Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears

            Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears is a popular film that was directed by Vladimir Menshov and made in 1979 during the era of Stagnation. The film takes place in two time periods, the late 1950’s and the late 1970’s. The Soviet Union was in a period known as the Thaw in the 1950’s, while it was in the era of Stagnation in the 1970’s. This gives the viewer a valuable perspective on each of the two periods.

            Each of the characters that are first introduced in the film are looking for different things in life and from Moscow. Katerina is looking for success. The viewer learns that she is trying to get into college in the beginning of the film, but she fails the test that she needs to pass in order to be accepted into college. Lyudmila does not understand why Katerina wants to attend college; she is focused on trying to get married to a wealthy and rich man who has connections in Moscow. The third friend, Antonnia, seems to be looking to have a family.

            An aspect of Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears that I found interesting was the different outcomes between Katerina and Lyudmila. Katerina is unsuccessful in her first relationship. She has a baby and the man she was in the relationship with, Rudolph, leaves her. Lyudmila is able to marry an athlete and live a comfortable life. However, when the film enters the era of Stagnation, Lyudmila is divorced and her ex-husband is an alcoholic. Katerina, on the other hand, is able to eventually reach a powerful position in her factory and find a husband. I think that the film demonstrates that someone who works hard in life will ultimately be more successful than someone who lives a bourgeois life and use marriage to try to attain wealth and status.

            There is one thing that I did find puzzling about Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. This is the relationship that develops between Gosha and Katerina. Gosha holds the belief that a family should be patriarchal. When Katerina voices her concern over a fight Gosha participated in, Gosha scolds her and tells her to never speak to him in that manner again. If she does, he will leave her. When Gosha discovers that Katerina makes more money than him, he runs out and does not return for a week. This is strange to me because I would think that Katerina would not stand for this. She is seen in the film as a strong woman. She is a single mother after Rudolph leaves her, and she is able to work her way to a powerful position at her workplace. Though she seems strong, she becomes subservient to Gosha when he becomes a part of her family. This makes the relationship not convincing in any aspect.

Ballad of a Soldier

           Ballad of a Soldier is a film directed by Grigori Chukhrai which was produced in 1959. The film’s storyline centers on a soldier named Alyosha, and his journey home on leave from the front. Alyosha is granted a leave as a reward for the heroic act of destroying two enemy tanks. Throughout his journey home, he stops many times in order to help other people. He delivers soap for a soldier he does not know well named Pavlov, he helps a soldier returning from the front, and he travels with Shura for most of the film.

            I found that Ballad of a Soldier was quite unique in comparison to other World War Two films I have viewed or related books I have read. In books such as Donald Burgett’s memoirs, E.B. Sledge's With the Old Breed, or Mansur Abdulin's Red Road from Stalingrad: Recollections of a Soviet Infantryman, the stories focus more on the fighting aspect of war and the relationship between men on the front. Leaves are often discussed in these memoirs, but are not discussed to the extent that Ballad of a Soldier reveals to the viewer.  In the memoir Parachute Infantry, the author simply tells the reader that when the war was over he headed for Paris, and this is how the book ends. The same holds true for war films. In Saving Private Ryan, Beach Red, When Trumpets Fade, and many more films, the plots involve the day to day life of a soldier on the frontlines of war. Rarely, if ever, do these films explore soldiers’ leaves to return home such as the leave taken by Alyosha in Ballad of a Soldier.

            What I found most interesting about Ballad of a Soldier when compared to the other films that we have watched in Russian Cinema is that the film focuses more on the story of Alyosha and the entertainment of the viewer. This is unique when compared to Socialist Realist films, which seemed to focus more on some sort of propaganda message rather than developing an entertaining story. I thought that the introduction of a message could at times detract from the artistic value or the entertainment of the film.

            One thing I did find odd about the film is that in the reading from Beumers, Beumers states that the plot of Ballad of a Soldier “is entirely narrated as a flashback of Alesha’s mother” (120-121). If this is true, then it would mean that most of the film is entirely a figment of Alyosha’s mother’s imagination. In the end of the film the two only meet for a brief moment before Alyosha has to return to the front. There is no way that Alyosha would be able to tell his mother the entire story that is conveyed in the film in those few minutes. This would mean that it is possible that the mother created the entire plot of the film in her mind in order to cope with the fact that her son is at war.

