Csapajev

It may seem bold and raw the way in which Chapaev is portrayed as a hero of the Civil War in the film, but the fact remains that this film is entirely in line with the ideological universe of early Stalinism. It reflects a dying positive type of "spontaneous hero", a savage hero, with a penchant for anarchy. Chapaev was one of the models on which socialist realism was built; however, in the mid-1930s, a conscious hero who was not prone to individualism and natural whims was preferred. This is one of the reasons why the "real author" Furmanov replaces book commissioner Klychkov, completely free of the doubt, mistakes and weaknesses of the book prototype. From the very beginning, the film leads the comedically stormy Chapaev in the very mercury-like performance by Boris Babochkin as a naughty child, but he is drafted too soon, so the motive of rebirth thereby somewhat disappears (even in the book, Chapaev remains rather "unenlightened" until his death). The film version of Chapaev is a wild addle-brain. Instead of fighting there is mostly singing in the film, and for a long time there is only one revolting soldier on the side of the victims, whom Chapaev personally kills for mutiny. In a way, the film feels de-mythologized, although we are talking more about the extent of the myth than about its complete absence. There is a clear picture in it of a folk hero, a rebel who may be confused in the number of internationals, but he does sing beautifully. At the same time, he acknowledges his limited role by predicting a beautiful new world for young lovers, to which he will no longer have access as a "man of war". It is quite an eloquent memento of a historical turning point, in which the infallible Stalinist titans began to take the place of the spontaneous heroes. (2013.11.04)

One of the seminal films of 1930s socialist ideology – which is one of the main reasons I couldn't watch it consistently. In terms of filmmaking, it's not that awful, and the regular switching between the three main storylines keeps it somewhat watchable, but again it's marred by disastrous editing and tedious chatter about Soviet principles and heroism. I watched it only out of obligation, I wouldn’t have wasted my time voluntarily. (2018.10.01)

In the same year as Chapayev, the (not) famous First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers took place, which is considered in history textbooks as one of the main heralds of socialist realism, i.e., the metastasis of Stalin's homogenizing political line into the sphere of culture. However, anyone who expected a hero of the civil war depicted just as unequivocally and in the same warm colors as workers and peasant women in multi-colored historically inspired mosaics not only at Eastern European train stations from the time of collectivization will be disappointed. Chapayev is portrayed with many flaws (although he overcomes them with the help of the Party...), and the story is supplemented and almost balanced (!) with the plotline of the White General. He may indeed stand on the other side of the barricade (and therefore can never truly bond with his own people, as shown in his relationship with his subordinate Petrovich...), but there is an effort to depict him AS A HUMAN BEING. This fact shows that, despite its date of production, the film cannot yet be fully categorized as part of the Stalinist period... (2014.05.13)