La carta que no se envió

Among a panoply of scintillating things about this film is Sergei Urusevsky's deft black-and-white cinematography, much of it hand-held. Urusevsky seems to understand semiotics deeply, and his shots are often protean, shifting angle or perspective during a take to wring extra emotional import from it. I found myself rewinding many sequences and rewatching because of how well Urusevky, arguably the greatest Soviet era lensman, can minimally change vantage or tilt and bring fresh meaning cascading from the actors.

"Letter Never Sent" has communistic political messages in it, but is sumptuously acted by a small cast with a good sense of ensemble. Heat and cold, fire and ice, land and water, remote wildness and safe civilization all exist here in dynamic tension. The version in digital circulation is lovingly restored. A must-watch, especially for admirers of other quintessential Russian filmmakers such as Tarkovsy.

This robust survival adventure follows a team of Soviet geologists stranded in the wilderness of Siberia after a forest fire severs their communication link with civilization. The opening dedication to Socialist heroes everywhere and the noble sacrifices made by each character carry the story dangerously close to propaganda, but the intensity of their ordeal (through smoke and fire, over snow and ice, across mountains and tundra) thankfully overwhelms the political simplicity of the script. Unfortunately, it also overwhelms the initial hints of tension between each of the four characters (three male, one female) after the struggle to survive becomes paramount. The sense of isolation and exposure is numbing; the film was directed with a strong sense of visual drama (including more than one knockout montage), showing everything an audience would ever want to know about being lost in Siberia.

The fate of the film otherwise, as difficult, can not be called. The film was nominated for the Palm d'Or of the Cannes Film Festival in 1960 and was scheduled to be shown on May 17th. However, literally on the eve of presentation the application for the film in the competition program of the film festival was withdrawn. Although, as we all know, all countries, all film companies and all directors, not to mention actors, are passionately interested in participating in international film festivals. Moreover, such prestigious as Cannes. There are two versions of the explanation of the reasons for such an emergency withdrawal of the application. According to the official, the director of the film, Mikhail Kalatozov, suddenly wanted to fix something in the film, so that by the premiere in the USSR, scheduled for June 27, the film would not have a single flaw. According to the second, unofficial version, the application was withdrawn by the leaders of the USSR State Committee for Cinematography, who suddenly realized that the film shows how the means for socialist industrialization (in the film - diamonds) are sought at the cost of human lives (in the film - of geologists). For me personally, the second version seems to be more plausible. And that's why. The film is brilliant! Filmed by director Kalatozov and cameraman Sergei Urusevsky, both are triumphants of the Cannes Film Festival in 1958 for the film "The Cranes Are Flying." Top actors of the then Soviet cinema play in the film: Innokenty Smoktunovsky, Yevgeny Urbansky and incomparable Tatyana Samoilova. The high class of the picture also underlines the fact that literally the next year the film was released on European screens, and a year later - on the screens of US cinemas. But I don't remember whether this film was shown in the USSR in the 1960s - 1970s. However, human memory is an unreliable tool. Therefore, I turned to Kinopoisk for information on the number of viewers who watched this film in its first year. No such information! About the films that were released on the screens in the same years, for example, "The Ballad of a Soldier," there is such data. About earlier films, for example, "The Cranes Are Flying" or "True Friends", etc., there is such information. And about the "Letter Never Sent" - no! What can it say? Either the film was taken off the screen immediately after the premiere, or released in such a limited number of copies that it cites data on the viewing of a Soviet film in the Soviet Union by the number of viewers smaller than, say, in France, to put it mildly, uncomfortable. This is why data is absent. And no more any nomination for any film festival. Although it would seem that the premiere took place, it means that the director eliminated all the flaws. Why not to nominate? Especially since Tatyana Samoilova, after "The Cranes Are Flying," was in world cinema a star of the first brightness. After the premiere of this film in New York, The New York Times responded - a rare case! - quite a benevolent review, however, without attribution. So, we can assume that this review reflects the opinion of the entire editorial board of the newspaper. Of course, a significant part of the review was dedicated to our great Actress Tatyana Samoilova. But the film itself was addressed very flattering epithets: "FOR sheer photographic pull and intensity, "The Letter That Was Never Sent" is unlike any other Russian film drama in many years, ...a truly rare movie, stark in content and setting, pretentious and obscure at times, but of a marvelous pictorial texture. See this unorthodox Russian movie, hold on (like the determined cast) and we guarantee it will get you." And therefore it is not at all surprising that Francis Ford Coppola in 1995 funded the restoration and re-rental of this painting in the United States. Perhaps this is due to the fact that of all countries, this film has the highest rating in the United States. Overall, 64% of IMDB and Kinopoisk users around the world gave this film a rating of 8 to 10. Based on the foregoing, the rating of the film according to the FilmGourmand's version is 7.826. And this low rating is due primarily to the fact that the Soviet leadership at one time prevented the participation of the film in any film festivals and narrowed the scope of the film to the maximum extent possible in cinemas. But, nevertheless, the film is included in the FilmGourmand's Golden Thousand with Rank 947.

Stunning cinematography in the Siberian taiga is the highlight here, with scenes like the dramatic/scary forest fire and ice floe accentuated by artistic camera work, including some nifty handheld shots. It's a survival story, one in which a quartet of explorers go out into the rugged wilderness in the hopes of finding diamonds to help the technological advancement of the Soviet state, but find themselves imperiled by the merciless forces of nature. Director Mikhail Kalatozov and cinematographer Sergey Urusevsky made a beautiful film here, one that for the visuals alone made it well worth seeing.

Where the film fell a little short for me was in how forced a couple of its aspects were. The first was the romantic angles, with Tatiana Samoilova and Vasily Livanov playing the two geologists on the mission who are also in love. While that could have added depth to the story and I would watch Samoilova in pretty much anything, the dialogue seemed so inauthentic that it pulled me out of feeling any kind of emotion for the two, or the tension of jealousy from a third man, played by Yevgeni Urbansky. I felt the same way about the titular framing for the story, a letter being composed by the guide (Innokenty Smoktunovsky).

The second aspect that took away from the experience was how heavy-handed the allegory was, with the clear message of perseverance, courage, and sacrifice for the greater good of the Fatherland. This was a story that needed gritty realism in every respect; we get it from the natural elements, but not always with the people, which was unfortunate. Had it been otherwise, this would have been a masterpiece.

A quite ridiculous film about diamond hunters in Siberia by the extraordinary director/cinematographer team of "I Am Cuba" and "The Cranes Are Flying." Needless say, the camerawork in the bizarrely surreal and barren Siberian locations is UNBELIEVABLE (the continuous takes are longer than any other film in history except for "I Am Cuba") but the film itself is too directly tied to dramatic 'adventure story' conventions to transcend into pure poetry like "Cranes" and "Cuba." There is a spectacular scene shot with the main actors amidst a raging forest fire and another one shot during an ice-storm. Most definitely worth transferring to DVD (there isn't a true film fan that wouldn't be flabergasted by the cinematography) but not by the same ones (Hen's Tooth) who did such a mediocre job on the transfer of "I Am Cuba."