10 February 2014

The film starts with the song “Aleksandra” by Tatiana and Sergey Nikitin. We know that it may have more significance than a mere opening sequence only after watching the second part of the film. Katya’s daughter is, after all, named Aleksandra. The film also ends with the same song. Although Aleksandra, herself, seems to be second to Katya’s story and all the characters from part one. Nonetheless, the director, Vladimir Men’Shov, wants us to notice her and wants us to think about her in the end.

The song goes something like “Aleksandra, this city is ours together. We have become its fate.” The song is trying to say that we are a product of our circumstances. Just as Alexandra was a passive character, so is everybody in Russia. They are products of the State, which seems to be changing every decade or two. At the beginning of the film, Alexandra seems unattached and uninterested in her mother. Her mother, Katya, always seems to be too busy working to give her much attention. Then when Gosha comes along, these circumstances change her attitude. Instead of listening to music and being closed off from the world and in doors, we see her outside, open and friendly.These circumstances seemed to have changed her for the better.

Then there is Gosha, whose circumstances gave him some distinct values. Despite being the most lovable character of the films we have watched thus far, he has one flaw: he is extremely patriarchal. He tells Katya that he would leave her if she ever raised her voice at him. He thinks that a man should always make more money than a woman. He is extremely old-fashioned. This works for him because he is such a gentleman. This does not work because the times have changed. With Perestroika, the traditional values were dissolving. Just like Katya, women everywhere were rising to power. Gosha could not deal with this and leaves Katya when he finds out where she works.

There is a bit of irony here. In part one, a non-decent man leaves her because she lies and about being rich. In part two, a good man leaves her because she lies about being poor. One of the lessons to learn here is definitely to remain open. Part one even takes place during the Great Thaw. The director wants to show the consequences of not being open; he was criticizing the State.

Back to Gosha, he decides to come back to Katya. Being a good man, he decides to adapt to the times because he loves Katya. With Gosha, the director wanted to say that as a State, we do not have to give up all of our old values. We should just give up the bad ones (such as patriarchy).

Katya is also a symbol of pardoning the State. Katya is such a good, hard-working person. Yet, she find herself in trouble when she lies. Lying does not come natural to her. She represents the State, specifically Krushev. Krushev meant the beast for his country but he was just uneducated; he was naive, just like Katya.

The different characters seem to foil the different leaders of Russia. Ludmilla could be like Breshnev, power-hungry and motivated by shiny things. In the end, though, she does not end up with much. She is still left chasing shiny things. Similarly, Breshnev lead for the glory yet hardly accomplished a thing, hence, his era is known as Stagnation.

Over all, the film reminds us that the State should work for its people because the condition of the government determines the condition of its people. On top of that, those who can adapt (like Katya and Gosha) will fare the best.

Despite his gentle critique of the State, there is no doubt that Men’Shov loves his country and sympathizes with the State, too. This is apparent in the following lines of Aleksandra: “The love for Moscow doesn’t come fast, but it is true and pure the way a mother’s love is stronger than any other.”

7 February 2014

Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears [Part 1] Starts with two girls living in a dormitory. Katya is a hardworking student and Lyudmila is determined to chase after a man. Lyudmila, always scheming and lying, convinces Katya to pretend to be rich with her. Together, they each deceive a man into falling for them. Ironically, a good man decides to marry Lyuda despite her deception, while Katya is left alone with a baby. The movie ends with Katya alone and crying. Life seems to be so unfair for those who seem to be such good people.

If we did not know that there would be a part 2 (starring Aleksey Batalov) this short film could have left its audience with a heavy feeling. However, we have hope that things will turn around for Katya. After all, she is a hardworking and honest woman. Plus, having been recognized in American theatres, we know this film will have a happy ending for such a deserving woman.

Katya’s parents are never mentioned and neither are the parents of Lyuda. Katya’s uncle, however, is rich. Did Katya come from a good background? A bad one? We do not know.

