Song of Russia

Revisionist history can prove unfortunate. There is very little that moves along with apparent 'truth' in this film, BUT it was made at a critical time in our history -- a time when it was necessary to create unity between those fighting the horrors of Nazism. No, the film is not a very good one, but it is a formidable piece of history and should be watched with the adult comprehension of the time. And there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for the wreckage wrought by McCarthy-Cohn and their henchpeople during the Red Scare era that destroyed lives!! No excuse at all. As for SONG OF RUSSIA, it should also survive as a reminder of the screen aura of Susan Peters. (As for her true abilities, watch this one and then SIGN OF THE RAM!!) Along with the obvious propoganda about the 'perfect' society of the USSR, the worst part of this film, of course, is the usually awful performance of Robert Taylor, whose post-War attitudes were those of a true coward, as well as a lousy actor.

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.

This was the first film that I can recall seeing, way back in the 1940s. I was about 6 or 7 years old at the time (I'm now 66). I can remember nothing of the rose-tinted picture of Stalin's Russia described in John Barnes' comments.

In fact, I can recall little of the plot, other than that it featured an orchestral conductor and extracts from Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Thus, the film introduced me to Tchaikovsky and classical music and, for that, I am eternally grateful.

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-

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.