Night Watch

I was initially excited to watch this movie because normally I am a fan of the fantasy genre. However, I found myself disappointed about half-way through the film. I felt that Night Watch would have been better had the premise for the movie been explained clearly. There were seemingly things in this film that happened for reasons that were unknown to the audience. Apparently, all of the 'forces of evil' were vampires and they could not be seen by anybody unless the Night Watch summoned them. Some normal people just seemed to be able to see the 'others' while some could not. I was confused as to how the old man stealing from the store was able to see the 'professional calmer'. The movie did not really do a great job of explaining what made somebody an 'other' and what constitued somebody as a 'normal' human. I was unclear as to whether an individual achieved immortal life after they became an other. In my opinion, the 'others' seemed as though they were in fact immortal beings from the 'ancient land' that had been suspended in there battle (which leads me to question how they could do anything if they were suspended in time). I also felt that information was just thrown at the audience randomly. For example, all of a sudden an unfortunate virigin becomes part of the equation in the battle between good and evil. This movie went back and forth between make believe and the real world too much for my taste (Byzantium was mentioned and yet the battle took place in some magical land). In my opinion, there were too many inconsistencies in this movie.

Unfortunately for Bekmambetov, Steve McQueen was not the star of Night Watch and thus action and 'coolness' were unable to compensate for the plot holes. However, I liked the way that this movie played upon people's fears. The forces of evil in this movie had many elements that probably were only real in nightmares. For example, there was a lot of blood in this film and vampires were running around trying to suck the life out of innocent children. The witch at the beginning of the movie may have had the most eerie voice that I have ever heard in my life and the apparent leader of the dark forces seemingly had incredible powers (not to mention a rather disgusting sword). The notion of evil being so strong was probably disquieting for most people. But, perhaps the most frightening aspect of this movie was the way blood was almost overused. Characters drank blood, spit blood down walls, and were covered in blood at various points during the movie.

The main character reminded me exactly of Blade. He had been tainted by evil but used his powers to fight for good. I guess I felt that a large majority of the plot had just been cut out from other films and placed in a jumbled heap into this one. Perhaps, I would feel differently had I read the book before watching the movie. I was surprised that this movie did better than Lord of the Rings in Russia. This almost leads me to draw the conclusion that some Russians prefer works of art that are outrageously weird and impossible to understand over works of art that are tangible.

The Return

I associated the color gray with this film. Everything about the plot was kind of hazy. The father created an atmosphere of suspicion throughout the film. I do not feel as though I could say with absolute certainty what he was up to and what his motives were. Although The Return took place in St. Petersburg, I feel as though a different aspect of St. Petersburg was highlighted by the film. I would guess that Brother mainly took place in the heart of downtown St. Petersburg whereas The Return seemed to take place around the periphery of the city. There were seemingly more shots of huge apartment buildings, remants of buildings before the time of the Soviet Union - aristocratic buildings - , and crowded sidewalks than there were in The Return. In my opinion, the shots from The Return focused more on 'open space' and those from Brother focused more on 'crowded space'.

The mother in this film seemed very much like a working mom that had been left by her husband. She tried to be there for her boys - as evidenced by her running out to the dock to comfort Ivan - but she apparently was unable to raise them effectively (as was apparent by their extreme attitude problems). Upon the father's arrival, she appeared to be nervous and submissive. She accepted his word without question at the dinner table and when the boys ran home after fighting each other she nervously told them to be quiet - while she was smoking, which may have been due to nerves - because their father was sleeping. I was also immediately struck by the lack of possessions in the house. There were definitely the necessary items of furniture such as beds and tables, but there were no shots of televisions or personal effects of the boys or their mother. I felt that the house was barren to a degree that none of the other houses have been in movies that we have seen thus far.

I found myself thinking of the father as an extremely old-fashioned type of person. He was rough, serious, and controlling. To me, this seemed to be another instance of a man that obsessively felt the need to be in command of his family (which was strange considering that he had left them for a prolonged period of time). I would guess that he had probably had a difficult childhood or had served in the military. His stern tactics for raising his children seemingly had to have been learned from somewhere. Oddly, I felt that the father was a positive character. Ivan and Andrey both had serious character issues that needed to be ironed out. The father took the necessary measures in order to make them better people. Perhaps he dealt with them harshly, but we were seeing everything that was going on from the perspective of the two boys. He turned them from helpless, pouty, irresponsible little boys into young men by the time the movie was over.

Andrey seemed to idolize his father. He looked up to him for his strength and knowledge. Apparently, Andrey was desperate for a father figure in his life and he finally got the chance to have one. He definitely wanted to emulate his father. Andrey immediately started calling his father 'dad' and took orders from him without question. Whenever he talked back or did not stand up for himself his father disciplined him accordingly. Contrastingly, Ivan seemed to reject his father throughout the film. He was incredibly suspicious of him and did not trust him. When he could not get his way with his father he pouted. This tactic probably worked with his mother, but his father was not about to give into his son whenever his son became whiney. I found myself agreeing with the father's disiplinary tactics for Ivan as well (such as the time he left him outside by the road for a long period of time). Ivan needed to be shown that he would not always be able to get his way. The father also brought the brothers closer together. Apparently, they were not getting along too well at the beginning of the film. They got into fist fights and called each other names. However, by the end of the movie they were working together and seemingly enjoying each other's company.

I would say that we could never say without any doubt why the father came back or what he was trying to do on the trip. He was obviously attempting to retrieve something, but we never found out what that something was. Perhaps, that was one of the best aspects of this movie. I kind of liked not knowing for certain what the father was and what his intentions were. I would guess that he took his sons along in order to 'improve' them as much as he could. I felt as though he came home for whatever was in the box rather than to see his family again.

In my opinion, the title of this film was something of a paradox. The father made a return of sorts, but he certainly did not come back permanantly because he died. The boys also made a return trip home and came back as young men rather than little boys. Apparently, things would never return to the way that they once were. In some ways, I felt that this movie was a polar opposite of a return.

Brother

Danila was like the Angel of Death. He felt obligated to help and protect weaker people from stronger individuals that tried to exploit them. Danila probably used violence so much because he did not know how to do anything else to solve problems. After all, in the army he had been taught that the only way to deal with the enemy was to eliminate them using violence. However, he did not seem as though he wanted to use violence to create solutions to all of the problems that he encountered. After all, he could have easily killed Viktor, but instead sent him home to his mother and told him to become a police officer. Danila seemed to only want to use violence to punish the wicked. He clearly was creating his own enemies and most likely chose his enemies based on how dangerous they were to society or to those that he loved. The audience was most likely meant to 'cheer' for Danila because he was dealing violently with the scum of society. He seemingly gave them what they deserved.

His background as a soldier in the war against Chechnya made him a deadly killer. Danila had probably not been a clerk at headquarters but rather part of some special forces division that was given dangerous assignments. He always seemed calm when involved in threatening situations. The military had probably given Danila a great deal of training because he was comfortable around all sorts of weaponry. However, when he was in the military Danila probably had to kill people for 'impersonal' reasons. The Chechens that he was killing would most likely have caused Danila no personal harm had he not joined the military. Danila was more than a mobster because he was more than the blunt instrument that he had been in the military. Most hitmen probably killed without question, but Danila would not kill anybody that was 'innocent'. In a way, there was something almost robotic about Danila in the way that he seemed so detached about killing people and using violence. The war had probably made him numb to committing horrible acts of murder and abuse.

