Soviet Union

The great railway bizarre

Taiga forests, first class follies and a Slavic Lolita in short-shorts enliven the train journey that has no end.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The great railway bizarre

The reason most travel accounts of the Trans-Siberian train are so predictable and lifeless is that they lose their edge in the attempt to be earnest.

While in the perfumed death-grip of such optimistic sincerity, many a scribe has misled his readers with dandied visions of trans-continental reverie. Some wayward writers have committed this error by weaving the view from their train window into moony reflections about how Russian literature changed their lives. Others have tried to capture the mood of the country itself by minutely analyzing everything from their new Russian acquaintances, to whimsical encounters with the dining-car staff, to any experience involving obligatory vodka-shots.

A few rail-diarists — the desperate — try to validate their long hours on the train by bringing in marginally relevant trivia from the sights outside: how Tomsk is full of radioactive waste; how Taishet was once a Stalin-era forwarding camp for Siberian exiles; how Perm is home to a bicycle factory; or how Krasnoyarsk churns out refrigerators and car tires.

All of this is fine. But it falls far short of the train experience itself.

This is because a train trip across Siberia takes a very, very long time, and largely transpires in a small berth that rattles a lot, features fake-wood paneling and empties into a corridor full of antsy people who haven’t bathed in days. If there is anything genuine to be communicated from this experience, it will certainly have very little to do with the novels of Boris Pasternak, the cook’s opinion of Yevgeni Primakov or the dreadfully inefficient see-saw factories of Zuevka. Rather, if there is any revelation to be gleaned from spending several days on a single train, it will come from the bizarre details that lurk beneath the mundaneity of the trip itself.

This is what I’d convinced myself, at least, when my cousin Dan and I boarded the Moscow-bound train at Irkutsk.

After all, 81 hours on a train is a long time, and I didn’t want 100 years of journalistic preconceptions to taint my experiences before they’d even happened.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

In January of 1899, the first regular Trans-Siberian train service began to take passengers from European Russia to Irkutsk — “the Paris of Siberia” — a thriving university town that was home to all manner of exiles, from “Decembrist” nobles to Polish nationals to avowed anarchists. At the time, the completion of this railroad line was a triumph — since it aided settlement to the region, consolidated Russia’s eastern claims against China and Japan, and opened up Siberia’s rich natural resources (such as timber, gold and coal). Just 10 years earlier, transportation conditions to the Russian Far East were so abysmal that it was actually faster to get from Vladivostok to Moscow by going east via the United States than it was to travel west across Russia itself.

In the early days of the railroad, the Moscow-Irkutsk run often took over a week to complete; our 1999 timetable put the journey at three and a half days. Since we’d traveled the first two legs out of Beijing and Ulan Bator in second class, Dan and I decided — for reasons of both comfort and curiosity — to splurge on a first class upgrade for the Moscow-bound haul.

At first blush, the environment of the first class car seemed a mild disappointment — not because of the berths (which were clean and comfortable) or the provodnitsas (who were helpful and pleasant), but because of the company. When I’d first purchased the upgrade, I’d imagined my fellow first-class travelers as spy-novel grist: corpulent Russian mob-types with anorexic supermodel girlfriends; snooty French diplomats with snarling lapdogs; bespectacled English ethnologists with fascinating tales about the Finno-Urgic Udmurts of the Siberian plain. In reality, our first class car was mostly populated with elder-hostel tourists from places like Minneapolis and Tempe.

Over the course of the trip, of course, these folks would prove far more baffling and contradictory than a train-full of spies.

The first hint of my elderly train-mates’ dual nature came just five hours into the trip, when my neighbor from two doors down, a 72-year-old man from California, suddenly rushed past me in the corridor. Since he’d always made a point of chatting me up (he’d pegged me as “that Oregon boy” after a brief discussion about college; I’d already heard his Coos Bay coastal storm story twice), I peered over to watch as, ignoring me entirely, he took a hard right into a cabin full of his bridge-playing cohorts.

“This place is just like the Bermuda Triangle!” I heard him announce.

“What do you mean, the Bermuda Triangle?” came a voice from inside the cabin.

“I mean I just saw a Russian guy wearing a shirt that said ‘California.’”

“So why does that make this the Bermuda Triangle?”

“Well because that just seems kinda strange, a Russian wearing a shirt that says ‘California.’”

“I think you’re thinking about the ‘Twilight Zone,’” a third voice pointed out. “The Bermuda Triangle is where ships and airplanes disappear. ‘The Twilight Zone’ is where funny things happen.”

“I didn’t say it was funny to see a Russian wearing a ‘California’ shirt; I said it was strange.”

“‘The Twilight Zone’ isn’t funny-ha-ha; it’s funny-strange. The Bermuda Triangle isn’t funny at all; it’s where planes and ships disappear.”

