The gentleman from Canada in his review pointed that this film may be of interest to the Slavs. I happen to be of Slavic culture and obviously read Gogol in original, but to me this film is simply an atrocious adaptation attempt. You'll be better served by a 1961 version of Gogol's novel. This one is simply a sub-product of overbearing c-grade pop culture, loaded with bad acting, inferior directing skills and underlined by incoherent script. While there have been a few examples of talented adaptations on Putin-controlled television, this is not one of those. You'll have much better December 31 if you skip this vulgar nonsense in all entirety. However, if you have had a kilo of vodka by mid-afternoon, hit that play button, it might merge well with deep intoxication. After all this was the intended audience for this opus. Philip Kirkorov in Gogol's novel? Hey, this definitely caused the classic to turn in his grave.
Reviews
17 Reviews
Belinskiy
(1953)
Stalin and literature textbooks
3 November 2009
The movie is a proof that anything can be turned into propaganda. It is a Stalin era textbook illustration of one and only viewpoint on Russian literature of the 1840-1850s. This movie helps to indoctrinate it with a finesse of a hammer. The characters look absurdly caricature, the dialogs of "progressive" heroes are full of Soviet-style preaching, there are even passages hinting at the cold war rhetoric (i.e. condemnation of western parliamentarian system, even a brief reference to slavery and extermination of Native Americans in the USA). Villains are typical. Everybody speaks as if they are already planning and foreseeing Bolshevik (no other) revolution and the arrival of the Dear Leader who will make their lives and work worth something. How many people will bother reading the critic, and not just excerpts in the secondary school program and how many people watched and continue to watch this movie? They air this Stalinist opus in modern Russia too, a new generation should know no repentance or any regrets about the past, and sneaking ideas or visuals from the period helps.
The movie should be popular now as ever, as many motifs relate to current ideology very well: Russia has its own incredible path and future, the west is horrible, etc. Even the citation from Lenin at the end falls into proper place. Thus the current rating is no surprise. The movie is not meant to be watched by westerners - it's one of those for internal consumption/ It's obscure enough, and is mostly watched by the chunk of population nostalgic about the times of the Genius of the Nations. So the high score is no surprise and as with almost any IMDb rating for the movie from the USSR is absolutely meaningless. "A sudji kto?" - 'Who are the judges' to cite the classic.
As far as movie-making itself, the directors had talent, so if it would have been possible to disregard the context, the film is quite accomplished.
A tiny bit of trivia - one of the directors, Trauberg literally soiled himself in Stalin's office when Stalin yelled at him criticizing his work. He thought he'd be sent to Lubyanka torturers. Make your own conclusions.
The movie-making could be such a prostituted occupation. At the very least the creator had to conform and collaborate with the regime and then get his pieces of silver. Some call this pair, Trauberg and Kozintsev "classics" of the Soviet cinema. To me "good servants" is a better definition. And they were very nice and interesting people I knew in person, but sadly this still doesn't change the greater picture. We are what we create in this life.
The movie should be popular now as ever, as many motifs relate to current ideology very well: Russia has its own incredible path and future, the west is horrible, etc. Even the citation from Lenin at the end falls into proper place. Thus the current rating is no surprise. The movie is not meant to be watched by westerners - it's one of those for internal consumption/ It's obscure enough, and is mostly watched by the chunk of population nostalgic about the times of the Genius of the Nations. So the high score is no surprise and as with almost any IMDb rating for the movie from the USSR is absolutely meaningless. "A sudji kto?" - 'Who are the judges' to cite the classic.
As far as movie-making itself, the directors had talent, so if it would have been possible to disregard the context, the film is quite accomplished.
A tiny bit of trivia - one of the directors, Trauberg literally soiled himself in Stalin's office when Stalin yelled at him criticizing his work. He thought he'd be sent to Lubyanka torturers. Make your own conclusions.
The movie-making could be such a prostituted occupation. At the very least the creator had to conform and collaborate with the regime and then get his pieces of silver. Some call this pair, Trauberg and Kozintsev "classics" of the Soviet cinema. To me "good servants" is a better definition. And they were very nice and interesting people I knew in person, but sadly this still doesn't change the greater picture. We are what we create in this life.
Tchaikovsky
(1970)
Soviet "classic" garbage
18 October 2009
I always regarded this opus as a rare piece of trash. There is close to nothing from real Tchaikovsky in this movie, just a glossed Stalinist version of the composer, the kind they indoctrinated in every music classroom to every youngster - that he was a progressive genius whose works fit socialist realism and Lenin's ideas about socialist culture very well. By the way, a vast majority of ignorant Russians are still offended by the notion of him being a homosexual. The composer's letters and reputable biographies are published in minuscule circulation, this film is seen by millions. Here's the power of indoctrination even in post-communist era. On top of that, the society is generally extremely homophobic. They used to send people to prison for homosexuality up to 1994, and every year there is a discussion in their parliament on resurrecting this law as part of criminal code. So here is your cultural backdrop...
Now, the movie has its own little merits, but the underlying total lie and poor director's thinking and probably general grasp of the subject make the better parts totally worthless.
