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

 

The Need for a Hero

   Every society needs heroes. In fact, every society has them. The reason we do not often see them is because we don't bother to look. There are two kinds of heroes. There are heroes who shine in the face of great adversity and/or who perform an amazing feat in a difficult situation. There are also heroes who live among us, who do their work unceremoniously, unnoticed by many of us, but who make a difference in the lives of others. Heroes are selfless people who perform extraordinary acts. The mark of heroes is not necessarily the result of their action, but what they are willing to do for others and for their chosen cause. Even if they fail, their determination lives on for others to follow. The glory lies not in the achievement, but in the sacrifice. Heroes serve to remind us of the higher purpose of self and society.¹

   One such hero was Taras Bulba, a legendary figure immortalized in the novella Taras Bulba by Nikolai Vasilievich Gogol (1809-1852).  This novella tells the story of Taras and his two sons, Ostap and Andrei.  Taras is a Ukrainian Cossack living in the seventeenth century and his two sons are students at the Orthodox seminary in Kiev.  Andrei and Ostap return home from seminary and go off with their father to the Cossack camp at the Zaporozhian Sich.  Taras attempts to inspire the Cossacks to go to war against various groups.  The Cossacks finally agree to go to war against the Polish after hearing that the Polish people have been trying to convert the people of west Ukraine to Roman Catholicism and that they were attacking beliefs of the Orthodox Church.  

   Taras’ son, Andrei, is in love with the daughter of the Polish governor of Kovno.  At one point the Cossacks trap this young woman and the rest of the people inside their castle and prevent supplies from reaching the people.  One of the servants of this young woman appeals to Andrei for help and Andrei brings bread to the young woman and her family inside the castle. When Andrei sees what is happening inside the castle he abandons his fight against the Polish people and actually joins them in their fight against the Cossacks. 

   Taras makes a decision which most people would find extremely difficult to make and decides that he must kill his son, Andrei, as a result of Andrei’s disloyalty to the cause of the Cossacks.  He confronts Andrei in person and kills him with a single shot from his pistol. 

   Taras Bulba is a legendary inspirational figure who has little difficulty inspiring others to follow his lead.  He is faithful to Cossack traditions, well known among the Cossack leaders, and will engage in combat as quickly as he would send others to do so.  There are few other qualities that someone would look for in a leader. 

    At one point he is fighting along with his son, Ostap, when Taras is knocked unconscious and Ostap is taken prisoner by the Poles.  Turning to Yankel, a Jewish merchant, for help Taras explains that he must go to Warsaw in order to offer moral support for Ostap. 

    Taras is smuggled into Warsaw in a pile of bricks and with the help of other Jewish merchants and providing bribes to some guards, he is able to be present as Ostap is tortured.  Following his father’s example, Ostap does not say a word as all of his limbs are broken one at a time, but simply cries out at the end and asked, “Father, do you see this?”  Unable to control himself, Taras shouts out, “I do see this” and then quickly disappears. 

    Upon his return to Ukraine, Taras finds that all of the men he knew were now dead and a new Hetman (leader) has taken over.  This new leader wants to make peace with the Poles, but Taras protests and explains that the Poles cannot be trusted and they will not abide by any peace agreement.

   He fails to convince the new Hetman and forms his own band of soldiers who continue in their fight against the Poles.  At one point, Taras is taken prisoner, nailed to a stake, and burned alive.  Like Ostap, he does not cry out in pain, but simply declares that the glory of Russia will remain forever and a new czar will arise to continue this glory. The story ends with the Cossacks recalling the great deeds of Taras Bulba and his devotion to the spirit and cause of the Ukrainian Cossacks. 

    This same period of history was also written about in With Fire and Sword by Henryk Sienkiewicz (1846-1916).  This novel discusses these same events, but tells the story from the standpoint of the Poles instead of the Cossacks.  It is not surprising that Taras Bulba is not seen as a hero in this novel.  In fact, it has often been said that one man’s hero is another man’s terrorist. 