A fourth voice piped in with a phony John Wayne drawl: “Yeah, and this game is gonna disappear if you don’t shut the door, shut your face and play your hand.”

“Ha-ha! That’s no joke. I swear, we have to wait 20 minutes every time you go down the hall to smell the roses.”

As the door slid shut and the corridor fell silent, I stood in amazement. My septuagenarian neighbors — who had always spoken to me with the friendly, half-interested cadence of people who’ve been making small-talk since the Great Depression — were babbling at each other like a bunch of bud-smoking, low-culture-referencing Gen-X channel surfers.

Inspired, I spent the rest of the trip subtly trying to engage my elderly acquaintances with good-natured sarcasm and reflexive irony, but it simply didn’t work. Regardless of what I said, they would always steer our conversation back to weather patterns, relatives who once lived near my hometown or the new-fangled wonders of Gore-Tex.

I spent my time in first class feeling like an anthropologist who can’t learn the primitive tribal customs because the natives think it’s more seemly to speak to him in Shakespearean English.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Not long into the trip, my cousin Dan and I fell into a listless First Class
routine that revolved around reading, drinking tea, staring out the cabin
window and aimlessly wandering the corridors. In time, I would take an
adventure into the Third Class car, but I never considered that option until
late in the trip.

Despite my best efforts to get caught up in the romance of the
Trans-Siberian transit, I found that feelings of reverie only sustained
themselves in very short doses. That left me with a lot of down-time. On
an 81-hour trip, down-time adds up. Thus — aside from my geriatric
neighbors and a few books — the closest thing I had to moment-by-moment
entertainment came when Dan would fall asleep for 15 minutes, then wake up
and tell me what he’d just dreamt.

“I was getting ready to climb Mount Everest with you and some hippie mountaineer,” Dan said after falling asleep and waking up midway through our second day on the train. “I was having trouble tightening my boots, because I was wearing those pantyhose-thin ‘Gold Toe’ socks. I was also worried because I’d forgotten to bring warm clothes, and the road we took up to base camp looked a lot like U.S. 59 as it goes through Garnett, Kan.”

“An Everest dream,” I told him. “That must mean something.”

“Yeah, maybe. But Everest seemed to start at the upper limit of a hallway wall, and as you and the hippie were ice-axeing your way up the glacier, your safety ropes were coiled on this short, gray industrial carpeting. I thought to myself, ‘Shit, I’ve never used technical climbing equipment before, but Everest seems to be indoors. How hard can it be?’”

“Did you try it then?”

“I didn’t get the chance; I woke up before I could try. The last thing I remember is how commercially extreme you and the hippie looked as you climbed Mt. Everest in blowing snow and fluorescent lighting.”

“Nice,” I said. “Very weird. You should fall asleep more often.”

Dan and I occupied a berth that, while comfortable, was a far cry from the proposed first class cabins of the original train. During the Paris “Exhibition Universelle” of 1900, the Russian government promoted its recent Trans-Siberian engineering feat with an exhibit that promised libraries, music rooms, gymnasiums and marble-trimmed bathtubs in the first class cars. A century later, the closest first class came to a marble bathtub was an aluminum washbasin, and the nearest feature to a music room was a crackling cabin speaker that continuously played eclectica ranging from Stravinsky’s “Firebird” to “Shadow Dancing” by the Bee-Gees.

I spent much of my cabin-time looking out at the Siberian landscape. Beyond the train tracks, coniferous taiga forests clotted the flat landscape, and small stands of birch stood out like white matchsticks on the horizon. In the open spaces, rounded piles of hay sat in vivid blue-green fields; purple-dappled meadows draped the valleys. Country people haunted bogs and pastures: men in blue overalls clutching wooden pitchforks; girls in blue dresses picking vegetables; boys in blue hats wading waist-deep in muddy ditches. Trackside cemeteries sat behind sky-blue iron fences — their colorful garlands and bleached headstones fading back into the trees, giving the illusion that graves stretch under the taiga all the way up into the arctic.

These sights changed only slightly as the miles wore on. Sometimes, for variety, I would turn from the window and watch the landscape reflect off my cabin walls — jumping and jittering across the plastic woodgrain like a blurry 1940s movie newsreel.

The folks from the Elderhostel tour occasionally dropped by my cabin for a chat (“Now where did you say you boys were from?”), but they were most visible and boisterous just before the station stops. In anticipation of these brief platform-breaks, our neighbors would set aside their embroideries and bridge games and crowd their way toward the corridor exit. Listening to them chatter as they shuffled by my door was like flipping through UHF television channels:

“I didn’t know Cheryl Tiegs was 50.”

“Well preserved, isn’t she?”