Soviet cinema had its glorious moments, especially in the great escape of great patriotic war movies, where things were black and white, at least where the real evil was. The biographies - there were few interesting ones (Tsiolkovsky's, Pavlov come to mind), but always castrated by the intricacies of either Stalinist or post-Stalinist era.
I'd love to ramble on, but I think I got the main message clear - the film is a great lie, and on film merits alone is not a good work either. So to those first few folks who put there rave 10 star reviews - what planet are you from? Start from reading books, including composer's own letters. Then compare what you learned with what you see. Otherwise, Lenin still wins his micro battle in your consciousness, and the bastard doesn't deserve this, and you neither.
It would be great to make a true biographical movie or better yet mini-series about composer's life. His life was full of tremendous drama, add real music scores that make sense - and it could be something worth watching. Hollywood can't do it, its mostly prostituting pure trash, the French or Germans might. Russians could have, when the country and its cinematography was free for a fairly brief time, not these days of self-censorship, return of government control and new rules. And to say the composer was gay is a faux pas. How would one film a biography without this basic fact.
PS Regarding subtitles - never expect a decent work from Russian video publishers, it's in best case scenario a sloppy translation (heck, the translation of Tarkovsky's Andrey Rublev is simply horrible at times, and that's criterion edition). Few exceptions are fairy tales.
Now, the movie has its own little merits, but the underlying total lie and poor director's thinking and probably general grasp of the subject make the better parts totally worthless.
Soviet cinema had its glorious moments, especially in the great escape of great patriotic war movies, where things were black and white, at least where the real evil was. The biographies - there were few interesting ones (Tsiolkovsky's, Pavlov come to mind), but always castrated by the intricacies of either Stalinist or post-Stalinist era.
I'd love to ramble on, but I think I got the main message clear - the film is a great lie, and on film merits alone is not a good work either. So to those first few folks who put there rave 10 star reviews - what planet are you from? Start from reading books, including composer's own letters. Then compare what you learned with what you see. Otherwise, Lenin still wins his micro battle in your consciousness, and the bastard doesn't deserve this, and you neither.
It would be great to make a true biographical movie or better yet mini-series about composer's life. His life was full of tremendous drama, add real music scores that make sense - and it could be something worth watching. Hollywood can't do it, its mostly prostituting pure trash, the French or Germans might. Russians could have, when the country and its cinematography was free for a fairly brief time, not these days of self-censorship, return of government control and new rules. And to say the composer was gay is a faux pas. How would one film a biography without this basic fact.
PS Regarding subtitles - never expect a decent work from Russian video publishers, it's in best case scenario a sloppy translation (heck, the translation of Tarkovsky's Andrey Rublev is simply horrible at times, and that's criterion edition). Few exceptions are fairy tales.
Fatima
(1958)
a story from Osetia not just for Osetians
30 September 2009
It's a wonderful story based on a novel of an Osetian writer, Kosta Khetagurov. Very few people would have any access to this movie, so I'll just leave it at that well-deserved praise and would like to wish you all happy hunting, it's worth it, especially if you would like to be immersed in the Caucasus of the old legendary days. Tip to find - the movie exists in Russian, and has been released in Russia on DVD.
To digress a bit - not only this movie hard to find on the shelves, the IMDb put all Soviet-made Georgian movie titles in original Georgian, although it has almost never been the case, unless it was such a small release that was intended for internal viewing in Georgia only. So now, The director Semyon Dolidze gets a proper Georgian name. This movie title always was Fatima, not Patima. It's all fine, but confusing. These were Soviet movies, mostly done in Russian, with the Russian titles and so on. After 1991 it's obviously a different story, however, anything before, why? This was one country, nothing will change that and these movies will exist in Russian. Continuing this logic, why not translate all Soviet-made Uzbekfilm titles into Uzbek, or, for example, work of Dovzhenko studios into Ukrainian. Yet it has not been done, thank god someone here had a few brain cells left.
Another movie that goes well together with this one is by Nikolai Sanishvili (Nikoloz Sanishvili at IMDb) Chermen (Chermeni (1970)). It's another historical drama of the 17th century Osetia.
Stories live long time in that part of the world, memories too. The modern Russian government should keep that in mind when they roll their tanks through these mountains.
To digress a bit - not only this movie hard to find on the shelves, the IMDb put all Soviet-made Georgian movie titles in original Georgian, although it has almost never been the case, unless it was such a small release that was intended for internal viewing in Georgia only. So now, The director Semyon Dolidze gets a proper Georgian name. This movie title always was Fatima, not Patima. It's all fine, but confusing. These were Soviet movies, mostly done in Russian, with the Russian titles and so on. After 1991 it's obviously a different story, however, anything before, why? This was one country, nothing will change that and these movies will exist in Russian. Continuing this logic, why not translate all Soviet-made Uzbekfilm titles into Uzbek, or, for example, work of Dovzhenko studios into Ukrainian. Yet it has not been done, thank god someone here had a few brain cells left.
Another movie that goes well together with this one is by Nikolai Sanishvili (Nikoloz Sanishvili at IMDb) Chermen (Chermeni (1970)). It's another historical drama of the 17th century Osetia.
Stories live long time in that part of the world, memories too. The modern Russian government should keep that in mind when they roll their tanks through these mountains.