     The novel, Taras Bulba, originally written in 1835 was considered to be “too Ukrainian” by the Russian government and Gogol was forced to revise the novel.  A second addition was published in 1842.  Even with the revision, there is no denying that this novel is about Ukrainian life and culture.  The Ukrainian people can look to someone like Taras Bulba as a hero even in this period of history. 

     If history had been different, there would be no mention of men such as a George Washington as patriotic American heroes.  Instead, he would have been considered another in a line of anti-British terrorists.  Everyone needs a hero and the Ukrainian people certainly have one in Taras Bulba.

                                                     End Notes

 

1)    “The Making of a Hero” by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono  http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2054335,00.html#ixzz2HkfrCHsE

 

The Hero’s Quest

   The hero’s journey is a pattern of narrative identified by the American scholar Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) that appears in drama, storytelling, myth, religious ritual, and psychological development. It describes the typical adventure of the archetype known as The Hero, the person who goes out and achieves great deeds on behalf of the group, tribe, or civilization.¹

   This pattern was certainly present in Ruslan and Lyudmila, a poem written in 1820 by Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799-1837).  After winning a major battle for his people, Ruslan marries Lyudmila, the daughter of Prince Vladimir of Kiev, and on their wedding night Lyudmila is abducted by an evil wizard.   Ruslan attempts to explain to Prince Vladimir what had happened and the prince immediately dissolved the marriage because Ruslan was unable to protect his wife.

    Ruslan then begins his journey to return Lyudmila to their home and encounters numerous obstacles along the way, but is successful in every test that he faces.  He receives assistance from an old man with magical powers who offers Ruslan guidance in his quest to find Lyudmila.  Years earlier this old man had tried to win the love of a beautiful young woman named Naina.  He cast a spell in order to win Naina’s love, but quickly found out that Naina was not a beautiful young woman, but an old witch in disguise.  After being rejected by this man, Naina vowed revenge against him.  Naina was now working with the evil wizard, Chernomor, in an effort to destroy Ruslan.

    One aspect of the hero’s journey involves leaving the ordinary world and entering a special world.  In the case of this poem, that special world was the forest.  The forest is a place where one comes face-to-face with the forces of nature and must begin to turn inward as a way of making use of the hero’s internal fortitude which will sustain him on this journey and allow him to be successful.  This journey is as much about self-discovery as it is about accomplishing some external goal.   

    Ruslan is a great warrior who shows no fear when confronting external enemies who threaten to attack Kiev, but now he must face his own internal fears and “demands” as he attempts to find his wife and bring her home safely. It is much easier to confront an enemy which you can see, but confronting internal enemies is part of the hero’s journey and part of everyone’s life experience at one time or another. 

    Not only is Ruslan searching for Lyudmila, but three other knights are also searching for her in the hope that they will become her husband once she is brought home.   One by one Ruslan’s rivals disappear and he is the only person capable of being Lyudmila’s husband. 

     After facing many adventures, Ruslan finally finds Lyudmila.  However, he is left for dead by one of the other knights, Farlaf, who rides off to Kiev to return Lyudmila to her father.  There is one major problem.  Lyudmila has been placed under a spell and is asleep.  Prince Vladimir tries everything to wake Lyudmila from this spell, but to no avail. 

    Initially Farlaf told Prince Vladimir that he had fought for three days to save Lyudmila, but his finally admits that he killed Ruslan in order return Lyudmila to Kiev and he is banished from the kingdom forever. 

    Prince Vladimir has little time to think about his daughter’s condition because Kiev is under attack from their enemies.  The old man finds Ruslan dead and restores him to life using magic waters.  He then gives Ruslan a ring and tells him that the ring has the power to wake up Lyudmila, but first Ruslan must defeat the enemies of Kiev. 

    Always the great warrior, Ruslan returns to Kiev, singlehandedly defeats his enemies, and quickly goes to Lyudmila.  In the presence of Prince Vladimir and all those in the court, Ruslan uses the power of the ring to awaken Lyudmila and Prince Vladimir makes an official announcement that Ruslan and Lyudmila are once again married. 

