Am I Willing to Stand Up for My Beliefs?

At some point in a person’s life they will have to ask themselves, “What do I believe?” and “Am I willing to stand up for my beliefs?” To believe something privately is one thing, but it is another thing to take a public stand regarding one’s belief, especially if there is a large element of risk involved once those beliefs are made known.

In 1905, Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), author of such works as “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” wrote an editorial piece entitled “Bethink Yourselves” regarding the Russo-Japanese War. This piece was banned in Russia on the grounds that it was declared ‘unpatriotic’ by the Czar’s government; however, it was published in ‘The London Times’. As a public figure, he felt the need to speak out. He wrote, “"Again war. Again sufferings, necessary to nobody, utterly uncalled for; again fraud, again the universal stupefaction and brutalization of men "Men who are separated from each other by thousands of miles, hundreds of thousands of such men (on the one hand—Buddhists, whose law forbids the killing not only of men but of animals ; on the other hand—Christians, professing the law" of brotherhood and love), like wild beasts on land and on sea are seeking out each other in order to kill, torture, and mutilate each other in the most cruel way. What can this be? Is it a dream or a reality? Something is taking place which should not, cannot be; one longs to believe that it is a dream and to awake from it. But no, it is not a dream, it is a dreadful reality!"“ 1

The Russo-Japanese War was part of the backdrop of the 2017 film, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky’s Story” directed by Russian director Karen Shakhnazarov (b. 1952). Alexei Vronsky, Anna Karenina’s lover, is reflecting upon his relationship with Anna thirty years after Anna’s death at the Saint Petersburg train station. Vronsky and Anna’s relationship was largely a war between them (which did not end well), Vronsky spent the rest of his life running from one war to another after Anna died, and the Russo-Japanese War certainly was not a rousing success for the Russian government since the 1905 Revolution followed as a result.

Karen Shakhnazarov is aware of all of this; however, he still chose to publicly support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 by signing a letter to that effect. He is not alone in his support of the war, in fact, 511 artists signed a letter in 2014 supporting Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the Donbas Region of Ukraine. However, the questions still remain, “Why do I really believe?” and “Can I genuinely stand up for my beliefs?”

In 2005, Russian director Vladimir Bortko (b. 1946) directed a ten part mini-series for Russia-1, the premier government owned television station, entitled “The Master and Margarita” based upon the classic novel of the same name by author Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940).

This novel is filled with satire regarding the Soviet government of the 1930s. In fact, the publication of the novel was banned in the Soviet Union until it was published in serial form in 1966. Mikhail Bulgakov, a writer and medical doctor, had serious health issues and petitioned Joseph Stalin’s government for permission to move to Paris, France with the rest of his family in order to receive the medical attention he needed. This request was denied and Bulgakov ended up dying in Moscow at the age of 48.

The mini-series “The Master and Margarita” remained very faithful to Bulgakov’s novel since it was done over ten episodes and could go into much more depth than a 90 minute or so film in the movie theater.

Another extremely satiric piece about the Soviet Union by Mikhail Bulgakov was made into a television movie by Vladimir Bortko in 1988. The novella and film are entitled “Heart of a Dog”, the story of a stray dog who is transformed into a man by a surgeon simply to see if it is possible to transform a dog by implanting human testes and a pituitary gland into a dog. The dog, who is given the name Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov, after becoming human, appears to be representative of the most base attitudes of Soviet society in the 1920s. This novella was written in 1925, but not officially released in the Soviet Union until 1987.

Vladimir Bortko knew what this novel and novella were about. He saw how they satirized the dictatorial Russian government of their day; however, he still chose to sign the letter in support of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and the Donbas Region. From where is this disconnect coming? These are not the actions of the Master, but of Berlioz, the head of Massolit, who published only those pieces which the government found acceptable.

Speaking out against the government, especially one which encourages imprisoning opponents, is a risky undertaking. Actress Liya Akhedzhakova (b. 1938), who starred In such films as “Office Romance” and “The Irony of Fate” is an outspoken critic of contemporary Russian culture and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In April 2023. Russian- and English-language independent news website, Meduza, reported that Vitaly Borodin, head of the Federal Security and Anti-Corruption Project, is asking Russia’s Prosecutor General to launch a criminal case against Akhedzhakova. He claims, Akhedzhakova has criticized “the state organs’ and the president’s decisions and policies with regard to the war by Russia in Ukraine. Akhedzhakova denies the allegations. This is tantamount to being declared a ‘foreign agent’, as what done in the Soviet Union during the time of Joseph Stalin.

Silence does not automatically imply consent. There are many artists who never signed any letter in support of war and who never made their personal feelings known. However, to produce such works based upon “Anna Karenina” using war as backdrop or the writings of Mikhail Bulgakov and then stand in support of the actions of a dictatorial government seems extremely hypocritical. It seems as though the same level of fear present during the time of Joseph Stalin is still alive in Russia today. Who would imagine that a well known Russian citizen would be declared a “foreign agent” in 2022 for expressing his opinion regarding an act undertaken by his government?

