User Reviews

There's a scene early on in Storm Over Asia where Mongolian fur traders are bringing in their pelts for a British imperialist to purchase. The power dynamic is so stilted and he treats them with no humanity, haughtily tossing down a couple of coins for what he deems a piece is worth after having seized it. When he does this with a particularly beautiful and rare fur, the previously placid locals get rankled over how unfair he's being, and the tension is palpable. It's a fantastic scene and while it may seem like communist propaganda, it was a completely legitimate critique of capitalism, a system which if unchecked, invariably allows for the selfish exploitation of the poor by the wealthy - much like an American film like Ninotchka contained valid criticisms of communism in the Soviet Union. This was a five star moment and I wish the film had managed to remain focused. The visuals are also brilliant, including breathtaking landscapes in Mongolia, artistic close ups, and fast cut montage sequences. These scored high marks for me as well.

Where the film falters is in the story it tells, and the excruciatingly slow pace it takes to tell it. Shortly after the fur trading scene, the local flees and comes across a group of Russian partisans fighting British forces. Huh? You might think, wondering when such activity took place, and you'd be right to doubt it. And the history here matters, because it was actually the Soviet Union that was actively involved in undermining local autonomy in this region. To make a film showing someone else committing the evil your protagonists actually committed is similar to old American westerns which are heavy on Native-American violence instead of showing any semblance of the brutal genocide, and it's wrong to do so, no matter how skilled the filmmaker.

The film shows some authentic footage of Buddhist ceremonies which held some interest to me, but they aren't filmed in a way to foster understanding of the culture, but rather, seem to emphasize how "exotic" the natives are. Ordinarily I wouldn't care as much and just be happy something like this was filmed for posterity, but here it felt out of place and elongated and already bloated film. The shots of the reincarnated Lama on his throne as a baby were pretty fun for me though, I must confess.

The business of making the supposed descendant of Genghis Khan a puppet leader takes far too long to unfold though, and the scenes with the British aristocrats were a chore to sit through, even they it did bring us back around to the beautiful pelt in the story line. There is something to be said for the fury of the Mongolian man at the end, and it's impressive that he's shown to be righteous in the face of racism. Right before that, you see, the British businessman has said white people "must be protected from the encroachments of colored scoundrels!", and the British general, smoke billowing out from behind him as if he were the devil, orders him to withdraw, because he has his own plans. That's a wonderful moment.

Ultimately, I liked the power in the anti-imperialist message and the visual artistry, but 131 minutes was too long, and the historical distortion was too tough for me to overlook. In any event, it's not one I'd like to see again, except in clips of the finer moments.

Storm Over Asia (1928) : Brief Review -

A great attempt to panegyrize Soviet propaganda through a Mangolian revolt against British. During 20s and 30s decade almost all the foreign language cinemas were doing fine with Propoganda films, actually even better than Hollywood. Storm Over Asia is another fine example of it but sadly not very popular. Thankfully it has made it to the list of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die hence it came in my watchlist otherwise i don't think i would have ever heard of this film. It doesn't matter what propaganda film tries to prove, i only care about cinematic aspects of the filmmaking unless it goes terribly wrong with its conviction over any revolutionary subject. Storm Over Asia is the story about the unknown heir of the great Genghis Khan. After a run-in with the law, a Mongolian man becomes a fugitive and joins the Russian Civil War. He thrashes the opportunistic friendliness of British army and gathers his people to fight for their freedom. In 120 minutes, this film could have been more gripping. I don't know why but it looked little slow. Practically, the climax deserved more time than what it got and i think that quick-ripped conclusion could have been much bigger and better. That momentum was missing which was earlier there in the first half. The film has some issues with the intertitles too. The characters act but the intertitle appears even before we see them talking on screen. So, it feels like a rehearsed puppet show than a silent feature film. I think that can be overlooked considering the standards of the filmmaking of that particular cinema industry. Otherwise, it's a very good movie with detailed information and grand presentation. I don't know much about the history of that particular subject but i liked the sense of historic storytelling of the director Vsevolod Pudovkin. Few erros but overall an enjoyable flick.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

In his last silent film, Storm Over Asia, Pudovkin changed direction by creating a non-Russian plot. Although the film deals with political situations, it is not about a Soviet worker, farmer or mother-- but about a Mongolian, and for this Pudovkin received a lot of condemnation by the film critics of his time.

