Holodomor - Bittere Ernte

1930's Ukraine. Genocide through starvation. It was never going to be a pleasant story. It's tough to make a film out of something so one sided and something so horrific. And at times its difficult to sit through. Yes it's violent but we don't see a lot of it up close. It's not gratuitous. It's already dire enough. Yet there's plenty to be depressed about.

The story itself is quite good. Following the journey of one character so we get an overview of what happened in varying parts of Ukraine during this time. And yet it's a stretch. Certain scenarios are just asking us to suspend belief a little too far. Our central figures should have been killed several times over. Knowing this is set within real events (though not of these characters) keeps us involved. But only just.

The problem is with the director. The early scenes are so over-lit it makes you feel like you're watching a Disney TV play. The clichés come thick and fast through the staging and unfortunately some of the dialog too. The direction is heavy handed, falling back on triteness such as blood dripping from a sword stuck in the ground and other lame symbolism.

It's all a bit overblown. The cinematography, the music. They wanted to make a real epic here but even at 100 minutes, it feels overlong and over-baked.

It's horrific to be certain and I wanted to care more but the central story just doesn't grab us the way it should. Terence Stamp adds an element of acting class. Shame that it can't be said for the rest of the cast. For example, Stalin is a caricature. Hours after seeing it, I'm already beginning to forget it. And that's not a bad thing.

An event this huge deserves so much more.

The Communists starved the Ukrainians under Stalin. The New York Times via Walter Duranty, covered up their crimes. Bitter Harvest is a fictional action- drama based on one man's story that lived through it. Now, finally a movie that is not about Hitler (national socialism) but about the real threat America faces from the left- International socialism ( communism) - still being covered up by the same lying media. Walter Duranty is best known for his stringent denial of the genocide of the Ukrainian people, known as Holodomor. Duranty refused to report on the man-made famine that killed up to twelve million people. Duranty also claimed other journalists who reported the truth of the USSR, such as Malcolm Muggeridge and Gareth Jones, were liars. Muggeridge went on to call Duranty "the greatest liar I have met in journalism." Some of Duranty's most well known lies and falsehoods about Holodomor are: "There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be." --New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1 "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." --New York Times, August 23, 1933 "Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding." --New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6 "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs." --New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18 "There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition." --New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13 Duranty also admitted privately that the genocide was happening. Bruce S. Thornton wrote: Walter Duranty stands as perhaps the quintessential fellow-traveler, killing news reports of famine and writing that Ukrainians were "healthier and more cheerful" than he had expected, and that markets were overflowing with food—this at the height of Stalin's slaughter of the kulaks.

The Holodomor in Ukraine, the genocidal famine planned by Stalin and his commissars that killed millions in 1932-33, was a Soviet policy of forced starvation and is a cruel little known period in the history of the 20th century. Maybe it was too optimistic to try and cover the fall of the Russian czar, WW1, the Bolshevik/Russian revolution, the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin and the genocidal famine in Ukraine, in 100 minutes. And then make all the horror of that period less terrible with a hopeful love story. Too much horrible history in too little time. However, someone had to try so kudos to the director for that effort. That period of history was deeply cruel and it's hard to imagine how else to make the story palatable. Visually, the movie is terrific. The brutality in some scenes, although no doubt historically accurate, is tough to watch. I thought the local commissar was very effective in his cruelty, and in comparison, the Stalin figure almost seemed like a lightweight. A number of the professional critic reviews sound downright snarky. This isn't an easy move to watch or an easy story to tell. And while there is plenty of room for suggestions of how to improve, it is not a movie of no value as some wrote. The accusations of exaggeration and melodrama are actually bizarre. I think the famine and the horrors of communism, which my parents and grandparents lived through, were no doubt much worse than depicted here.

...is the first word about it from me, a man from East, with Ukraine roots. but, scene by scene, you discover its virtue. not so insignificant. because it is an introduction, with form of lesson, to the Holodomor. so, it represents a sketch, with decent performances, not the most inspired dialogues, so simple than it coulb seem be pathetic and fake. but, after its end, you discover it as a nice try. not convincing, too American, using classic ingredients and tricks for a storyy more complex and profound for have need of them but, maybe, a reasonable start point for discover one of most terrible crimes from XX century. sure, it is not perfect and for a viewer like me seems a sort of blasphemy. but, it is a try. or a small hommage. in fact, a first step for propose to West a story about a land and its sufference. and that saves a part from huge mistakes of film.

We looked forward to viewing this movie at the Ukrainian festival at our local theatre.

One big mistake though, didn't properly check the movie background - it is pretty much an English movie, not Ukrainian.

The main publicity focus in advance was on the Russian government induced famine in the Ukraine against the background of a love story.

In reality the movie tries to cover too many of the parallel social and political changes in the Soviet state of the 1920's and 30's, such that almost none would be clear to the average viewer. Including the internal power struggles within the communist regime.

This broad spectrum tips over in to the relationship between the two young lovers who appear almost wooden at times as they flit in and out of the narrative.

A serious and little known subject doesn't get its dues here regrettably. The film tries hard but lacks the focus and cultural nuances that may come from a locally made film.