7 ms·

Among the Russian films with a strong political innuendo I've seen, "Welcome, no trespassing" was the sharpest and one of the most enjoyable. It's about a scout

Among the Russian films with a strong political innuendo I've seen, "Welcome, no trespassing" was the sharpest and one of the most enjoyable. It's about a scout camp where the the director oppresses the children with stupid formal procedures, patriotic ceremonies, and abuses of power. I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. I'm also surprised one of the most famous Russian comedies, Sauna Blues, was not in this article. Even more since its main actor died this year. Sauna blues is a funny romance, yet it depicts Russian cities were buildings and furniture are similar and spiritless, so much that people can't recognize their apartment or their street.

kome 6y ago
> I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. Just like today, you are allowed to make fun of power, but you are not allowed to take it seriously.
rkantbe 6y ago
Soviets != Russia, yes the USSR was sort of a new iteration of The Russian Empire, but you can't call armenians, ukrainians, georgians and so on russians this simply wrong
- option 6y ago
  There are infinitely less difference between Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians than, for example, between those Americans who live in California and Texas.
  - qaq 6y ago
    There is an armed Russian Ukrainian armed conflict happening right now ...
    - option 6y ago
      purely artificial and fueled by Russian dictatorship. Oh, and there was an “insurrection” in US Capital in case you didn’t notice. The only difference is that the first one has a very strong external support while the second one does not and, luckily, failed quickly.
  - rkantbe 6y ago
    Ukraine has democracy, fair elections and also currently at war (hybrid war if you like) with Russia, so I wouldn't put it in that list.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      "Democracy" in which the president has closed 3 popular TV channels with a single executive order, applies sanctions against leader of the second largest political party, and has tried to pass a clearly unconstitutional law to disband the сonstitutional сourt. "Democracy" in which the main security agency uses far-right nationalist forces to terrorize opponents [0] and fabricates a moronic political case [1] against a blogger who dares to harshly criticize the president and who is a leader of a rising political party. "War with Russia" in which Ukrainian citizens fight against Ukrainian citizens. If you don't trust my word, just look at the lists of the latest prisoner swaps, not a single Russian citizen there. The war which has started with clearly unconstitutional use of military forces against its own citizens and in which the freshly installed government has targeted administrative buildings in the center of Lugansk with no armed rebels in it using a military plane (they have tried to launch a stupid fake about an exploded AC, but recently they have officially confirmed that it was indeed a warplane target). Note that I do not deny Russian involvement in the Ukrainian civil war, but you do not call the Syrian civil war a "Syria-American war", do you? Foreign involvement in civil wars is more of a rule, not an exception. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbe3vGOm1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbe3vGOm1Q [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2fYkPeWy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2fYkPeWy4
      - rkantbe 6y ago
        The funny thing is that I'm from Luhansk and you are just parroting russian propaganda, Russia lost control over Ukraine when Yanukovich had run away, and at first annexed Crimea and then started a war in eastern Ukraine, Girkin (Strelkov) himself takes responsibility of starting the war who is russian, but his just a Kremlin's puppet. Anyway, please, stop spreading russian propaganda
        fuoqi 6y ago
  - HDMI_Cable 6y ago
    Californian and Texan accents might be mutually incomprehensible, but they' re not completely different languages like Ukrainian, Russian, and Belorussian.
    - option 6y ago
      if you know one pf the three russian/ukraininan/belorus languages you will be able to understand 99% of what is said in the other two. Source: I grew up in Ukraine
      - rkantbe 6y ago
        Cool, canadians and australians understand each other quite well too, what's your point?
        option 6y ago
        my point is that those aren’t completely different languages by any stretch of imagination
        osacial 6y ago
        These languages have similar grammar, because they all have evolved from Old Church Slavonic, but Russian had different path of evolution, where it has gained a lot of Turkic vocabulary among others. I know Russian on native level and have visited friends in Lviv. Sure it is possible for me with Russian language to understand some things and with what I know it would be very easy to LEARN Ukrainian, but I don't live among Ukrainians, so I can't understand 90% of anything when I am watching something on yt when Urainians start to talk in moiva. I think, that there is a bigger chance for Polish people to understand Ukrainians, that for speakers of Russian. It looks like your observation applies to Russians, who are already living in Ukraine and have some grasp of Ukrainian.
        Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        They didn't evolve from Old Church Slavonic. OCS was an artificial South Slavic literary standard based on the language from around Thessaloniki, as spoken by Cyrill and Methodius's mission. Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian are East Slavic languages, a different branch of the family. Indeed, they all have a common ancestor in Proto-Slavic, but the relationship of Russian etc. and OCS is one of cousins, not parent-child.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    Actually, someone from San Francisco would have no trouble in moving to Austin. That same Californian moving to, say, Salinas (that’s in California) would be more of a culture shock