The chronicle is set in 1918 (at the time of the Civil War) on the Mongolian steppe. The narrative is focused on one character; the brave Mongol hunter Bair. He comes into a precarious situation when his father falls ill, and Bair must go to the town to trade his pelts for food for the family. After a disagreement with a wealthy British trader over the price of his treasured silver fox fur, the hunter is forced to flee into the mountains where he meets up with a group of Red Partisans. After a visually confusing fighting scene with quick shots and unidentifiable participants, the hunter is captured by the British and taken back to the city. Unable to communicate with the British officers, they order Bair to be executed.

At this point the narrative splits and we follow the actions of the officers and the lengthy execution of our protagonist. The officers soon discover that Bair is a descendant of Genghis Khan (by an amulet that Bair chance acquired) and attempt to stop the execution. After the discovery of Bair's ancestry, the British take our protagonist and attempt to set his up as a prince in order to justify their own control and power. After experiencing several awkward moments and being put on display, Bair becomes enraged and destroys the British headquarters. He then flees the town. The climax, his fight, has quick editing and flashes the words "down," "bandits," "thieves" and "robbers" with an image of our protagonist screaming in rebellion. Pudovkin juxtaposes the dramatic and quickly edited scene with a subsequent attack on the Mongolian steppe. The protagonist is on horseback wielding a sword and followed by a great horde of warriors, evoking images of Genghis Khan. The dust and debris of the steppe follows this attack, forming the image of a storm sweeping over the land and attacking the British.

The scenes on the steppe are very significant to the mood of the film. When all is well in the film, the steppe echoes this seemingly peaceful feeling. During the climax, the steppe becomes violent and windy, much like the horde of warriors. These natural shots set the mood for the narrative and reflect the emotions of the protagonist. Pudovkin implements fade-ins and outs. This is one of the earliest films where this cinematic technique has been implemented in a productive way, pertaining to the narrative by signaling a time lapse or location change.

This film is very unique for its time. It is one of the first Russian films with non-Russian characters (all of the Mongolian cast are real Mongolians). It also focuses on political themes that do not glorify Soviets. Many critics at the time of release saw this film as non-Soviet and non-political because it neither deals with Russia nor serves a direct purpose for a propaganda film. Pudovkin's critics were ruthless and alleged that moving away from Soviet themes was going to lead a film crisis. Where films would no longer confront and convey the complex problems of Soviet society. Many also alleged that Pudovkin's endeavor was unattainable and uninteresting for audiences, who just could not grasp the meaning behind the film. There was no purpose for Storm over Asia to serve in the propaganda films of the time. This detachment from the Soviet themes was refreshing for me, so I would infer that it would also be for Russians at the time.

Contrary to what the English guy says (hey, the Brits are the bad guys in this movie, whaddaya expect), this is to my mind the most impressive work of Soviet silent cinema-- an epic with several dazzling sequences of rat-a-tat-tat editing that invite comparison with Gance's Napoleon, as well as a deliberate build to an explosive climax that, in its willingness to delay gratification until almost the breaking point, has the operatic grandeur of something like The Godfather. Highly recommended (in fact, highly recommended before you see less accessible works such as October or Potemkin).

Mongolia always had a certain appeal to me. If China and Russia were to have a baby, it would look like Mongolia. It's such an intriguing and beautiful looking place, with a nice and long culture, that we all yet know so little about. It always has served as a great backdrop for movies.

