I found this film to be very powerful. The tension between Kotov and Mitya, whether about Maroussia or Mother Russia, was very interestingly done. The fear of going against Stalin’s government caused deep trouble among citizens, even though Kotov was a revolutionary war hero. The fact that this alone was not enough to protect him from the government highlights the danger of being a prominent person in the 1930s. It is striking how Mitya can get back into Kotov’s family, and cause so much trouble.
A scene I found particularly striking was the scene with Kotov and his daughter Nadia on the boat. The chaos and insanity on the beach are juxtaposed with the tranquility on the water. The purity of Nadia, added to this pure tranquility of drifting on the water, gives Kotov a tenderness he may not have gotten otherwise. Initially seen as a hardened (albeit respected) war hero, the emotion and evident love he has for his daughter humanizes him. Rather than be brusque with Nadia, they are allowed to be together calmly, for maybe one of the last times ever. His daughter telling him the simple phrase “I adore you” gives a childlike air to the scene. This statement creates even more sympathy towards Kotov, especially as the movie progresses, and we see his family torn apart by Stalin’s violence. I interpreted this scene to be interrupted by Stalin’s violence in a less obvious way: when Mitya jumped into the water and brought the chaos of the beach and his allegiance to Stalin into the peaceful water. He brought Stalin’s presence into one of the few places where Kotov and Nadia could simply be father and daughter.
11 thoughts on “Burnt by the Sun”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I could see how you could interpret Mitya’s jump as a “ripple effect” as his choices would leave a lasting affect on the family. I saw this more as Mitya following behind Kotov as it seems throughout the film that Mitya is trying to reposition himself into Kotov’s life. He feels robbed of his life with M. and it can also be seen that he almost treats Nadya like his own daughter. Him being underwater for so long also adds to his disguised motif that he has throughout the film. I agree about the boat scene. I originally thought it was going to become Pushkin-esc is his feet comments but it really came to show Kotov’s love for motherland and his hopeful attitude.
I thought the choice to have Mitya swim underwater for an extended period was a purposeful one on the part of the director. Maroussia frantically looks across the surface of water for him and does not see him, but then is scared when he pops up right next to her. This moment seemed to symbolize Mitya’s sudden disappearance and reappearance and its effect on Maroussia.
I believe there are several layers of significance to the sequence. The ominous change in music lends some credence to the more sinister aspects of Mitya surfacing (e.g. his desire to dismantle Kotov’s family and involvement in a thuggish agency), but I see another possible explanation: his initial fully-clothed immersion in the water foreshadows his suicide. As with the Russian roulette during the opening scene and as was discussed in class, Mitya’s behavior often traverses the realms of tomfoolery, vindictiveness, and despair. It makes for a complex character whose actions can only be completely processed through multiple viewings.
Zach and Eva, these comments are both excellent! You have really grasped the brilliance of this film, in which every detail of every scene can be interpreted both on its own terms (for its psychological resonance, for instance) but is also revealing of the film’s larger patterns and meanings.
Haha Colby! Funny what you say about the Pushkinesque potential of the little feet! But in fact, this promise of “soft feet” was actually part of the propaganda that promised a “bright Soviet future.” ????
Another interesting dynamic between the Mitya-Kotov dynamic is their overall disposition. I see another contrast the two men have is how happy or sad they are. Mitya struggles to understand Kotov’s want to play soccer with his family two hours before the car (or his upcoming death) arrived. Mitya is depressed and suicidal while Kotov is the happiest man throughout the film even when staring death. I think this difference in attitude is to represent the two schools of thought addressing the new Soviet state. Although both men “love” their motherland, Kotov has a great passion and hope for it while Mitya is just pretending to love his new life. Mitya is hiding behind that love like he hides from his fears and everything else in the film.
When the family decides to go swimming, this is an opportunity for Mitya to catch up with his old love interest. This is when he reveals his jealousy for the life that was taken away from him. The intensity of Mitya’s yearning for the life that couldn’t be is juxtaposed with the tenderness of Nadya’s love for her father. This is a great contrast that is heightened by the camera shots switching from Nadya and her father, Mitya and Marussya, and the people on the beach.
A lovely parallel, Shandiin! And both these parallel scenes take place in the water… a very important symbolic motif in this film.
This sequence of scenes is very interesting and has a lot of symbolism as you point out. The scene in which Mitya and Maroussia get out of the water is interesting too. Maroussia gets the pioneers to carry her up the hill to her house and does this quickly as if he is trying to escape Mitya. Mitya on the other hand lies about stepping on glass to be carried by the pioneers too. I think this indicates the comfortability that Mitya has with lying. This comes out further because he is apart of the secret police.
Really great points, Sophie. I think Kotov’s anxiety about being arrested really highlights the randomness of the arresting dissidents process. The points of contrast, like the sense of tranquility the water produces, as you have said, lead to the humanization and greater empathizing of Kotov we otherwise would not feel. His anxiety and the efforts to humanize him nudge us towards a more sympathetic perspective, and this induced feeling of sympathy really illustrates the horrors of the terror.
Jacob and Sophie, I find it really interesting that you both feel that Kotov needs to be “humanized” or else he would not seem to be a sympathetic character. I am wondering whether this impression is conditioned by your knowledge that Kotov is a Soviet hero who has been close to Stalin–is this why you see him as potentially unsympathetic? In other words, is it an ideological qualm that makes him seem that way to you? Because, in the world of the film, Kotov is definitely presented as an extremely positive, likable, and heroic character and a family man from the very beginning. He’s funny, he’s handsome, he’s loving toward his wife and daughter, he’s a real homegrown Russian who adores his home banya, he’s respected by the locals in his community, etc. I’d be curious to hear more about why you both seem to see him in a rather negative light!