Music was Danila's only escape. Whenever he knew that he was going into dangerous situations Danila listened to music to calm himself down. Perhaps, music was the only thing that reminded him of how beautiful life could be. Danila seemed as though he was dead inside and music was the only thing in his life that made him feel alive. He connected with Cat and Sveta so well because they were like him in that they were more 'dead than alive'. Cat was broken to the point that drugs were the only thing that made her feel anything. Sveta was apparently forced to work as a trolley driver and as a hooker and was chillingly calm after she had been raped by Kruglyi's henchmen. She almost looked as though she was dead when Danila walked into the room. However, Sveta had sadly seemingly become used to being beaten and taken advantage of. The abuse that the sustained was most likely the only thing in her life that reminded her that she was alive.

The Russian world of the 1990's seemed much more chaotic than the Russian world of the 1980's. Apparently, the policemen could easily be former gangsters. There was apparently no order in the Russian world of the 1990's. Little Vera depicted police officers breaking up a fight and walking around with attack dogs. There was no such presence in Brother. Policemen were not anywhere to be found in this film. This was a 'Darwin-esque' world where the only rule that applied was 'survival of the fittest'. Apparently, in Russia in the 1990's the strong would thrive and the weak would be exploited. Brother created this atmosphere on multiple occasions. Perhaps, the best example of this occured when the two thugs riding the electric trolley refused to pay for their tickets. Had Danila not helped the ticket collector, the two thugs would have had a free ride because the ticket collector would not have been able to make them pay for their tickets. Also, Nemets would have had his wares stolen by a thug had Danila not been there to save him. Russia had seemingly gone from being the land of Karl Marx to being the land of Charles Darwin.

Foreigners were portrayed in a negative light in this film. Americans were maybe seen as having been responsible for Russia's poor state of affairs. Also, foreigners were portrayed as being ignorant to Russians. This was perhaps best shown when Danila went up to the French man at the nightclub and harassed him. The French man's techno music was not compatible with the Russian spirit. The two Westerners that asked for directions to a nightclub also seemed to view Danila with a sort of condescending air. Perhaps, Brother captured the Russian feeling during this time that they were looked down upon by the rest of the world because of their poor economy.

There were definitely scenes from Brother were definitely artistic in the way that they seemed to capture the spirit of St. Petersburg (and Russia on a larger scale). Danila traveled all over the city. The audience was shown shots of the market, appartments, stores, and night clubs. There were also many ornate buildings on occasion in the background of shots that served as reminders of either Russia's Tsarist or Soviet past. Brother did not seem to hold anything back in regard to the storyline so one would naturally assume that nothing was attempted to be portrayed in a certain way in regard to the city. This movie just seemed to show St. Petersburg as St. Petersburg probably was.

Earth

Alexander Dovzhenko's background as an artist was immediately apparent to me. Every shot in this movie was like a painting; I had never seen anything like this in a movie before. He opened the movie by showing some beautiful shots of the open sky over vast farm fields before making numerous shots of fruit on trees. I thought that Dovzhenko used the sky to sometimes portray the mood of the movie. For example, when trouble was brewing between the poor and rich farmers Dovzhenko created many shots of a sky filled with swirling dark clouds. At the end of the movie, he also filmed during a rainstorm. I felt that this was to symbolize that the people of the Soviet Union had been 'washed clean' by the revolution and could start a new, 'better' life. However, perhaps his most amazing shots were those featuring fruit. When the fruit became ripe, people picked and ate the fruit and then the fruit grew back. This was similar to how Dovzhenko portrayed life and death. When a character in the movie died, children were always shown along with them and in the case of Basil a baby was born (after his death). In other words, Dovzhenko was apparently saying that people were like fruit in that they would die once their usefulness had passed and that new people would be born to take their places. This notion also spoke to the strength of the 'collective' unit that the communist people were supposed to be.

This movie began with a man named Simon dying. The young people around Simon seemed to be nervous, or to be at a loss for words. However, old Peter shared Simon's casual attitude toward death (although he was curious about what would happen to Simon when he died). Simon seemed to choose his death and Dovzhenko depicted his death as a peaceful one. Naturally, after Simon died there were many shots of children eating. This was probably to place emphasis on the fact that although the death of one man should be seen as sorrowful the youth of young people should also be seen as joyful. In my opinion, Dovzhenko almost seemed to be saying that individual people were not important in comparison to the collective 'unit' of society. I would go so far as to say that this was the most 'communist' film that I have ever seen.

When a new tractor arrived to the farms Dovzhenko likened the people that were watching the tractor with curiosity to animals. This may have been to show that the poor farmers were as ignorant as animals in regard to the technological might of the Soviet Union. I could not believe how happy people were to see the tractor. Also, I found myself doubting how reasonable this portrayal actually was. I highly doubt that the Soviet government supplied the mandated collective farms with the necessary machinery to make them thrive. This seemed more like propaganda geared toward farmers to me than anything else. The way that people were portrayed working in this film was also propaganda aimed at influencing farmers (as was most of the movie). I highly doubt that women would be smiling all day as they were bundling up crops. The technology that Dovzhenko displayed that was used in making bread served to show that the Soviet Union was advanced and strong. To me, the scenes involving technology said, "The Soviet Union has the strength to provide for its citizens."

Rich farmers bore the brunt of the losses during collectivization. I almost felt bad for them because they had probably worked hard for what they had and yet they were forced to sustain heavy losses during this peroid. Basil made the conflict between the rich and poor farmers boil over by destorying their fence with his tractor. In a way, the poor farmers almost seemed to be robbing the rich farmers. They had probably always dreamed of taking their neighbor's land and now they finally had the chance to do so. After, Basil had been murdered Christianity (and all religion) was portrayed in an extremely negative light. First of all, Simon never told Peter where he went after he died which would lead one to believe that there was no after life. Then, the priest was seen cursing the collective; asking God to kill them all for their lack of faith. This was not a very Christian desire in the first place. However, as the collective farmers were marching they were displayed as having more power than God and more power than the rich farmer. I thought they were almost displayed as being the most powerful force on Earth. God, and the individual were portrayed as powerless.

The only line that stuck with me from this movie was the one delivered by the rich farmer at the end of the movie when he screamed, "It's my Earth!". The notion of owning the Earth seems very silly and this was pointed out in the movie. However, this fed into the communist idea that all men were the equal owners of all of the Earth. I was also surprised by the naked woman at the end of the movie. In my opinion, the shots involving her were pointless. She was not seen at her husband's - Basil's - funeral but rather running around her room naked lamenting his death. I would guess that Dovzhenko - being the artist that he was - simply wanted to have a few shots of the female nude. After all, in art the nude female body has often been seen as one of the most beautiful entities. I could not see any other reason for this being placed in the film.

Perhaps, some of the most striking aspects of this movie were the music and acting. The music was intense and helped set the mood for every scene. I could not help feeling that the music from the film had been dragging me along to the grand climax at the end where all of the poor farmers marched out to bury Basil. However, the acting of this movie was what made this such a fascinating movie to me. None of the acting was overdone (like an Eisenstein or Bauer film). I felt as though I was watching a normal movie. From facial expressions and body language I could tell exactly what they characters were saying and almost thought I could perceive what they were feeling as well. The talents of the actor that played 'Panas - Basil's father - had the greatest impact on me. His eyes actually looked 'watery' after his son had been murdered. He almost seemed as though he wanted to cry but he was unable to. The fact that a scene of this quality was produced in 1930 was amazing to me. I also had absolutely no problem with Dovzhenko's use of montage. Once again, I felt as though I was watching a 'normal' movie. Perhaps, the only weakness of this movie was the dialogue. In most cases, the lines were lame, and unartistic. I thought that the movie would have been fine without any dialogue at all.

