601 Letter Never Sent

[Michael Kerpan]

I was lucky enough to see this screened a few years ago -- I could swear the Blu Ray looks better than the print I saw screened. ;~}

[knives]

Holy cow on rye, this is like some lost silent film in the language and feel as if rewriting what sound cinema should be. In one sense this isn't revolutionary since it is using grammar that is known ( even in Kalatovoz's own Salt for Svantetia which this could be a sequel to), but on the other hand in making a truly silent talky I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. Even in nominally normal talking scenes the mis-en-scene and lighting makes me feel as if I were watching some Eisenstein silent. This strange form of speech almost divorces the film from it's subjects yet doesn't make it distant or some charade like that. There's still a typically Soviet intimacy for the group going on, but the ultimate goals of the individuals and group seem to carry no weight. It's rare now a days to see a film that makes me reconsider as important an aspect of cinema as sound, but here I am.

[HerrSchreck]

Love. This.

[nils]

Compare russian DVD vs. Blu-ray

[Drucker]

Just watched this last night and certainly agree with most of what has been said. An absolutely beautiful film which looked to be in great shape.

Personally, I found the propaganda elements...pretty mild. Certainly it came up (and was the fact that they seemed to always call each other ((unless screaming for each other when they are lost)) by their first and last name a Soviet thing? Or a general Russian thing?), but it wasn't distracting, or awkward at all.
The thing that wowed me the most about the camera work was using close-ups in such a vast wilderness. While there are certainly some amazing shots of the wild that are beautiful, there was a lot more moments when the camera is using close-up to really, really make you feel there. I feel the more common route in a forest setting is to give the viewer a wide view of the vastness that would surround a character, but instead, we only can see what's inches in front of them, and we don't know what's around any turn (just like them, especially in their confusion!).
Just a wonderful film all around.

[MichaelB]

(and was the fact that they seemed to always call each other ((unless screaming for each other when they are lost)) by their first and last name a Soviet thing? Or a general Russian thing?)

I haven't seen the film myself yet, but I suspect it's not so much a case of first and last name as first name and patronymic - which is certainly a general Russian thing, as a casual dip into pretty much any 19th-century Russian novel or play will quickly confirm!

For instance, Eisenstein and Tarkovsky would have been known as "Sergei Mikhailovich" and "Andrei Arsenievich" in their respective social circles.

[Ishmael]

(and was the fact that they seemed to always call each other ((unless screaming for each other when they are lost)) by their first and last name a Soviet thing? Or a general Russian thing?)

I haven't seen the film myself yet, but I suspect it's not so much a case of first and last name as first name and patronymic - which is certainly a general Russian thing, as a casual dip into pretty much any 19th-century Russian novel or play will quickly confirm!

Yup, I watched the film last week, and I can confirm that's exactly what's going on.

[zedz]

(and was the fact that they seemed to always call each other ((unless screaming for each other when they are lost)) by their first and last name a Soviet thing? Or a general Russian thing?)

I haven't seen the film myself yet, but I suspect it's not so much a case of first and last name as first name and patronymic - which is certainly a general Russian thing, as a casual dip into pretty much any 19th-century Russian novel or play will quickly confirm!

For instance, Eisenstein and Tarkovsky would have been known as "Sergei Mikhailovich" and "Andrei Arsenievich" in their respective social circles.

Yes, this is the standard form of polite address. Calling somebody by only their first name signifies serious intimacy (family member, spouse, blood brother. . .), and from there it's just a small skip to a cavalcade of mushy ushka/ishka/oshka suffixes.

[Tommaso]

Youll love it Tom!

