June 8, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Thanks to my friend Matt, who, knowing my love of totalitarian propaganda films, sent me this beautiful link to an old Soviet film of Stalin visiting Berlin. Stalin, upon viewing it, is said to have remarked that it was so lovely, he wished he had actually gone.
It's also, of course, great, because before I saw it, I didn't realise they spoke Russian in Germany.
Posted by Jane Galt at June 8, 2007 6:30 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"); ?>Once in a while, on a late weekend night, PBS still shows "The North Star" (1943), which was written by Lillian Hellmann. The film shows how wonderful life was on Stalin's collective farms in the Ukraine. It borders between the comic and really offensive. I know it was made during the war, but it's still an offense to truth. I think that was one of three Communist Party films ever made in Hollywood. The other two were Mission to Moscow (1943) and Song of Russia (1944).
Posted by: D------ on June 8, 2007 10:23 PMIt's interesting to see the height of the actors and actresses relative to Stalin. Supposedly he was only around 5'5". So they get short actors and actresses, and everyone is oddly close to the same height in any shot where you can see Stalin relative to another person.
Posted by: Ryan W. on June 8, 2007 11:47 PMI noticed the line of Generals are slightly taller than Stalin in the receiving shot. That was probably for effect, a corp of macho types who win wars.
Several US flags and at least one British were in the scenes. So I'm guessing this was actually shot soon after the victory. The alliance cooled rapidly after that.
In the crowd are a few people in striped outfits. That may be a reference to prisoners freed from the Germans. Rather oddly, a suit of clothes can be seen under the striped materials and they are well fed.
Stalin went to Potsdam for the final meeting of the allied leaders. So he may have actually passed through Berlin.
The large plane in the air looks like the Soviet copy of our B-29. But they didn't have it copied at the time. It is probably just another large Soviet plane. The partial shot of a plane on the ground is not the one shown in the air.
I believe Stalin never flew in his life.
Is it really accurate to say that "three Communist Party films ... [were] made in Hollywood" ? Or is it an "offence to truth" ?
Posted by: Fergus O'Rourke on June 9, 2007 4:44 AMIn most of the movies I've seen, in Germany they speak English, with German accents.
Posted by: Eric J on June 9, 2007 7:52 AMI agree with the previous commenter that the plane looks like a B29, probably the most impressive plane of the time. And why not? You needed a very large capacity plane to carry that megalomaniac's ego around.
Posted by: BravoZulu on June 9, 2007 10:00 AM'Is it really accurate to say that "three Communist Party films ... [were] made in Hollywood" ? Or is it an "offence to truth" ?'
More than that were made. Stalin had a very sophisticated propaganda machine, headed by a guy named Otto Katz, and they definitely had operatives or sympathizers in Hollywood. He had useful idiot, big names like Dalton Trumbo, Dorothy Parker, Ginger Rogers and (as mentioned above) Lillian Hellman.
That's how Ronald Reagan came to be active in politics; fighting the Reds in the Screen Actors Guild.
I recently watched Bridge On the River Kwai on television. Its Academy Award winning screenplay was written by a team of communists, Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson, supposedly on the Blacklist and not eligible to work. The Oscar was given to the author of the French novel from which it was adapted, Pierre Boulle. Who didn't even speak English.
The movie is a clearly an anti-war propaganda piece designed to denigrate British military tradition. The doctor in the prison camp shouting, 'Madness. Madness.' at the end of the film. Which is a pretty odd reaction from a Brit watching a Japanese bridge destroyed.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 9, 2007 1:14 PMThe three films I mentioned were the most overt. Certainly, writers sneaked Communist and pro-Soviet messages in other films.
I love "Bridge on the River Kwai." I remember writing about David Lean for a college class I took on film. What I discussed was the Alec Guinness character's cooperation with the Japanese commander.
Posted by: D------ on June 9, 2007 1:24 PM
I guess you're right that Stalin didn't play himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Gelovani
Posted by: Ryan W. on June 9, 2007 1:30 PMLooks like I get to retract the charge that Ginger Rogers was a Commsymp. She did make a movie Tender Comrade that was blatantly pro-Communist. But, she was either naive about it, or did it unwillingly for career reasons (she given up her partnership with Astaire years earlier).
It looks like Ginger's mother even gave HUAC the name of the writer of Tender Comrade for its overt Communist bias. His name; Dalton Trumbo.
All of which tickles me pink, because Ginger was gorgeous. And she wore some of the most revealing dresses you'll see in a movie prior to the 60s.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 9, 2007 1:36 PMJust a few notes on Ginger Rogers.