Little Vera

Little Vera depicted citizens of the Soviet Union as they actually may have been. Moscow and Lenningrad were huge cities but millions of Russians did not live there. Economic conditions would have probably been more difficult outside of large cities due to the lack of jobs. The large majority of young people in the movie simply could not find work. Also, in my opinion every character in this movie displayed significant flaws. One of the main 'rallying cries' for communism was that in a communist society everyone would be doing equal work for equal pay. The large majority of characters from films that we have previously watched were not portrayed as 'flawed' to the extent that characters in Little Vera were. In my opinion, this movie highlighted that the Soviet Union was not a utopian country with perfect citizens but rather a floundering nation compromised of ordinary people with ordinary problems.

I immediately noticed how run down everything looked and how little space there was in Vera's parent's appartment. The dormitory that Sergei lived in had rooms that were seemingly not rennovated since Stalin was in power (they were rustic). Also, the young people seemingly had no public places to go to socialize. They either loitered around outside, visited the beach, or went to the cafe. Vera and her friends never went to a club, or a pool hall, or any other place that Westerners may have gone to have fun; for the most part they just sat around and talked. Contrastingly, characters from Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears were always doing some sort of activity. Katya went to an art musuem and Lyudmila went to a library. Granted, there was probably more to do in Moscow, but there seemed to be more forms of entertainment available to them than characters from Little Vera. Apparently, Katya's appartment when she became the director of the factory was either uncommonly fancy or else unrealistic. Her appartment had much more space and nicer appliances than that of Vera's parent's appartment. Katya's appartment seemed new and tidy while Vera's parent's home was dirty and old in comparison.

This was also the first film where alcohol comsumption was depicted in a negative light. Vera's father turned into a sulky, abusive person when he drank. He definitely beat Vera and Viktor when they were children. Vera's father also used unbelievable language to harass his wife and Vera when he was drinking. For that matter, the entire family addressed each other using terms that were not becoming of people that were supposed to love each other. In my opinion, Sergei seemed to be unable to control his sarcasm while he was drinking while Vera turned into even more of a depressed, selfish brat than she normally was otherwise. Little Vera also dealt with and portrayed violence, drug use, and sex in a negative light. Vera and Sergei's relationship was seemingly based upon sex and jokes. Once they tried to become serious with each other - as Sergei tried to be with her on the beach - their relationship seemingly faltered. Had Vera actually become pregnant, or one of them had aids, they would have probably run into some serious problems. Tolik definitely got into trouble for his mindlessly violent behavior and Vera's father should have gotten himself into legal problems for stabbing Sergei. However, Vera's father seemingly deserved what he got when he had to deal with the psychological effects his actions had on his family as well as himself. Also, Andrei's attempted violent rape of Vera was clearly depicted in a negative light. Obviously, Vera's effort to overdose on pills toward the end of the movie portrayed the dangers of drug use. However, all of these occurences take place in all societies. Little Vera merely portrayed the more somber happenstances of life in the Soviet Union that other movies had previously either been unwilling or unable to do.

In my estimation, nobody in this movie was a sympathetic character. All of the characters were selfish and were only concerned with things that pertained to them. Vera's parents were only concerned with their own lives. They were clueless as to what their children were up to. All that they probably cared about were their jobs - which they were incapable of dealing with - and old traditions. If any characters in this film had to be singled out for being responsible for the family's problems Vera's parents should be at the forefront. Vera and Viktor were merely products of their environments. I am sure that Vera's parents probably had taxing jobs, but they could have dealt with their jobs in other ways than abusing alcohol and raising their children in such a poor fashion. Vera seemingly buried herself in books and rebellious activities when she was a girl whereas Viktor probably stopped actually caring about any of his family members an extremely long time ago. Viktor most likely only came back out of some nagging sense of obligation. He would never introduce his wife and child to his family because he was either embarassed or did not want to 'tarnish' them by having them come into contact with his family. Sergei, Andrei, and Tolik were seemingly slaves to their desires. They were perhaps less responsible for all of the problems in the movie, but they certainly did not help to get rid of them either. Andrei and Sergei were both infatuated with Vera and Sergei could not control his disdain for the 'older generation'. Tolik simply could not harnass his violent nature. He was constantly fighting with people because he could not control his anger.

I felt that this movie could have represented social problems that any modern working-class family has to deal with. Working-class families tend to have parents with more physically taxing jobs and economic troubles. The very fact that a working-class family was depicted as 'broken' in this movie was ironic. This was supposed to be the ideal family that all Soviets were supposed to aspire to and yet there was nothing even remotely ideal about Vera's family. Apparently, Little Vera served as evidence to one of the main reasons why the Soviet Union ultimately broke up; the 'working-class' simply ceased to be able to function.

The Commissar

Commissar Vavilova had to go through many transitions after she temporarily left the army to have her baby. She had to deal with the lack of control that she had. When she was leading her troops she seemingly had the final word on decisions. Contrastingly, Vailova had to be cared for by the Mahazannik family (especially while she was having her baby). She seemed to be afraid of not having control. After all, she did not have any control over her husband's death and she could not make her communist ideals a reality on her own.

Maria seemed to turn Vavilova back into a woman. At first, Commissar Vailova wore manly clothes, swore frequently, and was rather stoic. Maria taught her about child-bearing and helped her get in touch with her feminine side by making her see the joys of motherhood. Apparently, Maria's husband was much less 'subdued' than she was. Yefim was a man that spoke his mind and said things as he perceived them. He had no reservations about making comments that were unacceptable to society. In my opinion, an excellent example of this occured when Yefim challenged Vavilova's communist ideology when they were in the shelter hiding from the White Army. He made her realize that the 'truth' that she clung to desperately would probably never become a reality. This was further made apparent by the horrifying scene of the Mahazannik family being marched into a concentration camp.

The children seemed to highlight the folly of the adults. Apparently, when the three younger children attacked the oldest daughter they were symbolizing the pointless folly of the way that the Jews were persecuted in Russia. I found myself getting mad at the little kids because they took their 'games' much too far. Yefim shocked me by merely saying a few harsh words to the children and then going off on how somebody he knew - a relative I believe - had his head cut off by a scissors. In my opinion, the children illustrated how senseless the violence and persecution in Russia were. The young man playing with his gun in the beginning of the movie helped solidify my stance on this issue. People treated weapons as if they were toys in this movie (which they obviously are not).

Some of the imagery from The Commissar reminded me of the style Tarkovsky used in Mirror. Particularily, the dillusional dream that Klavdia had while she was having her baby. Horses galloping around without riders seemingly signified how so many people were lost in the fighting. Also, the horses were chaotic and uncontrolled in a way that was similar to the way Russia was chaotic and uncontrolled during the Bolshevik Revolution. The blind man that was helpessly walking around seemingly illustrated how the Bolshevik rebels were really more interested in self-preservation during the war than the philosophy of 'one for all and all for one'. The mad dash from the desert to the water further displayed that the soldiers had no interest in the well-being of each other at times.

This film challenged the possible perfection of communist society. Whereas Chapaev portrayed the beginnings of a utopian society with ideal communists The Commissar seemingly sought to display that people were flawed and that society would never become like one of the fairy-tales that Yefim was so fond of. This movie was probably banned in the 1960's because of the way in which a perfect Soviet society was shown to not be able to exist at any point. Perhaps the main message that I took away from The Commissar would be that people will never be equal and society can never be perfect because humans are not perfect.