Adam i Kheva
(1970)
A very un-Soviet film
21 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It's a very unusual movie in many respects. The production year is 1969, the height of the Soviet regime, hard-line ideology had triumphed in Prague and some modest gains during Khruschev's "ottepel"/thaw were quickly being dismantled.
And all of a sudden we see on the screen a mountain village in the heart of Dagestan, a small autonomous republic on the Caspian sea (yes, that same area where the Russians are fighting local Islamic guerrillas now - well, most of you will have to check your knowledge of geography, since it is generally non-existent). Guess what, it's the 60s and there is virtually no Soviet power to speak of. It was a true statement then, but something that the Soviet regime would never want to acknowledge, particularly on screen. How the heck this movie sneaked past the censorship - still beats me, there must be an interesting story to tell.
Moreover, the villagers live according to Sharia law, the movie, although in a very comical way, portrays the condition of the woman in the Islamic soviet republic. The whole storyline is based on the obscure Sharia custom of marriage. I was puzzled and surprised watching this.
It's a very warm movie in its portrayal of people and village life. It feels untypically authentic and void of any hint of propaganda. Even the soviet-type ending fits well and is quite believable. In any case, nothing changes much about these people, just a few minor things. We are in 2009, and this is as true as it was back then.
The language is Russian, none of the main actors is from Dagestan, judging by the cast. Lots of Armenians in the cast, which is kind of funny, since there aren't too many in the area. Wish they release it with decent subtitles. I think the movie is available on DVD in Russia, obviously without any subtitles (just another sign of cultural isolationism, total disregard to anybody else and simple professional incompetence of the publishers - nothing new there). It is very worth watching for anyone interested in the anthropology and culture of the region, great illustration material for women studies as well. Anyone else, without any professional interest will simply enjoy a good humanistic story.
And all of a sudden we see on the screen a mountain village in the heart of Dagestan, a small autonomous republic on the Caspian sea (yes, that same area where the Russians are fighting local Islamic guerrillas now - well, most of you will have to check your knowledge of geography, since it is generally non-existent). Guess what, it's the 60s and there is virtually no Soviet power to speak of. It was a true statement then, but something that the Soviet regime would never want to acknowledge, particularly on screen. How the heck this movie sneaked past the censorship - still beats me, there must be an interesting story to tell.
Moreover, the villagers live according to Sharia law, the movie, although in a very comical way, portrays the condition of the woman in the Islamic soviet republic. The whole storyline is based on the obscure Sharia custom of marriage. I was puzzled and surprised watching this.
It's a very warm movie in its portrayal of people and village life. It feels untypically authentic and void of any hint of propaganda. Even the soviet-type ending fits well and is quite believable. In any case, nothing changes much about these people, just a few minor things. We are in 2009, and this is as true as it was back then.
The language is Russian, none of the main actors is from Dagestan, judging by the cast. Lots of Armenians in the cast, which is kind of funny, since there aren't too many in the area. Wish they release it with decent subtitles. I think the movie is available on DVD in Russia, obviously without any subtitles (just another sign of cultural isolationism, total disregard to anybody else and simple professional incompetence of the publishers - nothing new there). It is very worth watching for anyone interested in the anthropology and culture of the region, great illustration material for women studies as well. Anyone else, without any professional interest will simply enjoy a good humanistic story.
Tragediya XX veka
(1993–1994)
A strong whiff of nonsense
15 March 2009
These series is the "official" version of the events as they were finally formed into the proper mythology by the end of Brezhnev era. Here we are, the production date is 1993, the Soviet Union is no more, but director Ozerov is clinging to the older ways very firmly.
What's even worse, as compared to his own earlier works, this one is really awful. There is basically no plot, no character studies, nothing, really nothing. It's like an endless illustrated incantation from the middle school textbook from good old days of the "developed socialism".
Battles look ridiculous. Dialogues make no sense. Few of them were taken from memoirs, but even those were botched. Everything looks like a caricature of the earlier better propaganda efforts.
If you still want to see the Brezhnev era look at the war, watch Osvobozhdenie or 'Neizvestnaya voyna' (Unknown War).
In any case watching this would be a great waste of time with zero value. An awful effort from good party man of the times of stagnation.
What's even worse, as compared to his own earlier works, this one is really awful. There is basically no plot, no character studies, nothing, really nothing. It's like an endless illustrated incantation from the middle school textbook from good old days of the "developed socialism".
Battles look ridiculous. Dialogues make no sense. Few of them were taken from memoirs, but even those were botched. Everything looks like a caricature of the earlier better propaganda efforts.
If you still want to see the Brezhnev era look at the war, watch Osvobozhdenie or 'Neizvestnaya voyna' (Unknown War).
In any case watching this would be a great waste of time with zero value. An awful effort from good party man of the times of stagnation.
Stalingrad
(1990)
Don't confuse with 1993 film
15 March 2009
Judging by the commentary, everyone is confusing this movie with Stalingrad (1993) by Joseph Vilsmaier. This is NOT the story from German perspective. This is a soviet-style epic, typical of Ozerov's work. This means we are shown a Soviet textbook illustration, nothing too emotional here, even the scene of NKVD officer shooting the soldiers who lost their guns in Kharkov retreat.
