Even today, almost 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there are very few anti-Communist films. There were almost none in the 1930s. One of the few in the 1930s, possibly the only one, is Ninotchka. I finally saw it on Turner Classic Movies recently. I highly recommend it. The transformation of Ninotchka, played by the beautiful Greta Garbo, from a humorless, robotic official from the Soviet Union into a fun-loving, life-loving fan of the West, is quite well done.
Interestingly, though, the TCM person who discussed the movie–I’ve forgotten her name–either was ignorant about the movie’s content, decided not to mention it, or was told not to mention it. She talked about the movie as if all it is is comedy. It is a comedy–but it’s so much more.
Wikipedia’s description comes closer. The Wikipedia entry on Ninotchka states, “It is one of the first American movies which, under the cover of a satirical, light romance, depicted the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as being rigid and gray, in this instance comparing it with the free and sunny Parisian society of pre-war years.”
That’s accurate. The “rigid and gray” is a prominent theme. What’s missing even from the Wikipedia description? Well, for starters, massive poverty. People in the Soviet Union have to share rooms with strangers. They also have little to eat. That’s beyond “rigid and gray.” And even more important, what’s missing is Stalin’s murders. In various parts of the movie, the characters from the Soviet Union, who should know the Soviet Union best, make references to Stalin killing his political enemies. That’s more than a detail.
READER COMMENTS
Jackson Mejia
Apr 19 2019 at 7:08pm
Perhaps my memory is wrong, but I remember reading in some Ayn Rand essay years ago about how businessmen are depicted as criminals at a far greater rate than other groups. I don’t remember the exact statistic. I wonder to what extent that is still true. It also makes me wonder what the statistics are on pro-capitalist vs anti-capitalist movies. I think it is a pretty good hypothesis that movies will tend to be anti-capitalist, but it would be interesting if someone did a study on the precise extent of that.
Patrick R. Sullivan
Apr 19 2019 at 8:37pm
To understand why there were so few anti-communist movies until the 1950s you should read Stephen Koch’s book about Willi Munzenberg: Double Lives . Or, Odd Man Out by one of the Hollywood Ten member Edward Dmytryk.
Scott Sumner
Apr 19 2019 at 9:19pm
My favorite line: “Madam, this is a restaurant, not a meadow”.
Mark Bahner
Apr 19 2019 at 11:24pm
To anyone who hasn’t seen “The Lives of Others” (2006)…must see film!
Rotten Tomatoes ratings: 92% by critics, 96% by audience
MG
Apr 20 2019 at 6:19am
The “Lives of Others” is not just the best “anti-Soviet” (and its Warsaw Pact proxies) movie I have watched. It may be the best movie I have ever watched. The movie’s anti-totalitarianism message is so powerful, yet so understated — you can barely hear the fall of the Berlin Wall. The ending leaves lump on my throat every time I see it, which — SPOILER ALERT — you can relive it on You Tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG6IN1GzUHE
A new movie by the same director — “Never Look Away” has been well reviewed.
And, of course, these are not “Hollywood” movies. Like many of the best anti-communist movies, these movies are not “archetypical American productions”. There are many Eastern European and Latin American movies worth watching. In the second category I would put “For Love of Country — the Arturo Sandoval Story” and “Four Seasons in Havana”. They are both powerful, yet understated critiques of soul crushing (if not always, bone crushing) collectivism.
By the way, many of these gems are not always “heavies”– e.g., “The Death of Stalin” is very funny. “Chuck Norris versus Communism” is fascinating.
Jon Murphy
Apr 20 2019 at 6:53am
Yes. Great film
Benjamin Cole
Apr 20 2019 at 12:57am
I am happy to say for once I agree with David Henderson.
I do wonder why China, both Mao’s atrocities, and the present-day near-total Beijing elimination of human, speech, civil, legal, and religious rights in China—-the growing and accelerating surveillance state on steroids—-seems to “get a pass” a Western literati circles.
Hitler is vilified over and over again (justifiably). Stalin is known as a monster (rightly so).
Even Trump has a Niagara of effluent dumped on his head daily (sometimes all but invited).
But President Xi, who is looking like the successor to Mao? He seems to get a pass.
David Henderson
Apr 20 2019 at 9:20am
Good point re Mao.
Fred_in_PA
Apr 20 2019 at 9:49pm
A Little Pop Psychology (from one conceited enough to not notice his own lacunae);
In studies of creative people, it is reported that they, of necessity, have big egos. The creative is — almost by definition — novel; even odd. The creative child will be criticized — even scolded — for their purple cow with six legs and a cubist face. The normal child will be hurt by this criticism and reform his/her ways. The ego-tough child will conclude that the cow is interesting and that you, the viewer, are simply too stodgy or plebeian to appreciate his/her creation. Twenty years later, that young artiste still presents that big ego. Modesty is not their strong suit. And Hollywood should be full of them — especially, the writers and producers of both the movies and the TV shows.
(As an aside, I wonder if Donald Trump isn’t such an artiste. We certainly see the big ego. And the lack of verbal facility that we’d expect from someone whose mental style is predominantly right-neocortical. And he did call it “The
Art of the Deal“!)
These writers & producers, as postulated above, are likely to be lacking in modesty. Hence especially prone to what Hayek & Bartley called “The Fatal Conceit“. And especially open to the idea that they (and their fellow elites) can certainly run the world much better than God (or Nature)(or Evolution) ever did. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Chavez might even be sympathetic figures to them; these were men who dared the attempt but were tragically overwhelmed by the forces arrayed against them (back of hand to forehead). Xi may be still a hopeful figure; he hasn’t been overwhelmed. Yet.
Thus the problem may lie deep in the nature of the creative personality.
(I have discounted actors’ and actresses’ influence. Given that personality type’s high empathy, high openness, and high agreeableness — along with their tenuous job prospects — I would expect them to be followers rather than shapers of the Hollywood culture.)
Richard Wallace
Apr 21 2019 at 8:44am
The best line from Ninotchka was when she was reminded of the various purges: “True, we will have fewer, but better, Communists.”
Weir
Apr 21 2019 at 6:08pm
Sam Fuller made a movie called Pickup on South Street in 1953.
“What do I know about Commies? Nothing. I know one thing. I just don’t like them.” Delivered by the great Thelma Ritter.
If you’re after a more scholastic discussion of the Marxist science of history (and the triune God and the divinity of Christ) then you’ll want to watch Hail Caesar.
“Man is unitary, a simple economic agent. Man’s institutions are split, expressing contradictions that must be worked through. And they are worked through in a causative, predictable way: history is science. This is the essence of the dialectic.”
“You see, if you understand economics, you can actually write down what will happen in the future, with as much confidence as you write down the history of the past. Because it’s science. It’s not make believe.”
Bob Bell
Apr 22 2019 at 2:18pm
Another one to check out is Comrade X (1940), with Clark Gable and Heddy Lamarr. Not nearly as good as Ninotchka, but good fun nonetheless. Gable gets off a good line about the purges, but my personal highlight is at the end when he takes Lamarr to a baseball game. She roots for Brooklyn because they’re playing the Reds.
Comments are closed.