Nov 292007
 

I wish I could watch this on RTR Planeta. But it doesn’t sound like something Putin would like. Excerpt from the article about it:

That leaves Belinsky and Herzen with plenty to do. They have arrived on Russia’s shores just as the history of Russian thought is up for grabs, when a fight is raging for the country’s identity and for its past. Everything Herzen detested is being resurrected: censorship, the autocracy of the Russian state, a macabre union of Orthodoxy, nationalism and authoritarianism. After almost 15 years of a democratic experiment following the collapse of Communism, Russia’s middle class is voluntarily surrendering personal liberties for a notional stability just as the French did in 1848. As one of the audience declared, “I feel that this production is so up to date that it could be shut down.”

It’s from moreintelligentlife.com

I’ve been wondering why the country that produced the likes of Dostoevsky could also produce such shallow understandings of the cause of great events like that seen in Utomlyonnye solntsem. Maybe there are some clues to possible alternate outcomes here.

Nov 252007
 

We finished watching Burnt by the Sun last night — did it in two sittings. It wasn’t as good as I had expected it to be, given the awards it received and that I’ve seen what Russians filmmakers can do to portray the Stalin showtrial era.

On the one hand it’s good to show the humanity of the NKVD — that they were real people who could have a talented, artistic side and didn’t come out of the womb determined to do evil. And it takes some guts to portray it that way. Whenever anyone attempts to do a film that way about Hitler and the Nazis, there are some people who will object saying it makes light of evil, when in reality it’s just the opposite.

But even though this film is from 1994, it was not at all about the revolution eating its children, or eating its parents. It could have been from 1960s Soviet Russia with its tired old storyline of implicating the white russians in whatever evil there is.

And to show Colonel Kotov at the end, quickly broken down, his face horribly beaten up, in contrast to the idyllic life he and his family had been living until just moments before, is not as horrifying as the thought that people at the show trials could be made to confess to crimes they never committed without that kind of physical brutality being inflicted on them. Maybe I’ve read too many things like Arthur Koestler’s “Darkness at Noon.” But I think we need to learn more about how such things could happen, and this movie doesn’t help.

Once on RTR Planeta I saw a good part of a different movie about the Stalin show trials. Sorry, I don’t know nearly enough Russian to tell you much about it — there were no subtitles and I could pick out only a few words — fewer even then I would be able to now. But it seemed to follow the Maxim Gorky story in some respects, except the end was more like Darkness at Noon. I’ll bet it was the kind of movie that would help me understand the behavior, if I could understand the language. I’ll probably not see it again, because I doubt Putin would allow such a movie to be aired now.

After watching the movie, I went online looking for reviews. Here is one that’s impressively perceptive. It’s titled “No Soul” and is written by Alan A. Stone of Boston Review.

Nov 192007
 

Tonight we finished watching Mimino, a 1977 Russian movie. (We hardly ever have time enough to watch one of these movies in one sitting.)

It’s a variation on the tale of the Country Mouse and the City Mouse, except that the country mouse is a Georgian aircraft pilot whose nickname is Mimino, the city is Moscow, and the country mouse ends up being friends with an Armenian truck driver.

I see (not from the movie) that Mimino means “sparrow hawk,” which gives me extra reason to like him. The name Macketai-meshe-kiakiak also means sparrow hawk — Black Sparrow Hawk, to be more exact. I’ve spent a lot of time bicycling and researching things related to the Sauk leader Black Hawk in the past 10 years. I’m not sure if a Georgian sparrow hawk is the same as an American sparrow hawk, though. The American one is also known as the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius).

The film was a great one for language learning, so as usual I have an excuse to watch it at least once more. There was also some Georgian spoken, of which I still understand not a syllable even though this is the 2nd movie for us in which that language is spoken.

One fascinating part was the way the judicial system was portrayed. I don’t expect it to represent the real workings of the Soviet system any more than American movies portray the real workings of our own system, but still, it presents a picture of how it was ideally supposed to work.

I say ideally because it’s obvious that this is yet another movie that dares not be critical of the police and judicial authorities, who are all good, virtuous, and competent. All that goodness and competence puts severe limits on the possibilities for comedy and suspense, but the movie manages to work with it.

I gathered that the trial system is more like the French or Roman system than the English/American adversarial one — which is not surprising.

When our protagonist met his court-appointed attorney, I thought I knew what came next. It usually means trouble for the defendant, whether it’s in the English or the Roman system. But this is a young woman who explains it’s her very first case and offers that he can ask for a different attorney. He declines, and puts himself in her hands. She works hard for our hero, doing extra detective work on his behalf, and in the end does a charming little dance upon exiting the court building, excitedly explaining to her waiting family that she got our hero off with just a small fine.

Who wouldn’t want a court system that worked that way, with cute young court-appointed attorneys to play Deus ex Machina and see that justice is done? But unfortunately, one realizes that there is no reward system to reinforce that kind of behavior, not in their system or in ours.

What one reads about now is articles like this one from the WSJ: “Living larger in the new Russia.” Vitaly Sarodubova and his wife support Putin wholeheartedly, even though things like this happen:

Vitaly was mugged walking back from visiting Svetlana in her concierge compartment one evening. He says a young couple he thought was waiting for the bus asked him for a cigarette. As he reached to get one, he was hit from behind.

