Schizo!!

I would recommend this movie, Schizo, to anybody in the class.
It is technically a movie about illegal fist fighting in the former soviet republic of kazakhstan, but it is so much more.
The most interesting part to me was the relationships that the title character has with the people around him. In my mind, it is a condemnation of the current state of kazakhstan. there are no jobs, the police are inept, and there are few honorable people around. even the "hero" of the movie is a murderer.
It is a strange film definitely, but a must see.

Night Light

I enjoyed this film. It was definitely distinct from the other movies we have watched in class. It also, however, had a couple of similarities. First of all, there were many questions left unanswered. Additionally, the ending was by no means a happy one. I think the commentary that is apparent about human nature is very poignant(at least in relation to my social interactions). There is typically a good and evil side. Which side is good and which side is evil is determined by which side a person is on. Each person is looking out for their self-interest, making it the good side. Yes, it can be argued that sometimes people look out for the greater good, but that term can be relative as well. The greater good for your own people? the greater good for the planet? the greater good for sheep? It is relative. There are occasions when there is a right and wrong, but in large instances like in Night Watch there is no black and white just a lot of gray.

I also am very interested in reading these novels. Has anybody read them? If so, would you recommend them?

Why did you Return?

As an audience member, I am left wondering the same thing as Ivan was. Why did the father come back? Why did he leave in the first place? Many questions were left unanswered in this visual masterpiece.

In this film, St. Petersburg did not feel the same at all. It was probably on the outskirts of the city in the first place, but the mother was not particularly worried about her children running all over the city. It did not seem like there was the same type of fear in the air. It definitely had more of an air of stability in it.

The mother seems to be wary of the father returning. she does not seem particularly pleased. She is tentative around him, and tentative to let her boys go off with him. She whispers when he is not in the room, particularly at the children's bedside.

In my mind, the father is a negative character. If my father returned in the middle of my childhood, I would have been unbelievably angry. He never provides a reason for his absence. He never tries to explain himself. He just acts like nothing has ever happened. I would have acted very similarly to Ivan did. He is less accepting of his father and questions his motives. I would have become incensed when i did not return after the agreed upon two days. Especially without my mother being aware of what was going on.

I do not htink we ever find out why he brought his boys along. I think he would have been better off without bringing them. Something may have been planned for after he recovered whatever he found, but we do not have an idea.

The title of the film is very ambiguous. Is it referring to the father's return? Is it referring to the boy's return home? or perhaps the boy's return of the father to the boat? I think it referred to all of these things, principally the father's return. This movie examines the two possible reactions to a father returning after being absent for a majority of a child's life. Andrey welcomes him with open arms while Ivan does very little to welcome him back.

The Pendulum of Power

I have no idea if I want to characterize Danila as a hero or something else. i would not characterize him as a villain because he has many endearing qualities.
He is definitely a family man and he is willing to help people out with the money he earns. He is also honest, as can be seen by him promising not to kill those two people.

While all these things are positive, they are positive in a negative light. Yeah he spares two people, but kills several others in cold blood. He also gives money to a stoner and keeps most of the money for himself.

He seems to believe that violence will get him what he wants. He kills or hurts people in order to get his way. We are not supposed to think this is the proper way to do things, which is why I think Sveta is shown to go back with her husband. Otherwise, we would have seen Danila benefit from all of the violence he uses.

The most interesting thing to me about this film was the power structure. There is no longer a strong, or even a weak, Soviet state. The government is hardly represented and not represented at all in St. Petersburg. We see the local cops in Danila’s home town, but that is the extent of the presence of the government. In the past we have seen Commissars and government housing. These are indicators of a strong state. The mob has become the rulers of the cities. They control who is selling things on the street. Danila, instead of getting a job through the government, now gets a job through the mob.

REAL socialist realism

when this movie was released, stalin must have repeatedly spun around in his grave. This is not the portrayal of soviet russia that his regime(or following regimes) would have condoned. This film boils life down to the bitter dregs.
The mood of this film offers a sharp contrast to that of Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears. There is hope in Moscow that the characters in Little Vera do not share. Even after divorcing, Ludmilla still holds out hope to one day hit the "moscow lottery." Little Vera and Sergei, as well as the parents, do not seem to have the same positive disposition towards life in the USSR.
Alcoholism is criticized in this film without it being of a comical nature. I think that irony of fate approached the subject as well, but they did so through comedy. This film confronts it head on. The father is accused of wasting his money away on booze and also becomes violent and argumentative when under the influence. This treatment of alcohol reminded me of alcoholism's portrayal in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. In both of these novels, alcoholics suffer, become violent, and are extremely argumentative. It is looked upon as a social evil as opposed to a cultural norm as it is presented in some other films.
This movie also confronts generation gap issues. During perestroika there seemed to be a lot of uncertainty with the new generation(teenagers and people in their young twenties). They did not know the role of the welfare state(whether or not they would be guaranteed jobs, healthcare, education). As a result of the uncertainty, we get Vera who does not seem particularly motivated to do a whole lot. Viktor, as hard as he was working, could still not afford to bring his family with him to visit his parents. Then there was rebellious behavior and unemployment.
I think the movie placed the blame on both the youth of the nation and the parents of the nation. Yes, Vera does not do anything particularly proactive, but her father is an alcoholic and her mother is not the strong soviet woman that could be relied on.

