Gypsies are Found Near Heaven is a russian film that was released in 1975. Telling the tale of russian gypsy, Zobor, who stole horses for a living and eventually fell in love. This story, while intriguing, also fits with some of the themes that surrounding movies during the 1970's.
Zobor
At the beginning of the movie, Zobor is talking to a wise, dying, old friend who tells him many things he should remember throughout his life. One thing he says is to, "Never fall in love with a woman, they will betray you." Zobor doesn't listen. While on the brink of the death from a bullet that was in his side, he was saved by a gorgeous gypsy women who met him in the woods. After healing him she disappeared. The women stayed in his mind until one day, he ran into a group of traveling gypsies, and she was there. Her name was Rada.
Zobor stayed with the group for a while before he went again stole more a horse, except this time it wasn't to sell. The white mare was for his love, Rada. He got a little caught up bringing it to her as he was turned over to authorities by his father, but after escaping the noose, he returned to Rada. Offering her the horse, she fell in love with him. However, like every good russian movie, a happy ending wasn't what was offered. While going to propose to Rada, he struggles to bow down to her, like she had asked. Overcome with frustration, he stabs her with his knife. Shocked, he catches her in his arms. Rada's father, who was very protective of his daughter, approached Zobor and stabbed him as well. The lovers died together.
Every good Russian movie needs a tragic ending.
The movie, with it's compelling story, shows some ideas that were very loud in 1970's cinema. The first of which was that Zobor ignored that law. He stole horses for a living, and sold them to other people. This was a crime punishable by death, and the law almost claimed him. However the 'hero' of the story got away right when he was supposed to hang. Zobor knew that stealing was a crime, however it didn't bother him. He had a special relationship with horses. It seemed that he was able to justify his actions by saving the horses from cruel owners. However, in reality, when push came to shove, he payed little attention to the kindness of the owners. This is similar to social anarchism, or the rejection of the rule of law. Many films of the 70's had this idea floating around in the storylines. Gypsies are Found Near Heaven also attempts to shock it's audience near the end of the film by adding a little bit of mild sensuality and nudity at the end. The reason for this is that for a long time, film makers were very restricted in what they were allowed to show. There was a big change in America as rules slipped and now, not only were people allowed to show the stomach in movies, they could show whatever they wanted. This way of shocking the audience by showing things that were previously not allowed was also just directors exploring and using this new 'tool' that they had for their movies.
The story of the Gypsies are Found Near Heaven is a fun, compelling plot, but the film also gives us a glimpse into what society as whole uplifted and thought about. While America often led the way in movie making, Russia was one of the countries that tagged along for the ride. A lot of what is found in American films from the 1970's can be found in Russian movies. Like my teacher said, "Just dialed back ten notches."
In the 1960's, Hollywood began blowing huge budgets on movies called Historical Epics. These movies took legends, or historically true stories and turned them into blockbuster films. The most famous American Epics are probably Cleopatra and Ben Hur. Other parts of the world also made cheaper Epics. Russia, hoping to stop Hollywood from stealing a russian story, made a film adaptation of War and Peace. Being very successful, four different films were made to chronicle the story. Likewise, The Elusive Avengers was a russian Historical Epic that became very famous.
The story follows four teenagers who assist the red army during the Russian Civil war. The teenagers are spurred to fight the white army after one's father is murdered by a cruel official from the white army. The story is an exciting one, and very entertaining. However, there many interesting aspects to this movie, the first of which being that in the 1960's, things were beginning to change as far as what was acceptable for media to show.
The Elusive Avengers was released in 1966. One thing I noticed that was touched upon was the idea of interracial couples. One of the four, a gypsy boy of about 17 or so, is shown as though he loves the young girl of the group, who is about 15. The girl is a white, russian. Although never said allowed, it is implied that he loves her very dearly, and the feelings are returned. This shows how much had changed over the past decade, that this was allowed to even be considered by the audience. However, aside from this, the movie tends to, in a way, put these children who murder and violently attack people, in a hero's light.