Moscow Does Not Believe In Tears

The three main female characters of this movie were apparently all very different from each other. I was immediately struck by how naive the young Katya and Lyudmila were as opposed to Antonina. Tonya - Antonina - did not seem to harbor any illusions about life. She struck me as a practical person. Perhaps, she realized Nikolai could not provide her with the most glamorous life; but she seemed to know that life was not a fairy-tale. She was willing to work hard for her happiness. Both of her friends constantly told her how lucky she was to have such a 'perfect relationship'. I would guess that there were times in her marriage where things were not so perfect but she perservered through them. She may not have been the most successful of the three, but she made a nice life for herself. Lyudmila seemed to be just the opposite. Apparently, she wanted only the best for herself and was unwilling to settle for anything less. IN my opinion, she walked around with stars in her eyes throughout the entire movie. When Sergei Gurin failed to deliver the lavish lifestyle that she had always dreamed of living she became disillusioned with him and divorced him. For the rest of the movie, she was focused on winning the lottery and winning a trophy husband. Her odds of achieving either were slim to none and she was clearly unhappy later in life. Katya seemed naive and almost too kind at first. She was willing to be pushed around by Lyudmila and Rodion. Unfortunately for her, because of her inability to stand her ground she had to live an extremely hard life. I did not feel as though she made a 'breakthrough' until she met Gosha. Even shortly before she met him she stooped so low as to have a relationship with a married man. Katya struck me as a character that was a little uncomfortable in her own skin; which was ironic because she was obviously pretty and smart.

Gosha was a man. In other words, he was the embodiment of all of the stereotypes that society feeds to us -men - about what we should be. He was perceptive, tough, guarded, knowledgeable, and helpful. If I had to some him up in one word, I would probably use the word 'manly'. His somewhat 'old school' notions of being the master of his house and asserting himself into every aspect of his relationship with Katya helped to strengthen my opinion. Gosha stood up for himself and was not about to let anybody else push him around or tell him what to do. Fortunately, he rubbed off on Katya and showed her how to take a stance for herself. He also gave Sasha the father that she had never had. When Sasha was having problems in her life Gosha helped her. He had a no-nonsense attitude with her which I felt was exactly what she needed. Gosha was not about to run out on either of them at the first sign of trouble; as opposed to Roidon. However, he ended up leaving them for a little while because he felt insignificant. Gosha and Roidon were different because Gosha came back. He did not care 'what' Katya was but rather 'who' she was. Ultimately, he was willing to compromise and work for his happiness (which was what Katya wanted as well).

Although I was somewhat surprised that Katya fell for Gosha I had no problem believing the plausibility of their relationship. I instantly recognized from the first time that Gosha was introduced that he was a gentleman. He was not like the swine from her previous relationships that seemingly were only interested in forcing themselves on her. Katya was nice but she did not have any gumption. I had no problem seeing a kind person being in a relationship with another kind person.

The 1950's seemed to be about as naive of a time period as Katya and Lyudmila were during that period. I was particularly interested by the scene around the dinner table in Katya's uncle's appartment because the 'new generation' was pitted against the 'old generation'. The radical poet claimed that his generation would have stood up to Stalin. However, the old man just seemingly shrugged him off knowing that he could not possibly have known what people of his generation had to go through under Stalin. Ideals are great to have. But, under the terrible reign of Stalin I doubt that the idealistic poet would have lived up to his claim. Everyone also seemed to be happy and young during the 1950's as opposed to how sedated and old they seemed in the 1970's. This may have signified the agining of the Soviet Union as well. In the 1970's people did not seem to harbor any illusions about anything. They seemed more wize and realistic.

Also, I really liked one of the messages that this film gave. Characters in this movie had lives that were torn apart. They reached seemingly unattainable highs only to hit abysmal lows. Katya went from having a financially secure, interesting boyfriend and living in a grand appartment to being a single mother studying for school and working in a factory. The scene where she was falling asleep studying for school had a particularly great impact on me. I have worked in factories before and could relate to just how taxing that work can be. I cannot imagine what she had to go through studying for school and raising a child as well. However, she was down and she picked herself up again. The message of this movie was seemingly that one has to be persistent in life because there will be highs and lows. Even Sergei Gurin resurrected his life after he seemed to be destined to be a deadbeat for the rest of his existence. If anything, this movie proved that there can always be new beginnings.

Kidnapping Caucasian Style, or Shurik's New Adventures

I found many similarities between this film and Western comedies. Most notably, the three thugs hired to kidnap Nina reminded me of a mixture between The Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy. I would be interested to learn if Leonid Gaidai had seen any of their movies. The fattest of the three resembled Oliver Hardy right down to his tiny mustache. The thin - and arguably most goofy of the three - hired criminals reminded me of a mixture between Stan Laurel and Curly Howard in that he made a lot of high pitched silly noises and extremely nonsensical comments. Perhaps, the last of the three bumbling henchmen was similar to Moe Howard. He tried to act tough and his failed attempts at professionalism usually were humerous to witness. One particular instance of this was when he was dictating to his thin counterpart and scratching his foot. Also, Shurik reminded me of the type of character that Ben Stiller would play. He was a dorky kind of guy that meant well and was thrown into an outrageous situation that was largely out of his control. I could easily see Shurik in a movie similar to Meet the Parents.

However, with the other two main characters of this movie - Nina's uncle and Comrade Saakhov - I did not draw any comparisons to Western movie characters because I was too busy thinking about the cultural implications of the things that they were saying. I immediately was struck by the fact that they were Muslim. This was the first movie that we have seen were religion was explicitly mentioned. They often talked about giving 'thanks to Allah' or something along those lines. I actually was able to grasp how large the Soviet Union was because of this. Usually, I always just thought of the Soviet Union in terms of the Northern European parts of the country. However, the fact that Muslims were in this film made me realize just how far the Soviet Union's border was. I guess, I felt this movie did a nice job of displaying the diversity of the Soviet Union (much like Circus).

Apparently, the customs of marriage bore the brunt of the jokes in this film. I would guess that many of the people in the Caucasus region had practiced the concepts of arranged marriages and dowries. This movie pointed out the absurdity of those two traditions. Comrade Saakhov and Nina's uncle clearly represented the 'old guard' that many of the elderly people in the Caucasus region would have agreed with. However, the mere idea of a young, talented girl like Nina marrying an elderly, boring government official like Comrade Saakhov was laughable. Also, I found the sequence where Nina's uncle and Comrade Saakhov were arguing over the dowry hilarious. They highlighted the absurdity of the notion that a value could be placed on a human being (as evidenced by the fact that Nina was given to Comrade Saakhov for chickens). Rather, this movie seemed to promote the idea of choice in regard to love. Nina obviously wanted to choose her husband for herself.

I found irony in the fact that the chief antagonist of this film was a government official. Comrade Saakhov was portrayed as something of a fool, although he managed to do clever things from time to time (such as getting Shurik sent to the rehab clinic). He was also depicted as scheming and undesirable. Comrade Saakhov abused his power to try and get the girl that he wanted. I would go so far as to say that this movie made fun of government officials. I was surprised that the government would have allowed a movie to be shown with a character like Comrade Saakhov.

Still, Saakhov fit in perfectly with the slapstick humor of this movie. All of the situations and lines were supported by the goofy music. I almost felt like as much of a dufus as some of the characters were while this movie's music was playing. Silly music was necessary to compliment the antics of the characters. Perhaps, the most memorable part of this movie for me was when the three bumbling henchmen brought food in to Nina and started dancing with her. They literally appeared out of thin air. The daffy music enhanced silly situations like this for me.

