Close Search Close

 

  • Comics
  • Theatre
  • Site News

Year of the Month

Lenin in October

Well, it's not realistic. I suppose it's socialist.

Much as I hate to admit it, I think Ayn Rand was onto something with her ‘romantic realism’ concept. Not in that it’s a worthwhile artistic approach, but in that she gave name to a concept that carries over across wildly different authors. Lenin in October is a classic entry in socialist realism, an artistic movement associated with the Soviet Union; art that presented reality in a way conducive to propaganda. Beautiful, funny, intelligent people serving the communist cause. Obviously, Lenin is at the center of this; the movie presents him as self-sacrificing, eager to please, and prone to barking orders – only the last of which matches my understanding of the historical record, but which is part of the movie trying to sell one particular idea.

What fascinates me in particular is how deeply this film is embedded in procedure; by solidifying the morality of the film – with characters representing either good or evil with no change or ambiguity – the film is forced to create interest by showing how they do what they do. This is what matches up a lot of ‘romantic realist’ fiction I’ve seen; NCIS and Law & Order in particular are, as we all know, procedurals, using real-life processes (heightened for dramatic effect) to sell their ideas.

This ends up tying into the beauty of the film. Whatever I may say about the tediousness of the story – and to be honest, I find it pretty tedious – the visuals used to create it are spectacular (this is where it tops the NCISs and Ayn Rands of the rest of the ‘genre’). Late in the movie, it builds very Akira Kurosawa-like visuals of dozens of extras moving together, all looking in the same direction, all reacting at once; I think my favourite cinematic moment in the film is during a prep for the revolution, with one man standing in the middle of a huge crowd, and politely asking them not to yell when he makes his announcement.

But even before that, they work to make visuals even of people talking compelling. I must admit, the corny acting helps here; I could have easily watched this film without subtitles and still been able to follow what was happening. My taste is always for not knowing what’s going to happen next, and this film does everything but that to be compelling; I don’t know how well it worked as propaganda at the time – did audiences generally roll their eyes the way I do at current-day propaganda? – but I do concede it’s very watchable.