The movie also focuses a lot on the Mongalian cultures, which also definitely makes this one of the least propaganda filled Russian movies of its period. because most movies were financed- and needed to be approved by the Communist party, who would of course often were making certain demands. I don't know what was the story behind this movie but my guess is it was pretty much the same.

The backdrop and cultural themes within this movie make sure that it is a beautiful shot one to watch, with of course also some typical Russian fast editing, especially during the action sequences.

And the movie does have some good action in it, although the movie is not halve as epic or action filled as its title would suggest, though in the end the movie still starts to show some epic properties, although this is mostly serves a purpose for the movie its symbolism. The ending is by the way quite solid and a rather unforgettable one. In essence the movie for some reason more reminded me of "Lawrence of Arabia", that was also more political and well layered, with different themes and culture-clashes in it, just as this movie is. Also both stories show definitely some similarities. I especially loved the political games within this movie, toward the ending. "Potomok Chingis-Khana" has really got a solid story!

The movie was very well cast. All of the actors seemed to fill the roles right and strongly and had the right required looks for it, which was perhaps the most important aspect in '20's silent-movie casting.

A great watch, also for especially those who like Russian cinema from the '20's but were never fond of the Comministic aspects and themes in it.

9/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

"Storm Over Asia" is a well made film. As other reviewers have pointed out, the film expertly uses film editing to make a very modern style film for 1928. It is really artistic and worth seeing--though there are also some serious lulls in the film that could have been tightened up a bit. However, that being said, the film is very obvious propaganda by the new Soviet government--and it sure isn't subtle about it.

A Mongol goes to town to sell a very valuable silver fox skin to the evil capitalists. Naturally, being evil (and fat) capitalists, they cheat the simple Mongolian man BUT they have a surprise--he won't just stand there and accept this maltreatment. He attacks the bad white men and flees to the hills--and eventually becomes a member of the communist partisans in the Russian Revolution. At this point, the film seems to drop this plot and A LOT of footage of Mongolian Buddhists is shown--including their costumes, dances and the like. At first, it seems like a nice bit of footage about these people but eventually you realize that the film is meant to mock Buddhist beliefs about the reincarnated Lama. Then, the communist forces attack--trying to kill off the evil forces of counter-revolution and international capitalism. Well what about our Mongolian hero? Where does he come into all this? See the film and find out for yourself--and you'll probably be quite surprised where the film goes next.

From an artistic point of view, the film is pretty good. The ending is also quite rousing. But as propaganda, it's very heavy-handed and not nearly as convincing or realistic as the much more famous film, "Potemkin" (also called "Battleship Potemkin"). I do understand that the new Soviet government was attempting to legitimize itself and drum up support by this film, but it just seemed to take the wrong approach as it lacked subtlety. As another reviewer pointed out, the villains in this film are just caricatures.

By the way, IMDb lists the film at 82 minutes. The DVD I watched clocks in at 125 minutes!! Is IMDb wrong or are there multiple versions and I just saw a longer one?

I loved this movie - it takes a good silent film to keep me glued to the screen, many Silents have huge amounts of frenetic studio-bound talking heads, but of course we have to wait for the titles to see what has just been said.

Other reviewers have laid the premise of this one but as a Russian film lover and trying anything I come across (this DVD, just £3!!) and expecting propaganda and heavy symbolism, I had a tour de force of both Mongolian and Buddhist life, but far from being a National Geographic documentary, this had real passionate pizazz and incredible, often beautiful locations, with long-lost ancient rituals and occasions coming alive on the screen.

I think it unfair to criticise and thus mark down a film because of the style and way it was made, at the time - this is 1928, the film stock and prints has degraded and the technical aspects made for slightly sped-up and jaunty action, whilst almost all the huge casts would have been local amateurs.