End Note

1. “Tolstoy on the Russo-Japanese War”: https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1827&context=ocj

War and No Peace: Anna and Vronsky

 From 1927 until 2014 there have been several adaptations of Lev Tolstoy's novel, “Anna Karenina” presented on the silver screen. In each case the story is presented exclusively from Anna's standpoint; however, the 2017 Russian film, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky's Story” was something different.

The director, Karen Shakhnazarov (b. 1952), introduced us to this timeless classic from the standpoint of Anna's lover, Alexei Vronsky. The film begins with the audience meeting Vronsky in a medical field hospital in Manchuria, China in 1904, thirty years after Anna's death, where Vronsky is a patient. He is being interviewed by Anna's son, Sergei, from her marriage to Alexei Karenin. Sergei is a medical doctor and director of his hospital. He has few memories of his mother and wants to know from Vronsky what she was like and what type of relationship they had. Vronsky tells Sergei the story about how he met Anna and what impact their relationship had on Anna's social standing in Saint Petersburg society as a result.

In many of the film adaptations, Anna's husband, who is twenty years old than her, is presented as a mean spirited, almost spiteful, man who uses their son as a weapon to torture Anna by denying her the right to see Sergei. In this film, Alexei Karenin, a government ministry official in Czarist Russia, is presented a caring husband who is obsessed with order and maintaining a proper public appearance, while, at the same time, not forgetting that he is a Orthodox Christian. His wife's betrayal with Vronsky is painful and, initially, he even begins to hate her and wishes that she would die while giving birth to Vronsky's child; however, he eventually forgives both of them and tries to return to some semblance of a 'normal' life. However, he is actually quite conflicted. He states that he forgave both of them; however, his actions indicate otherwise. It is suggested to him, more than once, that he should grant Anna a divorce and let her move on with her life with Vronsky; however, he refuses to respond to her letters when she rights to him with such a request. Karenin is approached a final time about granting Anna a divorce and he promises a response; however, she takes her own life before any response is given.

Vronsky is presented as a handsome career military officer who is more concerned with his social standing and career advancement than his relationship with Anna. His mother, Countess Vronskaya, is eager to marry him off to one young woman or another; however, she is opposed to his relationship to Anna based upon the negative impact it will have on his military career advancement. According to the novel, Vronsky had been engaged to Anna's niece, Kitty Oblonskaya; however there is no mention of that relationship in this film. He presents himself throughout his various conversations with Anna's son as a loving, career, compassionate partner who was willing to give up everything for Anna; however, his actions did not align with his words.

At one point, Anna decided to go to the opera is Saint Petersburg. Vronsky discouraged her from going several times stating she did not need to prove anything; however, she decided to go anyway. Upon her arrival, one of female patrons in a neighboring box, the wife of a military officer, made a public announcement that she cannot sit in the same theater with a woman like Anna walked out of the box for the evening. The men at the theater were rather cordial; however, the women despised her. Vronsky initially stated that he did not want to go to the opera; however, he eventually changed his mind and, following intermission, Anna returned to her seat. Vronsky arrived just prior to the end of intermission and refused to sit with her our of concern for what the other patrons might think and/or say. This betrayal was the beginning of the end for Anna.

Anna's son asked Vronsky if he truly loved Anna. He responded that he had strong feelings for her and even attempted suicide after Anna nearly died following the birth of their daughter. However, Sergei asked the same question a second time since he did not receive a direct answer. The next time the question was asked Vronsky changed the subject and started talking about a clay pipe which he had recently purchased. His inability to affirmatively answer this question spoke volumes about his feelings regarding Anna.

Anna was portrayed as a woman in a loveless marriage to a much older man who believed that she had finally found happiness with a dashing young military officer. She willingly sacrificed everything for this relationship, including any contact with her son. She was treated like an outcast by Saint Petersburg society and was even willing to accept this indignity as long as she had Vronsky's love and support to rely upon. However, she was, in fact, treated like a bird in a gilded cage. Vronsky's home in Saint Petersburg and summer home in a village near the city were almost like palaces; however, they were still cages to Anna. He would be gone for several days at a time and she had no outlets for communication or creativity, so she was left alone with her thoughts and this drove her to the point of madness. When she expressed this to Vronsky he tried to say something which would appear supportive; however, he would simply disappear again to Saint Petersburg or elsewhere since he had no issues regarding social standing and wanted to make sure that was being seen by all of the right people.

Vronsky appeared to believe that once a divorce was granted by Karenin and he could finally marry Anna that everything would be fine and they could simply begin their life together in society as if nothing had happened previously. However, Anna began to realize, over time, that Vronsky really did not need her and that the heartache from her sacrifice amounted to nothing in regard to their relationship. Even she had married Vronsky, nothing would change. She became convinced that he really does not love her, so why marry him? Prior to Anna's demise she got into an argument with Vronsky and he left their home. Anna sent a message to him asking that he return as quickly as possible; however, her servant returned with the unread message. She was told that Vronsky went to visit his mother, even though he had already received money from her, and Anna became convinced that he had gone their to meet one of the young women that his mother was trying to get him to marry.

