Wolga-Wolga

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.

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...? :)

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.

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.