The Mirror

Mirror is a film directed by Andrey Tarkovsky. The film was made in 1974. After watching Mirror, I realized that the film was similar to the film Inception, which was released in 2010. They are similar not in plot or characters, but in the effort one must put into understanding it. For Inception, I feel as if viewing it twice helps the viewer completely understand the plot of the film and what happens in the conclusion. Mirror is similar to this, but to more of an extreme than Inception. The film was extremely unusual and difficult to follow, but I feel as though this is what also helps make Mirror such an intriguing film.

            Though the film was difficult to view, I was able to notice some interesting things and come up with some ideas or theories concerning the film. I think the film is a combination of different sequences in time, flashbacks, and possibly dreams. Throughout the film, characters differ in age, and atnI thought I noticed a difference in the woman’s hair color. This is the woman who is sitting on the fence in the beginning of the film. At first I thought that the film was introducing new characters, but I am fairly certain that the changes in characters are a result of the change in time. For instance, the viewer can see that the boy is training for the military in one of the sequences in the film. This would probably be set during the time of the Second World War, since Russia suffered many casualties, resulting in a need for more men or children to be trained as soldiers. After the viewer sees the scene of the boy training, a bird lands on his head and he is able to grab it. Later when the man is on his deathbed, the viewer sees that there is a bird by his side on the bed. This suggests that there are at least two different time periods that the film takes place in, during the war, and then a post-war period. Another piece of evidence that suggests the general time period in which the film takes place is in the scene in the newspaper factory. On the wall there is a poster with Stalin pictured, suggesting that this scene of the film takes place sometime between when Stalin rose to power and when he died in 1953. I also believe that there may have been dream sequences in the film because the viewer can see a woman floating in one of the scenes towards the end of the film.

            One thing that I found interesting about Mirror was the use of clips from the news. They seemed to pop in to the movie whenever something related to what was in the clip was discussed. When the Spanish men are present in the film, there are clips of war. Though it is not stated which war is being shown in the clip, I think that the clips are from the Spanish Civil War and not World War Two. The desire to avoid the civil war would explain why the men and their families live in Russia. The Spanish Civil War was fought from 1936 to 1939, and the Soviet Union helped support the Republicans fighting in the civil war. This might have resulted in people who supported the Republicans but were not fighting in the civil war to move to the Soviet Union.

            When my brother found out that I was taking Russian Cinema for J-term, he became excited because he thought that we would watch one of Tarkovsky’s films in the class. Tarkovsky is one of my brother’s favorite directors. As a result of my brother’s interest in Tarkovsky, I read a little about him and his life. After seeing Mirror, I realize that there are some similarities between Tarkovsky and the characters in the film. Tarkovsky’s father was not present in his life, similar to the family in Mirror. If I am correct in thinking that some elements of Tarkovsky’s life are present in Mirror, this would make sense as to why the film is entitled Mirror. Tarkovsky may be reflecting on his life through the use of film.

Ivan the Terrible

Ivan the Terrible, Part 1, produced in 1944, is a film directed by Sergei Eisenstein and it was made in 1944. The film has a second part, but it received negative criticism because Stalin believed Eisenstein was criticizing his actions and his policies through the use of the characters in the film. In the first part of Ivan the Terrible, Ivan parallels Stalin through his actions and ideas. 

            Eisenstein is well known as a director because of his successful transition from silent films to films with sound, a feat that not many were able to accomplish. One of his films that we watched earlier in Russian Cinema was Battleship Potemkin. It was interesting to see a film from Eisenstein’s silent film era and a film from one of his films with sound because there is a distinct difference between the two eras. In Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein used a montage technique that involved quick transitions from scene to scene. This kept the action and plot moving quickly. In Ivan the Terrible, I did not notice the montage technique employed by Eisenstein as much as I did in Battleship Potemkin. As a result of this, I found the film to be slow paced and not as interesting as Battleship Potemkin. I do not know why the montage technique is not as prevalent in Ivan the Terrible, but I would think it is because the presence of the sound allows for more to be said with dialogue which substitutes for the action in Eisenstein’s silent films. After watching both films, I believe that Eisenstein was more successful as a director of silent films.

