Admiral (2008)

 

                “Admiral” is a Russian movie that tells of a love triangle reminiscent of “Dr. Zhivago”, but using historical figures in the backdrop of the Russian Civil War instead of the Russian Revolution.  It took 4 years to make, with a total of 210 shooting days.  The twelve-minute battle scene took a month.  The movie won Golden Eagles (similar to Golden Globes) for best actor (Konstantin Kharensky), cinematography, costumes, and sound.

                In 1916, Alexander Kolchak (Kharensky) is in the Baltic Sea commanding a Russian warship.  His ship comes under fire from a German battleship.  He lures it into a minefield.  We are treated to fake-looking CGI, but lots of action.  The explosions are vibrant and the wounds are graphic.  Kharensky proves to be as cool as a cucumber.  He meets Anna (Elizaveta Boyarskaya) who is married to his best friend Sergey Timirov (Vladislav Vetrov).  Hello, love triangle.  Kolchak is married with child and he is loyal to his wife, so his relationship with Anna does not go beyond flirting (which is noted by the spouses).  Meanwhile, Kolchak’s career is on the rise.  He is appointed a Vice Admiral by Czar Nicholas II and given command of the Black Sea fleet.  The Russian Revolution breaks out and Kolchak surrenders his command to his sailors.  When Kerensky offers Kolchak the leader of the pre-Bolshevik military, he refuses and is sent as a military attache to the Americans who are planning an attack on Constantinople.  He returns one year later to fight the Bolsheviks as a commander of White forces against the Reds of the Russian Civil War.  Sergey is a commissar with the Reds.  End of friendship, but not love triangle.  Alexander and Anna reunite and their chaste love affair is set against the backdrop of the war.

                “Admiral” is a good history lesson, but boring cinema.  When compared to “Doctor Zhivago”, it comes up short except in combat.  There is a decent naval battle and suicidal attack through no man’s land.  These can not overcome a tepid romance that is the core of the movie.  Neither Alexander nor Anna are appealing characters as each abandon spouses who don’t deserve it.  It doesn’t help that the central four are acted woodenly by the cast.  In the attempt to portray Kolchak as a selfless, loyal subject of the Czar, the movie does not allow Kharensky to chew scenery as the actual Kolchak.  He was a prickly, unsociable individual.  Hardly the romantic of the film.

                Russian war movies are divided between the Soviet WWII movies and the movies made after the fall of the Soviet Union.  The pre-collapse films are mostly black and white and many are classics.  These include “The Cranes Are Flying”, “Ballad of a Soldier”, and “Ivan’s Childhood”.  All of these were made after the thaw brought on by Khrushchev.  Ironically, this period of Soviet cinema revived the Civil War as a subject.  But these films lauded the efforts of the Reds.  The current style of Russian cinema can be traced back to the fall of communism.  Movies like “Admiral” use CGI and modern battle choreography to reach audiences who are more interested in dynamic story-telling as opposed to the more humanistic themes of the Soviet films.  “Admiral” could not have been made under Stalin.  Even after he was long gone, it still was controversial.  Kolchak was considered an anti-revolutionary when the communists ruled.  He fought against communism.  By 2008, it was possible to treat him as a cinematic hero.  The movie rehabilitates his reputation as it puts him back into Russian history, but this time as a hero.

                How is the movie as history?  Kolchak was in charge of mining in the Gulf of Riga.  He led from the front in risky night mine-laying operations.  In 1916, he was promoted to Vice Admiral and given command of the Black Sea fleet. His attacks on Turkish coal ships caused much hardship for the Ottomans.  When the February Revolution broke out, Kolchak relinquished command to his sailors.  He met with Alexander Kerensky, but his insistence on returning the military to traditional strict discipline was not the direction the new government had in mind.  Because Kolchak’s name was being mentioned as a possible dictator, Kerensky shipped him off to America to give advice on a possible campaign against the Ottoman Empire.  When the November Revolution broke out, Kolchak was sent to Siberia to run the government loyal to the Kerensky.  He became the de facto head of the Whites and initiated a crackdown on communists.  He attempted to restore property to large landowners.  He ordered villages to be burned and civilians to be killed.  It was reactionary policies like these that kept the Allies from supporting him wholeheartedly in the Civil War.  President Woodrow Wilson, in particular, found him no better than the Bolsheviks.  Because of his heavy-handed actions, a huge number of Siberians became partisans.  The movie accurately portrays Kolchak’s military efforts as being successful, at first.  This was despite him being a poor leader.  His movement forward extended his supply lines and exhausted his army. Red reinforcements allowed for a counteroffensive.  Once they gained the initiative, they never gave it up.  Kolchak’s forces retreated.  He did travel east on the Trans-Siberian railway.  He was deposed by the Whites and handed over to the Bolsheviks who executed him by firing squad.  His last words were to his wife and son.

                As far as Anna Timirov is concerned, the movie is pretty accurate.  She was married to Kolchak’s best friend and subordinate.  They did conduct an affair before Anna left Timirov in 1917 to join Kolchak and become his common law wife.  Anna divorced Timirov in 1918.  She was with Kolchak in Siberia, but as an interpreter in his government, not as a nurse.  She survived his execution, but her association with him got her in trouble with the communist government over the years.  She was arrested seven times and spent many years in various labor camps.  She was finally forgiven in the 1960’s.  She did have a role in “War and Peace”.