The Gypsy Boy
The issue with Historical Epics is that they usually tended to glorify violence and war. The heros of the Elusive Avengers were the children. The villain was an official from the white's army, who seemed to ruthlessly kill anyone who was not a member of his political party. At one point he whips one of the boys. At the end of the movie, the young man returns the favor. It is seen as a just act of revenge. The villain was getting what he deserved. But, in reality, it was a boy beating a man who had hurt him. It was not an act of justice. It was a violent act of revenge. As well as this, the boys in the group kill multiple people. But hey, it's all in the name of revenge on evil people, and they are helping those who are hurting, so it is totally fine. Right? Similar to Robin Hood, these avengers kill the rich, to help the poor. (In a way...)
The movie, with it's flaws, is an exciting epic that captivates it's audience. Progressive in that it implies interracial love, it's heros were still violent. Perhaps, in way, that is more like reality. In the real world, could the Elusive Avengers actually have succeeded without taking a few lives? None of those that they killed were entirely innocent, but was it right? Could it have been avoided? Questions like these are left open for a more scrutinizing audience to ponder. However, for those just looking a for a fun movie, I would highly recommend The Elusive Avengers.
"You see, it's... it's no good, Montag. We've all got to be alike. The only way to be happy is for everyone to be made equal," said the Captain to Motag. In Fahrenheit 451, a futuristic dystopia has banned books. According to the story, the reason for this was that books were the main cause of pain in people. I agree, it was heart wrenching when Dobby died, but I don't think that banning books removed all pain from this society, which was the goal. Rather, I think it increased it because one of the biggest causes of pain for people is Social Control. Comparing this movie to the Civil Rights Movement we can see how in a dystopia, and in a free nation, resistance to the social control is very similar.
Guy Montag (the main character) and his wife, Linda
The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's eventually led to equal rights for black and white people alike. However, the road to this equality was a long path. It all started when africans were ripped from their homes and brought to America as slaves. Slavery was banned in in 1865, but that didn't stop the the mistreatment of these people. From segregated schools, to making them sit in the back of the bus, to not serving them in restaurants, african-americans were horribly mistreated and abused by our society, and finally in the 1960's, led by Martin Luther King Jr, they started to make a very strong stand against the social control over them.
Social control and resistance have a unique balance. The more social control, the louder the resistance. 'Louder' could mean more obvious, taking a stronger stand, or being more violent. It is just making it's cause more known. Along with this, the louder the opposition is, the more it is going to seem on a completely different side than the social control.
When comparing the balance to the Civil Rights movement, it is really obvious to how the scale changes over time. In the 1960's, the abused african-american population were fed up, and ready for some real change. They didn't just want the laws changed, they wanted the thought of the population as a whole to be changed to one of love and unity. At the time, the social control was very strong. White people still looked down on black people, and treated them worse than dogs. Thus, the resistance was strong and loud. This is somewhat different and yet somewhat similar to the resistance in Fahrenheit 451.
The dystopian society in Fahrenheit 451 burns books. Everyone must be equal and painfree. Books cause pain and different views in people, making books bad. However, there is actually a surprising number of people in the society who disagree, and hide books in their house. However, because of the fire men, people who look for books and then start them on fire, their resistance is a silent one shown only in actions. One women, who had an entire library in her house, choose to burn with her books and refused to move. Actions like that was how the resistance was spurred forward. The social control was people who, when they thought someone was harboring books, turned in a picture of them to the firemen. This was a very strong 'informal' kind of social control because it kept the people in check using someone other than authorities. The thing that made it work so smoothly was that you didn't have to have proof to turn someone in. If you were mad at your neighbor, just put their picture in the box. This fear kept the people in check, created 'equality' and 'removed' pain.
A Silent Resistance, but this women got her point across
Comparing Fahrenheit 451 to the Civil Rights movement shows that the two resistances were noticeable similar, however had some stark differences. The most prominent of these differences was that the Civil Rights movement had the ability to gather and speak out, but in the dystopian society, that just wasn't an option. However, even though those fighting for Civil Rights could speak, that doesn't mean that they were always heard. But, eventually the point got across.
