Three Soviet Classics (1930)

The machine brought the dream of happiness and a tragic death

That sure is beautiful filmography. It is still a silent film and it has to express the worst and deepest feelings with only the body and the face, at most some gestures. But, and that is the difference with German or English or American films of that time, the Soviets do not use the traditional symbolic gestures or face expressions. They do use those gestures that go along with the communist vision of things, with the revolutionary attitude the film defends and advocates. But the feelings themselves, like love or sadness, or suffering are exclusively expressed by natural facial language. A smile is a smile and it is not forced as it is too often in the American comic films or the German dramatic films of the time. It wants to be realistic to the last little detail. And that gives to the film a tremendous force. The story itself is of course ideological if not political but it is simple and probably true too in some respect. That the son of one of the collective farm workers is killed by the young landowner in the village is no surprise. This film is there in 1930 to justify the first purge Stalin imposes, a purge that went through without that much uproar from the world: the landowners were either willing to give their land or their land was taken away and they had to disappear in a way or another. But the joy of these collective farm workers when the first tractor arrives is so true with the dream of finally producing more with less exhausting work. That dream too is political in a way, but it is the dream of all men in the world, to produce more not by working less but by making work easier. The dream of progress, be it American or Russian or Chinese or Indian is always the same: to live better and to enjoy life, work and rest alike. This dream is painted in numerous close-up shots on faces and their expressions and that is marvelous, something to watch and appreciate. Can we still do that, or are our cinema actors more trite or concentrating more on language, even when it is dubbed afterwards? Silent films were making the actor the very center of the screen in the Soviet Union that was generally very tragic, which was less true with Fritz Lang or Laurel and Hardy, or at least in no way as realistic as with the Soviets.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
August 28, 2008

Just saw Earth the others are on my to view list.

It's my Earth and I won't give it up!

This film is in black and white. Some times the scenes look a little faded. Who knows if this was done on purpose? This is one of the last silent films of the era. The music is well coordinated with the scenes. The film is 88 minutes long. Most of the time it is images or dancing. Remove the images and dancing and you have about 20 minutes. There is a written narration at the beginning of the movie to tell you of the author and purpose of the movie. The English subtitles cover only one fourth of the dialog. You have to be a fast reader to finish the title before the next scene.

An alternate title could be "Who killed Basil?" And why? This is the story of a conflict between the collective and the individual owned farms. The technologies (tractors and aero planes) are to represent the collective. Horses and sweat are to represent the farm owners. This is played out with close ups of the faces of the farmers and the farm animals.

Some reviewers missed the mark on one of the things that make this film controversial. He tried to relate this film to "Triumph of the Will" (1934) - English subtitles. The irony is that in 1930 the Soviet Communist League asked Ukrainian director Dovzhenko to make a propaganda picture. He was to dramatize the need for landowners to give up their properties in order to create collective farms. However they got more than they bargained for. Hitler wanted Leni Riefenstahl to make "The Olympiad": Part 1 (1936) - English subtitles. This was to emphasize Aryan superiority. The film turned out to be a work of art and if anybody benefited from it that was the black American runner Jesse Owens. "Earth" turned out to be a work of art and if it did anything, it helps solidify the feelings of the people that farm ownership has its merit.

January 31, 2008

The golden age of the Russian silent cinema

I am not the greatest expert on Russian silent cinema, but still have a Masters degree from USC Cinema in History-Criticism. The three great filmmakers of Russian silents were Eisenstein, Podovkin, and Dovzhenko. They could not be more different. Eisenstein told a story cinematically in masterpieces like STRIKE (1924) and BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925); note the poetry in his powerful editing and dynamic visual compositions. Podovkin loved film technique, especially dynamic cutting, to tell a story. But in a classic, like THE END OF ST. PETERSBURG (1927), he does not forget to tell a gripping factory management vs. labor story. In complete contrast, Dovzhenko was Ukranian and ignored the story in favor of showing beautiful Ukraine landscapes, wheat fields and rivers, and especially the haunting faces of peasants working on their farms. His greatest film may be the silent EARTH (1930).

Which one Russian silent to recommend if you only have time for one? I am saving STRIKE and POTEMKIN for Labor Day Weekend. They are certainly the most famous films here, movies that "wrote the book" on camerawork and editing. But I like THE END OF ST. PETERSBURG quite a lot and find it very appropriate for Labor Day. In 1927, Lenin commissioned Podovkin and Eisenstein to each make a movie commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution. The results are Eisenstein's OCTOBER and Podovkin's END OF ST. PETERSBURG. Dynamically edited and excitingly shot, ST. PETERSBURG has a factory in 1917 where management dictates a longer work day to meet increased productivity. When the workers all go on strike, a whole city of scab workers go to work at the factory. This results in considerable bloodshed.

Over ten years, Russia goes to war--World War One, portrayed in all of its vivid brutality. The striking workers eventually go back to work, goaded on by rugged earth mother wives with babies, both of whom need food and milk. ST. PETERSBURG is unsurpassed at showing the horrors of war and the desolation of defeat. I again do not know the politics here very well, but gather that the war makes the capitalists rich and the working class more poor.

But by 1927, the Russian Revolution between peasants and weathy landowners somehow helps the working class and deprives the landowner capitalists of their money. A new Russia is born, run by Lenin as the glory of Communism in the new city of Leningrad. Podovkin is a major Russian filmmaker to be reckoned with in terms of both great filmmaking and potent storytelling. He is at his best in THE END OF ST. PETERSBURG which, incidentally, you should buy or rent in a 35mm archive print from Kino Video. Happy Labor Day Weekend!
(REVIEWED ON VHS VIDEOCASSETTE, but EARTH is a masterpiece also, one of the great films of world cinema. CHESS FEVER I am unfamiliar with.)
August 29, 2006

Three Soviet Classic

It has been great masterwork. Dovzhenko and Pudovkin are creative director of montage, the musician of orchestrated light. August 30, 2005

Three very different classic Soviet silents

This special edition by Kino Video presents some excellent examples of Soviet Avant-Garde cinema, and therefore this is a good place to start if unfamiliar with this genre. Along with the visual impact and statements these films make, the musical score - especially for "End of St Petersburg" - is quite appropriate, being orchestral and very well suited to the scenes and feelings expressed in the film. I was most impressed by Pudovkin's "The End of St Petersburg", mainly for its dramatic and expressive images and the fierce passion and tempo overall. This film depicts people's struggle and the social upheavals of the revolutionary period and World War I, and it takes a bit of serious attention to appreciate the information, imagery and emotions packed into this film. As a complete contrast, "Earth", directed by Dovzhenko, has an overall slower pace, a simple storyline and different feel, yet it also expresses the plight of ordinary people, in this case farmers facing the challenge of modern technology (a tractor) and neighbourhood disputes. The picture quality isn't the best in "Earth" which is a shame because in this kind of film the images are important, but as you get into the style and feel of it, you can still appreciate the value of this film also. Finally, for a complete change of pace, "Chess Fever" by Pudovkin again never fails to put a big grin on my face as it makes a farce of people's obsession with chess during the Chess World Championship held in Moscow in 1925. This is a very clever and poignant short comedy (half an hour) that really hits the spot. Look out for the black/white checkerboard design on the main character's socks, cap, scarf and hankerchief! All three films together give a good overview of the range of Soviet films of this genre and period, and it's nice to have them on the one DVD. December 14, 2004

More reviews at Amazon.com ...