The year of production is 1989, the times of "perestroika", so Ozerov goes a little bold here, depicting briefly something that Brezhnev times did not like to mention, i.e. the tremendous defeat under Kharkov, due to total incompetence of Stalin & co. Nevertheless, the rest of the approach is still the same old beaten one - see 'Osvobozhdenie', etc.
Germans are a bit caricature, Hitler, in particular. Stalin is your textbook Stalin. Churchill doesn't look like Churchill. Ozerov's style makes all the persons on the screen as illustrations, unemotional, not too human in a way, just automatons that speak and move about. There are few exceptions, but overall this is how it goes. This is very typical of the war epic Soviet style. Big brush strokes, lots of voice-overs that sound like Sovinformbureau reports, etc. Recreation of history is a noble goal, but what Ozerov manages to create is yet another myth. The real war was a much dirtier, bloodier and crazier affair than what we see on the screen here. Stalingrad was hell on earth where two sides fought for days for every remnants of a brick wall. It is hard to imagine, and even harder to portray. And the broader historical perspective was much more complex and very different. For example, the command staff in the movie is all about Zhukov again, when the real hero among the commanders was Chuikov. etc, etc.
I really despise everything that Ozerov created on screen. These are the worst examples of soviet cinema. There are so many great soviet movies about the war, but everything that this guy created without shame is just rotten to the core.
The year of production is 1989, the times of "perestroika", so Ozerov goes a little bold here, depicting briefly something that Brezhnev times did not like to mention, i.e. the tremendous defeat under Kharkov, due to total incompetence of Stalin & co. Nevertheless, the rest of the approach is still the same old beaten one - see 'Osvobozhdenie', etc.
Germans are a bit caricature, Hitler, in particular. Stalin is your textbook Stalin. Churchill doesn't look like Churchill. Ozerov's style makes all the persons on the screen as illustrations, unemotional, not too human in a way, just automatons that speak and move about. There are few exceptions, but overall this is how it goes. This is very typical of the war epic Soviet style. Big brush strokes, lots of voice-overs that sound like Sovinformbureau reports, etc. Recreation of history is a noble goal, but what Ozerov manages to create is yet another myth. The real war was a much dirtier, bloodier and crazier affair than what we see on the screen here. Stalingrad was hell on earth where two sides fought for days for every remnants of a brick wall. It is hard to imagine, and even harder to portray. And the broader historical perspective was much more complex and very different. For example, the command staff in the movie is all about Zhukov again, when the real hero among the commanders was Chuikov. etc, etc.
I really despise everything that Ozerov created on screen. These are the worst examples of soviet cinema. There are so many great soviet movies about the war, but everything that this guy created without shame is just rotten to the core.
Law of the Lawless
(2002)
Awful subtitles again
13 March 2009
Perhaps there is a new mafia in the translation business. It's incredible that in this day and age release after release of a Russian subtitled DVD is done by illiterate fools. This one is no exception and is a total disgrace. It actually is about as bad as it gets. Actually I have not seen a good translation of anything from Russian, may be a few older classic Soviet movies, that's about it. Even the best productions like Bortko's 'Idiot' have the subtitles that leave very much to be desired, at best they make the dialogue several times more primitive and incomplete. At worst - well, it gets completely incomprehensible for the English speaker.
Why this is going on? The answer is perhaps very simple. The country is extraordinarily corrupt. Protectionism, professional incompetence flourish. May be it's somebody's important son/daughter company that is getting the translation contracts and they cannot distinguish their heads from their behinds. That's my most likely explanation. I'll make some inquiries around the industry in Moscow, the situation is curious indeed.
The series are interesting, that is if you speak Russian. Subtitles are no help. For that my vote is one, simply based on a quality of viewing for international audience. Shame.
Why this is going on? The answer is perhaps very simple. The country is extraordinarily corrupt. Protectionism, professional incompetence flourish. May be it's somebody's important son/daughter company that is getting the translation contracts and they cannot distinguish their heads from their behinds. That's my most likely explanation. I'll make some inquiries around the industry in Moscow, the situation is curious indeed.
The series are interesting, that is if you speak Russian. Subtitles are no help. For that my vote is one, simply based on a quality of viewing for international audience. Shame.
The Idiot
(2003– )
Awful Awful Awful Subtitles
12 March 2009
I'll join the chorus in singing praises to this version of Dostoyevsky's 'Idiot'. No sense in repeating what others might have said.
One great drawback which can completely ruin the experience is the subtitles. The quality of translation is simply disastrous. I am a native Russian speaker, and I am completely appalled at the total lack of professionalism. It's as if it's done by a semi-literate person with a huge attention deficit disorder. Chunks of the dialog are simply ignored or at best get so simplified, one can only envision how Fyodor Mikhailovich is turning in his grave. Bottom line, the subtitles are a total disgrace. This is nothing new - I have no idea whom they employ these days, I wish I could look them in the eye and tell them everything I think about the job they are doing. It's a shame that a rare cultural gem becomes so dull thanks to the horrible translation. Once again these Russians DVD producers demonstrate that they absolutely don't care about the rest of the world. What can be greater than self-imposed cultural isolation? Even when they care to put subtitles in the DVD release, 90% of the time they are barely comprehensible and the remaining 10% demonstrate a very sloppy translation job.