    Each of us will have to undergo a hero’s journey at some point.  We may not encounter wizards or knights, but we will have to come face to face with what we truly believe and who we truly are.  Daily life often forces us to wear many masks throughout the day; however, there comes a time when all the masks must be put aside and we must confront ourselves.

    Stories such as Ruslan and Lyudmila may be only stories, but they tell us something about the journey of self-discovery and follow a pattern which is prevalent in countless stories throughout the world.   The fact that these stories follow such a similar pattern and are known throughout the world should be an indication that there is some degree of truth in these stories and that they can assist us in our own journey as well. 

                                                     End Notes

 

1)    Hero’s Journey http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero's_journey.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? 

The Virtue of Fairy Tales

   From the earliest fables and folk tales passed down through succeeding generations to today's cinematic versions of popular fairy tales, these stories have reflected the changing moral values in society and culture.

   Fables are narrations in which animals speak and act like human beings, intended to inculcate a useful truth or enforce a lesson. Folk tales and folklore refer to any tales circulated by word of mouth among the common folk. Popular fairy tales are fanciful stories or explanations of legendary deeds and creatures, today usually intended for children. What we think of as traditional fairy tales do not necessarily involve fairies but do involve fantasy and some form of wonder or special powers; forces of good and evil dueling over the fate of the hero or heroine. ¹

   In the same way that every culture in the world has its own myths and legends, every culture also has its own fairy tales.  In the US, many fairy tales were originally borrowed from the writings of the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, and others and adapted for an American audience.   Reading or watching fairy tales can provide a person with a great deal of insight into a foreign culture. 

    For example, the fairy tales of Alexander Pushkin (1799-1837) and stories about a very popular character known as “Ivan the Fool” are still extremely popular in many Russian speaking countries.  These are not simply children’s stories as they are in the US and many other Western countries.  There are many plays performed based upon Slavic fairy tales and the animated versions of these tales are often watched on television by both children and adults.

    Fairy tales exercise and cultivate the imagination. Now the imagination is a most powerful auxiliary in the development of the mind and will. In the next place fairy tales stimulate the idealizing tendency. Faith itself cannot abide unless supported by a vivid idealism. The value of the fairy tales is that they stimulate the imagination, reflect the unbroken communion of human life with the lived universal and incidentally, but all the more powerfully on that account, they quicken the moral sentiments. ² 

    “The Tale of Tsar Saltan” written in 1831 by Alexander Pushkin is one such fairy tale.   The basic premise of the story is quite simple: The story is of three sisters, of whom the youngest is chosen by Tsar Saltan to be his wife, while he makes the other two his royal cook and royal weaver. They are jealous of course, and when the tsarina gives birth to a son, Prince Gvidon, they arrange to have her and her child ordered to be enclosed in a barrel and thrown into the sea. The sea itself takes pity on them, and they are cast upon the shore of a remote island, Buyan. The son, having quickly grown while in the barrel, goes hunting. However, he ends up saving an enchanted swan from a kite. The swan creates a city for Prince Gvidon to rule, but he is homesick, and the swan turns him into a mosquito. In this guise he visits Tsar Saltan's court, where he stings his aunt's eye and escapes.

    Back in his distant realm, the swan gives Gvidon a magical squirrel. However, he continues to pine for home, so the swan transforms him into a fly, and in the Tsar's court he stings the eye of his other aunt. In a third round he becomes a wasp (or bee) and stings the nose of his grandmother. In the end, he expresses a desire for a bride instead of his old home, at which time the swan is revealed to be a beautiful princess, whom he marries. He is visited by the Tsar, who is overjoyed to find his wife and newly-married son.⁴

     The tsarina’s sister is convinced that since she is not happy, no one should be happy.  There is a well known American idiom which states, “Misery loves company” (“Беда не приходит одна”) and one of the points made in this fairy tale is that this idiom transcends culture.  Human nature does not change based upon culture, but the way that these truths are conveyed vary depending upon the particular audience.

