Why does everyone instantly call this propaganda?
-
Teremov — 12 years ago(June 29, 2013 10:03 AM)
When the Germans reached western Russian villages, they thought they were here to save them from Stalin (who indeed, in terms of hard numbers, was responsible for the genocide of almost 150% of what Hitler is responsible for - of course, I'm not trying to sound cruel, but Stalin had a longer time period to commit his vile acts).
I'm sorry, but you are also a victim of propaganda. Stalin was a paranoid tyrant and a bastard. A human life meant nothing to him. Still the number of people he and his friends killed during and after Revolution was nowhere near 20+ millions (up to 27 mln) of Russians who died during WWII.
And Hitler planned to colonise the whole Europe, not just Russia. He didn't think of himself as "a savior". He was a crazy Nazi who built a whole new ideology based on hatred and ethnic cleansing. In comparison, communism propagandised "international unity and friendship" (Stalin himself was Georgian, not Russian).
As for Come and See, it is certainly not a propaganda. Like you said, Elem Klimov never cared for that. He was highly anti-Soviet and managed to direct only few films, as all of them went through a serious censorship. He started with a satire comedy No Holiday for Inochkin that made fun of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and his ideology. The film was immediately banned, but later saved by Khrushchev himself, who found it hilarious.
Klimov's second comedy, Pokhozhdeniya zubnogo vracha, turned to be another parody on USSR and was eventually banned this time. After that Klimov stopped directing comedies. Two of his later films were dedicated to his wife's tragic death. Agony was 20 years in production; almost nothing was left from the original (very experimental) script.
Come and See was based mostly on documented facts and interviews with survivors. There was indeed a genocide of Belorussians when Nazis occupied it, and it was as nasty as Holocaust. I don't know why people have trouble understanding it. 9200 villages were burned down, 3+ mln of Belorussians were killed - and that's about 1/3 of all country's population. -
snook_ocreed — 12 years ago(July 03, 2013 12:13 PM)
How would Stalin's victim numbers look compared to Hitler's if one counts the droughts, famines, Holodomor, et cetera?
Maybe my parenthetical addition was inaccurate, but for right now I stand by the villager part. -
Teremov — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 08:10 AM)
I admit you have a point there. Lokot Autonomy happened after all, and they were enthusiastic to throw Stalin off their backs. It was also typical for national republics, especially for North Caucasus that always hated Russians and betrayed them without hesitation. Still Stalin's years were not like a non-stop Gulag, and people were fighting for their country anyway, not for a better regime.
-
snook_ocreed — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 10:34 AM)
Still Stalin's years were not like a non-stop Gulag, and people were fighting for their country anyway, not for a better regime.
Certainly. I do still think that there was a surge in 'national' pride, but I don't necessarily mean pride in the regime. -
snook_ocreed — 12 years ago(November 10, 2013 04:19 PM)
Is the protagonist of this film responsible for what those Bolshevists did? Is every Russian responsible? Are Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Pushkin, Gogol, Turgenev, and Chekhov also responsible? Sure, they for the most part predated Bolshevism, but they're also Russians, right? If we reduce the real people that came from the same place as Bolshevism at or after it, why not those who came before? Why not Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Rachmaninoff, or Rimsky-Korsakov?
So I must be a Commie swine, owning and cherishing literature and music from all those men. I didn't realize I had to dehumanize them all. Spirits of the HUAC, I must be a Benedict Arnold to you right now. -
bureau203 — 12 years ago(October 20, 2013 01:38 AM)
Well, it is propaganda, isn't it? Every film made in the Soviet Union was heavily censored, so on that level alone the film has no "truth value." The Soviets only allowed what they wanted filmmakers to say. All Soviet films are on some level propaganda, as the Soviet film industry was state-run.
"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke." -
snook_ocreed — 12 years ago(February 05, 2014 02:03 PM)
Well, on the point of WWII atrocities, does it automatically not have truth value if the censors let it pass?
This is reminding me of the Catholic subtext in Shakespeare's work. Not saying Klimov is Shakespeare, or that he was trying to get anything past the censors, but it's a little reckless to dismiss his work immediately by fact of its approval.
Also, I don't think Tarkovsky fits into that 'Soviets only allowed' bit. They didn't like him, and they worked the shaft on him many times, but the films did get made. Same goes for Paradjanov. -
yaroslavrudenko — 12 years ago(November 06, 2013 09:51 AM)
This film definitely is far from being Soviet propaganda. I watched many propaganda films and they are differ.
If this film was propaganda:
In Soviet Propaganda, Partisans never let Waffen SS Einsatzgruppe burns something, especially women and children. Partisan are always positive characters and never kill POWs. Partisans always care about local peasants.