At the beginning of the film, Katya barely fails her exams by two points. Perhaps it was this disappointment that allowed her to go against her character and  fake her circumstances.

The mother of the camera man was a very unlikable character. She clearly does not know how to raise children. Her younger son does not listen or respect her and is just a disgusting little boy. Her older son is a disappointment, as well. He believes everything the television tells him and admires it so much. The fault of the sons is with the mother. Although it is understandable they probably did not have a father figure, I still cannot help but blame the mother for the way they turned out.

Despite Katya’s predicament, I have hope for her next chapter, seeing as Aleksey Batalov will enter the film.

4 February 2014

The Cranes are Flying, directed by Mikhail Kalatozov and based on Viktor Rozov’s play Forever Alive, seems to have been made with the purpose of consoling those affected by WWII.

The young sweethearts, Veronika (played by Tatyana Samojlova) and Boris (Aleksey Batalov) do not even get to say goodbye before Boris is shipped off to war. Veronika is left chasing after him yet never does catch him. Throughout the whole film, it seems, the two are chasing each other. Boris is chasing her up the stairs at the beginning of the film. Veronika is running, trying to find Boris at the end.

Then when they are not chasing, they are waiting. Veronika waits and waits for Boris, even after he is announced to be dead. No matter what she does, Veronika seems to be unable to hold on to that happiness.

It is heartbreaking to watch yet the whole time the audience is rooting for her, believing with her that Boris may live. Then, when she realizes that Boris is in fact dead, it is the hardest part of the film. We knew it but to watch Veronika realize it was just sad.

Right after, she hears a speech about how the war was needed so that those who live now have a better life. It is important to live for those who died. Recalling Boris’ letter to Veronika, he too wanted to enter the war so that everybody may live better.

Veronika immediately feels grateful for everybody who served in the war and then sees cranes flying, overhead. Throughout the film, she sang about how she will be happy when the cranes fly. Perhaps this means that when there are no bombs in the sky. The cranes fly and with them she lets go of what she has been chasing. She instead decides to be grateful for what she already has. And so, the film is telling its audience: ‘Yes, you lost a lot, but look at what you have gained. Be grateful to those who died and enjoy the life they gave you.’

Tatyana Samojlova is excellent and throughout the film, we feel everything that she is feeling. This is helped by Aleksy Batalov, who portrays his character so well that we too miss him and love him. The well-chosen, handsome cast and the new and interactive cinematography came together to create one of the best films of the class. So far, The Cranes are Flying is my favorite film.

3 February 2014

One of the most attractive aspects of Soviet communism was that no matter what the background, all could unite under the Soviet regime if they just believe in this government. Circus is the ultimate propaganda film that brings this idea home. It cannot be mistaken with an ending such that this film gave. An “American” woman and her black child are perfectly accepted by the Soviets. They sing to him a lulliby and a variety of Soviet tongues. The Soviet Union: A place where everybody is welcome, the film seems to say. However, it was of course all owed to Stalin, as the parade at the very end lets us know.

The point of the film is clear. So clear, in fact, that another evident point emerges: the Soviet Regime is almost like a religion. Believe, and you shall receive. Mary, played by Lubova Orlova, was at first not very welcomed by the Russian theatre manager. He thought it was outrageous to pay foreigners. As she started to adopt more and more Russian ideals, Mary, Now Masha, gained more and more acceptance from the people around her. At the end, her prize was Martynov’s love; her prize was the man of her dreams. In, for example, the Christian religion if you are a good Christian, by following God’s commandments, then you receive what you ask for and give thanks to God. Masha was a good Soviet who received what she wanted, at the end, and then of course thanked Stalin for everything in the final parade.

And maybe this is just a coincidence, but Mary is a biblical name. The story of Mary and Joseph is one where they go door to door with baby Jesus, and they keep getting rejected until they finally find a safe haven. Similarly, Mary goes door to door, to countries, with her own son whose birth was as big of a surprise as that of Jesus from the Virgin Mary. She is from America and traveled with a German love interest. These different countries, America and Germany, were the doors that closed on her. The Soviet Union is her safe haven.

