One aspect of Anna that stood out to me was the simultaneous exploration of the end of the Soviet era on two scales: the broadcasts seen by tens of millions, and the father-daughter relationship ordinarily only visible to a handful of people. Breaking from an oblique treatment of official state iconography in the privately produced Soviet works we have seen this semester (barring Burnt by the Sun by the same director), Nikita Mikhalkov makes extensive use of footage of national leaders, military parades, Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, anthem recitals, state funerals, Young Pioneer conferences, the Olympics, state funerals, concerts, and other major events. It is easy to see the national cult attested by Mikhalkov through the footage and make sense of his daughter Anna’s fears of war and not saying the right thing. At the same time, we never get the sense that the official footage is the complete picture of the era. The dirt road that reappears in the final scene and the shots of peasants show a barrier on the scope of the televised image of the country. Sure enough, Anna’s first series of responses make no reference to the nation as presented on television, while her later responses gradually dispute previous points about the efficacy of the Soviet systems. Hence, in addition to giving context to Anna’s perspective, the footage juxtaposed with with Anna’s interviews conveys the loss of a teleological narrative, a rift between the state image and ordinary lives, and ultimately the collapse of the country.
In viewing the film, it is important to acknowledge Mikhalkov’s unusual status within the Soviet Union. On the one hand, he is an ideological dissident in his Orthodox Christian views, aristocratic heritage, and rejection of communism. On the other hand, his father wrote the lyrics to the “State Anthem of the Soviet Union” and his family clearly enjoys privileges unknown to most Soviet citizens. It recalls a dynamic from 19th-century works wherein the artist has a vested interest in the institutions they critique. While we should thus be careful not to deem the film an objective view of the late Soviet Union, we should also recognize its value as a Russian motif.
*Edited to further develop the second paragraph.
I think the way Mikhalkov mirrors certain scenes also builds to intensify the national and personal perspectives of this unique time. His use of montage to show the parallels between war and hockey, the relationship between perestroika and a raging birthday party, and the opinion of a young girl and her father in continuing the history of Russia is not only compelling, but thought-provoking. I also agree that Mikhalkov’s personal history with Russia heightens his work.
I think that both of your comments highlight the real question of this film, which is how much are we supposed to imply the personal into art, or how are we supposed to distance outside information into how we understand the film. The fact that it is a “documentary” muddies that line quite a bit. How much are we supposed to believe Mikhalkov is being honest in how he is portraying his daughter?
These responses speak to the authority that we place in the hands of the artist. Since this movie is labeled as a documentary, most of us, including me, would like to believe that the movie is portraying an accurate narrative. However, as critical observers, we must call into question the aims of the creator. In the film, Mikhalkov explicitly states that he does not have strong political views, yet he chooses to put himself in positions that could affect the political landscape. As Professor Gillespie shared in class, he served in the Duma and even held a governmental position under Putin. To your question, Brennan, I do not believe he is being completely honest when portraying his daughter. The editing process for fils is biased, and he obviously on chose edits that substantiated his claim that Soviet system as it was pre-collapse was ineffective and dwindling.
I agree with you that the images of Young pioneer conferences, military parades and etc. highlights the cult like picture of Russia at the time. The Young pioneer conferences are especially powerful because they show young children chanting and committing to the Motherland. I think this was a great image to emphasize the use of youth in the film.
I think the choice to emphasize the “use of youth” as you state, Xander, was very interesting because it happens so early in the film. We see children being exploited by a not only a human driven regime, but by an altered national identity. They are being swept up into a crises which they had no part in creating. I think that this is meant to convey a sense of panic. We understand early on that Anna will be an important face in the film, so the fact that the film makes it so clear that children are vulnerable demonstrates the danger Anna is in. It seemed almost as if that the chanting children were a possible fate for Anna.
I agree that children are used as a way to spread propaganda, almost becoming the propaganda themselves. It’s easy to become indoctrinated with ideology when you know nothing else (and do not have the opportunity to learn anything else). Mikhail does seem to, especially in Anna’s early years, use her as his own tool for the message his film intends to portray.