“They’re selling jawbreakers on the platform. Ha-ha!”

“It was a man’s bathing suit that I inherited, and it was all wool.”

“You fill your pelvis up with air, then your stomach, then your throat. Breathe out for five minutes, then it’s gone.”

“Look at me: I decided I didn’t want to look like a tourist out there.”

“You need to watch out for gangrene. Ha-ha!”

“I smell fish. Let’s buy a fish.”

“Ha-ha! He said he was gonna guy a fish!”

“I’m gonna do it! I’m gonna buy a fish and give it to her!”

“If you give me a fish, I’ll give you a divorce.”

“If we get a divorce, I’m gonna make you keep the fish.”

“Look at him! That crazy sonuvabitch is really gonna go off and buy a fish! Ha-ha!”

At each station stop of over two minutes, the entire Elderhostel crew would dash out of the car the moment the provodnitsa let down the carriage steps, then hustle back a few moments later clutching sausages, handmade scarves, bottles of black-market vodka (“Look at what I got, ha-ha!”) and fresh vegetables. By comparison, Dan and I must have seemed like complete fuddy-duddies.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

Not wanting to feel like a total layabout, I hiked down to the dining car each evening to have dinner with my old castaway buddies Mark and James, who were enduring this leg of the trip in second class. Admittedly, the camaraderie was more of a motivating factor than the food.

“This beefsteak tastes like a beef-flavored wash-cloth,” I complained over dinner our second night. Mark and James grimaced in sympathy, unenthusiastically chewing their own beefsteaks.

“That’s your mistake,” said a youngish Russian guy at the next table over. “You got beef. You should have gotten omul. Siberia is famous for it.”

“Omul? I didn’t see it on the menu.”

“It’s not on the menu, but this train always has it. It’s a fish, a cousin to salmon. You can only find it in Lake Baikal. It cries like a baby when the fishermen catch it. You eat it salted. It’s very good.”

“Thanks for the tip,” I said. “Your English sounds great, by the way — very natural.”

“Thanks,” the Russian said. “My name’s Aleksey. I studied in California; now I work for Gillette. You know: ‘The Best a Man Can Get.’ Today I’m taking the slow road to Novosibirsk. Are you also here for work?”

“No, just for fun.”

“Fun? On this train? I think maybe you’re a little crazy.”

“This is a classic trip,” I said. “An adventure.”

Aleksey scoffed. “This isn’t an adventure. You need to try something extreme — take a ride in a MiG fighter, or parachute from a helicopter or go rock climbing in Kamchatka. That’s what tourists do for fun in Russia these days. Train rides are old-fashioned.”

“The Trans-Siberian is like the Russian version of going across America in a convertible,” I insisted. “That’s an adventure. It’s not extreme, but it’s still an adventure.”

“It’s not really an adventure. The only way to get an adventure on this train is to go to third class.”

“Why? What’s in third class.”

Aleksey smiled at me. “Go there, and you’ll find out.”

The next morning, having nothing better to do, I did just that.

The first thing I remember about third class was the blast of fetid air as I walked in — a paint-blistering concoction of feet and armpits, alcohol and urine, cigarette-butts and butt-crack. Fifty-four people had been crammed into an open bunk-room; the whole carriage looked like something out of an absurd murder mystery: men in their pajamas, pressing transistor radios to their ears; small girls singing to themselves in sweet-high voices; small boys clutching packs of cigarettes; large women with stainless steel teeth; oily-faced teens in track suits; two enormous, unshaven men passed out on the same bed.

I breathed through my mouth as I made my way down the carriage, trying to act casual. When I got to the end of the carriage, I realized that I had no real third class visitation strategy. Halfway back across the carriage, a voice called to me in English.

“Hey you!” I looked over to see a balding, round-faced man of about 40 smiling at me. He was obviously very proud of his English skills, and he spoke rather loudly. “Where you from?” he shouted.

“The United States,” I said, thankful that, if nothing else, this interaction was validating my trip to third class. The man translated loudly: “Amerika!” A dozen or so people turned around to listen in.

“What you think of Beverly Hills?” the balding man asked, still smiling.

For some reason I couldn’t think of an intelligent-sounding way to answer this question. “Um, it’s very nice,” I said. “Lots of rich people live there.”

“What you think of China?”

“It’s a nice place. Lots of people.” Under normal circumstances, I’d have been boring these people to death, but after two days in steerage, I was something of a marquee player.

“What you think of Russia?”

“Very nice. Very interesting.” There were a few nods, a few sarcastic groans.

“What means ‘fuck you’?”

“That’s a bad word. You shouldn’t use it.” The balding man translated; the peanut gallery frowned and nodded.

“What you think of Russian women?”

