You're right about the film being a reckless piece of propaganda. Unfortunately, this revelation falls under the "Duh!" category. It was widely recognized (and denounced, by liberals even more than conservatives) as such when it came out, let alone 67 years later. I posted just three examples of factual misrepresentations in the "goofs" section here, and there are certainly more.
Its false depictions of the show trials, invasion of Finland, everything, was heavily denounced by most even in 1943, and that's never changed. To say this film "has aged badly" implies that it had gained wide acceptance at the time, which it had not. It failed at the box office. Besides, lots of films of many different kinds "age badly". MTM is a period piece, and in that sense, since it tells a story set in a specific time frame, it hasn't "aged" at all. In fact, it's the film's inherent dishonesty, of playing fast and loose with the truth, that makes it so appalling, not the fact that it's "aged". (A very few things in the film are accurate -- the Finnish president, Mannerheim, was indeed a "friend of Hitler".)
Of course, looked at as a piece of propaganda designed for audiences of its era, it has indeed aged, but again, that can be said of many wartime (and other) films. Even you agreed that it had excellent production values. Much like, say, The Birth of a Nation, cinematically, the film is exceedingly well made and acted. It's just a parcel of disgraceful lies.
However, I take major issue with one of your comments. Comparing Stalin to the "inauguration day Barack Obama" makes your own political biases plain, and is an asinine remark. Actually, if you want to make a ridiculous analogy between Stalin and an American president, George W. Bush's approval ratings were vastly higher (around 91%) after 9/11 than Obama's or anyone else's ever were...except for Bush's father after the first Gulf War, when he also hit 91%. Stalin's would have been a lot closer to that than any level Obama or any other president, including Reagan, ever reached. But comparing him to any American president is an insult to this country.
The unfortunate truth is that Stalin probably was that popular with most Russians -- despite the obvious, most of them truly worshipped him, for some inexplicable reason of human nature. When he died millions of Russians were bereaved and wept openly, despite the fact that he was a mass-murdering psychopath. That's why, even today, and in contrast to your statement that even in Russia they freely acknowledge he was a mass murderer, millions of Russians still long for his times, admire his "strength" (another lie), and while not too many discount the murders and other crimes committed during his regime, there are many who still underplay them, insisting the numbers aren't that high (as if that made a significant difference) and that anyway the people who died either deserved it, or it was done without Stalin's knowledge. Utterly idiotic, to be sure, but many still do believe such things.
Mission to Moscow is indeed remembered as an embarrassing piece of pro-Soviet propaganda. So are other wartime pro-Soviet Hollywood films such as Song of Russia, The North Star, Days of Glory, Counter-Attack and some others. We were bolstering an ally who, let's face it, paid a high price to help defeat Hitler, the USSR's own horrific record notwithstanding. If you really want to see a piece of pro-Soviet propaganda about the war, try to get the 1949 Soviet film, The Fall of Berlin. Made from color AGFA film stock stolen from occupied postwar Germany, it was an elaborate, very expensive "present" for Stalin's 70th birthday that year. It shows Stalin the Wise and Good not only directing his armies to victory, but flying to conquered Berlin at the climax and offering the masses the gift of peace -- all why he's also bringing together a lovelorn couple separated by the war! It has fascinating depictions of Hitler, Roosevelt, Churchill and other real-life people. Hard to find, but it's a best-seller at International Historic Films, Inc., who restored the original print.
The fact that a film is a dishonest piece of propaganda (and isn't all propaganda inherently dishonest?) doesn't mean it can't be entertaining, even in a perverse sort of way, or that it lacks meaning or relevance today. The very fact that pictures like MTM and others even got made is a tribute to the freedom we have in this country, and in itself serves as an important insight into the history and perspectives of one of the bloodiest and most perilous periods in human history. As long as its lies and distortions are understood as such, the film is an invaluable artifact of history.
By the way, what's the difference between a "modern Marxist" and an old-fashioned one? Aren't they both lying losers wearing blinders?
reply
share