Well, right you were. This has actually blown me out of my socks right now. Even if "The Cranes are Flying" was already stunning in the visual department, I didn't really expect anything like this. Your Arnold Fanck-comparison was spot-on, but what the film adds is a very intense psychodrama indeed not unlike "Po zakonu", and all this combined with a classic adventure tale which transfers the standard 'escape from the jungle'-topic to Siberia and even manages to put in some pretty subversive undercurrent that puts that whole idea of 'heroic struggle for progress' in question (see the dream/delirium sequence near the end) at the same time when it overtly seems to support it. The images are majestic and sometimes border on the surreal so much so that in some moments I thought this was not set in Siberia, but in some science fiction-film on a distant planet. Very fine use of music and sound, too (that useless radio). Perhaps not strictly speaking a 'great' film, contentwise, but I suppose these visuals have already burned themselves into my brain to stay there for a long, long time. I think I must watch "I am Cuba" very soon now...

[knives]

Also try to check out Salt for Svanetia which is the closest relative to this I've seen from him with some truly shocking imagery particularly the exiled pregnant woman. It would make a great double feature with Dovzhenko's Earth.

[Tommaso]

Absolutely. I find "Svanetia" equally as fascinating, but it's so astonishing that Kalatozov was able to retain or resurrect or even 'improve' on that 'silent style' so many years later when others of his peers of the early 30s, not least Dovzhenko or even Vertov, had very quickly fallen into mediocrity with the full onslaught of the Stalin era. I have to say that I don't know any films by Kalatozov between 1931's "Nail in the boot" and "Cranes", so of course the artistic freedom and excellence of these late 50s films may have to do with the changes brought about Cruchchev (or however the man is officially spelled in the English-speaking world )

[Michael Kerpan]

Perhaps not strictly speaking a 'great' film, contentwise, but I suppose these visuals have already burned themselves into my brain to stay there for a long, long time.

This film is a prime exhibit in support of my argument that a film's content is not necessarily determinative of its worth (and enjoyability).

[HistoryProf]

I watched the Blu-Ray last week and while I found it visually stunning and the story, as you say, captivating, I found that the socialist propaganda was a bit overbearing.

what a silly critique. it's a 1959 Soviet film about a state-sponsored expedition to locate diamonds for the motherland. It's part of a particular time and place, and it's no great leap to consider that time and place in appreciating a rather amazing cinematic feat that it produced. I watched this last night was absolutely enthralled - I have no idea how some of the wilderness shots were accomplished. When they first start making their way through the forest fire, Sergei going under burning logs and through the river with the camera following him every step of the way, I had to rewind it and look for hints at how it was done. I found not a one. The film is riddled with similar jaw-dropping camera work...I think someone said it was a "fever dream" earlier and that is the phrase that came to mind for me. It was fantastic late-night viewing.

And for me, the "socialist propaganda" makes it all the more fascinating. I love Soviet era films precisely because of this factor...how can you not be intrigued by a glimpse into the hearts and minds of "The Great Satan" that drove the Cold War and the course of history - especially space exploration - for decades after WWII? That this came out in 1959 and mentions Sputnik only amplified the historical consciousness embedded in every bit of dialog. That said, i thought these aspects of the story were pretty muted overall. This isn't a propaganda piece...it's a survival story. Just a fascinating film from start to finish in every way.

[zedz]

I watched this last night was absolutely enthralled - I have no idea how some of the wilderness shots were accomplished. When they first start making their way through the forest fire, Sergei going under burning logs and through the river with the camera following him every step of the way, I had to rewind it and look for hints at how it was done. I found not a one. The film is riddled with similar jaw-dropping camera work...I think someone said it was a "fever dream" earlier and that is the phrase that came to mind for me. It was fantastic late-night viewing.

In this case, Second Run's forthcoming Dragon's Return should be top of your must-buy list for 2013. Stunning camerawork, plus another (even more Herzog-esque) escape through a forest fire, this time with cattle in tow.

[Calvin]

It is indeed a spectacular production, I just felt that I was much more aware of the time and place it was made than I was during other Soviet films of that era. It could be that because I had previously read that the Soviet 'propaganda' was particularly attenuated in this film, my attention was more drawn to it during viewing. My comment wasn't intended to slight the film, it was just my personal reaction upon first viewing.

