Song of Russia

source: Song of Russia

Well, the best thing that can said about this film is Robert Taylor. He was smashing as a an orchestra conductor and his overall performance was very good despite the fact that he strongly objected to doing this film. Robert Taylor was well known for his professionalism and this film clearly illustrates that point. If you are a woman, you can't take your eyes off off him in any film. Susan Peters was lovely, but I did not find their attraction credible. Clearly this movie was made as a pat on the back to the Soviets as our allies in WW II. I found this film to be very syrupy and that undermined the entire production. Meh!

The first half of this film is the best part. It is obvious this was filmed in America but during the first half an extensive amount of stock news reel footage of the USSR prior to the war. The scenes of the village in Russia look a lot like the village set from many films made in the US set in Eastern Europe. The best things about this are the Robert Taylor and Susan Peters relationship developing. There is a chemistry between them. The supporting cast does a good job and the character development in this one. For the first half of the film, this is an excellent effort with the music being a plus as well. The last half of the film is a let down. Robert Taylor (John Meredith) walking for days looking for his wife Nayda with combat going all around him and actually finding her is just not realistic. The ending is a real let down as it is pure propaganda and the film takes the easy way out by explaining what needs to happen but not presenting how that is going to be accomplished. Even the music the second half is not as good as the first.

Look: This film IS propaganda, but it certainly isn't Soviet propaganda. I think it is clear from watching the film disinterestedly and/or reading ALL of the transcripts of Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony that it was American wartime propaganda aiming at 1) strengthening political ties with its then-ally Soviets, and 2) convincing the American's that they should support the joint effort with the Russians against Germany. The US was too afraid to admit to the American people that they, like, Churchill said, had to work with the devil to defeat Hitler; they used propaganda film instead (ad not just here, but overtly as part of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series). Further, I think it is probable, as a previous poster mentioned, that they are only guilty of writing a very ill-conceived "love knows no bounds" kind of war time love story; this is just a year or so after Casablanca, after all! The movie certainly was picked up, partly on the basis of the love-knows-no-bounds angle, but more overtly b/c, as the awful Robert Taylor pointed out in his own HUAC testimony, the request came from the US State department.

I'll be the first to admit that this film was a bald effort at propaganda. I'll also admit that the conditions depicted in Russia were far from reality. However, this isn't the first effort at propaganda by Hollywood, nor is it the first (or the thousandth) that takes a wide berth from reality. If you look at the movie's setting (happy Russians with a benevolent leader) as fantasy, and imagine the Russia shown in the movie as a mythical nation, then you have a dandy story here. Propaganda aside, the storyline here is excellent; it's engrossing, well-written and intelligent. The acting is superb, from top stars Taylor and Peters down to the bit players and extras. The dance scenes are well choreographed. The music, mostly that of Tchaikovsky, is superb, and the soundtrack is masterfully woven into the background throughout the story. The music is well-played and well conducted by Albert Coates (who also did the piano work). As for the piano, Susan Peters does a good job of finger placement that could fool all but the trained eye into thinking that she could actually play the piano (she couldn't at the level shown in the movie). The one fault herein is Taylor's attempts to imitate a conductor: suffice it to say that it's out of sync and overstated to the point of absurdity. As a side note, many of the members of the Peter Meremblum orchestra (prodigal young musicians, many of whom went on to careers in music, and a few of whom became very well-known in the world of music) appear throughout the movie, mainly as extras and as kids in the village and youths in the Moscow Conservatory. The orchestra also performed some of the background music. All in all, this is an excellent movie if one can overlook the propaganda and anti-realism and treat it as a fantasy/fiction.

