Anna: 6 – 18 was a outstanding documentary film, where Mikalkov was able to use his own daughter as a microcosm to show the impact of a radically changing government, and how political instability and ideology penetrates adolescence. There is a literary device called a metonymy, where a part is used to stand in for a whole: wheels for a car, crown for a king. Mikalkov is attempting to create a metonymy with his daughter, distilling the degrading nation into growing psyche of one of its children.
Although as a piece of art the film was beautiful, I was shocked at Mikalkov’s willingness to use his daughter for public art. Although most of these images weren’t violating privacy, the famous director is still framing and editing an interpretation of his own daughter for a clearly fixed political agenda. He is making the private public for a person who, because of her age, cannot control what her public appearance may be. This is supported by years later Anna stating she felt the film was “a dissection of her private life.”
I understand that this is a very liberal-minded argument, one that I personally don’t fully agree with. But I was wondering if I could open up this conversation to the class and hear other opinions. Did you find it unethical for Mikalkov to exploit intimate family moments with his daughter to create such a film? Or is this under his providence as a father? Or does that sort of publicizing the private not matter at all?
Brennon, after watching the film, I too came across the quote from Anna and it definitely changed my perspective on the film. I think the question of whether the film is “ethical” is a complex one, and I have to think the judge of that should be Anna herself. Obviously to Anna, her father did not have the authority to “dissect” her life the way he did. However, it is interesting to note that it seems that her issues with the film revolve around privacy–not the representation of her life, etc, which I think could add on to the complex fact that documentaries that reveal the truth, are often uncomfortable to those who are its subject. As discussed in class, I also think there is a cultural difference regarding one’s privacy in this situation as well. I would also be curious to hear other thoughts because I do not truly have a clear answer/opinion!
After the discussion in class today, the intrusion of privacy of Anna is very apparent to me. I think this is a pretty private look into the life of Anna through the interviews and footage. Although, it is also apparent to me that Mikhail is very invested in this film and the images that it conveys. It was very hard for Mikhail to get film and create this documentary. As Liam said, I do not have a clear answer and I don’t think it would be very hard to come to an answer. It would be very interesting to hear what Mikhail would say about this issue.
I think that this intensifies the impact of the film. This uninhibited exploitation of child innocence is central to Mikhalkov’s critique of Russia. Just as we criticize Mikhalkov’s motive for publicizing his daughter in this way, we are drawn to see how Russia openly did this by encouraging activities that promoted Soviet ideals among its youth. This may be another way to view Mikhalkov’s use of metonymy.
I find this an insightful outlook on the ethical question, though it does lead to a production question: at what point did Mikhalkov conceive of his project as a critique of the Soviet Union’s exploitation of children’s innocence (and images) for propagandistic purposes? When in the production process did he procure official footage of the Young Pioneers and Russian Olympiad? I have developed an appreciation for the inherent fluidity of the development process: Mikhalkov had over 12 years to ponder the narrative for his final film, and he always worked with the possibility that his project would be shelved or shuttered. From his style of questioning alone, it is clear that his disagreement with state pedagogy inevitably would have figured into the final product. As the exploitation of childhood innocence in the media is a proximate concern, it is not hard to see the message you identified as entering early in production. In any case, once this message became central to the production, Mikhalkov surely lost any case for halting over ethical concerns.
Especially after today’s class, I too was left grappling with the ethics of the film. But where I was left questioning the morality of film maker’s use of his daughter, the cold logic of it made sense. He is creating a film about how the public, political identity of a nation can invade the domestic, private identities of families- specifically children. It made sense that to create the film, Mikalkov utilized methods which involved the disintegration of domestic/ public boundaries. He was, in a way, making public the way the public invades the private. He was both emulating and reversing the thing the film documents.
I completely agree, Ethan. I think also Mikhalkov knew that accessing the childhood innocence of his daughter was one of the only ways to show the true opinions of a young person growing up in the Soviet Union at that time. Not only does Mikhalkov know that children are more likely to give their honest opinions, but he seems to be the type of father who creates a family environment without secrets, where children are expect to disclose all. That piece of the situation is what makes me a bit uncomfortable; Anna does not have any leverage or agency to do anything but lay bare her truest thoughts, opinions, and emotions.
SUCH a great discussion! I don’t have any answers, myself, to these questions… and I agree that they are somewhat troublesome (Mikhalkov himself, as I tried to indicate in class, is also a very contradictory guy with some troublesome and disturbing views and positions at times). At the same time, I think that Shandiin, Ethan and Eva are correct that the only way to convey the message he wanted to convey–about the way the state invades personal and family privacy and corrupts–is to do it this way… There are no easy answers here, and it seems to be a case of having to make ethical compromises for the sake of a larger ethical purpose. Soviet citizens were intimately familiar with such ethical tensions.