Romance à Moscou

Film critics and viewers familiar with Russian cinema know about Nikita Mikhalkov as the brother of director Andrei Konchalobsky who has directed successful films in Hollywood, a leading director who has brought tremendous success to Russia as a major film making nation. He has also been noticed as a remarkable actor in films made by himself and other directors. Walking the Streets of Moscow is one of his early films with a youthful appearance. It was directed by Georgiy Daneliya who has an amazing of repertoire of charming comedy films. For this film, Daneliya chose to film Russian realities in a light manner. For example: serious issue of war has been briefly discussed in order to concentrate more on things which have an everlasting effect on youngsters. As there are many good views of Moscow, Walking the Streets of Moscow appears as an unofficial tourist guide of Russian capital. Russian youngsters of the sixties emerge as the true heroes of this film as one day in the life of a young soviet citizen who has come to Moscow is meticulously portrayed in order to reveal that Russian youth too was interested in flirting, learning English and buying LP records of classical music.

for the admirable portrait of freedom. for the young Nikita Mihalkov, doing a great role. for the touching portrait of Mosow, youth, friendship, love and innocence. for the status of slice from a period spirit. because it is a beautiful film, remembering the air of a time, the talent of young actors, the force of a good director, for the delicacy and realism of a world, almost magic, surely - unique. a film about a city and about a splendid age. that is all. and it is enough. to see it time by time.

Georgiy Daneliya surely must have seen some French films at the time, and the music which is charming reminded me a little of the Italian Nino Rota. It is no masterpiece, but it is a film that deserves a wider viewing. Fortunately YouTube is showing it in widescreen with English subtitles and despite just a touch of propaganda and small reminders of Soviet life it has a free wheeling charm that carries the viewers along. And now I may be a bit controversial. I watched it with a Gay/Queer eye and there is a lot of male eroticism in it. There is even a shower scene which almost opens the film which is a Gay trope in so many Gay films. And as much as I do not respond to Nikita Mikhalkov and his work as a director he makes a handsome lead. But it is Aleksei Loktev who really steals the eye and no doubt the hearts of many as an aspiring Siberian young writer who comes to Moscow to talk to a famous writer. If he had been French he would have brought a lot to French cinema. Along with Evgeniy Steblov as a hesitant young man timid about marriage this makes for a good looking trio with gentle male on male touches ( all of course in the name of comrade friendship ) but if you pause for stills as I did there is a slight romantic edge there. That is my opinion anyway, so any gay person reading this see what you think! There are young women of course and romance there as well, and yet it is the guys who take up most of the film. There is a song at the end when Mikhalkov is in the metro about the undisputed charms of Moscow that could have come out of a Francois Ozon or Christophe Honore film in its male charm. As for the filming it is as good as many a Nouvelle Vague film of the time, and the camera probes and captures the spirit on location of Moscow as it was then. And there is a gentle comedy that pervades the whole scenario that had echoes of certain moments in Louis Malle's ' Zazie dans le metro. ' I will watch this film again as it touches the heart, and there is no rigid formalism, but a lightness of touch that is remarkable and I had the feeling that everyone in it was trying to forget politics and just enjoying what seemed to me a great deal of freedom of life. Not quite a masterpiece, but a very good film.

The film is a well-executed attempt to record the transient youth impressions of the aging generation of the Soviet baby-boomers. Or rather the inevitable fantasising about them 20+ years later. Not that it makes it any different from any other generation which has ever lived.

Just as in the end of a news hour, there's a 60 second feel-good segment, in every generation, there's its own feel-good story. The scrutiny of how realistic those dreamy fantasies of the past are is beyond the point. Relaxing in the backyard's arm chair with a glass of well-deserved glass of wine reflecting on the past is of course a part of the drill.

In the end, this patriotic narcissistic drivel could have been "Ya shagayu po Berlin (1964)" or "Ya shagayu po Hiroshima (1964)" full of love, spring vitality and romanticism. Which is of course fine as the life obviously goes on.

And perhaps it's fine. It depends on the viewer's outlook. But for some, the film will be clearly interspersed with visual and conceptual references aggrandising and beautifying what the country has gone through in the preceding 50 years. A sort of the Soviet Union of Amnesia that is. A common propaganda "feel-good" trick in a wide range of other tricks in the toolboxes of various Ministries of Truth across the globe.

One thing is for sure: this is a movie done by the power which won the war, so history is written accordingly. Small but curious detail.

It seems as though people generally see this movie as a symbol of hope and freedom in the Soviet Union. This would make sense judging by the western music that the characters listen to and the somewhat rebellious nature that they have. I'm writing this because it's important to establish that I wasn't alive in the Soviet Union and that I didn't watch it with any kind of nostalgia. I also feel it's important to establish that I am aware of how people feel about the film and the film's historical context as a symbol of hope and freedom in a totalitarian state, before they shrug off my review by saying that I missed the point. The movie sees a group of late teen to early 20s friends all reunited in Moscow. It's a pretty basic story and while it can be done well I don't think it was particularly well executed here. They just sort of go around Moscow with their own ambitions, sometimes getting into trouble, and try to meet women. The film also plays in a series of vignettes, vignettes that only sometimes go somewhere. I didn't find the story particularly engaging nor did I relate to any of the characters. It's only an hour and 18 minutes but it felt longer than that. There are things I like as well. The cinematography was excellent and there are a lot of really good shots of Moscow to boot. The music's also good too. But generally, I just found it kind of boring.