"Song of Russia" is far from a great film, but it is really fascinating to look at nowadays, both as a historical time capsule and as an excellent specimen of MGM camp. The film was designed to drum up sympathy for our then-allies, the Soviet Union, and is sheer, unabashed propaganda. It is well-enough made, but, meaning no disrespect to the millions of Russians who suffered and died during the war, it is so cornball and manipulative seen now that its difficult to take seriously. In fact, its most famous now for the after-effects of its release at the end of the 40's in the HUAC meetings where Robert Taylor testified and "named names" and where it caused all sorts of problems for its makers. Robert Taylor rises to his usual heights of bland adequacy here, but Susan Peters, a tragic actress if ever there was one, does quite well as his Russian bride. Some of the more hilarious scenes include a wedding dance where the entire village takes part and come across more like a Broadway troupe with decades of experience and the depiction of the "typical" Russian village,which looks like a Slavic version of Andy Hardy's small town. Miss Peters character is also quite the Russian Superwoman - a concert pianist who can cook a mean dinner when she's not riding tractors, shooting machine guns and teaching a class of schoolchildren how to make a Molotov Cocktail. Its amazing she was able to be convincing in the slightest degree in this role, but she does as well as anyone could.

The song of Russia isn't the face of Russia. The essence of a song (for any creature) is a call for unattainable beauty, isn't it? Does this film call to arms (to be war propaganda like German colored film "Kolberg" or Japan anime "Momotaro: Umi no Shinpei")? Only in the sense of defending the beauty in our hearts (love, devotion, patriotism). No one mention about communism and its spreading, only the call by means of music for help during wartime regardless social and cultural differences, this is a noble step from Americans and why they have been feeling ashamed after that (like enamored and betrayed)? The live action seems to be a beautiful art, not an ugly artificiality, maybe pompous as usual background for love or heroic story wherever it happens, so it can't be regarded like awful propaganda as hurt Ayn Rand said in her HUAC negative testimony about the film. Her words "They (russians) try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman" are totally reductionism. What about American view of Soviet Russia, I've never found it adequate (in contrary to the style of socialistic realism in soviet films), and American stamps in Russian context always looks funny for me, but the humanistic kindness and classical music in the film erases ambiguity and national differences. No wonder I'm pleased with the film =)

This was the first film that I can recall seeing, way back in the 1940s. I was about 6 or 7 years old at the time (I'm now 66). I can remember nothing of the rose-tinted picture of Stalin's Russia described in John Barnes' comments. In fact, I can recall little of the plot, other than that it featured an orchestral conductor and extracts from Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Thus, the film introduced me to Tchaikovsky and classical music and, for that, I am eternally grateful.

It seems HUAC in '47 took depictions of life in the Soviet Union as portrayed in "Song of Russia," '43, much too seriously. Anyone looking at this film could tell it was a romantic tale the writer contrived to tell a love story against all odds. Robert Taylor seemed on familiar ground here. Only four years earlier, in "Waterloo Bridge," he'd found a love in war torn England. She was a classical artist who fell madly in love with him. In "Song of Russia" both he and his love are classical artists who make beautiful music together. Like "Bridge," "Russia" is photographed in sharp black and white, and the film is peppered with lots of musical interludes, mostly by Tchaikovsky. Taylor's "orchestral conducting" was well coached (save for a "lost" left arm) and Susan Peter's "concerto playing" was effectively "mimed." (One of Jerome Kern's most haunting songs, "And Russia Is Her Name," is given a less than adequate rendition.) It was fun to hear John Hodiak's initial Russian accent finally give way to no accent at all. And the village people do all the stereotypical things, like sing happy rounds while returning from the fields, and performing specialty ethnic dances at evening vodka fests. Throw in the start of WW2 and the drama's intensified. Still, the power of the lovers' affection is too strong and ultimately that love triumphs.

Anyone know where I can get it? I've been trying for years. It's a pity, as I'm a Russophile and as such am interested in all historical/period pieces without having to label them as propaganda. After all, when WE do it, we call it Education. It's only when others do it that we call it Propaganda. Need proof? Geroge W. Bush and all the hateful lies. We live in a purely propagandized state. This website asks for 10 lines of text in order to get posted, but all I want to know is where I can get a copy of this film of my own. It made an impression on me three years ago when Teddy Baby aired it (more than once, too, and I missed the opportunity to record it).