Stalin: Movie Review

Yousef Khalil Modern World History Research Paper Stalin Hollywood seems to delineate most of the historical movies it produces inaccurately in order for them to sell. Movie producers gismo the original story and make up whatsoeverwhat facts, translated into scenes, which would attract the earshot to a particular movie. But should we blame Hollywood, or the earreach for be less aware of our history, and just pay to watch movies for the sake of entertainment, non caring on how historically inaccurate it is?The idea of historical evets literally cosmos rewritten for the sake of an well-nigh fictional retelling is something that faeces be regarded as controversial, however the fact of the matter is that Hollywood and film writers volitioning constantly be able to take a historical story and zest it up simply for the sake of creating drama and subsequent r blushue as a result. These films often contain the based on a align story message, exclusively as long as it is non in truth classed as a factual film, there is essentially nothing scathe with taking a historical event an re-telling it for the sake of a film.no(prenominal) both event in history contained enough drama to be make into a film, but as long as the general foothold of the event had the potential to create drama. Hollywood will al airs be able to take the story and make it into a blockbuster masterpiece just as they have done in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. As long as they continue to do so, the concept is something that will continue to be shrouded in controversy from both historical enthusiasts and film critics alike. Stalin (1992) was the movie of my choice that I think has the closest historically accurate content than any new(prenominal) movie.Narrated by Stalins daughter Svetlana, this begins with Stalin joining Lenin and the Bolsheviks in their fight against the government, eventually mount up their deliver government themselves. som e of his biography is well cognize to us, however this movie brings off the character of Stalin as a psychotic villain who did not trust a single person, not even his associates, and took extreme measures to exterminate all of them. His ego and paranoia alienated him from his fri deceases and his family, even to the academic degree where his married wo gentle spells gentle reality Nadya (Julia Ormond) commits suicide and young Svetlana hates him.But in the quit, he does not change, and this leads to his ruining and death. This movie really wasnt a cinema film, but a television movie that wasnt going to play neither in theaters nor virtually the hu gentleman race, which might count for something. This film would have been ruined by a big studio production. There is no room to Hollywoodize Josef Stalin. He was perhaps the worst and most brutal tyrant of the 20th century. Estimates consort from 20-40 million deaths he was responsible for (Rummel, 2006) He was in no way a nic e man. In him there was not an ounce of decency, lone(prenominal) a vast void of feeling that Robert Duvall conveyed truly well.The film itself closely seemed hollow or actionless at times, and generally moved slowly. Passers precise method pays off, however, with powerful performances from Plowright, Schell, and Ormond complimenting Duvalls brilliance. My whole site is Duvall is Stalins embodiment. This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. to the highest degree comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing rattling specific. The film is a broad overview of the b watch and butter of Stalin and could never include both element of his life.All the important historical is there the Revolution, the power struggle in the midst of Trotsky and Stalin, Stalins rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges and WWII. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. umpteen of the early(a) characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially closely Stalin and what make him tick, not closely the intricate backgrounds of an opposite(prenominal) revolutionaries and supporters. If the viewers dont come extraneous from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then they simply mixed-up the point.The way that he treated his family, friends and so-called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film. The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think umteen previous reviewers had tighty with. Fact under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the innovation on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a atomic and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US (Brainerd, 2002). The film brings up the particular question of whet her or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR.That is a powerful and ideal provoking question that one carries forward from this film. Any film that lingers in the viewers mind and makes them think has merit. Is it a perfect film? nary(prenominal) Is it historically inaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not. Robert Duvall does an excellent and convert job of portraying a monster. But this is one of the rare biopics that offers few opinions and more facts. Over three hours long, the movie covers the dictators life from his exile in Siberia, when he took the name Stalin, up to his death in 1953.It does not label to feature the then world politics and even contemporary Russia as a whole, nor does it waste further screen time on the genial reaction to Stalins policies too much. It features Stalin and all Stalin. It focuses exclusively on his personal life (naturally, since the movie is narrated by his daughter Svetlana) and his take on the fellow comrades of the party. The filmmakers stay on more-or-less accepted to the facts, giving neither imaginative shock moments nor just speak up history. Stalins married woman committed suicide, which do me think whether that affected him psychologically later on.It is hard to know what effect did the death of Stalins wife had on him. Clearly the film needed an overarching plot structure to plan of attack an explanation of a complex man. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get inside Stalins head. If anything, the man was driven by hatred and little else, a hatred that is herculean to articulate, but which was at least admirably displayed in the film. The portrayals of Stalins wife and some of his associates were less convince. This is the fault of the script or the direction or both, not the actors.For example, Stalins second wife Nadya was not sooner the principled heroine seen here who ostensibly took her suffer life because she saw no other escape from the cruel that her husband was bringing to t he coun fork over. The real Nadya brought some of her own problems to her marriage and these contributed to her death. (Marsolais, 2010) Bukharin, abominable in his final weeks, may have been the best of them but that was verbalism little. He was not quite a the noble, tragic swan portrayed. He was prone to hysterics, ab expose his own problems primarily. The suffering millions could suffer as long as he was approved of.During his final imprisonment, Bukharin wrote to Stalin offering to do anything, put his name to anything, if but Stalin would be his friend again. (Marsolais, 2010) Stalin takes all the heat and deserves plenty, but legion(predicate) of the alleviation of the people around him seem like innocents, fooled by him, finding out too late that they were caught up in his horror and were either debauch or destroyed by it. But Stalin, like Hitler and any other dictator, was yet possible because those around him saw advantage for themselves in living him. If theres a problem with this film its that it lets some of Stalins minions off the hook.It settles for extremes Stalin and his chiefs of secret jurisprudence on the one hand, and the good or loyal but childlike on the other. But the only innocents were the people of the former Soviet Union, those off the beaten track(predicate) from power whose lives were destroyed according to the requirements of a command economy. So many deaths and so many slaves were required from each walk of life, like so many tons of iron, to meet quotas. They are acknowledged in the films dedication. Those around Stalin, however, were all up to their elbows in blood just as he was, obsessed with their own positions, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev included.This is perhaps something to bear in mind in watching a generally excellent and historically accurate film. When evaluating Stalin, I think of it in comparison to Nixon, another biopic with similar scope and ambition. And, quite honestly, this film comes out st reets ahead, for one single reason it tries to ex downright what Stalin was, but not why he was like it. There is no washy psychoanalysis, no looking inside his mind, and no needless and questionable reconstructions of his own self-reflections. What you see in this movie is the directors interpretation of what you might have seen if youd followed Stalin around.He gives you the dots. You tin then join them by drawing your own completions. It works because Duvall is angry at Stalin, both in terms of appearance, voice characterization, and his general manner. Having evince about Stalin for some eld, I had no trouble accepting that the man on the screen was the Man of Steel. The film is essentially reconstructed from the diaries of Stalins daughter, Nadya, and so some aspects are historically questionable. But as historic epics go it follows the research and convention thinking quite closely it doesnt digress into mistaken peculation like Stone, and doesnt propagandize either. I t does make the error of dichotomizing characters into good and bad Bukharin, for example, is portrayed as something of a great man in this film, then again, that seems to be the specimen modus operandi of historical films these days. The biggest problem anyone making a film about a tyrant will face, is exactly how much they know (or dont know) about the atrocities their regimes commit, and to what cessation do they get involved do they sit, aloof, like Hitler at Bertchesgarten. Or do they lead slaughter brigades like Amin?Stalin seems to be quite dislocated from it all, even when on a train travelling through the freezing, ravenous villages of the steppes. A rabid paranoia about being overthrown, a distrust of others, and a fierce, almost inhumane determination to meet goals were at the core of Stalins despotism. hatful meant little to Stalin they were expendable, disposable and unreliable, even his wife and children, and this idea comes through showy-voiced and clear in th is well put together and quite entertain biographical epic. Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first age of his Soviet leadership.The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a self-coloredly follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the feared leader of Russia. What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinist politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror, the funeral scene at the result of the film drips with irony.Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first long time of his Soviet leadership. The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a truehearted follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the feared leader of Russia. What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinistic politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror.Works Cited Brainerd, Elizabeth. Reassessing the sample of living in the Soviet Union an analysis using archival and anthropometric data. capital of the United Kingdom Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2006. How umteen Did Stalin Really Murder? The Distributed Republic. 