     It has been said that everything connected to the universe and nature can be found in the poetry of Alexander Pushkin.  For example, in his poem “The Fish and the Fisherman” the fisherman’s wife shows us that happiness cannot be found in having many things and disturbing the natural order.  In fact, there is sufficient evidence from nature that if we attempt to disrupt the natural order or acquire too many things from nature we end up having to deal with hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters. 

    In the fairy tale, The Tale of the Golden Cockerel,⁵ the golden rooster represents the forces of nature, just as the swan does in The Tale of Tsar Saltan and the magic fish in The Fish and the Fisherman. This theme can also been seen in Pushkin’s other fairy tales.

    Like myths and legends, fairy tales also convey the truth.  They are present in every culture and can help us to understand the world on a metaphorical, if not literal, level.  Just because an event did not happen in the exact same way that the story about the event describes it does not mean that either the event or the story is untrue.  In some cases it is important to look beyond the ‘facts’ of a story in order to see the greater message contained within. 

    Formed by the science of the twentieth century, fairy tales have been broken down into four basic schools: mythological, comparative (migration), the British "anthropological" structuralist school.  Analyzing stories of different ages and from different nations, scientists discovered their common plot schemes, "anthropologists" - one domestic, psychological basis of their origin, and the structuralists - a uniform structure in which there are constant and stable elements or functions.
  
   In spite the lack of a clear definition and classification, researchers still highlights a number of features in common: an epic-narrative framework and reliance on folk "genre memory" psychology in the interpretation of the characters.  Researchers point to the literary fairy tales of the twentieth century as having multifunctional ties with folk and world culture, flexibility in the orientation of the mythology, folk demonology, legends, and multi-genre, as well as conventional and metaphorical allegory.
   
   Nikolai Leskov (1831-1895), a well-known Russian author, once said, "My dear sirs, Russian people are at peace with their old fairy tales! Woe to the one who will not be in his or her old age."

                                                          End Notes

1)    “Popular Fairy Tales Reflect Moral Values in Society and Culture ” http://news.vision.org/press-release/articles/popular-fairy-tales-reflect-moral-values-society-and-culture

2)    “The Value of Fairy Tales” http://www.oldandsold.com/articles14/mothers-guide-book-58.shtml

3)    “Tale of Tsar Saltan” http://www.marxists.org/subject/art/literature/children/texts/pushkin/tsar.html

4)    “Russian Fairy Tales” http://www.russfolkart.com/folkTales.htm

5)    “The Tale of the Golden Cockerel” http://www.fairytales.biz/alexander-pushkin/the-tale-of-the-golden-cockerel.html  

Be Careful What You Ask For

   Throughout the world many people are panicking as the date “December 21” approaches.  According to various “experts” the Mayan calendar predicted that a major cataclysm will take place on December 21, 2012 because it is on that date that the calendar enters a new cycle.

    For the past two thousand years Christians all over the world have been asking Our Lord Jesus to return. He promised us that He would return prior to His ascension into heaven and now that there is a possibility that He might actually be fulfilling His promise, how do we respond?  Are we happy that Our Lord Jesus will finally return and we might actually be able to meet Him face to face?  No, we panic and go to the store to buy candles, food, water, and other supplies.  Why?  Did we not believe that Jesus would fulfill His promise?  Do we believe that Jesus will be angry with us and we must hide from our angry “parent” so we do not get punished? 

    Christian monks and nuns all over the world have been praying “Maranatha” (Come, Lord Jesus); however, instead of looking forward to the possible fulfillment of this prayer, people are telling everyone that they meet that “the sky is falling” and acting more like Chicken Little than a person of faith.  If this is the end of the world, what good is buying candles, food, and extra water going to do?   This is not going to be similar to a bad rain storm where we will lose power for a few days.  All of this panicking is not going to help anything or anyone. 