The Social Control on The Civil Rights Movement in the 60's
The informal Social Control on the Civil Rights movement was the attitude of white people as a whole. Whereas the more formal control was the police. These controls kept the african-american population in check for a long time, but not forever. Every place I can think have that has had unjust rules has only been able to keep the population in check just just so long. After a while, the people always seem to fight back and eventually win. But, sometimes the pendulum can swing to far to the other side. Maybe that is happening now when it comes to civil rights. Things like Hate Crimes seem unjust, but the law was established in 1969. I fear that in the case of Civil Rights, the pendulum has swung from one side to the other, and now we are suffering the consequences.
This is totally unrelated, but I have been listening to The Beatles since we started studying about the 60's, and I really like this song and thought I would share it with you in case you haven't heard it. :)))
I suppose you should know a little bit about me. First, I am white. I was born in 1952 and grew up in Chicago. I was part of a wonderful Christian Baptist family. I love my parents, and I loved my church, my school, and my community. During high school, african-american students started attending the same classes as me. It was...different. I wasn't sure what to think. I liked it, but I didn't really befriend anyone. Earlier this year I turned 16 and now I attend nursing school. It was at this school that I became aware of the civil rights movement, and really started listening to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It was then that I realized what my purpose was.
When I first enrolled in school, I was still young and innocent. I had yet to see the true horrors of our society. A culture that refuses to serve people coffee simply because their skin is darker. As a child in a Christian family, we told that God created everyone; that he loves everyone. But, as a young adult who truly believes this, you start to see the hypocrites living all around you. They talk of love, but their 'love' is shallow. Their love of humanity only extends to those that have similar appearance to them. How was a young girl supposed to react? I don't know how one should react, but I know how I reacted. I decided that I needed to become a voice for freedom and equality. Clinging to every word of Dr. King, I fully believe in them. Even though he is now dead, my heart still rings with the words he spoke. My purpose is to fight for freedom, liberty and rights for the black people around me, and that is what I will do.
They are men, they are humans and we should treat them as such.
However, one person will never be enough to make any change, and that is why I am writing. I am not the only one, but we need more voices, calling to congress, yelling to lawmakers, "We need freedom in this country, we need equality!" I do, however, think that apart from just changing only the laws, we need to change our cultures thoughts from that of, "Blacks are unequal to us and barely human, hardly worth our countries resources and investment," to that of love. Love and recognition that they are humans, and we, as a society, are cruel monsters towards them. When people kick around a dog, they told they are mean hearted and questioned as to why they would hurt an innocent creature. When someone beats up a black man, it is as though nothing even happened. What kind of people put dogs before man-kind, their own brothers? This is why I am writing, this is why I am screaming from the rooftops, "Freedom, Equality!"
Our society needs to change, and not just a little bit. It took months of dark-skinned men and women continually sitting at "the white counters" in cafes, and our small victory was that they were finally served their cup of coffee. Really? I cannot comprehend how our society has gotten to this horrific point. The point where we consider our county free, yet we refuse to serve black people coffee. How one stand it? I cannot. I will scream and shout, march and stand, cheer, and fight. I am white, and, as sorrowful as this is, some people are more inclined to listen to me. If we can have enough people, black and white, fighting for equal rights, we can change our society.
So, join me. Join me in this cause and let your voice be heard! Let the words of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ring in your ears. Let the stories of black peoples trials in our 'free' country set you heart on fire. Join me in marching, in screaming, in fighting, in making a change. Join me in the cause for civil rights.
After studying this week about the civil rights movement, I think it is something that, if I had grown really lived in the 1960's, I would've become really impassioned for. The biggest take away for me is that, in the 1960's, people got together and tried to change some things they felt were wrong in our county. Looking around at our society today, there are things I see that I think we could, and should, try to change. Maybe, if we looked back and saw how the people in the 1960's got their point across, we would maybe get somewhere.
I am a child of the 21st century. I once saw a teenager post that read, "I have lived in three decades, two centuries, and 2 millenium, and I haven't even graduated high school yet." It is true. But, as a young adult of the 21st century, I don't know much about the recent history of my own country. Most people know the stereotypes about the 80's, all disco and crazy fashion, and the 70's were groovy. However, the 60's isn't really that well known, it doesn't even have a stereotype. In fact, the 1960's were a turning point for the whole country, and greatly influenced in our culture, even now we still can see the effects of the 1960's in our culture. The best way to learn about this time period isn't through books, movies, or even the music, but rather through the eyes of people who grew up during that time.
