〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Michurin ( 1948 ) 』〈 2 〉

■　The second half begins from here.  Michurin was invited by People's Commissariat to St. Petersburg for New Year's celebrations.  There, Michurin received official state certification and financial assistance for his fruit orchard from the revolutionary government ( 17~22 ).

■　As expressed in the performance of Michurin's heroic stroll through the streets of St. Petersburg ( 17 ), what is important about this sequence is that this city ( St. Petersburg ) is the symbolic place in the Russian Revolution.

■　Through Michurin's entrance ( soundtrack 4.  Michurin’ Entry　Moderato · Allegro non troppo · Moderato · Allegretto ), Dovzhenko again depicts St. Petersburg, where traces of the revolutionary driving force that had faded out after the capital moved to Moscow remain.

■　Michurin serves apples from his orchard to everyone and gives the speech to commemorate the fact that his orchard has been recognized as State property ( 23~26 ).  However, Michurin's rivals, the scientists Kartashov and his colleagues, suspect that the new species is the product of a mere chromosomal mutation and refuse to believe that Michurin's scientific manipulation has produced the hybrid species ( 27~28 ).

■　Michurin's comrades express frustration with the unsuccessful orchards cultivation in the cold regions of Siberia ( 29~30 ).  Then suddenly Michurin comes in and tells him that Lenin is dead ( 31 ).  Comrades praying to Lenin ( 32~33 ).  Michurin explains how important Lenin was to the world and encourages them to recommit themselves once again to their social mission of creating orchards ( 34 ).

■　In this sequence, we can see Dovzhenko's true intention in the film, which is to depict not only Michurin's contribution to the communist society, but also the Return to Lenin through Michurin, in other words, the implicit criticism of the Stalinist regime.

■　Michurin, St. Petersburg, Lenin, and Kalinin ( to be mentioned later ), Dovzhenko emphasizes these traces of the Russian Revolution and resists Stalin, who went in the different direction than Lenin, by the artistic means of cinema.

〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Michurin ( 1948 ) 』〈 1 〉

 

Film　             『 Michurin ( Ukrainian : Мічурін ) 』

Directed by　　Alexander Petrovich Dovzhenko ( Довженко Олександр Петрович )

Release　　      1948

Starring　　     Grigori Belov ( Russian : Григорий Белов )　　　             ( Ivan Michurin )

　　　　          Vladimir Solovyov ( Russian : Владимир Соловьёв )　　　( Mikhail Kalinin )

 　　　　　　   Alexander Vasilyeva ( : Александра Васильева )　　        ( Alexandra Michurina )

                      Sergei Bondarchuk ( Russian : Сергей Бондарчук )　　     ( No name in the film )

Music　　　     Dmitri Shostakovich

( ＊ ) The soundtrack by Shostakovich is as follows.

1.　  Overture　              Moderato
2.　  Autumnal Garden　 Moderato con moto
3.　  Remembrance　      Moderato molto · Allegro · Più mosso
4.　  Michurin’ Entry　    Moderato · Allegro non troppo · Moderato · Allegretto
5.　  Winter Garden　     Adagio
6.　  Town Square　        Allegro
7.　  [ without title ]　    Moderato con moto · Allegro
8.　  [ Waltz ] [ piano solo ]　      Allegro
9.　  [ New Year ] [ piano solo ]　 Adagio
10.　 Michurin’s Monologue　      Allegro · Adagio
11.　 [ without title ]　                 Allegro non troppo
12.　 [ without title ]　                Allegretto

( No. 6 ) "Town Square" quotes the Bolshevik revolutionary song "Boldly, my friends, we march!" which is also ( No. 1 ) of Shostakovich Op. 88 : Ten Poems on Texts by Revolutionary Poets  for chorus and boys' chorus a cappella ( 1951 ).

 

Also, the above soundtrack was arranged by Levon Atovmyan as Shostakovich Op. 78a : Suite from Michurin, for chorus and orchestra ( 1964 ).