Mirror

Mirror was a film that seemingly played with the concepts of memories and time. Tarkovsky used the opening scene of this movie to signal his intention for the movie. The scrambled television foreshadowed that Tarkovsky intended to meddle with the flow of time. Apparently, nearly the entire movie consisted of memories (or dreams) within different memories and dreams. Yet, in Sculpting in Time Tarkovsky claimed that the most important element of a film was rhythm. Mirror definitely had a rhythm; the flow of the film was not sporadic. Perhaps, this movie’s mastery of rhythm was able to overcome a weak storyline.

There was definitely a story to this movie. However, the jumble of dreams made the story hard to follow. The main character seemingly had dreams or was recalling memories of when he was a boy and his mother also apparently did the same (although not to as great of an extent). Evidently, the main character required some sort of medical attention when he was a boy which caused a strain on his mother because her husband either died or ran off on her. The main character blamed himself for the hard life he had created for his mother. Perhaps, the most bizarre happenstance of this movie was that in the main character’s memories or dreams he had a sibling and yet in memories or dreams when he only appeared to be slightly older the sibling was out of the picture.

Mirror’s format made this movie intellectually stimulating to watch. Arguably the most unconventional part of this movie was when the main character simply recalled a dream he had as a child or recalled a childhood dream while he was dreaming. In a frightening scene, he watched his mother move around unnaturally after she had just finished washing her hair before the house he was living in fell apart. This was a perfect example of the brilliance of Tarkovsky in this film. The dreams of a little boy would not logically make much sense or be very realistic. One great feature of Mirror was how the memories or dreams involving the little boy were much more fantastic.

An example of this occurrence was when the little boy was looking at a picture of Karl Marx and images of the communist revolutions in China and Spain flooded his mind. Perhaps, this was Tarkovsky’s way of subtlety placing a little propaganda in his movie to please the Soviet government. However, this would seemingly be unlikely considering that Tarkovsky was an advocate for the creative license of artists. The main character’s memories – or dreams – of himself as a child looking at the picture book made perfect sense and fit the character of the film. Everyone had eccentric thoughts flood through their minds when they were children.

Thus, later in the film the main character had memories or dreams that were much more sophisticated and mature. He no longer had any thoughts that were highly imaginative. This was especially made apparent by the intellectual conversations he had with his wife. They were usually always taking about who should have custody of their son and about the character flaws present in one another. A child’s memories would not have been like this. However, these memories were seemingly on the level of what an adult’s would have been.

Ballad of a Soldier

In my opinion, this was the best movie we have watched in this class so far. The excerpt that we read from Tarkovsky's book claimed that a film had to be able to appeal to a person's feelings to be a work of art. Tarkovsky also professed that art had to have an appeal to people; in other words people needed to be able to see the truth in a work of art in order to be able to appreciate the work of art. Ballad of a Soldier seemingly met all of Tarkovsky's requirements. This film focused on the home front of WWII as opposed to the front lines. The focus of this movie was the effect that WWII had on individual's lives. Unlike other war films - and Socialist Realist movies - Ballad of a Soldier did not have any main villains. The Germans were definitely the main adversaries of the Russians on the front lines, but they were more of an invisible force in this movie. Unlike a Socialist Realist movie, this film did not portray the Russians as universally good, nor anybody else as universally bad. People were just people in this movie. However, Alyosha was seemingly the hero of this movie and behaved in a way that the Soviet government probably would have liked their citizens to emulate.

Moral integrity was apparently the main theme of this movie (replacing the party idealism of the Socialist Realist films). Like most of the other films that we have watched so far, Alyosha went out of his way to help anybody that needed aid without a thought for receiving anything in return. Brotherhood was seemingly an ideal that was promoted in this movie. However, none of the characters in this movie were without personality flaws. Alyosha sometimes became frustrated by his situation and often became infuriated. Shura lied to Alyosha and was easily frightened (which I personally felt was a nice change from characters that were never scared of anything). Ballad of a Soldier apparently strongly advocated for one to be kind, moral, and help one's fellow man whenever possible. However, all of these messages fit in well with the captivating storyline of this movie. In other words, there were not themes in this movie that were placed into the film simply to have them in there. Sometimes Socialist Realist films seemed to replace storylines with blantant propaganda.

Alyosha's journey home was almost like The Odyssey. He had to face multiple trials in order to reach his final destination. However, his trip probably reminded most viewers that one can die at anytime. Alyosha was definitely a man that lived every day as though it was his last. His quest was entwined with the lives of others. Although the film was fairly lighthearted throughout - thanks to some humerous dialogue - there were some somber moments as well. I was particularly struck by the life of the soldier that had given Alyosha soap to give to his wife. She was the only thing that was keeping him going on the front lines. He was living through hell every day dreaming of returning to her someday. I felt terrible for him when we discovered that his wife was seemingly working as a prostitute in order to compensate for his absence. She could have done any multiple number of different jobs, but she was incapable of showing the same courage that her husband had. Fortunately for the unfortunate soldier, he had his father waiting anxiously for him to return. This part of the movie highlighted that not all Russians were perfect in this film. Also, one became disgusted by the moral impurity of the unfaithful wife (which was probably the entire point).

Shura was seemingly a morally sound character and a 'strong' woman. She had not been tainted by the war and she snuck onto a military train even though there was considerable risk. However, she was necessary in order for Alyosha to be able to help all of the people that he did. Without her support - even by just going places with him or by giving him somebody to want to return to - Alyosha would probably not have been as motivated to have helped as many people as he did and he probably would have lost sight of his goal to return home. She also relied on his ability to talk them out of problematic situations and his overall ingenuity to return home.

Alyosha's meeting with his mother was both joyful and sad. I was worried that they would drive past her when she was running out from the fields. Fortunately, she was able to see her son for a brief spell before he had to return to the front lines. At least she got to see him one more time before he died. However, they did not have enough time together because of all of the delays that Alyosha experienced. Here he had won the chance to visit his mom on leave and he was only able to spend a few minutes with her. In my opinion, his journey was still worthwhile. This was almost Alyosha making up for not saying goodbye to his mother and thankfully doing so before he was killed.

Quite frankly, I felt that this movie was entirely universal. The story could have been set during any other country during WWII without any significant problems. Perhaps only small aspects of the movie were unique to the Soviet Union, such as when Alyosha was recquired to present his papers to an officer. Also, soldiers in other countries may have had an easier or more difficult journey home (depending on the country). However, storyline and messages were seemingly universal in their appeal. I would have placed this movie more towards the entertainment and art side of the triangle because the propaganda was masked. Still, the 'truth' of this movie was very apparent. I believe that Tarkovsky would have enjoyed this film. Ballad of a Soldier appealed to one's emotions and feelings through a storyline filled with humerous dialogue, somber situations, and tragic scenarios. Also, 'truth' of this movie would have been apparent to a wide audience due to an appeal for upstanding moral quality.

Ivan the Terrible Part I

This film was seemingly a vintage creation of Eisenstein. Most of the actors in the movie had 'wild eyes'. Many of the looks that characters shot to each other- or had while they were scheming - were characterized by eyes that seemed as though they would pop out of the characters' heads. Eisenstein also did a lot of work with shadows in this film. Perhaps one of my favorite scenes from the entire movie occured when the shadow of Ivan the Terrible loomed over the globe that he had in his chamber. Some of the other tell-tale aspects of this movie that would have lead one to believe that Eisenstein was the director were the costumes, body actions of the actors, and the music. In my opinion, Eisenstein brilliantly used costumes to convey the good or evil of the characters. Anastasia was clothed in white throughout the entire movie to portray her purity while contrastingly the sly Efrosinia was almost completely covered in black to display her dark intentions. Sometimes, the body language of the characters seemed to be a little overdone, which would lead one to believe that the director had previously been involved in silent films (since he sometimes called for exaggerated actions). Still, my favorite part of this movie was the music. In Battleship Potemkin, Eisenstein created a scenario that was filled with suspense at the impending naval battle at the end of the movie. Now that he had music at his disposal - especially the music of the talented Prokofiev - he was able to create suspense to an even greater extent. An example of this would be when Ivan picked up the poisoned chalice to give to Anastasia to drink. The hesitation to drink on the part of Anastasia coupled with the anxious music forced me to suppress the urge to scream, "DON'T DRINK IT!" In addition, I felt that Eisenstein used a similar type of montage that he used in Battleship Potemkin; although I would argue that he perhaps refined his montages to meet the standard form that had seemingly developed.