Although Circus is a very successful propaganda, it may have been so successful that it actually let its audience in on how exactly the Soviet Union does it. By imitating a religion and bringing it to life, the Soviets seemed to have gain popularity, especially after all the wars and revolutions where the people needed something to believe in.

31 January 2014

Elena is a film with a lot of contrast. First, with gender roles. Then, with income.

The mother figure, Elena, is married to the wealthy Vladimir. They both had children before they met each other. Vlad has a girl named Katya. Elena has a boy, Sergey, with a family of his own.

Vladimir and Elena demonstrate, for us, traditional gender roles. Vlad is the bread-winner, head of the household and strict. Elena is nurturing (she was a nurse, after all), submissive, and a good mother with unconditional love for her child.

The children of Vlad and Elena represent somewhat non-traditional gender roles. Katya, for example, seems unattached and does not desire children. Caring, motherly and submissive are the last words that we would use to describe her. Even though her father is disappointed in her lack of desire for children, he still loves her very much. We can assume that he raised her and this is why she turns out so much like her father: masculine qualities and the goal of money. Despite her outwardly appearance, we can see that she loves her father very much.

Then, we have Elena’s son, Sergey. He is a lazy drunk and his son, Sasha, grows up to be the same. He keeps having children yet cannot take care of them. He completely relies on his mother for financial support yet does not seem to appreciate her. In a way, he is like Katya: spoiled. He is also the opposite of a traditional male should be. He is no bread-winner and he hardly is in control of his household.

The conflict of the story is that Sasha, Elena’s grandson, needs money to bribe his way into college. Elena asks Vlad for the money. He gives a firm no, saying that Sergey needs to take this as a lesson to clean his act up and support his family. And so, Elena murders Vlad, even though she seems to really love him, in order to get the money for her son’s family.

We can say that Elena is a good mother because she is willing to do quite anything for her son. Yet at the same time, she refuses to discipline him. After going through so much to help one grandson, she finds out at the end that there will be yet another. Sergey has learned nothing. He does not care. A spoiled child is almost as bad as an unloved one. Neither situation shows any promising results for the next generation.

There was also the recurring theme of the sparrow. The movie starts with a dead tree and sparrows join it. Then, with her baby grandson, Elena looks for sparrows in the sky. Next, we hear the coo of a sparrow after Vlad dies and Katya and Elena mourn. Finally, the film ends with the same tree yet this time with no sparrows.

Maybe the tree represented their life: ordinary and bland. The sparrows were the fleeting moments of happiness. Or they could even be reason. The movie starts with two sparrows on the tree, representing some hope. It ends with none.

To conclude, although Elena is a great mother, I can only see our heroine as a villan. Below not loving your child, spoiling a child is the next worst thing a mother can do for that child and for society.

30 January 2014

To start, this film is narrated by the story of the daughter but in the voice of the mother. Why might this be? Yana Troyaova, the actress who plays the mother, claims that this story is based on of her own mother. As Vasiliy Sigarev’s inspiration for the script, Yana probably grew up fearing that she would grow up to be her mother. Her biggest fear seems to come to life on the screen as we see how twisted and strange the daughter grows to be and especially with the mother’s voice narrating her story as if she were the daughter, herself. Maybe Yana thought that taking on the role of her own mother on the screen would help her understand her own mother.

The daughter only wanted the love of her mother. She absolutely adored her from the moment she finally met her, seven years into her life. Her desperation for her mother’s love is heartbreaking. At one point she even tries to enter her mother’s sphere of interest by initiating a sexual act. After this, we see the mother cry, finally showing some emotion. For the cruel and heartless mother to even cry at this shows just how sorrowful and sickening the desperation had become.

Even when the mother leaves her at the train station and returns many years later, she still does not want her to go. The daughter’s love for her mother is unconditional. This is what makes it so sad.

