Author Archives: Gabe Batista

The grown up child

3 Replies

On the surface, Tolstaya’s short story Night depicts the day of a mentally challenged man named Alexei who is being cared for by his mother, but I think that this story is an allegory for Russia in the contemporary world. The man acts as a child would, understanding the world not for what it was, unable to live an independent life.

We know the main character is a fully grown man by the several allusions to his balding head and his beard, as well as the way people treat him. They’re uncomfortable with his childish and immature actions, and treat him like a pariah when they see him outside. This is because he can’t control himself, and he acts like a child. I think this is an allegory for Russia in the late Soviet period, with a child that was born out of pain, and never really grew up to be what he was supposed to be, instead becoming a misfit.

I interpret this “birth from pain” to be the Russian revolution and the wars surrounding the Soviet Union’s inception. In addition to that parallel, the Soviet Union had ambitions to become a global powerhouse, but as time went on, that vision faded and the country sort of floundered, much like Alexei, who wanted to be a writer but is instead a man who hasn’t matured in a normal, healthy way.

Based on this analysis, I’m not exactly sure who the mother is meant to represent. Based  on her tired and disheartened appearance, I imagine she’s meant to represent somebody who tried to set the USSR on a positive path, but is now a sort of caretaker. If Night is meant to be an allegory, who do you think Alexei is, and who do you think the mother is?

Socialist Realist themes in Cheburashka

10 Replies

Coming into this class, I’ll admit, I didn’t think we’d be watching many cartoons. Especially cartoons made for kids, which I assume this is. That being said, I found Cheburashka to be reminiscent of the socialist realist genre, in the sense of unity through work and overcoming struggle.

The story of a little furry ball of mystery, a crocodile, and a little girl caught me a little off guard. I wasn’t quite sure what the message was until they started building, but then the theme of unification of work was readily apparent. Not only do those three meet and decide they want to build a house for others, but they want to build that house for anybody who needs a friend. It’s clear that this is a message to children about the values of friendship, but the fact that they met that larger group of people through building that house makes me think that there’s a message just beyond the surface. That message regards how work can build a community, which was a major feature of previous socialist works. I also saw the emphasis regarding the ambiguity of the little fur ball as meaning that anybody can meet others, casting out a wider net to inspire more people to work, and possibly find friendship and unification.

In addition to the friendships gained by building the house, the group of friends manages to turn an ill-mannered, cruel woman into a person who is remorseful of their actions, sparking growth in those with more malicious intents through their work. The character growth was seemingly only brought on by the completion of the project and the unity she saw it bring to all those involved. I read into this as an allusion to the toxic environment that was pervasive in socialist realist stories. In those stories, the hero overcame the negativity and all that was weighing them down to achieve something great, and the apology from the woman at the end signified Gena the crocodile’s defeat of evil.

In the end, it’s a fun kids story about friendship, but there are some hidden layers that harken back to the older days of story telling. I’m not sure when socialist realism was un-codified, but this story shares many similarities, so I imagine that this was at least somewhat intentional. Do you guys think that’s the message the filmmakers were sending?

A different kind of propaganda

7 Replies

Coming fresh off the heels of the discussion about the transformation of Soviet Propaganda, the harsh criticisms of Stalin and the regime that was abducting and dispatching political prisoners left and right stood in stark contrast to the glorification of that same regime we observed in the posters. While writing may not seem to be propagandistic at first glance, the vivid imagery used in Mandelstam’s We Live Without Feeling evokes a negative impression of the forces in power.

We Live Without Feeling is a devastating poem that highlights the terrors that were enacted in order to maintain a political status quo, eliminating anyone who spoke out and disagreed with the party. The purpose was to cut at the notion of a morally superior leader, which Stalin relied on in order to maintain the admiration and respect of his people. By portraying the Stalin and his hitmen in an explicitly negative light, Mandelstam thus delegitimized Stalin’s position as a morally sound leader.

