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. 

No Substitute for Talent

   An aptitude is a component of a competency to do a certain kind of work at a certain level, which can also be considered "talent". Aptitudes may be physical or mental. Aptitude is not knowledge, understanding, learned or acquired abilities (skills) or attitude. The innate nature of aptitude is in contrast to achievement, which represents knowledge or ability that is gained.¹

      Talent may be an innate natural aptitude in regard to a certain type of work; however, it is something which must be supported and sustained on a regular basis.  There are many people who can play various keys on a piano and many of the these people are even quite capable to playing various musical compositions, but not everyone can sit down and begin to compose music like Ludwig van Beethoven or Sergei Rachmaninoff.   These men had an innate ability which only improved with use.

    However, there are some people who believe that if they wear the proper clothing or know the right people then somehow their “talent” will be discovered, regardless of whether or not such talent actually exists.  This is quite evident on television shows such as “America’s Got Talent” or “Ukraine’s Got Talent”.  Some of the people who appear on these shows have innate talent which is acknowledged by professionals in a given field; however, there are other people who are living in a fantasy world where they believe that they possess a talent in singing, dancing, or some other area.  Many of these people are astonished when they are told that they do not possess such a talent and often become angry at the judges for saying that they do not have such a talent.  The truth can be a very painful thing to accept; however, there is no virtue in lying to someone and encouraging them to ‘work harder’ when this person does not possess the basis of any real talent.

   Ivan Andreyevich Krylov (1769-1844) was an extremely talented fabulist and he would have been able to see if others possessed talent also.  In “The Quartet” ², Krylov addresses whether or not playing “musical chairs” actually increases talent.  In fact, it is quite possible that the concept of “playing musical chairs” originated in this fable.

   Simply sitting down at a desk with a pen and paper does not help to inspire the next Edgar Allan Poe in the same way that simply sitting down at a piano would not inspire the next Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.  However, it would appear that Monkey, Donkey, Goat, and Bear have convinced themselves that they have some hidden talent that no one else can see.

     We often see this in government work also.  Many people are promoted or reassigned 

to new jobs not because of their talent, but because their supervisor wants to remove this person from his or her department and having this person transferred is easier than having this person removed from their job.  While it might not be easy, sometimes it is both necessary and charitable to say, as the nightingale said,

      “"For making music, you must have the knack

        And ears more musical than yours,"

        The nightingale comes back,

      "And you, my friends, no matter your positions,

        Will never be musicians!"

 

                                                     End Notes

1)    Aptitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptitude

2)    “Квартет/Quartet” http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/Demo/texts/quartet.htm   

Anna Karenina: A Cinematic Journey on the Silver Screen from 1927 to 2012

  "All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." "Все счастливые семьи похожи друг на друга, каждая несчастная семья несчастна по-своему."¹ It is with this quote that Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910) began what is considered, by many, to be his most famous novel, Anna Karenina.

   Based upon the number of film adaptations which this novel has undergone, it would appear that this novel is a favorite among filmmakers as well.  The first Pathé version appeared in 1911² (just one year after Tolstoy’s death) and the most recent one made by Joe Wright in 2012. ³ Meanwhile, numerous other versions were produced: two films starring Greta Garbo (1905-1990)⁴, the silent film Love (1927), and Clarence Brown’s Anna Karenina (1935); two versions starring British actresses, the 1947 version with Vivien Leigh and the television production of 1985 with Jacqueline Bisset ; five Russian adaptations, including two silent films (one by Vladimir Gardin, starring Vera Vasilyevna Kholodnaya in 1914), the filmed performance at the Malyi Theatre, with Alla Tarasova as Anna in 1953, Aleksander Zarkhi’s Anna Karenina (1967), with Tatiana Yevgenyevna Samoilova and the creatively interesting hybrid of 1974: the film ballet with Maya Mikhaylovna Plisetskaya (b. 1924) ⁵

    In this article I will examine how Anna is presented in these various films by comparing the films of 1935, 1948, 1967, and 2012 in terms of how closely these various plots correspond to one another and to the original text of the novel.   

    When examining the various ways in which Anna Karenina has been interpreted in film it is important to keep in mind the country which the director is from.  In the 1927 and 1935 films, the directors were from the United States. There would have been very little known about life in Russia in the United States in either 1927 or 1935, so these directors were interpreting Anna as an American woman living in Russia.

