“Ivan’s Childhood,” directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, 1962
In the face of the incredible avalanche of reactionary
red-baiting and war-mongering by the Clinton campaign against Russia, Trump,
Jill Stein and the Green Party, Wikileaks, Julian Assange and anyone else who
doesn’t want to fight two more wars in Syria and Ukraine, I figured we needed a
bit of a response to this shit-storm.
(See Glenn Greenwald’s excellent take-down of the Clinton campaign’s Russian-hating methods
dated 8/8/2016 on the ‘Intercept’ site. https://theintercept.com/2016/08/08/dems-tactic-of-accusing-adversaries-of-kremlin-ties-and-russia-sympathies-has-long-history-in-us/
(Assange has announced that a recently killed DNC employee, Seth Rich, was the actual leaker. Rich was murdered during a 'robbery.' Another convenient death?)
(Assange has announced that a recently killed DNC employee, Seth Rich, was the actual leaker. Rich was murdered during a 'robbery.' Another convenient death?)
Ivan in ruins |
It consists of an appreciation of
Soviet and Russian culture. This is the
first film by the great Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky, who later did
“Solaris” and “Andrei Rublev.” Jean Paul
Sartre defended this film when it was attacked by the Italian CP in their paper
‘L’Unita,’ which accused Tarkovsky of using ‘petit-bourgeois’ artistic methods like dream sequences and character complexity (!) You are usually in
good company when you side with Sartre on cultural matters.
A young Ingmar Bergman was influenced by the film as well. This is a touching film showing the deep
impact of WW II on the Soviet youth of their day. It displays the humanism of the Soviet
soldiers, who adopt a young boy who works as a spy for them behind Nazi
lines. They know this is a very
dangerous job, which can only lead in one direction. The young Ivan (and yes, all Russians are
called ‘Ivan’ in slang…) has lost his parents in a fascist massacre. He is tough, skinny, blond and just a kid,
but now prematurely aged by the war, which is all he thinks about.
The scenes of floating across the river are some of the most
beautiful in Soviet film. The war is
shown, not in the American way by constant combat, explosions, battle, etc. but
as a looming presence infusing every scene, however quiet, with fear and
dread. Combat is not always about
fighting, as any soldier knows. Dreams (dreams!) and flashbacks intrude. This gives the film the feel of actual human
reality, not that of an American war cartoon or of social-realist hero
worship. It uses long takes, not the
hyper-jumpiness of present ADD advertising or Hollywood film.
The film ends with actual Soviet war footage shot in Berlin, first focusing on a newsreel of the
6 poisoned children of Goebbels lying in a row.
Then there is a film scene of one of Ivan’s protectors discovering
his fate in the Reich’s efficient basement archives. In this war wives, mothers, sisters and
girlfriends not only lost their loved-ones - this film shows men losing their
emotional sons. The film does not wallow
in the glory of war, as did Soviet films prior to 1956. It was produced in the Khrushchev period
during a ‘thaw’ in cultural control and was extremely popular in the Soviet Union.
Given the Russians have experienced war on their land
in recent memory, while the U.S.
has never experienced it since 1865, I’d say Russians are a bit less eager than
Americans to do it again. This was the
real story throughout the ‘cold war’ and the nuclear threat, and is no less
true today. It is certainly reflected in
this film.
Red Frog
August 9, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment