Author Archives: Colby Santana

Rotations

6 Replies

If i’m being completely honest this work was really hard to understand and gather meaning from. One overall theme that I noticed however was the theme of rotation. Shed XII maintains a fascination with bicycles throughout the text. This fascination completes its course when it turns into a plan bicycle in the end of the story. However, loops, circles, motorcycles, wheels and barrels all make an appearance in the text. Usually these circular objects where aided by a sense of motion and travel as the bicycle itself was a symbol of escape. However the idea of circles and rotation were used as both a way to display off-landish fantasies, but also as a form of imprisonment, as in the case of the barrels. I could possibly understand the duality of the motif of rotation as a symbol of cycles. In that case rotation would bring about a new horizon and a new alien experience, but in the end one is stuck in the same loop: leading to a trapped feeling. I might be reading too much into the idea, but the sheer amount of circular/rotational type things in this text can’t be for nothing. I was also confused when the shed starts dreaming of becoming a battleship as his escapist day-dreams almost always took the form of a bicycle. A battleship doesn’t have a concrete shape and generally symbolizes war and industrialization. Overall I was very confused by this text, especially about the ending, but context will surely help.

Troubling Father Figures

17 Replies

“Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears” is one of my favorite Russian films and a thorough re-watch helped expand my appreciation from it. However, this time through I had boundless more context going in. Since “Burnt in the Sun” and the discussion of fatherhood and Mother-Russia are still percolating in my thoughts I thought it would be interesting to look at the maternal and paternal figures in the movie. Firstly the females I think all show different phases of the Russian maternal figure. Atonina shows the working class family and the past of Russia especially highlighting the rural living that is far removed from the booming industrial city. Katya is the modern soviet woman/ representation of the country. A persevering character that underwent severe struggles but emerged as an industrial icon and powerhouse. Finally you have Lyudmila. Lyudmila is hard to place as she is the laziest out of the three main females who has aspirations of marrying into wealth and fame. This reminded me of the Rouge text we read earlier in the semester and I could see this being a representation of an earlier more aristocratic Russia. I read these three females as representations of Russia overtime but I could easily be wrong. It could be a commentary on the right way to live in a soviet society or about the different modes of thought in one. What I find real interesting are the paternal figures in the movie. If the question is “Who’s the father of Russia?” then the film portrays a Grimm realization of that question. We have Rudolph, a man of great promise that is destroyed by his alcoholism, Nikolay, the rapist, victim blamer, abandoner, and egotistic ass. Finally you have Gosha, who seems to be great for Katya, except he is narcissistic, he beats up kids, and he is sexist which seem to contrast everything Katya stands for. It is also important to note that Katya has an sexual relationship with a cheating husband, but I don’t know what the meaning of that could be in the metaphorical sense. Overall, I don’t see any father-figure particularly good. I think the film purposefully does this to highlight the fact that it is Katya who single handedly raises a child and fend for herself. It is Katya, a possible stand in for Mother Russia, who was the mother and the father of the future (Alexsandra). I most likely thought too outside of the box, but there are is probably something I said that was actually intended in the movie. Either way, it’s a fascinating subject.

Fascist Boots

3 Replies

I found it ironic that the first line of text seen in the short propagandistic cartoon is how fascism leads to the mass destruction, starvation, and death of millions of people. I far more closely link starvation to the Soviet Union and the Russia before it than I do to Nazi Germany. The actual creature that is symbolizing the fascists is a pig/wolf hybrid. I thought of this as an interesting choice as it is supposed to be menacing but the connotations associated with pigs are far more related to greed and how disgusting they are. I also find the fact that the Soviets are represented as horsemen and tanks as an interesting choice. The first thing I think of is the Bronze Horseman of St. Petersburg/Leningrad. This is most likely the reason why, however horsemen don’t seem to be an intimidating/futuristic force and I don’t feel match the Soviet Union’s theme of industry and development like the tanks. The fact that the tanks are breaking down trees can be seen as a symbol that Russia is urbanizing and making economic capital from its natural resources. The ending of the short cartoon sees some soviet airplanes flying into the sky into what seems to be like heaven. This is a interesting choice as religion was ridiculed in the Soviet Union. If I’m not mistaken I think this same song was featured in the Russian film “Wings” from 1966 which would definitely be an interesting development to the meaning/ending of that film!