Ivan the Terrible clearly ruled his territory with an iron fist. He had no qualms about beheading citizens that challenged his authority or persecuting Boyars he felt threatened by. Yet, he did not strike me as the type of person that would be fine ruling on his own. He thrived upon the support of his friends - Kurbsky in particular - and his wife. Without their help he was prone to have breakdowns (as he periodically had). Ivan was seemingly a neutral force in this movie. He had his moments of glory - freeing his people from the Mongol yoke - and his moments of shame (fleeing Moscow). Like Stalin, Ivan was apparently power crazed and prone to psychological problems. Neither of the two placed much value on life. However, Ivan rewarded and valued those that he could trust and those with abilities. In my opinion, whereas Ivan wanted somebody to trust and had trouble finding anybody, Stalin simply did not trust anybody and persecuted anybody with abilities.

The Boyars were merely aristocrats that wanted their authority within Russia to continue. In my estimation, they were not necessarily villains (aside from Efrosinia because she committed murder) but rather people that were unwilling to change. The Boyars were the 'old guard' - so to speak - concerned with preserving the aristocratic way of life in Russia. They had no desire for a united Russia because they were not striken by poverty. Most likely, they could tax their subjects (serfs?) to raise money for the periodic tribute to the Tatars without sustaining any financial losses themselves.

Ivan came into conflict with the Boyars because he desired to unite Russia and eliminate all foreign influences within the country. He wanted the Russian people to be subjected to the dominance of the Boyars no more than he desired for them to be ruled by the Tatars and Germans. Ivan fit into the Socialist Realist mold because of his quest to unite Russia and free the Russian people from the dominance of foreign influences. However, the hero of Ivan the Terrible was a Tsar. Ivan stood for aristocracy because of being a Tsar and the Soviets were against the aristocratic lifestyle. Many of the characters often had lavish clothes - rings especially - and possessions. Soviets wanted their people to live a life of simplicity which was the polar opposite to the life that Ivan was living in this movie.

Burnt By the Sun

In my opinion, people that were 'burnt by the sun' were those that were scarred by the creation of the Soviet Union. Characters from this movie that were 'burnt by the sun' served their country during the revolution and WWI and seemingly had their lives destroyed as a result. Mitya was apparently the most obvious character that was 'burnt by the sun'. The miniture sun made both of its appearances in the movie when Mitya's wounds from the revolution were most apparent. When he told his sad story to Nadya about how everything that he had known had come to pass the sun appeared for the first time. His service in WWI caused him to grow appart from his loved ones. Mitya's betrayal of White Army generals during the revolution also left him scarred. He had seemingly killed a lot of men for his country in an effort to return to his former life; but he evidently became lost along the way. Also, although I cannot remember every instance when a character sang 'Burnt by the Sun' I believe that the song was sung right before somebody was to feel the full effect of being 'burned by the sun'. One example of this would be when the miniture sun made its final appearance and Mitya was singing the song in the bathtub with his wrists slit.

Kotov seemed to be very similar to Chapaev. He was brave, headstrong, and blindly loyal to his country. Chapaev and Kotov were also both friendly and smart. They would probably place the needs of their country before the needs of anything else. These two military men were basically the embodiment of the communist ideal of brotherhood.

Mitya was seemingly the opposite of Kotov and Chapaev. He lost everything that he had once held dear. Perhaps he became disillusioned with nationalism for his country after serving in WWI. All he wanted was the life he lost before he went away to war. The remainder of his life was seemingly dedicated to resurrecting his lost life no matter what the cost was. His quest to return to his former life lead him to become an assassin for the political office. However, I believe that he got caught up in his occupation and had forgotten why he was killing people. He did not seem to mind killing people. Originally, Mitya probably agreed to arrest Kotov because he wanted to win Marusia back and eliminate the man that he blamed in his mind for sending him away. However, his return to his former life most likely made him realize what a monster he had become. Everything that he was doing was for personal reasons. He killed people for himself; not for the Soviet Union.

Kotov was an embodiment of what the ideal communist should have been like. However, he was killed by a man who - liked Mitya - served his own purposes. Apparently, Joseph Stalin was more concerned with protecting his position of unchecked power within the Soviet Union than the wellfare of his Soviet 'brothers' and 'sisters'. Stalin probably perceived that Kotov was a threat to his position and elected to have him executed. He was committed to his own desires rather than to ideals such as brotherhood and acceptance. Mitya became his tool for murder and as a result was tarnished by the evil that he was forced to do for Stalin.

I believe that Burnt by the Sun was made for an international audience and any Russians that were previously oblivious to what horrible things Stalin did while he was in power. The mass murders orchestrated by Stalin were not a big secret to the Russian people because the large majority of them were probably negatively affected by them. However, the Soviet Union had been closed off to the world for roughly sixty years and had only recently opened up before Burnt by the Sun was created. Clearly, this film wanted to show the rest of the world one of the big secrets that had been kept while Russia was closed off. Previously to this movie, most non-Russians may have known that Stalin was ruthless. However, this movie displayed how evil he actually was.

I found the part of the movie when the banner of Stalin was flying over the farm fields extremely interesting. Stalin was depicted as overseeing the destruction of Kotov's life. He had already managed to successfully ruin Mitya's. Now, he would leave a little girl without her father, a wife without her husband, and the Russian people without a protector and cherished hero. Stalin's actions were made even more terrible because of how he betrayed a man that had previously been his friend. Kotov most likely never would have attempted to overthrow Stalin; but 'the man of steel's' paranoia led him to rid the Soviet Union of an experienced military officer that would have been of great help during WWII.

Circus

I think that the two "Socialist Realist" films that we have seen thus far were characterized by an emphatic idealism. All of the Soviet characters in the movies embodied- what the Soviet government must have felt - the ideal way that communist citizens should act. For example, the Soviet government undoubtedly would have ideally liked all of their citizens to have a strong sense of nationalism and go out and march in parades glorifying the Soviet Union just as the members of the circus did in the latter of the two movies. Both movies also contained characters that had qualities that the Soviet Union wished make people believe that all Russians have. In Chapaev, the Bolshevik characters were brave, friendly, and humane. Circus also portrayed all of the Soviet characters as being accepting, honest, and funny. Basically, both films were heavily laced with propaganda that portrayed the Soviet Union as a land of people that observed brotherhood and acceptance.

The main point of Circus was to portray the Soviet Union as a country of diverse people that were accepting of all people. This was perhaps best conveyed toward the end of the movie when people in the crowd were passing the baby around and singing to him. There were people of all different ethnicities and ages that sang the baby a lullaby and held him in their arms. Two of the main characters of the movie did not have a chance to hold the baby because they were too busy fulfilling the "Socialist Realist" ideal of brotherhood. Raya and Skamejkin did not know Marion Dixon very well but they were willing to be part of a plot to unite her with Petrovich that pitted them in a struggled against Von Kneishitz. Raya and Skamejkin were the embodiment of brotherhood in this film because they helped a fellow human being simply to help her.