Experience overseas had conditioned me to answer this kind of question in a bland, positive way that neither interests potential pimps nor irritates territorial-pissers. “Russian women are very nice and pretty,” I said.

For some reason, everyone thought this answer was really funny. Giggling, the balding man pointed to a girl of about 14, whose rear end was hanging out the bottom of an extremely short pair of pants. “What you think of that woman?” he yelled.

Not sure what the fuss was about, I decided to stay with my stock line. “She seems very nice and pretty.”

My translated answer resulted in pandemonium. The girl’s face went red, and her mother tried to wrestle her over to me. Old women screamed like teenagers, old men howled with laughter; a bottle of vodka appeared out of nowhere.

“You stay here!” the balding man shouted joyously, taking the vodka and looking around for a cup. “Maybe you kiss her later!” He immediately translated this witticism, much to the delight of the peanut gallery.

Standing there, peering around, I had no idea what was going on. I knew that I’d been in the third class carriage for about 10 minutes. I knew that this 10 minutes was already more interesting than the previous 24 hours put together.

I knew that I didn’t want to stay a moment longer.

Under the inspirational moral standard set by movies like “Titanic” and “Dead Poet’s Society,” I should have stuck around and tried to enjoy myself or learn something. The thing is, I didn’t want to seize the day or frolic in steerage. I didn’t want to get drunk on vodka or learn Russian profanities or suck face with a Slavic Lolita in ass-pants. The insipid calm of first class had irreversibly jaded me: I longed for eventlessness.

Making my excuses, I fled the third class carriage. Walking into the first class corridor, I wasn’t sure if I’d met Aleksey’s challenge of “adventure,” and I didn’t care. If two listless days in first class had taught me anything, it had taught me to crave more listlessness.

Returning to my cabin, I was encouraged to find my cousin bleary-eyed from sleep.

“Did you take another nap?” I asked.

“Yeah, I guess I did.”

“Did you dream?”

Dan furrowed his brow, thinking for a moment. “I dreamt of a koala bear.”

“Oh yeah? What’d it do?”

“It didn’t do anything. It was just sitting in a male zookeeper’s arms. It was wearing a little white tuxedo glove on its forepaw, which was ever so gently grasping the zookeeper’s arm-hair.”

“And that was it?”

My cousin shrugged. “That was it.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

For all practical purposes, my trip to Moscow ended not in Yaroslavl Station, but on my fourth morning on the train, when I woke up early to sit in the dining car and record the sights in my journal. “Water tower like a sentinel, trackside,” I wrote gazing outside. “Collapsed sawmill next to standing trees. Piles of iron: Where do these come from? Birch trees like matchsticks.”

Stopping for a moment, I flipped back several pages in my notebook. “Birch trees like white matchsticks on the horizon,” an earlier entry read. I flipped back a few more pages and found another birch tree-matchstick analogy, right next to an entry that compared water towers to sentinels. Putting my pen down, I reread my journal.

In three days, I’d made eight separate references to collapsed buildings and five references to faded or broken communist murals/symbols. I’d used the word “sentinel” four separate times to describe three separate things. For the last 3,000 journal miles, the taiga had never stopped being “endless,” the birch trees had consistently been “like matchsticks” and the decaying “vestiges of Soviet society” had never ceased to be ironical.

As I sat and reflected on my own redundancies, a foursome from the Elderhostel tour came in and sat at the far end of the dining car. They hadn’t noticed me in my booth, and were trapped in their own quirky, wonder-filled version of the train experience.

“Did you see that train-worker lady when we were coming here?” a voice said. “She looked real classy. Good bones and dark hair, like Jackie O.”

“Yeah, I saw her,” came a reply. “Too bad she doesn’t work in our car. They should switch those people around after a couple days.”

A third voice: “Hey, whatever happened to Jackie O. Junior?”

A fourth: “What do you mean, ‘Jackie O. Junior’?”

“Jackie O.’s daughter. Not the train lady; the real Jackie O. Whatever happened to her daughter?”

“Jackie O. had a daughter?”

“Of course she had a daughter. She had a daughter before she had a son, for chrissakes.”

“What son?”

“Her son, you dummy. JFK Junior!”

“Wait, are you trying to ask me about Carolyn Kennedy?”

“Yeah, that’s her. Carolyn Kennedy.”

“So where do you come off asking me about ‘Jackie O. Junior’? You’re the damned dummy!”

“Never you mind that. Whatever happened to Carolyn Kennedy?”

“I don’t know. Did you hear that something’d happened to her?”

“I didn’t mean it that way: I meant, whatever happened to her? Where is she? What’s she doing?”

Once my elderly train-mates had solved the mystery of Carolyn Kennedy and moved on to talking about the deficiencies of Russian tomato juice, I closed my notebook and put it into the bottom of my day pack.