            Ivan himself is another reason why I did not enjoy Ivan the Terrible as much as I did Battleship Potemkin. Nikolai Cherkasov, the actor who played Ivan, was dramatic to the point where I found him obnoxious at times, which is a criticism that pertains to most of the cast of Ivan the Terrible. Ivan also seems to be both a positive and negative force in this film. He is a positive leader for the goals he wants to accomplish in Russia, but he is negative because he has an inability to do what is necessary to accomplish his goals. One of Ivan’s goals is to reduce the power of the Boyars, who actively try to resist Ivan, yet he takes very little action throughout the course of the film. Towards the end of part one he decides to seize their estates. In another scene, where Ivan is on his deathbed, he asks everyone present to support his son when he dies. However, no one vows to support Ivan’s son. Ivan gets better, but he does not act as I would expect someone would who will become known as Ivan the Terrible. To be truly terrible, I would have expected him to have all of the Boyars who resisted him arrested or executed by his guards, but he fails to do this. After watching the film I felt that Ivan was not a firm leader.

Burnt by the Sun

            The film Burnt by the Sun was made in 1994 and directed by Nikita Mikhalkov. Though the film was made in 1994, it takes place in the 1930’s. This was a time in the Soviet Union when there were arrests made against people who were believed to be enemies of the Soviet Union. There was fear and terror among people in the Soviet Union because Stalin was trying to eliminate those who threatened his power. In the film, Mitya, an agent for the NKVD, is visiting with Colonel Kotov’s family. Kotov is a civil war hero, who is held in high esteem by the Russian people.

The title of the film is of great significance to the plot. Burnt by the Sun is actually the name of a song that was popular in the 1930’s. The title refers to all of the people who were harmed or killed during the course of the revolution in Russia and during the time of the Soviet Union. Throughout the film, the viewer can see a small sun that travels around the area where Colonel Sergei Petrovich Kotov lives. It eventually crashes into a tree and starts a fire. This sun symbolizes the impending death of Kotov as a result of the revolution that has taken place. The viewer can see the sun again at the end of the film when Mitya commits suicide. I am not sure about Mitya’s motivation. I believe that he committed suicide either because of what he did to Kotov and his family, or because he fears that he may share a similar fate to Kotov as he is involved with the NKVD. 

Mitya’s actions throughout Burnt by the Sun seem to be motivated by both political and personal agendas. He was a former lover of Marusia, who is married to Kotov. Mitya still appears to have feelings for Marusia, so he wants to have Kotov killed. His actions are also motivated by politics. In the car that arrives to pick up Colonel Kotov, there are more men from the NKVD. This means that they all received orders to arrest Kotov. Kotov is viewed as a hero by the members of the Soviet Union for his service in the Civil War, so he could be seen as a great threat by Stalin. The viewer can see that Kotov knows Stalin because there is a picture of them together in the cottage. 

Both Kotov and Mitya die as a result of the revolution. The sun that is present near the time of their deaths confirms this idea.

Circus

            Circus is a Socialist Realist musical comedy that is directed by Grigory Alexandrov. The film was made in 1936. The movie serves as a form of entertainment and also as a form of propaganda. As the plot of the movie expands, the propaganda message of Circus becomes apparent and the central focus of the end of the film. The film’s main character is Marion Dixon, who is played by Lyubov Orlova. In the film, Dixon is a circus performer from the United States.

            I think this film somewhat adheres to the Socialist Realist ideals as Russia and the USSR are glorified throughout the film. It fulfills the ideals by conveying how other countries are not as good as the USSR. In the beginning of the film, the viewer sees Marion Dixon being chased by dozens of people in the United States due to a scandal she was involved in before the film started. The viewer later learns that scandal is that she had an African American child. The villain in the film is from Germany. This portrayal of foreign countries helps the viewer see the USSR as a better place. Consequently, this makes the viewer believe that the principles and ideals of the USSR are better than the rest of the world due to the barbaric nature of the foreign characters in the film. This excludes Marion Dixon as she becomes loyal to the USSR and wishes to stay in Moscow. Though Circus fulfills Socialist Realist ideals, I also believe that the film goes against Socialist Realist ideals. I feel as if going to the circus would be seen as a bourgeois activity. Going to the circus seems luxurious as people dress up and are entertained by the performers.

            The propaganda in Circus is well done. For most of the film, Von Kneishitz is blackmailing Marion Dixon with the fact that she had an African American child. When Von Kneishitz finally reveals this fact to the members of the circus, they are shocked by the fact that Von Kneishitz sees this as a shameful thing. The characters are accepting of the child and tell Marion that her child will be safe in Russia, just as any other child would be. Though the propaganda does go over the top with all the characters marching with the pictures of Soviet leaders, I felt that Circus did an excellent job in vilifying foreign countries. This makes the USSR seem like a great place to live, and I can see how this would be effective in convincing people of the USSR’s greatness in the 1930’s.