Tchapaïev

Chapayev was an illiterate war hero in the Russian Revolution. He is an interesting character. Completely illiterate, he was an inspiration to his men by being simple, brave, modest and honest. Think G.C. Scott's "Patton" or "Sharpe's Rifles," this is Chapayev! It rings vaguely of propaganda, like most war films of the 30's. The White Guard officers are portrayed as greedy, abusive dilletantes, whereas Red Chapayev and his Bolshevik comrade and assistant are honest, wholesome folk. This film is a good war flick, and one interesting thing about it was that the brothers Vasiliev attempted to film everything in the actual locations where the battles took place. Chapayev really died where he did in the movie. Good for history buffs, definitely.

The film is based on the diaries of Commissioner Furmanov, Chapayev's right-hand man and one of the heroes of the film. It tells the story of Vassiliy Ivanovich Chapayev, a Red Army hero during the Russian Civil War (1918-1922). The illiterate chief of a gang of marauding cavalry men is portrayed as a noble protector of the common folk and a brave soldier, a menace to the evil White Army. Interestingly enough, this 1930s war epic is mostly famous not for its Communist propaganda (nothing else can really be expected from Soviet movies of that period) or its realistic portrayal of the Civil War battles, but for a countless number of jokes and anecdotes about the movie heroes. In that sense Chapayev has become a huge part of the Russian street folklore and one of the most famous Soviet movies ever made. Vassiliy Ivanovich, Petka, Anka (the last two's romance is an interesting subplot in the film) and even the stoic Furmanov are laughed at by millions and millions of Russians for God knows how long now. As for the movie itself, it is far from a comedy although there are some light-hearted moments, mainly dealing with Chapayev's illiteracy and Petka's flirt with Anka. It may not be 100% true to history or to Furmanov's accounts (for example, the real-life Petka died a much more gruesome death than his movie counterpart) but it is an interesting look at the Civil War and one of its most legendary figures.

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.

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.

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.