Thread: NonRussian films (work in progress)

An obscure review: I saw a Swedish TV film by SVT (state TV) called "Ryska dörren" (The Russian door). This film had some funny moments, but on the whole, I give it only 1 star out of 5.

Allegedly it is based on a true story.
Trailer:http://www.framestation.se/drd.swf



The film is from last year, but it is supposed to take place in 1990 or perhaps 1989. The plot is that a Swedish man from the North is a bus driver on a long distance coach from Kiruna (Sweden) to Murmansk (Russia/USSR). During his stopover in Murmansk he meets a Russian woman (guide/interpreter) whom he falls in love with. However her mother is suspicious towards him, because he is a foreigner. The guide lives with her son, at her mothers' place.

The bus driver learns that the guides' mother needs to replace the front door to her flat, but is having trouble finding a replacement and getting it installed. He makes a promise to her that he will deliver a first-class door to her, and install it himself (so that she will realise that he is a good person...)

However the delivery of the door gets delayed due to bureacracy in Sweden, Finland and Russia (this bit is quite funny). In order to meet all the necessary bureacratic requirements, he has no choice but to make the door himself, from scratch.

Meanwhile the alcoholic and corrupt manager of the bus company fires the bus driver, and he is no longer able to travel to Murmansk due to travel restrictions of the time - it requires a special permission.

In order to be able to get back there, only one option exists, he needs to get on a workers' cultural exchange. For this, he first needs to get involved in a local socialist organisation. He is not a serious socialist, but fakes it... (this part is also funny, particularly a scene where some USSR citizens visit Sweden on an exchange going the other way.)

The bus drivers' efforts at getting on the cultural exchange pays off. He ends up actually smuggling the door with him into Russia, while on the cultural exchange...

Against all odds, with plenty of drama, he is able to deliver and install the door, and that's the end of the film.

The topic of the film is a bit strange to say the least. Two things seriously irritated me about it:

1) The bus driver could only speak very rudimentary Russian and frequently switches to English when he can't find the words in Russian.

2) How could there have been a coach to Murmansk while the USSR existed..! And who precisely would have used it??

3) The bus driver has a totally lame personality. Why would the smart and pretty Russian guide fall for him?! Makes little sense.

All and all, this film was interesting insight into how people lived in Northern Sweden and in Murmansk in the 1980s.
The extreme boozing culture in all three countries is realistic for sure... All the scenes from Murmansk were filmed there, so far as I could tell.

Originally Posted by Hanna

3) The bus driver has a totally lame personality. Why would the smart and pretty Russian guide fall for him?! Makes little sense.

Russian proverb: "Любовь зла - полюбишь и козла".

I have a question to Hanna here, tell me, please, does he speaks real Swedish or just rubbish?

http://video.mail.ru/mail/aitova077/803/809.html

It's rubbish!!

Well actually, it is some "German" words, basically says "I am sent by the Swedish king...", then mostly nonsense, or maybe my German is not the best... What's the name of this film? I have seen it ages ago (198x) and remember thinking how silly it was that in all of Russia they couldn't find anyone who could say a few simple sentences in Swedish... Replacing our beautiful language for mock German??!! But it happens in American films to...

Plus, can we have that area back please? Didn't *really* mean to declare war on Russia.. it was just a misunderstanding.... Is Kemsk the Russian name for the area that Vyborg is in?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Is Kemsk the Russian name for the area that Vyborg is in?

No, the city of Kem (Kemi in Finnish) is located almost on the shores of the White See, and Vyborg, on the shores of the Gulf of Finland. Vyborg belonged to Sweden once, but I am not sure about Kem (I know that the lands around Kem were raided and ravaged by Swedish troops at one point, but I am not sure if they managed to keep the area for long)

Oh ok.. Gosh you really know your history! Sweden actually built that castle there in Vyborg; it was a big deal in school history, because it's located at a strategically important point -- whoever holds it controls the whole area.

I am a bit hazy on exactly what happened around that time, but to sum it up; Sweden declared war on Russia because it wanted some lands somewhere in Western Russia. And because the king at the time was about 18 years old and really wanted to fight Russia... (there is a very famous poem about that..)

But Russia won the war and took Finland and part of the Baltic states from Sweden. Can't remember the exact details.

EDIT: I just checked this... Apparently Russia took 1/3 of Sweden's entire territory at the time!! This was 1809.

All this is considered a great tragedy in Sweden, although some people also say it's good, because we haven't really been in any major wars since then, which has been good for the country.

I read in Swedish papers that there is a recent Russian film about the major RU-SE battle that took place 100 years before that. (Narva)

We should stick to playing icehockey with Russia, I think..........

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's rubbish!!
[...]
I have seen it ages ago (198x) and remember thinking how silly it was that in all of Russia they couldn't find anyone who could say a few simple sentences in Swedish... Replacing our beautiful language for mock German??!! But it happens in American films to...

