Films like Anna are always striking. The significant events of life and the world are often seen through the harsh, and often pessimistic, eyes of an adult. Using a child, however, gives a more pure and maybe more honest perspective. The eye of a child offers a unique perspective on huge events such as the ones happening in the Soviet Union during Anna’s life. We can see not only the development and change in Russia but the observations and insights a young girl offers. In a way, viewers can see two transformations. We see the transformation of the Soviet Union to Russia, and we see Anna’s transformation from an innocent child to an introspective young woman. Mikhail’s skill in filmmaking is apparent, as he can intertwine Anna’s answers into the perfect spot, surrounded by actual footage to compare and contrast to Anna’s perspective.
As Anna grows up, it is also apparent to see her notice of structural changes and flaws in her country. Most young people go through this awakening, as they see the flaws in their nation. There becomes a desire to fix things for their future and the generations following them. I found the film to be especially powerful as Anna cried in the last scene while talking about her future, her fears, and her feelings. It becomes apparent that Anna is patriotic and wants her country to change for the better.
Sophie, I liked your point about how the child and Russia go through periods of transition. However, I am less willing to believe that Mikhalkov did all of the interviews with his childhood honestly, and furthermore that the film was not doctored and framed to serve his political artistic purpose. We forget that as a director Mikhalkov has the ability to force our view of Anna, both in what is shown and what is not shown. Maybe it is because I am cynical, but I don’t believe that all of the interview were candid and unscripted. So this “patriotic” sense should be taken with a grain of salt.
Sophie, I agree with your comments about how seeing the Soviet Union from the perspective of a child gives and interesting and, perhaps, more honest glimpse into the Soviet Union. However, as Brennon touched on, unfortunately it is difficult to know how much of an impact forces such as propaganda had on Anna and her answers. Regardless, however, I think it was fascinating to get such a personal look at the Soviet Union which this film definitely accomplishes.
Mikhail’s use of youth in his films is very fascinating. It is clear that he believes children represent something very special to Russia and are used in Anna and Burnt by the Sun to do this. I think this documentary is especially amazing because it emphasizes the development of the values of Anna, as you point out.
Many researchers agree that children are best at drawing objective conclusions on certain issues. Mikhalkov’s decision to tell the story of the USSR through the eyes of a child was intentional. The choice was most likely carried out to convince the viewer that the story is objective as well. Sophie, I think your comments draw on one of the main themes of this film: coming-of-age. Coming-of-age stories always include some reference to the historical context. Kids who came of age when Trump was elected were more likely to be political science majors because structural issues in our political climate were more apparent. Just like those children, Anna’s thoughts on the world and her own country were impacted by her historical context. In class, we wondered why she might want to return to a country that she noticed had many inadequacies. Her resolve to return to her country might have been a result of the resilience and perseverance she witnessed in her fellow Russians during difficult times.
I think that Anna’s story mirrors that of many during this time, whether it be constructed or not.This contemplation on the authenticity of Anna’s emotions and experiences creates a dialogue–which I think is Mikhalkov’s biggest purpose in creating this film. The history of the Soviet Union’s intense censorship within the country would never have allowed this type of dialogue, especially in as frank a way as Mikhalkov portrays it in his cinematography. Of course, the views expressed in the film are shaped by Mikhalkov, but it is filtered by the sincerity of the children– in their joy, pain, and laughter. Anna serves a bigger role in this because her answers to her father’s questions not only lead us to question her authenticity, but we are also forced to see the ways in which this mistrust was carried on more or less subtly during this period in Russian history.
I would agree with your final assessment of Anna’s patriotism, and I would at that, leading up to Anna’s anguish depicted at the end of the film was closely juxtaposed with the political footage in the life of the film. And yet, Anna’s final answering of the questions and her tears are isolated from the political footage- it never once appears again in the film. I think that this is significant. It seems almost as if Anna is being artistically purified of the political chaos which has invaded her personal life and childhood.
Ethan, that’s a really interesting point about the ending and the way the film is framed! I think it’s also important that at both the beginning and the end, we see the field and the dirt road leading up to the house, which seems to be a world away from politics and all of the upheaval of the time. I think it isn’t just Anna herself who is being purified here, but Mikhalkov’s entire family “nest” and illustrious family history, which has somehow transcended many different political regimes and continued nevertheless to thrive. There is definitely an ideological project that underlies this film. It’s one that–in the context of this particular film–I’m very sympathetic toward… but then as time went on and Mikhalkov’s own political career developed, his project in retrospect can be seen as somewhat more ambiguous and less savory. In short, this is a fascinating, compelling, revealing, yet in some ways disturbing project!