     It may not have been their intention to interpret her as an American woman, but that was the result of the film.  For example, in the 1935 film, Greta Garbo comes across as a very strong minded, independent woman.  She is driven to despair by her husband who tells their son, Sergei, that his mother is dead and refuses to allow Anna to see him. 

     Fredric March (1897-1975), who played Count Vronsky, was initially a very supportive character, but soon had a great deal of difficulty understanding Anna’s mood swings and became eager to return to his comrades who were on their way to war. 

    It was somewhat surprising, and a bit strange, to hear the chorus “Glory, Glory to you, holy Rus'!” played after Anna’s tragic death in the 1935 film.  What point was the director attempting to make by choosing that song?  Was he attempting to show that life continued on in Russia even though Anna was gone or that Vronsky was beginning his new life without Anna?  Suicide is not understood as a heroic act, especially to an American audience, so this choice of music was certainly not meant to glorify Anna’s suicide as some sort of heroic act for her country.   This chorus was originally presented in the opera, A Life for the Tsar, by Mikhail Ivanovich Glinka (1804-1857) about Ivan Susanin who gave up his own life to save Czar Mikhail Romanov from the Polish Army in 1613.⁶

       In fact, this music only appears at the end of the 1935 film.  There is no triumphant music at the end of any other film version of “Anna Karenina”.  This can certainly lead one to believe that this music was chosen for a very specific purpose, but I have not been able to locate any information about such a purpose.  Was this music meant to indicate that Anna had given her life for the glory of Russia?   We do not know.  Neither Clarence Brown (1890-1987), the film director nor Herbert Stothart (1885-1949) spoke about why this music was chosen at the end of the film.

     The 1948 film was produced in England and, not surprisingly, Anna and the other characters in the film come across as very British.  Throughout the film, Anna comes across as almost emotionless.  Kieron Moore (1924-2007), who plays Count Vronsky, does not give the impression that he does not love Anna, but neither does he give the audience the impression that she can turn to him for any kind of emotional support. 

    Throughout the film it was very easy to ask the question, “How will the director show us why Anna kills herself?”  Vivien Leigh (1913-1967), who played Anna, came across as a rather logical woman with a “stiff upper lip”.  She showed very little emotion, even when she calls her husband to her bedside and announces that she could die at any moment. 

    However, everything changes after the scene where Anna appears at the opera theater by herself.  Anna sees Count Vronsky sitting with his mother and a young woman in his mother’s theater box.  Anna is being accosted by those around her and Vronsky is nowhere to be found.  Then, as she is preparing to leave, Vronsky shows up.

    Later, Vronsky and Anna leave St. Petersburg and go to Italy.  While in Italy, he receives a telegram from his mother who asks him to return home.  Vronsky is emotionally distant at this point.  Anna has become convinced that Vronsky does not love her and that his mother is trying to arrange a marriage between Vronsky and the young woman from the opera theater.  However, Instead of saying or doing something to assuage Anna’s fears, Vronsky leaves her a very emotionless note that he had returned to St. Petersburg and would be back in two days. 

    At this point, Anna believes that all hope is lost.  She can no longer see her child, her marriage is over, and her lover now loves another woman.  It is all very logical.  She boards a train for St. Petersburg and when the train stops at a certain station, Anna leaves the train to get some air.  She begins to reflect upon her life while standing on the train tracks and we see her get run over by the train.  She does not utter a sound prior to being struck by the train.

    The 1967 film is understood, by many, as the finest film adaptation of Anna Karenina because the film is produced in the Soviet Union and is in Russian. It is quite true that Tatiana Yevgenyevna Samoilova (b. 1934), who plays Anna, is a very different personality than either Garbo or Leigh.   However, does that necessarily mean that her portrayal of Anna was the most accurate according to the novel?   Anna’s character is certainly much more emotional than the character portrayed by Vivien Leigh, but there are times when this character is almost at the point of hysterics in the 1967 film. 

