Most respected comrade-students!
Please post your questions, observations, and textual equivalents to tempestuous applause (in the spirit of the Soviet experience) on the blog thread below. The filmmakers and I hope to respond to some of them. But beyond that, I encourage you to channel your inner collectivist and engage with each other on this site, too!
In solidarity,
Professor K
During the scene where the sailors were picnicking and laying around in the field, the main character, who was writing a letter to his sister said something like "don't worry I haven't become and officer, I am more like a clerk." I do not remember the exact quote but that was essentially what he said. Why do you think it seems to be a bad idea to be an officer and why do you think he prefers to be a clerk?
ReplyDeleteThe film is narrated in Russian by the character Stephan who writes letters to his sister of his journeys. However, the narrations are occasionally interrupted by a theater group who continues the narration in English. What effect do these interruptions have on the movie and why do you think the film makers chose to incorporated this into their movie?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the way this film used a voice over to describe the events taking place. The narration was an example of how witness accounts may not be the whole truth. I wonder how often that has happened in historical accounts that were not fictionalized.
ReplyDeleteWe saw in Queer how Lee felt as if he could not be too flamboyantly gay to fit into his ideal gender role. I noticed that this was similar to the way that the narrator in Maggots and Men seemed to avoid telling his sister that he had feelings for his "friend." American and Soviet Russian culture are paralleled when comparing these two marginalized characters from the opposing sides of the Cold War.
ReplyDeleteAll of the men seemed very comfortable around each other. For example, they all had no problem skinny dipping into the lake and swimming and wrestling with each other. Today, people would never do that. Why do you think this is? Was it just a different time back then and things were different?
ReplyDeleteDuring the scene showing the sailors doing calisthenics, they were being led by a black sailor. Is this contrast of race mean anything? Was it used to show the "true utopian" environment of Kronstadt?
ReplyDeleteThere were a couple scenes in this film that you wouldn't see in most popular films today. The first is the scene where a bunch of men all go skinny dipping together. The fact that they seem unusually comfortable being so close to each other while being naked is something not usually portrayed. The second is the gay sex scene. It is brief, but also a scene not normally depicted in film. Why is that homosexuality doesn't seem fully accepted in Hollywood? You hardly see gay actors gain notoriety; will this ever happen on a large scale?
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the montage towards the end of the film, where the actors in the play were juxtaposed against the realities of the war. The quick, jarring cuts helped show the contrast between the two scenes. Were there any themes you wanted to communicate through this scene specifically?
ReplyDeletethe fact that the sailors were all gay is a rebellion in itself. the attack of kronstadt the gay utopia is quite a literal expression of the fire homosexuals come under in real life. is this what the filmmakers were trying to express- that homosexuality is still not accepted in mainstream society?
ReplyDeleteMy favorite part of the movie is the boxing scene, which represented a sort of choreographed re-enactment of the situation at the time. What sort of element do the "comic" re-enactments bring to the film? How do they contrast to the main voice of the narrator, does it work well together or do they conflict?
ReplyDeleteAt one point the movie there is a shot of the radio operator announcing that it was women's labor day and that it was going out over the loud speaker. Why, in movie focused on men and their homo erotic utopia, did it take time to make the announcement of a day focused on Women? The moment seemed odd to me in the movie so clearly it has some significance at least to the creators. Are they trying to point out a growing sense of equality or merely mentioning women's rights to juxtapose this male dominated movie?
ReplyDeleteAfter the movie when we were talking to the lovely film makers, they said that when Stephen was writing to his sister Anya he was making life in the Navy seem a lot happier than it truly was. I saw some correlation with this and my paper about the ideal cold war family. Is it possible that the two both relate because they both create a facade that things are perfect even when they are truly not? Oh and by the way, I really loved the theater productions that were intertwined with the movie, great touch. The music was also beautiful. -Rebecca Sai
ReplyDeleteThe entire idea behind the movie implies that the sailors were rebelling against the social norm, but in reality (in the context of the movie) they were trying to pursue the goals of the Bolshevik revolution. Why did their attempt to conform end up creating nonconformity between the sailors and the Soviets?
ReplyDeletethe film describes a gay utopia, living outside the influence of Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union is trying to take over, what does this choice of gay utopia say about the Soviet's political attitude towards different sexual orientations?
ReplyDeleteDuring the fighting, when the sailors attempted to ask for peace from the Soviet soldier's, they are refused. How does this misunderstanding, everyone wanting good things for their country and peace, play out during the remainder of the Cold War. How do events like the Prague Spring relate?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but during the Q&A, Cary mentioned that the homosexuality of sailors was not prohibited. He brought up a story of how sailors were arrested at pubs for displaying homosexual behavior. I did some research about LGBT rights during that time period and found that homosexual relations were legalized. Why were sailors specifically discriminated against?
ReplyDeleteGood on you, CWGH students who remembered to post about the movie. Here are some answers to the smart questions and comments you pose above.
ReplyDeleteJohn, it's better to be a clerk than an office, because the position of officer suggests the presence of a professional/social hierarchy, which is precisely what the Kronstadt sailors were hoping to overcome in their anarchist-egalitarian community.