1.　  Overture
2.　  Winter Garden　  Adagio
3.　  Spring Waltz　    Allegro scherzando
4.　  Reminiscence　   Moderato molto · Allegro · Adagio
5.　  Town Square ( Demonstration )
6.　  Michurin’s Monologue
7.　  Finale

■　In this article, we will consider how EARTH ( 1930 ) and Michurin ( 1948 ) are related, and how the de-power political philosophy that Dovzhenko reached in EARTH has taken the solid form in Michurin.  Indeed, Dovzhenko made several films between EARTH ( 1930 ) and Michurin ( 1948 ), but in Michurin we can glimpse "the secret resistance" against the censorship of the Stalinist regime, which had been strong in previous films.

 

■　In particular, Shchors ( 1939 ) falls into the ideological cliché of praising the Hero of revolution, which strongly reflects Stalin's intentions.  Compared to ARSENAL ( 1929 ), a similar film about revolutionary heroes, which brilliantly depicted the explosive power of civil war in the Russian Revolution before the establishment of Stalin's regime, Shchors is a poor reworking of ARSENAL.

 

■　The first thing to consider is the title of this film, Michurin.  It is known that Dovzhenko's original title was Life in Bloom, but due to censorship by the authorities, the title was changed to Michurin, which was intended to be the hero-worship of the revolution.  Shchors was just one of the titles of the ideological conversion of a proper noun that symbolically represents such hero worship in communism ( Mykola Shchors is the Ukrainian Bolshevik who made a name for himself during the Russian Civil War ).

 

■　Like Michurin ( 1948 ), in the early postwar period of the Soviet Union, historical and biographical films were made with proper nouns that played the ideological role in deepening the people's patriotic feelings.  Its proper nouns extended not only to the military, but also to the scientific and literary realms.  For example, Vsevolod Pudovkin's "Admiral Nakhimov ( 1947 )",  Grigori Roshal's "Ivan Pavlov ( 1949 )" and "Mussorgsky ( 1950 )",  Igor Savchenko's "Taras Shevchenko (  ( 1951 )", Yefim Dzigan's "Jambyl ( 1953 )",  and Yuli Raizman's "Rainis ( 1949 )".　

 

■　At such a time, the fact that the original title of Michurin was Life in Bloom means that the film secretly contains the homage to Lenin, the symbol of the Russian Revolution, as opposed to being the mere propaganda film for the Stalinist regime.  In other words, Michurin clearly plays the role in the film reminding us of Lenin, implying that  Life in Bloom is Lenin enthusiastically supported by the people, who are symbolized as countless flowers.        

 

■　Michurin, who is modelled on Lenin, speaks that we should move forward there ( Earth ), using the word "Earth" instead of "communism" in the speech watched by many of the people.  Needless to say, Dovzhenko is making the secret criticism of the Stalinist regime by bringing up Lenin.  

 

Michurin giving a speech

■　The key to understanding this film is that it is composed of two parts : the first half, which depicts Michurin's struggle to survive as a plant breeder, losing his wife to illness in his way, and the second half, in which his achievements in fruit breeding are recognized by the revolutionary government and his achievements are celebrated.

■　The distinction between the first half and the second half is difficult to understand because the chapters are not clearly laid out, but after the crossing of this boundary, the symbolic meaning given to Michurin will change in a secret way.

■　Well, the first half ( 1~16 ) of the film depicts Michurin as a plant breeder engaged in breed improvement of fruits in Kozlov ( In 1932, Kozlov changed its designation to Michurinsk, named after Michurin ) in the Russian Empire ruled by the Romanov dynasty.  The distinction between the first half and the second half corresponds to the radical historical transition in the course of Michurin's life from the Romanov dynasty to the revolutionary regime of the Russian Revolution. Michurin threw himself into his work alongside the historical events of World War I and the Revolution ( Michurin, who had previously worked in a variety of occupations, became seriously engaged in fruit hybridization in his own garden since 1875 ).

■　Michurin stands by his wife as she awaits death on the sickbed ( 5~6 ).  He reminisces about their younger days and their older days ( 7~10 ).  Remembering the days when he had decided to enrich the land of Russia through the cultivation of fruits, encouraged by his wife, Michurin's will is strengthened once again.