At this point Anna is hopeless and decides to head to the train station where she will ultimately take her own life. The audience never sees what took place at the station; however, the music and speed of the carriage on its way to the station portray the strong sense of desperation which Anna was feeling at that moment. Earlier she had stated that if she died that Vronsky would be stuck with only her memory and this would torture him for the rest of his life. Her words were proven to be true and Vronsky chose not to leave the army hospital even after it was being attacked by the Japanese army because of strong feeling that Anna was “always with him”.  The audience returns to the same train station at the end of film to watch a young Alexei Vronsky walk into the smoke and disappear as though he was walking into the light of Heaven.

The director chose to combine the publicist story "During the Japanese War" and the literary cycle "Stories about the Japanese War" by Vikenty Veresaev (1867-1945). This gave a context for why Vronsky had re-entered the military after so many years and it also provided a reflective atmosphere for the film since the film is constantly switching between Vronsky's time with Anna and his time in the Russo-Japanese War.  Most of the novel of "Anna Karenina" is about a war between either Anna and her husband or Anna and Vronsky.  In fact, at one point Anna states in the film that she wanted to obtain 'victory' in regard to her relationship with Vronsky.  This is not a word traditionally used to describe a loving relationship.

If Vronsky was expecting Anna to be a 'trophy wife', it is easy to understand why he was frustrated in regard to their relationship. A trophy wife is a pejorative term meaning a wife who is regarded as a status symbol for her husband. The term usually refers to a woman who is younger than her husband; however, Vronsky is actually three years younger than Anna according to the novel. It goes against Anna's character to simply be someone whom he could take to parties and engage in polite conversation, but had no real interests and nothing of any substance to contribution to any conversation.

There have been approximately thirty different adaptations of “Anna Karenina” on the silver screen produced by various countries including Russia, the United States, Great Britain, India, and Argentina; however, “Anna Karenina: Vronsky's Story” was something unique because of the fact that it was told from Vronsky's point of view thirty years after Anna's death at the train station. It is likely there will be other adaptations in the future and, perhaps, one of them might present this story from the viewpoint of Sergei Karenin, Anna's son, or her husband, Alexei. These adaptations might also help to give fresh insight into this timeless classic.

Without a Home in "Master and Margarita"

   Most novels are read once and placed on a bookshelf or elsewhere and never touched again by the same reader.  There are some novels or stories which one reads on more than one occasion simply out of pure enjoyment. There are others which are re-read in order to obtain information or perhaps understand something which was read earlier even better. 

   However, there are some novels which need to be read more than once simply because of the depth of content, breadth of character development, or numerous layers of themes which cannot be understood properly in a first, second, or, even, a third reading.  One such novel is The Master and Margarita by Mikhaíl Afanasyevich Bulgakov (1891-1940).  This novel has several characters that reek havoc in 1930s Moscow including a large black cat which walks and talks like a person named Behemoth, an “ex-choirmaster” named Fagotto/Koroviev, an assassin named Azazello, and a character believed to be satan named Woland. 

    We are introduced to three of these characters in chapter five.  Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, head of the Soviet literary union MASSOLIT, is at Patriarch’s Pond with Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyryov (whose pen name is Bezdomny), a young poet who is a member of MASSOLIT.  The two are discussing Ponyryov poem about Jesus and the fact that it is too “realistic” for Berlioz’s taste when they are approached by a man who eventually introduces himself as Professor Woland, an expert in black magic. 

   Berlioz and Ponyryov begin discussing whether or not Jesus actually existed (neither believe this is true), when Professor Woland interrupts and begins to explain what transpired between Jesus (Yeshua Ha-Nozri in the novel) and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea.  Professor Woland tells them that this is not second hand information, because he was actually there when this dialogue took place.  They then begin to speak about whether or not God exists (Berlioz and Ponyryov are atheists) and Professor Woland argues with them using the philosophical proofs for God existence written by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).  The argument eventually turns to who is in charge of everything if there is no God.  Ponyryov argues that people are in charge of their own destiny and Professor Woland states that no one even knows when they will die. He then proceeds to tell Berlioz under what circumstances he will die.  He will be run over by a trolley car and lose his head after slipping on some oil spilled by a woman named Anna.

     Berlioz leaves the conversation and ends up dying in exactly the way that Professor Woland described.  Ponyryov sees the end result of the accident and becomes convinced that Professor Woland is a spy.  He then begins a one man crusade to arrest Professor Woland, along with Faggoto/Koroviev and Behemoth who have joined up with the professor. 

   After chasing them around Moscow, to no avail, Ponyryov ends up at a restaurant in his underwear, carrying a candle, and wearing an icon around his neck where the members of MASSOLIT were meeting and dining.  He begins to explain to them what transpired at Patriarch’s Pond and the restaurant manager calls for a car to take Ponyryov to the local psychiatric hospital for evaluation. 

   He then explains the entire scenario to the doctor in charge of the hospital and is diagnosed with schizophrenia.  This was also predicted by Professor Woland during their conversation.  No one will listen to him, including the police, so he is forced to become a hospital patient.

   Later on in the novel, we meet “The Master” who is the main protagonist in the story when The Master enters Ponyryov’s room at night tells him about Margarita and the novel he wrote about Pontius Pilate.  He tells the Master that is a poet, but when asked, “Is your poetry any good?” he responses, “no” and promises never to write poetry again.