The mother, however, feels nothing for her daughter. She gives her a top at the beginning of the story (called a volchok). Then, she tells her daughter that she did this for a reason. The reason was because mother had found daughter in a sack in the cemetery, as a baby wolf (also called volchok). This is because the mother just sees her daughter as an inanimate object: a toy. Yet, she is scared of her daughter. This is especially evident in the final scene where she runs from her daughter, quite literally, and then has a good laugh when she loses her. She laughs as if she had won a game. She then continues on with her life. She continues to run from monsters, her daughter being one of them.

Another interesting part of the film was that the daughter’s mantra was “I don’t know.” Whenever her mother would ask her why she did anything, she would reply”I don’t know.” She did not even know the town she lived in or the nearest city. It seemed to be the answer to the question always on her mind: Why doesn’t mother love me? 

She waits for her mother, always. She dresses up for her. She defends her from the drunk man, at the beginning. She loves her mother unconditionally. So then why not love her?

Once again, fear. Fear of a ruined future. Fear of love. The mother feared the daughter and therefore did not love her.

—

The documentary, Mom, I’m Gonna Kill You, shows children who come from similar situations as the daughter in the film.

One of the orphans, Nastya, is happy all the time and says that she loves everybody. To her, her mother is sick. She wants to become a doctor to cure her. The reality is that her step-father killed her mother. When somebody tell her this, she does not belive it. She refuses to believe it. Just like the daughter in Wolfy, Nastya would rather believe the lie. There is a scene in Wolfy where the daughter narrates how she would tell her ghost friend all about how her life was so wonderful and how she would believe these lies, herself, the biggest one being that her mother loved her.

Other orphans in the documentary had mothers that did not want them, just like the daughter in the film. Two boys in particular, Sasha and another one, stated that they would kill their mothers. Living as unwanted children, they started to harbor hate. Everything the world has thrown at them, their deceiving and awful orphanage, is the mother’s fault because she is letting this happen. She does not do her duty as a mother.

Similarly to Sasha, the daughter in Wolfy also harbors a lot of resent. We see this in the scene where that daughter suffocates and annihilates the hedgehog her mother gave her.

Again, this is exactly why the mother in Wolfy keeps running from her daughter. She knows that her daughter will finally start to resent her enough to take her life.

—

Between the film and the documentary, I was left absolutely heartbroken. To know that there are women out there who fear and hate their children… to see that these children in Russia pay for their parent’s sins by being labeled unfit for normal society. Social orphans already feel like there is no place for them. The institutions are just confirming this feeling instilled by their parents rather than helping them by integrating them into society. Then, the caring volunteers come and leave for good, forever reminding these children on how their parents walked out on them.

At the end of film and documentary, the most positive message that can be seen is delivered by the sister in the film when she angrily says something like: ‘you gave birth to this child. it is your responsibility to take care of her.’

29 January 2014

Premiered in 1988, released in 1967 and depicting 1917… Commissar is quite the film!

The setting is a jewish town amidst the cold war between the Red and White armies. Nonna Mordukova plays a commissar within the brutal and ferocious red army. She, merciless and tough, has the complete respect of her troop. The movie starts by showing how she gives one man a “tribunal” for selling secrets in exchange for a skirt. The tribunal, of course, served bullets in place of justice.

How tough she must be to gain the respect of these men! She serves “tribunals” and even tried to serve one to her unborn child. When she knows she has to raise this child, she appears to be devastated. However, we start to see that this tough outer shell slips on and off as easily as her uniform.

Throughout the film, she grows attached to the family and really loves her son, after he is born. As she is giving birth, one of the memories she conjures is of the father of her son; clearly, it meant more to her than just being  some fling. We see her softening and once she trades the uniform for the dress, she takes on her softer side. Interestingly, the jewish family made the dress for her. This perhaps symbolized how they were the ones to help soften her up and show her love.