■　And interesting is the following sequence.  After the death of his wife, Michurin stands strong against the winds blowing in the wilderness.  Combined with the dramatic soundtrack ( soundtrack 3.  Remembrance　Moderato molto · Allegro · Più mosso ) by Shostakovich, this sequence leaves a strong impression on the audience.  Michurin is implicitly portrayed as if he were a revolutionist rather than a plant breeder.  The first half ends here.

〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Earth ( 1930 ) 』〈 3 〉

 

 

■　The leader who succeeds Vasyli's position addresses the people and praises Vasyli's achievements as a Bolshevist.  On this occasion, rather than all mourning Vasyli's death, it is emphasized that his death should be politically praised as a great act of the Bolsheviks to defeat their enemies.

■　Homa, watching the speech from a distance, exclaims that it is he who killed Vasyli ( 75~76 ).  However, his voice does not reach the speech location ( 77~80 ).  Needless to say, this sequence does not depict Homa's penance as a tragedy, but depicts in secret the depressing nature of the political power that Homa's personal sentiment, expressed in the form of penance, is deliberately excluded by the Bolsheviks.

■　In other words, for the Bolsheviks, they do not care who killed Vasyli.  Whoever killed Vasyli is all a class enemy, and is nothing but an obstacle to the Bolshevik revolution.  The personal internal affair and appeal of that enemy is not even the problematic issue.  Only the fact that Vassili was killed by enemy is the politically exploitable interest.

■　So Homa's true grief in this sequence has already ceased to be about killing Vasyli, and has shifted to the fact that the grave personal act of confession of guilt is no longer taken seriously in the face of political power.

■　Vasyli's fame will be known around the world, like the Bolshevik planes in the sky above, said the enthusiastic leader, pointing to the sky ( 81~82 ).  People look up at the sky, attracted by it ( 83 ).  But there is nothing in the sky.  This sequence, which ironically depicts the emptiness of the speech, is Dovzhenko's secret resistance to Bolshevism.  At this point, Dovzhenko's anti-Bolshevism becomes apparent, and we will consider how this is suggested below.

 

■　The image of the fruit on the Ukrainian land that was captured at the beginning of the film reappears at the end.  What is the meaning of this image ?

■　First of all, it contains Dovzhenko's anti-Bolshevist ideas.  But make no mistake, he is not simply advocating individualism that resists the collective.  Even though he was taking into account the censorship of the authorities, he was not secretly appealing to individualism in order not to conflict with it ( the censorship ).

■　Perhaps Dovzhenko is not denying the collective itself.  Several images of fruit speak for that ( 85~90 ).  The enumeration of shots of fruit, which may symbolize the Ukrainian people, and of the Ukrainian land, which bears that fruit, shows Dovzhenko's attachment to the collective.

 

■　Then we can consider that Dovzhenko is here depicting the collective that is not Bolshevism, not nationalism, that is, "the non-political collective" in an indigenous way.  Indeed, it may be an escape from politics and reality, "the defeatism" that seeks salvation in the image of fruit ( as criticized by Demyan Bedny ).

 

■　However, it is also the reality that each fruit has its own flavor.  The fact that each fruit has its own flavor is proof of the fruit's self-existence.  It is the same for the people in collective.  Even collective that aspire to the cause of revolution cannot erase the fruit of the inner reality that each person in the collective possesses.

 

■　In other words, Dovzhenko indicates that even in the collective, one should not give up one's self for the sake of revolution, but rather make one's self happy, which is the true state of the collective.  Hence his use of the fruit imagery, ending the final scene with a couple in love ( 91 ).  The title "Earth" may have been given in the sense that the existence of these people is the undeniable reality on the earth.

■　And it can be said that this "non-political collective" is evasion of communist political power, and also the realization of delusion that unconsciously desires the independent Ukrainian state, which could not be achieved under communist government.

■　This is the image that emerged from the ideological conflict between Ukrainian nationalism and communism, which Dovzhenko already had in his mind in "Zvenigora ( 1928 )".  It is "Image of EARTH" created by Dovzhenko's internal conflict, in which he could not choose either ideology ( ＊A ).