   In Russian, as in many other languages, names have meanings.  Koroviev can easily be translated into English as “cow”, for example, and Behemoth can be translated as “hippo”.  Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyryov’s pen name is Bezdomny which translates into “without a home” or “homeless” in English. My question is, “Why did Bulgakov give this character the pen name of Bezdomny?”  We know nothing about where Ivan lives based upon the novel nor do we know anything about his family life; however, there is no mention of the fact that he was, in fact, homeless. 

    Ivan has a profession, is a member of the Soviet literary bureaucracy, and, when confronted with a situation which is beyond his control, he attempts to arrest the person he believes in causing problems and return order to the society in which he lives.  By all appearances, he is a good citizen.  However, people like Ivan really had no home in the Soviet Union.  The system was designed to destroy their personal creativity and force them to produce “works of art” which are completely approved by the state.  These are not works of art, they are propaganda tools.  In real life, people like Ivan attempted to, and, in many cases, succeeded to run away from the Soviet Union and begin a life in a new country. 

     Many literary critics believe that the character of Margarita is based upon Bulgakov’s last wife and the Master is Bulgakov himself.   While I do not necessarily disagree with this assessment I will also add that the character of Bezdomny is also autobiographical in Bulgakov’s case.   Mikhail Bulgakov was born in Kyiv and lives many years of his life in Moscow, but, in reality, he never had a real home in the Soviet Union.  It is true that he had a family and a place to live, but his creative spirit was not as free as it could have been in such a totalitarian society and he suffered a great deal under the repressive government of Joseph Stalin (1878-1953).  In fact, Bulgakov’s extended family was granted permission to leave Russia and go to Paris, but Mikhail was not given such permission.  He and his wife stayed in Moscow and he died quite prematurely for an illness which may have been cured had he been able to move to Paris. 

    For almost any creative person, living in such a culture can be equated to being like a bird in a gilded cage.  It might look wonderful and provide a sense of safety, but it is still a cage. Creativity requires freedom in order to blossom and survive.  Ivan may have come to that conclusion while in the psychiatric hospital which is why he promised that Master that he would never write again.  Bulgakov felt that he was confined to the life he had in Moscow and attempted to make the best of a very difficult situation.  While both men may have had a place to reside, they were, indeed, homeless since they have nowhere to lay their heads and be at peace. 

                                                                                                                                                                               

Dealing with the Devil

Since the dawn of creation, mankind has always wanted to do thing his own way.  Individual initiative is certainly not a bad thing; however, doing things one’s own way without listening to any guidance or directions from others can have disastrous side effects which not only impact us directly, but also our loved ones and others we encounter. 

    This reality has been expressed in religious terms in the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  God gave Adam and Eve everything they needed to survive in the Garden of Eden, but told them not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Satan, the deceiver, in the appearance of a snake, explains to Eve that she actually misunderstood God’s words to her and encourages her to take the fruit from the tree.  She, in turn, gives this fruit to her husband, Adam.  Christianity refers to this act as “original sin” because Adam and Eve chose to follow their own thoughts instead of listening to God and this “original sin” has been passed on to every one of Adam’s descendants.     

    The story of man turning to the devil for some “help” has been written down in various forms over the centuries.  One famous account was inFaust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832).  In this story, the main character, Faust, is a highly successful, but unhappy scholar who enters into a pact with the devil, Mephistopheles, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge and wealth.  The exchange becomes too much for Faust and it eventually becomes the source of his undoing.  Eventually Faust does win his soul back and learns a valuable lesson, namely, that having all this knowledge and worldly wealth is not worth anything at the price of losing one’s soul. 

    A similar theme was also addressed in Master and Margarita (Мастер и Маргарита by Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940).  One of the main characters in this novel is Woland.   He is the personification of the devil and could be understood as almost a “Robin Hood” like figure.  At one point in the novel, two of the characters, Mikhail Alexandrovich Berlioz, head of MASSOLIT, the Soviet writer’s guild, and a twenty three year old poet named Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyrov (whose pen name is Bezdomny which means “homeless” in Russian) are discussing their belief that Jesus Christ did not truly exist when they are approached by a third man who wishes to enter into their conversation. This conversation shows the depths of Woland’s understanding of philosophy and history.  He wants to know who is “in charge” if God does not exist.  Berlioz and Bezdomny agree that we are in charge of our own destiny.  Woland introduces Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the famous Prussian philosopher into the conversation and they begin discussing Kant’s proofs for the existence of God and why they do not make sense   Woland provides his “seventh proof” of God’s existence by demonstrating that he, Woland, not Berlioz, is able to predict Berlioz’s death accurately, thus underscoring the contingency of human life and pointing to the reality of something other than a spatio-temporal reality governed by material laws.  Woland, through his arguments, and the novel itself in its dramatic undermining of Berlioz’s Marxist materialism, thus takes up something like the perspective of Eric Voegelin (1901-1985), a German-American political philosopher, which is that while trying to prove God’s existence is indeed misguided, it is equally misguided to draw the conclusion that because there are no effective proofs that God is an existent object, therefore there is only immanent reality. (2)

   If you read the novel, it seems that Woland is a positive character, who is a patron of arts and love, the hero, who is trying to fight the evils inherent in the people of 1930s Russia. However, Woland is a tempter on closer reading which becomes noticeably diverse. In fact, Woland is Satan, a rethinking of Christ, the new Messiah, a hero as Bulgakov described him in his first unpublished manuscripts.

