Tchapaïev

Vasiliy Chapaev wasn't one of the most famous figures in Russia's revolution. "Chapaev" takes a look at his deeds, employing socialist realism (the Red Army consists of glorious peasants while the White Army consists of regressive aristocrats). Whatever the purpose, the result is a fine piece of cinema: compelling characters, impressive camera work, and an incisive look at Russian culture. You don't have to know a lot about the Bolshevik Revolution to enjoy this movie (but it helps). Good one.

Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev the legendary figure of the Civil war in Russia, the people's leader, the self-taught, who held high posts at the expense of its own abilities in the absence of special military education. The regiment is not a gang of marauders, dare I say. The film is based on a scenario of Anna Furmanovа, created based on the diaries of Dmitry Furmanov, his novel «Chapayev» and memoirs of veterans, who fought under the leadership of Chapaev. «Best foreign language film» according to the National Board of Review USA in 1935. According to a survey of film critics of the world (1978) film has been included in the list of the hundred best films of world cinema.

As others have noted, this is "Socialist Realism"-i.e. portraying things the way the Powers That Be WANT them to be portrayed. Stalin hadn't completely established his iron grip by 1934 so movie makers had a moderate amount of latitude but they still had to conform to The Party Line, hence a movie very similar to those we made during WWII-"Our" side is noble, just and honorable, the "Enemy: is evil, crass-and stupid. I saw this movie years ago when I was in a Russian language course in the Army, in a version with a modest amount of subtitles. I recall the attack of the Whites was labeled "The Psychological Attack"-they form up in closed ranks and advance over open terrain against Bolsheviks armed with machine guns and ALMOST succeed until Chapayev rallies the troops and repels them. Yeah, right.

According to Stephen Kotkin's near-definitive biography of Josef Stalin (vol 2, pages 192-3), he insisted his posse watch the film a second time immediately after viewing it the first time. Furthermore, since the Soviet Union had only 450 sound theaters at that time, he commissioned 30,000 sound theaters that night in order that the entire country could view this film with synched sound.

In the Soviet Union in 1934, this was a film about a popular war hero from a war that took place fewer than twenty years before. So I admit that, watching it in another country 2014 there may be quite a lot of context I'm missing. This is not a life of Chapev, whom everyone is presumed to know well, but a series of episodes from his career.

They are not all uninteresting or dull episodes, but the fact that it is so episodic rather than following a more complete story worked against it with me in this case.

It's inescapably hero-worship, and, commendably given that it is hero- worship, it does not try to portray its hero as immaculate. Chapaev is proud, short-tempered, and ignorant of politics and history. But this played against his advantages only serves to make him more of a hero.

It easy to see why this film became very popular -- it's good-humored, politically-correct for its political context, and appeals to existing conceptions of a popular hero. The battle scenes are staged on a big scale and are very impressive (though the ending seems quite abrupt). Taken out of its immediate context, though, it doesn't stand alone as well as a self-contained film for other audiences. But it remains a fascinating piece of history.