It's a (slapstick) comedy, so they probably did not even try to be authentic. I won't be surprised if they have invented this gibberish purely for comic effect. Цигель, цигель, ай-лю-лю. ))

Originally Posted by Hanna

I read in Swedish papers that there is a recent Russian film about the major RU-SE battle that took place 100 years before that. (Narva)

I'm guessing it's The Sovereign's Servant (English title) or Слуга государев. Swedish wikipedia lol

I've been meaning to see this for a while. Is it any good, anyone? I heard it was pretty bad.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I read in Swedish papers that there is a recent Russian film about the major RU-SE battle that took place 100 years before that. (Narva)

I didn't watched the film but reviews says it's rather bad so I haven't a big desire to watch it. If you want a really good stuff about Geart Northern War from the Russian point of view I highly reccomend you to read the epic novel by Alexey Tolstoy "Peter I". It's one of my favorite books and I read it about 10 times. The last part of it describes early years of Northern War, including big chapters about Karl XII, his court and even his everyday life. The novel was translated in English in case you feel it's hard for you yet to go though this really BIG thing in Russian. The book was "filmatised" several times, but I didn't exactly liked the films comparing to the book.

Wow, thanks for the tip!
I am so impressed by the history skills of many people on this forum, including you...

I did not actually know about this book, but now I'm really intrigued. It's got to be exceptional if you have read it that many times...
(edit, the book is available in Swedish actually, but hasn't been reprinted for a while. The title is Tsar Peter. Interesting author -- he writes both scifi and historical novels!)

Also I did not know that this war was called "Great Northern" in Russia.

Frankly, I have always wondered why Karl XII is considered a hero king. He should NOT have attacked Russia... I don't know the details of this precisely. Sweden had a great position in Northern Europe and I don't think Russia was even interested in challenging that. So why did he declare war? I really don't know. But because of his greed and bad judgment everything was lost.

There was practically a personality cult around this king for a while.. Nowadays extreme nationalists, skinheads, nazis etc absolutely revere him still... Don't get why... Just because there are some cheezy poems about someone does not make him great.

Sweden has had some great kings, but in my view he was NOT one of them and I really don't understand the big deal about somebody who lost an empire through bad judgment.

pointing towards his doom...

Originally Posted by Hanna

Frankly, I have always wondered why Karl XII is considered a hero king. He should NOT have attacked Russia... I don't know the details of this precisely. Sweden had a great position in Northern Europe and I don't think Russia was even interested in challenging that. [b]So why did he declare war?

Baltic Sea. That's the reason. Peter was trying very hard to establish a foothold on its banks. If you look at the map of the Scandinavian peninsula you'll see that the only naval trade route was from Archangelsk which meant moving in the extreme north around the peninsula to mainland Europe. Russia had no ports in the Baltic sea and Sweden ruled these waters. Karl XII was trying to ban Peter's access to the Baltic Sea in this war. St. Petersburg is Russia's 'window' to Europe exactly because of that - the shortest naval way to Europe starts there.

Originally Posted by Hanna

What's the name of this film? I have seen it ages ago (198x) and remember thinking how silly it was that in all of Russia they couldn't find anyone who could say a few simple sentences in Swedish... Replacing our beautiful language for mock German??!! ?

It's "Иван Васильевич меняет профессию".

The whole story was a dream of Shurik, an amateur physicists injured during an experiment. The Ambassador couldn't speak Swedish because Shurik could not do it, apparently.

Oh yes, thanks! That film is on the top one hundred in the thread "Greatest hits of Russian cinema". There are so many Russian films I'd like to watch but I decided to start with newer films.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Baltic Sea. That's the reason. Peter was trying very hard to establish a foothold on its banks. If you look at the map of the Scandinavian peninsula you'll see that the only naval trade route was from Archangelsk which meant moving in the extreme north around the peninsula to mainland Europe. Russia had no ports in the Baltic sea and Sweden ruled these waters. Karl XII was trying to ban Peter's access to the Baltic Sea in this war. St. Petersburg is Russia's 'window' to Europe exactly because of that - the shortest naval way to Europe starts there.

Oh yeah, I definitely knew that about Arkangelsk, and I know that Russia has had problems with access to the the Atlantic etc. Did not know that Karl XII tried to prevent access or what he hoped to gain from that.

So was that the first time Russia got ports on the Baltic Sea then?
I think Russia also got some more land on the Baltic after the Winter War with Finland.

From todays' perspective it's seems crazy that Sweden could fight a country like Russia, and during the USSR period it seemed even more absurd.

I think the kings got overly confident because they had a few lucky victories; Russia might have been involved in more than one war at the same time, hence stretched.. plus Sweden happened to have an unusually well organised army the time. But they should have realised that this could never be sustained!

I remember vividly from school history the teacher explaining that it is literally impossible to win any extended war with Russia because of the "scorched earth method" and that Russia has got used to accepting very large numbers of casualties while at war.

It seems like Russia is being attacked, not the attacker in most of the wars that it has been involved in, that I know about. Do you agree or am I mistaken?

Not sure how many real examples there are of this "scorched earth" technique actually being used but I have heard about it many times.