GRADE  =  C

 

Doctor Zhivago (1965)

 

                Boris Pasternak’s novel came out in 1957.  It was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature the following year.  It was a given that the novel would make it to the silver screen.  Producer Carlo Ponti bought the rights to the book and envisioned the movie starring his wife Sophia Loren playing the part of Lara.  David Lean was tapped as the director.  His two previous films were “Bridge on the River Kwai” and “Lawrence of Arabia”.  He asked Peter O’Toole to play Zhivago, but he turned it down.  Rod Taylor also passed.  Michael Caine screen tested and then recommended Omar Sharif.  Sharif shaved his head and wore a red wig.  Lean convinced Ponti that Sophia Loren was wrong for Lara.  Jane Fonda was considered, but did not want to commit to a long shoot in Spain.  Julie Christie, who was recommended by John Ford, was given the role of Lara.  The shoot lasted 232 days, mostly in Spain.  Moscow was recreated in a garbage dump outside Madrid.  It took 18 months to construct.  4,000 daffodils were imported from the Netherlands to be used for Zhivago’s father-in-law’s estate.  The budget ballooned from $5 million to $15 million.  It was worth it because it was a big hit, in spite of lukewarm critic reviews.  The movie won 5 Academy Awards (Adapted Screenplay, Original Score (Maurice Jarre), Cinematography, Art Direction, Costume Design) and nominated for another five (Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (Tom Courtenay), Film Editing, and Sound).  The movie was not seen in Russia until 1994.

                The film opens with an overture.  Ask your grandpa what that is.  Gen. Zhivago (Alec Guinness), the doctor’s half-brother, is searching for the daughter of Yuri and Lara.  Cue the flashback.  The young, orphaned Yuri grows up to become a poet and doctor.  Lara is in a relationship with an older nobleman named Victor (Rod Steiger), but she is in love with a revolutionary named Pasha (Tom Courtney).  One night when she is dining with Victor, Pasha and other radicals are stomped by Cossacks.  Lara meets Yuri when he is called to help with her mother’s suicide attempt.  Their romance is postponed because Lara marries Pasha.  The movie jumps several years to 1914.  Russia enters WWI with enthusiasm.  Doctor Zhivago and nurse Lara meet at a military hospital.  They work together chastely because Yuri is loyal to his wife Tonya.  However, the two fall in love.  The movie skips over the Revolution to get to the Russian Civil War.  Pasha is now a ruthless general in the Red Army.  Yuri’s poetry makes him the target of the Bolsheviks, like Pasha.  He and his family move to a small estate in the Urals.  In an amazing cinematic coincidence, Lara lives in a nearby town.  Yuri and Lara finally hop in bed, but their romance will not last as they become separated.  This is headed for a tragedy of Shakespearean size.

                “Doctor Zhivago” is a must-see movie, but not necessarily for war movie lovers.  I don’t feel it fits firmly in the genre, but if a romance set in war like “Casablanca” fits, then so does “Doctor Zhivago”.  It is more of an epic than “Casablanca”.  While the Bogart classic takes place over only a few days, the Sharif classic sprawls over decades.  That is one of its weaknesses because to cover such a long time, it ends up being too long.  And yet, despite the length, some scenes end abruptly sans payoff.   I generally do not have problems with movies being too long, but if stretches are boring, that is a different story.   You would think a movie set in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War would provide some meat for the males in the audience.  However, there is little action and the violence is PG-rated.  If you are hoping for increasing your knowledge of those two events, this is not the movie for you.  Most of the men that read my reviews might want to make this a movie you watch with your significant other to get some brownie points.  Kind of like “Titanic”, a movie that has some similarities to it.  Both feature a love triangle and a tragically truncated love affair. 

                 I commend the cinematographer for lensing a beautiful movie.  And you have the wonderful score to go with the visuals.  The cast is top notch.  I feel Rod Steiger deserves the most accolades.  His Victor is a nuanced villain and is not a caricature.  Sharif was well cast and it is hard to imagine any of the other possible leads being as right for the part.  Julie Christie is also good as a character who is more one-dimensional than Yuri.  And Tom Courtney, although miscast as a Russian, is a fascinating character who embodies the evolution of a revolutionary to a despot.  Pasha must have been part of the reason why the movie was banned in the Soviet Union.

                It is certainly an adult romance.  The Yuri / Lara relationship is not syrupy.  Yuri is something of an asshole who cheats on his loving wife.  He also cares little for his children.  In fact, the children play almost no role in the movie.  Yuri’s behavior hardly seems appropriate for a doctor and poet.  The movie posits the question:  can a man love two women at the same time?  Oddly, the movie is very harsh to Yuri when it comes to his love for Lara, but in the other areas of his life, he does not suffer much.  There are threats because of his poetry and he does not get rich as a physician.  He is forced to work for the Red Army, but it is not life threatening and although he is separated from his wife and family, this smooths the road to Lara. It’s a road that has had and will have many bumps.

GRADE  =  B-