In Anna, Nikita Mikhalkov illustrates the shift in the Russian political awareness during Perestroika using the development of his daughter from child to young woman. As a young child, Anna is not yet cognizant of the malevolent forces at play in the world. Her worst enemy is borsch, her least favorite soup. At this time, to an extent the soviet government was still able to distract its citizens from its internal inadequacies. Magnificent shows of military and industrial might kept unease at bay for now, but theatrics can only do so much. As she grows older, she slowly begins to lose her childish qualities and begins to notice structural issues within her society. Her father notices “the locks she [Anna] forged” and realizes that he might never gain access. The lock metaphor demonstrates that the creation of these boundaries was not immediate but a gradual shift that was facilitated by the natural aging process and the collection of experiences. Locks are installed to keep intruders out and to protect precious possessions. Anna now holds delicate emotions that she does not want to be tarnished. In her interview with her father, she points out that soviet clothing is not great quality, and the new clothing is better. This moment marks the beginning of the development of her social consciousness, and consequently, the beginning of the national revival that took place during Perestroika.
This film prompted me to consider my own coming of age story. While I appreciate this wonderful documentary, I would hate to be Anna and have a camera following me around during, arguably, the most tender moments of my life.
I think you bring up a good point about to locks that Anna possesses on her thoughts and mind. I wonder if having a camera in her face at points of her childhood contributed to these locks. I think anyone in these circumstances would not like being filmed. I would certainly have locks on myself if I grew up as Anna did. I think this is a very interesting point that you bring up.
I think Mikhalkov’s comment on his daughter’s filtered response juxtaposed the national response to Russia’s implementation of perestroika. This time of a new liberation for the people of Russia prompted Mikhalkov to state,”[Perestroika] meant to do things that were once private, now in public.” Once again, Mikhalkov uses cinematography to illuminate this point, which draws attention to his description of Anna’s private thoughts as locked away.
I still linger on the clothing example. On the one hand, it does represent an acknowledgement of an issues with the Soviet system, a break from the idolization of every detail of the state that she exhibited under Brezhnev’s rule. On the other hand, the “light industry” example seems too carefully crafted to reflect an original insight. I believe that the theme of pedagogy we discussed in class is relevant to the work. I believe Mikhalkov means to illustrate that despite the fact that while the Soviet Union under Gorbachev had moved toward allowing more open criticism of the state to be circulated in the interest of cultivating positive reforms, the youth and education system remain fixated on this idea that there is one acceptable critique to be found. In this way, the clothing example seems to illustrate the persistence of the locks. It poses this question of where an institution’s veneer of increased liberty ends and where social consciousness begins. Great post, Thando!
Zach what you picked up in Anna’s remark about “light industry” (лёгкая промышленность) and the improvements in clothing is exactly right: as the jargony and halting nature of her phrasing suggests, she was straining for an answer to his insistent questions, and the one she came up with was just mouthing the propaganda of Perestroika all over again! In other words, we see in action here the paradox that the “opening” and “restructuring” of glasnost’ and perestroika are, at least on some level, just one more propaganda campaign with which the populace (including the youth) are being inculcated. They STILL are not able to think freely for themselves. I witnessed this paradox myself when I taught high school in the Soviet Union in 1990-91, and things did not change substantially even after the Soviet period ended.
I agree, Thando, that your focus on the metaphor of the lock is very revealing! Nicely done!
I had not made note of this image before! I think it is very interesting to look at the idea of “locks” on a person’s psyche in a cultural sense. As we talked about in class, personal privacy was not very respected at this point in the Soviet Union. To me as an American, it seems normal for a child to have secrets, thoughts, and ideas of their own. Likely Mikhalkov was less comfortable with this idea, even if he did not go so far as to disapprove, hence the fact that he chooses to comment on it.