A few days later, the mad nights of Moscow and St. Petersburg would hasten the return of my journal — but at that moment, even with Moscow 400 miles away, I realized it was no longer of any use.

Bidding the Elderhostel crew good morning, I walked back to my cabin to see if my cousin had dreamed anything new.

Rolf Potts' Vagabonding column appears every other Tuesday in Salon Travel. For more columns by Potts, visit his column archive.

What to watch instead of “Winnie the Pooh”

While the yellow bear makes a comeback on the big screen, his Soviet doppelganger Vinni Pukh deserves some love too

  • more
    • All Share Services

What to watch instead of Vinni Pukh (or Vinni-Puh), the Soviet cousin of Winnie the Pooh.

With its totally un-Pixarlated look and nougaty nostalgia core, Disney’s new “Winnie the Pooh” movie might be the perfect antidote for the summer 3-D blockbuster. Then again, do you really want to pay $12 for a film whose main appeal is that it feels old? Not to get all Eeyore on you, but I’d just as soon fork over my money for something I haven’t seen before. (Which also rules out the new “Transformers,” with its reused fight sequences.)

I know I’m not the intended audience for “Winnie the Pooh,” and by all rights, it looks like a very cute picture. But if you’re looking for a more far-out interpretation of A.A. Milne’s children’s classic, check out the Soviet-era “Vinni Pukh” cartoons (sometimes translated as Vinnie-Puh), a trilogy of Russian shorts based on Boris Zakhoder’s translation of “Winnie the Pooh.”

Not only does Pukh-Pooh look and talk like an Ewok, but the world he inhabits is beautifully sketched out in smudged colored pencil, giving you the sensation that you are actually watching animated characters walk around the illustrated landscape of a children’s book.

Episode One: “ Winnie the Pooh

 

Episode Two: “ Winnie the Pooh Goes Visiting

 

Episode Three (in two parts): “Winnie the Pooh and a Day of Care

For any native Russian speakers out there: How well does the translation hold up? Do you prefer Vinni Pukh, or the American Pooh?

Continue Reading Close

Drew Grant is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @videodrew.

Gorbachev accuses Putin of contempt for voters

Former Soviet leader also says Russian government only has imitations of parliamentary and judicial systems

  • more
    • All Share Services

Gorbachev accuses Putin of contempt for votersRussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin seen during his meeting with Sports Minister Viltaly Mutko, left, and Tatarstan regional President Rustam Minnikhanov to discuss preparedness for the Universiade-2013 in Kazan, in the Konstantin Palace near St. Petersburg, Russia, Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011. (AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Alexei Druzhinin, Pool)(Credit: AP)

Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has accused Russia’s current rulers of conceit and contempt for voters in his harshest criticism of the government yet.

Gorbachev on Monday criticized Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev for saying that they will decide between them who should run for president in Russia’s March 2012 presidential vote.

Gorbachev said the statements show an “incredible conceit” and disrespect for voters. Gorbachev has previously avoided personal criticism of Putin, who is widely expected to reclaim presidency.

Gorbachev, who will turn 80 next week, also denounced the main pro-Kremlin United Russia party as a “bad copy” of the Soviet Communist Party and said that Russia has only imitations of a parliament and judicial system.

“How I Ended This Summer”: A thriller from the Russian Arctic

Pick of the week: "The Shining" meets "Shutter Island" in the subtle, spectacular "How I Ended This Summer"

  • more
    • All Share Services

Grigory Dobrygin in "How I Ended This Summer"

I feel pretty safe in telling you that there are layers of social and political allegory beneath “How I Ended This Summer,” Russian director Alexei Popogrebsky’s thriller about two men alone in the Arctic. I mean, it’s a Russian movie — that goes with the turf. But you don’t have to go spelunking for deep meanings below this impressively crafted piece of cinema to enjoy it. Filmed at an actual meteorological research station in the Russian Arctic coast that was built under Stalin, “How I Ended This Summer” combines memorable images of the gorgeous, rugged wilderness, meticulous sound design that emphasizes the characters’ isolation, a dash of dark wit and a dose of madness.

Yes, if you’re keeping score at home that makes three weeks running that Pick of the Week has settled on a foreign film from a snowy northern country (with a fourth, I suspect, on the way next week). I’m not exactly doing it on purpose, but it may well have something to do with the amazing winter those of us in the eastern two-thirds of the country are enduring. Actually, compared to the frozen slush of the Northeastern megalopolis in February, the desolate beauty, perpetual sunlight and endless seafood buffet of an Arctic Ocean summer look like Barbados.

