Why does everyone instantly call this propaganda?
-
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.
-
belarus2578 — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 01:55 PM)
Of course, the lobsters and small animal (don't know an English word for it) and some other features were added into fhe film for grotesque. But, on the other side, it's difficult to call this movie ''propaganda-movie''. I'm a Belarusian, so I saw plenty of Soviet propaganda movies and I could say thar this one is rather neutral. And, of course, the topic of the film is really close for any Belarusian's soul. Brilliant movie.
If You want to read about the war with no heroes, about the behaviour of a man in extremal circumstancies, You'd better read the nowels of Belarusian writer Vasil' Bykaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasil_Bykaw). He was writing the truth, that's why KGB was watching him to the end of his life. -
Lyndhen — 12 years ago(February 08, 2014 02:43 AM)
Of course, the lobsters and small animal (don't know an English word for it) and some other features were added into fhe film for grotesque.
The monkey, music and drunkenness weren't actually added for grotesque. It seems the German unit is based on Dirlewanger. I don't know about the lobster though.
I've seen many arguments why people might think it's propaganda - ie the Germans weren't that bad - if it did happen it didn't happen often - anti-partisan units don't reflect the rest of the Wehrmacht - The soviets did commit their own fair share of crimes.
However, - the anti-partisan units were clearly that bad - it happened to hundreds of villages and one capital city (40,000 civilians murdered by Dirlewanger and Kaminski). The rest of the Wehrmacht might not have been burning people in churches but the intent was there - ie Hunger plan, Leningrad, treatment of Russian POWs etc.
Sure, the Soviets committed crimes and crimes against your allies are arguably worse than crimes against enemies. But the film doesn't depict heroes of the Soviet army and the NKVD fighting for Stalin - just an ordinary peasant - fighting to kill Hitler.
So I agree - it's quite neutral. -
franzkabuki — 12 years ago(February 07, 2014 06:05 PM)
"But there needs to be some perspective".
So what do you suggest? A subplot showing the Red Army performing comparable atrocities? A didactic voiceover over the end credits informing us of such occurrances?
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
sukotsuto — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 09:00 AM)
At this point, nearly every piece of media created are simply different forms of propaganda. This is propaganda in such a way that it told a story that pretty much reflects the events of its time, but it's not a propaganda in a way that most other war movies spice up their movies with dramatization and glorification of combat. That's the one main reason why I would consider this above all other war movies.
-
Teremov — 12 years ago(March 31, 2014 07:51 AM)
Your explanation is stupid and have no relation to the film. Belarus wasn't part of Europe - it was part of the USSR occupied by Nazis during the WWII. It has nothing to do with "poor Poles" or whatever. The film is based on interviews and documented events. And the director himself was never part of war or any other kind of propaganda - you must've confused him with Steven Spielberg. If anything, Come & See is an anti-war propaganda.
It's really confusing to see so many kids today accusing Soviet films of "anti-German propaganda". It's like a new thought was put into people's minds. Careful with that. -
Teremov — 11 years ago(September 18, 2014 08:36 AM)
I was answering the guy who implied that communists invaded European countries (countries outside of the USSR), and thus this film should be seen as propaganda. As I said, Belarus used to be part of Russia for ages. It is a Russian piece of history. Around 21 millions of Russians and Belorussians died during WWII. Poles or other offended nations have nothing to do with this film, simple as that.
-
RoboKynotKy — 10 years ago(April 07, 2015 02:44 PM)
Propaganda my balls, nobody says anything positive about Stalin, and the comunist flag doesn't appears a single time.
Meanwhile American Sniper and it's ultra fake baby show the american flag f@+ing everywhere, and nobody considers it propaganda either (because it certainly is not). -
franzkabuki — 10 years ago(April 07, 2015 08:17 PM)
Not only is the red flag missing, but even the glorious Red Army fails to show up to perform heroics. And Russians hardly needed reminding that Nazis were a bunch of evil bastards. Far as propaganda goes, Idi I Smotri is exonerated of any guilt.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
femmefatale3000 — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 04:24 PM)
Anyone who says that is utterly clueless about the history and cast of this film.
It took Elem Klimov seven years to get approval to make this movie, and during that time he had a nervous breakdown and his wife died in a car crash.
As a child Klimov witnessed the evacuation and battle of Stalingrad, which is often regarded as the single largest and bloodiest battle in the history of warfare.
The village elder was played by an actual Belorussian survivor who hid on the same island they did in the movie as a teen. In fact many of the older extras in the movie were WW2 survivors from Belarus.
The actor who played the Nazi with the pet Loris was a member of the SS during the war as a teenager.
The screenwriter was a partisan in Belarus as a teenager, and based the screenplay off of the accounts of survivors. He wanted to wanted to make this movie " As evidence of war, and as a plea for peace."