He wasn’t carrying his cell phone, he says, so all the thieves got was the 800 rubles he had in his pocket. When he stumbled home, he didn’t call the police or a doctor. “The police will just accuse me of something I’m not guilty of,” he says.

They’re obviously not comparing this to an earlier time when the police and judicial authorities worked as portrayed in this movie. But the fact that Russian in the 1970s had the ideal that it ought to work as portrayed in this movie was new information for me.

Nov 112007
 

Tonight we finished watching Kurosawa’s “The Idiot.” This was our 3rd Kurosawa film. The first was “Ikuru,” and the 2nd was “The Seven Samurai.” We enjoyed The Seven Samurai, but I was disappointed to learn that Kurosawa hadn’t done more films like Ikuru, and had instead found it necessary to go into action films in order to get an appreciative audience.

I don’t know how closely The Idiot was inspired by Doestoevsky, but this film didn’t seem plausible — especially the female roles. Not only was it not interesting for the character studies, it wasn’t very informative on a cultural level, either. On the plus side, it was interesting to see what winter and snow are like in northern Japan.

And the actors spoke clearly. Even though I had spent a little time with the first of the Pimsleur Japanese courses, I could recognize hardly anything the actors in the first two films said, even with subtitles. Their talk seemed to be all slurred, especially in Seven Samurai. However, in The Idiot, there are a lot of fragments of speech that are somewhat recognizable to me.

It made me think it might be possible to learn to understand some of the language, after all. It’s tempting to give it another effort. But I had put the Japanese aside so I could spend more time on Russian and some other European languages, so I will stick with that for now.

Nov 072007
 

nuchin12

Today’s WSJ told about the new CCTV building now under construction in China. It will be the 2nd largest office building in the world, after the Pentagon.

I wonder if it will become a ubiquitous symbol of China. If so, that will be some interesting symbolism — a communications building as national symbol of a country that tries hard to restrict certain types of communication.

ViewOnRussianMinistryOfForeignAffairsMuilding,Moscow,Russia,2003-05-09

Another country with a ubiquitous building as national symbol is Russia. The Foreign Ministry Building is everywhere. This photo of it is from Wikipedia. It’s also in the standard intro scenes on Mosfilm DVDs:

Logo mosfilm

It’s shown on the background of some of RTR Planeta’s news broadcasts. Somewhere on my desk was a candy wrapper for one of the Red October brand of candies. It pictured the Foreign Ministry building. (The wrapper still may be on my desk, but I may never know for sure.) One sees it in movies whenever there’s an excuse to show it, such as in Tarkovsky’s graduation project, “Steamroller and Violin”.

It’s interesting that a country would use a foreign ministry building as such an important symbol. Here in the U.S. the State Department building gets no such status. For us, the U.S. Congress is more of a symbol.

Nov 052007
 

I’m now re-watching portions of “Subda Cheloveka“, aka “Destiny of a Man”. It’s a Sergei Bondarchuk movie which came out in 1959. Bondarchuk not only directs, but is the lead actor.

Over at Netflix some of the reviewers take issue with the notion that this movie is propaganda. Well, it isn’t ideological propaganda. You could say it’s patriotic propaganda of a very human kind.

I actually enjoyed this movie a lot more than Bondarchuk’s War and Peace that came out in the following decade. The War and Peace extravaganza seemed to be one that was more intent on touching important points that an audience familiar with Tolstoy’s book would expect to see. Some coherence was lost in the process. This seems to be often the case with literature made into movies. Subda Cheloveka is based on a novel, too, but for whatever reason, didn’t seem to suffer from the usual malady.

Bondarchuk’s character, Solokov, goes through a long series of war-time horrors, and loses his family while in a German prison camp.

One part that was amusing to me was the part where Solokov gains the respect of his captors. And how does he do that? If it was an American movie, the conceit might be that American cinema is the wonderful thing that will open up the hearts of the foreigners. That’s how it worked with Brad Pitt and the Dalai Lama in “Seven Years in Tibet.” But the Russians have something different to offer: their drinking prowess. The Germans were about to shoot him for an impolitic remark when Solokov showed them how he could put down the liquor. So they instead ended up admiring him as a good soldier, making him a trustee and giving him the job of chauffeur to one of their officers. I suspect it tells us more about the Russian self-image than anything else, just like that stupid Brad Pitt movie tells us about the peculiar conceits of Hollywood movie makers. (I say this because I’ve seen both themes more often than in just these instances.)

And that leads to a question. Did such things really happen? No, I don’t mean the part about the Germans being so impressed by his ability to chug hard liquor. I mean the part about making him a chauffeur. Could such a thing have happened, that they would trust a prisoner to that degree? Was the ability to drive a vehicle so rare and the manpower shortage so severe that they would have dared let a Russian do it for them?

That’s my main question about historical accuracy. I also have one about human behavior. At the end the war is over and Solokov has lost his entire family. He ends up pulling himself together when he adopts a starving, homeless urchin. When he “reveals” himself to the boy as the father he had hardly known, I’ll bet a real-life boy would be somewhat reserved at that point. Even under those circumstances, real-life affection would take some time to grow.

But for real-life enjoyment, it doesn’t matter a lot. The movie is an obvious tearjerker, and that’s just fine. I liked it. There were some good scenes of the Russian countryside and of life in pre- and post-war Russia to help it along.