praecept0r

The gentleman from Canada in his review pointed that this film may be of interest to the Slavs. I happen to be of Slavic culture and obviously read Gogol in original, but to me this film is simply an atrocious adaptation attempt. You'll be better served by a 1961 version of Gogol's novel. This one is simply a sub-product of overbearing c-grade pop culture, loaded with bad acting, inferior directing skills and underlined by incoherent script. While there have been a few examples of talented adaptations on Putin-controlled television, this is not one of those. You'll have much better December 31 if you skip this vulgar nonsense in all entirety. However, if you have had a kilo of vodka by mid-afternoon, hit that play button, it might merge well with deep intoxication. After all this was the intended audience for this opus. Philip Kirkorov in Gogol's novel? Hey, this definitely caused the classic to turn in his grave.

The movie is a proof that anything can be turned into propaganda. It is a Stalin era textbook illustration of one and only viewpoint on Russian literature of the 1840-1850s. This movie helps to indoctrinate it with a finesse of a hammer. The characters look absurdly caricature, the dialogs of "progressive" heroes are full of Soviet-style preaching, there are even passages hinting at the cold war rhetoric (i.e. condemnation of western parliamentarian system, even a brief reference to slavery and extermination of Native Americans in the USA). Villains are typical. Everybody speaks as if they are already planning and foreseeing Bolshevik (no other) revolution and the arrival of the Dear Leader who will make their lives and work worth something. How many people will bother reading the critic, and not just excerpts in the secondary school program and how many people watched and continue to watch this movie? They air this Stalinist opus in modern Russia too, a new generation should know no repentance or any regrets about the past, and sneaking ideas or visuals from the period helps.

The movie should be popular now as ever, as many motifs relate to current ideology very well: Russia has its own incredible path and future, the west is horrible, etc. Even the citation from Lenin at the end falls into proper place. Thus the current rating is no surprise. The movie is not meant to be watched by westerners - it's one of those for internal consumption/ It's obscure enough, and is mostly watched by the chunk of population nostalgic about the times of the Genius of the Nations. So the high score is no surprise and as with almost any IMDb rating for the movie from the USSR is absolutely meaningless. "A sudji kto?" - 'Who are the judges' to cite the classic.

As far as movie-making itself, the directors had talent, so if it would have been possible to disregard the context, the film is quite accomplished.

A tiny bit of trivia - one of the directors, Trauberg literally soiled himself in Stalin's office when Stalin yelled at him criticizing his work. He thought he'd be sent to Lubyanka torturers. Make your own conclusions.

The movie-making could be such a prostituted occupation. At the very least the creator had to conform and collaborate with the regime and then get his pieces of silver. Some call this pair, Trauberg and Kozintsev "classics" of the Soviet cinema. To me "good servants" is a better definition. And they were very nice and interesting people I knew in person, but sadly this still doesn't change the greater picture. We are what we create in this life.

I always regarded this opus as a rare piece of trash. There is close to nothing from real Tchaikovsky in this movie, just a glossed Stalinist version of the composer, the kind they indoctrinated in every music classroom to every youngster - that he was a progressive genius whose works fit socialist realism and Lenin's ideas about socialist culture very well. By the way, a vast majority of ignorant Russians are still offended by the notion of him being a homosexual. The composer's letters and reputable biographies are published in minuscule circulation, this film is seen by millions. Here's the power of indoctrination even in post-communist era. On top of that, the society is generally extremely homophobic. They used to send people to prison for homosexuality up to 1994, and every year there is a discussion in their parliament on resurrecting this law as part of criminal code. So here is your cultural backdrop...

Now, the movie has its own little merits, but the underlying total lie and poor director's thinking and probably general grasp of the subject make the better parts totally worthless.

Soviet cinema had its glorious moments, especially in the great escape of great patriotic war movies, where things were black and white, at least where the real evil was. The biographies - there were few interesting ones (Tsiolkovsky's, Pavlov come to mind), but always castrated by the intricacies of either Stalinist or post-Stalinist era.

I'd love to ramble on, but I think I got the main message clear - the film is a great lie, and on film merits alone is not a good work either. So to those first few folks who put there rave 10 star reviews - what planet are you from? Start from reading books, including composer's own letters. Then compare what you learned with what you see. Otherwise, Lenin still wins his micro battle in your consciousness, and the bastard doesn't deserve this, and you neither.

It would be great to make a true biographical movie or better yet mini-series about composer's life. His life was full of tremendous drama, add real music scores that make sense - and it could be something worth watching. Hollywood can't do it, its mostly prostituting pure trash, the French or Germans might. Russians could have, when the country and its cinematography was free for a fairly brief time, not these days of self-censorship, return of government control and new rules. And to say the composer was gay is a faux pas. How would one film a biography without this basic fact.

PS Regarding subtitles - never expect a decent work from Russian video publishers, it's in best case scenario a sloppy translation (heck, the translation of Tarkovsky's Andrey Rublev is simply horrible at times, and that's criterion edition). Few exceptions are fairy tales.