First, she was canny when it came to choosing roles, but her decisions weren't based much on politics. Sure, she made anti-Nazi films like (the horrendous) Once Upon A Honeymoon (1942), but she's also pretty tough on the nutty communist character in Fifth Avenue Girl (1939). Her specialty was playing lower or working class women, from her early Warner Bros. musicals to later starring roles in Vivacious Lady (1938), Bachelor Mother (1939), Primrose Path (1940) and Kitty Foyle (1941--Best Actress Oscar). Still, though the writers and directors may throw in the occasional political comment, it's hard to see Ginger trying to make any statement. (Read her autobiography and you'll see she cared more about her costumes.) She'd certainly do a patriotic film like The Major And The Minor (1942) as easily as one that questions the American way of life.
As to making Tender Comrade for "career reasons," in 1944, Rogers was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. She and Astaire made 9 films for RKO from 1933 to 1939, most of them big hits, but the last two lost money--that's why the team broke up. But every film she starred in without Astaire, from 1939 to 1944, made a profit. Tender Comrade itself was a huge hit, though not for the politics (which, despite what HUAC thought, can come across as very pro-American), but for its story.
Posted by: Steve on June 9, 2007 4:49 PMStalin had an actor portray him. One who was a bit taller and had less acne scars.
"The large plane in the air looks like the Soviet copy of our B-29. But they didn't have it copied at the time. It is probably just another large Soviet plane. The partial shot of a plane on the ground is not the one shown in the air."
Could it have been a loaner? We gave lots of materiel to the Russians in WW2. Trucks, Tanks, etc. I'm not sure about planes, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Posted by: Jon H on June 10, 2007 3:39 PMAlthough what I do wonder about is if that was actually Stalin's voice in the film. Except for a few surviving speeches to the Supreme Soviet and his famous post-Barbarossa speech, there are very few recordings of him.
Posted by: andres on June 10, 2007 4:54 PMCould it have been a loaner? Interesting thought.
Yes and no! We never loaned them any B-29s. But they got one. It made an emergency landing in Russia after bombing Japan.
The Soviets were technically neutral at the time so international law said they should impound the plane. That was what they copied. We never got our real B-29 back* and I have no idea if the Soviets ever actually flew it.
As a matter of fact I think we had a hell of a time getting the crew back.
Add on. The fighters could be P-39s. We sent many to Russia. It was an oddly designed plane and is almost forgotten now, but it worked.
More likely they are Russian. I think it was the Yak 9 that looked similar.
Posted by: K on June 10, 2007 4:56 PMMy first post here, so maybe I should be more polite but...what kind of person views Bridge on the River Kwai as an anti-war movie?
Denigrating British miltary traditions??? Maybe you were buying popcorn and missed the beginning- Col. Bogie's March and all.
Posted by: MikeN on June 11, 2007 4:03 AMMan, there's no topic that can't generate some right-wing ressentiment, is there. Those liberals!
"a team of communists, Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson"
-- Foreman left the CPUSA at the time of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. At the time he was called to testify, he hadn't been a Communist for over a decade.
"supposedly on the Blacklist and not eligible to work"
WTF "supposedly"? They /were/ on the blacklist. They went to England because they couldn't get work in the US. Even so, their names couldn't be on the final product.
The blacklist got lifted during the Kennedy administration, but Foreman, at least, stayed in London until the 1970s. Where the com-symp Brits made him a Knight Commander of the British Empire.
"The movie is a clearly an anti-war propaganda piece designed to denigrate British military tradition."
Yeah, because any film that shows war in less than an entirely positive light has to be a piece of anti-war propaganda.
Note that Foreman was also responsible for such Communist trash as "High Noon", "Champion" and "The Guns of Navarone". Pink-pacifist propaganda, all of it.
Anyway. The clip above is taken from a feature-length movie, "Padeniye Berlina", the Fall of Berlin, produced in 1949. There's a whole plotline involving Alyosha and Natasha, which is pretty much exactly what you'd expect.
If you look carefully at the last couple of minutes, you can see that "Stalin" is wearing heavy pancake makeup; that's why he doesn't move or change expression much.
Doug M.
"Patrick Sullivan" eh ? As we say on Usenet: YAJMCCAICMFP. ("You are Joe McCarthy and I claim my five pounds")
Posted by: FERGUS O'ROURKE on June 11, 2007 5:28 AM'...what kind of person views Bridge on the River Kwai as an anti-war movie?'
A sentient one. The William Holden character is a thoroughgoing cynic who only wants to go home. Alec Guinness is a dope who ends up collaborating with the enemy. Jack Hawkins' character is a caricature of a stiff upper lip Brit commando.
High Noon is about a town filled with cowards. Champion is from a Ring Lardner Jr. (guess his political sympathies) story about a troubled boxer. But, you forgot to mention 'The Victors':
'War has no victors, only survivors. Killing destroys the killers as well as the killed; because it murders decency, self-respect and ultimately life itself. The story follows in the footsteps of a squad of young American solders from the early days of the Battle of Britain, through the fierce fighting in Italy and France, to the uneasy peace of Berlin.'