None of the problems exist if you speak Russian. An excellent production on many levels indeed. I understand that even a non-Russian speaker can appreciate this somewhat, and judging by the comments here, many did, but believe me, you were robbed.
One great drawback which can completely ruin the experience is the subtitles. The quality of translation is simply disastrous. I am a native Russian speaker, and I am completely appalled at the total lack of professionalism. It's as if it's done by a semi-literate person with a huge attention deficit disorder. Chunks of the dialog are simply ignored or at best get so simplified, one can only envision how Fyodor Mikhailovich is turning in his grave. Bottom line, the subtitles are a total disgrace. This is nothing new - I have no idea whom they employ these days, I wish I could look them in the eye and tell them everything I think about the job they are doing. It's a shame that a rare cultural gem becomes so dull thanks to the horrible translation. Once again these Russians DVD producers demonstrate that they absolutely don't care about the rest of the world. What can be greater than self-imposed cultural isolation? Even when they care to put subtitles in the DVD release, 90% of the time they are barely comprehensible and the remaining 10% demonstrate a very sloppy translation job.
None of the problems exist if you speak Russian. An excellent production on many levels indeed. I understand that even a non-Russian speaker can appreciate this somewhat, and judging by the comments here, many did, but believe me, you were robbed.
The Arrows of Robin Hood
(1975)
Vysotsky's songs make it worth watching
12 March 2009
There are several good Robin Hood movies, almost everybody who knows cinema would agree that 1938 'The Adventures of Robin Hood' with Errol Flynn is one of the best thus far, or perhaps even 1983 'Robin Hood and the Sorcerer' and 1922 silent film are also worth mentioning. Here we are with mid 1970s Russian version, and in my opinion it is worth watching. Lots of things go against this film - well, how easy was to create an authentic atmosphere of the medieval England in the 1970s Soviet Union. Not very easy at all. Historical authenticity aside, the treatment of a character is quite unusual. This Robin is almost Byronesque or rather a Lermontov type. The plot is a version of a familiar story, so not too many surprises there. All in all, the film to me always looked a bit weak with few brighter spots (e.g. evil knight casting and performance), but the songs of Vysotsky, are good songs. At times they fit well, and at times they are dissonant with what's on the screen, but no matter, they definitely add a dimension to the movie itself. There is something in the scenes very akin to Taganka theatrical mood of the time.
The first cinema release did not contain the songs, there were simply cut off, subsequently everything was restored, so if you come across the butchered version, it's not worth looking at.
Where is the release with the subtitles, you might want to ask? Once again - who knows. Yet another case of country's voluntary cultural isolation. And from what I've observed, even in the most famous Russian or Soviet movies the quality of translation is unequivocally horrible, primitive, too approximate, certainly made by people not very well versed in both languages.
The first cinema release did not contain the songs, there were simply cut off, subsequently everything was restored, so if you come across the butchered version, it's not worth looking at.
Where is the release with the subtitles, you might want to ask? Once again - who knows. Yet another case of country's voluntary cultural isolation. And from what I've observed, even in the most famous Russian or Soviet movies the quality of translation is unequivocally horrible, primitive, too approximate, certainly made by people not very well versed in both languages.
The Secret Agent's Blunder
(1968)
oh that romantic KGB work
12 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
A lot of Russians incredibly even to this day would disagree with my assessment which is okay. I know the "new" country and the new mentality of the populace. It's getting more scary with every passing year. Here we are facing the 1968 production which became and remains a very popular set of four films, based on a fairly obscure novels. The best propaganda is always not that obvious, so to instill something into mass culture and consciousness, there is no need to film something a la Leni Riefenstahl or Soyuzkinozhurnal. In a milder totalitarian regime the means at disposal are much wider, and this is a good illustration for how it was done. To any reasonably thinking person then and certainly forty years later the whole plot appears as a ridiculous fantasy. This whole spy business obviously existed, but suffice it to say, very differently. To have a main hero, the son of a Russian count no less, secretly installed in the depth of the Soviet Union with a task to collect soil and water samples from suspected nuclear production facilities is a rather fantastic proposition. It gets even more fascinating when from the very first minutes it is alleged that the main assistance to the CIA spies is given by Nazi collaborators, traitors, Bandera nationalists and the likes, oh and the criminal element, of course. And so the film continues. The main spy base is run by West Germans (we are reminded of the unfortunate consequence of the unfinished business of socialist revolution throughout Europe), there are some amusing sequences about a lie detector test which KGB agent passes with heroic brilliance, scenes of some odd and quite improbable sea border crossing, etc. Obviously every move of the spy network is controlled by KGB, so there's no need to worry. Just avoid contact with foreigners, or if you have any, go talk to your local KGB clerk.
The film was obviously intended for internal consumption, thus there is more mythology is thrown into the mix, this time for the soul. Apparently, all this spying Russian nobility is simply dying from nostalgia for their Motherland, i.e. things like fishing and birch trees and making love to big-breasted beautiful and good-natured Russian women. Thus, one can still convert these hostile elements into good Soviet citizens, given the right set of circumstances. The film ends with the resident spy arrested, and there will be more to follow.
