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.

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.