The family, themselves, had an interesting dynamic. Compared to the other films we have viewed in the class, this family did not appear dysfunctional. The mother and father still loved each other and despite their circumstances were happy. The father sang on his way to work and the mother, Maria, enjoyed the children with all the patience in the world. The film really conveyed that these people, the Jewish people, were very decent human beings.

What then, of the Russian people? The brutality of the red army… The antisemitism of the white army… and then end of the film. At the end, the commissar abandons her son to join the army, once more. After imagining herself joining the jews in concentration camps as a result of a white victory, she realizes she cannot be idle. Did she leave to help the red army beat the white army to make sure this vision never came true because she cared so much about her new family? Or, did she leave because she wanted to escape this dreadful fate? The father of the family, played by Rolan Bykov, is also left wondering what kind of people these Russians are.

There is evidence to believe that the commissar is not so cruel as to run for her own sake. As she left her son, she told him to remember her and the name of his father. She made it seem like she truly believed that he would have a future. She also knew that this family would care for her son. They would not abandon him. She put on her uniform and marched to meet her troops. She once again put on her shell so that she could do the task, at hand. The final scene is her leading the red army into the heart of battle.

The film seems to send the message: the only way to protect our children and secure our future is to sacrifice ourselves for the cause.

28 January 2014

The 1926 silent film, Mother, was based on the novel by Maxim Gorky. Although they tell a similar story, both film and book each have their own unique advantages.

First, how does the mother differ in book and in film?

In the film, mother is far more naive. Her son never tells her what he is up to and so her motives are first and foremost to protect him, even at the expense of his ideals. By the nd of the film, though, the mother picks up the red flag and embodies her son’s ideal for herself. She did not learn, until the end, that this is what would maker her son happiest: to embody his revolutionist ideals.

In the book, the mother understands from the start. Although she is weary, at first, she accepts her son’s ideals and vows to never stand in his way. At the end, she is caught with his speech and so she sacrifices herself to read it out loud to the people at the train station. Whereas the mother in the film only sacrificed herself after her son’s death, the mother in the book did it while he was still alive.

The mother in the book, the wiser mother, seemed to be the stronger of the two.

However, the film gave us something the book coul not. The expressions put on by Vera Baranovskaya were priceless. We could really feel her depression and her sadness when she realized she landed her son in jail and we immediately know when she is happy when she manages to help her son. There was no montage juxtaposition needed when it  came to the mother. There was no confusing her facial expressions.

The next important thing to consider is the relationship the mother has with her son, Palov. This relationship shapes the action of the mother.

In the film, the son stands up for his mother. He cares for her, from the start. In the book, however, Palov stands up for himself. His father then says that Palov will now be responsible for taking care of his mother. In the film he directly saves her. In the book, indirectly. Though as much as he loves mother in the film, Palov never lets her in on his Revolutionist ideals. He leaves her guessing and so she does not understand him until the end. She loves him, of course. Though she does not understand.

In the book, the son really starts to love her after he gains his Revolutionist ideals, which is when he learns to pity her. It is because of these ideal that he loves her so. Therefore, she agrees not to stand in his way and takes on these ideals, herself.

The book gives a more realistic situation. The movie, being limited to a black and white silent film, had to overexagerate and convey a lot of emotion. Though in the end of both film and book, we are left with a similar and hopeful message: it is worth to fight for your freedom.

25 January 2014

The film starts off by showing how even though prostitution was not illegal in the 1980s, the “caring” Russian government still wanted to get prostitutes off the streets, arresting them for possession of foreign currency and even hooliganism. This is ironic because during this glasnost period, Russian citizens were encouraged to embrace other western cultures. At the time, the government seemed to just be one big contradiction. Workers were supposed to feel liberated with a capitalist system but instead were feeling oppressed because they did not make enough from their salary. They did not know how to compete in a market economy.

