“Soldier’s Song” is one of the representative works of the Soviet ‘thaw’ films, long praised by the bourgeoisie, and the bourgeois film industry shamelessly claims it as a “masterpiece” of the so-called “Russian ‘New Wave’”, “breaking the formulaic taboos”, and “possessing powerful shock”. In fact, this is a bourgeois film that opposes the USSR, communism, and the people, shamelessly distorting the participation of Soviet soldiers and people in the Great Patriotic War, with a harmful influence. It has spread reactionary ideas among the masses who are unaware of the reactionary nature of Soviet revisionist films, and is also pursued by bourgeois intellectuals who are enthusiastic about bourgeois humanitarianism and hate proletarian art. This article was published in the June 1963 issue of “Film Art”, with the original title “Poisonous Grass on the Screen—Review of G. Chukhrai’s Three Films” (by Chen Mo). It excerpts parts about “Soldier’s Song” after the introduction to help readers understand the reactionary nature of this revisionist “masterpiece”.
Soviet film director Grigory Chukhrai published an article titled “They Are Stuck in Their Ways” in the October 1962 issue of the British magazine “Film and Filmmaking”, openly slandering Chinese films as “exemplars of dogmatism and anti-art methods”. As everyone knows, Chinese revolutionary filmmakers have always adhered to the revolutionary direction of serving workers, peasants, and soldiers, insisting on socialist artistic principles, making films that serve the people, educate the people, combat enemies, and eliminate enemies as an artistic weapon. Our outstanding films have been warmly welcomed by the broad masses at home and abroad. The facts are undeniable. Of course, Chinese films are not perfect, and we welcome all sincere criticism. However, Chukhrai’s published distortions in Western bourgeois newspapers are clearly not well-meaning criticism but malicious attacks on Chinese films, an evil means to undermine the revolutionary influence of socialist art, which has aroused the indignation of our art circles.
Who is Chukhrai, and why does he hate the revolutionary direction and content of Chinese films so much, using all means to attack us?
Chukhrai is a director at the Moscow Film Studio of the Soviet Union. Since 1956, he has directed three films: “The Forty-First”, “Soldier’s Song”, and “Clear Sky”. These three films promote modern revisionist ideas and spread anti-socialist poison. They have not only been praised domestically but also acclaimed in Western countries. At the Cannes International Film Festival and the San Francisco Film Festival, he and his films have received various awards, making him a prominent figure in Soviet cinema.
Chukhrai’s three films all touch on major political themes: “The Forty-First” involves views on the October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War; “Soldier’s Song” deals with the Soviet people’s attitude towards the Great Patriotic War against fascist invasion; “Clear Sky” involves evaluations of the Soviet Communist Party and proletarian dictatorship under Stalin’s leadership. Many remember that past Soviet revolutionary films also addressed these themes, some of which are still cherished by people worldwide, while Western bourgeoisie remains indifferent or even hostile, resisting them fiercely. Now, Chukhrai’s films also touch on these political themes, but Western bourgeoisie, especially American bourgeoisie, not only does not reject them but also praises and awards them enthusiastically. Has Western bourgeoisie’s attitude changed to favor proletarian art? The fact shows that it is not a change in Western bourgeoisie but the influence of the modern revisionist wave, with Chukhrai as a representative, that has caused a change in political stance and ideological feelings. They have abandoned Marxist-Leninist revolutionary principles, adopted revisionist political lines, betrayed the revolutionary tradition of Soviet cinema, and catered to imperialist needs. They, as socialist country filmmakers, produce anti-socialist films. Such films are naturally welcomed and rewarded by the Western world. Chinese cinema has unwaveringly adhered to the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary direction, refusing to accept the influence of modern revisionist trends. It is not surprising that Chukhrai uses their usual methods to attack us.
In his article, Chukhrai repeatedly boasts of his “victory in fighting dogmatism” and claims to have achieved “the equivalence of Marxist-Leninist ideological consciousness and human nature”. Let us look at the three films he directed to see how he opposes “dogmatism”; what his proclaimed “equivalence of ideological consciousness and human nature” really means; what political content these films contain, and whose political interests they serve.
……
“Soldier’s Song”—A Confession of the Soviet Great Patriotic War
The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet people against fascist invasion is one of the most glorious chapters in human history. If the Soviet people had not risen to fight this just war, not only would the future of the world’s first socialist state have been bleak, but all of Europe could have fallen into Hitler’s claws and become a hell of fascist slavery, which anyone with a little historical knowledge knows.