to go...or not to go.

i cannot believe that she abandoned her newborn child in order to rejoin the red army. this is the ultimate sacrifice for the Party.
She clearly struggles with her duty to her regiment and her duty to herself throughout the film. she is restless at the beginning of her stay with the jewish family. Eventually, she seems to become content. she does not want to abandon her regiment, but she has to in order to have the baby. this is a conflict of interest that she never gets over, hence her abandonment of her baby.

i saw more similarities with chapaev that i thought i would. first of all it has the white army winning(or at least being moderately successful). i thought both these movies would have had the red army winning in a romp or at least holding off the charging whites. secondly, the main character is faulted. chapaev had many issues, but his final devotion to the state was his redeeming quality. vavilova also had issues like having the baby of a person we do not meet. her ultimate devotion to the state screams socialist realism. at the end, the party and state win out over self-interest and the individual.

I think the film was prohibited from showing back in the 60s because the natural human instinct is disgust at vavilova's decision. this does not reflect the socialist dream in a positive light. it should not come before basic human needs and responsibilities. the state probably did not want this negative assessment to become the calling card for comrades.

it's a wonderful life....for now

First off, I really liked this film. I thought it was clever and funny, as well as creating likeable characters that still have their flaws. I think a lot of movies create two kinds of characters that are utterly predictable. The protagonist is typically flawless or flawed in ways that they overcome. The antagonist is a despicable character who hardly has any redeeming qualities. This oftentimes creates a bland and boring movie. Sometimes the movie is cute or inspiring, but often it is run of the mill.

The three women we are introduced to at the beginning of the film are definitely different. First we have Katya, a motivated young lady who wants to get into college to study chemistry. Next, Lyudmila, who wants to "get lucky" in Moscow and marry a well to do young professional. Finally we have Antonina, who seems to just want happiness. Katya fails her test to get into college, but comes back determined to pass the test the next time. Her plan stalls when Lyudmila is able to convince her to go along with a scheme to meet prominent young men. I was surprised that Katya went along with this scheme. In most other parts of the movie she seems independent and able to do things on her own, without the help of dishonesty or scheming. The scheme works and even though Katya wants to tell Rudolph about her true position in life, she does not. Rudolph portrayed originally as a man on the rise while still maintaining a healthy family life, turns out to be more interested in the connections Katya could potentially make for him. The relationship falls apart and Katya moves on as a single mother.

The second half of the film shows Katya as a prominent factory director, a true example of her ability to get things done on her own. She has her own apartment and appears to have raised her daughter pretty darn well. Then, we see another surprising insight into Katya's life. She is seeing a married man. Katya, once again, does not live up to her strong Russian woman appearance. She clearly has her flaws in addition to her avid determination. After meeting Gosha, I again thought she appeared weaker than I thought she was. She lets him say chauvinistic things and lets him believe he is going to be the breadwinner. Her modesty was not the surprising part. The surprising part was the willingness she showed to let Gosha yell at her in front of Alexandra and make ultimatums.

Gosha and Katya's romance is believable to me. Katya is not looking for someone else to look after. She needed a man that did not need to be watched or looked after. Gosha shows that he can do pretty well for himself in a multitude of situations. He is a hard working man who does not need to use people (as Rudolph appeared to want to do). I did not expect Katya to let Gosha get away with chauvinist comments, but I think this was to keep quiet her superior status and income.

One of the most intriguing characters is Antonina. She seems to be the largest bit of propaganda in the film. We do not get that much insight into her life, but maybe that is the way she is supposed to be portrayed. She comes to the city looking for happiness. She is not looking for advancement or to latch onto a wealthy family. She looks for happiness and she finds it. She is the only character to stay with her love interest the entire film and is consistently turned to for support. Her husband originally portrayed as rather simple who ultimately turns out to save the day for Katya.

I may be looking too far into the potentially chauvinistic characteristics of this film, but they are there. They may not be the main focus, but I think it is hard to deny they exist.