ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

ShangLuda Admirable film.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

gvb0907 To paraphrase Orwell, Oceania was allied with Eurasia, Oceania always had been allied with Eurasia.So it was in 1942, when the United States found itself allied to the Soviet Union, which as recently as the previous year had been a virtual ally of Nazi Germany.Time to present a positive image of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics. "People of Russia" demonstrates that Hollywood was more than up to the task.Most of the film's footage is borrowed from a 1932 James Fitzpatrick Travel Talk. The conclusion is from a 1940 parade, probably May Day."A fully liberated people" Fitzpatrick informs us, march by the tomb of Vladimir Lenin "Who passed his miraculous power to another giant among men who shares, with the people of Russia, the respect and admiration of the civilized world - Joseph Stalin!" Such a narration might well have been written in Moscow. Actually it was penned at MGM, the most conservative of the major studios.All the film factories fell in line and churned out similar propaganda until 1945. Then, as it always does, the world turned and soon . . .Oceania was at war with Eurasia. Oceania always had been at war with Eurasia.

boblipton This Jame A. Fitzpatrick Traveltalk from 1942 looks like a standard example of the series, except for two things: first, it has no Technicolor photography. Instead, it is composed of black and white newsreel clips from ten years earlier. Second, Fitzpatrick's usual peppy drivel is not about the charming oddities that might make a tourist want to visit. Instead, it is about the glories of the Soviet government, the shameful drosky drivers who are remnants of feudalism, the children placed in "youth colonies" to be rescued from the "ignorance of their mothers" and the end, which extols the glories of Joseph Stalin.Fitzgerald never had a bad word to say on screen about any place; he also ran a travel agency. Nonetheless, this one looks absolutely bizarre and can only be explained in the context of World War Two propaganda. It shows clearly that Mr. Fitzpatrick was not about pretty pictures of exotic locales. He was about sticking to the script, no matter what the words were.

tjm199 Quite interesting piece from 1942. That's the important thing, the year this was done. It shows how the Soviet Union has tried to change from a rural, farming country to an industrial power. The main reason for this to be made was the war, of course. Hollywood was trying to drum up support for the war and that means make our allies look as good as possible. It's interesting that in this film, Hollywood makes the Soviet Union and Stalin as a force for good. Within ten years, Hollywood would do a complete about face and start making the communists as bad, evil and the work of Satan. But take it for what it is and enjoy. There is some interesting shots of children in a school, women working on the street, a parade float honoring ball bearings (I kid you not) as well as a short tribute to Stalin himself! It's good for a laugh if nothing else.

Michael_Elliott People of Russia (1943) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Cheaply made but entertaining short from director James A. FitzPatrick takes a look at the people of Russia as we learn why they're so strong and kept the USSR from falling apart over the years. Throughout the 10-minute running time we're told various stories about the Russian people including how all the children are taken into special schools to make sure everyone, no matter their sex, is able to read. They also talk about how equality is a major issue there and how work is glorified by all. If you see the title of this and notice FitzPatrick then you'd obviously think that this was another TravelTalks entry but it's not. This is a separate project and since WWII was going on that probably explains why all the footage from this was shot in the early 30s. This adds a rather cheap feel to the picture but I think the stories told are entertaining enough to keep one interesting in the movie. It's should also be noted that the film is in B&W and it appears that some of the footage was taken from a silent movie or two.