I was able to interview two people from my life who lived during the 1960's: Doug Dahl and Pastor Emmanuel Malone. They were both teenagers during the decade, and both had unique experiences. Pastor Malone was a young african-american who dreamed of being an engineer. Doug Dahl was young in 1960, and eventually ended up fighting in the Vietnam War. While I talked to them, what they said was different, but the underlying idea was very similar; The 1960's were a time of change, both good and bad.
(A video of a famous Beatles song, Here Comes the Sun, along with pictures.)
Emanuel Malone is the pastor my church, All Nations Baptist, and was 15 in 1960. When I asked him what he remembered from that time of his life, what events that were going on, he first commented music changed. "There is a dramatic shift in terms of music...and that was very, very big. Because the music addressed kind of what teenagers were going through." Music changed in the 60's, with the Beatles and The Beach Boys. The style became known as Rock'n'Roll. He then continued, saying that, while the launch of Sputnik happened a little before the 60's (in 1957), the space race, really influenced his life. At the age of twelve, he decided he wanted to be an engineer, and that dream carried him for the next few years. He said that because of the that dream, he stayed back a little bit from the civil rights movement. He described to me that there were really two sides of the movement, the non-violent side which really was led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and the violent side, which involved groups like the Black Panthers. He mentioned that he lost two friends to the Civil Rights Movement. One died at a riot, the other, a friend from college, hijacked a plane to Cuba. "That really affected my thoughts on Radicalism," Pastor noted. Finally, he mentioned the drug culture as something that he really remembers from that time. "It was very, very evident and apparent."
Civil Rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is leading the group.
Doug Dahl is my grandpa, and was 11 in 1960. I asked him the same question as Pastor Malone; what experiences did he remember from the 1960's? He said that he first remembered three, "horrific" assassinations: John Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and Robert Kennedy. And second he remembered the Vietnam War. "The war touched everything—people who went and didn’t come back; people who went and came back physically or psychologically damaged; people who didn't go, but lost family members or friends; people who protested, went to jail, or left the country." The Vietnam War lasted for twenty years and really was the second of two wars in Vietnam. America started fighting in the war with the intent of preventing South Vietnam from becoming Communist. It was a bloody war resulting in the death of 58,220 Americans. My Grandpa actually fought in the Navy in this war.
Protesters against the War.
One of the other questions I asked both of Pastor Malone and Grandpa Dahl was, if they had to describe the 1960's to someone who knew nothing about it in a paragraph or so, what would they say? My Grandpa, in his response, told me that his son (my uncle) once asked him, if he could describe his generation in three words? "Self-absorbed morons," was his quick reply. I have included both of their full responses to this question at the end of the post.
The 1960's was a time of great change, both good and bad. Music changed, which spurred the sexual revolution. There was the civil-rights movement, three assassinations, and the Vietnam War. I wish I was able to do justice this dramatic time period, but in only one small essay, I found there just couldn't be enough room. :) I was blessed by getting to talk to these two people and even briefly learn about the decade that forever changed the direction of our nation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am putting copies of the answer of one question I asked: In paragraph or so how would you describe the 60's to someone with little context.
Doug Dahl:
Wow. Where to begin? The 1960s were a tumultuous time from many directions. The summary description a lot of people use is “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll.” That’s not far off. Besides the Viet Nam War, with all its implications, the country was undergoing a sexual revolution. That great liberator of womankind, the birth-control pill, hit the market. Marijuana and LSD became very popular, and a lot of my contemporaries followed Dr. Timothy Leary’s admonition: “Tunein, turn on, drop out.”