Vincenza, the action was interrupted by a history lesson or exegesis, by agitprop theater, the Blue Blouse Group. [This troupe was patterned after the Soviet синяя блуза or blue blouses, who, wearing the blue uniforms typical of factory workers, performed althetic “living newspapers” in local collectives throughout the country and all over the world in the revolutionary period of the late 1910s and 20s. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Blouse
Steven, these Blue Blousers were your boxers!
Claire, absolutely right on. The film does a great job of showcasing the disparity between "objective truth" and personal testimony. But since history is always a matter of people writing down what happened, we never truly have access to the truth!
Cody , Kaylie,and Jordan, you three are onto something when you detect continuities between Eastern European and Western cultures of homophobia, and the possibility (or impossibility) of representing nonheterosexual forms of intimacy in popular culture more globally. There is a difference, though, in that revolutionary Russian culture cultivated an ideal of hypermasculinity which, when taken to its furthest extreme, resulted in a utopia of men. This idealization of masculinity and concomitant disavowal of femininity is common to patriarchy writ large.
Nicole, a crucial detail not to be missed! Do connect this back to the fantasy of anti-racism promoted by Circus--a promise the USSR extended but could't make good on entirely--and also recall that this is a contemporary fairytale of how things could've been, if only...
Ben, you've done yuor film history research! Maggots' montages are in direct conversation with the Eisenstein films that inspired the filmmakers. One of Maggot’s most striking examples of symbolic editing occurs in the natural cycle of work on the communal farm, as the sailors pickle the fruits of their gardening in mason jars. The significance of food to a holistic political program is established as early as the opening montage of Potemkin after which Cronenwett has titled his movie. “The tainted meat,” Eisenstein explains, “expands into a symbol of the inhuman conditions in which not only the army and navy were kept, but also the exploited ‘army of labor." “Give us bread!” Eisenstein’s mutineers call out in 1925 and Cronenwett’s strikers shout in response in 2009.
Alex, this is a great question! And one I'd love to pose back to the filmmakers. The Soviets actively expunged femininity from their ideal of the new Soviet person, seeing feminine things (and by extension) as weak and bourgeois in their characteristics. So why Women's Day?
Rebecca, I'm so glad you enjoyed the visual and audio components of the film. For more of the original music by the movie's composer, Jascha Ephraim, see here: http://www.jaschaephraim.com/maggots-and-men/
Colin, you hit the nail on the head of history! Indeed, one of the major players in the revolution, who was depicted in the film, Leon Trotsky, wrote a book about this called "The Revolution Betrayed" (it deals more with Stalinism than Leninism, but it still gets at what you suspect is going on). Here's the whole thing, if you want some not-so-light beach reading this summer. ;) http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/
Daniel and Connie, the status of homosexuality in revolutionary Russia was very unique and worth discussing. When the Bolsheviks seized power they tossed out the tsarist legal code and with it decriminalized homosexuality de jure, though de facto forms of persecution existed, and indeed were pursued by the pathologization or medicalization of homosexuality as a disease requiring aggressive detection and rooting out. Connie, this might be redundant with the research you did (good job!), but you and Daniel might both find this quick overview of homosexuality in Russian history interesting and appurtenant. http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/RGC2.html
ReplyDeleteAnd Ryan, you pose the biggest question of all which forces us to think about conflict resolution in geopolitics throughout the 20th century. I think this is the perfect wide-open note on which to end things!
Good work, folks!
I didn't expect the picture to be in black and white, but I'm glad it was because it gave more texture to the film. Homosexuality in the Navy wasn't allowed and there for making a taboo subject worthy of a picture in black and white. It's a really moody picture and story line, which is maybe why the director decided to film in black and white. My only question is, why use a voice over to explain the events taking place? Why not make the movie a bit longer and give the actors more lines to act out the background to the movie?
ReplyDeleteI am fascinated by the contrast of the letter's he wrote and the image on the screen. I wonder what the significance of the contrasting discussion of hard work and the images of men doing cart wheels and laying on each other is? Does this relate more the them being dissenting homosexual sailors or is this a theme that reaches all aspects of Soviet citizens?
ReplyDeleteThe gay utopia portrayed the success of the communal society at Kronstadt. How does this idea of a utopia move the viewer to a world without capitalism and what kind of reality does the author wish to portray that we can relate to an actual system of government? Or is it fact the freedom from any form of upper hand control that the author is trying to state is ideal?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ian: Does the film being in black and white relate to our other texts read thus far in that those from the soviet union did in fact experience a world of just black and white? Or is this simply just to give it an antique effect?
The directors used the difference between the content of the letters and and what was actually going on to depict the homosexuality of the sailors and how they had to conceal their identity to others. While one must consider the fact that this is an artistic rendition, to what extent did others know about this utopia and how did it play out this way? Was it simply the mix of work and play in this context that allowed men to explore themselves? Is it possible that there were other outlets that offered the same exploration?
ReplyDelete