror" (slasher) films made in the west/Hollywood tend to be morality plays which once again goes back to Christianity.

8. Also in "Philosophical or Science Fiction" films, they always use the "Human Nature" argument over and over.

There I think I made a laydown what I noticed about Hollywood films.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

eversince I watched a documentary on Soviet cartoons
Do you have the name or a link of this documentary. It sounds pretty interesting.

[Hexen]

Do you have the name or a link of this documentary. It sounds pretty interesting.

I believe this is the documentry.

KV5sIGm70SE

[Thetwoterrors]

Thanks Hexen for the list. I've got a few i'd like to add to it.

1. The Troops are always good. Though certain personalities (usually EVIL GENERALS) within the military-industrial complex maybe evil, Hollywood in general portrays the average american grunt as essentially good with more or less exceptional moral conduct in combat.

2. The Police are good. In general policeman in Hollywood movies are likable characters they usually step outside the boundaries of the law while playing good cop/bad cop but overall it's all morally justifiable/for the greater good.

3. Torture against criminals/enemy combatants is A-okay! This one gets played so often that we often don't even notice it. The badass hero storms in and tortures the perp without regard for "The Rules". The overall message is that soldiers,police, and intelligence agents are to encumbered by the laws of civilian society to be effective at their jobs and should thus be given a certain level of extra-legality to torture and kill if they deem it neccessary.

4.Everyone is Middle-class. Overwhelmingly everyone is middle class with a college education and a desirable or tolerable job. Middle class characters often mix easily into the world of the upper-class or have upperclass friends or family. There might be one or two working class characters but they're usually along the same lines as the magical negro.

5.The magical negro. People of color (who are friendly) usually exist solely to help and advise middle class white folks who have strayed from their paths or have lost their mojo. They rarely expect any help/advice themselves and fade into the background once their role is complete and the white man has found his way to happiness.

6.Scary black male. Pretty much self-explanatory.

7.Revolution is futile/'the revolution eats its children'. This one actually gets used a whole lot, usually by writers (who also happen to be white and male) who believe that cynicism is edgy. Basically, the message is don't fight the society, revolution is futile, today's revolutionaries become tomorrow's oppressors. This got really big during the cold war, but I suspect it also comes from the bourgeoisie's own guilt at having become the oppressing class and throwing workers and peasants under the bus in bourgeois revolution after bourgeois revolution.

8. Ruling class cynicism/ there is no alternative. Heroes who often set off to change the world only to find out there are no alternatives to capitalism/corrupt government/the racist justice system/torture of suspected terrorists/endless war. Usually writers who use this theme present it as being 'balanced' 'realistic' and plain old 'human nature'.

9. Working class diamond in the rough. Usually some hero sets off to save a poor person (usually a beautiful girl) from poverty and despair. Expect the poor to be depicted as lazy,shiftless, and dissolute while the diamond in question is uncorrupted by the physical and moral degradation around them.This maybe applied to groups of talented working class kids (often POCs while in groups) who are challenged and educated by self-righteous middle-class white teachers. The kids usually go to college, graduate high school, get a well-paying job, escape gang-life or one might even end up going to jail a changed and enlightened person who can look forward to a better life once they get out (thanks whitey!). The underlying social conditions that hold these working class diamonds back are never fundamentally challenged or changed. The theme rarely goes any further than the extraction of young natural talent from working class communities for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.

10.Drug use/alcoholism is glamorous,fun, and rebellious when the rich do it. It is dissolute,amoral, and disgusting when it is done by the destitute. Rarely are drug users amongst the working-class/ the destitute ever portrayed sympathetically. Rich addicts are gorgeous people who you would want to fuck, poor addicts are people who don't deserve your sympathy/money and you shouldn't touch them for fear of contracting aids.

[Hexen]

Oh I also just discovered something very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Mythology

Now scroll down to "Hero Myths"

You'll realize that Hollywood constantly uses the Hero Monomyth described by Joseph Campbell which also shows how deeply embedded Christianity is in our society as well. Has anyone noticed this?

[Rooster]

Oh I also just discovered something very interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Mythology

Now scroll down to "Hero Myths"

You'll realize that Hollywood constantly uses the Hero Monomyth described by Joseph Campbell which also shows how deeply embedded Christianity is in our society as well. Has anyone noticed this?

No, I think you read that wrong. The first paragraph there says:

"In his influential work The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, Otto Rank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Rank) argued that the births of many mythical heroes follow a common pattern. Rank includes the story of Christ's birth as a representative example of this pattern."

He's just including Christian myths as part of this overall thing. And, from my own knowledge, I know that that pattern is older than Christianity and also is popular in countries that weren't or aren't Christian. Look at any of the ancient Greek myths or heck, any kung fu film.

[Hexen]

I also remember seeing a video on youtube about Hollywood which what inspired me to create that list above but I can't find it.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Hollywood films are commodities, designed in such a way to ensure as much profit from the invested amount as possible. I highly doubt soviet film makers had to deal with that, what with the amount of money poured into the film adaptation of War and Peace.

[fatpanda]

What i noticed in most of Entertainment Media (Hollywood Movies, Games and Comic Books)

1.The Protagonist is a White, Pretty boy Jock in the 20s or 30s who was in the Army...

