《The Soviet Story[苏联往事]》极权暴行

《The Soviet Story[苏联往事]》极权暴行
by @xinl.ve 091124

在没有坐实《The Soviet Story[苏联往事]》里控诉的暴行时，“极权暴行”的文章题目很有点愤青味道。不过为了吸引眼球，吸引针对天朝贵国不满，指桑骂槐的自由“斗士”的注意，毅然决定采用此题目。

假如本片的三段主要事实都确定存在，那不学无术，好嘻戏不读书的我又算是开了眼，《一九八四》里的老大哥，原来还有这么多丑事。卡廷惨案在另外一部电影《Katyn[卡廷惨案]》已经被证实，乌克兰1932~1933年的大饥馑也大概是“莫须有”，1941年之前的苏联向德国遣返犹太人的情况估计也差不多应该是真实的，然后在GULAG[古拉格]里进行的人体试验也应该是确有其事。苏联种种与纳粹无二的行为，用发指来形容是不够的，《The Soviet Story》给“无知”的人上了一趟历史课。

成王败寇的理论再次上演，假如德国取胜，清算苏联的时候，集中营，种族灭绝和战争罪等罪名，苏联肯定也是逃不掉的。谁人成为了胜利者，那便可以开始编撰史书，掌控历史真相了。神州的古代帝王，焚书焚的是其它六国于秦不利的史实，汉武帝罢黜百家独尊儒术也是为了安心驾驭百姓，多读书多追寻真实的历史还是不错的。譬如《人民画报》在某个写进党章要继承大统的人飞机失事后，急切地把一张出现此人的开会照片的某个座位挖空，然后再出版的做法，也能让人会意一笑。

做任何的控诉，都不如观众自己去看本片。

不过，有篇评论也值得看下。谈到了几个主要观点，可以从正反两方面看《The Soviet Story》。概要如下：
不否认苏联干过的那些龌龊事情，但说《The Soviet Story》有很强的屁股决定论，因为作者是深受苏联荼毒的拉脱维亚导演Edvins Snore。因为强烈的情感因素，本片形成了太过明显的“宣传”味道。既然苏联是1991年才解体，那仅仅发生在列宁、斯大林时期的“往事”就不能统统称为“苏联往事”。还有比较严重的问题是考据—-照片和史实资料应用不实，仅仅是为了证实某些事实，导演可能“有目的”地使用了照片，这样的记录片存在比较严重的问题。进而推广命题至《The Soviet Story》是导演受利益驱使做的反苏联、反俄罗斯的“毒草”。

The Soviet Story fails at being informative because it’s first and foremost propaganda.
20 September 2009
Author: Igor Boiar (iboiar@hotmail.com) from Vancouver, Canada

There was a bit of fuss about this film so I watched it (it’s not easy to find though). It can’t be taken seriously because it’s obviously propaganda. The film’s poster alone should tell you that; the statue of the worker and the peasant on top of a pile of human corpses. I’ve seen similar anti-Soviet documentaries before. The film includes a creepy narration, huge red titles, constant footage of corpses, and it’s full of errors. If you already have a good knowledge of the Soviet regime and of the two World Wars then you won’t find much that’s new in The Soviet Story. This film just turns up the heat on what’s been said before, and the way it does this is by showing gruesome footage backed by an effective musical score. Is it an objective film? No. Any good documentary should be. This film’s intent is to just be anti-Soviet. It’s because of this that The Soviet Story won’t be taken seriously by viewers in the future. The best documentary about the Second World War is called The World At War (1973). The World At War does not demonize the Nazi regime but provides an objective look at it’s failures, evils and even triumphs (which mostly happened in war). It shows what caused those evils. The Russians are shown in a positive way, as they should be because Hitler was broken in Russia, and the Soviet Union suffered 19 million civilian deaths. No one can argue with that. None of this information is included in The Soviet Story. One of this film’s strongest points is that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were allies before 1941. Not true. They did have a pact, but Stalin approved it only because he wanted the USSR to stay out of the war at that time. It’s well known that Stalin’s purges caused the deaths of many people. Perhaps as many as 1.2 million. The Soviet Story makes a case that this spread to Soviet occupied lands. That’s mostly true, but there were hardly any such murders in the Baltic states. Another thing that puzzles me is why the film is called The Soviet Story. The Soviet Union lasted until 1991, and yet what’s shown in the film happened before 1950. Shouldn’t it be called something like The Evils Of Stalin’s Regime? There were no famines or purges after Stalin’s death in the Soviet Union. What about the Cold War and the Space Race?