Perhaps I should watch a war film that is NOT about WW2 but some earlier era. Any good ones?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Perhaps I should watch a war film that is NOT about WW2 but some earlier era. Any good ones?

if you mean about "scorched earth method", anything about the War of 1812

"War and Peace" by Sergei Bodnarchuk ?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Not sure how many real examples there are of this "scorched earth" technique actually being used but I have heard about it many times.

Sorry, but all these talks about "scorched earth" technique, "general winter", "endless piles of cannon fodder" are just plain loser's propaganda bullsh!t. How this "theory" fits for example for Battle of Rymnik when count Suvorov attacked almost 70000 (100000 by other sources) fortified(!) Turkish army with only 10000 Russian troops and 15000 allied Austrians and reached flawless victory? There are many other examples.

<Back to the topic>
First part of Poltava battle scene from "Слуга государев":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24gQKRF9aJ0

Originally Posted by Hanna

Oh yeah, I definitely knew that about Arkangelsk, and I know that Russia has had problems with access to the the Atlantic etc. Did not know that Karl XII tried to prevent access or what he hoped to gain from that.

So was that the first time Russia got ports on the Baltic Sea then?

Yes, Russia had no ports there prior to Peter.

I think Russia also got some more land on the Baltic after the Winter War with Finland.

Yes it did but it was a rather small patch of land.

From todays' perspective it's seems crazy that Sweden could fight a country like Russia, and during the USSR period it seemed even more absurd.

Russia was weak at that point and even though it had a lot of land its control over the territory was only nominal in some places. Sweden could cut a lot of northern territories in this war.

I remember vividly from school history the teacher explaining that it is literally impossible to win any extended war with Russia because of the "scorched earth method" and that Russia has got used to accepting very large numbers of casualties while at war.

What it takes to win a war? If you're going to conquer all the land it will prove very difficult with a country as big as Russia, but if your goal is to capture only some key territories and crush the opposing army it can be possible. You are victorious if you have achieved your goals, that's all.

It seems like Russia is being attacked, not the attacker in most of the wars that it has been involved in, that I know about. Do you agree or am I mistaken?

Russia had some wars where it was an attacker (well, theoretically, it conquered Siberia, Caucasus, Crimea, parts of Finland, Poland and a great deal of Middle Asia). There wouldn't have been so much land if there weren't any conquests.

Not sure how many real examples there are of this "scorched earth" technique actually being used but I have heard about it many times.

There are few. The most illustrative one is Napoleon's invasion of 1812. He took Moscow without fight but soon he realized that he had nothing to feed the army with. It was a disaster. He brought a huge army in Russia but not very many of them made it home. Most of them died not in a fight but from hunger, cold, diseases, etc.

Perhaps I should watch a war film that is NOT about WW2 but some earlier era. Any good ones?

There is a great mini-series called 'Россия Молодая' (Young Russia). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081924/
It's very well made and I like it very much. If you're interested in Russian history you must watch it. You 'feel' the epoch and you live with its characters when watching it.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by Hanna

Not sure how many real examples there are of this "scorched earth" technique actually being used but I have heard about it many times.

Sorry, but all this talk_ about "scorched earth" technique, "general winter", "endless piles of cannon fodder" is just plain loser's propaganda bullsh!t. How does this "theory" fit_, for example, for the Battle of Rymnik when count Suvorov attacked almost 70000 (100000 by other sources) fortified(!) Turkish army with only 10000 Russian troops and 15000 allied Austrians and achieved flawless victory? There are many other examples.

Scorched earth technique is not something unique to wars in Russia. It was used as a strategy by many armies in many different wars. It's not really a theory but a military strategy where either the attackers (advancing) or the defenders (retreating) destroy all the resources in their way. It's not unique to Russia and isn't a comment on the Russian military (cap)abilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth

Originally Posted by quartz

if you mean about "scorched earth method", anything about the War of 1812

What I vaguely recall about the War of 1812 is that the Russians did not technically scorched their own territory. It was done by the French as they advanced and required provision. What the Russian Army had done was to force the French Army to retreat back over the same route as they came, so they couldn't find any more provision during the winter. Also, the local partisans definitely made the army supply more challenging as they constantly harassed the supply caravans. As to the severe winter, it was equally severe for both armies, so it can't be held responsible for losing or winning the war.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by quartz

if you mean about "scorched earth method", anything about the War of 1812

What I vaguely recall about the War of 1812 is that the Russians did not technically scorched their own territory. It was done by the French as they advanced and required provision. What the Russian Army had done was to force the French Army to retreat back over the same route as they came, so they couldn't find any more provision during the winter. Also, the local partisans definitely made the army supply more challenging as they constantly harassed the supply caravans. As to the severe winter, it was equally severe for both armies, so it can't be held responsible for losing or winning the war.

All very true, Crocodile.
But scorched earth tactic is used not only by the attacking army but also by the retreating army. Forcing retreat through the same route -- one lacking provisions -- is also part of the same strategy.


Regardless of this (military history is not of particular interest to me sadly) Bondarchuk's movie should be part of required viewing. It's a great film.