Movies under the restrictions of "Socialist Realism" were seemingly limited by being forced to conform to Soviet ideology. Directors had to create characters that had the ideal Soviet traits and make films that were riddled with nationalistic messages. I found irony in the fact that around this time Russians were just beginning to see film as an artform and yet directors were limited in their artistic creativity by the Soviet Union. According to The Film Factory, Lenin saw cinema as an artform but also as a vital way to generate propaganda. Stalin obviously shared Lenin's sentiments but went to the extreme to make sure that propaganda was heavily included. I would place both Circus and Chapaev near the propaganda corner of the triangle.

Clearly, the depiction of Americans and Germans in Circus did not do them justice. In my opinion, not all Americans and Germans are racist and some Russians are. Circus portrayed the Germans and Americans (excluding Marion Dixon) as having negative traits while Russians were depicted as having positive traits. This was probably because the United States and Germany were the countries that the Soviet government felt most threatened by. After all, American movies were popular everywhere by this time and America was seen as the land of the free and the land of acceptance. The Soviet government did not want citizens to have the desire for democracy any more than they wanted them to have the wish to live under a facist government. This was probably why a German was the villain of the movie. By 1936, the Soviet government was already seemingly worried about the Nazi's in Germany. Englishmen or Frenchman were not included in the movie because they were not viewed as a threat to communism.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Circus to me was the "Charlie Chaplin esque" character that accompanied Von Kneishitz. He had no speaking lines in the entire movie. I was not sure if he was actually Charlie Chaplin but I am willing to bet that he was not. Interestingly, Charlie Chaplin made a film called The Circus in 1928. I would be interested to know if Alexandrov had seen this movie and had been a fan of Charlie Chaplin. He clearly had a sense of humor as evidenced by the funny jokes that made this comedy entertaining to watch. However, I could not tell whether he was paying tribute to Charlie Chaplin or trying to ridicule him.

Chapaev

This movie was a hit with the Russian public because there was a storyline for them to follow that involved individual characters. Russian moviegoers did not like previous films because they lacked characters that they could attach themselves to. Chapaev offered them a war hero (Chapaev), a brave, intelligent woman (Anka), and a friendly, loyal Soviet soldier (Petka) to become enamored with. In addition, the movie was based on a Bolshevik general that had actually existed – and achieved a nearly mythological status – and the sound made the storyline easy for the audience to follow.

Sound proved to be a fantastic feature that this movie did a spectacular job of utilizing. The dialogue between characters was better at conveying the emotions and feelings of the characters. A silent film would not have been able to have portrayed the complex relationship that Chapaev and Commissar Furmanov shared. There was also a lot of singing in the movie. Singing has long been a favorite means of entertainment for Russians so the fact that songs were in Chapaev would have seemingly been to the audience’s liking. Jokes and the battle sounds – such as gunshots and explosions – probably reached the audience more effectively because they were done with sound. Quite frankly, the sound was essential to this movie’s success with the Russian public.

With the aid of emotionally charged dialogue, one could not help but get the feeling that Furmanov immediately liked Chapaev. The highly educated Furmanov was taken with the brilliant simplicity of Chapaev’s mind and his bravery on the battlefield. However, Chapaev initially did not approve of Furmanov. He thought that Furmanov was just another unhelpful commissar sent to him by his superiors that would get in his way. Chapaev was irate when Furmanov challenged his authority by placing an officer under his command in prison. However, Furmanov eventually won Chapaev over by demonstrating that he too was a gifted leader.

Petka had no problem with anybody. He was definitely the hero of this film because he gave his life to give Anka and Chapaev time to escape the overwhelming White Army. Petka was compassionate in regard to his fellow man, friendly, and loyal. Chapaev knew that he could always depend on Petka and entrusted him with important missions. Anka admired Petka for his bravery and relied on him to teach her about weaponry. Petka was the ultimate example of what a Soviet should be. He was honest, simple, brave, friendly, funny, loyal, and moral.

The Reds were all portrayed as having at least some of the qualities of Petka. However, the Whites had none of the traits that he possessed. White Army officers lived a luxurious lifestyle, were snobbish, and refused to part from the ‘old ways’. Perhaps that character that embodied the characteristics of the White Army the most was Colonel Borozdin. His shocking treatment of his muzhik bodyguard – considering how often he had served with him in combat – undoubtedly made him a character that the audience could hate. There must have been cheers from the audience every time they witnessed the cruel Borozdin cut down by his muzhik bodyguard at the end of the movie.

Man with the Movie Camera

This has to be one of the most unusual movies I have ever seen. Seemingly the only main individual character in this movie was the cameraman (if he could even be referred to as a character). Vertov seemed to merely use the cameraman to show people every single one of the different effects that he was capable of using in making movies. He was clearly very proud of himself. In my opinion, the working class and the city in which the majority of this movie was filmed were the two main characters of this movie. Vertov showed the types of jobs and leisure activities that people engaged in. He focused on the lives of ordinary people. City life was also dwelled upon in this whirlwind plotline and Vertov did a nice job of showing what cities were like in 1929 in regard to transportation and appearance. I thought of this movie as sort of a documentary of the proletariat. After all, they were the focus of the movie as a group and the setting largely took place where a large majority of them lived (in the city).

In the beginning of this movie Vertov had a disclaimer that warned people that this movie was experimental. However, I felt that he wasted the audience's time by showing them all of the innovations that he had discovered. Some of the effects that he used were pretty amazing for the time period (such as making the cameraman appear as a giant or in a mug of beer) but I feel that he should have used his knowledge in a more constructive fashion. He could have easily used many of his innovations in a creative storyline.

The main weakness of this film was that there was absolutely no story. Quite frankly, I felt that this movie was about forty minutes too long. Vertov could have easily crunched all of his effects into twenty minutes and spared his movie's audience the pain of watching effect after effect. However, there were some aspects of this movie that I did not completely loathe. At the end of the movie I enjoyed how Vertov displayed that he could make objects appear as though they could move on their own. If I was an individual living in the 1920's I would probably find that pretty amazing. However, I definitely enjoyed the montages of Eisenstein more than those of Vertov.

Vertov's montages were too extreme. He had them go extremely slow and deteriorate down to photos. I did not find this annoying but they almost lulled me to sleep. Howbeit, these were preferable to the "seizure inducing" montages that Vertov periodically decided to torture his audiences with. I especially remembered the montages with the eyes. For example, one montage cut back and forth at a blinding speed between a pair of eyes and blinds. I found these montages unpleasant to watch.

This movie seemed to have something for everyone. There were sports, topless women, mechanical displays of power, and Chinese magicians. Many of the parts in the movie that involved technology were propaganda. I felt that most of the scenes involving machinery "chugging away" were placed in the movie to symbolize the unstoppable advance of the proletariat. Vertov wished to show everything that the working class were capable of and how advanced they had managed to become.

I also noticed that people were always being active. They were rarely depicted relaxing. People in the movie were working, playing sports, or exercising. The values that were promoted in this movie were hard work, ingenuity, and brotherhood. People were almost always interacting with other people. Individualism was definitely not favored in this movie.

Battleship Potemkin

The propaganda of this movie was what stuck with me the most. I especially liked the scene when the sailors were sleeping heavily in the bay of the ship and were roused by Vakulinchuk's communist speech. The sailors awakened from the deep slumber that they had been in under aristocratic control and Vakulinchuk slowly opened their eyes. Of course, the red flag hoisted over Battleship Potemkin being the only thing in the entire movie that was in color was another captivating example of propaganda. This made the flag jump out at the audience. People's eyes were undoubtedly drawn to the flag. Not suprisingly, the flag also looked more beautiful than anything else around because of the uniqueness of its color in comparison with the black and white. I was amused when beautiful women and children were shown waving at the flag and the soldiers on the rebel battleship. This reminded me of advertisements that we see on television today of men that get girls because they have a certain product (such as a Harley).

