Ballad of a Soldier | Баллада о солдате

Chukria's Ballad of a Soldier is a clear example of how the thaw era changed the ideas imbued during Stalin's Ideal Socialism movement. Since we've already viewed a film created during the mid 30's, The Vasilyev Brothers' Chapaev, we can contrast these two eras by picking apart our two war themed movies. The first difference that we spot is the setting of each film. While Chapaev primarily takes place on the battlefield, Chukria's Ballad of a Soldier shy's away from the front lines, instead following Alyosha's trip back home. Once we begin to scrutinize our protagonists journey through an Ideal Socialist lens, we can begin to see how Alyosha’s leave would never be acceptable during Stalin’s reign. Aside from the heroic introduction, Alyosha actions are neither beneficial to the motherland nor communist in nature. We see him leaving the waning front, wasting time falling in love, and never even fixing his mother's roof; none of this could be found in Chapaev. Alyosha's actions are used to symbolize his youthful innocence, showing us Russia's movement towards personal gain over the propaganda shown through Chapaev's total commitment to serving his motherland. This, coupled with images of corrupt officers (bribing them with cans of meat), cheating bourgeoisie, and a love story based around someone who claims to be engaged, really set the tone for what the thaw era wanted to accomplish. Moving away from the grasp of Ideal Socialism, acknowledging that some things went wrong during Stalin's reign, and giving more freedom to the artists of the Russian nation.

Battleship Potemkin vs. Chapaev

Both Eisensteins' Potemkin and the Vasilev Brothers' Chapaev depict battles fought for the cause of the Revolution; however, through their presentation one became a hidden gem, while the other brought blockbuster success. The idea of communism is strongly backed by both films. Battleship Potemkin presents a microcosm of Revolutionary Russia through its battleship, the ideal scenario is played out through its sailors (workers) and officers (burgouise). Chapeav on the other hand, presents us with the specific scenario of a Red's regiment. This relationship of specific vs. general presentation is really what separates these two movies. Potemkin is merely a metaphor for an idea, most characters have no names, merely used to portray their group identity. Even the hero of this revolution is used less as an icon, and more as propaganda for the cause. (Said to be killed for "a cup of borsch") Chapaev on the other hand creates a much more personal environment. The hero still dies for the cause of the Revolution; however, we see him idolized throughout the movie. The soldiers under his command also stand individually with subplots of a love interest, a killed brother, and camaraderie. Both movies carry the same Revolutionary message; however, where one merely presents this idea, the other gives you a specific event and tries to instill this idea. In my opinion, this difference really coincides with the movie's initial reception, instead of being presented an idea, moviegoers enjoyed a story that underneath gave the same message of Revolution.