09 Dec. 2010 lthttp//www. distributedrepublic. inter give the sack/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/gt. Marsolais, By Jesse. Facing Up to Stalin Magazine The Atlantic. The Atlantic intelligence service and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and food TheAtlantic. com. 09 Dec. 2010 lthttp//www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2004/07/facing-up-to-stalin/3390/gt .Stalin Movie studyYousef Khalil Modern World History Research Paper Stalin Hollywood seems to portray most of the historical movies it produces inaccurately in order for them to sell. Movie producers gizmo the original story and make up some facts, translated into scenes, which would attract the audience to a particular movie. But should we blame Hollywood, or the audience for being less aware of our history, and just pay to watch movies for the sake of entertainment, not caring on how historically inaccurate it is?The idea of historical events literally being rewritten for the sake of an almost fictional retelling is something that can be regarded as controversial, but the fact of the matter is that Hollywood and film writers will invariably be able to take a historical story and alter it up simply for the sake of creating drama and subsequent revenue as a result. These films often contain the based on a true story message, but as long as it is not actually classed as a factu al film, there is essentially nothing defile with taking a historical event an re-telling it for the sake of a film.Not every event in history contained enough drama to be make into a film, but as long as the general nates of the event had the potential to create drama. Hollywood will always be able to take the story and make it into a blockbuster masterpiece just as they have done in the past and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. As long as they continue to do so, the concept is something that will continue to be shrouded in controversy from both historical enthusiasts and film critics alike. Stalin (1992) was the movie of my choice that I think has the closest historically accurate content than any other movie.Narrated by Stalins daughter Svetlana, this begins with Stalin joining Lenin and the Bolsheviks in their fight against the government, eventually climb up their own government themselves. Most of his biography is well know to us, however this movie bring s out the character of Stalin as a psycho villain who did not trust a single person, not even his associates, and took extreme measures to exterminate all of them. His ego and paranoia alienated him from his friends and his family, even to the point where his wife Nadya (Julia Ormond) commits suicide and young Svetlana hates him.But in the end, he does not change, and this leads to his wrecking and death. This movie really wasnt a cinema film, but a television movie that wasnt going to play neither in theaters nor around the world, which might count for something. This film would have been ruined by a big studio production. There is no way to Hollywoodize Josef Stalin. He was perhaps the worst and most brutal tyrant of the 20th century. Estimates domain from 20-40 million deaths he was responsible for (Rummel, 2006) He was in no way a nice man. In him there was not an ounce of decency, only a vast void of feeling that Robert Duvall conveyed very well.The film itself almost seemed hollow or lifeless at times, and generally moved slowly. Passers precise method pays off, however, with powerful performances from Plowright, Schell, and Ormond complimenting Duvalls brilliance. My whole point is Duvall is Stalins embodiment. This film is historically excellent. What most reviewers seem hung up on are accents, make-up and costumes. Most comment that it is historically inaccurate but give nothing very specific. The film is a broad overview of the life of Stalin and could never include every element of his life.All the important historical is there the Revolution, the power struggle amidst Trotsky and Stalin, Stalins rise to power, The great famines, The Great Purges and WWII. The film gives great insight into Stalin and the paranoia that he experienced and how that paranoia influenced the way he ruled over the Soviet Union. Many of the other characters were somewhat glossed over, but the film is essentially about Stalin and what made him tick, not about the intrica te backgrounds of other revolutionaries and supporters. If the viewers dont come away from the film thinking what a bastard Stalin was, then they simply missed the point.The way that he treated his family, friends and so-called counterrevolutionaries is illustrated correctly in this film. The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a thermonuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US (Brainerd, 2002). The film brings up the unfavorable question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR.That is a powerful and approximation provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers in the viewers mind and makes them think has merit. Is it a perfect film? No. Is it histor ically inaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not. Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster. But this is one of the rare biopics that offers fewer opinions and more facts. Over three hours long, the movie covers the dictators life from his exile in Siberia, when he took the name Stalin, up to his death in 1953.It does not try to feature the then world politics and even contemporary Russia as a whole, nor does it waste further screen time on the affectionate reaction to Stalins policies too much. It features Stalin and only Stalin. It focuses exclusively on his personal life (naturally, since the movie is narrated by his daughter Svetlana) and his take on the fellow comrades of the party. The filmmakers extend more-or-less true to the facts, giving neither imaginative shock moments nor just plain history. Stalins wife committed suicide, which made me think whether that affected him psychologically later on.It is hard to know what effect d id the death of Stalins wife had on him. Clearly the film needed an overarching plot structure to exertion an explanation of a complex man. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get inside Stalins head. If anything, the man was driven by hatred and little else, a hatred that is difficult to articulate, but which was at least admirably displayed in the film. The portrayals of Stalins wife and some of his associates were less convincing. This is the fault of the script or the direction or both, not the actors.For example, Stalins second wife Nadya was not quite the principled heroine seen here who manifestly took her own life because she saw no other escape from the evil that her husband was bringing to the country. The real Nadya brought some of her own problems to her marriage and these contributed to her death. (Marsolais, 2010) Bukharin, low-down in his final weeks, may have been the best of them but that was face little. He was not quite the noble, tragic swan portrayed. He was prone to hysterics, about his own problems primarily. The suffering millions could suffer as long as he was approved of.During his final imprisonment, Bukharin wrote to Stalin offering to do anything, put his name to anything, if only Stalin would be his friend again. (Marsolais, 2010) Stalin takes all the heat and deserves plenty, but many of the equipoise of the people around him seem like innocents, fooled by him, finding out too late that they were caught up in his evil and were either tainted or destroyed by it. But Stalin, like Hitler and any other dictator, was only possible because those around him saw advantage for themselves in reenforcement him. If theres a problem with this film its that it lets some of Stalins minions off the hook.It settles for extremes Stalin and his chiefs of secret law on the one hand, and the good or loyal but rude on the other. But the only innocents were the people of the former Soviet Union, those furthest from power whose lives were destr oyed according to the requirements of a command economy. So many deaths and so many slaves were required from every walk of life, like so many tons of iron, to meet quotas. They are acknowledged in the films dedication. Those around Stalin, however, were all up to their elbows in blood just as he was, obsessed with their own positions, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev included.This is perhaps something to bear in mind in watching a generally excellent and historically accurate film. When evaluating Stalin, I think of it in comparison to Nixon, another biopic with similar scope and ambition. And, quite honestly, this film comes out streets ahead, for one single reason it tries to explain what Stalin was, but not why he was like it. There is no weakly psychoanalysis, no looking inside his mind, and no needless and questionable reconstructions of his own self-reflections. What you see in this movie is the directors interpretation of what you might have seen if youd followed Stalin arou nd.He gives you the dots. You can then join them by drawing your own conclusions. It works because Duvall is idle at Stalin, both in terms of appearance, voice characterization, and his general manner. Having read about Stalin for some years, I had no trouble accepting that the man on the screen was the Man of Steel. The film is essentially reconstructed from the diaries of Stalins daughter, Nadya, and accordingly some aspects are historically questionable. But as historic epics go it follows the research and convention thinking quite closely it doesnt digress into enraged peculation like Stone, and doesnt propagandize either. It does make the error of dichotomizing characters into good and bad Bukharin, for example, is portrayed as something of a great man in this film, then again, that seems to be the standard modus operandi of historical films these days. The biggest problem anyone making a film about a tyrant will face, is exactly how much they know (or dont know) about the atrocities their regimes commit, and to what finish do they get involved do they sit, aloof, like Hitler at Bertchesgarten. Or do they lead slaughter brigades like Amin?Stalin seems to be quite loose from it all, even when on a train travelling through the freezing, sharp-set villages of the steppes. A rabid paranoia about being overthrown, a distrust of others, and a fierce, almost inhumane determination to meet goals were at the core of Stalins despotism. heap meant little to Stalin they were expendable, disposable and unreliable, even his wife and children, and this idea comes through loud and clear in this well put together and quite socialize biographical epic. Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership.The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a fast(a) follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the feared leader of Russia. What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinist politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror, the funeral scene at the conclusion of the film drips with irony.Stalin appeals as a protagonist in the first years of his Soviet leadership. The film portrays him as an outcast, but one who is a firm follower of Lenin and communism. One event after another pushes him up the Soviet leadership ladder, until he becomes the feared leader of Russia. What truly stirs the emotions of the viewer is how he betrays his friends and family in his fight for leadership. He purges the nation of anti-Stalinistic politicians, executing many of his best friends cold-heartedly in the process. In the end, Stalin is a monumental device of terror.Works Cited Brainerd, Elizabeth. Reassessing the standard of living in the Soviet Union an analysis using archival and anthropometric data. capital of the United Kingdom Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2006. How Many Did Stalin Really Murder? The Distributed Republic. 09 Dec. 2010 lthttp//www. distributedrepublic. net/archives/2006/05/01/how-many-did-stalin-really-murder/gt. Marsolais, By Jesse. Facing Up to Stalin Magazine The Atlantic. The Atlantic give-and-take and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and food TheAtlantic. com. 09 Dec. 2010 lthttp//www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2004/07/facing-up-to-stalin/3390/gt.