Oddly enough, the scene that horrified me the most was not the scene with the baby carridge but rather the scene with the young boy that was shot. A young, innocent boy was gunned down for something that he was not responsible for and then his 'commrades' trampled his body instead of helping him up. I could not believe that they trampled on his body! Apparently, "all for all and all for one" was only applicable to situations of the Bolshevik's choosing. I guess I just could not believe how far this film went in order to make the Imperial Army out to be a group of bloodthirsty killers. In addition to killing the boy I mentioned, they also shot his mother while she was holding him in her arms, the mother of the baby that was pushed down the stairs, and helpless, dying citizens of Odessa. Imperial forces were depicted as being the destroyers of innocence as well as refusing to listen to the opposing view of the Bolsheviks (as made evident when the mother of the trampled boy begged them to listen to her and they would not).

In contrast to the Imperial Army, the Bolsheviks were depicted as the killers of the old traditions that people had grown to hate during World War I. They killed ruthless naval officers as well as a priest. People struggled with religion after the atrocities of World War I. I was interested by the fact that Eisenstein had chosen to play the part of the priest that was killed himself. Was Eisenstein a religious man that wanted to make people feel horrified by the evil of murdering a priest or was he too simply fed up with religion and wanted to display the death of something that he hated so badly that he refused to trust anybody to bring that to the audience but himself? I also noticed that many of the Imperial officers on the Battleship Potemkin were skinny and small while most of the Bolshevik sailors were large and strong. This further depicted the weakness of the aristocrats and the strength of the Bolsheviks.

I never even really thought about montage in films before. However, I was pleased that this movie made use of montages. The pace of this movie seemed faster than that of the Bauer films that we watched. Eisenstein's use of complexities between scenes rather than complexities within scenes was apparent as sooon as the movie began. He cut to many different shots of the sea. Bauer would have maybe focused on one shot of the sea for much too long of a time for my taste.

There was one scene from this movie that made little sense to me. When the people in Odessa were rallying after the death of Vakulinchuk one richly dressed man in the crowd yelled something along the lines of, "Down with the Jews," after which he was mobbed by the crowd. I guess I always assumed that anti-Semitism was strong in Russia. I am guessing that the man bearing a close resemblance to Hitler was purely a coincidence and yet I cannot figure out why this was put in the movie. Did the Bolshevik's think that anti-Semitism was an evil of Imperial Russia? The only answer that I could possibly come up with for this would be that the Soviets wished to place an emphasis on 'brotherhood' for this film and thus wanted to let people know that Russian Jews were also their 'brothers'.

Bauer Silent Films and Early Reading

I was interested to learn that the French dominated films in the early 20th century. As an American, the absence of a dominance in the movie industry by Hollywood just does not seem possible. Granted, this was early on before Hollywood became the juggernaut of the film industry. Still, I have difficulty imagining myself as an early 20th century Frenchman feeling pride in the fact that my countrymen were making the best films.

The readings claimed that movies were associated with cities and provided audiences with a means of escape. This makes perfect sense to me due to World War I - which people really must have wanted to forget about for awhile - and the convenience of placing theatres in cities as opposed to farm fields. The masses loved the movies and were able to access them easier from where they lived in urban areas.

The Film Factory particularly discussed the notion of movies as a form of art. I was surprised to learn that the elite often looked down upon movies. Logically, I would have assumed that the educated would have seen the new art form as intellectually stimulating and progressive. These were apparently some of the sentiments that the so-called "Futurists" came to embrace in Russia. I found the arguments of Mayakovsky for cinema as a form of art to be compelling. In the comparison he drew between photographers and painters and the stage and cinema Mayakovsky highlighted that they were capable of doing many of the same things with the inclusion of artistic ability. His opinion made - in my opinion - a great deal of sense. Even though machines were being utilized in photography and cinema they were both still reliant on the artistic abilities of the people involved.

In the three Bauer films that we watched today in class I was particularily interested in how he created three female characters that were 'strong'. They were manipulative, clever, and exerted a high degree of power over their male counterparts. These three women were not merely content to be lead around by the men in their lives. In America, I think we still see women as being slightly vulnerable. Clearly, these women acted vulnerable at times but only in order to achieve their desires. Judging from these movies I think Russians view women as having comprable abilities and strength in comparison with men. I am fairly certain that the Russian army in WWII - and maybe in WWI as well although I'm not sure - had female soldiers which only reinforces my opinion that the Russians do not see women as being somewhat vulnerable.

Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath!

The cartoon at the beginning of this film was interesting. Clearly, the appartment buildings that marched all over the Soviet Union and were eventually shown dominating the world were symbolizing that one day the Soviet Union would envelope the entire world in communism. Soviet propaganda had evidently managed to infiltrate Russian movies during the 1970's - and most likely during the entirety of its existence - when Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! was made. However, the Western perspective yielded a different interpretation of this cartoon than the Soviet creators had perhaps intended. The buildings were seen marching into peaceful, beautiful settings and noisily moving in and ruining the natural landscape. From the Western point of view, the thought process during this cartoon was, "How foolish and boring would the world look if this really had come to be. Everything would look the same!"
Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath used the similarity of buildings to generate the masterfully created plot. This film almost had the plot of an American romantic comedy. Zhenya was the goofy bachelor thrust into a hilarious situation by his school buddies and Nadya was a beautiful single woman dating a boring man that could not seem to love her in the right way. Ippolit was the stereotypical jealous boyfriend that lived life much too seriously. Many of the jokes were created through witty dialogue although there were some instances - such as Zhenya's drunken stupor- that relied on the use of physical comedy. The humor employed in Irony of Fate, or Forget Your Bath was largely universal and the plot was one that almost anybody could seemingly relate to.
The ending of the movie was almost too perfect. Zhenya went back to Moscow after Ippolit drunkenly sputtered that a relationship between Nadya and Zhenya would be impulsive and idealistic. Ippolit could not understand what would make a relationship with Zhenya different for Nadya from her relationship that she had previously been in with him. Fortunately for the audience, Nadya decided to take that chance and she showed up in Moscow with Zhenya's bag that he forgot at her house.
If this movie accurately represents the Russian notion of love then Russians and Americans have similar feelings on what love should be. Nearly all American romantic comedies end up with the woman leaving a stable relationship in order to take a chance. Most Americans in movies are not looking for stability in a relationship but rather for fun and excitement. They dream of finding true love under crazy circumstances much in the same way that Zhenya and Nadya did.
I enjoyed watching this movie. One of my favorite things about this movie was the music. I would not be suprised if the actor that played Zhenya was some sort of famous singer in Russia in the 1970's. The traditional Russian songs that Zhenya and Nadya sang were interesting to listen to and compare to tratitional American ones. I also liked the portion of the movie when Zhenya was drunk with his friends and then drunkenly confused in Lenningrad. Everybody has experienced the type of drunken behavior that Zhenya and his friends exhibit at some point in their lives.
Although I enjoyed the music, I had difficulty relating to the parts of the movie when they sang to each other as a means of entertainment. Most Americans will go out to listen to music, or listen to music, but they will not perform for each other. Also, some of the body language - such as they part when Zhenya gives Nadya a headrub before leaving - struck me as being culturally different. I don't anticipate a large majority of the movies that we watch to be like this but I was pleased that we began this class with a movie that did not have extreme cultural differences.