I read that several members of the European Parliament (all from Eastern Europe) gave this film positive reviews. And yet there are others like Tatjana Zdanoka (Latvian MEP) and historian Alexander Dyukov who said that the film has errors and that it’s a propagandistic odd job, which is given out to be “a new word in history”. Dyukov alleges inconsistencies in the film and questions the credibility of some of the film sequences and conclusions of some of the Russian and Western historians interviewed in the film. Latvian political scientist and cultural commentator Ivars Ijabs offers a mixed review of The Soviet Story. On one hand, it is a well-made and “effective piece of cinematic propaganda in the good sense of this word”, whose message is clearly presented to the audience. On the other hand, Ijabs does not agree with a number of historical interpretations in the film, asserting that it contains errors.

Edvins Snore, the director, should really be ashamed of his film. He included scenes which weren’t even about what was said. There was a scene where officers are drinking and giving a toast. The film claims this as proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration. In fact, there were no Russians present at that meeting. Another example is a scene where Russian war dead were shown from World War I. The film instead claims that these were Ukrainian dead from the 1932 famine. I know this because this same scene was shown in the acclaimed British documentary series The Great War (1964). And these are just the scenes that I know of. There are definitely more of these. A news story about the film informed me that pictures taken at Nazi concentration camps were presented as pictures taken at Soviet labour camps in the film, and that a Latvian pro-Nazi parade was said to be a Soviet parade. A fake picture made by Nazi followers was presented as proof of Nazi-Soviet collaboration, in it Heinrich Himmler is shown touring Soviet labour camps and “learning” from the Soviets. Can a movie that has so many errors (some even intentional) be taken seriously? Of course not. And what’s more disturbing is that Snore at the end uses his film to take a stab at the second president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. How does a Russian president fit in a film about the Soviet Union? No wonder The Soviet Story wasn’t released on home video. No one would buy this historically inaccurate horror flick.

I guess the question is why was The Soviet Story released? The answer is to spread anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiment. The Soviet Union disintegrated two decades ago, so what is the point of a film that strongly criticizes a regime that hasn’t existed for a generation already? The answer is, yet again, politics. Latvia (the country where the film was made) and other former Soviet satellites are afraid of Russian domination. Even with the fall of communism the situation in those countries hasn’t improved much, and in some cases deteriorated. The current government blames Russia, even though Russia isn’t involved in those countries’ internal affairs. The Soviet Story is a badly made film, but those with anti-Russian feelings are going to eat it up. I don’t recommend it because The Soviet Story is in parts untrue and in all parts extreme. To say that the far right is just like the far left is a major mistake. Those looking for trustworthy information should find something else (preferrably a history book).
—————————————
看极权政治形态下的领袖崇拜和宣传手段，很有共同点，无论是希特勒还是斯大林，…，嗯。

The.Soviet.Story.2008.DVDRip.XviD-LAP

相关文章:

1. 《The Milk of Sorrow[伤心的奶水]》极权树上结颗果
2. 《Shutter Island[禁闭岛]》眼见为虚
3. 《Mesrine Death Instinct[死亡本能]》黑帮电影的悲剧“英雄”
4. 《Inglourious Basterds[无耻混蛋]》话题先生：昆丁·塔伦蒂诺
5. 《Day of Heaven[天堂里的日子]》人及人生自古难圆