   To understand the diversity of Woland it is possible only in a careful reading of "The Master and Margarita." Only then can one see the similarity with the Scandinavian hero Odin, then turned into the devil of Christian tradition, or the god, Wotan, who was worshipped the old Germanic pagan tribes. Woland has a portrait resemblance to the great magician and freemason Count Cagliostro, who was able to predict the future and remember the events of a thousand years ago.

   Attentive readers will certainly remember a time when officials remembered the name of the magician and speculated that his name was Faland. Indeed, in tune with Woland, but only not that interesting. Few people know that in “Falandom” is the name the Germans give for the place known as hell in English. (1)

   The acts of the devil Woland and his minions in Moscow seem, at first glance, to be carried out for no reason. From the beginning, when Woland predicts the unlikely circumstances of Berlioz's beheading, to the end, when Behemoth, a large talking black cat who can take on a human appearance when needed, stages a shoot-out with the entire police force, there seems to be no motivation other than sheer mischief. Much of what happens seems to be absurd. However, when it is examined more closely, it does not appear to be that absurd. Well, at least no more absurd than reality itself.

    After a while, though, their trickery reveals a pattern of preying upon the greedy, who think they can reap benefits they have not earned, just because they served the people in power without asking questions. For example, when a bribe is given to the chairman of the tenants' association, Bosoi, Woland tells Korovyov to "fix it so that he doesn't come here again." Bosoi is then arrested, which punishes him for exploiting his position. Similarly, the audience that attends Woland's black magic show is delighted by a shower of money only to find out the next day that they are holding blank paper.  The women who thought they were receiving fine new clothes later find themselves in the streets in their underwear. These deceptions appear mean-spirited and pointless, but the victims, in each case, are blinded by their interest in material goods and dropped all previously cherished moral values as soon as they had the opportunity to benefit from their greed.

   The fact that Woland appears to be robbing from the wealth may give him a “Robin Hood” like appearance, to some; however, there is a deeper meaning at stake.  This is not only about Woland and these people.  The very soul of the Russian nation has been sold to the devil by the Bolsheviks, according to Bulgakov, and these characters are allegorical representations of the entire nation.

    This is a very profound novel and the author is making many important points regarding the role of sin in our lives, the daily struggle between good and evil which we face, and how our actions have consequences not only for us but for generations to come.  It would be unfair to over simplify this great work of Russian literature by stating that these themes are easily understood or that they have only one meaning.  Neither of these things is true.  This novel has multiple layers of meaning and can impact the reader in a variety of different ways depending upon when they read it and what is going on in their own life.  It can be read over and over again and each time the reader will find something new to reflect upon.

   It is also true that the theme of entering into a pact with the devil is present in American literature as well.  The Devil and Tom Walker by Washington Irving (1783-1859) first appeared in 1824 and tells the story of a man who enters into an agreement with the devil and becomes a loan shark.  The story ends with the main character being taken away by the devil on a black horse.  Tom Walker is never seen again and his home burns to the ground. 

    An adaptation of this story was The Devil and Daniel Webster by Stephen Vincent Benét (1898-1943).  This story first appeared in 1937 and tells the story of Jabez Stone, a poor farmer from New Hampshire, who makes a seven year pact with the devil in exchange for prosperity. When the seven years are complete, he is able to extend this pact for another three years.  However, at the end of the tenth year, the devil returns to Stone and demands his soul as payment.

    Stone approaches Daniel Webster, a prominent New England attorney, and asks him to defend him against the devil.  There is a court case involving the devil and Daniel Webster.  Mr. Webster eventually wins this case and it has been said that after this trial the devil was never again seen in New Hampshire.

    Making a pact with the devil may seem like a good decision at first.  One can become wealthy or acquire whatever knowledge he or she wants, but at what cost?  Eventually payment will be demanded by the one with whom this agreement has been made and the price which must be paid is much greater than any possible benefit the person may receive.

(1)      “Seven Keys to the novel ‘Master and Margarita’, which Reveal the Secrets of this Mysterious Book” http://www.kulturologia.ru/blogs/170815/25849/

(2)      Paulette Kidder, “The Interdependence of Satire and Transcendence in Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita” (Eric Voegelin Society Meeting-American Political Science Association 2012)

The Music Lives on Forever

   Throughout the centuries there have been many fine pianists and highly successful musicians, but encountering a genius either at a concert or through his music performed by himself or others is a very rare occurrence in most people's lives.  Listening to the compositions of such people can be a transformative experience and can touch your soul in a way that few others things can.

    One man who had such an extraordinary ability was Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky (1840-1893).  Born in Russia and showing extraordinary talent at a very early age, Tchaikovsky went on to write three ballets, eleven operas, six symphonies, and numerous other works before dying in 1893.  For many people in the West he is known composing the music for “The Nutcracker”, a ballet which is very popular in the US during the Christmas season.  His music was also used in countless films and, thereby, became popular with many generations of people who might not otherwise have had the experience of or interest in hearing classical music.  For example, Disney used several pieces by Tchaikovsky in their 1940 film “Fantasia”. This film helped to introduce young children and parents to some of the finest pieces of classical music ever written by using them as accompaniment to the actions of various Disney characters.

