zachary-03373
The value of producing a spectacle in cinema knows no geographical borders or ideological fault lines among audiences. This is the appeal of Circus, a film that confidently rivals the production value and visual audaciousness of Hollywood films while also challenging the 'American Dream' of capitalist society with its own mythos. The ambitious nature of the film is evident in every frame. Though it might not have been the proper way to view it, I watched the color version of the film and really can't imagine it any other way. The camera work, the choreography, and stunts exude a sort of brilliance that really calls for the admiration of the viewer in a way that goes beyond the typical fourth wall breaking of musicals. The flamboyance borders on modernist filmmaking, but is still somehow different. The conceptual cuts and transitions between scenes along with the conspicuous employment of the camera (in addition to the aforementioned qualities) seem to be a proud projection of socialist realism rather than an auteur calling attention to his own individual style. An example of this is a scene that opens overhanging a balcony with a great view of Moscow while the performers Marion Dixon and Ivan Martinov sing a patriotic number. The camera dollies into the apartment past a vase of flowers before settling on the performers at the piano. These are essentially three carefully framed shots neatly wrapped into one. To refrain from loquaciousness, the technical savvy here (as well as later in the scene when the camera rotates 180 degrees on Dixon's and Martinov's reflection in the piano) is a celebration of the Soviet craftsman (technician) rather than an introspection of an artist. Soviet life is conveyed in the monumental vision socialist realism required. There are no problems with Soviet life; the conflict of the story is imported. Marion Dixon is trapped under the thumb of a German circus director and carries the guilt imposed by American society. The satire plays on the inversion of the 'American Dream'. Only in the enlightenment of Soviet society can Dixon break away from purely being a performer to actually become who she really is. This does raise a bit of an odd question though. The film builds to Kneishutz revealing to the circus audience Dixon's interracial child born out of wedlock. As an American who knows the context of the time period in America, I understood why Dixon wanted to keep it a secret and as the viewer braced for the social repercussions. As a result, the circus audience's response is a pleasant twist. However, to a Soviet audience wouldn't the payoff be nonexistent if their society was truly progressive about race relations? Or was the film meant to be instructive?
Andrei Pavlov
"Tsirk", to my mind, is as enjoyable as Mr Charles Chaplin's "The Circus". Unluckily our film did not miss the chance to show off some pressure of Stalin propaganda. The final demonstration and the portrait of you-know-who must have been omitted for the sake of importance and art.The scene with the trio awaiting Rayechka and entertaining the audience at the circus with their repetitive fooling around on the bicycles is one of the funniest sequences ever.The scene with Marion Dixon dancing and singing in Russian with a very peculiar accent is one of the most amazing and exhilarating black-and-white scenes I've ever seen.The scene with the two rivals (Ivan Petrovich Martynov vs. Von Kneishitz) staring each other down and out through a frosting pane is superb and feels very weird and even fearsome.The scene with a close-up of Mary before her dangerous performance is one of the most powerful.The scene with the people chanting a kind of lullaby in different languages to a black child while handing him over to one another is simply outstanding and very tender.The names. I really enjoy the use of names and numerous puns in our old films. Here the name of the main villain is "Kneischitz" (do you get the sound of it?) and one of the silly characters is called "Taburetkin" in one conversation instead of his personal "Skamejkin". As to the way Mary uses "Petrovich"... Nice verbal tricks.The funniest lines: "She was a Negro's lover! And she has a black child!!!" (Von Kneishitz) "So what? Ha-ha-ha!" (Russian audience)I could go on...Verdict: Mrs Lyubov Orlova is one of the finest actresses of the black-and-white era. Her talents are amazing (in singing, acting, dancing, intonations, stunts, good looks, powerful presence, etc.).8 out of 10 (without uneasy exaggeration at certain points and Stalinism it would zoom higher). Thank you for attention.
pauldawg42
This is definitely a propaganda film in Russia. I would say the main theme is unity. Mary is an American who is performing in a Russian circus. Throughout the film Mary starts to become more and more Russian as the time goes on. In the end Von Kneishitz (the German) is chasing after Mary's baby (who is half-black) and show the Russians that the star, Mary, whom they've all been cheering for is less than human so to speak. The Russians don't care, in fact they say, "Who cares?" Their culture is all one and there isn't any differences between the people. This film came out before WWII and definitely sets up the Germans as the bad guys. Overall this movie was entertaining. It's interesting to see a propaganda film but the storyline was quite weak.
kittinjc
Circus, or Цирк (Tsirk) in Russian, is one of Grigori Aleksandrov's musical comedies of the Stalinist era of the Soviet Union. As a work of state approved propaganda, the film seeks to glorify the socialist utopia of the USSR, where people of all races and classes are equal. While the film is set primarily at a circus in 1930s Moscow, however it opens in the United States, remaining there just long enough to demonstrate what the film will later show to be the extreme racial intolerance of the country.In the movie, American actress Marion Dixon (played by Lyubov Orlova) flees from an unknown scandal, shown in the film's typical over-the-top manner with an angry mob chasing her out of town. Eventually, Marion ends up performing at a circus in Moscow, staying there for a limited-time run with her stereotypically German manager. There, she falls in love with the dashing Ivan Petrovich Martynov, Red Army soldier, fellow performer, all-around perfect Soviet man. However, her controlling manager, language and ideological problems, and the aforementioned secret hang above her head, preventing that love from flourishing. After much goofiness, her secret is revealed to all: she fathered a child with an African-American man, a black baby. Much to the chagrin of her manager and even Marion herself, the noble Soviet people, as represented by the circus audience, love all children equally, and sing the child a lullaby in the many languages of the peoples of the Soviet Union. Finally learning what it means to be a citizen of the USSR, Marion and Martynov march together in the May Day parade through Red Square.All of this serves to emphasize the primary theme of the movie, the Soviet Union under Stalin is a utopian society where all are equal and accepted, regardless of race or nationality. This theme can be seen most in the characters. Marion, the American actress, comes to Moscow belittled and made to feel inferior by her own country and her German manager because of her child. She knows little of socialism or even the Russian language. As the film progresses however, she begins to learn both of the language, and the society it symbolizes. She strives for the love, and the perfection, of Martynov, and in so striving becomes an equal part of the collective, as shown by the parade ending the movie. The German manager however is devious, racist, threatening, and literally self-inflating, the foil to the perfection of the Soviet Union. This pro-Soviet anti-German characterization is powerful for the time, with the USSR preparing for the soon-to-come German invasion. Finally, the audience of the circus serves as the final major character, rejecting the racism of the German and showing the citizens of the Soviet Union to be both diverse and tolerant, unlike the citizens of Germany and even the United States.Overall, I found the film to be amusing, with above-average music and impressive set-pieces. However, despite its overtly positive demeanor and often effective comedic gags and music, there is something chilling lurking beneath the surface of Circus. In a film trumpeting the inclusiveness of the Stalin-era inclusiveness, the deletion of the final song sung in Yiddish and the execution of the man, Solomon Mikhoels, who sang it serves as a grim reminder of the almost insane hypocrisy of the film, and indeed the era of Soviet history as whole. The institutionalized racism and Anti-Semitism of the Soviet Union stands in direct contrast to the themes of the movie. Although it has little to do with the quality of production of the movie itself, I feel the weight of that fact hang like a chain from what would otherwise be a somewhat silly, buoyant piece of harmless comedic propaganda. However, the chain is well-deserved, and I could only recommend this film in good conscience with background information about the reality of race relations in the age of Stalin.
