El circo

Musical comedy. A screen adaptation of the play "Under the Circus Dome" written by the famous Soviet and Russian writers and playwrights Ilya Ilf, Yevgeny Petrov and Valentin Kataev. Well, the director Grigory Alexandrov was responsible for the production. The main role was played by the main celebrity of the Stalinist era, Lyubov Petrovna Orlova. I have nothing to say about the play, because I have not seen it in my eyes, so I will evaluate the picture as an independent work. The disc with this picture lay on my shelf for a long time, and all hands did not reach to look. Each time, approaching the shelf, I chose a different film, and mentally said to myself, "The circus will be another time." And then came this very "Another time". Therefore, here is my brief opinion - Dramatic backstage of the circus. Unfortunately, the picture did not impress me as a "bombshell", so I intend to tell you about the pros and cons of this comedy. I see no reason to drag out this introduction any further, so I'm getting down to the point. So the pros: 1. The story told - American Marion Dixon flees the country because she gave birth to a Negro baby. She is rescued by the German Franz von Kneischitz, who puts her in a circus troupe, with which she comes to the USSR. And here, in the Land of Soviets, she learns that there are not only bad, but also good people who are ready to accept her and her son, despite the skin color. But the cunning German won't just give up. Love, intrigue, romance, music, humor and a splendid ending - this is all "Circus". The story is somewhat naive, but catchy for the viewer. And although the ending is obvious almost from the very beginning, but its grandeur does not negate this (despite the fact that I watched the color and castrated version from the fifties). 2. "My native land is wide ..." - the legendary song of the composer Isaac Dunaevsky, the author of the text was Vasily Lebedev-Kumach. I knew about the existence of this song from early childhood (thanks to my parents, grandparents), but I just did not know where it came from. Now I am glad that I have filled this gap. Cheerful, patriotic, soulful, energetic, powerful and memorable. It's all about her! Simple words are not just a song. This is a hymn to the generation of the thirties of the twentieth century - the generation of my grandparents. They grew up with this song and built a mighty country (which later some individuals sold and drank, so we are sitting in the current swamp, but oh well, let's not talk about sad things). 3. The USSR of the thirties - a unique time and a generation of unique people who never existed again (hope only for the future). There is ideologization in the picture, but it does not put pressure on perception. The glorification of the USSR and the cultivation of friendship between peoples is an integral attribute of those years. Panorama of Moscow and Red Square with Lenin's mausoleum, double-headed eagles on the domes of the Kremlin towers (which will be replaced with red five-pointed stars in the year the picture is released). As the Soviet people of that time spoke, thought, acted - this picture shows all this, therefore it is still good from the point of view of history. So the cons: 1. Sound - the picture was restored and painted, though not original, but castrated. Okay, this is unpleasant, but you can live with it, but the sound is a big problem. Apparently the source code was not in the best condition, and they decided to leave it "as is", fearing to spoil it. It's a pity, because in the whole picture, thirty percent of the dialogues and songs are difficult to understand. 2. Irrationalities - there are a few blunders in the script that greatly unsettle the viewer, so to speak. Unpleasant, even very unpleasant. Maybe due to the fact that Grigory Alexandrov significantly reworked the original play, which is why Ilf, Petrov and Kaverin demanded to remove their names from the credits of this picture? Who knows comrades? Who knows? 3. Boring middle - good beginning, ending - even better, but middle is so boring that I almost fell asleep from melancholy. Little action. The painting literally sags in the middle. Maybe it's all about the script, maybe something else. But the fact is on the face! A little about the main characters: 1. Marion Dixon performed by Lyubov Orlova is an American circus artist performing in the USSR with a unique number. Has a humiliating (for the USA) secret, which is used by Franz von Kneischitz. It should be said that Lyubov Orlova managed to play the American well, and even with an accent there were no problems. Although in a couple of places the actress clearly forgot about him, trying to quickly say a line. She is convincing and beautiful. Bravo! 2. Ivan Martynov performed by Sergei Stolyarov is one of the most important circus workers who falls in love with Marion and wants to help her with all his might. A bold, honest idealist is practically a symbol of young people of that time (like Pavel Korchagin is a symbol of the Komsomol). Sergey looked great in this role, so bravo! 3. Franz von Kneischitz performed by Pavel Massalsky - Marion's patron and blackmailer. A representative of a typical bourgeois tribe who thinks exclusively about his own benefit and humiliates Marion in every possible way. He falls into the USSR and does not understand that this is not the States. Here is a different culture, and different norms of morality. Pavel did an excellent job with this role. Bravo! And although the picture did not make a very strong impression on me, I simply had no right not to mention its artistic and historical features! This is a good picture, not nonsense (like "Favorite" (wow, when I remember this arthouse, hidden under the cover of a "historical drama" I want to wash myself so much)). As a result, we have a good musical comedy, with a good script, historical surroundings, great music and songs, as well as great acting. My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

If you are going to make a movie endorsing the actions of one of history's greatest villains, in this case Stalin, at least make it fun to watch! "Tsirk" is a funny, melodramatic, accessible movie that features several entertaining acts, such as the impromptu Lion Tamer, the dance on the cannon, and the communal ending. It is heartwarming to see an entire country represented as they sing a child to sleep, until you realize that the Yiddish Representatives were executed after the production. The running theme of confusion, over translation and ideologies, provided the movie with several humorous moments of error, and provided the movie with an honest subtext.

