User reviews

As most of its (all too few) viewers know, »Volga Volga« was supposed to be the Soviet counterpart to Hollywood musical comedies of the time. It is also well-known it was Stalin's favourite movie... So what? Wagner was Hitler's favourite composer – does that make him a bad composer? Hitler also loved Greta Garbo, Charlie Chaplin, Marlene Dietrich... does that make them trash?

However, I *do* find it fascinating that Stalin loved this film. I find it even more fascinating that the film was released for the general public to see, and that its director wasn't sent to Siberia.

Yes, it has propaganda written all over it – in the same fashion as the contemporary »Yankee Doodle Dandy« has, to mention just one famous non-Soviet example. But what makes this film such a wonderful comedy is the intelligent – at times spine-chilling – humour of the dialogues. However, only viewers who are familiar with the Soviet political (and general) culture of the time will appreciate them – or even notice them. If one doesn't know that the young man is reciting a very famous poem by Lermontov when trying to impress the semi-illiterate political chieftain, it will be very difficult to appreciate the latter's bewildered expression and his reply: »Oh, begone with your self-critique, save it for the next political meeting« (I am quoting from memory, based on the original, not on the English translation, which I am not familiar with). Indeed, one has to know what »self-critique« meant... If you do, you'll find it a cracking-funny dialogue. The same goes for many, many other scenes – like the one when the ship's cook introduces (and re-introduces) himself to the ignorant political chief, starting merrily as a »chef« and ending up as a »food-processing worker«. And then some scenes are sheer poetry: like the one when the entire village is chanting the contents of a telegram from the river bank, so that the eager recipient of the telegram – already embarked on a ship - will hear it..:)

The ideology behind it is clear: only the peasants – sorry, »land workers« - are healthy and wise. The only jerk in the film is the hilariously ignorant and self-important representative of the political »authorities«. This, I suppose (besides the wonderful humour and the cheerful music), is what made this film so popular with the »masses«. And this must be also the reason why the film was released. (In 1938, no less – when political »purging« was at its worst.)

There are however, certain scenes in the film that make me wonder how on earth it made it past the censors. (Due to Stalin's personal intervention, no doubt?) The oddest example comes towards the end of the film, when the political chieftain is asked by the port authorities whether he is the author of the (title) song »Volga Volga«. Panicking, he not only blames someone else (»Shulbert«, Franz Schubert to you and me) – regardless of the fact that »Shulbert« most definitely did NOT »do« it - but he starts screaming: »I confess nothing, I confess nothing!«, even though nobody had asked him to confess anything... Only those who know what »confession« implied can find his mindless reaction hilarious – and spine-chilling.

It is said that Stalin had a copy of this film delivered to the USA authorities. They were so baffled by it that they searched it for hidden messages. If this is true, it just goes to show how little they understood and knew about each other.

Or is there a hidden message...? :)

This 1938 musical comedy from the Soviet Union directed by Grigori Alexandrov has some fame as Stalin's favorite movie. He liked it so much he has it shown in his private screening room at the Kremlin to his Politburo colleagues scores of time. He repeatedly teased Khrushchev for his likeness to Byvalov, the humorless village bureaucrat played by Igor Ilinsky.

The movie opens with an amusing intro in which a catchy song mentions the main cast and the characters they play. Then it moves to a scene showing the two love interests of the film kissing in the mouth (the kiss is far more passionate than what most movies from the West would permit at the time). And then we go to the main story. In a country village along the Volga River, there is a friendly competition between a folk music band (led by the beautiful Lyubov Orlova) and a more conventional classical music outfit, which is led by her boyfriend, Alyosha (played by Andrei Tutyshkin). When in the village they heard there is a musical contest for country bands in Moscow, and despite the initial opposition of the bureaucrat, both bands take the river boat to reach the capital.

Naturally for a musical comedy, the finest thing in the film is the musical numbers. The best in my opinion comes around the middle when virtually all the village gets into playing different tunes to convince the bureaucrat that they have talent worthy of going to the contest in Moscow. The movie oozes nostalgia for the simple village life (in a time when the Soviet Union was rapidly urbanizing) and is also how the Soviet government has made life so much better than now villagers mostly has to worry not about surviving but about playing in music contests. Only towards the end the movie falls into the territory of heavy propaganda. The sympathy of Orlova helps (though sometimes she stretches it too far).

