By the day of the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, as some call it, or the October Revolution of 1917, as others insist, disputes about the meaning of this event, both for Russia and for the whole world, flared up with renewed vigor. It is interesting that if we take the “whole world” option, it is more unambiguous: even anti-communist and anti-socialist Western media note that the Russian events in October a century ago played a colossal role in changing the whole world. And for the better. In the end, even wild capitalism became less wild, understanding how its wildness could end for itself. At the same time, in the homeland of the revolution, everything is not at all so simple. The country was divided almost equally in the assessment of this event. One part considers it to be almost the greatest in the modern history of mankind, with a positive sign,the other is the greatest tragedy.
Pessimistic Trilogy
It is interesting to see what films came out on the day of the centenary of the revolution. This is disgraceful both literally and figuratively "Matilda", and two very, very controversial, in the opinion of the author, series: "The Demon of the Revolution" and "Trotsky". But let's start in order.
French bread crunch
First, a few words about Matilda. For a year, if not more, passions boiled in society over a film that had not yet been seen by anyone, spears broke for a year, it even came to acts of vandalism. But when the film was finally released, it turned out that it did not collect the box office that the creators probably expected, and the dominant assessment of those who watched it was outright bewilderment. Say, what were we arguing about at all? A passing melodrama about the feelings of the mighty of this world from the category "kings can do everything." Well, yes, the controversy was caused by the interpretation of the personal qualities of the last emperor. But even here, as it turned out, there was no emergency. Nicholas II is shown to be quite a conscientious family man, and the fact that in his youth he fell in love with a ballerina is certainly not a crime. Rather, the film is just like an apology for autocracy,to cry over the "crunch of a French roll" lost by someone with an implicit message "and then the Bolsheviks came and destroyed everything."
Promotional video:
And Lenin is like that …
As for "The Demon of the Revolution", it is, of course, filmed in the genre of such a historical detective story. And filmed quite watchable. Another question is that it is based on terribly dubious stories that the Russian revolution was inspired and financed by the money of the German General Staff, Mr. genre, but to the Russian revolution had, to put it mildly, not the most direct relationship. At least serious enough experts have serious enough doubts about his influence on the Bolsheviks in general and Lenin in particular. But … such fiction has the right to exist? Quite. This is "kinushka". However, by the centenary of the revolution, I would like something deeper and at least a little based on the truth of life.
Freudian fighter
As for the film "Trotsky", then from the point of view of an exciting action movie, everything is very decent. And the actors play very decently. Another thing is that Trotsky in this film is about the same "historical character" as Achilles in the American blockbuster "Troy". Remember there is also Brad Pitt in the title role? So in one film, Trotsky is such an under-superman turned on sex, who has picked up charisma in the corners from different oncoming-transverse. A person who hallucinates with the image of Freud. But, most importantly, let's face it, a rather superficial and primitive person. This image is similar to the image of a person who was almost the creator of the Red Army, to the image of a person who, being removed from government and, accordingly, as they would say today, administrative levers,managed to leave behind the still active Trotskyist cells almost all over the world?
I would like to…
And what, in fact, would you like? What would you like to celebrate the centenary of the Russian revolution that turned the world upside down? I would like no less exciting (good factual contributes), but a deeper movie. And therefore more interesting. For example, a detective story about the creation of a myth about Lenin as an “agent of the German General Staff”, a story about exactly what a “sealed carriage” was that brought home more than one party of Russian revolutionaries, a story about “party money” or their absence. Yes, listen, there are so many interesting stories, in that time and in those events. On their basis, you can shoot both action films and thrillers. Only without vulgarity. Without belittling, in fact, the feat and tragedy of the peoples of Russia, by the will of fate, and very, very extraordinary, large-scale personalities who found themselves involved in a social experiment of a truly historic scale.
And most importantly…
And most importantly, I would like, finally, that the understanding of simple truths, familiar, no doubt, to those who were interested in the Great Revolution, and, in part, to people of the older generation, but completely unfamiliar to the so-called mass consciousness, would return to the mass consciousness. Here's a short list …
Who overthrew the king?
For example, it's time to educate the people that the Bolsheviks did not overthrow the autocracy at all. By the time of the storming of the Winter Palace, no autocracy existed. Kerensky has already declared a republic, although he should not have done so. The question of the form of government was supposed to be decided, in theory, by the Constituent Assembly. And before that, let us recall, the tsar abdicated in favor of his brother, who immediately "re-abdicated" in favor of the Provisional Government. So the tsar was completely overthrown by such future "White Guards", such as "liberals-Westernizers" would sarcastically say to themselves. The Bolsheviks had no one to overthrow.
Who fought with whom in civil war?
Or here's another great question: who fought with whom in the Civil War? Having asked it, you may well get an answer in the spirit that, of course, the monarchists and the Bolsheviks fought with each other in a civil war. But this is not the case. The "White" movement as a whole did not aim at the return of the monarchy. "White" armies are the same weapon of revolution as the Red Army. It's just that in one case it is a tool of all kinds of Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and other Cadets, and in the other, Bolsheviks.
We must also not forget about the anarchists. In short, it was the revolutionaries who fought with each other in civil war. Only some saw their task as building a socialist republic, while others saw it as a bourgeois one. And what about the monarchists? They were undoubtedly in the "white" armies, but they did not make the weather there. In general, they were disoriented by all these renunciations, and when they realized it, it was too late to save the monarchy. By the way, some experts cite very interesting figures for the distribution of the officer corps of the imperial army among the "red" and "white" armies. So, sometimes they say that sixty-five percent of the former tsarist officers fought for the “red”, while thirty-five percent of the “whites”, respectively. And in general, to say that on the wave of the revolution, “cook's children” came to power entirely is a stretch. Revolution, including the socialist one,made by nobles, people from wealthy families, people well educated. This must be remembered.
Finally
In general, speaking of revolution, one must remember that, despite external influence, the conspirators overthrew the tsar for very internal reasons. A banal struggle for power and preferences, plus the extremely unsuccessful policy of the last emperor and the war, and, of course, the desire of the "bourgeois" to finally take officially the status that they almost had in fact. They wanted to rule Russia. Another question is that their incompetent representatives in power missed all opportunities and practically brought the country to collapse. It was then that the Bolsheviks entered the business, who had to sew this country together with an iron hand. Then there was a lot of tragedy, but also a lot of light. From the light, we advise you to remember about Soviet science, about Gagarin, about powerful social protection, about the best organization for the provision of medical services in the world (we are talking about the organization),about a very high-quality and at the same free education, about a beat Hitler, finally. Of course, this is not an apology for Bolshevism. The point is simply that you probably shouldn't cut the story into chunks. Whatever they are, but it is ours. And she is one. One could even say that Russia unfolds in time in its different forms, but with the same search for truth and justice. It turns out in different ways. Well, it's not the gods who burn the pots.
Mark Raven