The college campus became the perfect venue for these social contortions to take root. College enrollment exploded, largely because college provided an escape from the military draft. People had money to spend and time on their hands. It was a time for casting off social restraints: religion, tradition, patriotism. Suddenly, life was all about my desires, my goals, my fulfillment, my “self-actualization.” The term “Me Generation” fits aptly. Several years ago, Caleb, breaking away from a conversation with some of his friends, challenged me: “Describe your generation in three words.” My immediate response: “Self-absorbed morons.” In truth, the self-absorbed morons were the minority. But they were a substantial minority, and they got all the press. They now control all of our cultural institutions, and the results aren't pretty. Pastor Emanuel Malone: (A follow-up email he sent to me.)
The 60's were more than a decade (1960 - 1969). It was a movement of radical cultural change that swipe the nation from 1955 - late 1970's. Key events 1955, Rosa Parks, her arrest launched the Civil Rights movement, 1957 Russian launch of Sputnik, launched national promotion of science and engineering, 1960 Democrat Convention riot, the Vietnam War, rock music and drug culture (Woodstock, 1969), riots in major US cities with the chant - "burn baby burn", and student protests on American college campuses that continued into the 70's. I remember all those events from the age of 10 (1955) and later.
Communist, a USSR film that came out in 1960, is about a communist man named Gubanov and how he worked to help Zagora, a small russian town. The movie takes place during the Russian Revolution and Lenin's rule. Lenin was trying to build power plants all over Russia. One of the most important of these was Zagora. Gubanov was key in helping Lenin's cause. He was portrayed as hero, who ending up sacrificing his life trying to help the starving people of Zagora. Communist is wonderful example of propaganda in Russian cinema because the way it heroically portrayed the main character who was to be a communist.
The movie has a very clear message for the audience about communism: communism is good. However, if you examine the storyline of the film closely, it is obvious that there is more to that there are trying to say then it's just being good. It involves sacrifice, guts, and a stick-to-it nature. The movie suggests, through the story, that being a communist is best because the main character gets the girl, and the praise and the glory for his sacrifices. (He also gets murdered, but he really accomplished so much, and he died a hero's death, so that doesn't really matter, right? It the sacrifice that counts.:) Communism's core belief was much more about the people as a whole, then the individual. Before Gubanov died he helped the people as a whole by getting them nails when there was a shortage, helping manage the construction of the power plant, and by finding and bringing a train full of grain to the starving village of Zagora. Besides that, he saved the women he loved from being beaten by her husband. He sure was a hero, wasn't he?
Gubanov, the hero of Zagora! The communist!
By casting a hero's light on the communist in the movie, it makes communism seem appealing. But the things is the this, it a political view. Only a political view. Being a communist doesn't make you a hero, just like being a democrat, republican or independent doesn't make you a evil. Having Communism as a political belief, and belonging to the Communist Party may sculpt and shape your world view, but that isn't going to automatically make you hero. This is why the film Communist is propaganda. Because it leads the audience to the conclusion that if you were a communist, you would be a hero. So, what is communism's political beliefs?
Spoiler alert...he dies....like every other Russian movie.... :)
The Communist Party was a political party that ruled Russia from the early 1900's to the 1990's. The core beliefs of this political view were based off of Marxism, and basically it is an extreme form of Socialism. However, there are a few stark differences between Communism and Socialism. For example, Communism works toward super-abundance whereas socialism strives to distribute the wealth. Another key difference is religion, while Socialism promotes secularism, Communism renounces all religion. Besides that, the political system is very different. In a Communist country, all decisions are made by a group of people behind closed doors. In the majority of Socialist countries, there is a participatory democracy. However, when it comes to the way society is structured, Communism takes what Socialism would do, and makes it slightly more extreme. While Socialism diminishes class distinctions, Communism strives to completely abolishes them. These are just a few of the differences between Communism and Socialism.
Communist came out in 1960 and is a USSR film about a man named Gubanov who was a communist. As the protagonist of the film, he is portrayed as a hero. The movie Communist a spot-on example of Russian propaganda in cinema because of the what it tells the audience think about being a communist: how heroic you can be as a communist. However, aside from this, Communist is an intriguing Russian story of perseverance, love, and sacrifice.
