RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: Film about Lenin

RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: WSU History, Dr. Brigit Farley, fall semester 2006

The audience watching a film on Lenin quadrupled as each viewer needed at least four sets of eyes to do it justice. The 2006 students drew on their current knowledge of history of Lenin and of Russia to pass judgment on the man And, oh, did I criticize. That egomaniac! That phony! That killer! That dictator with no regard for human life or dignity. That manipulator of mobs and abuser of mob control, no individualism, no decision making powers for anyone except himself.

Our second set of eyes were those of the cave man with sloped forehead, slack jawed, sitting around the campfire in the cave, listening fascinated, wanting a good story of tribal glory from the Storyteller. We all want to be entertained. That part of me loved the film. Look at those throngs of people, the countryside, the animals, those beautiful children, their eyes shining with love and respect as the story of a nation under a leader they trusted and adored, unfolded.. This is an audience caught up in a "willing suspension of disbelief" at its most basic, enjoying and accepting the narration.

The third set of eyes are those of a film-lover, completely taken in by the magical world created by the direct. This is truly Russia! This is primitive rural Russia, the uneducated people scrabbling a living, not extras, must be news reels of Lenin's funeral and speeches. It is an authentic view of how the Russian people at the time shortly after Lenin's death really felt. These people with their remarkable faces, head-dresses, and quaint clothing are not extras dressed and made-up and costumed. They are REAL -- but at the same time not real. The viewer forgets it is a movie until the captions appear, adoring and worshiping Lenin the "father" of his people. The film is a very seductive and believable creation.

The critic, the skeptic, the suspicious and wary viewer with a fourth set of eyes brings us crashing back to reality. We know better than to fall for this load of propaganda. The film on Lenin is a work of art, subject to the selection and rejection any artist must use to create the effect he desires. The director loved and respected Lenin and Russian society and wants his audience to do the same. He chooses only those scenes that promote that goal. But our fourth set of eyes sees through his game. We observe the glorification of manual labor, of conformity, of group gymnastics in unified motion to create one single effect., of airplanes and trains and ships, all massed to show strength and power.

Do these masses of people really adore Lenin, or have they been taught is the politic thing to pretend? With this fourth set of eyes the viewer must also remember that Lenin died in the 1920s and that the filmmaker created his tribute soon after Lenin's death when the whole truth about Lenin and his dictatorial viciousness were not known. Probably no one ever told the first Russian audiences that Lenin remarked, "You can't kill too many priests" and "We need to kill more professors." The rah-rah military music was overpowering, gets the blood up and the feet marching. A few vocal selections in the background were enjoyable.

In other films about Czars, the Coronation Scene with its cacophony of bells from Boris Goudonov are preferable, and Prokofiev's ballet from ROMEO AND JULIET are standard fare for music of that period, too. By and large the musical background of LENIN grated on the nerves.

Scenes of faceless masses of cookie-cutter soldiers reminded me of my first visit to Russia in April 1985 when the entire nation prepared to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the end of the Great Patriotic War in May 1945. I objected to all the emphasis on military marches. My guide Yelena replied, "But isn't there something beautiful about all those young men in uniform marching together?" I refrained from answering, "No. Americans don't want to train and glorify masses of young men whose goal is to fight a war and kill people."

The corpse of Lenin being admired reminded me of joining a similar line of silent people to view Ho Chi Min's corpse in Vietnam, still preserved in the 1990s. We had to leave our purses, cameras, jackets and hats in the care of the tour guide as we filed silently, arms at our sides, not smiling or talking, past the corpse as armed guides stared at us. One woman with a cane was particularly carefully scrutinized by suspicious guides. There is something oriental and primitive and superstitious about such reverence shown to corpse regularly treated by chemicals to postpone decay.

Another memory surfaced as I saw a brief of scene of silk worms in a huge work place, another instance of the glorification of mass labor. The reality as I experienced it on a trip to China in 1986 was that the heat and acrid stench of a silk worm factory clawed at the throat. I could hardly stand the polluted air for ten minutes and wondered how the Chinese women could work for hours and hours every day in such an unhealthy place.

In the final analysis none of today's audience with its four sets of eyes can make an accurate assessment of life as depicted in the film about Lenin compared with life in rural Russia BEFORE Lenin.

Without morality, without respect for human dignity and human life, Lenin used his successful grab for power to change the face of Russia. But I do not know what life in Russia was like before Lenin and must therefore willingly suspend some of my harsh judgment.