fowler-16
This is an artfully arranged movie that I felt compelled to watch scene by scene. Yes, this is clearly propaganda, and it bends over backwards to excuse the Realpolitik of Moscow's pre-war diplomatic manipulations. In the "show trial" scenes it avoids any expectation of honesty yet excels in the writing and acting of the various "conspiracy" characters. While writer Howard Koch and director Michael Curtiz are obviously doing their best to whitewash the Soviet regime and judiciary, there is enough focus on anti-Soviet perspectives that a viewer may suppose the presentation is "objective"-- thus enhancing the message with a feeling of fairness. For all its warping of reality, the film is a masterpiece of writing, cinematography, and acting-- and in his pacing and masterful blending of file footage with dedicated scenes, director Curtiz was at the top of his game. I would love to know more of the real life back stories of the émigré actors who played roles that appear to be opposed to their own political leanings. Konstantine Shayne (Bukharin) wins the prize for his deeply thoughtful portrayal.
middsgo-956-41818
I just don't see the value of the rantings about the misrepresentations of fact that may or may not occur in this movie. It is unquestionably a piece of propaganda of questionable quality and believability. There are parts that are comical if you have any sense of history. It is said that Soviet audiences themselves found it laughable, although one reviewer here of apparent Slavic origin seemed to like it. But whether you detest the use of propaganda or see it as a fact of life doesn't seem really relevant in rating the film. Not much to go on about, there either.I don't see artistic value in it worthy of discussion.I'm just curious as to why propaganda was thought necessary in 1942-43 (presumably it took some time to make the film - when was it conceived/begun?) by which time the U.S. was fully engaged in the war effort. Or has our overload of films from both the time of the film and since, which focus purely on WWII heroics, been a bit inaccurate? In the movie "The Best Years of Our Lives" there is one scene where a citizen criticizes the U.S. involvement in the war in the face of some returned veterans. Dana Andrews loses his cool and assaults the man for showing disrespect. Has our view of history glossed over the number of people who were not so supportive of the war effort, either as pacifists or isolationists? I don't know the answer, but if it was actually significant, that might explain the perceived need for this film. Or, were there really significant anti-Soviet rumblings in the U.S. populace at the time? Or was the influence of certain right wing politicians on public opinion feared? It is known that U.S. veterans who fought beside Russians spoke of the latter's bravery, loyalty, and moral quality, but this would have been mostly after-the-fact, so not pertinent to the possible notion that this propaganda was necessary to back the war effort at the time it was produced and released. If the film, as propaganda, bombed at the box office, why was that? There could be a number of reasons. For me, this is the one interesting thing that came out of watching the film.
Olga Ulianova
I didn't expect that Americans could have such deep thoughts, have such clever conversations. Thanks for the film to WB, and ambassador Davis.My grandfathers and grandmothers have struggled against fascism, and the movie reflects the feelings of ordinary Russians existed for that time. I think they could be happy to see such view on their story.Now I want to read this book. Unfortunately, we didn't know before that this film was existed. It's really interesting interpretation. This film is good even for now days to show the consequences of mutual international misunderstanding. Also I liked the image of his wife - woman who will is always near and can support.
Robert J. Maxwell
Winston Churchill, on military deception during World War II, is said to have remarked, "The truth must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." This movie demonstrates that the reverse can also be true.President Roosevelt in 1937 sends Ambassador Davies (Walter Huston) and his family on a mission to Europe to find out if war is inevitable. The merry group arrive in Hamburg where they are treated with condescension by the Nazi government. Then a much longer period in Soviet Russia where Davies views with amazement the industrial progress and the esprit of the ordinary Russian citizens. He investigates the situation in England, Austria, and, well, all over the place -- and at taxpayer expense. Never mind war. I want to know if he took his family skiing at Gstaad on our dime! Is the movie sympathetic to the Soviet Union? You bet. When this movie was released in 1943 Russia was getting a pounding from Germany and the Brits were struggling the Balkans and with Rommel in North Africa, with American aid. The Russians needed us and we needed them in order to keep Hitler fighting a war on two fronts.This was one of several propagandistic flag-wavers from the war years, condemning Germany and Japan, making light of Italy, and lauding our allies overseas, of which the Soviet Union was one of the principles. What irony that five years after this release, those involved in the production, or any production like it, were suspected of being comsymps and sometimes punished for it.The history we see is risible, though. Let me just recount one or two queer twists in the presentation.You know the Stalinist purges of the late 1930s? The ones in which Uncle Joe Stalin had most of his high-ranking generals and politicians arrested and either kicked out, sent off to Siberia, or executed? The purges that consolidated Stalin's power and left him almost helpless when the Germans invaded? Well, apparently, that wasn't Stalin's idea at all. In this movie, Stalin, is frank, sensible, and a little like an uncle you're fond of. The purge, it seems, was the result of a plot to depose the Soviet government and help Hitler conquer Europe. The plot was hatched by Leon Trotsky and a bunch of treacherous commies. (The word communism is never mentioned.) Stalin didn't want to rid himself of possible rivals but after all he couldn't let Germany take over Russia. Trotsky, by the way, having been driven out of Russia by Uncle Joe, was living in Mexico at the time and was soon to be dispatched by a botched lobotomy performed with an ice ax. It's unclear who sent the assassin.At the trials, the suspects confess freely to all kind of shenanigans. Q: "And you admit that no pressure of any kind has been brought to make you confess?" A: "None." Here's another interesting quote: "Russia has no aggressive intentions but is ready for anything that comes." (No mention of a Soviet occupation of half of Poland.) After the Japanese demolish Shanghai some Chinese children are brought to Moscow and treated in a hospital. Huston asks a Chinese diplomat why these children were brought to Russia. "Because Russia is our friend, Mr. Davies." The film seriously suggests that the appeasement at Munich was deliberate on the part of England, meant to encourage war between Germany and Russia, so that when the two nations had fought themselves to exhaustion, Britain could step in as savior and take over.All of these propositions ring with irony today, but they're all handed to us with the utmost sincerity. The pace never flags as Ambassador Davies, his wife (Ann Harding) and daughter (Eleanor Parker) take this FREE TOUR of the Europe and Asia, gobbling down caviar, swilling champagne and oysters, dancing at fancy balls, gawking at the performance of the famous ballerina Galina Ulanova (Cyd Charisse!), clapping at parades, visiting museums, ice skating in Gorky Park, cozening up to celebrities, buying cameos in the little shops near Vatican City, chatting over fish and chips with the Beatles in Liverpool, catching some rays at Cap D'Antibe, smiling and waving at the home movie camera in front of Maxime's, shouting drunkenly at the dancers at the Folies Bergere, smoking dope everywhere they go, giving the finger to the beggars in Calcutta, and who knows what all -- and all of it on TAXPAYER MONEY! The story is propelled by Michael Curtiz's always zippy direction and editing. If there was a foreigner working at Warner Brothers in 1943, you'll find him listed among the cast here. Native nationality is of little consequence. Ethnic Russians are played by Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Greeks, Belgians, and Texans. And those are only the actors I was able to identify right away.It's a time capsule. The entire project is in fact so absurd that from time to time it elicits a smile or even a chuckle.
