“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.
17 thoughts on “Troubling Father Figures”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Colby, I’m glad to hear that you feel as though you now have a much richer context for rewatching this great film! I believe that you are right on the mark in saying that the three female characters represent three different modes of living. I wouldn’t necessarily connect Lyudmila directly with the “Rogue,” but in an indirect way, yes, she does represent that behavioral model of conniving and conspiring to get what she wants (we can think back to Olga in the Primary Chronicle for a female model). Yet, at the same time, she is a peculiarly Soviet version of this type! And yes, Katya is definitely a stand-in for both the strength/forbearance/and beauty of mother Russia, but also its suffering. And Antonina represents the wholesome, traditional peasant lifestyle, that has survived even in Soviet times. What you say about the problematic male characters also has great validity… We will discuss Gosha, in particular, tomorrow in class, I’m sure! 🙂 My one slight correction here is that what I said about the soul-seeking regarding the problem of the father in Russian cinema was specifically about post-Soviet cinema… whereas this film was made in 1979 (“Burnt by the Sun” was made in 1994). I wouldn’t say that “fathers” per se are an important motif in the Soviet cinema of the 1970s up through early 1980s… But the problem of good-for-nothing Soviet male specimens often was!
Colby, I think you bring up many interesting points! Firstly, your point on the three women and the differences between them, likening them to different phases of Russian motherhood, is of great interest. That made me think about the Eugene Onegin opera, where we see the hopeful young lasses being juxtaposed by the more realistic and pessimistic older grandmothers. Clearly, the Pushkin-inspired opera has something to say about optimism fleeting with age, but what you bring up about the three women in this film is important and astute. Whether the transformation of the Russian mother is with age (over the course of her life) or broadly over time (motherhood evolving with society over Russia’s history) is debatable, but your observations are provocative!
These are some very interesting points you introduce. I think it is interesting to contrast the “mother” and “father” figures in both this film and in “Burnt by Time”. As you point out, the three main female characters in this film seem to represent three different types of archetypal Russia, or Russian life. The emphasis is placed on them, and the male characters are almost just foils. However, in “Burnt by the Sun”, Maroussia is defined as “Mother Russia” figure THROUGH her relationships with the two men in her life. I think the passivity vs activity of these “Mother Russia” figures is fascinating.
Very interesting. This makes me think of the moment at the end of the film where Katya takes in Gosha despite their strained relationship. Gosha is shown nurturing someone who may or may not be deserving of her care. She is participating is a sort of valuable maternal interplay between genders, becoming a powerful like Russia herself in her ability to show compassion and mercy.
Maybe Russia is destined to save the world after all.
Something great about Moscow Doesn’t Believe in Tears and something that really shows the progressiveness of soviet society at the time. In the USA today, we are just now having films with strong female leads—imagine a feminist comparison of this film to our own cinema in 1979! Although a lot of our discussion has been critiquing Soviet society, this film is an example of the Soviet’s female progressiveness. It is as if Tatiana has been reborn into Soviet society!
I think you can definitely make a very interesting comparison to modern feminist representations. The film both pushes forward a representation of progressive femininity and Soviet society’s movement toward women’s rights, while simultaneously upholding the value of traditional family ideals. Katya embodies this struggle with modern femininity by both fulfilling the role of a successful independent woman and acknowledging the need for a family life and romantic partner. The film captures the soviet society in transition and a very nuanced representation of modern femininity, that both aligns with and deviates from our present day ideology of feminism.
I agree with Eva’s comment that the movie emphasizes female characters more than male characters, where men are foils to women. I would also add that Gosha represents the most ideal version of a Soviet man, so he would be the closest person to fit the role that you mention. In class we discussed his proletariat background and his honesty. I described Katya as becoming submissive to Gosha’s control. However, I don’t think that is the best description for their relationship. Instead, Katya has been independent and a hard worker for most of her life and has come to a point that she wants companionship. The second part of the movie shows Katya’s affair with the married man, which highlights her search for a relationship. Her failed relationship with Rudolf and her affair leave her unhappy and unfulfilled. When she meets Gosha, he treats her differently than those before him. For her, Gosha is an equally strong character, someone she can lean on. She trusts him enough to make the right decision for her daughter and herself. In this way, Gosha symbolizes hard work, honesty, strength, and balance.