    Tchaikovsky was not only a Romantic music composer, but he was a Russian Romantic music composer.  The influence of Russia on his music can be heard in many of his pieces.  For example, this is very obvious in his “Fourth Symphony”.   The influence of a person’s homeland on his music is certainly not limited to Tchaikovsky. The same thing could easily be said of Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninov (1873-1943). Rachmaninov died in Beverly Hills, California in 1943, but he was never simply a Russian born American composer.  In the case of both of these men their culture helped to make them into the composers they became.

     There have been several films done about the life of this musical genius.  In the 1950s, the Walt Disney Company produced a half hour film about “Peter Tchaikovsky”¹ which was the first time a television show could be heard in stereo.  In 1969, Mosfilms, a Soviet film studio, produced the film “Tchaikovsky” which was nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Foreign Language Film” in 1971.  This film goes into a great deal more detail about Tchaikovsky’s life, especially the influence of Nadezhda von Meck (1831-1894) on his career.   Mrs. von Mack was his “silent” benefactress who was willing to help support Tchaikovsky financially on the condition that they never actually met face-to-face.

     Both of these films presented the Tchaikovsky’s life in a noncontroversial way.  There was some mention of his personal life, but much of the film focused on his work as a composer and his need silence the music which he heard in his head on a rather regular basis since childhood.  Neither of these films would be considered offensive by those who chose to show them to their children.  However, this statement cannot be made about the next film about Tchaikovsky’s life.

     “The Music Lovers” was a 1970 British film directed by Ken Russell.  The film includes at least two major factual errors. In one sequence, Tchaikovsky and his patroness, Mrs. von Mack, see each other on the road; the two never spoke, although their paths crossed once by happenstance in a park in Italy. Later, his wife, Nina, goes mad and is placed in an insane asylum, prompting the composer to call his Sixth Symphony the Pathetique, when in reality she was not institutionalized until after his death.²   

    If these two factual errors were the only major negative factors this film that would be fine; however, it did not stop there. Richard Chamberlain (b. 1934), a fine actor who later became popular in the US for his role in the television series “Thornbirds”, was cast in the title role.  His portrayal of Tchaikovsky could easily have given someone the impression that the composer was a mental patient instead of a genius musician. 

     A great deal of time was spent focusing on the alleged nymphomania of Tchaikovsky’s wife, Nina, and on the question of whether or not Tchaikovsky himself was a homosexual.  Was Russell attempting to make the point that there was a direct link to Tchaikovsky’s alleged homosexuality and his musical genius?   Should musicologists spend time researching if there was a direct link between Rachmaninov’s heterosexuality and his musical genius?  Most people would say, “That is absurd”, but it is not absurd to focus so much time and energy on the idea that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual. 

     “The Music Lovers” was an extremely strong agenda disguised as a film.  Pyotr Tchaikovsky heard music which other could dream of hearing and was able to put that music on paper so that these pieces will be heard by numerous generations long after we are gone.  At this moment, “Evgeny Onegin” is appearing at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City, some one hundred and thirty four years after it was first performed in Moscow.  I sincerely doubt that most current pop songs will be remembered 134 years from now. 

     Musical preferences are highly individualized.  Some people may love opera or classical music while others might prefer jazz or country music.  While musical tastes differ, it is important that people who show musical talent be encouraged.  Parents play a major role in either inspiring or destroying their children individuality.  This is often done under the guise that either the parents know what is best for their child or the parents “meant well”, but the reality is that in many cases these parents are living their lives vicariously through their children with often very unhappy results. 

    Parents often insist that their children conform and not go against the prevailing societal code. Many parents staunchly believe in blind and mindless conformity. They believe that there is safety in following the prevailing and/or majority opinion. They contend that following the majority consensus offers a sense of belonging and security. They stress to their children that it is safer and more feasible to conform to the prevailing groupthink philosophy. They strongly discourage their children's strong individualism and nonconformity because it is believed that if their children refuse to conform to the prevailing groupthink, they would be considered oddballs or worse, being ostracized and alone. A worse scenario according to the parents, these children would be ostracized and denigrated by their neighbors and associates. So if their child/children dare to have a unique, creative, and innovative thought and idea, it is squashed and oftentimes considered outlandish and weird because nobody else thought of it! These parents are killing the dreams of a potential Tchaikovsky.³

     On October 28, 1893, Tchaikovsky conducted the premiere of his Sixth Symphony the Pathétique in Saint Petersburg. Nine days later, he died there at age 53. While Tchaikovsky's death has traditionally been attributed to cholera, most probably contracted through drinking contaminated water several days earlier, some have theorized that his death was a suicide.^] Opinion has been summarized as follows: "The polemics over [Tchaikovsky's] death have reached an impasse ... Rumor attached to the famous die hard ... As for illness, problems of evidence offer little hope of satisfactory resolution: the state of diagnosis; the confusion of witnesses; disregard of long-term effects of smoking and alcohol. We do not know how Tchaikovsky died. We may never find out ....."⁴

    While there is a great deal of speculation surrounding the Tchaikovsky’s death, there is no such speculation surrounding his musical genius.  His contributions to classic music are still admired by audiences throughout the world.  It is entirely possible that he may have lived a difficult and even tragic life, but the mark he left will last forever. 