Under the leadership of Stalin and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Soviet people, during the Great Patriotic War, carried forward the heroic spirit of revolutionary struggle, overcame enormous difficulties, and thoroughly crushed fascist invasion, defending the socialist homeland and saving European civilization. It is not an exaggeration to praise this just war and the historical achievements of the Soviet people in the war.
As a filmmaker who personally participated in the war, how did Chukhrai portray this glorious history on the screen?
In Chukhrai’s second film, “Soldier’s Song,” there is not a trace of the Soviet people’s heroic achievements in smashing fascist invasion, nor the heroic qualities of Soviet soldiers in fighting the enemy, nor the just nature of the Great Patriotic War; instead, it specifically exposes and emphasizes the shortcomings of the Soviet Union and its people. The entire film gives the impression that the Soviet people did not fight heroically to eliminate fascist beasts but were tormented by an abstract “War God,” unable to live or die. Chukhrai’s design aims to make people think that Soviet soldiers are not heroes fighting for justice but cowardly and unmotivated. He carefully crafts scenes to make viewers believe that the Soviet rear is not a mobilized socialist society united in hatred of the enemy but a chaotic and unmanageable mess.
Let’s first look at how this so-called “Soldier’s Song” “praises” the Soviet “soldiers”:
The protagonist of the film is a young soldier named Alyosha. The opening scene shows Alyosha on the battlefield, so viewers see how he is terrified by a German tank.
Like an eagle chasing chicks, the tank relentlessly pursues the Soviet soldier across the field. To emphasize the soldier’s terror, the camera is deliberately tilted for a few seconds, creating a terrifying atmosphere on the screen.
Alyosha, fleeing with his head in his hands, falls into a trench after being chased by the tank. God bless, he accidentally finds an anti-tank gun, and out of instinct for survival, he fires at the tanks, destroying two of them. Thus, Alyosha becomes a “hero.” Some Soviet critics praised these scenes in “Soldier’s Song.” Some said, “On the vast field, the contrast between the tiny figure of the soldier and the huge mechanical monsters becomes a symbol—an image of the terror of war.” Others said, “These scenes also show the protagonist’s trembling situation, reflecting the noble feelings of the artists who created these scenes, and symbolically representing the inhumanity of war.” One critic even linked the later scene where Alyosha admits to the general that he was “scared” and accidentally destroyed the tank, and that he would rather take leave to help his mother “repair the roof,” rather than accept awards, and argued that Chukhrai “deliberately removed all pretensions of heroism, arrogance, and solemnity,” showing “an unusual, new attitude towards heroism and the hero himself.”
Chukhrai’s feelings are indeed “noble” to an extraordinary degree. He does not hate the living fascist bandits but hates some abstract “war”; he despises the heroic spirit of Soviet soldiers as “affectation” and “arrogance and solemnity,” and strives to portray them as unawakened cowards. This is truly an “unusual, new attitude” towards the Great Patriotic War and Soviet soldiers.
After deliberately vilifying the image of Soviet soldiers, Chukhrai lets the audience follow the protagonist on leave to the Soviet rear during the war. This “terrified” “hero” meets a “terrified” “beauty” on the train. The film centers on this “heroic couple”'s journey and uses the protagonist’s series of good deeds to depict the tragic scenes of rear life.
Look, the veteran who lost a leg on the battlefield almost refuses to meet his wife at the station; if Alyosha hadn’t helped, he would have almost left for another country. Look at the Soviet soldier guarding the transport vehicle, who extorts fiercely; if Alyosha hadn’t exposed him, his superior would not have punished him. Look at Alyosha’s comrade, who sincerely entrusts him to bring soap to his wife, but the wife has already found a new lover. Look at the weak old man in the refugee shelter, barely surviving; and the Ukrainian girl fleeing everywhere, who finally dies under enemy aircraft bombing… In the entire rear, there is no sign of the revolutionary enthusiasm to defend the homeland, no vigorous revolutionary fighting spirit. All one sees is chaos and endless sadness. All one hears are sighs and sobs.
