Song of Russia

Thanks to TCM for airing this astounding propaganda film in October 2003. Others have commented on the nearly unbearable Soviet propaganda in the film, but I watched the Stalin-supplied footage with awe as I had never seen most of it before, at least in this quality and quantity.

The story is stock melodrama with the morals that we (America) must support our Russian allies at all costs and that the scorched earth policy is major war strategy.

But through it all is the luminous face of Susan Peters, who was tragically paralyzed two years after this film's release and died in 1952. She is charming, delightful and disarming enough to inspire a whole village as well as the American conductor (Robert Taylor) who falls in love with her. They marry in an unlikely semi-religious ceremony.

The notions that 1.)An American would be invited on a 40-city tour of Russia in early 1941, and 2.)That he would be able to take his Russian bride out of the Soviet Union (after the German invasion!) "for the greater good of Mother Russia," are pure fantasy. The huge symphony orchestras and the vast, aristocratic, jewel-bedecked audiences we see at theatre after theatre are laughably anti-communist, and the men would most likely have been conscripted by that time.

Yet, as films reflect the history of our lives, I found this a fascinating chapter of the very brief period of US/USSR alliance. I'd love to see it again.

Look: This film IS propaganda, but it certainly isn't Soviet propaganda. I think it is clear from watching the film disinterestedly and/or reading ALL of the transcripts of Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony that it was American wartime propaganda aiming at 1) strengthening political ties with its then-ally Soviets, and 2) convincing the American's that they should support the joint effort with the Russians against Germany. The US was too afraid to admit to the American people that they, like, Churchill said, had to work with the devil to defeat Hitler; they used propaganda film instead (ad not just here, but overtly as part of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series). Further, I think it is probable, as a previous poster mentioned, that they are only guilty of writing a very ill-conceived "love knows no bounds" kind of war time love story; this is just a year or so after Casablanca, after all! The movie certainly was picked up, partly on the basis of the love-knows-no-bounds angle, but more overtly b/c, as the awful Robert Taylor pointed out in his own HUAC testimony, the request came from the US State department.

Like a previous writer, I too saw this movie as a child during World War 11.

I really cannot comment on its artistic value so many years later, however, as a young person ( with my Father overseas)during that point in history, it was something to see to bring closer the effects and personality of war. The one poignant thing about the movie that I still remember clearly was the playing of Tchaikovsky's very famous Piano Concerto #1 in B-Flat. It was my first real introduction to classical music. If nothing else, I am thankful for the film bringing this to me, for it and classical music have played an enormous part in my life ever since! It led me to study music and have been professionally involved in music all my working life. My thanks go to "Song Of Russia" and Tchaikovsky -Doug-

"Song of Russia" was never made to accurately portray Soviet peasantry, but rather to enlighten the West of the Anti-Nazi plight of the Russian citizens.Director Gregory Ratoff is no more guilty of tainting the truth for entertainment's sake than were many American directors for their careless, racist portrayal of the "savage" American Indian.

Stalin and Hitler were both maniacal murderers, but in 1943 much less was known of the atrocities these two leaders committed. If Western leaders had known better in 1943, greater efforts should have been made to stop the bloodshed. 20/20 hindsight gives us great power to criticize filmmakers of that period, but what of Roosevelt and Churchill? What did they know, and what did they do about it?

"Song of Russia" was a warning and a call for help.Although Russian peasants weren't as "Americanized" as the film portrays, they did defend their land against the fascists and lost over 20 million people doing it.I enjoyed the film, and yes, I thought the peasants looked a bit well-to-do for the period, but that helped me imagine what we as Americans might have confronted if the Nazis had made it past England and Russia.

"Song of Russia" is far from a great film, but it is really fascinating to look at nowadays, both as a historical time capsule and as an excellent specimen of MGM camp. The film was designed to drum up sympathy for our then-allies, the Soviet Union, and is sheer, unabashed propaganda. It is well-enough made, but, meaning no disrespect to the millions of Russians who suffered and died during the war, it is so cornball and manipulative seen now that its difficult to take seriously. In fact, its most famous now for the after-effects of its release at the end of the 40's in the HUAC meetings where Robert Taylor testified and "named names" and where it caused all sorts of problems for its makers. Robert Taylor rises to his usual heights of bland adequacy here, but Susan Peters, a tragic actress if ever there was one, does quite well as his Russian bride.

Some of the more hilarious scenes include a wedding dance where the entire village takes part and come across more like a Broadway troupe with decades of experience and the depiction of the "typical" Russian village,which looks like a Slavic version of Andy Hardy's small town. Miss Peters character is also quite the Russian Superwoman - a concert pianist who can cook a mean dinner when she's not riding tractors, shooting machine guns and teaching a class of schoolchildren how to make a Molotov Cocktail. Its amazing she was able to be convincing in the slightest degree in this role, but she does as well as anyone could.