Holodomor, la grande famine ukrainienne

The Holodomor killed more people than the Nazi Holocaust or the Young Turks murder of millions of their Christian citizens through the Armenian Genocide.

Bitter Harvest explores the history of this tragic event through the eyes of different villagers. A challenging movie with many well done vignettes, it anticipates the creation of more films about this event.

An important difference between the Holodomor versus the Young Turks murder of millions of Armenians citizens is that the Russians have the courage to admit the painful past, thus opening the door to healing. Perhaps this is one of the universal strengths of the Slavic Soul, to be able to look in the mirror of history and through the pain of introspection create great art.

Sadly, thus far, other than a handful of intellectuals, Turkish government remains trapped within the hell of self-deception denying the crimes committed by its forefathers. This ongoing dance of denial which some call "Erdonial" prevents progress and perhaps is one of the constraints against the creation of great art.

Bitter Harvest is a good film with a strong cast turning in strong performances. It will make a good supplement for history classes, and for those times when one is in the mood for lesser known truths that need to be remembered.

I have heard Holocaust, but not Holodomor. Thanks to this film. This is a piece of history. A bitter history, that people of the world should know what communism does. It commenced during the end of Tsar era and when Stalin's reign began. The film focused on a young man grew up in a small town, dreaming to be an artist. But suddenly everything has changed once Ukraine struggled to gain its independence from the Soviet Union. From his perspective, his journey through the Unkraine's toughest time had been explained. It had some romance, but overwhelmed by an unending conflict. They had to wait for 60 years, finally to get what they were fighting for.

The music was good. The background score accompanied awesomely throughout the narration. Decent actors and direction. Overall a good film, but I don't know what went wrong for it fail to reach out the people. Maybe the unfamiliar cast. But anyway, this film still did better in Ukraine as expected. From the 30s, slowly faded away from the world's interest in this matter. Mainly the reason could have been the WWII. Otherwise, there's no difference between what had happened here comparing to what nazis did a decade later. Why not, you will surely learn something out of it. So definitely yes, I would recommend it.

7/10

1930's Ukraine. Genocide through starvation. It was never going to be a pleasant story. It's tough to make a film out of something so one sided and something so horrific. And at times its difficult to sit through. Yes it's violent but we don't see a lot of it up close. It's not gratuitous. It's already dire enough. Yet there's plenty to be depressed about.

The story itself is quite good. Following the journey of one character so we get an overview of what happened in varying parts of Ukraine during this time. And yet it's a stretch. Certain scenarios are just asking us to suspend belief a little too far. Our central figures should have been killed several times over. Knowing this is set within real events (though not of these characters) keeps us involved. But only just.

The problem is with the director. The early scenes are so over-lit it makes you feel like you're watching a Disney TV play. The clichés come thick and fast through the staging and unfortunately some of the dialog too. The direction is heavy handed, falling back on triteness such as blood dripping from a sword stuck in the ground and other lame symbolism.

It's all a bit overblown. The cinematography, the music. They wanted to make a real epic here but even at 100 minutes, it feels overlong and over-baked.

It's horrific to be certain and I wanted to care more but the central story just doesn't grab us the way it should. Terence Stamp adds an element of acting class. Shame that it can't be said for the rest of the cast. For example, Stalin is a caricature. Hours after seeing it, I'm already beginning to forget it. And that's not a bad thing.

An event this huge deserves so much more.

The Communists starved the Ukrainians under Stalin. The New York Times via Walter Duranty, covered up their crimes. Bitter Harvest is a fictional action- drama based on one man's story that lived through it. Now, finally a movie that is not about Hitler (national socialism) but about the real threat America faces from the left- International socialism ( communism) - still being covered up by the same lying media. Walter Duranty is best known for his stringent denial of the genocide of the Ukrainian people, known as Holodomor. Duranty refused to report on the man-made famine that killed up to twelve million people. Duranty also claimed other journalists who reported the truth of the USSR, such as Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones, were liars. Muggeridge went on to call Duranty "the greatest liar I have met in journalism." Some of Duranty's most well known lies and falsehoods about Holodomor are: "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be." --New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1 "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." --New York Times, August 23, 1933 "Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding." --New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6 "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." --New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18 "There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." --New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13 Duranty also admitted privately that the genocide was happening. Bruce S. Thornton wrote: Walter Duranty stands as perhaps the quintessential fellow-traveler, killing news reports of famine and writing that Ukrainians were "healthier and more cheerful" than he had expected, and that markets were overflowing with food—this at the height of Stalin's slaughter of the kulaks.

We looked forward to viewing this movie at the Ukrainian festival at our local theatre.

One big mistake though, didn't properly check the movie background - it is pretty much an English movie, not Ukrainian.

The main publicity focus in advance was on the Russian government induced famine in the Ukraine against the background of a love story.

In reality the movie tries to cover too many of the parallel social and political changes in the Soviet state of the 1920's and 30's, such that almost none would be clear to the average viewer. Including the internal power struggles within the communist regime.

This broad spectrum tips over in to the relationship between the two young lovers who appear almost wooden at times as they flit in and out of the narrative.

A serious and little known subject doesn't get its dues here regrettably. The film tries hard but lacks the focus and cultural nuances that may come from a locally made film.