ingo_schwarze

While the plot is rather simplistic and the dramaturgy feels executed in a broad-brush manner, there are quite a few good comedic effects (even though the laughing stuck in my throat as the subject is hardly a laughing matter, neither on the U. S./Truman nor on the SSSR/Stalin side) and there is lots of good camera work - though not the same league we are used to from top Soviet directors like Sergei Eisenstein or Andrei Tarkovsky.

What surprised me most is that this film was already turned in 1947, well before the Second Red Scare got fully under way in 1949-51, and even before the notorious HUAC Hollywood inquiry that started in October 1947. Then again, with the experience of the First Red Scare (1918-20) in mind and hearing President Truman's March 1947 "loyalty review" executive order (not to mention Stalin's purges in the 1930ies), it probably wasn't that hard to anticipate what might be coming. Still, getting the film out within months of this stuff becoming official U. S. government policy, and about two years before the hysteria in the U. S. got out widely of hand, feels eerily timely to me, almost visionary even from today's retrospect perspective.

All the same, only 4/10 because while remarkable in some historical respects, it is not nuanced enough to be really captivating or thought-inspiring, (thankfully) not funny enough to be suitable as casual entertainment, and while decent cinematographic work, not a significant aesthetic innovation either.

"Pacifism" means rejecting violence as a means for solving conflicts between countries. But if you slightly relax that definition and define it as rejecting violence as a means for solving conflicts between human beings in general, then this is among the most markedly pacifist films i have seen to date.

It's a drama containing lots of loss, distrust, fear, and hatred. Initially, expect crippling remorse, lack of self-esteem, inability to communicate, thirst for revenge, cowardice, recklessness, and readiness for betrayal and violence.

Then watch how the characters grow emotionally. Watch out for simple kindness, unobtrusive helpfulness, unconditional trust, attentiveness and respect, well-placed courage, and above all, profound patience.

The reason i gave it nine rather then ten stars is that there are a few minor instaces of Chekhov's Guns that don't ever get fired, plus a few minor issues with continuity, like a few scenes that are supposed to be taking place during a terrible storm being filmed in relatively benign weather. But all that's really minor - the captivating story, good character development, and beautiful camera work is what defines the film, making it a great piece of art, of a somewhat rugged beauty, with the ruggedness likely being intentional, in any case perfectly fitting the tone of the story and the characters.

It's amazing this, in the above sense, deeply pacifist film won the Grand Prix 2023 at the Radiant Angel Film Festival in Moscow in November 2023. Maybe that became possible because in does not mention war in any way but explores the topics of violence vs. Understanding exclusively among individual human beings.

The setting of the movie in a remote wilderness that is stressed so much in the tagline is merely used as a tool to help develop the characters and the conflicts among them, as a good film should do it. It was no doubt convenient that allowed marketing the film as a heroic adventure movie, which from a certain angle, it might also be, but it's so much more than that.