Comedians used to poke fun at Soviet movies during the Cold War era. The claim was that every Soviet film could be characterized by a single standard plot line—"Boy meets tractor, Boy falls in love with tractor, Boy marries tractor". Now, I'm not sure how accurate the wags were since Soviet films were never shown here, nor ours there. But, given Soviet emphasis on collective farming, and their theory that art should follow politics, that sort of result wouldn't be surprising.
Nonetheless, Soviet-made or not, this 1959 humanist gem shines like a proverbial pearl in the night. Sure, the boy and girl are idealized, but were there ever two more charming performers; they even look alike. Moreover, it's that natural glow amidst the seediest surroundings that suggests what some might call a triumph of the human spirit. After years of slickly contrived Hollywood pairings, I was captivated by a warmth and chemistry seemingly so unforced and unrehearsed that I marvel at how it was done. In my book, it's one of the great compelling love stories of the big screen.
Just as importantly, the movie is anti-war, but subtly so. We do see some devastation and combat, but the real indictment lies elsewhere. It rests with all the potentials cut short by unrelenting demands of the war machine. The boy must return to his unit or risk being shot as a deserter. Thus he must abandon the injured soldier with whom he could have been friends; he must risk losing the love of his life because trains must run on wartime; he must leave his mother, without even time to fix the leaky roof. But most of all, war demands that he, like so many fine young men, must leave life with a personal potential that will go tragically unrealized. As one of Chukrai's effects brilliantly illustrates, war is indeed a world turned upside down.
Also, there are the stunning visuals. Those vast Russian steppes may be flat and boring. Nonetheless, the corresponding big sky makes a magnificent backdrop for heroic low-angle shots of those dwelling amidst the vastness. Then there's that long dusty road at film's end, leading off into a great unknown that Alyosha must now travel. In contrast are the teeming crowds at the railway station, looking nothing like Hollywood in their simple cloth dresses and shirts. And what concern with fancy hair-do's can the women have when their hair is bound down with knotted kerchiefs. All in all, it's a revealing look at what could be called the Russian peasantry of the time.
No, the movie clearly doesn't come from the ministry of propaganda. Still, there are concessions. Note how cooperative strangers become no matter how initially cranky they are. The army officers especially are portrayed as understanding and non-threatening. Nobody is depicted negatively, except maybe the disloyal wife. Not even the Nazi enemy responsible for 20 million Russian dead is mentioned, let alone, vilified. No, the real antagonist here is war itself; the point is not stated, but it is shown to an uncommonly moving degree. The dedication at film's end may be to the Russian soldier, but the subtext throughout aims at the universal, regardless of time, place, or nationality.
Thus 50 years later, the movie remains a timeless humanist classic. And with it, I think Chukrai deserves a place alongside the early masters of Soviet film, that is, before the Stalinist tyranny descended. Now, I have nothing against tractors. In fact, I wish Hollywood would feature more such life-affirming inventions than the exploding cars they so love and worship. Nonetheless, I guess I'm glad that here, there's not a single tractor in sight.
Nonetheless, Soviet-made or not, this 1959 humanist gem shines like a proverbial pearl in the night. Sure, the boy and girl are idealized, but were there ever two more charming performers; they even look alike. Moreover, it's that natural glow amidst the seediest surroundings that suggests what some might call a triumph of the human spirit. After years of slickly contrived Hollywood pairings, I was captivated by a warmth and chemistry seemingly so unforced and unrehearsed that I marvel at how it was done. In my book, it's one of the great compelling love stories of the big screen.
Just as importantly, the movie is anti-war, but subtly so. We do see some devastation and combat, but the real indictment lies elsewhere. It rests with all the potentials cut short by unrelenting demands of the war machine. The boy must return to his unit or risk being shot as a deserter. Thus he must abandon the injured soldier with whom he could have been friends; he must risk losing the love of his life because trains must run on wartime; he must leave his mother, without even time to fix the leaky roof. But most of all, war demands that he, like so many fine young men, must leave life with a personal potential that will go tragically unrealized. As one of Chukrai's effects brilliantly illustrates, war is indeed a world turned upside down.
Also, there are the stunning visuals. Those vast Russian steppes may be flat and boring. Nonetheless, the corresponding big sky makes a magnificent backdrop for heroic low-angle shots of those dwelling amidst the vastness. Then there's that long dusty road at film's end, leading off into a great unknown that Alyosha must now travel. In contrast are the teeming crowds at the railway station, looking nothing like Hollywood in their simple cloth dresses and shirts. And what concern with fancy hair-do's can the women have when their hair is bound down with knotted kerchiefs. All in all, it's a revealing look at what could be called the Russian peasantry of the time.
No, the movie clearly doesn't come from the ministry of propaganda. Still, there are concessions. Note how cooperative strangers become no matter how initially cranky they are. The army officers especially are portrayed as understanding and non-threatening. Nobody is depicted negatively, except maybe the disloyal wife. Not even the Nazi enemy responsible for 20 million Russian dead is mentioned, let alone, vilified. No, the real antagonist here is war itself; the point is not stated, but it is shown to an uncommonly moving degree. The dedication at film's end may be to the Russian soldier, but the subtext throughout aims at the universal, regardless of time, place, or nationality.
Thus 50 years later, the movie remains a timeless humanist classic. And with it, I think Chukrai deserves a place alongside the early masters of Soviet film, that is, before the Stalinist tyranny descended. Now, I have nothing against tractors. In fact, I wish Hollywood would feature more such life-affirming inventions than the exploding cars they so love and worship. Nonetheless, I guess I'm glad that here, there's not a single tractor in sight.