However, what made it for me was the music - brilliantly (and I believe, the original choice overseen by the director just before his death, in the 50s) - the crisp stereo really prickling the senses and the variety - from strident symphonies to traditional music from the locations in the film, all perfectly matched to the action. So, when some of the strangest looking tube-like horns get blown by long bearded Mongolians, we get a strange sounding instrument, not an artificially contrived one. This might sound a minor point but for me, from the outset, it really put me in the mood and set me up for the duration.

So - whilst many of the rather turgid Silent dramas are rather hard work and there's a sense of relief when they finally end, this was pure pleasure all the way through. Put to one side any preconceived notions about communist regimes and heavy Soviet symbolism and enjoy this much lighter and enjoyable classic. (It IS critically considered a Classic, actually and not just my say so or opinion)

A somewhat unusual piece of propaganda cinema. Our hero is supposedly a direct descendant of Genghis Khan who earns his living as a fur trapper somewhere in Siberia. When on one day the local (and not quite so local) fur traders attempt to take advantage of him they get a reaction they did not bargain for.

This film has aged very badly. It wears the propaganda on its sleaves and its villains are much worse caricatures than in, say, Battleship Potemkin. This compromises the credibility of the film. Superficially, the film works in a similar way as modern one-man-against-the-organisation action movies, but it badly lacks any sense of their irony and style.

This is an unusual project, deeply polemic like all Soviet cinema of the period but with the entire 'tyrants and proles' puppet play relocated to the far eastern steppe; so standing in for the exploited but spirited with fight peoples are now the indigenous Mongols, but again trapped between antiquated, superstitious religion and a cruel ruling elite financed by unethical capitalism. Workers back in Moscow and Lenigrand were supposed to relate.

Pudovkin is talented in making the equivalence, he intercuts the military aristocrats being pampered and groomed for an occasion with the Buddhist priests being helped in their ceremonial attire to receive them. The meeting of these two oppressors is marked with secret dances made to look chaotic, and Buddhist music made to sound intentionally grating and dissonant.

The mockery continues inside the temple, with the all-knowing, wise high lama revealed to be only a child; he looks apprehensive as everyone accords him the utmost respect. The insidious comments are particularly egregious when viewed in context of what the Buddhist were about to suffer in the hands of the Chinese comrades and how much of that elaborate spiritual culture was trampled under the mass-suicide of Mao's agricultural reforms.

Most of it flows by without much incident; vast dusty landscapes, petty human cruelties. Wars, and counterwars. The plot is eventually about a humble Mongol fur trapper being mistaken for the heir of Genghis Khan and groomed by the military to be the puppet ruler of a new nation.

Pudovkin was never quite an Eisenstein or Dovzhenko; he could concentrate his films into a motion as pervasive as they did, but couldn't sustain for as long. So we get bumpy stretches across otherwise pleasant vistas.

But then we have the ending, absolutely one of the finest pieces of silent cinema. It is a karmic hurricane of splintered image; motion that begins indoors with a fight is eventually transferred outside and escalates in a revolutionary apocalypse of stunning violence that scatters an entire army across the steppe like dead leaves. Trees, dust, crops, dirt - all rushing before the camera like Pudovkin's montage is so frenzied and powerful it threatens to rip apart the very fabric of the world.

Watch the film just so you get to this part, then watch side by side with Kuleshov's By the Law for the haunting aftermath of the apocalypse that begins here, and Zemlya for how it's endured. The call is, as usual, for revolution, but we can use it now in all three films as a broader metaphor about the effort to release the energies of the soul, about a metaphysical breakthrough.

Watch like you were having your soul trained for this breakthrough.

"Possess your soul in patience!" my grandmother used to chide me until I could settle down and get with whatever new experience I was about to endure--and learn from. Today's viewer will need to do the same to get with the unusual rhythms of this amazing saga--with the mediocre print, with a narrative that at first seems scattered, and with a culture totally different from much of anything encountered today. But it is worth it, and by the end, you may be totally mesmerized by the quiet force of a man who inadvertently becomes a hero, by powerful film editing from Podovkin that steadily reaches a stunning conclusion, and, if you allow yourself to immerse yourself in Mongolia in the early part of the last century, an experience unlike anything in modern film.

