jessicacoco2005 Propaganda involves deception & exaggeration. This is not the case. The film is based on a book written in 1938; hardly Pro-Soviet propaganda when the US was militantly anti-communist at the time. This film version was only made because the US needed to make an alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis. Big Corporations and Banks fearing the possibility of a workers' revolution in the US after WW1 and especially during the Great Depression, spewed non-stop anti-Communist propaganda denouncing ever aspect of the Soviet Union and Soviet Life. Of which most were just invented lies. This book and film therefore were very controversial when released. The controversy hovers over Davies' positive comments of Soviet Life & the famous Moscow trials conducted by the Soviet government.The Show Trials nicknamed "Purges" by the big Media Moguls like William Randolph Hearst depicted the Defendants as as innocent victims of Stalin's desire to consolidate power. In Davies' book and in this film version, the Defendants, including Leon Trotsky, are instead all depicted as 5th columnists; agents of Nazi Germany & Japan who tried to undermine the Soviet Union from the inside. Davies proclamation at the end of the trial scene that "Based on 20 years' trial practice, I'd be inclined to believe these confessions" created a situation where millions of moviegoers were viewing the "purged" Defendants as Nazi agents in a plot against the Soviet Union rather than as Hearst portrayed the Defendants as victims of the so-called Stalin "purges".This film stands as a fascinating historical document; refreshingly based on facts rather than anti-communist lies. Recent scholars such as Grover Furr (See Furr-Trotsky's Amalgams or the Murder of Kirov)have finally blown the lid on these high-ranking officials and their Nazi ties. This film is a true homage to the 26 million Soviet people who lost their lives fighting the Nazis to defend the world against Fascism.

marcslope Valentine to the Soviet Union, made at the only possible moment it could have been made, at the behest of FDR and with the full resources of Warners. And it looks mighty strange today, seeking to convince wartime audiences that despite capitalism-vs.-communism arguments, the Soviets are an honorable and charming people, Stalin's a good guy with more in common with the U.S. than you'd expect, and the Russians saw what a threat Hitler was long before anybody else did. It's told through U.S. Ambassador Joseph Davies' eyes; Davies himself introduces the picture, then is replaced by an earnest Walter Huston, who manages to retain his dignity and even some gravitas, even through myriad scenes of him meeting politicos, shaking hands, and making pronouncements. But mostly it's about how the Soviets' military power is stronger than suspected, and there are lots of (well-faked) parades, parades, parades. It's sad to see the great Ann Harding in such an uninteresting, wifey role as Davies' Mrs., and Eleanor Parker has almost nothing to do as their daughter but admire the traditional Russian skating and dancing. The music is Max Steiner at his most obvious, and director Michael Curtiz is in no hurry to get to the end. Interesting now as what well-deployed propaganda looked like in 1943, and the New York Times, among others, quite liked it. But it's a slog, and it looks pretty naive now.

dougdoepke Seventy-years later, this Warner Bros. production stands mainly as an historical curiosity. The movie remains interesting for its unbridled admiration for Russia (the term 'Soviet Union' is not used). After decades of anti-Soviet portrayals, this footage really comes as a surprise. Still, the narrative furnishes historical insight into the need to support a dubious ally, particularly while the war's outcome was still in doubt (1943). No doubt, the film's early part amounts to a whitewash of Stalin's show trials, where many old Bolsheviks were eliminated as possible rivals. This, I think, remains one of the film's most hollow parts.As a movie, the two-hours are well-produced, and well-acted by Huston without hint of swagger or ego. His Ambassador Davies may be wrong in many respects but he's not dislikable in the firmness of his opinions. Importantly, about the only dramatic interest is whether a Euro-American coalition can come together to forestall Hitler's grand plans. Of course, the various political maneuverings are much too complex for real movie analysis. Then too, as political background, the Soviets could never be sure whether the capitalist West preferred a fascist Germany to a socialist USSR (consider, for example, the Spanish civil war {1936-39}). On the other hand, there is colorful footage of martial parades in Red Square and docu-footage of happy laborers in factories and fields. However, much of this can now be gotten on The History Channel. Sure, the film works as wartime propaganda, perhaps the only pro-Soviet panegyric ever to come out of Hollywood. Still, it's ironic that only a few years later, Hollywood would turn on a dime and demonize everything Soviet. But then we were assured that The Red Danube (1949) or The Iron Curtain (1949) should not be considered propaganda. After all, we were engaged in another kind of conflict, namely, the Cold War. Funny how these things work, isn't it.

middsgo-956-41818 I just don't see the value of the rantings about the misrepresentations of fact that may or may not occur in this movie. It is unquestionably a piece of propaganda of questionable quality and believability. There are parts that are comical if you have any sense of history. It is said that Soviet audiences themselves found it laughable, although one reviewer here of apparent Slavic origin seemed to like it. But whether you detest the use of propaganda or see it as a fact of life doesn't seem really relevant in rating the film. Not much to go on about, there either.I don't see artistic value in it worthy of discussion.I'm just curious as to why propaganda was thought necessary in 1942-43 (presumably it took some time to make the film - when was it conceived/begun?) by which time the U.S. was fully engaged in the war effort. Or has our overload of films from both the time of the film and since, which focus purely on WWII heroics, been a bit inaccurate? In the movie "The Best Years of Our Lives" there is one scene where a citizen criticizes the U.S. involvement in the war in the face of some returned veterans. Dana Andrews loses his cool and assaults the man for showing disrespect. Has our view of history glossed over the number of people who were not so supportive of the war effort, either as pacifists or isolationists? I don't know the answer, but if it was actually significant, that might explain the perceived need for this film. Or, were there really significant anti-Soviet rumblings in the U.S. populace at the time? Or was the influence of certain right wing politicians on public opinion feared? It is known that U.S. veterans who fought beside Russians spoke of the latter's bravery, loyalty, and moral quality, but this would have been mostly after-the-fact, so not pertinent to the possible notion that this propaganda was necessary to back the war effort at the time it was produced and released. If the film, as propaganda, bombed at the box office, why was that? There could be a number of reasons. For me, this is the one interesting thing that came out of watching the film.