Also in propaganda films, if SS troops were succeeded in attempts to burn somebody there were always heroes who in seconds before tragedy could bring miraculous escape for all.
So, this film's scripts were censored in Soviet Union by known critics, rejected and closed. This film was(is) really far from Soviet ideology and moral. In Soviet Union was something like taboo, to confess real loses in WW2, especially civil. In many cases partisans provoked executions of civil population Also many censors and critics were not agreed with "the partisan movement in film, and why partisans let burn the village..".
If you read about film's history, Klimov had to fight for this film with Soviet bureaucracy system. He had got a nervous breakdown. But even in this situation he kept trying to save the film, he continued to pester superiors. And he won. Seven years later, the same Klimov was succeeded to make this film without censorship clippings. -
brunofortunati — 12 years ago(November 07, 2013 06:37 AM)
I just so this film and i really liked it, its beauty is in the emotions it conveys.
I wanted to check the boards to see what people thought about it and the first post i see is yours, it hits the nail right on the head with what i felt during the film.
by bureau203
Well, it is propaganda, isn't it? Every film made in the Soviet Union was heavily censored, so on that level alone the film has no "truth value." The Soviets only allowed what they wanted filmmakers to say. All Soviet films are on some level propaganda, as the Soviet film industry was state-run.
I feel the same way as this guy except with the: the film has no truth value line, were he clearly goes too far. Truth is too much of a complicated concept to disregard the point of view of any source solely on account of it being censored or for that matter to intrinsically value as true or more truthful uncensored material. Truth, much too complex an issue.
I was expecting to see a soviet film showing their take on WW2 or simply their take on war as opposed to the western movies im so used to. Frankly i dont see no east-west distinction at this point, and i feel the truth this movies creators where concerned with is the truth the leading character discovers, which is, even thought war sounds cool when ure an inexperienced kid, it ultimately sucks big time! i feel we can all agree with that take in whats true.
I dont know what russians in 1985 felt when they so it but even if the soviet government was as bellicose as we know, they didnt censor this out of being one of the most intense anti war movies ive seen. Maybe thats my read and it was supposed to be principally anti nazi and exalt nationalism which i can see it doing too.
On the point of it being propaganda, im with bureau203, as far as we know the guy who had the job of reviewing this before it was allowed certainly thought it was. And i must say it started to feel like propaganda towards the end. The germans being portrayed as 100% evil certainly felt propagandist. 200 guys outside the building having a good time with the killing, not in a rush, there where going to use fire to save on bullets or avoid looking in the eye of the victims i was guessing, then they overkill with grenades and 1k+ rounds of bullets, while the officers where enjoying the show. None of the germans looked away or seemed to have any humanity left in them. A little too much maybe? well 600+ villages? this could not be the first one they torched, and the scene makes quite an impression like it is.
One thing that felt like propaganda was the restrain of the villagers when they had the germans under the bridge. One could expect them to rush into killing frenzy to finish them in wrath and vengeance, but no, they hold back even if one yells they took their kids lifes in the fire. Finally they exert unanimous mercy when they dont use the fuel to burn them and they all fire their guns. (I just rewatched Kurosawas Seven Samurai last night and man did he have a different take on villagers altogether
anyone who has seen it remembers how the samurai try to restrain them from killing subdued enemies but the angst for vengeance amongst them proves too much. I highly recomend Kurosawa for anyone interested in the topic of truth, war, or human conflict all around.)
Anywas, is it bad if this is propaganda? I guess its bad if people disregard its value for feeling it is, but its not my case. Movie makers are capable of delivering great truths and exaggerations no matter the level of censorship, or which side or set of ideas they might want to or have to defend. We dont say Saving Private Ryan is a propaganda movie and discredit it for that, maybe we dont see it as such because it wasnt censored or at least not in the same way we understand soviet era movies to be, but it clearly is a pro war movie.
Just to clear up this last point, Saving Private Ryan worked wonders for the US military when recruitment season started, how do you think this movie did on getting young men fired up to join the army in 85? Propaganda or not, which one carries greater truths? I dont know myself, but this doesnt make me appreciate either one of them any less. -
-
nickolay-ilyin — 12 years ago(December 27, 2013 03:29 AM)
Let me cite a couple of reviews here:
1).
Besides being a failure as a film it is also a piece of Soviet propaganda. Indeed, it shows WW2 as "the nice Soviets versus the evil Germans", however, that is ludicrous. They depict the German soldiers as Nazi devils without any hint of humanity and driven by the sole purpose of exterminating the Soviet population. However, the truth is that German soldiers were people just like the Soviet civilians and while there were a few psychopaths in the SS, the vast majority were normal people.