2.All women have big breasts and enourmus Physiques

3.The Token Black Guy

4.Human Enemies/Villains are always Foreign (mostly from Places who are on the Axis of Evil or are Enemies of the Foreign Department)

[seventeethdecember2016]

I don't know much about Soviet films, but American films haven't been the same since McCarthyism.

[Arlekino]

I don't know much about Soviet films, but American films haven't been the same since McCarthyism.
I would highly recommend to watch Soviet Films. Is plenty available with English subtitles.
Some Soviet films made together with Italian film production. "Nostalgia". There as well plenty made with East Germany for example "Karl Marx Youth Years" but I can't find for the moment English subtitles but probably would available in German.

[Fawkes]

A lot of people have already posted some good things and I'm too tired to add much, but a few things worth noting:

Hollywood films tend(ed) to center around the individual -- the lone cowboy, the hardboiled detective, the cunning gangster, etc., whereas Soviet films tended to focus more on communities and, very often, the relationships between humans and machines/technology (Chaplin and Keaton did this in the U.S. as well, but still with a strong sense of individualism)

From a formal standpoint, American movies had (and largely continue to have) a major emphasis placed on linear storytelling following a clear dramatic structure rooted in realism. This is perhaps most obvious in terms of editing (known as continuity editing). Everything matched. There was nothing to remind the audience that they were watching a constructed work, everything flowed smoothly so as to give the illusion of a natural progression. Soviet filmmakers experimented greatly with techniques such as montage editing and the breaking of the 180 degree rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_degree_rule), constantly forcing the audience to resituate themselves in relation to the picture space.

Perhaps an (over)simplified analysis is that Hollywood films bred passive audiences while the Soviets forced active ones.

[x359594]

...From a formal standpoint, American movies had (and largely continue to have) a major emphasis placed on linear storytelling following a clear dramatic structure rooted in realism. This is perhaps most obvious in terms of editing (known as continuity editing). Everything matched. There was nothing to remind the audience that they were watching a constructed work, everything flowed smoothly so as to give the illusion of a natural progression. Soviet filmmakers experimented greatly with techniques such as montage editing and the breaking of the 180 degree rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180_degree_rule), constantly forcing the audience to resituate themselves in relation to the picture space...

Noel Burch explored these issues in his book about Japanese cinema To the Distant Observer, where all of these discontinuities can be found in classic Japanese films.

The experimental phase of Soviet cinema was relatively short-lived. Even Dovzhenko and Eisenstein buckled under to Socialist Realism once it became the official style of Soviet arts. After that it wasn't very much different from Hollywood stylistically.

[Book O'Dead]

Did anyone here see any of Andrei Tarkovsky's films? They all fall under the category of "Soviet films":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Tarkovsky

Andrei Rublev, Ivan's Childhood, Solaris and others:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001789/

[x359594]

Did anyone here see any of Andrei Tarkovsky's films? They all fall under the category of "Soviet films...

One of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

[Book O'Dead]

One of the greatest filmmakers of all time.

I like Andrei Rublev more than his other films I've seen. Actually, I've only seen three: Rublev, Ivan's Childhood and Solaris, thanks to Criterion Collection. And I actually like Steven Soderbergh's version of Solaris more than the Russian original.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Stalker is one of the greatest films ever made.

@the OP. The question is really too open and broad for a complete answer. Some posters here have explained quite well the differences between early soviet cinema (montage) and classical hollywood. This is of course a very limited part of the picture, for one; by comparing those we are looking only at the era of silent films.

It´s problematic in this sense to talk about "hollywood/western" films. Western European art cinema of the 1950´s had nothing in common with the Hollywood films of the same era.
On the other hand, Soviet and Eastern European art cinema had a lot of similarities and common traits with that of western Europe from the 1950´s onwards. In terms of content they were also not that different. Politically comitted filmmakers were making socially critical films on both sides of the "curtain".
When it came to more "popular", or mainstream films the differences are mostly those that in the SU and the rest of EE tended to be more "socially aware" and explicitly political. Other than that they used similar narrative norms. I´m no expert on mainstream Soviet films because they really don´t interest me, frankly they fucking sucked.
Soviet and Eastern European art cinema was (and is) usually ambitious and really awesome.

[ColonelCossack]

A very good very early one is Battleship Potemkin. In contrast, a good late one (late 80's) is Come and See (about the Partisan struggle in WW2).

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Come and See is one of my favourite films and hands down the best war movie I´ve seen.
Potemkin is of course a classic, along with others from the same period. It´s hard not to appriciate those old soviet montage films because of their historical importance.

[Fawkes]

Noel Burch explored these issues in his book about Japanese cinema To the Distant Observer, where all of these discontinuities can be found in classic Japanese films.

The experimental phase of Soviet cinema was relatively short-lived. Even Dovzhenko and Eisenstein buckled under to Socialist Realism once it became the official style of Soviet arts. After that it wasn't very much different from Hollywood stylistically.

Yeah, I was referring to Soviet films of the 1920s, after that it went downhill pretty fast.

As far as national cinemas go, Japanese is probably my favorite. I haven't read that yet, but I've heard good things about it and really want to check it out. Ozu in particular made heavy usage of discontinuity not only in the editing process, but also in the writing and camera placement.