Quando volano le cicogne

I had seen director Kalatozov's "I am Cuba" before I saw this movie. I loved the camera work in "I am Cuba", but I felt that the story was too rigid, too much of a propaganda piece, too much of an advertisement for my taste. The characters weren't real enough, not fully developed. It felt as if I were watching types of people rather than actual people. In "The Cranes are Flying", which Kalatozov made prior to "I am Cuba", I didn't find the same problem. The story is thoroughly engaging, and I felt a whole range of emotions. The lead character, specifically is so real, I think she will haunt my dreams. She is played by Tatyana Samojlova who deserves special acclaim. She is dazzling. Her sweet charm reminded me of Audrey Hepburn, and yet Samojlova's acting seems to have a broader range. Hers is more realistic in a way that feels ahead of its time in 1957. Her wild despair is in a league with the best emoter actresses, such as Natalie Wood, Isabelle Adjani, Juliette Binoche.

I must mention, also, that the cinematography is so crisp, it seems to be 4 decades ahead of its time. As far as composition and movement of the camera, I'd say it has strains of several styles, including German Expressionism of the 20's and 30's, and the stormy noir melodramas of the '40s, like "Out of the Past" (1947).

This is a romantic, dramatic movie that looks long and hard at the repercussions of war, and yes, it does have a message and it certainly hammers it home, but still I think it stays more clearly in the realm of universal themes, rather than falling into the propagandist ditch.

In summary, I don't think I have ever seen better acting, better camera work, better editing, or better direction in any movie made previous to it. There were some scenes made with such planning and precision that I had to press "PAUSE" just to catch my breath. Lovers of movie history, enjoy!

While watching this film recently, I constantly had to remind myself that it was made in 1957..........and in the USSR! That makes it all the more remarkable. Many of the cinematographic effects in the film seem cliched in 2002, but they were quite original in 1957. I first saw this film in 1963, when it was first released in the US, and I was struck by its originality then. Now just having seen it 40 years later, I have no reason to change my mind.

more than a movie, it is a special experience. more than part of a period, it is a form of revelation. for extraordinaries images. for splendid shots. for the simple story. for drama. for the delicacy for present a profound tragedy. for the acting. to see The Cranes are flying is an event. for soul. and for the mind. a travel in time. and rediscover the basic values who defines each life. it is difficult to define it . because it is not only beautiful or seductive, touching or impressive. it is a honest testimony, a kind of window in the Soviet regime's gray reality. a film about love and about war. about innocence. and about survey. about the existence as drawing used the basic colors. see it ! for discover a new frame for your life. and new meanings for every day fights.

The plot of this movie is set against the most terrible war in history of mankind: the violent clash between Adolf Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia, from 1941-'45.

With the western areas of their country thoroughly devastated, and 20 to 30 million Russian people killed, the vibes of this conflict can be felt in Russia up to the present day. Let alone back in 1957, when memories were still very fresh and painful.

This very black setting strongly contrasts with the fine and coherent style of 'Letjat zhuravli's' beautiful shots. Its simple story deals with human behaviour in times of war: bravery, love, patriotism, weakness, cowardice and corruption. All beautifully tied together by a toy-squirrel.

Add to this the truly magnificent acting, and it's easy to understand why this movie is so famous. Really, one of the very best ever made.

The story told by The Cranes are Flying is not, admittedly, all that original. Young lovers are separated by war; bad things happen to both. We've seen it many times before.

Nonetheless, we haven't seen it filmed this well, with bold shots that take liberties to emphasize separation, or destruction, or hopelessness. All the more remarkable coming from the Soviet Union, and reason to conclude that Tarkovsky is not the last word in modern-era Soviet cinema.

I was reading Chekhov's "Three Sisters" the other day, and chanced upon what may be the meaning of the title of this film. In Act 2, Masha objects to the notion that we must live our lives without meaning or understanding:

"MASHA: Surely mankind must believe in something, or at least seek for the truth, otherwise life is just emptiness, emptiness. To live and not to know why the cranes are flying, why children are born, why there are stars in the sky. Either you must know why it is you live, or everything is trivial - mere pointless nonsense."

Likewise, Veronika has a hard time believing that the war, and her and others' sufferings, have been pointless. Better to assign a meaning, to live as if one's life is significant, and not to give in to despair. It is perhaps this thinking that prompts her to her final act in the film.

BTW as a minor correction to one other comment here--there may be a pattern of V's in the film, though I hadn't noticed them myself. But the first letter of Veronika's name is not a further instance of this; in the Cyrillic alphabet, her name begins with a letter which looks like an English "B".