Also, worth pointing out, is the movie's fearless attitude towards racism. Hollywood would hint at the problem, but rarely delve into it as much as "Tsirk" has.

Grigori Aleksandrov's film Circus is an entertaining piece of Stalinist/Socialist propaganda that differs greatly from Eisenstein's historical, earlier film October. October mainly serves the purpose of commemorating and remembering the Bolshevik Revolution and to help reinstate the strength and effectiveness of socialism to the people. Eisenstein's documentary style not only celebrates the revolution, but also aims to help the public better understand the historical process of the political revolution. On the contrary, Circus is a film that touts the greatness of life under Stalin and the superiority of the Soviet state. It contains all the elements of a Socialist Realism film. Through a pro-socialist narrative, Aleksandrov manages to cover many aspects of the Soviet state and current life of the people.

Circus tells the story of an American named Marion who is banished from the US because a black man impregnates her. Marion escapes to Russia to start a new life in the circus and joins up with lustful, anti-Russian ringmaster who happens to be in love with her. The ringmaster knows her secret about the black baby and threatens to reveal it unless she marries him. The problem is that Marion has fallen in love with a Russian acrobat and later out of sheer jealousy, the ringmaster reveals the identity of the woman's child in front of the circus audience. Rather than ostracize the woman, the Soviet audience embraces the child and sings him to sleep. Next we see Marion and the acrobat as a couple leading a huge parade through Red Square singing about the freedoms that Soviet Russia provides. Circus displays the elements of ethnic equality, new and productive construction, and the glory of life under Stalin many times in the film. Ethnic equality is evidently portrayed during the acceptance of the black baby and his talented, but flawed American mother Marion. At the beginning of the film, Marion retreats to Russian as some sort of free land of acceptance, far more tolerable than her native America. The message is clear that socialism is a society of acceptance and capitalism (or the United States in this case) cannot tolerate diversity.

When the non-Russian reveals the black baby, Marion finds great comfort in the fact that she is welcome among Soviets. The crowd proves this emotion when they embrace and protect the child from the ringleader while singing him a lullaby in several different languages. The lyrics of the song include lines that say the baby has a bright future awaiting him in Russia. Also, Marion's acrobatic lover says to her, "I always considered you to be a socialist." The message is that good people are all socialists. Concerning new construction and soviet productivity, there is a scene towards the end that shows the brand new underground subway system. It is obvious that the system is new and it is a symbol of the work and rewards of socialism. We see many people using the transportation system and a shot of the mammoth escalator leading to the subway points out the difficulty in building the system.

Perhaps the most absurd and blatant form of propaganda comes and the end during the massive parade that is lead by Marion and her acrobatic lover. They are marching with a giant banner of Stalin and Marion is asked, "Do you understand? (the socialist system)" and she replies, "Now I do." I think it is amusing that it takes a huge march through Red Square singing about freedoms to the backdrop of their leader and claiming to be the "most democratic of democratic constitutions" to understand the Soviet system. Perhaps this was put in the film so the viewers would walk out of the film thinking they too "understand" the system.

We rented this movie for my Russian grandmother; she's seen it, she says, 17 times. Scary. This is a saccharine romance in which an American actress, impregnated by a black man, escapes to Russia and starts a new life. She loves one man; the heavy, however, threatens that if she doesn't marry him, he will reveal her secret. This continues for a long time until the end, when he does so; indignantly, the masses at the circus rise and say that it doesn't matter what color the baby is, this is tolerant Russia! Then, for no reason whatsoever, the actress and her new lover are marching at the head of a huge parade singing about the freedom that Soviet Russia provides.

This is one of those knock-off comedies that Aleksandrov made after returning from Hollywood. It even features a Chaplin impersonator. It's not that great, and anyone who masochistically feels they simply must learn about Soviet film in the 1930s would be advised to stick to Eisenstein and The Three Songs Of Lenin.

It`s funny to see Americans so picky about this movie, when Russians at than time and still are portrayed much worse in Hollywood productions. It`s either gangsters or drunk "comrades". Also I have to add that the famous singer Paul Robson was living some time in Soviet Russia and sent his son to Soviet high school. In later interview the son told BBC that it was the only time when he didn`t felt subhuman in his entire life. There`s the racism for you ! As for the Stalin - people didn`t know anything at that time and were just rebuilding the country that was finally theirs, so the jubilant scenes are absolutely rightful,they were supposed to gratify people for their immensely hard work and show what they have already achieved. Plus the march scenes are not a bit more silly than for example "water games" shot in Hollywood and featuring just diving, swimming an endless liters of colored water and smoke. I have to mention the actress in lead role - Orlova. She was a prime dancer of the Soviet cinema. Film features one shot that shows just how great her talent as an actress was. When she dances on the cannon, it`s closed with a thick glass and lit up from inside. The glass during the dance heated up, and when she sits down she actually sits on something like an oven ring. But she continues to sing !! You can only note the slight trepidation in her voice if you know about the accident, otherwise it`s seamless !

Overall, this movie has to be taken along with the context and ability to be fair both ways. After all, Stalins face was used by filmmakers as a means to get their films through,so you can just peel that away as an ugly wrapping.