So why did people like this film and many continue to like it? I think the subject was fairly unusual: the spying/KGB theme is a rare event in the Soviet cinematography, actors rise adequately to the task, there are a few interesting songs, including very uncommon "blatnaya", i.e. from prison culture (Russians love the prison culture, go figure that slice of cultural history) and this whole plot somehow fit well into popular mythology about spy business. Needless to say the myth was a creation by Lubyanka masters as well.
Nonsense it was, a dated nonsense it remains, loved by Russians of all ages. This is the saddest part, perhaps. The average mindset is different, but as twisted and manipulated as ever.
On a less amusing note. The year was 1968, on August 20-21 the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague to crush the "bourgeois" ideology and "anti-socialist" forces. And somewhere in Leningrad (St.Petersburg) a young boy Volodya/Vladimir Putin was watching this movie about a wonderful work of KGB and dreamed of bigger things to come.
The film was obviously intended for internal consumption, thus there is more mythology is thrown into the mix, this time for the soul. Apparently, all this spying Russian nobility is simply dying from nostalgia for their Motherland, i.e. things like fishing and birch trees and making love to big-breasted beautiful and good-natured Russian women. Thus, one can still convert these hostile elements into good Soviet citizens, given the right set of circumstances. The film ends with the resident spy arrested, and there will be more to follow.
So why did people like this film and many continue to like it? I think the subject was fairly unusual: the spying/KGB theme is a rare event in the Soviet cinematography, actors rise adequately to the task, there are a few interesting songs, including very uncommon "blatnaya", i.e. from prison culture (Russians love the prison culture, go figure that slice of cultural history) and this whole plot somehow fit well into popular mythology about spy business. Needless to say the myth was a creation by Lubyanka masters as well.
Nonsense it was, a dated nonsense it remains, loved by Russians of all ages. This is the saddest part, perhaps. The average mindset is different, but as twisted and manipulated as ever.
On a less amusing note. The year was 1968, on August 20-21 the Soviet tanks rolled into Prague to crush the "bourgeois" ideology and "anti-socialist" forces. And somewhere in Leningrad (St.Petersburg) a young boy Volodya/Vladimir Putin was watching this movie about a wonderful work of KGB and dreamed of bigger things to come.
Lunoy byl polon sad
(2000)
a thoughtful love story
11 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I was nicely surprised by this film, my initial expectations were fairly low. This is a case when a plot outline conveys nothing, it's a simple story of an old woman who meets her first love, and their story goes back and forth between 1941-2 and late 90s Russia. The husband complements the triangle, and so the story goes to its sad and reflective end, and I am not about to retell the scenario here. What's really good here and works so well is that the subject is treated gently, in half-tones, if you will, and definitely not overdone, but still the whole scene is well defined. The social backdrop is portrayed gently, it's not noisy and showing the routine of the main heroine's life serves its purpose. The scenes from the war time appeared to me a bit more stylized, but are passable. The actors are doing a very good job to be believable, the story itself is uncharacteristically believable, thus, depending on personal life experiences, it may touch the viewers on many levels and leave them pondering about something far away from ever-present pragmatism, like love and time and memory. My main gripe is that the exit from the situation is death. This seems a bit too easy. Okay, it's a plausible, but a cheap way out. Would the husband accept the wife's betrayal if she was alive or jealousy and bitterness would have prevailed? And can you call this a betrayal? I don't know, if a non-Russian would catch all the nuances behind the characters. If any "westerner" saw it, please share your opinion! On the other hand, I am not so sure that DVD with subtitles exist, Russians continue to do a very pathetic job in this department.
The Unknown War
(1978– )
Lie from the Brezhnev Era
9 March 2009
It's incredible what one can do with their own history. The creation of the myth takes a while to put together. Mass murders, purges, deportations, indoctrination, decades of fear and brain-washing, generation changes, and here we are, in the 21st century, and the history of the country in the 20th century is still on mass conscience and populist level is one grandiose Lie. By Brezhnev 70's, when the series were made, the Lie about the war had been perfected. Nobody denies the unprecedented heroism and sacrifice of the People. The myths and lies are in the presentation of details, of policy, in portraying the leadership and its role, in the whole narrative of the events in the war, etc. For example, who would be afraid now of the facts pointing to monumental incompetence of some generals. Does this belittle the valor of the heroes in the trenches? Of course, not. Nevertheless, this insane thinking is still alive and well in new Russia, and with no revisions still goes to the school textbooks. Result? Historical ignorance leads only to a new yearning for a new fuhrer inside the country that defeated another fuhrer sixty odd years ago. Movies like these don't help the truth a single bit. It's not the archival footage, one can make anything out of archival footage - look at German propaganda newsreels throughout the war. It's mainly what you say along with it... To listen to this Brezhnev propaganda now, after some glimpses of truths quietly have been coming out over the last couple of decades is to betray the memory of those who perished, and I don't care whether they were yelling "Stalin" or praying to god at that final moment. There is only one truth, and it still is largely buried in the secret archives or what is already known is ignored by general masses. In any case, there are far better series that as a historian i can recommend - both PBS and BBC did a fairly decent, although perhaps too simplified ("dummied down"?) versions of the action on the Eastern front. In Russian - there exists a 96-episode commendable effort called "World War II - Day by Day" (2005) ("Vtoraya Mirovaya - den za dnem"). It's a good account on a fairly limited budget.