The Forty First is a USSR film which first debuted in Russia in 1959. It tells the story of a woman soldier, and her male prisoner, with whom she falls in love with. Traveling through a desert, and then becoming shipwrecked on an island with only the two of them, their love seemed inevitable. However, it ends the lead character shooting her prisoner/lover. But, The Forty First is more than just a tragic love story. It actually is a great picture of what the role of women in Soviet Russia was, as well as a balanced story and also part of the story of the civil war in Russia. All of this was done while still following the strict regulations on Soviet films at the time.
Marutka, the best sniper in her group.
Russian women, in theory, were just as equal as men. This is because while the men were fighting in World War I, women took over many of the jobs that had previously been filled by men. While the men were away, it was a woman's job not only to nurture, and care for the family, but also to go to work and provide for the family, as well as discipline the children. They did this very well, and with much ease. In 1917, the November Revolution proclaimed that soviet women now had all the same rights as men had, including political and economic. This led to the Bolshevik government making women's rights a high priority. This was a popular move, and in theory, women were able to do everything that a man could. But it didn't always work out like that. There was a bit of confusion that was be felt by women, because they were they could be everything: a nurturer, a citizen, a worker. They could be whatever they wanted, but they still were expected to do certain things. The movie, The Forty First, navigated these tricky waters by creating a women lead who was in the army. She was hard, and able to kill just as easily as the men. In fact, she was the best sniper in her team. However, when she and her prisoner were stuck on an island, and he became sick, she nursed him back to health. It showed that, while she was still just as able as a man, she also was tender-hearted, and caring, like a woman was supposed to be. She also got into an argument with her prisoner/lover about why she fights in the war, and why it is a cause worth fighting. It shows that she is a citizen, who fights for what she believes in.
Marutka, the nurturer. Nursing back to health her sick prisoner. "I am not some beast to let a man die." She is nurturing woman, as well as a fierce fighter.
A frustrating thing about the movie is the way it resolves. In the last 90 seconds, the lead character ends up shooting her lover. It left me feeling a little confused, and shocked. But, after a little thought, I think this is the way they had to end the movie because of the regulations that filmmakers had in Soviet Russia. In the end, she chose her cause, her war, over her love. It showed that in Soviet Russia, the number one ideal was not love or romance, but rather the cause of the people, the cause of the government, etc. The way the film ended was mostly because of the need to balance fantasy, with Soviet realism. In Soviet film, it couldn't be all fantasy, it had to be at least a little more 'real'. The Forty First balanced the fantasy of romance and love, with the realism of her killing the man at the end. Also, there is more realism than just the way the movie ends. Because it move took place in a war setting, it also showed the realities of war: killing, dying, hardship, pain. In my opinion, the writers were able to create a compelling story, while still meeting the standards that the Soviet Union placed on film industry.
Finally, The Forty First takes place during the Russian Civil War. Having not known much about it before, there was very little I could've learned from the content in the film. But, there were a few things I picked up. There were two sides to the war, the Reds and Whites. They were fighting each other. It was all in Russia. I think I would've better understood the movie if I had known more about the war first.
The Forty First was a great Soviet film about a women sniper, who had killed 40 men from the enemy army. She missed what would've been the 41, and he became a prisoner, and was put under her charge. Through a turn of events, they end up shipwrecked on an island together. At the very end of the movie, she ends up shooting him, her forty first kill. This tragic love story was more than just that because it showed how complex a woman's role was in Soviet Russia. The writers were able to create a compelling story, while still adhering to the stiff regulations of the Soviet era.
1. Carnival Night shows many different forms of art, like dance, song, music, and skits. Many of these forms of art were under many laws and restrictions under Stalin's reign. After the Khrushchev Thaw, many of the restrictions were greatly loosened. The film Carnival Night shows many of the freedoms that the Arts had after Stalin died. In a way, it is almost like a celebration of the freedom of the arts.
These clowns were trying to put on a humorous performance, but Mr. Ogurtsov disapproved and insisted it be more serious
2. In the film, a community theater is putting on a New Year's Carnival. The young people are wanting to make it a fun celebration, but the old director wants it to be serious. So, the protagonists are the young people, especially Lena and the young man who loves her, Grisha. The antagonist is Mr. Ogurtsov, who is old fashioned and against the light-hearted fun the younger people are going for.
