Thread: Films & TV: Russian & Non - Q&As/Reviews/Links all in here!

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.

For anyone interested in (film) history and/or musicals, I highly recommend a curious little movie called Die Frau meiner Träume (Girl of my Dreams; Девушка моей мечты). I was just rewatching it yet again and it's a really interesting film. It's made by UFA (Germany's main film studio) in 1944 starring Marika Rökk, a popular film star of the Nazy Germany. This movie was part of the war spoils taken by the Soviet troops (they took many films) and was screened throughout the Soviet Union as a "trophy film". It became incredibly popular.

Nazi propaganda relied on completely different methods and assumptions than Soviet propaganda -- it was more psychological and relied on glamour, escapism, and eroticism. The life of this Aryan fantasy in the Soviet Union has always fascinated me. It's also a great musical for a fan of musicals.

Available in Russian dubbing on selected websites But avoid the ones where they dubbed over the songs with some woman translating the lyrics in a very bored voice. OMG. :fool"

Originally Posted by quartz

For anyone interested in (film) history and/or musicals, I highly recommend a curious little movie called Die Frau meiner Träume (Girl of my Dreams; Девушка моей мечты).

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVQ4q9Nhmo
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngSLyltQgU
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ni2fbuKUAw
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHVLIjz8E3o
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTPte6Oa-Ic
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcsgR3fIBDM
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUnuZM24v4Q

Originally Posted by Lampada

Originally Posted by quartz

For anyone interested in (film) history and/or musicals, I highly recommend a curious little movie called Die Frau meiner Träume (Girl of my Dreams; Девушка моей мечты).

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVQ4q9Nhmo
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sngSLyltQgU
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ni2fbuKUAw
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHVLIjz8E3o
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTPte6Oa-Ic
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcsgR3fIBDM
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUnuZM24v4Q

Yes that's the one to avoid. Someone speaking over Marika Rökk's singing! Travesty!

In der Nacht ist der Mensch nicht gern' alleine,
Denn die Liebe im hellen Mondenscheine,
Ist das schönste, sie wissen was ich meine,
Einesteils und andrerseits und außerdem.
Denn der Mensch braucht ein kleines bißchen Liebe,
Grade sie ist im großen Weltgetriebe
Für das Herz wohl das schönste aller Triebe,
Einesteils und andrerseits und außerdem.

Как там говорил Копелян? "Штирлиц смотрел её уже в шестой раз, он ненавидел эту картину" ?

Originally Posted by Basil77

Как там говорил Копелян? "Штирлиц смотрел её уже в шестой раз, он ненавидел эту картину" ?

What does Stirlitz know about good movies anyway!?

Originally Posted by quartz

What does Stirlitz know about good movies anyway!?

Soviet intelligence agent knows everything!

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Originally Posted by quartz

What does Stirlitz know about good movies anyway!?

Soviet intelligence agent knows everything!

o yeah? they had special training in musical appreciation at the KGB school?

Originally Posted by quartz

Originally Posted by Vadim Mo

Soviet intelligence agent knows everything!

o yeah? they had special training in musical appreciation at the KGB school?

I am sorry but it is our Military Secret!

By the way, I've made a little search in the net about this movie ("Die Frau meiner Träume" with Marika Rökk) and have found an interesting fact about this film and it's appearance in the "17 moments of spring". First, Shtirlitz couldn't watch this film at a Third Reich cinema because it's was made in the late 1944 and just wasn't snown in nazi Geramny before it's defeat. It was shown at Soviet cinema theaters as a trophy movie in 1945. And secondly, when the "17 momets of spring" was colorized lately, in the episode when Shtirlitz watch the "Die Frau meiner Träume" the picture on screen remains black and white although the original movie ("Frau" of course) was made in color(!).

Originally Posted by Basil77

By the way, I've made a little search on the net about this movie ("Die Frau meiner Träume" with Marika Rökk) and have found an interesting fact about this film and its appearance in the "17 Moments of Spring". First, Shtirlitz couldn't watch this film at a Third Reich cinema because it_ was made in the late 1944 and just wasn't snown in Nazi Geramny before its defeat. It was shown in Soviet cinemas [s:36bdail2]theaters[/s:36bdail2] as a trophy movie in 1945. And secondly, when the "17 Momets of Spring" was colorized [s:36bdail2]lately[/s:36bdail2] recently, in the episode where Shtirlitz watches [s:36bdail2]the[/s:36bdail2] "Die Frau meiner Träume", the picture on the screen remains black and white although the original movie ("Frau" of course) was made in color(!).

There are many historical inaccuracies in the series, so the 1st doesn't surprise me.
But the second is pretty bad. I also looked up the colorized version, after someone told me that this series was colorized (HOW HORRIBLE!). I thought it looked very very bad. I didn't watch that particular scene that you describe, Basil, but I read about it. Sounds funny.

BTW in what episode is Stirlitz at the cinema? I'd like to see this colorized scene and I don't remember the details of the plot very well.

Haha... Well, when I watched "Stirlitz" I saw a "Konsum" shop (East German [DDR] food shop). There was something else as well which was very typical East Germany which I have forgotten now. But Konsum is easy to remember for me; we have shops called that in Sweden too, and I know that they started AFTER the war, so they could not by any logic appear during the period when Stirlitz is in Germany...

(But I am totally hopeless - I always ruin the viewing experience for myself by getting distracted by things like that in films! People always get fed up with me because I mention it when I watching films with others)

And on a footnoote, I absolutely can't get the subtitles to work with the colour version of Stirlitz... Don't know if they've cut or added scenes or something, but it just doesn't work... It only works with the b/w version... Did anyone have the same problem? I really need the subs, the conversation in that series is too complicated for me to understand without subs right now.

And I have never heard of Marika Rökk!

Originally Posted by quartz

after someone told me that this series was colorized (HOW HORRIBLE!)

Полностью согласен! Кстати, quartz, ты видела эту пародию на раскрашенного Штирлица? Я хохотал до слёз!!!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfUo2DKoLWA

"Они превратили Третий Рейх в Союзмультфильм!"

Originally Posted by Hanna

Haha... Well, when I watched "Stirlitz"...

Originally I remember myself noticing this mistake when I watched the series for the first time (I was about 12 back then):

When Kate is boarding the train in Switzerland(!) there is a typical lettering on the coach in Russian "мест [number]", it is written on every coach of Russian passenger trains even now and means how many places for passengers there.

Originally Posted by Basil77

Originally Posted by quartz

after someone told me that this series was colorized (HOW HORRIBLE!)

Полностью согласен! Кстати, quartz, ты видела эту пародию на раскрашенного Штирлица? Я хохотал до слёз!!!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfUo2DKoLWA

"Они превратили Третий Рейх в Союзмультфильм!"

До этого не смотрела. Очень смешно. Спасибо за ссылку

"Но в следующий раз, прежде чем что-то красить, потренеруйтесь, для начала, на кошках"

Вспомнилась сцена в фильме "Стиляги", в которой Фрэд красит собаку в ванне, а отец говорит ему, перестань издеваться над животным. И над культовыми сериалами издеваться не надо.