The explicit criticism of the party and thus Stalin were the depictions of him as a worm-fingered, cockroach-eyed jackbooted despot. This was meant as a counter to the standard imagery that was usually shown of Stalin, like that one picture of him with the girl whose parents he sent to the gulags that we spoke about in class. Another explicit criticism of Stalin and his regime was the line “every execution is a feast for him,” which was meant to expose and denounce his penchant for the execution of his political prisoners, as well as cast doubts on his portrayal as a loving, caring figurehead of the party. Again, this portrayal as a bloodthirsty maniac was meant to run counter to the state media’s portrayal of Stalin as a father-like figure that everybody should look up to.

Finally, Mandelstam’s use of the phrase “semi-humans” was meant as criticism of the guards who carried out Stalin’s actions, but it also reflected poorly on Stalin, for how could a man of the people associate himself with semi-humans and acts that were so violent and cruel.

Overall, We Live Without Feeling was a strong, piercing piece of propaganda that opposed the positive portrayals of Stalin and his regime, instead hitting on the cruelty and hypocrisy of appearance that was rampant under Stalin

blindness and society

5 Replies

When reading Zoshchenko’s poems, I found Poverty to be particularly salient, especially once the lights were turned on and the detriments of the main character’s living conditions were exposed. I believe that this story was an allegory for how some people react to their society when they are made aware of their society’s shortcomings, with some actively working to make it better, while others prefer not to expend that effort, but to go back into a state where they can ignore those shortcomings.

The main character’s belief that he was living in luxury made it all the more painful for him when he realized that he was living in squalor. Despite this, he put his nose to the grindstone and renovated his living quarters, putting all his money and time into ensuring that his room was clean, presentable, and comfortable to live in with the lights on. He represents the kind of person that, when confronted with issues the society is facing, chooses to engage with them and try to make his life better. My belief in this representation is bolstered by the fact that they were just starting to build up the Soviet Union, so I believe that he represents the kind of person who took part in that.

His actions are in stark contrast to the landlady, however, who chose to return to the literal dark ages when her electric lights reveal that her apartment was disgusting. She didn’t want to put the work in to fix her living situation though, so she chose to continue living that way, but without lights so she couldn’t see how she was living. Not only did she refuse to improve her life and living space, but she refused to allow others to keep the luxuries that let them enjoy their newfound cleanliness and organization. I believe that she is meant to represent those who refuse to accept the new society because it exposes current issues, and they don’t want to work to make their society better. This could also be read more directly with the woman as a stand-in for traditional values standing in the way of technological innovation, but given the time this was written, I believe Poverty was meant to be an allegory for how some people actively try to improve society, while others try to shut out problems and hold the improvers back.

Pasternak’s unavoidable fate

4 Replies

Pasternak’s poetry is undeniably introspective, asking the viability of choice and progress and challenging the notion that we have complete agency over our lives. He asks this through metaphors, namely those of an actor on a stage and of a train on the tracks, likening them to life. His Hamlet poem has an actor explaining how he felt during the play; acting out a character that someone else had laid out for him, yet being happy to play the role. He laments that the play will go on in a preordained sequence, with the ending set in stone and the path just as unchangeable and apparent. These lamentations relate to the narrator’s view of life; that we are born in order to play a role in our society, and our end and means of reaching the end is laid bare and inevitable. This notion is reinforced with the closing line “to live is not like walking through a field,” meaning that you don’t have complete mobility to decide how you live, but you’re following a set of tracks.

The idea of a track for an end destination is especially apparent in his work My Sister Life, which takes place on a train. The train is meant to represent this set course of life, as trains have to follow an unmoving track in order to get to their destination. In this train is a multitude of passengers, each asking “is this my station” when they are awakened by the howling of the breaks. This is meant to represent how we all have different endings, but we are all headed there on the same set of paths, and we’re just waiting for our turn to reach our destinations. The narrator of My Sister Life chases after the train, but it’s too fast, leaving him behind. I may be reading into this too much, but with the rampant metaphors regarding fate, I read this as a commentary that some people are on a different path in life, and sometimes people aren’t meant to share the same fate, and are destined to be apart. That being said, I also believe this poem alludes to industrialization and political changes, but in the context of Hamlet, I also read My Sister Life as an allegory for predefined fate.