Officially, we learn very little about Pasha (Grigory Dobrygin) and Sergei (Sergei Puskepalis), the entire crew of this remote island station. They’re spending the Arctic summer monitoring instruments and sending the numbers back to some central authority, but we’re never quite sure what they’re reporting and why, we don’t know where they came from, and we don’t learn much about their lives back in civilization. There might be 20 years or so between them, and Pasha, a sleepy-eyed, earring-clad, Brad Pitt-looking hipster type, is familiar with all kinds of new technology that the grizzled Sergei views with disdain. It’s Pasha’s first and probably only summer on the island, while Sergei’s been coming there for years, and feels intimately connected with a tough-guy history that goes back to 1935.

Popogrebsky builds the psychological tension slowly but inexorably, delivering spectacular time-lapse shots of the changing landscape in this barren but beautiful place (the cinematography is by Pavel Kostomarov) and an entire litany of subtly disorienting sounds: The nearly constant background crackle of radio static; the sloshing of the sea, the hammering of wind and the cries of birds; the ubiquitous house-metal dance music from Pasha’s headphones. The film is often so spectacular, so hypnotic, that you just want to swim in its sensual wonders — but it’s propelling a narrative too. Eventually we notice, without anyone mentioning it, that while Pasha and Sergei sleep and cook walrus meat and report incomprehensible data and play video games (OK, only Pasha does that), the sun never, ever goes down. The landscape goes from morning to noon to afternoon to early evening and then starts all over again. You know, it might be enough to make you a little crazy.

Sergei and Pasha have settled into a tense but reasonably stable dynamic — the former as borderline-abusive dad, the latter as recalcitrant teenager — and life at the station is a strange combination of barren and idyllic. The principal threats seem to be boredom and loneliness, although it’s true that each man must carry a shotgun every time he leaves the station. (A geophysicist at a nearby base was eaten by a polar bear 30 years earlier.) Then Sergei decides to skip a few shifts to go catch them a barrelful of fresh Arctic trout, and while he’s away Pasha receives an emergency radio message delivering terrible news.

Like almost every other thriller in the genre’s history, “How I Ended This Summer” turns on one character doing something that’s both logically implausible and self-destructive. Why doesn’t Pasha give Sergei the bad news directly, as soon as he gets back to camp with his load of fish? To answer that question fairly, you really have to see the film. I mean, of course it doesn’t make sense — but being trapped on an Arctic island with a hot-tempered, violent loner who’s just learned something that might shatter a normal man’s personality, well, that doesn’t make sense either.

Anyway, the important part is that it’s Pasha’s moral decision, or maybe his cowardly inability to make one, that pushes “How I Ended This Summer” into the realm of quasi-Hitchcock intrigue. Pasha constructs a teetering edifice of lies and deception in order to keep the truth from Sergei, and when he can manage that no longer he heads out on his own into the Arctic fog, trying to wend his way between a murderous Sergei and the hungry bears, between a fatal mistake and acts of criminal madness. This isn’t quite a horror movie, nor does it have some astonishing plot switchback near the end, but nonetheless there are elements of, say, “The Shining” or “Shutter Island” here, in that Pasha has to recognize who his principal enemy is if he hopes to survive.

As I suggested earlier, I think you could successfully interpret “How I Ended This Summer” as a fable about generational conflict in Russia, with Pasha representing the complacent, entitled post-Soviet new technology crowd, and Sergei standing for an old-school, Communist-era ethos of macho struggle and sacrifice. Each has a fatefully blinkered vision of each other and their shared circumstances, and their struggle with each other and themselves carries the weight of a moral or religious conundrum, as if they were in a Tolstoy story instead of an Arctic thriller. By the end of this spectacular, unsparing, surprisingly hopeful film, Popogrebsky argues that if these men from different eras and different worldviews can find some way to communicate, they may yet get off that damned island.

“How I Ended This Summer” is now playing at Lincoln Plaza Cinema in New York. It opens Feb. 11 at Cinema Village in New York and Feb. 25 at the Sundance Kabuki Cinemas in San Francisco, with other cities and DVD release to follow.

 

Continue Reading Close

How “Battleship Potemkin” reshaped Hollywood

An electrifying new restoration reveals Eisenstein's Soviet-era classic as pioneering action cinema

  • more
    • All Share Services

How

Anybody who thinks that Sergei Eisenstein’s “Battleship Potemkin” is an “art film” either hasn’t seen the movie at all or had it ruined for them by some combination of a butchered print and a tedious film-history professor. As a remarkable new restoration of the 1925 Soviet silent classic makes clear, “Battleship Potemkin” is first and foremost an action drama, a work of straightforward emotion and pulse-quickening tension. This taut, 71-minute picture is stitched together from more than 1,300 shots, very few of them lasting more than three or four seconds. For better or worse, this film’s true revolutionary legacy is not art cinema but Hollywood; it’s got a lot more in common with Tony Scott’s “Unstoppable” than it does with Andrei Tarkovsky.