This movie is not implicit propaganda, it is explicit propaganda of the Soviet regime.
The good WW2 films are always German or Japanese. Since losing the war make them more humble and they don't tend to depict their enemies as inhuman monsters.
2).
The director, Klimov, born in 1933, seems to never have seen a movie.
The third review (I haven't found it to cite exactly) even managed to advise Klimov to learn from Spielberg. Many people advice other Hollywood movies instead of "Idi I smotri". I'm not a Hollywood fan and "Schindler's list" is the only Hollywood movie about WWII I have seen but believe me Soviet film directors didn't have to learn from Hollywood how to do WWII movies. Rare Soviet movie of say, 1960s doesn't mention the war just because it's hard to imagine how it was possible that it didn't influence the movie heroes in the past. The number of specifically WWII movies was huge and there were different manners to show "Soviets versus the Germans". So many of them are real propaganda but this one? This movie is the most strange of Soviet WWII movies so even I being Russian often didn't understand what's going on and it's the first movie I even don't try to estimate here on IMDB. Still I think it's up to Klimov to choose his manner. Russian Wikipeadia's article about this movie describes Khatyn' - Byelorussian village that was reduced to ashes by SS and cites Klimov:
I thought then: Khatyn' is not known to the world. Katyn and the Polish officers' execution are known. But Byelorussia is not. Even while more than 600 villages were reduced to ashes! So I decided to create a movie about the tragedy.
The first cite above says that "it is explicit propaganda of the Soviet regime". How could it be that if there is no regime at all in this movie? There is no Red Army at all. There is only one partisan troop whose commander Kosach is described by the partisan in the Vermacht uniform in the beginning of the movie as the person who killed his own sleeping sentinel not even awakening him. Or Flyora is "Soviet regime" because he didn't make the last shot to baby Hitler?
"However, the truth is that German soldiers were people just like the Soviet civilians and while there were a few psychopaths in the SS, the vast majority were normal people." Some person clearly describes in a neighbour thread that there is certain difference between Vermacht soldiers and SS Sonderkommando. They reduced to ashes more than 600 villages only in Byelorussia and left photos of their behavior just as described in this movie. Look at the "Obyknovenniy fashizm" documentary movie and you'll see photos taken from SS soldiers or Gestapo that they stored near photos of their family members in the same manner as the one on "Idi I smotri" poster. Look at German parade chronicles e.g. in "Obyknovenniy fashizm" and you'll see not 200 "Nazi devils without any hint of humanity" but hundreds of thousands if not millions. They started thinking only when they become losing but still not all of them. "Obyknovenniy fashizm" director Romm describes that he saw a Shmidt Album. This SS member created an album where he accurately put personal and family photos and photos from executions he participated in. A polish director created a documentary movie based on this album after the war. Shmidt saw the movie and sent a letter from Western Germany to Warsaw: "I don't blame you for using my album but you probably don't need it anymore while it's dear to me, could you please send it back to me?" Is he also a normal person?
Many people say big parts of the movie are boring and they were just sleeping. Reviewer entej from Russian Federation!!! says he doesn't like Russian movies, estimates the movie as 3 starts out of 10 and asks several questions. The seventh question is why more people didn't leave the barn before it was fired. Wikipedia says that the most valuable source for the movie was a documentary book "Ya iz ogennoy derevni" (I am from a burned village) where several Byelorussian writers including Adamovich who was the script co-writer collected memories of witnesses. Its content made indelible impression on Klimov and he noted:
I will never forget the face and the eyes of one villager, his quiet-quiet story about the moment when whole his village population was put to the church and the Sonderkommando officer said "Who is without children - get out". He couldn't stand it and quitted leaving his wife and small children insid -
Jimmycakes — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 05:10 PM)
Yeah the film is propaganda in the sense that the basic premise is evil national socialists annihilate communist village while listening to music and eating lobster. The way that it was done was for effect, not historical accuracy, it wasn't trying to tell us how the individuals on both sides behaved based on verifiable evidence. It gives us this shock and awe scene then at the end of the film tells us how many villages were attacked, trying to link the historical aspect to what we just witnessed, by that point the viewer is already taken back by the horrific church scene and will be outraged at national socialists. It's a great film to watch and no one is disputing deaths in villages, but there needs to be some perspective, the communists plundered their way through eastern Europe while pushing the national socialists back into Germany, killing anyone they thought collaborated and raping. The poor Poles thought they were going to be liberated by the communists. Their plight only just started.