How often do film reviews of American and British films begin by mentioning such things as Winston Churchill being the 20th century's greatest mass murderer for having killing over 7 million Indians in the Indian Holocaust in Bengal; 1 million Kenyans during the Mau Mau Rebellion, and millions more in other holocausts? As to the US, it has killed more people since WW2 in wars for oil profits than the Nazis could ever have dreamed about in WW2. If you want to talk about torture (Guantanamo), gulags (prisons), and a police state where only the rich have freedom, because they can buy justice, the US should be number one on your list. Yet, while there is no mention of any of these atrocities when American and British films are reviewed. So why is it everyone has to suffer every time they read a review of a Soviet film; reciting ad nauseum supposed atrocities committed by the Soviet Union and Stalin by people who have never been there and have no idea what the reality maybe. Why can't a film review actual begin by criticizing the merits or lack of merits in a film instead? Is Volga Volga, Soviet film propaganda? Of course, but so is all film. Films cost millions to produce. You need financing. You need distribution. For example, ever wonder why you don't see poverty in American films? Quite simple, American films are self-censored by the Bankers/Financiers. American films are created to be both escapist fantasies for those in this country and to propagate to people abroad: Look capitalism is great-everyone owns their own home, drives a brand new car, and barely works. The American film industry is so successful, I have to fight with people abroad that according to the US Census Bureau figures ½ the US population lives at or near the poverty level. Why am I bringing this up? Because it would be nice if for a change a review of a Soviet film was actually concerned with criticizing the merits of a film rather than spewing rabidly anti-communist just for the sake of it. I hope this will be my contribution to this film review. Volga, Volga is an exciting Russian musical comedy in the vaudeville tradition of historical interest. Stalin had numerous private screenings at the Kremlin; often teasing Khrushchev of his likeness to Byvalov, the corrupt, boorish, village bureaucrat. He was so was so proud of this film, he presented it to Roosevelt as a gift. Some say it was his favorite film. Not as well-directed as many US musicals of the time, the film is at times a bit laborious to watch, especially in the beginning; and if you're Russian you won't catch some of the humor. However, these faults are easily overcome by its sheer energy, wit, and enthusiasm. The film is an escapist fantasy with a politically-charged message. Made at a time when Russia was becoming more urbanized and industrial, the film depicts the charms of rural life. The simple plot seems to revolve around an engaged young couple and a musical competition taking place in Moscow. They break up as each tries to compete for who gets to Moscow first to perform. There is singing, dancing, romance and of course a happy ending. What makes Volga, Volga a propaganda film? Is the fact, the people are shown to take actions on their own accounts. The main plot, easy to miss, revolves really around Byvalov and the rural community he is supposed to serve. From the beginning, we see a corrupt, self-serving official who only cares about "moving up". Forced to ride on a slow horse, because he refused to invest in any modern vehicles, he also refuses to allow the villagers to participate in the contest, feeling they are too backwarded to be talented. This forces the villagers to take matters into their own hands. As the villagers state at the end of the film: "We are glad you laughed! Opportunists like Byvalov are petty in their thoughts and actions. They obstruct our work: We must clean all the garbage. Sweep it away." Contrary to popular misconceptions in West, the facts are that Stalin was trying to institute elections after WW2. However, the Comitern (the Soviet parliament) refused to vote for such measures; members like Khrushchev, who by the way hated Stalin and is partially credited for the anti-Stalin lies told about him.

"Volga-Volga", directed by Alexandrov (Eisenstein's cameraman in "Ten Days" and other Soviet classics), is perhaps the best of a series by him that provides a Russian echo of Busby Berkeley's work in the US. Like Berkeley, Alexandrov has been attacked by some at present who see only the escapist side of this type of musical fantasy/comedy. But "Volga-Volga" also barbs "bureaucratic commissars" as did "Golddiggers of 1933" skewer "stuffy aristocrats".