If on the one hand the mass consciousness in modern Russia is still under heavy burden of happily inherited communist lies, the ignorance in the West, particularly in the USA is simply astounding, the understanding of war even among some fairly-well educated so limited, that there's really nothing to say. There's also yet another mythology, this time done by magicians of Hollywood. The makers of this culture simply bombard the masses with their garbage. There are some decent works on paper, informative and leading to thinking, but as usual they are simply buried and exist in the realm of few within the university system. Besides, how many people simply read and what do they read?..
Bottom line, history rarely teaches true lessons, that time it did. Before it's too late, it would be a great humanistic progress, if more people learn about those times in history, before it's too late. Go watch something better than this, please... 1 star for level of truth, 8 stars for the propagandist effort
If on the one hand the mass consciousness in modern Russia is still under heavy burden of happily inherited communist lies, the ignorance in the West, particularly in the USA is simply astounding, the understanding of war even among some fairly-well educated so limited, that there's really nothing to say. There's also yet another mythology, this time done by magicians of Hollywood. The makers of this culture simply bombard the masses with their garbage. There are some decent works on paper, informative and leading to thinking, but as usual they are simply buried and exist in the realm of few within the university system. Besides, how many people simply read and what do they read?..
Bottom line, history rarely teaches true lessons, that time it did. Before it's too late, it would be a great humanistic progress, if more people learn about those times in history, before it's too late. Go watch something better than this, please... 1 star for level of truth, 8 stars for the propagandist effort
Voyna na zapadnom napravlenii
(1990– )
Stalinism to the end
4 March 2009
WWII is the sacred subject in Russia. No other country sacrificed this much. No other battles fought through the war come close in magnitude to what was going on on the eastern front. As an aside, that part of the war is totally forgotten and ignored by Hollywood or TV network documentaries in the States. Americans have all seen Iwo Jima, 70000 marines on an atoll in the Pacific. Few know Stalingrad, some know Kursk, then battle for Berlin, obviously. Where is the rest of the war? Just as an example - how many people interested in WWII history heard of a meat grinder called Rzhev where almost a million Russian soldiers were killed in 1942-43, along with 200000+ Germans? As bizarre as it looks in a western society, the Soviets never talked about early defeats much, hence those are virtually forgotten everywhere.
What would one learn watching hours and hours of the mini-series "Voyna"? Nothing, unfortunately. The six-part miniseries were made in 1990, at the time when little bits and pieces of truth about the horrors of the Stalin's reign grew into a steady stream. "Children of Arbat" by Rybakov and the film "Pokayanie" by Abuladze have seen the light. To certain degree, de-stalinization of the society stepped up. However, lives, destinies, ideologies in this country have always been polarized, there are always two sides in the barbed wire. Well, Stadniuk, the writer for this movie was a nationalist-communist and true Stalinist to the end. The film's action starts in June of 1941, a week before the war. We are immediately met with a standard communist party phraseology about the early mistakes in the war, unpreparedness of the Soviet Union and a great toll that repressions of 1930s had exerted on the Soviet armed forces. Stalin is not to blame, it's basically Beriya's fault. We are back to 1954 official explanation of these events when these generals and officers were largely rehabilitated by Khrushcev. Oh well, the rest is no better ideological garbage of carefully masked half-truths and the official soviet doctrines. There is nothing about the "unknown", or never mentioned by propaganda events of the war, etc, etc.
How valid is this film now? Not much. For the human side of the war, there were excellent great movies already made and stories written and hopefully more to follow. For the greater historical scope, and cinema educating the masses - a bit more materials surfaced by now, with lots and lots still locked in the archives without any access to it. Most young Russians don't care about history, others support neo-nationalist causes and love their new fuhrers, the textbooks continue the old lies. The prevailing ideology inside the country once again, and may be more than ever resembles something that the grandfathers and fathers fought in 1941-45. There are interesting books as of late, few based on serious research. Most of the new literature is based on fantasy. A lot needs to change in Russia, so that people could be interested in learning the full truth and capable of facing it. One could only hope that it will come out one day out of the locked archives. And one could only hope that one day the populace shall realize that "negativity" about the war, its conduct, its bloody generals, Stalin and all the craziness on top only underscore the valor of those in the trenches. Then we can view the heroism through the clear prism of truth and learn something about the previous generation and for the future.
What would one learn watching hours and hours of the mini-series "Voyna"? Nothing, unfortunately. The six-part miniseries were made in 1990, at the time when little bits and pieces of truth about the horrors of the Stalin's reign grew into a steady stream. "Children of Arbat" by Rybakov and the film "Pokayanie" by Abuladze have seen the light. To certain degree, de-stalinization of the society stepped up. However, lives, destinies, ideologies in this country have always been polarized, there are always two sides in the barbed wire. Well, Stadniuk, the writer for this movie was a nationalist-communist and true Stalinist to the end. The film's action starts in June of 1941, a week before the war. We are immediately met with a standard communist party phraseology about the early mistakes in the war, unpreparedness of the Soviet Union and a great toll that repressions of 1930s had exerted on the Soviet armed forces. Stalin is not to blame, it's basically Beriya's fault. We are back to 1954 official explanation of these events when these generals and officers were largely rehabilitated by Khrushcev. Oh well, the rest is no better ideological garbage of carefully masked half-truths and the official soviet doctrines. There is nothing about the "unknown", or never mentioned by propaganda events of the war, etc, etc.
