Tom Barrister I'll be the first to admit that this film was a bald effort at propaganda. I'll also admit that the conditions depicted in Russia were far from reality. However, this isn't the first effort at propaganda by Hollywood, nor is it the first (or the thousandth) that takes a wide berth from reality. If you look at the movie's setting (happy Russians with a benevolent leader) as fantasy, and imagine the Russia shown in the movie as a mythical nation, then you have a dandy story here. Propaganda aside, the storyline here is excellent; it's engrossing, well-written and intelligent. The acting is superb, from top stars Taylor and Peters down to the bit players and extras. The dance scenes are well choreographed. The music, mostly that of Tchaikovsky, is superb, and the soundtrack is masterfully woven into the background throughout the story. The music is well-played and well conducted by Albert Coates (who also did the piano work). As for the piano, Susan Peters does a good job of finger placement that could fool all but the trained eye into thinking that she could actually play the piano (she couldn't at the level shown in the movie). The one fault herein is Taylor's attempts to imitate a conductor: suffice it to say that it's out of sync and overstated to the point of absurdity.As a side note, many of the members of the Peter Meremblum orchestra (prodigal young musicians, many of whom went on to careers in music, and a few of whom became very well-known in the world of music) appear throughout the movie, mainly as extras and as kids in the village and youths in the Moscow Conservatory. The orchestra also performed some of the background music.All in all, this is an excellent movie if one can overlook the propaganda and anti-realism and treat it as a fantasy/fiction.

Bubba N/A Look: This film IS propaganda, but it certainly isn't Soviet propaganda. I think it is clear from watching the film disinterestedly and/or reading ALL of the transcripts of Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony that it was American wartime propaganda aiming at 1) strengthening political ties with its then-ally Soviets, and 2) convincing the American's that they should support the joint effort with the Russians against Germany. The US was too afraid to admit to the American people that they, like, Churchill said, had to work with the devil to defeat Hitler; they used propaganda film instead (ad not just here, but overtly as part of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series). Further, I think it is probable, as a previous poster mentioned, that they are only guilty of writing a very ill-conceived "love knows no bounds" kind of war time love story; this is just a year or so after Casablanca, after all! The movie certainly was picked up, partly on the basis of the love-knows-no-bounds angle, but more overtly b/c, as the awful Robert Taylor pointed out in his own HUAC testimony, the request came from the US State department.

Charles Reichenthal Revisionist history can prove unfortunate. There is very little that moves along with apparent 'truth' in this film, BUT it was made at a critical time in our history -- a time when it was necessary to create unity between those fighting the horrors of Nazism. No, the film is not a very good one, but it is a formidable piece of history and should be watched with the adult comprehension of the time. And there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for the wreckage wrought by McCarthy-Cohn and their henchpeople during the Red Scare era that destroyed lives!! No excuse at all. As for SONG OF RUSSIA, it should also survive as a reminder of the screen aura of Susan Peters. (As for her true abilities, watch this one and then SIGN OF THE RAM!!) Along with the obvious propoganda about the 'perfect' society of the USSR, the worst part of this film, of course, is the usually awful performance of Robert Taylor, whose post-War attitudes were those of a true coward, as well as a lousy actor.

Sylvia Stoddard Thanks to TCM for airing this astounding propaganda film in October 2003. Others have commented on the nearly unbearable Soviet propaganda in the film, but I watched the Stalin-supplied footage with awe as I had never seen most of it before, at least in this quality and quantity. The story is stock melodrama with the morals that we (America) must support our Russian allies at all costs and that the scorched earth policy is major war strategy.But through it all is the luminous face of Susan Peters, who was tragically paralyzed two years after this film's release and died in 1952. She is charming, delightful and disarming enough to inspire a whole village as well as the American conductor (Robert Taylor) who falls in love with her. They marry in an unlikely semi-religious ceremony.The notions that 1.)An American would be invited on a 40-city tour of Russia in early 1941, and 2.)That he would be able to take his Russian bride out of the Soviet Union (after the German invasion!) "for the greater good of Mother Russia," are pure fantasy. The huge symphony orchestras and the vast, aristocratic, jewel-bedecked audiences we see at theatre after theatre are laughably anti-communist, and the men would most likely have been conscripted by that time.Yet, as films reflect the history of our lives, I found this a fascinating chapter of the very brief period of US/USSR alliance. I'd love to see it again.