Wonderful music and vaudeville-style entertainment, with Lyubov Orlova heading a talented cast, insured that "Volga-Volga" is perhaps the film most beloved by ordinary Russians ever made in the Soviet Union; it certainly was during the '30s and '40s. That Stalin presented a personal gift copy to Roosevelt during the war probably elicited the approbation "Stalin's Favorite Film". It was clear that he was proud of it, and we were allies. Today one would have to be a pretty unregenerate cold warrior or slavophobe to be offended by "Volga-Volga".

The plot: like with Berkeley, not so important. It involves a running competition (including a boat race down the Volga river) between a folk music band and a more formal village orchestra. There is singing, dancing, romance. And a happy ending.

Now you can judge for yourself. A crystal-clear VHS copy of this (and other Alexandrov '30s musicals) is distributed by Polart with easy-to-read yellow subtitles (I wish all foreign films were so graced).

The insane tempo of the film made me think that I had been sitting at least 3 enjoyable hours before my TV. I use "enjoyable" in its direct sense. As a musical comedy the film is superb and can put to shame any today's production of "Stariye pesni o glavnom" calibre.

The ideology, though present, is not showing off. What the film is really showing off is talents. The talents come in battalions.

The famous chase scene, when all the dancing, playing, and singing villagers are after Byvalov, is unforgettable. I also enjoyed the race of the ships presented in a panorama view. The number of catchy phrases is also to be mentioned (we hear them now and then in our reality - this is where they come from): "Allio, garazh!", "Kantseliarskaya krysa!", "Bez vodi...", etc.

The wise use of music, the numerous gags and stunts, the powerful characters with great voice talents, etc. make this film a gem of our black-and-white era.

There is fire in their eyes and there is atomic energy in their moves while their voices are piercing quicksilver bolts.

Today to shoot such an energetic film is simply impossible. People are too lost, too sick, and too weak. Too bad the Soviet times were also out of joint. The latter adds some bitter taste to the production, which has all the rights to be called the best comedy/musical of all time.

If I am in mood for rich national energetic heavy-duty entertainment with an artistic touch, this is a perfect example to inject into my DVD player and load onto myself. The beginning and the ending of the movie are both unique (and no portrait of Stalin and demonstrations - thanks a lot!).

Mrs Lyubov Orlova is again different and again excellent.

All in all it is definitely 10 out of 10: it entertains and makes it in a most artistic and favourable way. Thank you for attention.

One can well understand why this nonsensical film was alleged to have been Stalin's favourite. The working-class people in it are depicted as simple-minded yokels; up from the country and gob-smacked at the wondrous technology and luxury of the Big City. (The scene where, like naughty school children they explore a cabin on a luxury liner, complete with white telephone, beggars belief, and I'm surprised that Soviet people didn't pelt the screen whenever it was shown, but no doubt that would have landed them in a gulag). Based around a song writing competition held in Moscow, we see a group of factory workers on leave in order to take part. One of their number has composed a song and hopes to enter it. After various capers around the city, a gust of wind carries off his precious song, and so, dejected and forlorn, our gang turn up to watch the contest, crest-fallen that they are no longer participants. But hey, what's this? The winning song is announced, but nobody knows who wrote it because it was found in the street, and... yes, you can guess the rest. As if this stomach-churning kitsch were not enough, (although it was nice to see them win after traipsing around Moscow all day like slavish imbeciles going ga-ga at every new innovation they stumble across, although none of them thought to ask why they haven't got all these luxurious life enhancements in their neck of the woods), there is a tagged on reprise to what you think is the film's finale when the ensemble cast all come back on screen again in a chorus line, and remind us that it's great to have a laugh and a joke, but tomorrow we will all have to be back at our jobs, toiling away to help build the New Jerusalem!! The sheer condescension of this movie's whole premise makes a mockery of working people, and shows perhaps more than many others, (albeit on a subconscious level), how well and truly betrayed the revolution was, and how well and truly shafted Soviet working-class people were to think that they were going to be allowed to inherit their own earth. How strange that this rubbish should have emanated from a country that allegedly put the interests of working people first, and a powerful film that did do just that, 'Salt of the Earth', should have emanated from the bastion of Capitalism. Makes you think.