Shandiin, this is such a sensitive reading of Katya and her situation and her relationship with Gosha! Nicely done.
I think your ideas are solid, especially when it comes to the interpretation of the women as Russia over time. Given that this film was released after the Stalin period when culture was beginning a rebound of sorts, I think Katya’s portrayal of the classic soviet makes sense, and that the filmmakers were trying to criticize that “model soviet.” I say this because she’s deeply unfulfilled, even though she’s very successful in her work, which comments on the fact that there’s more to life than just work, which Stalin tried to dispel.
Excellent points, Gabe! You do a great job of revealing the subtle political critique in this seemingly innocent romantic film. Yes, absolutely!
I think you bring a really interesting point up about Gosha. I didn’t quite see him as you did. I saw him as more of a positive figure as he seemed good for Katya. Although, I understand the points that you make and it poses an interesting question. Why is Katya interested in him with all the stuff she has been through?
I mentioned in class that Katya’s interest could be born from the fact that he is so different from Nikolay, who Colby rightly called an “egotistical ass.” But Colby refers as Gosha as narcissistic, and that rings true for me in a sense, and, in a way, it resembles Nikolay’s egomania. Nikolay is a “victim blamer,” and Gosha seems wary of women earning more than him. In a sense, he blames women for the harm to his ego. Both have strangely fragile masculine identities.
So I’m forced I guess to look at this from a different, but perhaps more simplistic, angle. Maybe Gosha is a “troubling father figure” much like Nikolay, but, the simple fact of the matter is that he isn’t as bad. Where as Nikolay is inhuman, Gosha is merely flawed in philosophy. Where as Nikolay is downright malevolent at times. Gosha is vulnerably destructive. For Nikolay, misogyny is an enabler. For Gosha, misogyny is a weakness.
We have some confusion over names here, which seems to have started with Colby’s post! The alcoholic ex-husband of Lyudmila is Seryozha (Sergei). Rudolf (later Rodion) is the jerky TV operator-rapist. Nikolai is Antonina’s sweet husband. Let’s not bad-mouth him by accident! 🙂
Colby, you did a great job differentiating between the three main female characters in the film. Of the three, Katya identifies most with the idealized image of ‘Mother Russia’; however, it is important to note that she also struggles during the film. This might speak to the general stagnation and dissonance between expectations and the realities of soviet life during this time period. Additionally, I believe that all three women work to expose the true nature of ‘Mother Russia’, not just the idealised soviet version. As Professor Gillespie mentioned, Antonina represents the agricultural roots of the system. Lyudmila most likely reveals the portions of the society that have become disillusioned by the idea of a soviet state and prefer to find happiness on a less working-class path. To answer your question about the father, I do not think there is one or that there really needs to be one. The women present the complex reality splendidly and the men seem to be more focused on where their next drink is coming from. Besides, the movie is more entertaining this way.
Thando, what a great comment! I couldn’t agree more! 🙂
I found the character of Katya and her relationship with Gosha to be quite interesting. Katya is independent, hardworking, and, like Colby said, a modern Soviet woman. She seems to be a person who is fine being by herself, yet connects with Gosha, who seems to be quite arrogant. That being said, I think Gosha’s relationship with Katya is not as obviously bad as her relationships (platonic and romantic) with the other men. Gosha is a flawed person, but often his misogony comes from a deeper, more unclear reason.
OK, I have a very soft spot in my heart for Gosha, I will admit. So I am going to stand up for him again, as I did in class. Yes, he does make very problematic comments sometimes–but these were (and largely are) still very much within the widely accepted discourse in Soviet/Russian society around gender roles, so although we may not like these attitudes, it’s difficult to fault him personally. But I really think that the point is that he is paying lip service to those attitudes (which certainly causes friction between himself and Katya!), while in fact acting in a total different, and very courageous (for his society) and noble way. He cooks, he cleans up after himself, he cares for Katya and allows her to rest, which she seemingly hasn’t done in years and years… He is willing to share the parenting… He wins Alexandra over, no small victory… This is not the behavior of an egotistical misogynist! Actions speak louder than words, in this case, I believe. 🙂