Lena and Grisha
3. The film Carnival Night conforms to both the thematic and aesthetic guidelines of Soviet Russia by including scenes of dance and song, and by creating an interesting storyline. But, it does manage to critique system by having Mr. Ogurtsov in the film. I think that by introducing his character, who, without directly saying so, pushes many of the guidelines that Soviet Russia would have enforced. Because the Lena and the other young people push back against this character, I think this the way the film critiqued the flawed system.
4. No one in the film Carnival Night directly says anything against the soviet party. I think this is biggest thing that was still not allowed.
Dancers
5. In Carnival Night, the 'young people' show having more liberty than before. I think the biggest thing that the young people can show that is new is PDA. I know that is a funny way of saying it, but it is true! In the end of the movie, Lena gives Grisha a quick kiss while they are dancing at the carnival. She asks him if he is not ashamed, and he says no. One other freedom that seems new is how the dancers show their legs. Mr. Ogurtsov reacts to this, and says that they cannot, however, at the festival, the costumes really have not changed.
Questions from Listening to New Books in Russian and Eurasian Studies: Soviet Baby-boomers. All quotes are from the recording.
1. Were the Soviet baby-boomers fearful of nuclear war? No, they were not. "There really was no fear of war...I think that is a really important point, they really had no fear of America....because they were studying it."
2. Did they believe the Soviet propaganda? Some of them did, but some did not. Some of them wondered "How can we achieve communism if we are passing bread out in schools?"
3. What was the environment like that they grew up in? They grew up in an environment where they had to learn what they could say in public, and what they could say at home. There was a big difference between personal and public life.
4. What change of circumstances changed the way they looked at the world as adults? They went to college.
5. How did the two schools of students differ? In Saratov, the students had more shortages of food, and always kind of, questioned the communist society. In Moscow, they didn't have very many shortages or anything like that. Also, there were more Jews who went to school in Saratov, whereas in Moscow, people were less likely to choose the Jewish nationality.
(My paragraph as a 'culture shocked' person visiting Russia in the 1950's)
Well, I am now in Moscow. It is a lot different than America, but also, in a weird way, similar. I noticed the fashion right off. It is very unique from person to person. Also, the food. Oh, so good. It is deceptive, because it looks simple, and not very vibrant. but when you taste it, oh boy. Although I am sure, like everything else, there are those who would not prefer it, but I could eat this stuff all the time. There are many different options, from bread, to dairy, to meat. The meal I ate consisted of three courses: I had some vegetables to start, then a thick, filling soup with chunks of juicy meat, and finally a sweet fruit compote to finish. I am still full. There is much more for me to find out about Russia, but I am sure, the longer I am here, the more I will find out.
World War II was a mess: a big, terrible, mess. According to the storyline of The Cranes Are Flying, it didn't matter where in the world you were, because it affected everyone no matter the country.
A happy, vibrant Veronica. Before the war that is...
Veronica, the main character of the film, was a young Russian, girl and carefree at the start of the war. Plus, she was head-over-heels for Borris, her boyfriend. They both fully intended to marry each other. However, once the war started, Borris signed up to join the Russian army, as he thought it was his duty to do so. Sooner that he had originally thought, he was called for and sent to the front lines. Through a sorrowful turn of events, Veronica was unable to see him off. Perhaps this was, in a way, a foreshadowing that in the future, not everything was going to work out.