So, many women at the time sold themselves to get by. The main character, Tanya, having been raised in this market economy knows an opportunity when she sees one. When a Swede, Edward, asks her hand in marriage, she eagerly agrees, seeing it as the ultimate sale. She is happy at first, cashing in her “check” for nice clothes and a car.” Though she starts to realize that nothing comes without a price and yearns to return to Russia. However, there is too much opposing force. Her husband will not let her go and neither will the Russian government.

I believe that the director was opposed to a market economy. He was saying that (Just like Tanya traded in countries) once we shift our economy, there is no going back (It was literally impossible for Tanya to go back, and she died trying).

He is also saying that to succeed in a free market economy, you have to sell your soul (Just like Tanya sold herself permanently) just to succeed. Most importantly, though, that success is a big lie, anyway. It is a poisonous system that leaves you wanting more, never satisfied and turns you against your brothers (as the communists used to refer to each other).

The actions of the individuals in this new economy will bring shame to the whole country and its reputation (Just like Tanya’s mother was shamed) and eventually that shame will kill off any dignity the country has left (like when the mother commits suicide).

Basically, the director was trying to show us the consequences of this new economy.

23 January 2014

The year is 1988 and the time of stagnation is ending, while Perestroika is just starting. Though the characters in this film remain stagnant, still. They live in a small town where there is nothing to do with oneself except work and get by. The main character, Vera, is experimenting with more liberal views while her parents are still in the mindset of stagnation. Despite her rude and rebellious nature, Vera still cares very much for her family. Her mother,a go with the flow, keep the status quo kind of lady and her father a drunk. One parent represents the time period’s desire to keep everything normal while the other represents the boredom that results and its consequences.

Vera is clearly bored and ready for change. To entertain herself, she messes with the hearts of the local boys and experiments with her sexuality and even drugs and cigarettes. At one point, Sergei asks her what her goals and dreams are and what her past was. She has no answer to her future and only has promiscuous stories about her past. To her, there is nothing sad about it. She is simply entertaining herself. After all, what else is there to do? She does mention that all there is to value is communism. Weather she was being cynical is uncertain.

Then, we have Sergei. He just seems to be going along for the ride that is Vera’s life. What his interests are is even a more difficult question to decipher. We know he dislikes Vera’s parents. He dislikes alcoholism and is a student. Perhaps he wants more with his life. However, when he is stabbed by Vera’s father, he returns to her in the end of the movie. When she asks why, he simply says that he was scared. He is probably scared to pursue his real desires. Scared of the new era that is Perestroika.

In this movie, we see young people ready for change, going out of their minds for change. Yet, they just do not know how to take on this new mindset. So, they end up just settling back into their old patterns. Like some dust that has been kicked up, it just settles down, once more.

Unlike Nastia, a character in the film Adam’s Rib, Vera seems to be dependent on men. True, she is strong, yet she still relies on men. Her father has remained in her life, her brother, too. She tries to commit suicide when she thinks that it is over with Sergei. This film is interesting because it portrays men as caretakers of women. Not just financially but emotionally. Vera’s father seems to love her more than the mother does. Then, her brother, too, comes from Moscow just to look after her and try to help her. Then, Sergei automatically asks for her marriage so as to maintain her dignity when her brother questions it. Yet as much as these men have loved and taken care of Vera, they all have the same major flaw: they seem to be empty on the inside. The father, an alcoholic, is an obvious one. Then, there is Sergei with seemingly no emotions. Finally, her brother really is not there to stick around. He seems to come visit to escape his problems at home.

And so, if anybody is the rib of Adam, it should be Vera. She, this lively and wild girl, fills the emptiness in these men’s lives. She does not just whore herself physically but emotionally, as well.

Though as we watch the film, we do not see her as a whore. We can relate to her restless youth. With this film, I believe that the director was trying to propagate Perestroika. He is saying, let us get change going. The people are losing faith in their way of life, in this government. Just like vera, the country did not seem to know what they wanted, at this point in time. This indecisive attitude is clearly dangerous for a country, just as it was for our Vera. Vera and Sergei, with no clear goals for their future, suffer from their restlessness. The director did not want his country to suffer the same fate.