     One of the first things that must be acknowledged is that the film’s primary goal was to shoot the stars, not the novel. This approach inevitably affected the structure of the film. In all of these films, the novel is reduced to the Anna-Vronsky connection. Karenin plays a largely subsidiary role.  It appears that his only purpose is making his wife’s love story romantically doomed.⁷

     In the 1935 film, Alexei Karenin is played by Basil Rathbone (1892-1967), who later became famous playing Sherlock Holmes in a series of films.  Karenin came across as a very strict man who cared only about public appearances.  He was very heavily influenced by rules of social etiquette and seemed to care very little about Anna’s feelings.  After Anna told him that she loved Vronsky, Karenin not only told Anna that he would never grant her a divorce, but that she was forbidden to ever see their son, Sergei, again.  This was too much for Anna to accept. It was very easy to dislike this character and understand why Anna fell in love with Vronsky.  

   Ralph Richardson, a British actor, played Karenin in the 1947 film and he was likewise more concerned about social etiquette than Anna’s feelings.  This character was not as harsh as Rathbone’s character, but it was also easy to dislike him.  What we often fail to take into consideration is that Karenin had every right to respond the way that he did.  If Vronsky were a female, he would be referred to as a “home wrecker”, but since he is a man this is simply seen as a love story between a dashing military man and a wealthy housewife whose husband does not understand her. 

    In the 1967 film, the character of Karenin is portrayed by Nikolai Gritsenko and this character was also rather unlikeable.  He also refuses to grant Anna a divorce, but when Anna sends him a message that she is dying, Karenin actually forgives Anna and has a rather understanding conversation with Vronsky outside of Anna’s bedroom. 

    This portrayal of Karenin as a rather nasty, angry man is not in keeping with the novel; however, such a film portrayal appears necessary if the director wants the audience to sympathize with the main character.  The fact is that in the novel Karenin does not come across as a difficult man at all.  He does make an issue about the divorce; however, it is important to keep in mind that in Russia in the 1870s, a decree of divorce was only granted by the czar and if the family was wealthy it was done for very specific reasons. 

    That is why during the conversation between Karenin and the lawyer there is so much time spent talking about Karenin having evidence to prove Anna’s infidelity.  Such evidence could be seen as a legitimate reason for divorce, but the other problem was the possibility of public scandal.   The issue of scandal is mentioned in the various film versions, but there is no discussion about the difficulty of obtaining a divorce.⁸ 

     The 1997 film “Anna Karenina” which was produced by Bernard Rose (b. 1960) and 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. 

     Some of the elements of the earlier films, such as the difficulties between Stepan and Dolly at the beginning of the film, are not present.  It appears that Bernard Rose is quite familiar with classic Russian literature given the fact that he directed at least two other films based upon Tolstoy’s stories, including a film entitled “Kreutzer Sonata”.  

     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. 

     After seeing the 1997 film, the 2012 British film by Joe Wright (b. 1972) does not even appear to be based upon the same novel.  It is true that this film won an Academy Award for “Best Costume Design”, but in regard to the story of Anna Karenina it was more of a spoof than a remake of the novel. 

     It is true that Keira Knightley (b. 1985) is a very attractive woman, but this is not Anna Karenina.  Her character is one dimensional.  She seems to almost take delight in making the life of her sainted husband, played by Jude Law (b. 1972), miserable. Aaron-Taylor Johnson (b. 1990), who played Vronsky, actually came across as more of a spoiled rich child than an officer in the Czar’s guard.  He was rather devoted to Anna as the two of them were destroying Anna’s marriage, but he quickly became rather indifferent to her.   This was very obvious in the scene where Anna is confronted by people at the opera theater and Vronsky offers her no support at all. 

    Jude Law’s character came across as a saint.  I began to ask myself, “How could any woman be so stupid as to leave this man for Vronsky?”  Not only was Alexei Karenin not mean-spirited, but at the end of the film he is seen raising the child that Anna and Vronsky had while she was still married to Karenin.  There is no mention of this anywhere in the novel and I am not quite sure why Joe Wright felt the need to add that into the film. 

      I do understand that poetic license comes into play when making a movie, but it is still important that the director remain as faithful as possible to the novel, unless, of course, he begins by stating that the film is “based upon Anna Karenina”, which means that this film will bear only a slight resemblance to the film. 