                                                           End Notes

1)    “Disneyland - 5.16 - The Peter Tchaikovsky Story - Version 1” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTpaaEBbN84  (accessed 10/9/13)

2)     “The Music Lovers” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Music_Lovers  (accessed 10/9/13)

3)     “Destroying Individuality: Making Everyone Mediocre” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2013/03/destroying-individuality-making.html (accessed 10/9/13)

4)     Wiley, Roland John, "Tchaikovsky, Pyotr Illyich" In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Second Edition (London: Macmillan, 2001), Vol. 25: 169. 

The Influencing of a Culture

   There are some people who have a profound impact on their friends and relatives, there are others who may have such an impact on their neighborhood, and still others who have such impact upon their entire nation, but it is a much rarer person who has such an extremely profound impact upon his culture that he is forever alive in the hearts and minds of numerous generations of people.  Such a man is Sherlock Holmes¹.

   We know nothing about his upbringing, we do not know where he was born, nor anything about his education; however, we do know that he has a brother named, Mycroft.  He is a rather complex personality whose powers of observation and gift from deductive reasoning are profound. What we do know about this man’s life was made known to us by the writings of his friend and colleague, John H. Watson, M.D.. 

    Undoubtedly, someone will say to himself or herself, “Why is this person writing about Sherlock Holmes as though he was a real person?  He was the product of the imagination of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) and brought to life in the pages of Strand Magazine.”  This is important historical information regarding the creation of Holmes, but it does not explain the profound impact that Holmes has had on Western culture.

    No other character has been portrayed on television or radio more often than Sherlock Holmes.  While the original stories were set in Victorian England of the 1890s, a series of films based upon Holmes and starring Robert Downey, Jr. (b. 1965) were produced within the past few years.  There are numerous Sherlock Holmes Societies and he is popular in various countries.

     In 1937, the Germans produced their own version of “The Hound of the Baskervilles” and from 1979 to 1986, LenFilms, a Soviet film studio, produced a series of Sherlock Holmes films starring Vasily Livanov (b. 1935) as Holmes. This character was so popular in the Soviet Union that there is a statue dedicated to both he and Dr. Watson in Moscow.  In fact, there are many people who believe that the Holmes character who most closely resembled the figure in Strand Magazine was Vasily Livanov.  He matched the character both in appearance and character, according to many people.  Holmes is even extremely popular in China.  There is even a current American television series entitled, “Elementary” which is based upon the character of Holmes played by Jonny Lee Miller (b.1972) with Dr. Watson played by Lucy Liu (b.1968).

    It is quite interesting that there are even discussions, as mentioned above, regarding who did the best job portraying this character.  It is entirely possible for two people to get into a rather heated debate about whether the Sherlock Holmes portrayed by Basil Rathbone (1892-1967) was better than the portrayal done by Jeremy Brett (1933-1995).  Few, if any other characters, would inspire such loyalty in people that they would even be willing to debate such a topic as which person portrayed him or her in the best fashion.

    Also, “Sherlock Holmes of 221B Baker Street, London” continues to receive mail every year from people who turn to him for advice about a variety of topics.  If Holmes were not “real”, what would inspire people to write to him asking for advice after all these years?  If he was a real person he would certainly have passed away numerous decades ago and if he was simply the creation of someone’s imagination there is no “person” to actually write to.  However, you cannot convince those whose lives he has touched that Holmes is not “real”.

    In an earlier article I wrote about an American cultural icon, namely Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)².  He was the “Father of the Detective Story” and, in a certain way, we owe Holmes creation to Poe since it was Poe who inspired Conan Doyle to write about these stories in the first place. Poe’s stories are still read today, but the “person” of Sherlock Holmes has transcended both time and space.  He was certainly one of the great icons of the 20^th century and he continues to live on into the 21^st century largely because he embodies a sense of fair play and justice which is not present in the lived world of most people. 

     For many people justice and fairness are not a part of their daily lived experience, but when they encounter the “person” of Sherlock Holmes they know that he will make everything right and restore that sense of fairness which they have lost.  This is not simply a nice idea, but actually serves to provide hope to many people.  Without a sense of hope it is difficult for many people to want to go on and Holmes helps them to see that there truly is hope after all.

                    

                                                                   End Notes

1.    “Sherlock Holmes” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes

2.    “Profile of a Cultural Icon” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2012/06/profile-of-cultural-icon.html

Lev Tolstoy Goes to Hollywood

   Few people have had the impact on Russian literature that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) has had.  His novels and short stories have been translated into numerous languages and people from various cultures are familiar with these stories.  Three of his stories including Anna Karenina, one of the greatest novels ever written, The Kreutzer Sonata, and Two Hussars were even made into American films.  These three films were all produced by British producer Bernard Rose (b. 1960). His adaptation of Anna Karenina was certainly not the only one produced for an English speaking audience, but it was certainly one of the best adaptations. 

    In this article I will look at these three films, namely “Anna Karenina” (1997), “The Kreutzer Sonata” (2008), and “Two Jacks” (2011).  I will examine these three films in order to see how faithful they are to the novels themselves and how well they correspond with one another. 