( ＊A )　For more on "Zvenigora", refer to the following article.

〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Earth ( 1930 ) 』〈 2 〉

 

 

■　Vasyli dances alone on the street ( 25~26 ).  Suddenly, someone shoots him dead and he collapses ( 27~28 ).

■　Vasyli's fiancée Natalya and Vasyli's father are grieving to see Vasyli's corpse ( 29~31 ).  What is interesting about this sequence is that it is the sister ( 32, 34 ), rather than the father or Natalya, who is most grieved.  This sister is played by Yuliya Solntseva, and it can be seen how Dovzhenko attempts to make her stand out. 

 

■　It seems to us that if he had wanted it so strongly, he could have made her the wife of the leading man, Vasyli, but that would not have been possible for Dovzhenko, who was in love with Yuliya Solntseva.  Perhaps it was Dovzhenko's human jealousy that made him unable to bear the thought of being someone's wife, even if it was in the movie.

 

■　This is not just a cursory intuition.  For, perhaps, it was this overflow of human desire that prompted Dovzhenko to subconsciously turn away from the Bolshevik ideology that enforced "self-sacrifice" for the sake of the revolution.  Dovzhenko could not give up his love for Yuliya Solntseva, who suddenly appeared in front of him.  He could not do as Tymish ( Semyon Svashenko ) had done in "Zvenigora," in which he killed his wife who had been holding him back, and went to battle for the revolution. ( ＊B ).

( ＊B )　Refer to Chapter 7 of the following article.

 

 

■　Many people attending Vasyli's funeral ( 35~37 ).  This unusual collective agglomeration against one person should be carefully considered.  Natalya, watching the funeral, realizes that she has given birth ( 38~40 ).

■　Homa watches the funeral from his home ( 41~43 ).  His father is furious ( 45 ), probably because he knows that his son has killed Vaslyli.

■　Homa, pushed by her father's fierceness, runs toward the others to confess her sins ( 47~48 ).  A priest stands alone, having been denied entry to Vasyli's funeral because of his communist ideology ( communism is nominally irreligious ). ( 49, 51 ).

■　What should not be mistaken here is that the priest is not praying for Homa to be punished for the crime of murder, but for "the communist collective" to be punished for excluding religious acts even at funerals where many people gather.

 

 

■　Natarya is about to give birth to a child ( 53,55 ).  Vasyli's sister is watching over her ( 54 ).  Homa running to the others ( 57,58 ).  With Vasyli's funeral as the backdrop, the movement of three imagery is juxtaposed.  From here, Dovzhenko beautifully depicts the convergence of three images, or at least of four images if Vassili's corpse ( 56 ) is included, into the "image of the earth" at the end of the film (87~90 ).

■　A sister tries to express her love for the late Vasyli through physical movement in the nude ( 59 ).  It is clear from her hair that "the master of this behavior" is not Natarya, who is about to give birth to a child, but her sister, who is standing by Natarya's side ( Like the critic Рауль ХАУЗМАН : Raul Hauzman who explained EARTH, one would normally assume that it is Natarya, but it is not her ).  This is Dovzhenko's direction for Yuliya Solntseva's highlight, but it can also be said to depict the symmetry of the sister who continues to hold on to her feelings for Vasyli, who is now dead and in the past, while natarya turns toward the new life to be born.

■　Similarly, Homa, who hesitates to confess his crimes in the presence of those at the funeral, also shows the symmetry as a man of the past who clings to the system that has been in place by killing Vasyli, who is pushing for collective farming for the future.

■　It should not be overlooked that the behavior of the sister and Homa, both of whom seem to be obsessed with the past as if they were going against a communist future, were played out over a single person, Vasyli.  The sister loves Vasyli so much that she expresses it in full nudity ( 65, 67,69 ), and Homa hates Vasyli for trying to take it ( Earth ) away from him, because he loves Earth exclusively as his own, to the point of sticking his head in it ( 64 ).

