ÉVALUATION IMDb
7,2/10
6,6 k
MA NOTE
Dans la campagne paisible, Vassily s'oppose aux riches kulaks contre l'arrivée de l'agriculture collective.Dans la campagne paisible, Vassily s'oppose aux riches kulaks contre l'arrivée de l'agriculture collective.Dans la campagne paisible, Vassily s'oppose aux riches kulaks contre l'arrivée de l'agriculture collective.
- Prix
- 1 victoire et 1 nomination au total
Stepan Shkurat
- Opanas
- (as S. Shkurat)
Semyon Svashenko
- Vasyl - son of Opanas
- (as S. Svashenko)
Yuliya Solntseva
- Daughter of Opanas
- (as Yu. Solntseva)
Yelena Maksimova
- Natalya - Vasyl's fiancee
- (as Ye. Maksimova)
Nikolai Nademsky
- Ded Semyon
- (as N. Nademsky)
Ivan Franko
- Kulak Belokon
- (as I. Franko)
Pyotr Masokha
- Khoma - son of kulak Belokon
- (as P. Masokha)
Vladimir Mikhaylov
- Priest
- (as V. Mikhaylov)
Pavel Petrik
- Young Party-Cell Leader
- (as P. Petrik)
P. Umanets
- Chairman of the Village Soviet
- (as Umanets)
Luka Lyashenko
- Young Kulak
- (as L. Lyashenko)
Vasiliy Krasenko
- Old Peter
- (uncredited)
M. Matsyutsia
- Farm Girl
- (uncredited)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesSoviet censors made Aleksandr Dovzhenko eliminate a number of scenes from the film, including the scene of peasants urinating into a tractor radiator, and the scene of nude woman mourning over her dead fiance. The original uncut version was screened in Ukrainian republic when first released, and then in the Museum of Modern Art (New York City, USA) about 40 years later, on 10 October 1969.
- Autres versionsIn 1997, the film was re-released in Germany by ZDF, with a new score composed by Alexander Popov. This version was digitally improved (known as Arte Edition), then released on DVD and distributed by the absolut MEDIEN GmbH in 2006. The running time is 78 minutes. The crew participants:
- Alexander Popov, Composer;
- Frank Strobel, Conductor;
- Evgeniy Nikulskiy, Sound engineer;
- Nina Goslar, Commissioning editor.
- ConnexionsEdited into Le tombeau d'Alexandre (1993)
Commentaire en vedette
In Ukraine the landowners hold out against progress and the rights of communally worked farms of the people. When one such farm gets a tractor to further help them one of the richer farmers murders one of the collective, hoping to stop the movement in its tracks. However the opposite is true and the collective rises up out of the oppression and the tragedy to overcome the selfish and cruel approach of the rich.
This is one of those films that I knew I had to see rather than one of those films that are less well regarded but are less demanding to watch. I am glad that I finally got round to it because it is technically and visually a very good film with some very striking images. This is different from it being a good film due to the narrative though because in this regard it is quite a mixed bag. The structure of the tale is not great and it doesn't flow together in a way that I found engaging but more of concern to the modern viewer is the sweeping unquestioning propaganda that the story essentially is. It would be nice to pretend that this does not detract from the film but it does and not because I happen to disagree with the point being made but just because it is the simplistic clumsy point making of propaganda and it does jar slightly.
Dovzhenko's visuals are where the film is strongest though and it is worth seeing for this because whether is the depiction of sorrow or the beauty of the open fields, he catches it really well. If only he had done more with the performances then things would have been helped, not to mention the clunky dialogue cards (although I have to assume that those are mostly down to poor translation). So as long as you are not expecting this to be a fun experience or a great story then it is indeed a classic film that you should watch as part of an education in cinema.
This is one of those films that I knew I had to see rather than one of those films that are less well regarded but are less demanding to watch. I am glad that I finally got round to it because it is technically and visually a very good film with some very striking images. This is different from it being a good film due to the narrative though because in this regard it is quite a mixed bag. The structure of the tale is not great and it doesn't flow together in a way that I found engaging but more of concern to the modern viewer is the sweeping unquestioning propaganda that the story essentially is. It would be nice to pretend that this does not detract from the film but it does and not because I happen to disagree with the point being made but just because it is the simplistic clumsy point making of propaganda and it does jar slightly.
Dovzhenko's visuals are where the film is strongest though and it is worth seeing for this because whether is the depiction of sorrow or the beauty of the open fields, he catches it really well. If only he had done more with the performances then things would have been helped, not to mention the clunky dialogue cards (although I have to assume that those are mostly down to poor translation). So as long as you are not expecting this to be a fun experience or a great story then it is indeed a classic film that you should watch as part of an education in cinema.
- bob the moo
- 21 juin 2008
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Earth?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure 15 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant