4 ms·

Title does not match the article. The article is about the 1940 film, not the book. Neither the book nor the film was banned.

crunchyfrog 4y ago
> the Soviets that viewed “The Road to Wrath”, as it was titled in the U.S.S.R, were in complete awe that even the poorest of the poor in the United States were able to save their money and afford an automobile. As the wrong message continued to spread, Stalin decided to pull the film from theaters after a few short weeks Pulling a movie from theaters at that time was pretty equivalent to banning it. I don't see what doesn't match.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > I don't see what doesn't match. The title. edit: the title of the article here doesn't match the title of the article there. edit: getting downvoted into oblivion for confirming that the title here doesn't match the article.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jacurtis 4y ago
Pulling the movie from theaters and removing distribution of the movie behind the iron curtain is essentially banning it. This was 1940... there wasn't really any way for them to see the movie if they decided to not distribute it in the USSR. You couldn't VPN into American Netflix or torrent the movie to get it. It was an unofficial ban. The book hadn't been translated to Russian at the time. The story (both movie and book) shows the darker side of capitalism and Stalin hoped it would make great propaganda to reinforce why capitalism doesn't work to make soviets grateful for communism. But instead, the people that saw the movie were just shocked that even the worst Americans were better off than the the average soviet citizen, which backfired on Stalin's intended goal. More importantly, the ending of The Grapes of Wrath shows hope in even the darkest moments and a way that an American had the freedom to turn their luck around and give their family a fresh opportunity at life, even when they had seemingly lost everything. This showed power that the poorest Americans had, and soviets couldn't ever hope of having. That freedom was surely impactful.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  This response has a lot of detail about Stalin's thoughts and feelings. I could find no attributed reference to the film version of The Grapes of Wrath being banned in the USSR. Do you have one? The article says the reference is somewhere in here, but it does not seem to be: http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2 http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2
  - nl 4y ago
    "In 1948 The Grapes of Wrath was allowed to play in Soviet cinemas because of its propaganda value, which was presumably to heighten awareness of the desperate misery of the Okies under the most advanced system of capitalism on the planet. After several weeks, however, the film—given the unbiblical title of The Road to Wrath—had to be withdrawn. Soviet audiences were apparently extracting the wrong lesson, since they could see for themselves that even the most dispossessed of America’s rural proletariat were shown driving automobiles." from https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/802?lang=en https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/802?lang=en which you linked. That quote seems pretty clear. I think maybe the target ("#ftn2" in http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2 http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2) is confusing.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Sort of clear, except that it doesn't mention Stalin or any source for the reason the film was "withdrawn," or for the fact that it was withdrawn, or for whether that withdrawal was a government ban. Without any of that, the story is "The Grapes of Wrath ran for weeks in Soviet cinemas."
      - nl 4y ago
        Running for weeks is a very short run! Something happened! And Steinbeck was famous in Russia for releasing his fairly positive "A Russian Journal" around the same time. It's impossible to know who exactly ordered it, but it is likely Stalin was aware of it being shown.
  - 4y ago
dynamic_sausage 4y ago
Indeed, this is one misleading title. The Soviets were really fond of Steinbeck and especially the Grapes of Wrath (the book) up until the moment he wrote positively of the American troops in Vietnam in the 60s. After that, all his books were pulled from libraries and weren't reissued/published until Perestroika, when 6-volume collected works were released in 1989.
- Mikhail_Edoshin 4y ago
  I do indeed have those six volumes of 1989. 1,700,000 copies; that is some number. But I doubt Steinbeck was pulled from libraries or wasn't published since 60s. Here's what I can see in 1970-1989 when I browse an online library catalog here: 1977: volume #183 in the famous "All-world literature" series 1981: two-volume selected works, Moscow 1985: selected works, Minsk 1986: selected works, Kishinev 1987: selected works, Moscow I also see publications in multi-author volumes, a book of Steinbeck letters (1985), Steinbeck in Azerbaijan language (1983), a book about Steinbeck (1984). Maybe there was a cooler period toward him, but a ban is unlikely.

crunchyfrog 4y ago

> the Soviets that viewed “The Road to Wrath”, as it was titled in the U.S.S.R, were in complete awe that even the poorest of the poor in the United States were able to save their money and afford an automobile. As the wrong message continued to spread, Stalin decided to pull the film from theaters after a few short weeks Pulling a movie from theaters at that time was pretty equivalent to banning it. I don't see what doesn't match.

pessimizer 4y ago
> I don't see what doesn't match. The title. edit: the title of the article here doesn't match the title of the article there. edit: getting downvoted into oblivion for confirming that the title here doesn't match the article.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jacurtis 4y ago

Pulling the movie from theaters and removing distribution of the movie behind the iron curtain is essentially banning it. This was 1940... there wasn't really any way for them to see the movie if they decided to not distribute it in the USSR. You couldn't VPN into American Netflix or torrent the movie to get it. It was an unofficial ban. The book hadn't been translated to Russian at the time. The story (both movie and book) shows the darker side of capitalism and Stalin hoped it would make great propaganda to reinforce why capitalism doesn't work to make soviets grateful for communism. But instead, the people that saw the movie were just shocked that even the worst Americans were better off than the the average soviet citizen, which backfired on Stalin's intended goal. More importantly, the ending of The Grapes of Wrath shows hope in even the darkest moments and a way that an American had the freedom to turn their luck around and give their family a fresh opportunity at life, even when they had seemingly lost everything. This showed power that the poorest Americans had, and soviets couldn't ever hope of having. That freedom was surely impactful.

pessimizer 4y ago
This response has a lot of detail about Stalin's thoughts and feelings. I could find no attributed reference to the film version of The Grapes of Wrath being banned in the USSR. Do you have one? The article says the reference is somewhere in here, but it does not seem to be: http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2 http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2
- nl 4y ago
  "In 1948 The Grapes of Wrath was allowed to play in Soviet cinemas because of its propaganda value, which was presumably to heighten awareness of the desperate misery of the Okies under the most advanced system of capitalism on the planet. After several weeks, however, the film—given the unbiblical title of The Road to Wrath—had to be withdrawn. Soviet audiences were apparently extracting the wrong lesson, since they could see for themselves that even the most dispossessed of America’s rural proletariat were shown driving automobiles." from https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/802?lang=en https://journals.openedition.org/lisa/802?lang=en which you linked. That quote seems pretty clear. I think maybe the target ("#ftn2" in http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2 http://lisa.revues.org/802?lang=en#ftn2) is confusing.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Sort of clear, except that it doesn't mention Stalin or any source for the reason the film was "withdrawn," or for the fact that it was withdrawn, or for whether that withdrawal was a government ban. Without any of that, the story is "The Grapes of Wrath ran for weeks in Soviet cinemas."
    - nl 4y ago
      Running for weeks is a very short run! Something happened! And Steinbeck was famous in Russia for releasing his fairly positive "A Russian Journal" around the same time. It's impossible to know who exactly ordered it, but it is likely Stalin was aware of it being shown.
- 4y ago

dynamic_sausage 4y ago

Indeed, this is one misleading title. The Soviets were really fond of Steinbeck and especially the Grapes of Wrath (the book) up until the moment he wrote positively of the American troops in Vietnam in the 60s. After that, all his books were pulled from libraries and weren't reissued/published until Perestroika, when 6-volume collected works were released in 1989.

Mikhail_Edoshin 4y ago
I do indeed have those six volumes of 1989. 1,700,000 copies; that is some number. But I doubt Steinbeck was pulled from libraries or wasn't published since 60s. Here's what I can see in 1970-1989 when I browse an online library catalog here: 1977: volume #183 in the famous "All-world literature" series 1981: two-volume selected works, Moscow 1985: selected works, Minsk 1986: selected works, Kishinev 1987: selected works, Moscow I also see publications in multi-author volumes, a book of Steinbeck letters (1985), Steinbeck in Azerbaijan language (1983), a book about Steinbeck (1984). Maybe there was a cooler period toward him, but a ban is unlikely.