In the last joint class, we viewed a clip from a film during which a Russian family argued aggressively during a family vacation outside. During our deconstruction of the clip as a class, we noted some of the more important characteristics such as the strong use of vulgar language, the location as an outdoor environment and so on. All of these aspects helped to represent a change in traditional norms. However, there was another directorial decision that we did not discuss in class. The director used a change in “levels” that worked particularly well. The young woman who was arguing with her family started kneeling down and eventually made her way to not only a standing position, but to a position in which the ground appeared to be at a higher point of elevation. In short, she literally rose above her family in order to assert herself.

This change in levels provides the viewer with an interesting perspective on youth culture. It would appear that for the younger generation, one must not identify by their families (at least not as strictly as was necessary for past generations). Perhaps in general, this moment represents a less homogenized Russia. Given social freedoms that were on the rise, it was easier to be an individual in every sense, not only within the context of family. Indeed, these points are emphasized by the director’s use of levels.

I watched Russian Ark this week.  I might preface by saying that I was a little confused by this movie, not only because of the artistic license  but also because, having no real knowledge of what early Russian figures looked like, I had no idea who some of the people were until I looked it up online.

In any case, I was very impressed by this movie.  It clearly required so much painstaking choreography to film this movie in a single shot.  As a museum buff, I loved the fact that it all took place in the Hermitage.  It could be said to be a metaphor of Russia because it stood strong through so many years, and each person the European and the narrator met there had a special love and nostalgia for some part of the museum.  I found the scene of the man building his own coffin during the siege of Leningrad to be very haunting, showing how a sign of aristocratic authority could be transformed into a graveyard.  A;so, the scene of the museum directors discussing their problems of trying to foster culture under Stalin and their paranoia over being discovered echoed everything we have discussed in class this semester.  It was made even more moving by the narrator trying to refute what he said, as if he was being interrogated by a Soviet official.  Finally, Alexandra thinking she hears gun shots as Anastasia dances through the gallery was sad because it showed a happy family on the brink of total destruction.

There was a strong sense of nationalism in this movie.  There was a strict line drawn between Russia and Europe, as if they are two separate entities.  Strangely, there was a disdain for imperialism echoed by the European, but though he was meant to be French, it was hard to tell for whom this was a criticism.  There was also commentary on the government, wondering about its state and whether it could be called a republic.  After our two discussions this week, I can see where that concern stems from, since the government does not always work for the people.  The phrase the stood out the most was “In Russian, freedom knows no price.”  I think this accurately describes the attempts to reconfigure the Russian government after 1917, but freedoms have taken to mean different things to different people.

This week in class we focused on Chernobyl and how this related to the ideas of progress and modernity in the Soviet Union. Russia has always been ostracized as a country that is distinct from all others. One reason for this idea is because Russia has always been seen as being behind other nations in technology. Thus, a constant theme throughout the Soviet era was a striving towards modernity and in turn progress. This theme was reflected in the Soviet Union’s policies and actions involving the environment.

To the Russian government, modernity translated into a transformation and exploitation of nature in the name of progress. In essence, the environment was reframed for industrial development. While this was a global movement, the Soviet Union took this idea to a new extreme level. This extremism was able to happen because in the Soviet Union, the civil society had no opportunity to comment or influence government actions like in other countries throughout the world. The extreme manner in which the Soviet Union persued the idea of modernity resulted in the exploration and use of nuclear energy.To the Soviets, nuclear energy represented the ultimate idea of modernity. It was taking the building block of human existence and harnassing it in order to benefit mankind. However, unfortunately when one thinks of nuclear energy and Russia, the idea of progress doesn’t manifest.

However, in studying Chernobyl what I didn’t realize was the true power of nature, and its ability to care for itself. In class, we watched various clips that showed Chernobyl in the recent past and what I saw surprised me. Rather than the barren wasteland that I expected, Chernobyl was surprisingly alive. Vegetation had crept back into the area, taking over and slowly breaking down the buildings. In the past, whenever I have thought about Chernobyl, I have pictured it to be a wasteland, silent, with shriveled up plants, no life, a mere shell of its former self. This class really altered my perspective, and I would welcome the opportunity to study this event in greater detail someday.

One thing in particular that I have been interested in lately is the corruption problems that Russia has been facing since the fall of the Soviet Union. One of the most common jokes you hear about Russian people is that they are all either criminals or corrupt in some way and I have always wondered if there is any validity in these jokes. This led me to become interested in the Alexei Navalny case that is currently being attended to in Russia.

I had never really believed that Russian corruption was as bad as people had led me to believe it was until I saw this case. Now I don’t know the truth behind the accusations against Mr. Navalny but to me it seems incredibly suspicious that a strong anti-Putin advocate was suddenly arrested on charges of embezzlement and fraud. I feel like in the United States, and arrest like this may have drawn more attention to the fact that it seems a little odd that he was charged out of nowhere. Yet in Russia it appears there is nothing that can be done about it short of Mr. Navalny fighting the case on his own.

While I am more informed know about the severity of the corruption in Russia, I am still unsure as to what has caused it. Was it just the fact that Russia is still getting used to their new system of capitalism/democracy? Or is it just that there are corrupt people in power? Either way, I believe that this would be an excellent and interesting topic to study in the future.