[doc mccoy]

I watched the Blu-Ray last week and while I found it visually stunning and the story, as you say, captivating, I found that the socialist propaganda was a bit overbearing.

what a silly critique.

There's no need for that - disagree with him by all means, but that was unnecessary.

[triodelover]

AIn't got a dog in this particular hunt, but can we stop treating "Soviet" and "socialist" as if they were interchangeable?

[Gregory]

It is indeed a spectacular production, I just felt that I was much more aware of the time and place it was made than I was during other Soviet films of that era. It could be that because I had previously read that the Soviet 'propaganda' was particularly attenuated in this film, my attention was more drawn to it during viewing. My comment wasn't intended to slight the film, it was just my personal reaction upon first viewing.

What socialist propaganda, or Soviet propaganda? If you had read that propaganda was "particularly attenuated" in the film, why would that lead you to focus on it more rather than less? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

[HistoryProf]

I watched the Blu-Ray last week and while I found it visually stunning and the story, as you say, captivating, I found that the socialist propaganda was a bit overbearing.

what a silly critique.

There's no need for that - disagree with him by all means, but that was unnecessary.

I think it is necessary as it was the core of my disagreement. As written, he was criticizing a Soviet film from 1959 for it's "socialist propaganda" - never mind the issues with using Soviet and Socialist interchangeably, it's a silly critique as it should be an expected aspect of the film, and in this case it's not even a particularly blatant aspect of the story. I don't think i'm alone in struggling to understand how knowing there was minimal Soviet "propaganda" involved you would then "find it overbearing"? That's a strongly critical statement that is, quite simply, silly. I didn't call the guy any names for crying out loud. Let's not be too sensitive. :shrug:

AIn't got a dog in this particular hunt, but can we stop treating "Soviet" and "socialist" as if they were interchangeable?

Agreed. And again, this was really the trigger for my comment...it feels awfully presentist, even a bit Tea Partyish.

[HistoryProf]

Holy cow on rye, this is like some lost silent film in the language and feel as if rewriting what sound cinema should be. In one sense this isn't revolutionary since it is using grammar that is known ( even in Kalatovoz's own Salt for Svantetia which this could be a sequel to), but on the other hand in making a truly silent talky I don't think I've ever seen anything like this. Even in nominally normal talking scenes the mis-en-scene and lighting makes me feel as if I were watching some Eisenstein silent. This strange form of speech almost divorces the film from it's subjects yet doesn't make it distant or some charade like that. There's still a typically Soviet intimacy for the group going on, but the ultimate goals of the individuals and group seem to carry no weight. It's rare now a days to see a film that makes me reconsider as important an aspect of cinema as sound, but here I am.

Is Salt for Svanetia available anywhere? I can't seem to find it in any region...though I am limited to North America. I've heard about this since undergrad but have never seen it. hell, i'd take a streaming bootleg...I just want to see it.

[domino harvey]

It's on YouTube in five parts

[Shrew]

It's also in the Landmarks of Early Soviet Film set that Flicker Alley did not long ago if you want to pay money for it or something.

[HistoryProf]

It's also in the Landmarks of Early Soviet Film set that Flicker Alley did not long ago if you want to pay money for it or something.

Thanks. I'd much prefer that option of course.

[Calvin]

What socialist propaganda, or Soviet propaganda? If you had read that propaganda was "particularly attenuated" in the film, why would that lead you to focus on it more rather than less? I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.

To be honest, that comment was made back in March and nine months later I have no idea what I was specifically referring to. However, I do remember there being a strong patriotic slant to the film and while the terminology I used to describe it ("Socialist propaganda") doesn't match up, I presume that it contributed to my comments. Often I find that when I'm not expecting something to be there, my attention is drawn to it more when it, in fact, is. Perhaps it's just me?

[MichaelB]

Just out of curiosity, would you have a similar problem with Scott of the Antarctic? I'd need to compare the two directly, but it seems to me that it's just as overtly "British" as Letter Never Sent is "Soviet". And there must a US equivalent.