A new form of royal portrait

1 Reply

In sorting through the burst of colors that were the symbolist paintings, Kustodiev’s Portrait of Tsar Nicholas II was the one that intrigued me most. While it’s not the most technically astounding painting of the bunch, what caught my eye was the way Kustodiev took the basic portrait of a monarch and flipped it on its head through color and composition.

One of the first things you notice about Portrait of Tsar Nicholas II is the light, vibrant color palette that Kustodiev used. This is quite the opposite of classic portrait painting, especially when it comes to painting the Tsar. Previously, the portraits of royalty had used dark, muted color palettes. When color was used, there were really only a few vibrant colors, which popped out from the rest of the muted paintings. Kustodiev, however, used many bright colors, so much so that the black on Nicholas’ hat stands out as the most muted piece in the painting. While many of his contemporaries also used bright color palettes, Kustodiev’s decision to use those colors on a royal portrait was unique, bringing liveliness to a type of painting that was usually muted.

The other striking aspect about this painting is the composition, namely Nicholas’ central placement, facing the viewer head on, which is very unique among portraits of royals. Classic portraits of Tsars and other royals have the subject at an angle to the viewer, but the orientation of Nicholas makes the viewer feel as though they’re speaking with him. That’s how it struck me at least. While many of the older portraits feel impersonal, this portrait personifies him, kind of taking Nicholas off of his pedestal and putting him at our level. This is partly because, before this painting, the only subjects that would face the viewer head on would be peasants or common folk, such as in Ivanov’s A Girl From Albano Standing in a Doorway. The city in the background is another way the composition varies from other portraits of Tsars, which often had a plain background, or depicted them in some palace. Much like the colors, the city adds life to a type of painting that typically fell flat.

With the color and the composition, Kustodiev’s portrait of Nicholas II redefined what a Tsar’s portrait was, updating the classic category of royal portrait painting to fit in with the wave of  symbolists in Russian art.

Loss, love, and indifference

Leave a reply

Pechorin is the story’s main character, and he’s the dictionary definition of an antihero. He acts on his desires and manipulates others in order to achieve what he wants, often with little to no regard of the impact he has on others. Take the abduction of Bela, for example. Pechorin had Azamat steal his own sister to give to Pechorin in exchange for the chance to steal someone’s horse. This negatively impacted several lives, including Bela’s, who became depressed after being abducted, Azamat, who had to go into hiding and likely got himself killed in a guerrilla army, and Kazbich, who had his prized possession stolen. All of these negative actions were a result of Pechorin’s selfish desires to have Bela as a lover. Bela’s initial misery may be overlooked by her eventual love towards Pechorin, but he then started to ignore her, again fitting the antihero mold by abandoning someone after he had seemingly grown bored of her, according to his friend Max.

Despite his often-negative impact on others and his inability to recognize those impacts, I believe that Pechorin can truly love someone, just in his own way. After Kazbich returned to the castle they were staying at and abducted Bela, Pechorin chased after him to get her back. When she was stabbed, Pechorin was visibly anguished over his lover’s mortal injuries. His attempts at reviving her through kisses at the moment she was stabbed illustrate a distraught man desperately trying to save someone he cares about. If he didn’t truly love her, I believe that he would not have been so distraught over her stabbing. In the same vein, he refused to leave her bedside, even when she told him to rest, only leaving to get her water. I believe these are the actions of a man deeply invested in someone he loves, even though he couldn’t show it before. Other instances of what I believe is real love include after her abduction, when Pechorin is doing his best to console her, as someone who is indifferent towards a woman wouldn’t have put in that kind of effort.

