A Ukrainian, and I believe more or less true, view of the history of a village and especially the people who live in it. Nicely shown why Ukrainians hardly can like Russians who brought them only war, suffering and hunger. What people had to endure back then cannot even be described in words. A lifetime of hard work, and when a person was able to do something, the revolution came, which took everything from them at the hands of the worst buddies, lemps and scumbags. It's terrific to see here what kind of people joined the Bolshevik revolution at that time, mostly the biggest scumbags who ventilated property without work, naive idealists and psychopaths. That's how it all turned out.
2 Reviews
Popular epic and hardcore nation building
steenben-160-35492419 September 2023
This epic TV-series has its obvious qualities: The cast, the acting, the leads, costumes, the lightning, filming, editing and cinematography all expose that the budget and ambitions have been high. It aims to be popular and in terms of its dramatic and romantic qualities there is 'something for everybody'. Violence, love, hate, dance, adultery, nice folk costumes and hair, babys screaming and lovemaking in the hay. And especially the outsiders are fairly rigidly portrayed. They are bad people!!! There are of course nuances to the plot - especially when it comes to the portrait of 'our own'.
This follows from the dramatic structure and narrative. The focus is very much on the everyday lives of local common people. But the main narrative is one of 'a people', 'a nation' who - by force - are confronted with the 'outside', when the Bolcheviks 'invade'.
In this sense the series is highly political, and it obviously aims to tell a different story than the Soviet films about solidarity, bravery and optimism through hardship.
The opposition is made between the proud and well-rooted Ukrainians living in hardship and the cynical, controlling, autoritarian communist-Russians (or their local communist allies). As a non-native speaker I can't detect the dialects of the Slavic, but I suppose this opposition is made in clearer through language.
The series as such reminds me of the German 'Heimat'. Like this it wants to engage in the stories and narratives of the past, and how History has been written about central periods in the (troubled) birth (and decline) of the nation. Here the (un)birth of Ukraine.
But - opposite to the Heimat series - this one never really aims to debate the understanding of the Ukrainian past, or even to give us a nuanced picture of the past. Instead it becomes a static, romanticised picture of little Ukraine. And we must love the feudal/organic 'diversity' between rich and poor, lazy and hard-working etc. Because it is 'freedom', e.g. To love the church - as it provide 'real solace' to the suppressed Ukrainians etc. This storyline expands throughout the series as such, and leaves a bitter taste of educational manipulation especially in the last episodes - those that the reviewers here seem to like the best. A pity really. Because this also portrays a history not often told, at least I have never seen before. A couple of centuries in turmoil after the Great War, a story also of necessary modernization of a feudal, unequal and unjust society.
And perhaps the Ukranians should be excused for their need of this narrative - in times like these. But still - there is obviously so much more to say!
It's a 6/10 for it's epic and basic filmic qualities.
This follows from the dramatic structure and narrative. The focus is very much on the everyday lives of local common people. But the main narrative is one of 'a people', 'a nation' who - by force - are confronted with the 'outside', when the Bolcheviks 'invade'.
In this sense the series is highly political, and it obviously aims to tell a different story than the Soviet films about solidarity, bravery and optimism through hardship.
The opposition is made between the proud and well-rooted Ukrainians living in hardship and the cynical, controlling, autoritarian communist-Russians (or their local communist allies). As a non-native speaker I can't detect the dialects of the Slavic, but I suppose this opposition is made in clearer through language.
The series as such reminds me of the German 'Heimat'. Like this it wants to engage in the stories and narratives of the past, and how History has been written about central periods in the (troubled) birth (and decline) of the nation. Here the (un)birth of Ukraine.
But - opposite to the Heimat series - this one never really aims to debate the understanding of the Ukrainian past, or even to give us a nuanced picture of the past. Instead it becomes a static, romanticised picture of little Ukraine. And we must love the feudal/organic 'diversity' between rich and poor, lazy and hard-working etc. Because it is 'freedom', e.g. To love the church - as it provide 'real solace' to the suppressed Ukrainians etc. This storyline expands throughout the series as such, and leaves a bitter taste of educational manipulation especially in the last episodes - those that the reviewers here seem to like the best. A pity really. Because this also portrays a history not often told, at least I have never seen before. A couple of centuries in turmoil after the Great War, a story also of necessary modernization of a feudal, unequal and unjust society.
And perhaps the Ukranians should be excused for their need of this narrative - in times like these. But still - there is obviously so much more to say!
It's a 6/10 for it's epic and basic filmic qualities.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