Daho0n 6y ago
>I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. It fits the US pretty good too.
retrac 6y ago
Production started during an era that was a slight relaxing of censorship in general in the USSR. Obviously any criticism of the Soviet system, law, government, policy, leaders, etc. was absolutely right out, but you do start to see hints of social criticism in that era. There are a rash of novels in the late 50s and 60s in that style. In fact, just the year before, Krushchev had personally ordered the publication of One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which is also quite hard to believe got published in Soviet times, even with redactions. The leash was pulled short again not long after that! Anyway, legend has it that Krushchev also got a preview of "Welcome, or No Trespassing" and liked it. So he ordered it immediately released. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly could be.
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  Khrushchev may have intended for the people to view this as life under his predecessors. He did believe Stalin's reign had been problematic and probably saw himself as ushering in something new. From Wikipedia[0]: > Khrushchev believed that once the stain of Stalinism was removed, the Party would inspire loyalty among the people.[129] Beginning in October 1955, Khrushchev fought to tell the delegates to the upcoming 20th Party Congress about Stalin's crimes. Some of his colleagues, including Molotov and Malenkov, opposed the disclosure and managed to persuade him to make his remarks in a closed session. > […] > Khrushchev told the delegates: > "It is here that Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality, and his abuse of power ... he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the party or the Soviet Government." Sounds to me like someone who expected to be seen as ushering in a brighter future. I don't expect he would have allowed the film's release if he expected people to equate it with his own leadership. But that's just a guess. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Leader_(1953–1964) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Leader_(1953...
  - j_nathanael 6y ago
    >Khrushchev may have intended for the people to view this as life under his predecessors. He did believe Stalin's reign had been problematic and probably saw himself as ushering in something new I don't think it was just his self-image, I think I recall reading about the Cultural Revolution in China, and how some people there (Mao?) saw Khrushchev as kind of having betrayed the true path or whatever.
trhway 6y ago
>I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. there are couple of aspects here: - the movie was allowed by Khruschev who had [to a significant degree] dismantled the "Gulag regime" of Stalin, so one could make a case at the time that the movie was a metaphor of that dismantled regime - there is a kind of political poker with censorship - who the first would associate the satire work with a sensitive political metaphor. If the artist doesn't do it directly themselves, then it is the censors who should declare that they see say a USSR in such a grotesque work, and that would expose the censors' own disrespect of the USSR. It is better described by the joke from the time: Stalin (who had a prominent mustache) orders to the great [in USSR WWII history view] Marshal (4-star general) Zhukov an impossible task : "Take the city by tomorrow morning!". Marshal Zhukov leaving the meeting mutters in frustration: "F-king ass with a mustache!" The KGB chief Beria overhears it and reports about it to Stalin. Stalin calls Zhukov back and asks whom Zhukov had in mind when saying that. Zhukov answers : "I had Hitler in mind of course!". Stalin turns to Beria and asks "And whom did you have in mind?"
andrei_says_ 6y ago
Could you point to the IMDb link for Sayna Blues? Curious to see it but the name doesn’t match anything.
- alexashka 6y ago
  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073179/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073179/ Here you go
- throw11711 6y ago
  You can watch 'Sauna Blues' aka 'The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (1975)' for free with subtitles on YouTube here: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 Other good films: Kin-dza-dza! (1986): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo Welcome, or No Trespassing (1964): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk Bootleggers (1961): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg The Most Charming and Attractive (1985): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM All have english subtitles.
pandaman 6y ago
Allegories were pretty safe in the USSR. The problem with censoring an allegory is that to recognize it as an anti-soviet one is also to confirm the existance of the subject it's exposing. When the official stance is "there is no such thing" you'd be risking an "anti-soviet propaganda" charge yourself. Edit: The most clear example I can recall is the "Alexander Nevskiy" film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/). It's a historical drama about the early Russia's struggle against foreign invasions. The titular character makes a Bible reference at one point ("Who will come at us with the sword will die by the sword" referencing Mat 26:52) but since it's not a direct quote, somebody censoring this would have to admit reading the Bible and would be in danger oneself. So the quote remained in the film and most people recognize the reference.
- nicbou 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule
throw11711 6y ago
You can watch 'Welcome, or No Trespassing' (1964) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk Kin-dza-dza! (1986): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y 'Sauna Blues' aka 'The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (1975)': Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo Bootleggers (1961): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg The Most Charming and Attractive (1985): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM All have english subtitles.

kome 6y ago

> I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. Just like today, you are allowed to make fun of power, but you are not allowed to take it seriously.

rkantbe 6y ago

Soviets != Russia, yes the USSR was sort of a new iteration of The Russian Empire, but you can't call armenians, ukrainians, georgians and so on russians this simply wrong

option 6y ago
There are infinitely less difference between Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians than, for example, between those Americans who live in California and Texas.
- qaq 6y ago
  There is an armed Russian Ukrainian armed conflict happening right now ...
  - option 6y ago
    purely artificial and fueled by Russian dictatorship. Oh, and there was an “insurrection” in US Capital in case you didn’t notice. The only difference is that the first one has a very strong external support while the second one does not and, luckily, failed quickly.
- rkantbe 6y ago
  Ukraine has democracy, fair elections and also currently at war (hybrid war if you like) with Russia, so I wouldn't put it in that list.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    "Democracy" in which the president has closed 3 popular TV channels with a single executive order, applies sanctions against leader of the second largest political party, and has tried to pass a clearly unconstitutional law to disband the сonstitutional сourt. "Democracy" in which the main security agency uses far-right nationalist forces to terrorize opponents [0] and fabricates a moronic political case [1] against a blogger who dares to harshly criticize the president and who is a leader of a rising political party. "War with Russia" in which Ukrainian citizens fight against Ukrainian citizens. If you don't trust my word, just look at the lists of the latest prisoner swaps, not a single Russian citizen there. The war which has started with clearly unconstitutional use of military forces against its own citizens and in which the freshly installed government has targeted administrative buildings in the center of Lugansk with no armed rebels in it using a military plane (they have tried to launch a stupid fake about an exploded AC, but recently they have officially confirmed that it was indeed a warplane target). Note that I do not deny Russian involvement in the Ukrainian civil war, but you do not call the Syrian civil war a "Syria-American war", do you? Foreign involvement in civil wars is more of a rule, not an exception. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbe3vGOm1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVbe3vGOm1Q [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2fYkPeWy4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2fYkPeWy4
    - rkantbe 6y ago
      The funny thing is that I'm from Luhansk and you are just parroting russian propaganda, Russia lost control over Ukraine when Yanukovich had run away, and at first annexed Crimea and then started a war in eastern Ukraine, Girkin (Strelkov) himself takes responsibility of starting the war who is russian, but his just a Kremlin's puppet. Anyway, please, stop spreading russian propaganda
      - fuoqi 6y ago
- HDMI_Cable 6y ago
  Californian and Texan accents might be mutually incomprehensible, but they' re not completely different languages like Ukrainian, Russian, and Belorussian.
  - option 6y ago
    if you know one pf the three russian/ukraininan/belorus languages you will be able to understand 99% of what is said in the other two. Source: I grew up in Ukraine
    - rkantbe 6y ago
      Cool, canadians and australians understand each other quite well too, what's your point?
      - option 6y ago
        my point is that those aren’t completely different languages by any stretch of imagination
        osacial 6y ago
        These languages have similar grammar, because they all have evolved from Old Church Slavonic, but Russian had different path of evolution, where it has gained a lot of Turkic vocabulary among others. I know Russian on native level and have visited friends in Lviv. Sure it is possible for me with Russian language to understand some things and with what I know it would be very easy to LEARN Ukrainian, but I don't live among Ukrainians, so I can't understand 90% of anything when I am watching something on yt when Urainians start to talk in moiva. I think, that there is a bigger chance for Polish people to understand Ukrainians, that for speakers of Russian. It looks like your observation applies to Russians, who are already living in Ukraine and have some grasp of Ukrainian.
        Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        They didn't evolve from Old Church Slavonic. OCS was an artificial South Slavic literary standard based on the language from around Thessaloniki, as spoken by Cyrill and Methodius's mission. Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian are East Slavic languages, a different branch of the family. Indeed, they all have a common ancestor in Proto-Slavic, but the relationship of Russian etc. and OCS is one of cousins, not parent-child.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  Actually, someone from San Francisco would have no trouble in moving to Austin. That same Californian moving to, say, Salinas (that’s in California) would be more of a culture shock

Daho0n 6y ago

>I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. It fits the US pretty good too.