Veronica and Borris
As time passed, Veronica waited for any word to come from Boris, a letter, someone with a message, anything. Nothing ever did. She began to lose hope, but she would never allow herself to believe he had died. One day, during an air raid, she grabbed her things from her house and went down to the underground subway. Her parents told her they would follow shortly. However, upon returning to her house, she found that it was destroyed, and her parents with it. Shocked, she is taken in by Borris' family. Borris' cousin, Mark, had always fancied Veronica, but the feelings were never returned. One night, Mark and Veronica are alone in the house. The sirens signaled that an airaid was coming and they should head to safety. Depressed, Veronica made no movements to leave. Mark stayed with her, and during the raid was overcome and abuses her. He and Veronica then get married, but she still does not love him. Bitter and losing hope, Veronica, along with her new family, were evacuated from Moscow. She started helping injured soldiers in the local hospital. Meanwhile, Borris' father found out that Mark, his nephew and Veronica's husband, illegally bought himself an "exemption" from the draft, using his uncle's name and money to get it. Betrayed, he returned home and found a struggling Veronica getting ready to leave for good. He then confronted Mark, sent him away, and told Veronica he understood why she married Mark, and asked her to stay with the family. She does, and still hoped that Borris would return. He didn't. A soldier came to tell the family, and accidentally told Veronica, not realizing that she was Borris' "girl" of whom he deeply loved. Stunned, she grieved the loss, but never really believed it. The movie ends at the end of the war, when all the soldiers were coming back. Veronica went to try to find Borris, and then had to face the reality that he was indeed dead, and would not be returning.
The Cranes Are Flying is an excellent movie, and has an intriguing story line. However, more importantly, it shows that the soldiers are not the only ones affected by war. Rather, everyone in the country, from the children whose fathers go away, to the loved ones left behind, all suffer the consequences of war. Veronica did not just lose Borris, she lost her family, her house, her pride, and for a while lost all hope and no longer wanted to live. War doesn't just cause a loss of material things, but also turns people emotionally numb. If they cannot move past a war, they will never recover emotionally. In order for people, like the characters in The Cranes Are Flying, to rebuild their lives after a war, they need to move on. Never should they forget, but likewise, never should they remain in the past.
Analyzing The Cranes Are Flying, I believe it is more of a descriptive film, as opposed to prescriptive. The film doesn't tell you what to think, but it shows and describes the struggles of an innocent bystander of war through a story. It doesn't focus on a General or a soldier, as it could, but rather, just a person who lives in the country that is at war. Veronica's experience was not every Russians' experience of World War II, but it was not unique. She was not the only one who lost a lover due to the war. Many mothers would never again see their sons. Babies would not know their fathers and wives would become widows. This is the reality of war. Even if the country wins, in a way it will also lose. It will lose cities to bombs, and young men to bullets. But, one of the greatest losses in a war is that a countries people will lose their vibrancy of emotion. They will become numb. I believe this is what The Cranes Are Flying says about war. I believe this is the reality of war.
So What?
So, how does this apply to today? What difference does this make? Should it make a difference? Can we learn anything from The Cranes Are Flying? I believe we can. I realized a couple things about war, and about my generation. There has always been a war somewhere, as long as I can remember. I was two years old when 9/11 happened. I have grown up knowing about it. I don't remember a world with the Twin Towers. Likewise, I don't remember not having a war in the Middle East. I can recall a Minnesota without a Chick-fil-a, but I cannot remember a world without the Iraq war. It officially began in 2003. I was 4. I couldn't even read, much less understand that our country was going to war. To be completely honest, I don't think the majority of teenagers my age actually realize that WE (America) ARE AT WAR, A REAL WAR. Teenagers have grown up with this. Thus, I believe, unbeknownst to many, we are numbed,hardened, no, we have gotten used to the reality of the pain in the world, but have not known it for ourselves. And as such, we as teenagers, have become hardened against the cries of our fellow humanity. For example, 200+ Nigerian girlsmy very own age were kidnapped, raped, and being killed by a terrorist group in back in May, a lot of my friends didn't really care, or pay attention. Why? It is not because we aren't the same age, and not entirely because we cannot relate. But, because it is all the same to us. We have stopped caring about it because it is a given. The majority of my peers don't realize that the Iraq war isn't the reason that it happened. They don't even realize how far away they Nigeria and Iraq are geographically. And, quite honestly, it is because we DON'T CARE. Again, why? Because we have grown up with it. Because it is normal, and nothing new. We think we already know everything about it, but we don't. All the terrible things that happen in the world, they have been going on our whole life.So, why should this thing matter?Or this one?Really, truly, it should matter. But, unfortunately, it doesn't to a lot of kids my age (and people older than me, but we aren't talking about them and thats a different issue entirely). This is the reality of growing up with war. This is the reality of my generation.
Photos of war are normal. They are everywhere, and teenagers have learned
to just see past them.