A musical comedy. The famous work of the famous director Grigory Alexandrov and the actress Lyubov Orlova, beloved by millions at that time, as well as Comrade Stalin's favorite film, which he often reviewed. And how could you pass by such a thing? So the author of this review could not do this, and looked at the picture with great pleasure. And the final result rather pleased him. And here is a brief opinion - A good Soviet musical comedy of the late thirties. There were almost only advantages in it (with the exception of editing, but the author of this review will tell you about this in a separate paragraph), but for now you should finish the introduction and move on to the interesting.

So, here are the pros: 1. The scenario - the picture tells the story of two amateur musical groups that go to Moscow to participate in the Olympics, and the leaders of these groups: Avdotya Petrova, nicknamed "Strelka" and Alexey Trubyshkin are lovers, which gives everything that is happening a whisper of piquancy. At the same time, the local bureaucrat Byvalov takes part in all this activity, who wants to "push himself" at the expense of talented people. The old pilot fits well into this company. There are many different situations waiting for them on the way, and in the final there will be a grand triumph. In addition, the creators even destroy the "fourth wall", which looks pretty good. In addition to the fact that the script here is easy, it also charges every viewer who looks at the picture with a great mood. It's worth a lot.

2. Humor - there are frankly funny moments, and a lot of funny situations, and outright antics of some actors (in most cases it works correctly). Of course, wild laughter is not worth hoping for, although there is one point that strongly leads to this. The humor here is more mundane, and that's what catches on.

3. Songs and music - this picture can now be called a musical with full rights, since they sing and dance quite often here - and it turned out just great. The precision of the movements, and this despite the fact that some of the artists were already far from young. And the songs are pleasing to the eye and ear. Although there is not a single one that sticks in the memory (except classical music, which everyone knows). Although their text was written by Vasily Lebedev-Kumach.

4. The life of the USSR in the thirties - we will be shown the Volga-Don Canal, which was one of the great buildings of communism, musical competitions, and not only. They will show us how life itself is changing, how the achievements of the Soviet government made the dreams of ordinary people a reality. And although the scenario line with Byvalov is reduced to humor, it reflects reality (which is still relevant).

Now it should be said about an important point that somewhat spoils the overall impression, namely the crooked installation, and the author of this review watched the color version of the painting, which was castrated in the fifties of the last century, and the original of 1938 has not been preserved (thank you tell the Cornhusker for this), so we cannot enjoy the original version. And it's lucky that they didn't paint the fully castrated version, because there is a black-and-white version from 1961, from where all mentions of Stalin, his images and busts were cut out. The installation was done very poorly and the glues are visible (this is written by a person who has been engaged in installation for a long time).

Separately, the author of this review wants to thank the artists Igor Ilyisky (bureaucrat Byvalov), Lyubov Orlova, Andrei Tutyshkin, Vladimir Volodin (old pilot), and all the others for the talented performance of their roles in this musical comedy. Now their acting will seem too "pompous" to many, but they tried anyway, and it's not for nothing that the picture has gained well-deserved popularity, and it's not for nothing that it has gained cult status in the country. You need to know the classics!

A score of 8 out of 10 and a recommendation to watch!

When Stalin ordered Alexandrov to make this movie, he said he only wanted to see the happy images of the simple rural people along the river Volga. One could say, Stalin wanted something that would prove to him his people are happy (even if he ordered others to lie to him to make the appearance of happiness). There's no real story or plot, there's just a number of folk dances and rituals thrown together in order to entertain. It's kitch that served only one purpose - to make a dictator happy. I wouldn't even classify this movie as a comedy, it's simply a musical, or better yet a recorded account of folk dancing and singing with some attempts to moderate the time in between the musical sequences. Thus you should not even look for the depth of the characters or the story. Were it made that way Alexandrov might have even been shot! This film could not afford to be critical. IT was made in an era of Soviet history when one could not express one's self as an artist, but had to do what the propaganda machine demanded of him.