■　The consequences are significant.  Communism toward the future, under its collectivization system, pulls the soul and spirit out of Human, that is, the interiority of his lived past, and treats them only as formal political factors.  As Vasyli is idolized in communism, the thoughts of his sister and Homa, who were involved in his life, are not even considered, but are even erased from existence. There is no Self in them, or in anyone else.

〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Earth ( 1930 ) 』〈 1 〉

Film　             『 Earth ( Ukrainian : Земля ) 』

Directed by　　Alexander Petrovich Dovzhenko ( Довженко Олександр Петрович )

Release　　      1930

Starring　　     Semyon Svashenko ( : Семен Свашенко )　　　    ( Vasyli )

　　　　          Olena Maksimova ( : Олена Максимова )　　　　 ( Natalya : Vasyli's fiancée )

 　　　　　　   Yuliya Solntseva ( : Юлия Солнцева )　　　　      ( Vasyli's sister )

                      Stepan Shkurat ( : Степан Шкурат )　　               ( Opanas )

　　　             Petro Masoha ( : Петро Масоха )　　                  ( Homa Bielokin )

                      Ivan Franko ( : Іван Франко )　　                        ( Arhyp Bielokin )

 

■　Opinion in Film History  that "Earth" is Dovzhenko's masterpiece remains unshaken to this day ( ＊ A ).  However, if this is only because of the visual effects of the fruits, flowers, meadows, people, etc. that symbolize the fertility of Ukraine, it may be too optimistic a view.  Such the view overlooks too much the psychoanalytic background of how the nature hymnal images in "Earth" emerged from Dovzhenko's mental confusion.

 

( * A )　For example, Vance kepley writes that Earth was received with enthusiasm from the time it was first released in the Soviet Union already, before it was praised in the West.

"In the spring of 1930 the city of Kharkov hosted a major cultural event. The principal figures of Soviet Ukrainian arts and letters — at least those who had survived the anti-VAPLITE campaign — gathered to honor Alexander Dovzhenko, an artist who had emerged from their own ranks, and to preview the film recently touted as the finest yet produced by the Ukrainian cinema. Earth. The assembled artists, poets, and journalists proved an enthusiastic audience, bursting into applause at the film’s conclusion. This film, they rightly predicted, would become the work for which Dovzhenko would be best remembered."

"In the service of the state : the cinema of Alexander Dovzhenko ( 1986 )"　p.75　by Vance Kepley　University of Wisconsin Press

■　This mental confusion is reflected in "Earth," which "artfully" depicts the breakdown of the illusion toward the Bolshevik ideology that was supposed to be exalted to the highest degree in the previous work, "Arsenal.  What is meant by " artfully" here is that Dovzhenko is doing so out of concern for political censorship, but it is important to note that he is not denying the Soviet Union's massive political system itself, but only expressing dissatisfaction with the Bolshevik ideology, one of the constituent factors of that political system.  Otherwise, it would be hard to understand Dovzhenko's act of sending a letter of salvation to Stalin in the midst of the criticism by the authorities that followed the praise immediately after Earth's release.

■　What is interesting here is that the authorities penetrated that the depiction of mass agrarianization in "Earth" was only the superficial fidelity to communism.  For example, criticism of Pravda, the official newspaper of the Communist Party.

"Pravda praised the film for its beauty and originality but condemned its political message as “false.” An official preview before government representatives added to the controversy: Red Army spokesmen endorsed Earth, but a party official used the occasion to accuse Dovzhenko of squandering muchneeded public funds on politically useless films."

"In the service of the state : the cinema of Alexander Dovzhenko ( 1986 )"　p.75　by Vance Kepley　University of Wisconsin Press

 

In addition, the poet Demyan Bedny ( 1883~1945 ), a Bolshevik propagandist, also criticized "Earth" in Izvestia as counterrevolutionary and defeatist.

"Demyan Byedny, the Bolshevik ‘folk-poet’, was so outraged by Earth that he devoted a three-column article in Izvestia to denouncing it as ‘defeatist’. This and other attacks resulted in some cuts in the film,* and a shortening of its dis¬ tribution life.　　*A copy in its original version is preserved at Gosfilmofond, and was shown abroad for the first time in Brussels, October 1958; the negative was destroyed in the German invasion."