I’m not being willful or contrarian or anything — it’s just true. Of course Eisenstein was a fervent supporter of the Bolshevik Revolution, who hoped his story about a fabled 1905 uprising by sailors in the Tsarist navy would inspire the oppressed of the earth to throw off their chains and hoist the red flag (hand-tinted in this version, as at the Moscow premiere). But that context was a lot less important than he assumed at the time, and “Potemkin’s” immense cultural impact has almost nothing to do with its purported politics. (The young Joseph Goebbels, whose ideology ran in a different direction, praised the film extravagantly.)

Like other Marxist thinkers and artists of his time, Eisenstein believed that political revolution demanded a revolutionary aesthetics and a revolutionary cinema. He thought his radical innovations in camerawork, composition and (most of all) the quick-cut editing he called “montage” were part of a global shift in mass consciousness, and he was right about that part. Presumably he never imagined that his aesthetic revolution would conquer the world, divorced from the ideology that had inspired it, while the Soviet experiment in social reinvention would become a cruel and miserable failure.

According to film historian Bruce Bennett, “Battleship Potemkin” was personally imported to the United States by silent star Douglas Fairbanks and screened privately for film-industry luminaries on both coasts during the summer and fall of 1926, beginning with a bedsheet projection at Gloria Swanson’s house in New York. “Nobody went Bolshevik,” quipped a columnist for Photoplay magazine at the time, “but a lot of people left with some revolutionary ideas of filmmaking.” It’s safe to say this was one of those collisions that changed the course of cultural history. Has there been a year since the late ’20s when Hollywood didn’t produce multiple imitations of “Battleship Potemkin”?

I’m not so much talking about the most obvious kinds of film-school homage or quotation or rip-off, although the terrifying massacre staged by Eisenstein on the seafront steps of Odessa has been repurposed any number of times, from Brian De Palma’s “The Untouchables” to George Lucas’ “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” to “Naked Gun 33 1/3.” It’s more that “Potemkin” pioneered what became a staple Hollywood genre, the heavily fictionalized, inspirational retelling of historical events, built around easily recognizable archetypes of good and evil. Even more than that, Eisenstein’s montage technique, which builds both tension and momentum through the rapid counterpoint of different images, different camera angles and different points of view, became the model for all future action and suspense cinema.

Any rerelease of an influential classic always raises at least two questions: Can we still see, through the scrim of history, what originally made the movie seem important? And is it still capable of engaging or entertaining us on its own terms? “Battleship Potemkin” may face some of the same problems with viewers as, say, “Citizen Kane” or Godard’s “Breathless” or Bergman’s “Persona,” in that what was once revolutionary about it now seems part of our universal vocabulary. I expected this newly restored version of Eisenstein’s 1925 Russian cut (never seen outside the Soviet Union), the result of almost 20 years of work by film scholars Enno Patalas and Anna Bohn, to be visually impressive, and it certainly is. But I was startled to find myself spellbound by it from beginning to end.

With Eisenstein’s 146 text intertitles — which he conceived as musical or percussive elements — carefully restored and a newly recorded version of composer Edmund Meisel’s score, “Potemkin” no longer seems like a faded relic of Soviet agitprop but becomes a gripping anti-authoritarian melodrama. There’s not much acting or characterization in the modern sense; beefy Bolshevik sailor Vakulinchuk (Aleksandr Antonov) strikes heroic poses, while villainous officer Giliarovsky (Grigori Aleksandrov) snickers through his mustache. (Arguably Hollywood’s principal improvement on Eisenstein’s model was the addition of the star system.)

But the brilliantly mounted early scene in which the ship’s commander orders the mutinous sailors — who have refused to eat borscht made with maggot-infested meat — to be covered in canvas and then shot had me on the edge of my seat. A crazy-haired Orthodox priest, emerging from the shadows like a crucifix-carrying ogre, calls out for the rebels to accept God’s punishment, and some of the condemned men drop to their knees in terror, shrouded by the immense sheet of sailcloth. Exuding the smug, self-satisfied sadism of power, Giliarovsky orders the ship’s guards to raise their weapons and prepare to shoot: “Fire into the canvas.” And then, at the last possible moment, Vakulinchuk steps forward to strike a blow for proletarian consciousness: “Brothers! Who are you shooting at?”

Eisenstein’s mournful, haunting shots of the Odessa waterfront after Vakulinchuk’s death, which is the only section where the film engages a contemplative mode, lead us into the Odessa Steps sequence. I felt as if I were seeing that for the first time. Freed from all the imitation and parody, it’s both a breathtaking technical exercise and a wrenching glimpse of human suffering set against the cruelty of history. The mother with her dying toddler, the old woman shot in the face, the runaway baby carriage — Eisenstein could never have believed that the revolutionary regime he supported would itself commit crimes like these, and worse.