Yeah, how could anyone think that guy could write an anti-war screenplay?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on June 11, 2007 10:19 AMIn regards to WWII films like North Star and the Soviet influence in Hollywood. The US government had requested a more sympathetic view of Soviet Russia during the war. We were allies after all, and we were spending billions of dollars in Lend-lease, and other material support. The "red scare" simply gave way to wartime necessities and the realties in the fight against the Axis alliance. American films of this period were saturated with wartime propaganda, why such a focus on these few films?
Posted by: Arthur M. on June 11, 2007 11:11 AMIn regards to WWII films like North Star and the Soviet influence in Hollywood. The US government had requested a more sympathetic view of Soviet Russia during the war. We were allies after all, and we were spending billions of dollars in Lend-lease, and other material support. The "red scare" simply gave way to wartime necessities and the realties in the fight against the Axis alliance. American films of this period were saturated with wartime propaganda, why such a focus on these few films?
Posted by: Arthur M. on June 11, 2007 11:12 AMChampion is from a Ring Lardner Jr. (guess his political sympathies) story about a troubled boxer.
Actually Champion is from a Ring Lardner Sr. story from the 20s. As far as I know, Lardner pere had no leftist sympathies.
Posted by: Colin on June 11, 2007 1:48 PMIt looked a lot like recent presidential nominating conventions by our two major parties. I don't understand Russian at all so Stalin's words were about as intelligible to me as Bush's or Kerry's. He certainly seemed to me in this movie like a kind and loving person adored by the people. Youngsters, don't believe all that crap you read in the history books. Truth is what you see on YouTube
Posted by: Jim Linnane on June 11, 2007 3:24 PMThe Oscar was given to the author of the French novel from which it was adapted, Pierre Boulle. Who didn't even speak English.
Who also wrote the novel Planet of the Apes, btw.
Posted by: purple on June 11, 2007 4:46 PMGreat stuff.
The actor played Stalin in other similar films. I had never noticed the US flags in the shots of this film I had seen before.
Not long ago I saw a show, I believe on the History channel, where they documented before and after shots in this and other similar films wherein people that had fallen out of favor had been 'disappeared' from the films. They really were quite good at that considering the time, it was very difficult to see the editing.
Posted by: DaveW on June 11, 2007 8:07 PMHow about watching some documentaries on corporate fascism in the United States. Would be a nice balance for your all American holier than thou attitude wouldn't it?
Posted by: New Westliving on June 11, 2007 10:16 PMRegarding "documentaries on corporate fascism" and "American holier than thou attitude": sounds like somebody got up on the wrong side of the Manifesto this morning. Perhaps we should be more reverent for Stalin; after all, he killed and enslaved all those people to achieve social and economic justice.
Curiously, my in-laws saw this film when it was new (they're Russian), and vividly recall crying when they heard of Stalin's death a few years later. But they have no illusions about what kind of person he was and what kind of system he produced.
Posted by: Chuck on June 12, 2007 12:38 PMsounds like somebody got up on the wrong side of the Manifesto this morning.
Visit his website, if you dare. I just did and it seems to me that he is eminently qualified to identify a holier-than-thou (or is it more-secular-than-thou?) attitude: I mean, when you have that much experience parlaying it...
Posted by: anony-mouse on June 12, 2007 4:49 PMIf you are or have ever been a member of the communist party, you are a communist. You need to do DRAMATIC amounts of work to move yourself out of that description. Leaving the CPUSA because they joined with the Nazis doesn't quite cut it, especially if you follow up on it.
Tortsky left the Bolsheviks after a power struggle (and was then rather permanently removed from politics while he was in Mexico), but he was still a Communist. The actual "neo-cons" were communists who then re-thought their ideas and became American conservatives. The communists in Hollywood rarely did anything to atone for their crimes nor thought that their was anything wrong with advocating for communism.
On that note, Jane Fonda's still a traitor, and Hollywood despises Kazan while sucking up to an actual Communist Tyrant. You wonder why so many people despise the Left. You still are traitors and have done nothing to fix this. In fact you're know in love with ever more genocidaires.
Posted by: Hey on June 13, 2007 12:23 AMThere was a documentary made for TV on the Soviet efforts to copy the B-29. I remember it being rather fascinating. The goal was essentially a complete and total element for element copy of the B-29. Particularly interesting was that the Tu-4 made a rather dramatic debut in the 1947 Tushino aviation day parade. If I remember correctly they had 3 Tu-4's do an overflight (which some western observes on hand took to be the 3 "captured" B-29s returned to flight and pressed into Soviet service) and then had a fourth Tu-4 fly over as well, which left no doubt to what the Soviets had done. This was especially dramatic because it represented a huge leap in Soviet bomber capability, and, somewhat ironically, at the time the US did not have any fighters with the capability to counter the Tu-4 (or B-29) well.
Posted by: Robin Goodfellow on June 14, 2007 4:25 AM