    The audience for each film is also introduced to the characters of Stepan, Dolly, Kitty, and Constantine Levin.  Stepan and Dolly are there simply as a way of introducing us to Anna since Stepan, Anna’s brother, picks Anna up at the train station in Moscow very early on in the film.   Kitty is introduced to us because she is a rival love interest of Vronsky, but that fades quickly after Vronsky meets Anna. 

     In almost all of the films, except for the 1997 version, Constantine Levin is a rather one dimensional character.  He appears very rarely in the films and the audience has no indication that in the novel he plays a very major role as a personality contrast to Anna.  In fact, Anna Karenina is actually a novel about two major figures, Anna and Levin. The novel does not end with the death of Anna, but each film ends with her dying at the train station, either by falling in front of or being hit by a train.  

    Instead of seeing the contrast between the failed marriage of Karenin and Anna and the loving conversion experience undergone by Constantine Levin, the audience is simply left to believe that Anna was a wealthy misunderstood housewife who had a romantic fling with a dashing young military man, but finally killed herself when she realized what she had actually given up. 

     This overly simplistic explanation of the story of Anna Karenina does a tremendous disservice to both the novel and its author.  It has been said that Anna Karenina may have been an autobiographical novel by Tolstoy.  He had many personal difficulties in his marriage, including being accused by his wife, Sophia, of being a homosexual (even though he fathered thirteen children).⁹  

     Based upon this view that Tolstoy is like Anna, that means that Sophia is like Karenin.  It should not surprise us that when Tolstoy was dying, the one person that he did not want to see was Sofia.  He died near the train station where he left the train and the one person he did not want to see what his wife. 

     There is also a belief that Tolstoy is similar with Constantine Levin.  Levin is a wealthy man living on an estate outside of the city and works with the serfs living on his land.  This point was made in several versions of the film.   In fact, the 1967 version spent at least five minutes focusing on Levin’s serfs working in the fields. 

     The connection between Tolstoy and Levin was never fully addressed in any of the films; however, the role of Levin is extremely important in the novel.  I understand that the novel is called Anna Karenina, but even the author felt that the story of Kitty and Levin was important enough that he spent a great deal of time exploring this relationship and the positive change that Levin underwent as a result of his relationship with Kitty. 

     As I said earlier, poetic license aside, when working with a classic novel it is important that the film director remain as faithful to the novel as possible.  Stories such as Anna Karenina and other classic novels are timeless and can speak to audiences in various periods of history without having to change the story.  

                                                       End Notes

1. Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy Anna Karenina (NY: International Collectors Library) [trans. by Constance Garnett], p. 4

2. This film, which began the history of the numerous cinematic adaptations of Tolstoy’s works in world cinema, has not survived.

3. “Anna Karenina 2012”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Karenina_(2012_film)  This film won an Academy Award in 2013 for “Best Costume Design”. 

4. She received the Best Actress Award from the New York Film Critics for playing Anna in the 1935 film.

5. In Irina Makoveeva’s “Cinematic Adaptations of Anna Karenina” (Studies in Slavic Culture, University of Pittsburgh, pp. 111-134) In her dissertation, The Modes of Storytelling: A Rhetorical Analysis of Film and Television Adaptations of Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Hound of the Baskervilles and Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, Beata Jurkowska-Krupa compares the setting, plot, characters, point of view, and use of literary tropes in the 1935 film and the TV version of 1985. She analyzes how the structures of film and television influence the choice of rhetorical devices used in the stories they tell. I disagree with some of her conclusions: for example, the statement that television adaptations follow the narrative devices of the literary texts more closely than do film adaptations. In the case of the Anna Karenina versions, she is misled by her focus on the 1935 film, for a comparison with the Russian version of 1967 could have given opposite results.

6. “A Life for the Tsar” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Life_for_the_Tsar

7. Irina Makoveeva “Cinematic Adaptations of Anna Karenina” (Studies in Slavic Culture, University of Pittsburgh, p. 118.