     It would be one thing if all of this panicking was taking place among people who are unbelievers.  Those people who do not believe in God or have no understanding of Christianity.  However, most of the people who are panicking are those who claim to be Christians.  It is as times like this that faith should become a priority.  If we know exactly what is going to happen in the future, there is no need for faith.  However, many people seem to have faith when they are aware of what will happen, but if the future is unknown they panic. 

     In the year 1000, many people believed that the world would come to an end because it was one thousand years since Our Lord Jesus had ascended into heaven.  However, nothing happened.  The same was true in the year 2000.  The fact that the Mayan calendar predicts that a major event will take place on December 21, 2012 is no reason for panic.  Numerous dates have been given for the end of the world over the past two thousand years and none of them have come true.

     Several years ago there were people who were predicting that the world would come to an end when Haley’s Comet appeared again.  This comet was seen by people all over the world and nothing happened.  There is no reason for someone to base their faith upon the movement of the stars or planets.  If such was the guide for determining when Jesus would return He would have given us some indication of this.  However, Jesus told us that no one knows the day or date when this will happen.  

    There will be many people who will feel very foolish when they wake up on December 22 and everything is ok.  They will realize that they panicked for no reason.  Others will be very happy that everything did not come to an end.  Neither of these responses will have any connection to faith.  

     This should be a time for people to ask themselves, “What do I believe?”  Instead people run to the store to buy food, milk, batteries, and extra water.  The sad part is that most people will simply forget about December 21 by January 1, 2013 and life will go on as if nothing ever happened.  If we truly believe than what is the need for panic?  If we do not believe, then why do we call ourselves believers?   

Learning to Fish for Yourself

     "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime". This well known quote by Lao Tzu (6^th Century BC) expresses the reality of life in the countries which made up the Soviet Union quite nicely.  It has been twenty years since the breakup of the Soviet Union and many people are still looking to the government to do things for them.

      A Russian physician in his forties expresses the frustration of many when he says, "The Soviet system deliberately kept us as dependent children," he said. "They told us when to sit, when to stand, what to say, what to think, what to do — we were punished severely if we ever tried to think for ourselves or to show any initiative. Then when the Soviet system fell in 1991, we were like 3-year-olds who someone had thrown out into the snow, saying, 'Here, now you go take care of yourselves!'"

      His right arm thrust upward with flexed muscles and clenched fist as he declared: "We are not stupid! We are not lazy! We just don't know how!" Both his arm and his voice dropped as he softly said, "Please help us. Please teach us how to be good husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, friends and lovers, employers and employees. No one has ever role-modeled to us how to become these people in a healthy, balanced way." ¹

      Most Americans would be astonished to read this, especially since we were raised to be very independent, self-reliant, and taught not to rely upon the government for assistance unless absolutely necessary.  The United States is more of a "left-brained culture" that respects and encourages: logical and analytical thinking, rationality, objectivity, responsibility, initiative, independence, honesty, dependability, trustworthiness and punctuality; and an active work ethic that emphasizes quality workmanship and accomplishing objectives in a timely manner. While there are many people in the United States who are innately more right-brained, the country as a whole still remains a left-brained culture in education, business and government. Emphasis is placed on "doing."

    Russia is more of a "right-brained culture" that respects and encourages: communication, connections, spirituality, philosophy, subjectivity, adaptability, flexibility, survival, communal concepts, formality, and tradition; and emotions that are deep and passionate. Relationships with friends and family are a high priority, and most Russians have a wide knowledge and love of the arts and culture. They are more reactive than active. While there also are many people in Russia who have left-brained personalities, the country as a whole still remains a right-brained culture, and this affects all aspects of life. Emphasis is placed upon "being." ²

    What is true of people in Russia is also true of people from the other nations that comprised the Soviet Union.  There are some individuals in these countries who have taken personal initiative to improve their own personal surroundings, but the number of people who have done so is very limited. There are also cases where people get together with the intention of improving their surroundings, but they lack the necessary funds to accomplish this goal. 

