Author: Bavneet Makkar

I think this film did a really good job in capturing the reality of war in a way. In the beginning, there was Boris who ended up being called off to war after they thought it was not going to happen and he had to tell her. It was kind of standoffish and not really the romantic goodbye they should have had. Then even later on, the film has Boris’s cousin take advantage of the woman while he was away and then after he dies, she marries him! This could have been representative of a lot of what women went through and the pain that exists.

Also, I thought it was interesting when they were having Boris’s goodbye dinner and the girls were telling the story about saying goodbye to their brother and how the girls will be envious of their experience when they come back. This shows the odd relationship of the kind of uselessness women felt and the desire to do more.

Something that I see the more I analyze history and totalitarian regimes is that people are more often brainwashed than not. Furthermore, they always convince themselves that they are in the right, everything around them is great, etc.

Something that came to my mind when reading the commentary on this and how they point out on numerous occasions of what they authenticity of this diary is, is a film called “Goodbye Lenin”. This is a film about the Berlin Wall falling, a women wakes up in a coma, the wall is gone, communism is over, but she was essentially a die-hard for Lenin and because of her heart, her kids did everything to make it seem like East Germany was still under communist rule. If this woman were to write a diary, her story would be very for the Soviet Party, even though life was not all that great.

They point out that the writer of the diary had everything taken away, they forged papers to live in Moscow. Do you think that the writer was kind of justifying this make believe, pro-Russia scenario in his mind? When you recall things, you may not make it out to be as bad as it was. We are so often told that these first hand accounts are the best to know what life was really like, so do you question this diary? Does it make you take these first-person accounts with a bit of hesitancy?

Something that I found interesting about the first reading is the whole summary of the awful characteristics the Soviet Union had. They were just declining in overall well-being. It also seemed that education was decreasing, although the reading did suggest that there could have been more on the job trainings going on.

The part that stood out to me was the quote ” the image of the heroic worker was undergoing a change. Working to exhaustion and storming in general came to be associated not with communist zealot with backwardness. Working in a rhythmic manner, studying but also engaging in other pursuits were the characteristics that higher authorities claimed to admire most”. There is a lot to unpack in this quote. From an economic perspective, this was better off for productivity and it allowed for some expansion, but at the same time this cultural agenda being pushed by optimism does not fix the awful conditions those people still resided in.

To me this kind of seems like a seesaw. They are so rooted in this classist, labor heavy lifestyle, but then the government does listen to them as they are anxious to catch up to pass Western norms.

How do you guys perceive this movement? Does it actually get them somewhere that is sustainable in the long-run?

in the second reading, in the introduction, a man comes back from war. Now this is not the center focus of the story, but I thought it was an interesting detail. When you compare how many people in the military are treated here, they are given resources to start their life, pay, benefits, etc. in most normal circumstances. However, in this instance, the soldier had to come back and “build his life”. What does this show about the Russian treatment of soldiers? Also, how does that contribute to the building of character in Russian eyes? The view of a peasant is not the best, but does that justify this?

The typical stereotype of Russia is pretty bleak. I even saw a funny post about someone saying “I do not like syrup on my pancakes” and the response being “where are you from? the Soviet Union?”

Again, Russia is a bleak place with an evil dictator that just makes people suffer. However, in Russia’s People of Empire : Life Stories From Eurasia, 1500 to the Present, the stories are more the opposite. On page 311, it says “Rabfak schools, which were first founded in Russia and then spread to other parts of the Soviet Union, sought to educate, and politicize, the urban working classes. This move suggests some of the ways that Obidova’s own marginal status shaped her opportunities. Burnsheva;s teachers’ school for Uzbek women became a very important institution in Soviet Tashkent, attracting the daughters of the urban intelligentsia..”. A few lines before we read “within four years, she ‘learnt to read and write and divorced her husband, who had discovered her whereabouts and was constantly threatening to murder her'”.

Even with my own studies of communist East Germany, once the wall fell, people still stayed in the East when you would think they would want to run as fast as possible.