8.”Tsarist Russia and the Women’s Movement” http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id576

9. “Issues in the Tolstoy Marriage” http://marriage.about.com/od/thearts/a/leotolstoy_3.htm

 

A Guide to Sharikov Culture

    Imagine, for a moment, that someone from another planet landed in the United States and wanted to understand what the country considered to be important.  However, this alien wanted to do this without ever speaking to anyone.  Where would this alien turn for such information?  The most basic answer is television.  Some of the most popular television shows in the US are about crime, so, obviously, crime is very important to this culture.   Then this alien changes the channel and begins to watch “Real Housewives of ….”   Watching this show would give the alien the impression that this culture idolizes shallow, materialistic, self-absorbed people. 

    This alien can also see educational shows about history or other topics, as well as, shows about religion or the arts.  However, on the major television networks this alien would be able to “feast” on a daily diet of crime shows and other shows which serve to numb the mind more than anything else. 

    Now, let us assume that this same alien decided to travel to the largest country in the world, Russia, and observe what this country considers important.  Once again, this alien decides to watch television in order to obtain such information.  What does this alien see?  A steady stream of television shows about criminals or people who drink too much.    This alien can also find religious programs or shows about history, but if he or she decided to limit his or her viewing to the major networks, they would be exposed to shows about criminals or people who drink too much.

    It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that the same culture which produced Pyotr Tchaikovsky (1840-1893), Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910), Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881), Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943), and Andrei Tarkovsky (1932-1986), to name a few, also inspired television shows about criminals and drunks. 

    The fact is that these people were not the product of the culture.  These people were the product of traditional Russian culture, but what people are exposed to now to Soviet culture, which is something completely different.   Even Andrei Tarkovsky, who lived his entire life during the period of the Soviet Union, was not a product of Soviet culture because of the influence of his father, the famous Russian poet Arseny Alexandrovich Tarkovsky (1907-1989).  

     After the October Revolution of 1917, V.I. Lenin (1870-1924) began slowly destroying traditional Russian culture, beginning with the destruction of countless Orthodox churches, and attempted to replace this culture with glorification of the state.  The year after Lenin died, Mikhail Bulgakov (1891-1940) wrote a wonderful story about the rise of the “new Soviet man” which was entitled Heart of a Dog (Сердце Собаки).

     In this story, Professor Philip Philippovich Preobrazhensky and his assistant, Bromenthal, can be understood to represent two different views from traditional Russian culture, while Poligraf Poligrafovich Sharikov, a dog who is turned into a man by Professor Preobrazhensky represents the “new Soviet man”.  Professor Preobrazhensky and Bromenthal both have major problems with Sharikov’s behavior, but they choose to deal with these problems in two completely different ways.   

    Professor Preobrazhensky begins by taking pity on Sharikov and blames his bad behavior on the fact that Sharikov had received the testicles and pituitary gland of a drunken man in order that he might become a person.  However, Bromenthal wants to inject Sharikov with arsenic and destroy him.  Eventually, Sharikov is returned to his natural state and lives out the rest of his life as a dog.  It should not surprise anyone that this story was banned from the Soviet Union until 1987 since the premise of this story goes directly to the heart of the very society that Lenin and his followers were trying to create.

   When television was first created it had the enormous potential to be able to educate and inspire people.  However, it has never lived up to that potential.  There is no reason why people should have cable television service with over two hundred (200) channels available and these same people then complain that there is nothing to watch because the shows available are “garbage”. 

    Instead of uplifting cultural standards, television appeals to the lowest common denominator in order to insure that Sharikov is happy.  For many years a friend of mine has said, “In order to keep their people quiet, Rome gave them bread and circuses, while we give them drugs and television.”  There is a great deal of truth in this statement.  The ability to read is a rather late development in human history, but people read less now than in many generations. 

    While fewer people read than in previous generations, Russian television does offer more films based upon classic Russian novels than American commercial television does about classic American novels. It has been decades since any of the major networks presented a movie about “Tom Sawyer” or some other novel.  I love watching films about classic Russian novels, but is there something wrong with presenting a film about a story by Edgar Allan Poe (1809-1849)?

     It would be very easy to say that what is presented on television is simply a form of

entertainment; however, it actually directly reflects cultural values.  If this is a form of

entertainment, then Americans and Russians must find crime and alcoholism to be very

entertaining.  When it comes to television, we continue to sleep with dogs and continue to

be very surprised that we wake up with fleas. After all of these years of appealing to

“Sharikov culture” in the United States and Russia, why are we still surprised?