     Overall, the people are very kind, but they feel helpless because they lack the necessary resources to bring about the changes that they want and need.  Public roads and buildings are the responsibility of the government, but taking pride in one’s neighborhood or home is a matter of personal initiative.  

    One of the major differences between the American and Russian people is the influence of the Orthodox Church on Russia.  The Russian soul has been described as: sensitive, imaginative, compassionate, patient, strong (well-known for survival in unbearable circumstances), poetic, mystical, fatalistic, introspective, mistrusting of rational thought, trusting intuition, fascinating, having ability to feel a wide array of extreme human emotions (from absolute joy and peace to the darkest despair) — the list goes on. Russians maintain their integrity in a way that conforms to their inner notion of what a human being should be, with a blatant honesty and integrity seldom seen elsewhere in the world. Above all they have an appreciation for wholeness or complete commitment and faith, no matter what that faith might be related to.³  

    The Russian soul evolved and entered into Western consciousness in the 1860s and 1870s, most famously through the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky. In his novels and stories, Dostoevsky often exhibited an anti-European nationalism and frequently suggested a “people’s spirit” held together by “unexpressed, unconscious ideas which are merely strongly felt.” By the time of Dostoevsky's death in 1881, the “Russian soul” had completed its evolution in Russia.⁴  

     From about 1880 to 1930, largely thanks to Dostoevsky, the “Russian soul” concept spread to other countries and began to affect foreign perception of the Russian people. For many Europeans the idea offered a positive alternative to the typical view of Russians as backward, instead depicting the Russian people as an example of the innocence the West had lost. The popularity of the “Russian soul” continued into the 20th century but faded as Soviet power increased. By the 1930s the concept was slipping into obscurity, but it would survive in the work of the numerous writers who devised it.⁵

     The concept of the “Russian soul” may have gone out of fashion as Soviet power increased; however, now that the Soviet Union is no longer a reality, it is my contention that this concept is returning.  Even among those who do not profess a faith in the Orthodox Church, the ethos of Orthodox spirituality is very much a part of the daily life of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian people.      

   Since the fall of the Soviet Union, life has been very challenging in these various countries; however, there is hope that things will improve over time. What has helped the people to deal with these major changes is their Russian soul which is their source of inner strength allowing them to cope with so many things that would have probably destroyed them, had it not been for their soul.

   The impact that men such as Fyodor Dostoevsky, Nikolai Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, and others have had on Russian culture has been profound.  These men were certainly products of their generation, but they also influenced and continue to influence countless generations that have come after them. 

    As long as the spirit of these men remains alive in the East the “Russian soul” will also remain alive.  Suffering for its own sake makes no sense, but since suffering is a part of human life it is easier to suffer knowing that one’s suffering is united to the suffering of Jesus than believing that it has no point at all.  This is one of the aspects of a Russian soul.  It is an indication of the resilience of the human spirit and confirmation of the words of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) who said, “Anything which does not kill you, will only make you stronger.” ⁶

     Hopefully, the younger generation of people from the former USSR will be able to learn to fish for themselves so they will not be so dependent upon the government.  This is necessary for the survival of the nation and the culture.  Imposing Western ideas on the Slavic people is not the answer because their thought process is different from the West; however, it is important to introduce such ideas so that they can be understood and adapted into an Orthodox mindset.

                                                   End Notes

1)    “Left Brained Americans, Right Brained Russians” http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/left-brained-americans-right-brained-russians/455021.html#ixzz2DVzitDT  

2)    “Left Brained Americans, Right Brained Russians”

3)    “Russian Soul” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_soul

4)    Robert C. Williams, "The Russian Soul: A Study in European Thought and Non-European Nationalism," Journal of the History of Ideas 31 (1970): 573-588, accessed November 28, 2012.

5)    Robert C. Williams, “The Russian Soul…”

6)    “The Beauty of the Russian Soul” http://heideggerm1.blogspot.com/2011/10/beauty-of-russian-soul.html