"Kino : a history of the Russian and Soviet film ( 1983 )"　p.275　by Jay Leyda　Princeton University Press

 

■　The problematic question here, then, is that how Dovzhenko was dissatisfied with Bolshevik ideology, and Thinking about it will at the same time trace the changes in his thought in the transition from "Arsenal ( 1929 )" to "Earth ( 1930 )".

 

■　Commentaries on "Earth" generally say that the film depicts the introduction of collective farming and the aspect of human relationships that accompanies it.  But if that were all, this work would be no different from "Arsenal", which supported communism through its Dovzhenko's sympathy for Bolshevik ideology.  This is not the case, as the authorities' criticism ironically proves.  The authorities even felt "Dovzhenko's anti-Bolshevism".  We will consider Dovzhenko's anti-Bolshevism in detail below, in order.

 

■　As films depicting sunflower fields in Ukraine, Vittorio De Sica's "Sunflower ( 1970 )" and, although less well known, Giuseppe De Santis' "Italiani, brava gente ( 1964 )" could be enumerated.  In both cases, however, the sunflower only serves to symbolize the fragility of men and women torn apart by war.   In this respect, De Sica may possibly have been referring to Giuseppe De Santis' "Italiani, brava gente ( 1964 )," which had been released in the past.  In other words, the sunflower there only symbolizes something anti-war and does not reach the role of performing The specificity of the Ukrainian State.

 

■　In contrast, the film that depicts the specificity of the Ukrainian state through the images of sunflowers, fruits, and the land is none other than Dovzhenko's "Earth" ( 1~4 ).  Only from the enumeration of these images should we read Dovzhenko's anti-Bolshevist thinking, and the depiction of mass agrarianization is only the gateway to his true intentions.

■　Vasyli tries to push for collective farming and the father vehemently opposes his son ( 5~8 ).　The father even tells his son that he will not work with you ( 9 ), and Vasyli calmly tells him that you are too old ( 10 ).

■　Vasyli and companions bringing a tractor to the village ( 11 ).  Homa, who is Kulak, gazes anxiously at them ( 12 ).  the villagers watch with interest ( 13 ).  But the tractor stops on the way ( 14 ).

■　Vasyli realizes that the cause of the tractor failure is the depletion of cooling water, but there is no water around.  Men who piss in place of cooling water ( 17~18 ).  In this sequence, there are glimpses of human indigeneity and humor as sign of change in Dovzhenko that were not depicted in the intense "Arsenal".  The tractor starts moving again ( 19 ).  The villagers, excited to see the machine in motion, all rush to Vasyli's side ( 20 ).

■　Vasyli talks about collective farming to the assembled villagers, while Homa looks on the situation in frustration ( 21~24 ).

〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Arsenal ( 1929 ) 』〈 2 〉

■　The following is the sequence that could be called "March of the Bolsheviks", which symbolically shows that the Bolsheviks getting over dead comrades and moving forward ( 30~33 ).

■　It is "March of the Bolsheviks" as symbolism of the workers whose death does not stop the progress of the revolution, which was described by film critic Siegfried Kracauer in his book "Theory of Film : the redemption of physical reality ( 1960 )" citing Georges Sadoul's "Histoire d'un art : le cinéma ( 1949 )". ( * B )

"An interesting case in point is also the finale of Dovzhenko's Arsenal , as described by Sadoul : 'The film concluded on a metaphoric soaring [ envolee ].  The worker insurgents were fusilladed.  But the hero, pierced by bullets, continued to march even though he was evidently dead. " :   From a purely visual angle the shot of the marching worker is cinematic for portraying untampered-with reality.  Since we know, however, that the worker is dead and that dead workers cannot march, we immediately realize that the marching hero is a mirage.  That he lives on as if nothing had happened transforms him from a real being into a symbol with a propaganda message; he now signifies the ongoing revolution.  So the shot of him is drained of its realistic character while still being realistic."　