How valid is this film now? Not much. For the human side of the war, there were excellent great movies already made and stories written and hopefully more to follow. For the greater historical scope, and cinema educating the masses - a bit more materials surfaced by now, with lots and lots still locked in the archives without any access to it. Most young Russians don't care about history, others support neo-nationalist causes and love their new fuhrers, the textbooks continue the old lies. The prevailing ideology inside the country once again, and may be more than ever resembles something that the grandfathers and fathers fought in 1941-45. There are interesting books as of late, few based on serious research. Most of the new literature is based on fantasy. A lot needs to change in Russia, so that people could be interested in learning the full truth and capable of facing it. One could only hope that it will come out one day out of the locked archives. And one could only hope that one day the populace shall realize that "negativity" about the war, its conduct, its bloody generals, Stalin and all the craziness on top only underscore the valor of those in the trenches. Then we can view the heroism through the clear prism of truth and learn something about the previous generation and for the future.
Tsarskaya okhota
(1990)
How Historical Movies Should Be Made
2 March 2009
This is a fairly accurate depiction of a very intriguing story of princess Yelizaveta Alekseyevna Tarakanova, well at least one version of it, since multiple accounts of what happened exist. In another version she joins the convent and dies in 1810 under a name of sister Doropheya. Well, actually, her death in 1775 is much more likely. Lots of literature exists on her, although to this day I am not aware of any serious comprehensive scholarly work on this woman's fascinating biography. Of works of fiction, an 1883 novel by Danilevsky "Princess Tarakanova" is worth mentioning. Just a few notes on the film without revealing much - one can appreciate careful attention to small details, and in abundance, they add authenticity. Interestingly, lots of interior scenes were shot inside the museums. Museums in the late USSR really needed money so they rented the space to filmmakers, something that cannot be easily accomplished these days. Hence, the interiors are great! Another fun fact - the Italians financed this movie, so of the trilogy, Melnikov started with 'Tsarskaya Okhota' where part of the story takes place in Venice (historically correct too, by the way). I watched the film recently. I'll set aside minor gripes, it's just a personal perception of characters. What this film has is fine acting, quality camera work, etc., but besides all of the above what struck me most was great care and deference to history by the film director, something that is pretty much permanently missing in the US and European cinema, especially of late. This fine film stands in sharp contrast to pseudo-historical creations of the directors who neither care nor know anything about history. Examples of embarrassingly dumb works abound, not the case with 'Tsarskaya Okhota'. I am not certain that the version with subtitles exists, there really should be one. Russians typically shoot themselves in the foot releasing movies without subtitles. If you come across the subtitled version, by all means watch it, it's an interesting story, and you'll learn a bit of Russian history along the way. And Anna Samokhina is a Very Beautiful Actress...
Infinity
(1992)
New cinematic language
27 February 2009
It's hard to describe the film that is not supposed to be described. As a true art form it can be felt and appreciated as a whole. Thus, I am not about to disclose the story line, not that there is a single one, nor will I use this forum to say something profoundly philosophical about the meaning of life within the time dimension. The low score by a very few here @ IMDb doesn't surprise me. This film is not for everyone. I think I myself wouldn't have liked it so much a few years ago, there has to exist a collection of experiences to develop a certain affinity with the imagery on the screen, or perhaps it's simple aging that does it... Anyhow, Marlen Khutsiev is one of the few really talented Soviet directors who knows what the cinema is about and how it's done. By the way, he considers this to be his best work, and I must agree, at least for me 'Beskonechnost' is by leaps and bounds the greatest film he made, and he made some culturally very important ones throughout the whole post-Stalin era. Kudos to Berlin festival for the recognition. Thus far, I don't know of any subtitled version of this movie. Russian DVDs obviously exist, unfortunately without subtitles. As a sad post-scriptum, Russians by large don't like this film much, it's simply on another plane of existence for the brain-washed masses being fed pop culture of the worst kind amidst the carefully placed bits like Ukrainians and Georgians are bad. Different languages.
Dreams
(1955)
simply great
23 January 2008
This is a "minor" Bergman's work indeed, nevertheless a great piece of cinema, scene after scene after scene. And if you belong to those who would rather watch Bergman than some Hollywood trash, and somehow missed this work, then yet another great one hour twenty minutes await you. Love is a timeless subject, and this movie will always have its small audience. And for this type of viewer a review that dissects it all is not necessary. Other folks should simply move on and watch something else that fits their intellectual and spiritual capacities.
By the way, the rating of 'Dreams' = the rating of 'Beowolf'. Such is a sad and pathetic state of human condition.
By the way, the rating of 'Dreams' = the rating of 'Beowolf'. Such is a sad and pathetic state of human condition.
Tell Your Friends