Notes on “Burnt in the Sun”

2 Replies

I had several questions and notably moments while watching the film. Firstly it is important to note that Mitya’s introduction into the movie is a very unique but also very revealing of his role. The character is ushered into the movie with a costume while traveling with the propagandist group “the pioneers.” The band is carrying images of Stalin: signifying Mitya’s connection to the Soviet Ruler through his work as the secret police. The fact that he is costumed is ironic as throughout the movie he is “in a costume” in a sense, hiding his true identity. Another scene I found interesting is the one with Mitya and the wife playing piano with the gas masks. Mitya doesn’t remove his mask still developing the disguised motif. However it’s a shocking scene with the happy music and the scary/off-putting masks. I think this speaks to the reality of the times and this is seen consistently though-out the film. although this movie is set in a time of great fear due to the Stalin purges there are constant funny and lighthearted moments throughout the film. Specifically Mitya’s entrance scene. the large lady on the stretcher, and how Kotov thought he walked in to his wife having sex with Mitya but it was instead some wacky music being played. Overall I think the contrast of the lighthearted film with the eminent doom awaiting is a unique contrast in the film. I was wondering if the pioneers were a real group. I was also wondering if the gas attack drills actually happened. There seems to be a sense of satire similar to what is seen in “Jojo Rabbit,” and I constantly thought of that film while watching this one.

God in “Battleship Potemkin”

2 Replies

The God/ religious character in the earlier parts of the movie “Battleship Potemkin” is a very interesting symbol. We first see the struggle with religion in the end of the first part where a crew member read the line “Give us this day, our daily bread.” The crew member became enraged with the statement and destroyed the plate. The symbol of bread is an interesting one as it is something very important to the revolutionist. Food scarcity is a real issue and the men were being served rotten meat. Hence the guarantee of bread is portrayed as a lie in the movie to the crew members. The god character is first introduced when the defenseless crew members were going to be shot by the black coats. The god character seemed to go along with the black coats’ decision and almost helped signal a shot with his cross. When the revolt breaks out this same cross is seen to be flung into the ground almost as if it was sharp. Finally when the doctor is being carried away he reaches for the god character who pretends to play dead. These moments and metaphors in my opinion serve to show that the film portrays religion as a friend of the aristocracy. Religion helps with instituted power, seen by the sharp cross. The cross has no need to be sharp unless it is to be viewed as a weapon or something to be afraid of. The most revealing moment with regards to religion is that the god character plays dead when called for. This moment serves to portray religion as a flawed institution, portray god as an aristocratic figure, but a figure that doesn’t help when the going gets rough. Since the movie is a propagandist force for revolution it obviously works to demolish the image of god/religion as that wasn’t supported or like by the socialists. Overall it was very interesting aspect of the movie.

A Comparison of “Russia” 1906 and “Russia” 1908

12 Replies

Upon reading Blok’s poetic works, I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast Blok’s two pieces on Russia. I noticed that both poems personify Russia as a female for different effects. The two poems have very distinct tones, especially regarding how they view the personified Russia. The 1906 poem carries a sense of awe and mysticism with ever stanza until the narrator wakes from his dream. The Russian landscape is something ripped from a fairy tale and reminds me of “The Snow Queen.” After the 6th stanza, the poem, still carrying a mystic mood, turns somber. This contrast shows a different world that is far grimmer. The narrator reveals his “nakedness” compared to the gowned Russia. I feel like this tone shift shows the duality of the country as both a fairytale-like land, but also an unstable mess that carries sadness and many existential questions with it. The 1908 Russia poem shows a far more tattered Russia that seems to be a continuation of the second half of the 1906 poem. We see female Russia have the same fate as the girl with the faithless lover in the 1906 poem. The 1908 Russia is used and dilapidated and lacks much of the hope of the first one. This Russia endures, but not to the same standard as it used to have. Russia’s “pure” and “pristine” attributes are far less apparent. I hoped to gain greater insight from comparing these two works, but I’m a little stuck. It would be interesting to hear others’ thoughts on this.

The Irony of the Power Imbalance in Sergei Bodrov’s “Prisoner of the Mountains.”