"Theory of Film : the redemption of physical reality ( 1960 )" p.91,　Siegfried Kracauer,　New York : Oxford University Press

 

( * B )　 To point out Krakauer's one mistake, this sequence ( 30~33 ) is not the true "final" of the Arsenal. The true final is the sequence ( 58-67 ) in which Tymish makes its strong presence known, and Krakauer's description is ambiguous because his memory of the Arsenal is a mixture of the two sequences.  In the sequence ( 30-33 ), the image of "March of the Bolsheviks" arises, and in the sequence ( 58-67 ), the image of "immortality" arises as Tymish exposes himself to bullets, although he is not marching.   As a result, the two images are mixed.  However, this is not Krakauer's mistake, but rather the mistake has already occurred in Sadoul, which he quoted.  It was the age when the memory of a film was dependent on the subjectivity of each individual.

( * )　Incidentally, scenes 31 and 33 are also casually quoted in Chris Marker's documentary film on Aleksandr Medvedkin, "The Last Bolshevik ( French : Le Tombeau d'Alexandre )" ( 1992 ).   About 20 minutes after the start of the film.

■　Nationalists criticize workers for failing to free Ukraine ( 34 ).  The nationalist is played by Osip Merlatti ( Осип Мерлаттті ), whose similarity in appearance suggests that the nationalist is probably based on a real person, Mykhailo Sadovsky : Михайло Садовський ( 1887~1967 ), an army general in Petlyura.

■　Mykhailo Sadovsky tells the worker to walk toward the wall and turn his back to me because I will kill you ( 34~39 ).

■　But instead of turning their faces to the wall, the workers suddenly turn on their heels and walk toward Sadovsky ( 40 ).  Then, the image of symbolizing "March of Bolsheviks" is inserted into the scene ( 41, 45 ).  Sadovsky is surprised, and the worker asks him if he can't see it.  In other words, he is asking Sadovsky if you cannot see "March of the workers" through his own appearance ? ( 42~44 )

■　Needless to say, this is also the image of the "March of the Bolsheviks" mentioned earlier, and is the sequence ( 40~45 ) that inspired Sadoul and Krakauer's description.

■　Sadovsky finds the march of the Bolsheviks within the workers and is unable to fire his pistol ( 46~50 ).  Sadovsky is robbed of his pistol by the workers and is shoot to death conversely ( 51 ).

■　However, it would not be wrong to say that Dovzhenko's portrayal of Sadovsky here is somewhat malicious.  Since, after the under Stalinist surveillance, Dovzhenko had no choice but to remain silent when he realized the errors in his understanding of the Bolsheviks.  On the other hand, Sadovsky has consistently supported Ukraine as an exile by founding the Ukrainian Military History Society in Poland, the Ukrainian Military History Institute in Germany, and the Ukrainian Military Museum in Canada.  In other words, Sadovsky was killed in the film, but actually lived longer than Dovzhenko until 1967 ( Dovzhenko died in 1956 ).

■　The following sequence is the battle between nationalists and workers that started with the moment of internal conflict in the Petrulla army ( 52~57 ).

■　As his comrades are killed one by one by the nationalists, Tymish is the only one who resists.  Losing his weapon, Tymish is asked his name by the nationalists and says he is a Ukrainian worker, shoot him ( 58 ).  The nationalists fire repeatedly, but Tymish does not fall over and remains upright ( 59~63 ).

■　A nationalist superior scolds his subordinates for their inability to kill Tymish ( 64 ).  Subordinates are stunned ( 65 ).  Tymish shouts at him to shoot himself ( 66~67 ).

■　This scene, which symbolically depicts the immortality of the workers, shows how fascinated Dovzhenko was with Bolshevik ideas at the time of the film's production.  He realized that his understanding of the Bolsheviks was incorrect only when the enforcement of Stalin's personal taste  and Stalinist censorship interventions began in earnest at the films after "Earth ( 1930 )."

