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.