Of course, it cannot be said that such things never happened during the war. The problem is: Chukhrai is not interested in the heroic spirit and historical merits of the Soviet people; he specifically collects negative phenomena in people’s lives, exaggerates and emphasizes them, and makes them the main focus to spread nihilism and pessimism about the revolutionary war. Therefore, after watching “Soldier’s Song,” it is hard for people to understand: if Soviet soldiers were so cowardly and afraid of death on the front, and the Soviet people so dispirited in the rear, how could they have defeated the heavily armed Hitlerite bandits? More importantly, why did Chukhrai, who participated in the war, distort the basic truth of the war and deny its justice?
Listen to Chukhrai’s answer:
“I think the concept of ‘war film’ itself is very inaccurate and ambiguous. Depicting war can either oppose war or ignite vengeful ideas; it can promote humanitarianism and kindness or cultivate instincts of hatred toward humanity.” (“Message” newspaper, July 9, 1961)
This statement helps us understand why he distorts the depiction of the Great Patriotic War. In his view, depicting war can only be either opposition or vengefulness; there is no other attitude. Is this really the case? The West German fascist revanchists use films to promote “revenge,” which should indeed be opposed. But how can affirming the revolutionary and just war also be seen as “igniting vengeful ideas” and “cultivating instincts of hatred toward humanity”?
Starting from the bourgeois humanitarianism and pacifism, Chukhrai seeks to “condemn war” in the name of “humanitarianism and kindness,” as he states in his short article on “Soldier’s Song”: “We seek scenes that condemn war.” Moreover, he has indeed found the most “condemning” scenes of this just war. Fearing that these scenes alone are not enough to express the film’s main theme, he even has a narrator remind the audience at the beginning and end of the film: Alyosha has died in a foreign land without return. “Foreigners lay flowers on his grave. They call him a Russian soldier, a hero, a liberator,” but for Alyosha’s mother, who waits at the village entrance every day for his return, “he is her son, her child.” This, Chukhrai claims, is his “careful” effort, and he even wrote articles to promote it, saying that his Alyosha “could have become a good father, a loving husband, an engineer, or a scientist; he could have grown crops and beautified the land… but war made that impossible. He did not return, and how many others like him did not return!” (“On <Soldier’s Song>”). These parentheses mean: those who are called heroes by foreigners are actually not heroes, and their sacrifices are meaningless; all this is a tragedy caused by the war!
Everyone knows how Lenin opposed viewing war with sentimental views. He strongly pointed out: “Socialists, if they still want to be socialists, cannot oppose all wars.” Only by analyzing the class nature of war from a Marxist perspective can one adopt different attitudes according to specific circumstances. Regarding sacrifice, Lenin once refuted reactionary elements claiming to be socialists and democrats: “There has never been and cannot be a revolution without long, arduous, and possibly costly struggles. Anyone who cannot recognize the sacrifices made in revolutionary struggles against all property owners and counter-revolutionary classes, and distinguish these sacrifices from the plundering and exploitative wars, is very ignorant. Such a person should learn basic common sense, and before social education, attend primary school; otherwise, he is a corrupt Golgachov-style hypocrite, regardless of how he calls himself or what titles he uses to hide himself.” (“First All-Russian Congress of Social Education”, Lenin Collected Works, Volume 29, p. 308)
Modern revisionists have completely betrayed Marxist-Leninist principles, failing to distinguish between just and unjust wars, opposing all just wars with bourgeois pacifist views. They are themselves terrified by U.S. imperialist nuclear blackmail policies and have colluded with U.S. imperialism to intimidate the people worldwide. To achieve this, they resort to all sorts of means, distort history, and declare in art that the Soviet people’s participation in the war was a foolish act, and their sacrifices for justice were meaningless. Chukhrai’s “Soldier’s Song” is a typical example of this, essentially a shameful confession of the Soviet war effort.
Such films that condemn just wars, deny people’s historical merits, undermine revolutionary fighting spirit, and flatter imperialism are naturally welcomed by Western countries. The French “Le Figaro” called “Soldier’s Song” “another miracle of Soviet cinema,” the British “Picture & Sound” magazine described it as a “humanitarian satellite,” and the most remarkable is the American “Saturday Review,” which said: “If Soviet directors continue to focus on such resonant themes, they will eventually win more audiences outside their borders,” and encouraging the Soviets to produce more films like “Soldier’s Song” is “the best way to soften the Iron Curtain” for the U.S.! Chukhrai truly serves as a capable assistant for U.S. imperialism to “soften” socialist countries!