On Saturday I went to see the Dickinson Orchestra’s performance of Augural Years in Music.  The pieces from Stravinsky’s The Firebird particularly stood out from the rest of the performance because of the tone and feeling that I associated them with.  At first, it honestly reminded me of the waltz from the Godfather, low, dark and haunting, the kind of thing my father said he would play to scare all the non-Italians at my wedding, but I digress.  The “Berceuse” gave me the feeling of a lone figure walking on a deserted street at night.  Gradually as the violins rose and sounded like they were at a different pace than the wind instruments, I was filled with a sense of anxiety, like I was watching someone follow the figure with questionable motives.  The “Finale” when it was played was a relief, a triumphant rise out of the darkness and an end to the falling sensation created by the violins.

Both pieces worked very well to encapsulate the Russian folk experience, often filled with suffering but rising to a glorified end, especially during the Soviet period even though this piece was written before it.  Unlike some of the other selections in the concert, both of the pieces felt very personal and very specific to the Russian experience as I imagined it was. This was aided by the fact that each part of the orchestra, like the Russian people, seemed to be working separately for most of the piece, moving at different paces and through different pitches, but at the end all came together to create this unified “Russia” that was one of the people.

“Moscow Does Not Believe In Tears” left me with mixed emotions. In this movie, we see the different lives of three women, all friends. Antonina is the least interesting character, but also appears to be the happiest in her life. She marries Nikolai, who is unextraordinary, but is kind. They have a few children and both continue working in a factory. Antonina certainly fits the role of the Soviet Woman, unassuming and hardworking, both in and out of the home.

On the other hand, we have Lyudmila and Katarina, who both rebel against the roles assigned to them, albeit in different ways. Lyudmila is obsessed with landing rich husband, someone who will lift her out of her meager existence and into a glamorous life. However, this does end well for her, as her big ticket, a famous hockey player, eventually drinks all their money away and she divorces him. She works in a laundry, still convinced she will somehow meet the “right” man.

Katarina, our main character, also does not fit into the stereotypical image of a housewife. In her youth, she studied to enter an institute to become a chemical engineer, but failed the exam. She hoped to re-take the exam, but her pregnancy puts off those plans for good. However, she highly capable and works up through the ranks of a factory, even as a single mother, eventually becoming director.

On the surface, this movie is about women, but it is really about the relation of women to men. All three main characters are defined by their relations with the men in their lives. However, I found the movie’s message unclear. Our main character, Katarina, does eventually find happiness, in a man she says she waited all her life for. This is a man who left her once he realized that her economic status was higher than his, although he does return. A man who expected to be the unquestionable head of the household, even prior to their marriage. On the other hand, he does seem to genuinely love her and he does adhere to a moral code, although I might not agree him on everything. Such consistency seems hard to find in any of the men we see in the film, Antonina’s husband excluded.

Although I have mixed feelings about the film’s message, one thing that was loud and clear was the unhappiness of the women of Moscow.

While every piece at the Friday night concert was extremely well done, none stood out more than the Stravinsky piece called Firebird. It was significantly different than classical music of the past. There was so much emotion and drama in this music, it was truly amazing to listen to. The church that the concert was at was the perfect setting for the music. Every note was clear and sounded throughout the entire hall. Stravinsky effortlessly broke from classical music and put his own personal twist into the music. Its no wonder that Stravinsky was so successful, and why this piece, when it was first introduced, was so popular.

The piece opened quietly, with a single eerie melody and a tremelo from the violins in the background. This create a very haunting, almost sad tone at the beginning of the piece. The tremelos creating a very interesting harmony throughout the first section of the score. I really loved how the horn came in again midway through with a quiet melody. With the entrance of the harp and flutes into the ensemble, the whole sound created was truly awe-inspiring, there was a sense of wonder emitted through this piece.

Eventually, the entire orchestra was added in, and the music turned very majestic and grand. There would be alternates between the quiet tremelo to loud, booming melodies led by the horns and violins. Eventually, the beat slowed significantly, with each note being clearly emphasized. At the end, the whole piece climaxed with the cymbals at the end. The whole ending was very majestic.

Last night I went to the First Evangelical Lutheran Church to listen to the Dickinson Orchestra perform several pieces including Stravinsky’s, The Firebird. I went into this performance quite unsure as I know little about classical music and generally have trouble reading into it they way others might, yet I thoroughly enjoyed this piece and was able to hear the variations in the music as the story progressed.

One thing in particular that I noticed was that this piece seemed to follow the Russian guidelines on classical music where one instrument takes precedent over the others. This is a very new concept to me as the only classical music I have ever listened to was of Western origin, such as Bach or Beethoven. These pieces focus on harmony among the instruments in order to bring about one cohesive sound. The Firebird, on the other hand, flips this around and routinely has one instrument or one type of instrument come forward and have its sound heard over the others.

Another part of this piece that I particularly liked was that I could hear where the story of the ballet changed in the music. In spite of my family continually trying to get me to hear it, I have never been able to distinguish between different parts and pieces of classical music. However, for whatever reason, this piece was much easier for me to listen to and understand.

Despite my typical dislike of classical music, this piece captured my attention throughout its performance. Unlike the classical music of the west, I felt that this piece had significantly more enthusiasm and excitement in it as it continually changed tempos and focused on multiple instrument groups, rather than blending them all together.