But the tragic historical irony surrounding “Battleship Potemkin” does almost nothing to undercut its power, and like all good political art it cannot be contained by politics. Eisenstein used all the tools at his disposal, inventing new ones as he went along, to engage our passions and emotions first and foremost. He was an artist and a showman more than he realized, and perhaps more than he wanted to be. The young David O. Selznick, who would make “Gone With the Wind” 13 years later, urged his MGM colleagues to study “Battleship Potemkin” as “a group of artists might study a Rubens or a Raphael.” And anybody who thinks that either Eisenstein or Selznick would be horrified by contemporary Hollywood is kidding themselves. If 3-D had been feasible in 1925, I guarantee that baby carriage would be whizzing off the screen right at your head.

The new 35mm restoration of “Battleship Potemkin” opens Jan. 14 at Film Forum in New York, with other cities to follow. This version is also available on DVD and Blu-ray from Kino International.

 

Continue Reading Close

“Disco and Atomic War”: How David Hasselhoff won the Cold War

A hilarious Estonian documentary (yes, really!) asks whether disco and "Dallas" defeated Communism

  • more
    • All Share Services

A still from "Disco and Atomic War"

You won’t see another documentary all year long that packs quite the same combination of pure fun and eye-opening information as “Disco and Atomic War,” a strange and delightful work of historical collage from Estonian filmmaker Jaak Kilmi. No, I know — I can feel you slipping into a coma out there: O’Hehir is trying to convince me to watch an Estonian documentary! But hang on a second while I fling a pitcher of ice water in your face and explain that this particular Estonian documentary features David Hasselhoff (in his classic “Knight Rider” phase) and dueling Finnish- and Soviet-made instructional videos about disco dancing. And you have not lived, my friends, until you have seen a bunch of 50ish Finnish people in mid-’70s leisure wear completely giving up the funk.

Composed in roughly equal parts of interviews, dryly amusing re-creations of real events and an extraordinary amount of archival footage, “Disco and Atomic War” portrays an unlikely front in the Cold War, little noticed at the time. Or at least little noticed in the West; Kilmi presents evidence that the KGB was well aware that the pop-culture frontier between Finland and Estonia was gnawing a crucial hole in the Iron Curtain. There were other places in the Eastern bloc where citizens sometimes encountered Western media, of course. But listening to West German radio on the east side of the Wall was a dangerous and clandestine affair, whereas Finnish television poured into homes in Soviet-occupied Estonia virtually unrestricted.

As the film documents, there was a thriving industry in adapters and antennae that allowed Soviet-made TVs in Tallinn, the Estonian capital, to pull in the signals from Helsinki, 50 miles north across the Gulf of Finland. No doubt it helped that Estonia was a cultural backwater (from the Russian point of view) and at best a reluctant component of the Evil Empire. Furthermore, Finnish and Estonian are closely related languages understood by pretty much no one else. (Which didn’t stop Finnish broadcasters from running faux-Soviet comedy sketches with stodgy announcers speaking mock-Estonian gobbledygook.)

Even if it didn’t have a significant historical wow factor, “Disco and Atomic War” would stand as a wonderful work of Baltic deadpan humor, in the long and honorable tradition of small countries and minority cultures making fun of themselves so the outside world won’t have to. But Kilmi builds a pretty persuasive case that when Estonians started to watch episodes of “Dallas” and commercials for Helsinki supermarkets — where you could buy actual steak — a fateful Rubicon was crossed, and there was pretty much nothing the Soviets could do about it. Samizdat videotapes of Finnish broadcasts, dubbed or subtitled into Russian, circulated throughout the Soviet Union; collective farms wrote letters to Moscow announcing that they had met their soybean quota for socialism and now they wanted to know who had shot J.R.

Now, just to be clear, the Soviet Union’s collapse was social and institutional and economic. It was a long time coming, and it wasn’t caused by a Finnish-dubbed David Hasselhoff any more than it was by Ronald Reagan. “Disco and Atomic War” is a droll Estonian fable disguised as a history lesson, and vice versa. It’s an ingenious and masterful film, so funny and so heartbreaking it may leave you giggling and crying by turns, and it reminds us that pop culture, even at its most venal and idiotic — perhaps especially then — is the gooey, delicious sauce that comes on top of Freedom fries.

“Disco and Atomic War” is now playing at Cinema Village in New York, and opens Nov. 26 at the Laemmle Sunset 5 in Los Angeles, with more cities to follow.

Continue Reading Close

Page 1 of 8 in Soviet Union