Reviews

This is a pretty good Soviet comedy co-produced by Soviets and some Italians (I don't remember exactly the name of the studio). Italians are portrayed as very active and jolly people, although more interested in pursuing material goals such as finding a hidden treasure in the advent of the Russian Revolution. They don't care about Communist ideals. The Russian character is the only positive character in the movie, a kind of Soviet James Bond. He finally conquers the main female character. Otherwise Soviet women are mostly absent from the movie. Clear signs of propaganda are two: 1) Italian hospitals are presented as being overcrowded so that at some point two patients (a man and a woman) have to share the same bed, 2) there is a lot of chaos in Italy and the Mafia stereotype is reinforced by a short Mafiosi.

Otherwise there aren't any references to the Soviet Communist party as far as I recall. Lots of special effects and stunts, so I suppose the Soviets spent a lot of money on the movie.

This is a good comedy about collective farm workers and a recently returned tank driver from the Far East. It is difficult to understand it if one does not speak Russian and Ukrainian (yes, there is even an Ukrainian folk song in the movie). It so happens that I understand both. The "Zabady vas komar" line is epic. Explicit propaganda is quasi-absent. There are three things I found curious. First, at some point, the kolkhozniki find a German helmet and they comment that the Germans are preparing to attack the Soviet Union. It is curious, because the movie was released in 1939, so presumably the Soviets were expecting the attack (this is also Curtio Malaparte suggests). Second, there is the idea that in case of war, the kolkhozniks can easily change the tractor for a tank. The idea o patriotism and the need to sacrifice for the fatherland is Third, the Georgian guy in the beginning does not appear later in the movie, although he seemed a funny character. I did not understand where exactly was the main character coming from. He says he is returning from the Far East, so it might be from Khalkhin Gol. Overall it is a very good bilingual movie.

Any documentary about Cuba shot in 1987 could have been used either by USA or USSR as a propaganda tool. Although at that time, USSR was on the path of liberalization already. US did not like the idea of having a Communist country in the backyard and trained many of the Cuban refugees, planning the overthrow of the Castro regime. As a consequence, Cuba was the site where the Third World War almost broke out in October 1962. The propaganda criticism is unfair given the fact that Castro and the directors of the prisons are questioned about the prisons, but they obviously deny everything trying to cover the Communist reality. So, I don't think propaganda is the point of the movie. People are escaping Castro's Cuba and that's a hard fact.

As someone who comes from a region which was for five decades under Communism (i.e. Eastern Europe), I see a lot of similarities between the post-revolutionary Cuba and the attempt to create the Homo Sovieticus. Once again I am convinced that Communists are afraid of ideas, despite their claim that ideas don't matter so much in history. The plight of the Soviet and East European dissidents in labor camps is strikingly similar to that of the current Cuban dissidents. The former were escaping to Western Europe, while the last - to USA. China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba are of the same kind. However, sooner or later, they will have to change, same as Gorbachev tried to reform the Soviet Union and failed. Although Castro's Cuba was probably closer to the sultanistic regimes of Eastern Europe, most notably Romania. I think once the Castro family loses its grip on power, the whole regime might collapse. Overall, I consider that this is an excellent movie about the prison system in Cuba, but I admit that I might be biased because of my Eastern European background.

This is one good Tadjik movie, and I recommend it for those interested in understanding how the Tadjik society was represented locally. In my view despite the fact that the central authorities in Moscow where working to change the traditional mores of Central Asian societies during the Communist period, the movie shows the local culture is unaffected by the ideology. Propaganda is almost absent. The main tension in the movie is between the father's attempt to follow the tradition by keeping the reputation of his daughter (Lola) unstained, and on the other hand the pressure from the local arts club director, who wants Lola to sing at the annual youth festival. In parallel, a love story develops between an electrician (elektromantyor)and Lola, but this is never presented directly. The situation turns bad when the father, Aka Mukhtar exercises his authority to prevent Lola from singing as in his view this would destroy her reputation and there will be none willing to marry her (even though it is not mentioned in the movie, this seems to worry the father:). In his view, singing should be done privately and only for her future husband. In short, the movie symbolizes the tension between the old (the father Aka Mukhtar and his concern for tradition) and the new (the new way of life of the Tadjik youth brought about by the Soviet power).

The climax is reached when Lola decides to participate at the youth festival challenging her father's authority and her father is looking for her. In my opinion, the key line here is uttered by Aka Mukhtar's sister. Being asked by Lola's father where is his daughter, she replies irritated: "She is there where all the Tadjik youth is. She is at the youth festival." Obviously, it suggests that Lola's father lives in the past and that he does not understand the new cultural forms. The ending is in fact a presentation of the festival and one can notice often in the background the Soviet symbols. But as mentioned above, there is not a lot of propaganda in the movie. The party, Moscow, Stalin, or Hrushchev are not mentioned at all.

The old order is delegitimized when the father, finally enters a theater and becomes part of an audience watching a play on the stage. His daughter, Lola plays the main part and at a certain point, an actor representing her father is threatening her (the play in the play trick). Aka Mukhtar, the real father not realizing that it is just a play jumps from his seat and defends his daughter against the actor on the stage. This is a funny moment, but reading between the lines, I suspect this was probably done to illustrate how backward some of the older people in Central Asia were in 1957. It also illustrated the failure of the Soviet power to change the local cultural norms by that time. Taking into account that in Central Asian societies older people are very respected, making fun of Lola's father is a covered attack on the old sources of authority; the rule of the elderly in those societies is derided. This is understandable, since most likely the older generation is the one that was least affected by the attempts to create the homo sovieticus. However, mocking the old man and ending the movie, would be considered offending, so the screenwriter gave the opportunity to the father to say the last word and bless the young people. Note that in the movie Lola never challenged the authority of his father directly. The propaganda part is more evident at the end where the youth is shown marching through the city and chanting all sorts of 'healthy' songs. The houses equipped with electricity should also suggest that electrification was a success, while the one defender of modernization is the electrician. Probably at that time it was prestigious profession associated with modernity.

I liked a lot the performances (especially that of the shoe-cleaner) and the costumes in the movie. The national costumes are everywhere and one sees rarely people wearing suits.

When I started watching the movie I was struck by the character playing Pushkin, because he acted rather contradictory. The movie depicts the situation at the Russian imperial court at the beginning of the XIX-th century, the place were Pushkin lived during his last years. The movie helped me understand better the life of the great Russian poet and his social standing. Finally I got an idea about why Pushkin decided to fight Dantes. Hoever, the movie has a slight bias favoring the idea that Pushkin and Lermontov cared a lot for Russia. It seems a constant bias of the Russian movie producers (see for example the movies about Taras Bulba or Knyaz Dologorukiy). Nevertheless, in the end I remained puzzled. Who was to blame for Pushkin's tragic fate: his wife, Georges Dantes, the poet himself or some kind of aristocratic conspiracy led by the Imperator? Even if the question remains unanswered, still I recommend this movie for all who want to understand the last moments of Pushkin's life.