〈 Think Film Core 〉 ..... on Alexander Dovzhenko's film 『 Arsenal ( 1929 ) 』〈 1 〉

Film　             『 Arsenal 』

Directed by　　Alexander Petrovich Dovzhenko ( Довженко Олександр Петрович )

Release　　      1929

Starring　　     Semyon Svashenko ( Семен Свашенко )　　　    ( Tymish )

　　　　          Mykola Kuchynsky ( Микола Кучинський )　　    ( Symon Petliura )

　　　             Osip Merlatti ( Осип Мерлатті )　　　　             ( Mykhailo  Sadovsky )

■　Dovzhenko's film 『 Arsenal ( 1929 ) 』 depicts the civil war of the Ukrainian national self-determination movement that was triggered by the Russian Revolution during World War I.  Symon Petliura ( Ukrainian : Петлюра Симон Васильович 1879~1926 ) overthrew the pro-German government of Pavlo Skoropadskyi ( Ukrainian : Скоропадський Павло Петрович  1873~1945 ) and established the Ukrainian People's Republic in 1918.

■　However, after that, the Ukrainian nationalists of Petlyura ( The Central Rada of Ukraine ), the Russian nationalists of Anton Denikin ( White Army ), the Bolsheviks ( Red Army ), and The Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine of Nestor Manov ( Black Army ) all entered into a civil war of spreading the conflict and cooperation, respectively. 

 

■　Petliura making a speech at the Congress ( 1 ).  However, there is no response from the audience consisting of workers, nationalists, and others ( 2 ).  Petliura, speaking one-sidedly, does not notice one of the workers who raises his hand to express his opinion ( 3~4 ).

■　After finishing his speech, Petliura finally notices the workers raising their hands and encourages them to speak ( 5~7 ).   In response to Petliura's nationalistic speech, the workers ask radical questions about whether it is okay to kill bourgeois and officials they meet on the street ( 8 ).

■　As the workers look on, Petliura is at a loss for an answer to an unexpected question, and can only give a vague response to mend the situation ( 9~12 ).

■　This sequence shows that the Ukrainian national movement of the time was not ideologically monolithic.  In other words, the workers were not only thinking about Ukrainian independence, but also about seeking to improve their own living conditions, which were exploited by the bourgeois class, as an extension of the Russian Revolution.

■　Because this worker's perspective was missing, Petliura was unable to answer the question.  This may also be backed up by the fact that at the time of the actual Ukrainian Civil War, the young Dovzhenko himself blindly participated in the nationalist rebellion under Petliura, without thinking deeply about the ideological implications.

■　Therefore, this is not a historical film about the Ukrainian Civil War based on Dovzhenko's own experience.  It is an extremely subjective ideological film, in other words, a Bolshevik film, reconstructed by Dovzhenko, who gradually became fascinated by the Bolshevik ideology ( * A ), which he did not understand at the time of the civil war, in order to accept the experience of the civil war as the political trauma.

( * A )　However, in this context, "Bolshevik ideology" only means the superficial slogans of the Bolsheviks, which advocate the subjectification of the workers.  In fact, the Bolsheviks were merely a political party that used cleverly the collective insurrectionary nature of the workers ( e.g., the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921 ), which had been outstanding in Russia previously.  The Bolsheviks is not the workers' group as it is.  Dovzhenko, who had awakened to the ideology at the time of the film's production, has not yet understood unfortunately that only politics justifying the powerful use of violence to oppress and execute many people, not the defense of workers, is the truth about the Bolsheviks.

■　Workers asked to sign the petition at the meeting ( 13 ).  Tymish refuses to sign and is asked by the nationalists "Are you not Ukrainian ( 14~16 )?  Tymish proudly answers that "yes, I am a worker"( 17 ).

 

■　A nationalist at a loss for words and a Tymish who walks away in silence ( 18~21 ).

■　However, Tymish sees the dissatisfaction smoldering among the workers and realizes that Petrulla is not going to be able to solve the problem, so he drives Petrulla away from the platform ( 22~23 ).  Tymish encourages the workers ( 24~25 ).

■　Workers and farmers, who had been cool to Petrulla's speech, were so impressed by Tymish's speech that they stood up and applauded.  Tymish grasped the hearts and minds of the audience in the room ( 26~29 ).