Russian film director Vsevolod Pudovkin did something unique to compose in what was his final film for his 'revolutionary trilogy,' depicting the Bolsheviks' success in creating the USSR. Instead of setting his 1928 "Storm over Asia" in Moscow or in his motherland Russia, Pudovkin's locale was in Mongolia. Pudovkin, as proven in his 1925 classic "Mother," avoided filming collective masses of people uprising against the capitalistic Russian government as his Soviet filmmaker colleagues consistently did. Instead, he focused on one individual to portray the Bolsheviks' struggles opposing imperialists, this time in the guise of the British.

Otherwise known as "The Heir to Genghis Khan," Pudovkin's 1928 work is largely fictional. His hero is a son of a Mongolian trapper who journeys to an European fur trading outpost to fetch a large sum of money for a prized silver fox pelt. Cheated out of its real worth, Bair, the Mongol (Valery Inkijinoff) gets involved in a fight with an Englishman before his friends whisk him away to the mountains. In those remote heights he becomes involved with the Bolsheviks' battle against the British. Bair is captured and is about to be executed before a soldier discovers an amulet on Bair given to him by his mother. She had earlier found the prized possession on the ground after it had dropped out of a monk's pocket. This saves Bair's life since the amulet reads the bearer is related to Genghis Khan. Pudovkin shows the path of the revolt of the locals against the foreign oppressors through Bair's eyes, strongly paralleling the 1917 struggles of the Bolsheviks against Imperial Russia.

Soviet critics didn't quite fully understand the obvious analogies of Pudovkin's Mongolians plight to Russia's own struggles. Their complaints ranged from the movie wasn't 'Russian enough' since it was one of the Soviets' first movies to show non-Russians, to there's no glorification of the current Soviet government. Pudovkin's editing technique of creating "the psychological guidance of the spectator" failed to display the obvious propaganda points critics were so used to seeing in their new country's movies. The director's strong point that was pervasive in Soviet films in the 1920s was his montage sequences. Pudovkin's famous quote, "Editing is the foundation of the film art" was the blueprint to deliver the "Storm Over Asia's" dramatic sequences, especially its conclusion. This was to be Pudovkin's final silent movie. With the advent of sound, audio would become an intriguing and challenging dynamic to bring to screen for the Soviet filmmakers, whose forte was displaying visual montages conveying multi-layered meanings. Even though he continued producing movies into the early 1950s, Pudovkin never reach the prestige he earned during the helicon days of the 1920s silent movies.

"Storm Over Asia" is regarded as one of Pudovkin's most highly respected work in the Western world, earning recognition as one of "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" entry.

The journey of Bair, the Mongol, is almost a ritualistic study of the Mongols fighting alongside the Partisans, who are helping the Soviets against a British occupation. It also shows, in great detail, the plight of the struggling fur-trader in 1920 northern Russia. I think this is the first film from 1928 that I feel suffered a little from being silent, although the musical score provided by the DVD, does help with the pace of the film. The story is slightly jerky though and they do hang on certain scenes a little long. That doesn't mean this is a bad film. By no stretch, is that the case. I loved this film accept for those knit-picks.

Director Vsevolod Pudovkin, choreographed many great battle scenes. They utilize some very cool editing tricks, especially in my two favorite scenes. In the first scene, when the warning goes out to find the man who drew the white man's blood, they use great flip editing and quick-cuts, most notably, during the storm/battle at the end. Lots of metaphorical montage.

The battle in the woods was fantastic also. Great emotion! The death of the Partisan leader shows great emotion, with great facial expressions on the actors. Vsevolod Pudovkin captures moody imagery of the woods that enhances the experience. All-in-all, a beautiful film, which almost attains a flow, that is like a poetic symphony, until it hits those little knit-picks I mentioned earlier.

8.8 (B+ MyGrade) = 8 IMDB.