Leave a reply

I seem to find an enduring theme of the imbalance of power in Sergei Bodrov’s “Prisoner of the Mountains.” The two scenes that seem to compliment this theme are the fight scene between Vanya and the shirtless fighter and the final one of the movie. The fighting scene was shocking as most movies nowadays would have turned this underdog story into a powerful moment of character development for Vanya. What happens, in reality, is that the “Goliath” in this case dismisses the fight and abstains from the utter domination of the young soldier. This idea of those in power, rejecting the expression of their power, is something shared by the rural folk community. Vanya should have been shot at the end of the movie, but his captor who had absolute power at that moment (gun aimed at Vanya’s head) rejected this choice and walked off. Dina, although influenced by love, gave Vanya the key to his shackles, although she knew he was supposed to die as revenge for her brother. This is contrasted ironically with the last scene of the movie, where four attack helicopters are seen rushing towards the unequipped rural community. In this case, the Russians are seen to be rushing to enact revenge on the folk community. The Russians are far more armed and far more powerful from the poor mountain dwellers, and they will probably still crush and demolish the village. I think this choice of abstinence reveals the nature of the Russian waring spirit. Knowing that Russia was almost invariably under siege/at war, the reaction seen by the army is probably to show the war-hardened nature of the country. The folk people are not used to the war life and still see people as people (Some townfolk come to like the prisoners), but the Russian state only sees another war it needs to carry out.

How the Opera Version of “Eugene Onegin” Only Squints at the Image of the Superfluous Man

1 Reply

Tchaikovsky’s Opera rendition of the Russian classic “Eugene Onegin” surprisingly disappointed me. The original poem is probably my favorite work of Russian literature to date, and it was the first text that got me involved with Russian culture. Probably my favorite aspects of the book were the idea of the Russian “superfluous man,” the stylized Pushkin’s own dialogue (especially the wacky elements of it i.e. the love of feet), and how the text was portrayed through the third person Eugene perspective. The Opera version of this text mostly scraps all those aspects, and, in my opinion, ruins Eugene’s character in the first half of this Opera. There is one section in the dinner sequence where Tanya says that she “cannot understand Eugene’s behavior,” which I feel is a very appropriate (and ironic) response. The poem focuses on Eugene’s superfluous tendencies seen through his almost constant remarks of boredom, how easily he gets bored of his Uncle’s massive library, and how he even gets bored of being a playboy after consistently using them to fill his own void. His treatment of Tanya in this text doesn’t give the proper context for why Eugene denies Tanya. He states that it’s because “a married life would mean us torment,” but this sentence doesn’t make sense unless the viewer knows that it’s because Eugene gets bored of EVERYTHING if he has to deal with it for long enough. In a sense, I see this choice to veto the beginning of the poem as a way to romanticize and dramatize the work even further than original. The Opera is portrayed through Tanya’s perspective, a character who is engulfed by her love of french romance novellas, and this leads to the work being more dramatic. This is most evident in the dinner scene where Eugene and Lensky have a verbal disagreement, which gains a massive crowd and causes Olga to faint, rather than the letters they originally sent each-other. Overall, the second half of the Opera was far more faithful to the text. I love how in the ending the viewer comes to understand love as a sacrifice in Russian culture rather than a gift, but I was disappointed with the entire work

Peace, Land, and Bread

Leave a reply

The famous Bolshevik slogan “Peace, Land, and Bread” has little historical connection to “A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow.” The two come from different periods, and in the slogan, peace was representative of soldiers, land of peasants, and bread of the workers. These connections are contrasted as Radishchev’s piece focuses specifically on the plights of serfs working to show the cruelty of serfdom. However, I found distinct connections between these two, which I believe shows the pre-existing historical basis of the populist appeals that were prevalent in Lenin’s pushes in 1917. The want for more equality in hunger, military service period, and the land is something produced from Russia’s fascinating geographic nature, the constant state of civil and external wars due to a weak government, and nobles’ dominance in Russian history. I saw connections to these issues with respect to the serfs in “A Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” primarily in the provinces of Lyubani and Torzhok and the story of Vyshny Volochok. In the example of Torzhok, we can see the outrageous demands of military service that tears families apart, specifically in the case of the mother, son, and girlfriend. This demonstration of the cruelty of forced military services applies to the desire for peace. In the story of Vyshny Volochok, the frustration over food is expressed in the irony that the peasants fill granaries, but lack any food in their stomachs. The hunger of peasants in this story appeals to the desire for bread. In the town of Lyubani, a religious serf is seen tending to his own land on a Sunday because that is the only time he has available to tend to his own land because of the cruel and lasting demands of his master. This section is mostly a commentary on the cruelty of owners, but the parasitic nature in which the master depends on his serfs affects the productivity of serfs on their own land. This, combined with the mention of manorial villages in the text, show the desire for land. Overall, the story, through the particular lens of the cruelty of serfdom, reveals several prevailing issues with Russian society. These issues were the unequal distribution of land, the constant waring state, and hunger. These common issues would continue in Russian culture and would be the central problems that were addressed by Lennin in 1917.