    The 1997 film “Anna Karenina” which stars Sophie Marceau (b. 1966) in the title role, is a very interesting adaption of Tolstoy’s novel.  It was obvious that Rose had borrowed several ideas from the 1948 film with Vivien Leigh, but he also added some new elements which were not present in the earlier films.  For example, the story, in this film, is told by Lev Tolstoy through the character of Constantine Levin.  However, some of the elements of the earlier films about this novel, such as the difficulties between Stepan and Dolly at the beginning of the film, are not present. 

    Sir Georg Solti’s (1912-1997) choice of music also had a profound impact on the film.  Pyotr Illyich Tchaikovsky’s (1840-1893) Sixth Symphony, which he wrote prior to his own death, the choice of Tatiana’s aria from the opera “Evgeny Onegin”, and the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943) helped to tell the story, even without words. For some reason, Sir George did not list this film among the films he is credited with serving as music director for.¹  
    Eleven years later, Bernard Rose decided to produce a modern film version of The Kreutzer Sonata. This novella is believed, by some, to be Tolstoy’s argument in favor of sexual abstinence and against marriage.² It also deals with the question of whether or not true love is possible.³  

     This film was a very interesting 21^st century “American” approach to a 19^th century Russian novella.  Set in Los Angeles, California, this film remains quite faithful to the story line of the novel; however, it can be seen as extremely pornographic, especially if one of the original themes of Tolstoy’s novella was the virtue of sexual abstinence.⁴  

     I have no objection to nudity in a film if it is used for artistic reasons, such as to enhance the storyline; however in this film the constant nudity almost became the storyline. 

     It is unfortunate that modern American films must contain graphic nudity, excessive killings, and/or massive explosions; otherwise they will not do well at the box office.  Some people will argue this is not true and point to the 2012 film version of “Anna Karenina” as an example. However, that film won an Academy Award for “Best Costume Design”, not for “Best Picture”.  Hollywood markets films in the same way cigarettes are marketed according to the late great Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986) ⁵ What Tarkovsky said in the 1980s is even more true today.

     The third film is “Two Jacks” a 2011 film based upon an 1856 short story entitled Two Hussars by Tolstoy. ⁶   There was also a 1984 Soviet film entitled “Two Hussars” which was also based upon this short story.⁷  In the original story the reader is meant to understand that the son is not only a different generation than his father, but that this later generation has actually become worse.  This insight was made quite clear in Bernard Rose’s 2011 film; however, it was not as clear in the 1984 Soviet film. 

      In the 1984 film the father and son were both played by the same actor (with an implied time lapse in the film) and it was difficult to understand why the son was less likeable than the father.  However, this was more obvious in the 2011 film. 

      Danny Huston (b. 1962) plays “Jack, Sr.” and his nephew Jack Huston (b. 1982) plays “Jack, Jr.” and it is somewhat easy to see why Jack, Sr. was a much more likeable character than Jack, Jr.  The movie begins with the audience being introduced to Jack, Sr. at the airport and the film ends with Jack, Jr. at the same airport (in the same terminal) twenty years later. 

    This was the third time that Rose included Danny Huston in one of his films. In addition to playing Jack, Sr. in this film, Huston also played Stepan, Anna Karenina’s brother, in the 1997 film and he played the main character in “The Kreutzer Sonata”.  It would appear that Bernard Rose is quite impressed with Danny Huston’s acting ability. 

     Each of these films remained quite faithful to the novel or short story they were based upon.  These three stories explore very important issues which are still as relevant today as they were when they were written in the 19^th century. With the current divorce rate at over 50%, many young people ask themselves if true love is really possible. 

    In Ezekiel 18 it is written, “The father eats green grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  What the prophet Ezekiel is saying that the actions of the parents have a direct impact on their children.  Another phrase we often heard used is “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”.  Based upon “Two Jacks”, both the quote by the Prophet Ezekiel and the apple are still quite true.  Lev Tolstoy was a deeply religious man and he may very well have had the Bible quote from Ezekiel 18 in mind when he wrote Two Hussars.

      Bernard Rose showed us that the same personalities which could be found in Anna Karenina, The Kreutzer Sonata, and Two Hussars are still very much alive today.   This is a hallmark of classic literature and it is wonderful that this producer was able to introduce these stories by Lev Tolstoy to an audience who may have been familiar with only Anna Karenina and War and Peace.    

                                                          End Notes

1)    “Anna Karenina: A Cinematic Journey on the Silver Screen from 1927 to 2012” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2013/03/anna-karenina-cinematic-journey-on.html 

2)    “The Kreutzer Sonata” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kreutzer_Sonata  

3)    “The Possibility of True Love” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-possibility-of-true-love.html  

4)    “The Kreutzer Sonata (2008 film)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kreutzer_Sonata_(2008_film)  

5)    “Andrei Tarkovsky: A Poet in the Cinema (1983)” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTvIybrtMqU (47:55)

6)    “Two Hussars” http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Two_Hussars

7)    “Two Hussars (Russian Film)” http://rusact.com/movie-opinion-10792-Dva-Gusara-Two-Hussars-Velikolepnaya-Klassika