“Ivan’s Childhood”
was the first feature film of acclaimed Soviet director Andrei Tarkovsky who
also helped write the screenplay based on a short story. It was released in 1962 and was publically
and critically acclaimed. It won the
Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival.
The movie is similar to “The Cranes Are Flying” and “Ballad of a Soldier” in depicting the horrors of war on the innocent. It is the tale of twelve year old Ivan
Bondarev (Nikolai Burlyayev) who was orphaned during the Great Patriotic War
when his mother and sister were killed by the Germans. It is set on the Eastern Front circa 1943.
 |
| Ivan, Kholin, and Galtsev |
Ivan arrives at a Red Army camp
after crossing a bleak landscape and swimming a river. He insists on making contact with
headquarters which seems laughable to Lt. Galtsev (Evgeny Zharikov) until it
turns out that Ivan is a valuable spy and scout. Galtsev and Capt. Kholin (Valentin Zubkov)
“adopt” the serious little warrior and he stays with them in their room.
There is a subplot involving a
medical assistant named Masha (Valentina Malyavina) and her messing with the
dynamics of Galtsev and Kholin. Kholin
tries to put the moves on her and Galtsev is interested, but shy. She manages to keep her hair nice which was a
feat on the Eastern Front. Later, there is a record player in the room that
plays a song about her. WTF – yeah, it’s
that kind of movie.
Galtsev and Kholin want to save
Ivan by sending him off to military school.
Ivan threatens to run away and join a partisan unit if they try. He wants revenge for his family. They back down and the trio cross the river
in a boat to drop off Ivan for his next reconnoiter. Galtsev and Kholin return with two Soviet
corpses. Masha arrives at the bunker to
say goodbye.
The movie jumps to Berlin with
the Soviets celebrating. There is actual
footage of the Chancellery building and the corpses of the Goebbels
family. The audience is invited to ponder
the contrast between the Goebbels kids and Ivan. Galtsev roots around in documents and finds
evidence about the fate of Ivan. The
movie flashes back to when Ivan was young and innocent.
This is an artsy movie. Not everyone will like it. I was kind of torn by it. The plot is not good and the nonlinear
structure could be confusing. There are
lots of flashbacks and some of them are weird.
In fact, from the very beginning of the film you will know you are in
for something unusual. There is a dream
sequence that is surreal. Ivan is riding
in the back of a truck with a girl in the rain.
The truck is full of apples. Some
of the apples spill out onto a beach.
Horses eat them. Get it? I didn’t.
Much of the film is cryptic or makes no sense. The eerie music fits the mood of the film.
The film is worth watching
because of the cinematography by Vadim Yusov.
He uses his whole bag of tricks and the movie is a visual treat. There are POV shots, hand-held, off center,
odd angle. Some scenes have action in
front right and back left. One really
cool scene has characters each at a different level – foreground, middle, and
background. There are lots of distant
shots. The plot may be bizarre and
unsatisfactory, but I was intrigued by the visuals.
The acting is adequate. Burlyayev does a good job in portraying Ivan
as a boy who has been damaged by his experiences. He has been twisted into a fanatical and
cocky warrior. War and the killing of
your family can have that effect. You
don’t see any of Ivan’s revenge, however.
The movie has little action and none of it is graphic. This is an intellectual movie aimed at
intellectuals (and considering some of its biggest fans included Ingmar Bergman
and Jean-Paul Sartre, mission accomplished!).
Should you read it? I think this review should make it clear
whether it is a movie you might enjoy.
I’m glad I experienced it, but I have to say it is not in a league with
“The Cranes Are Flying” or “Ballad of a Soldier”.
grade = B-
I had seen this film while browsing Russian cinema a few years back. What really caught my eye was how anti war the movie feels. It was a Soviet film IIRC and they didn't call it The Great Patriotic War cause they thought it was failure yet the movie is very bleak. None of the propagandistic flair like in Alexander Nevsky. No choir music. The overall symbolism rings like All Quiet on the Western Front with the boy's early innocence and physical destruction becomes a metaphor for the breaking of a human spirit in war. At least that was the vibe I got from it.
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly right about it being anti-war. I would use the word bleak. As far as it not being your typical Soviet propaganda, it was part of the Khrushchev Thaw that allowed filmmakers to have a little more artistic control.
ReplyDelete