This points to the notion of a complex, nuanced character who embodies more than just the spirit of a selfish man, but also someone capable of feeling powerful connections and true pain.

From Luxury to Labor: An Evolution of Subjects in Russian Paintings

1 Reply

When looking at the paintings for today’s assigned discussion, one’s eyes would likely be immediately drawn to the colors. Vivid greens, reds, and blues jump out at you. Some paintings, however, remain muted, but the color isn’t what I want to focus on. The color is just an indication of the shift toward a less regal set of subjects, with many of these paintings taking place outside. The paintings we have looked at in this class were icons or portraits of the tsar or nobility. Instead of a man looking toward the viewer with a wry smile, the paintings from these artists portray the lives of everyday people doing everyday things. Take Spring, Plowlandby Venetsianov for example. This painting depicts a woman guiding a horse through a field to plow it while a baby plays off in the corner. This is a decidedly non-royal activity, which contrasts sharply with the past traditions of painting in Russia that we’ve seen in this class, which mainly consisted of royal/noble portraits and icons. Another example of peasant paintings from Venetsianov is On the Thresher Floor, which depicts some peasants resting and some working in a wooden building. Again, this style of painting, with peasants doing their work, is a drastic departure from previous norms, where the subjects were clean and poised for a portrait.

Even the portraits that were assigned for this class veer from the regal style we have seen before in this class. Those portraits were largely of nobles and leaders, as was apparent from their extravagant dress or the title of the painting, while these portraits are of people from much farther down on the socioeconomic ladder. Some examples include The Gold Embroideressand The Lace-Makerby Troponin. These portraits, as well as others we were assigned, were of peasants engaging in their occupation in less than luxurious clothing within the overall style of a portrait.

While there are paintings with religious themes, they relate much less to the standard template icons and more to the realistic painting style, with religious figures painted in realistic scenes. One such scene is The Appearance of Christ Before the People, where Jesus meets a group of people. Even the religious paintings seem to have evolved into a more European renaissance style, highlighting proportions and realism rather than borderline caricatures of religious figures as seen in previous icons.

The abandonment of tradition in favor of morality

Leave a reply

A striking element in A Journey To From St. Petersburg to Moscowand its prologue is liberality from those who have benefitted from the system they now criticize. Though he benefitted from his predecessors’ use of serfs, he disagreed with the practice. I believe that made his adherence to his principles even more persuasive, as he believed about his cause so much, sacrificed his possible wealth for the cause.

While Radishchev was harsh towards the idea of censorship and drafting, some of his harshest criticisms of the Russian lifestyle and economy were against the practice of serfdom. On several occasions throughout the text, Radishchev lambasts masters for both their cruel treatment of their serfs and peasants, but also the economic advantages those masters collect from them. In one example on page 268, Radishchev says it’s unfair how a man can force hundreds, possibly even a thousand workers to break their backs working in his field, only for the master to be praised as an expert in agriculture. Though he grew up with peasants, Radishchev said that those who benefit so much from the work of others didn’t deserve the right to be citizens, and claimed that they were criminals, and should be stigmatized as thieves for their collection of the fruits of others’ labor. Though some may believe that his upbringing undercuts his point, I contend the opposite; that his arguments against serfdom and subjugation were actually given more credence because of his upbringing. This means that his convictions were so strong he turned his back on the tradition on which his rank and power were based. I’d be interested to hear about other perspectives on this, and whether it seems hypocritical to criticize a system upon which his rank was built.

Another reason I believe Radishchev’s devotion to his principles are true is because we see an example of someone in his position that could have opposed serfdom but defaulted to the traditional custom. From the story of the man on page 275, we saw a master who benefitted from serfdom and failed to completely abandon and condemn the practice, with his wife ensuring he treated his serfs like other gentry did. While Radishchev could have fallen in line with that man, he didn’t, and still renounced serfdom, which to me showed great backbone against an institution that could have turned him into the monster he castigated.