I found the 1949 short film “Someone Else’s Voice” to be quite disturbing, although its main characters are cartoon birds. As soon as the magpie entered the film, I could tell what the moral at the end of the film was to be. The idyllic initial scene was set with the nightingale singing for a crowd of birds who listened to him in rapture. Once the magpie entered, her criticism of the nightingale as “old fashioned” and her admiration of foreign birds who had “freedom” made it immediately clear to me that she was the social outlier that needed to be put in line. When she put on her own concert to show the nightingale how it was done abroad, of course she was a painful bad singer who only cared about her appearance. The scene that struck me the most in this film was the moment when the disapproving crowd of birds watching the magpie’s concert had had enough, and so flew in unison off of their perches to attack her and chase her off stage. Order was restored once the magpie was gone and the nightingale sang for the birds again.
That scene was so impactful for me because of its quick and violent action against a cultural dissident. There was universal disapproval of the magpie, and so her presence could not be tolerated. The translation of this image into real life is evocative of the similarly menacing Stalinist propaganda posters that we also viewed. As we know, artists of all types that did not suit Stalin’s liking were thrown into prison, barely tried, and then killed. Seeing this same concept play out even in an animated film was definitely disconcerting.
One thing I find intriguing is why the “Old Fashion” is viewed as superior in cultural representation. Obviously there are some examples of older cultural works that were enjoyed by the Soviets i.e. Ivan the Terrible, or other examples of Soviet artists remaking older works through the medium of film. However, in many cases the old fashioned Russia goes strictly against the Soviet agenda. This old fashioned my reference something old fashioned to soviet life. I also find the idea of conformity interesting in this work.
I think the magpie is a potent symbol in this work as a “foreigner” to the other birds. I think that alongside the dichotomy of “old fashioned” and “modern” exists the conflict between the foreigner and the in group. The magpie, with its embarrassing ego and poor singing, makes a statement about cultural imperialism. Although the magpie attempts to assert its superiority over the culture it is trespassing on, it is kicked out by the other birds, a call to resist foreign intervention. While some of the birds who enjoy the magpie’s song , these birds are portrayed as stupid and superfluous. The birds portrayed and commoners, symbolizing “loyal/good citizens”, exhibit resistance and push forward a powerful piece of anti-imperialist propaganda.
I found it interesting that the music of the nightingale changed when the magpie left. The children were also allowed to sign along with the magpie when they couldn’t at the beginning of the film. At the beginning, a child tried to sing out but got scolded for it. I think it was interesting that the magpie influenced the original group of birds when they clearly did not accept foreigners as you mentioned.
I also found the short film unsettling, particularly due to the fact that it is geared towards a younger audience. That fact almost made the film seem as though it was a warning not to stray from the strict parameters the Soviet government will allow you to express yourself within. On another point, I thought it was interesting how to connected the situation depicted in the film to real-life authors, poets, artists, etc. It further highlights how the film is used as a weapon of sorts to reveal to young audiences the power and in a sense, ruthlessness, of the government when it comes to limiting freedom of expression.
I think everyone has done a great job of exposing the insidious motives behind this propaganda film. Like most cartoons for small children, it seems nice and rosy on the outside, but, in reality, the film is the beginning of a lifetime of indoctrination. It reminded me of some of the films we watched at my Catholic elementary school about burning in the fiery depths of hell.
The film works to not only show how foreign culture is not only unwelcome in Soviet Russia, but it is also ugly and unharmonious. The magpie’s song was so much more sporadic and featured only harsh, violent notes in contrast to the nightingale’s sweet melodic song.
I find the propagandistic intent even reflects in the character designs. Most of the anti-magpie birds are shown to be small and round, conveying a sense of innocence or individual vulnerability to the young audience. In contrast, the magpie has a sharp physicality, her vanity emphasized by her arched posture, earring-like wattles, long tail feathers, and . When subjected to brutality, she loses her costume and flies off, emphasizing her inhuman qualities so as to reduce audience sympathy. The pro-magpie birds borrow elements of her appearance such as large sizes, pronounced beaks, and anthropomorphized builds. Dividing the birds based on relative size works well within the Soviet propaganda context for a couple of reasons. For starters, the idea of the little birds usurping the large bird elite plays well into the ethos of the Bolshevik revolution. It also provides a sort of youth-empowering message that serves the state: a young population willing to put the state before family is a boon to the state surveillance apparatus. A final motive I see is an appeal to Stalin’s height insecurity: portraying the villains as comparatively tall might have helped normalize Stalin’s more arbitrary purges.
Eva, great analysis!
For me, I noticed that the magpie’s time abroad is mentioned more than once, especially when she speaks of how beautifully and fashionable the foreign birds sing. Her character is marked with gaudy feathers and details which are not present in other birds. In these ways, she is shown to be the social outlier that you mention.
I also noticed the short film’s value for simplicity, which is most apparent when the magpie’s song is met with annoyance and anger. I also noticed that the magpie’s song is unnatural and chaotic, composed of actual instruments, which greatly differ from the natural chirping of the nightingale. Additionally, the magpie is portrayed to be unnaturally contorting her body when she performs for the community, which leads the other birds to withdraw their tolerance and violently attack her. This end result of violence shows the collective disdain for foreign ideas and beliefs.
To add to Xander’s comment, I think that when the other birds allow the chick to sing along with the nightingale, the film is encouraging the old traditions, ideas, and beliefs.
I would agree that the scariest part of the film is that is it marketing a shockingly violent narrative to children. But after today’s class, this made sense. The Soviet government really was targeting the domestic realms of society for influence, and this shows through in this film.
When I first watched this film, I actually misinterpreted it as a critique of the new Soviet way of life, based on the final line which stated that the new way is not always the better way. The film was clearly condemning change. However, it seems to me that that this does not at all detract from its status as a piece soviet propaganda. Where as films such as “Forward, March Time” focus on attacking old, traditional ways of life, this particular film actually disguises the Soviet way of life AS the traditional way of life.