retrac 6y ago

Production started during an era that was a slight relaxing of censorship in general in the USSR. Obviously any criticism of the Soviet system, law, government, policy, leaders, etc. was absolutely right out, but you do start to see hints of social criticism in that era. There are a rash of novels in the late 50s and 60s in that style. In fact, just the year before, Krushchev had personally ordered the publication of One Day In the Life of Ivan Denisovich, which is also quite hard to believe got published in Soviet times, even with redactions. The leash was pulled short again not long after that! Anyway, legend has it that Krushchev also got a preview of "Welcome, or No Trespassing" and liked it. So he ordered it immediately released. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly could be.

alsetmusic 6y ago
Khrushchev may have intended for the people to view this as life under his predecessors. He did believe Stalin's reign had been problematic and probably saw himself as ushering in something new. From Wikipedia[0]: > Khrushchev believed that once the stain of Stalinism was removed, the Party would inspire loyalty among the people.[129] Beginning in October 1955, Khrushchev fought to tell the delegates to the upcoming 20th Party Congress about Stalin's crimes. Some of his colleagues, including Molotov and Malenkov, opposed the disclosure and managed to persuade him to make his remarks in a closed session. > […] > Khrushchev told the delegates: > "It is here that Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality, and his abuse of power ... he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the party or the Soviet Government." Sounds to me like someone who expected to be seen as ushering in a brighter future. I don't expect he would have allowed the film's release if he expected people to equate it with his own leadership. But that's just a guess. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Leader_(1953–1964) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Leader_(1953...
- j_nathanael 6y ago
  >Khrushchev may have intended for the people to view this as life under his predecessors. He did believe Stalin's reign had been problematic and probably saw himself as ushering in something new I don't think it was just his self-image, I think I recall reading about the Cultural Revolution in China, and how some people there (Mao?) saw Khrushchev as kind of having betrayed the true path or whatever.

trhway 6y ago

>I could not understand why this film was allowed, since the camp is an obvious metaphor of the USSR. there are couple of aspects here: - the movie was allowed by Khruschev who had [to a significant degree] dismantled the "Gulag regime" of Stalin, so one could make a case at the time that the movie was a metaphor of that dismantled regime - there is a kind of political poker with censorship - who the first would associate the satire work with a sensitive political metaphor. If the artist doesn't do it directly themselves, then it is the censors who should declare that they see say a USSR in such a grotesque work, and that would expose the censors' own disrespect of the USSR. It is better described by the joke from the time: Stalin (who had a prominent mustache) orders to the great [in USSR WWII history view] Marshal (4-star general) Zhukov an impossible task : "Take the city by tomorrow morning!". Marshal Zhukov leaving the meeting mutters in frustration: "F-king ass with a mustache!" The KGB chief Beria overhears it and reports about it to Stalin. Stalin calls Zhukov back and asks whom Zhukov had in mind when saying that. Zhukov answers : "I had Hitler in mind of course!". Stalin turns to Beria and asks "And whom did you have in mind?"

andrei_says_ 6y ago

Could you point to the IMDb link for Sayna Blues? Curious to see it but the name doesn’t match anything.

alexashka 6y ago
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073179/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073179/ Here you go
throw11711 6y ago
You can watch 'Sauna Blues' aka 'The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (1975)' for free with subtitles on YouTube here: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 Other good films: Kin-dza-dza! (1986): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo Welcome, or No Trespassing (1964): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk Bootleggers (1961): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg The Most Charming and Attractive (1985): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM All have english subtitles.

pandaman 6y ago

Allegories were pretty safe in the USSR. The problem with censoring an allegory is that to recognize it as an anti-soviet one is also to confirm the existance of the subject it's exposing. When the official stance is "there is no such thing" you'd be risking an "anti-soviet propaganda" charge yourself. Edit: The most clear example I can recall is the "Alexander Nevskiy" film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/). It's a historical drama about the early Russia's struggle against foreign invasions. The titular character makes a Bible reference at one point ("Who will come at us with the sword will die by the sword" referencing Mat 26:52) but since it's not a direct quote, somebody censoring this would have to admit reading the Bible and would be in danger oneself. So the quote remained in the film and most people recognize the reference.

nicbou 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule

throw11711 6y ago

You can watch 'Welcome, or No Trespassing' (1964) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r9XNmqQHk Kin-dza-dza! (1986): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYHv8eJrW2Y 'Sauna Blues' aka 'The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (1975)': Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVpmZnRIMKs Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmGPeowN-0 Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a50qT9bW2Qo Bootleggers (1961): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_-ehagcrBg The Most Charming and Attractive (1985): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7PbeasXUbM All have english subtitles.