Even those of us with some sort of education in the field of cinema rarely get to see other Soviet films than those of Eisenstein, Tarkovskij and maybe Pudovkin. It´s easy for every western film fan to become as prejudiced as the bureaucrat Byvalov in Volga-Volga: "Talent? in this dump?" My point being, of course, that it would be unfair to world cinema as well as to oneself if one were to deny oneself the pleasures of at least once in a while seeing a Feuillade serial, a German mountain film or a Soviet musical. Volga-Volga is an excellent choice for the curious cinephile. As everyone points out, it has the distinction of reportedly being Stalin´s favourite film, it has stars in it is well as great music, I could go on and on. The main reason for seeing Volga-Volga is of course that it´s great fun. It had me in stitches more than once.

A comment on polart´s vhs edition of Volga-Volga: Granted, the subtitles are yellow and eminently readable, but they are also quite often badly timed and frequently seem insufficient. Also, the framing seems to be slightly off, something i´m hesitant in blaming comrades Alexandrov and Petrov for.

Selfish uncommitted bureaucrat Ivan Ivanovich Byvalov (who looks like Mario Bros!) is the most interesting element in this very light-hearted slaptstick musical comedy by Grigori Aleksandrov, who also directed 11 years before October: Ten Days that Shocked the World. Volga-Volga has some curious background stories, such as the title coming from a jokingly suggestion by Charlie Chaplin when he and Aleksandrov were rowing together in the United States and the British filmmaker heard those words in the lyrics of a folk song sang by the Soviet. Another very curious story is that Volga-Volga is claimed to be the favorite movie by Joseph Stalin, what is particularly surprising, as there are many funny gags about things that did not work in URSS! The raft soon got bogged down, all local boats were broken and still being repaired, the mare for transportation lacked horshoes, the balalaikas crafted in the factory had the worst sound quality ever heard, and the telephone calls were absolutely unintelligible (additionally, the trip over the river eventually happens in a steamboat which is said that was gifted 30 years before by the United States, and all its only problem were originated by bad maintanance!). Besides all that, Byvalov was the archetypical ambitious bureaucrat who had no concern about the quality of the works he supervised, and his only interest was to reach the most important office, and closest to Moscow, possible. It is mentioned in the beginning of the film that Byvalov moved to another institution to work, getting closer and closer to Moscow, 20 times just in the last five years! He was only two weeks managing the balalaika craft factory but was already waiting for a call to a new job! Did Stalin identify himself with the character or was his vanity what made him like that his name was given to the steamboat of the trip from the Great Volga habour to Moscow?! As a matter of fact, the silly song in the very last minute of the movie says bureaucrats like Byvalov were rare an represented "the old years", in a laughable attempt to score some brownie points from the regime... Besides Byvalov's background and the mockery on production dysfunctionalities, another interesting element in the beginning of the movie is the brief change from romantic idealization to fierce anger between the couple who had opposite views on music: the man loved classic music and rhe woman liked folk one. That romantic comedy element endures throughout the film, until the predictable happy end. Before the steamboat trip, there is an eight-minute collective artistic presentation of the whole village to a frightened Byvalov that is awesome, very amusing and well done, perhaps onde of the nicest moments of the film, second only to the initial appearance of characters Byvalov and his sycophant assistant Zoya Ivanovna. Eventually, the story continues with a troublesome trip, musical team duels, a lot of rough-and-tumble, and misunderstandings. Overall, the film has ups and downs, some tepid moments and silly overacting, but also quite funny cartoonish musical slapstick and smart gags on Soviet life and society. While not a masterpiece from Soviet cinema, it is underrated and worth watching.

Allegedly, this was Joseph Stalin's favourite film, and it may be interesting to see for oneself what amused one of the sickest minds in history. Apart from that historical aspect, this film has no basis in reality, moreover, it never did. While millions of Russian citizens were being sent to concentration camps for no reason except suspicion of treason (whatever that meant), this film depicts life in the Imaginary Soviet Union, where people live happy and carefree lives. A good example of how Soviet propaganda worked itself out in the Russian cinema. Aesthetically, there are many good Russian -- even Soviet -- films. However,this one isn't one of them.