These stories show the hope behind the Soviet Union where we have just been depicting it as a group of abused and brainwashed group of people.
Was Russia actually caring for its expansion or was it all for business? Why do you think people wanted to stay in the Soviet Union and work?

When looking at the slideshow, I could really only remember our last class discussion in which Stalin is not the center focus in much of the architecture. Instead, it was Lenin. Of course there is some art that does depict him as the center of attention as a solid man. But, I could not help but notice how when Lenin is in the picture, it is more of a focus than Stalin is. Slide 7 is the perfect example in which Lenin is the taller guy, leading with his whole hand as if guiding where Stalin the the shorter one, pointing just to copy what is happening. In Slide 6, Lenin has more of a knowledgeable appearance, if that is the right word. Its kind of like a teacher and a student.

When depicting leaders, it is common for them to have a god like complex, but Stalin does not necessarily do this. What do you think the intent is behind these paintings?

As the communist propaganda movement continued, statues started showing up to encourage moral and spread the message of communism. Statues have always played a bizarre role in fashioning this idea of a community, even if people years down the road do not agree. The argument that it represents history is always in the background.

I found it interesting that the blacksmith was chosen to be the symbol of the people, but of course it was not dressed like the peasants of Russia. What do you think the reason for this was? Why a blacksmith?

Then, we do see the depiction of women to be the copy of this. Except, at least the reading implies that they are the assistant to the man. So, women do not still have the equal role that they should have. After returning to the role of homemaker, they come back to still be under the man. Why do you think women are also depicted as the same job?

Surely, it can be said that they are all equal, working class citizens, but it makes me question why they aren’t given different roles. Society cannot just exist with the occupation of blacksmith.

There was one quote in the reading that stuck out to me: “upholding the platform of the Soviet regime and striving to participate in Socialist construction”. It is interesting because it seems as though they wanted people to keep pushing to be better and become artistic but at the same time, it is all about censoring people and making only arts that they approve of. Even in the works we see that there is the ambition for great works but then it includes massive censorship and limitations on what they can even say. I often think of how much stuff was created that would have been disregarded and never published, simply because the officials did not like it, but now it is greatly values and sought after to some degree.

What other themes besides communism do you think showed up in popular soviet expression?

As the film begins, we watch a woman run, with what seems like a child, from a violent crowd in the Southern states of America. She frantically runs into a train and finds some sort of safety. However, little did she know, this was going to be the beginning of an abusive and manipulative part of her life. This German man, more representative of the Nazis raging though Europe, gives her a job in the circus where she is a shining star. Here, she meets the romantic love interest of this film.

What I found interesting when it comes to the film, is the use of colors. Yes, this is a black and white film, but there is a progressive shift in dark tones to lighter tones throughout the film. For example, the German man is mostly dressed in black where as the love interest, is often times dressed in white. Even Marion has a color transformation in which her hair shifts from dark to her natural blond.

This movie’s plot alone shows the greatness of the USSR in which racism is not tolerated and the pro-communist music pushes the Stalinist agenda, but what do you think the significance of this cinematic technique is? Do you think it plays a role in subliminal messaging? Are there any other small details that the directors of this movie include that make you favor Russia?

Throughout the entire story, Pavel has to endure numerous injuries, but of course, in the end he always survives the injuries as a common theme. Nothing can slow him down. Throughout the story, we have quotes like “with a heavy heart, Pavel had left the railway workshops. Leaning on a stick, he could only move slowly, for every step caused him excruciating pain” (Ostrovsky 439). He overcomes illness every few pages and from today’s viewpoint, it is kind of exhausting to read. However, this is an excellent push for the people of Russia at the time to keep pushing their limits when it came to labor. If any impressionable people read this, they will simply strive to become Pavel and everything he represents.

On the other hand, what does this show of the Soviet Union? Where a person, hardly in his 20s is crippled by labor? Russia is known for the size of their population, especially when it comes to war. They do not have to worry about sending troops in not optimal conditions because there will always be another troop ready to do.

Is this kind of propaganda still applicable to Russia today? Is it maybe even a hero’s tale that we share here today?