Change Your Image
lovanro
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Red Army (2014)
Hockey, Politics, and World History.
I was drawn to this movie out of an interest in the USSR and socialist history and no idea what to expect. It exceeded my expectations and I have respect for its makers. Let me explain why.
There are several reason why I think this a great piece of film. First, by interviewing players the film documented first hand experiences of an important historical period in our history. For me hockey was just the 'particular', but the more general setting was its relation to the soviet system and cold-war politics. Indeed, the movie explains how the soviets had created this system for hockey plays in order to excel, as a kind of display of Soviet superiority, hence it fulfilled a propaganda function (*). So the proposed narrative explains the USSR-hockey teams success in terms of its system and function. As a someone who reads Marx a lot, we clearly see in here his ideas on the relation between history and social developments; for hockey was popular as it was, in part largely because of the condition which enabled it, for certain historical development created the 'demand' for ice hockey. So for me there is a much larger story at play; it's not just about hockey, bu hockey within the Soviet system, a huge bureaucracy where everyone is a clog within a much larger system with the leader at the helm (**).
It captures the cold-war spirit I myself as a 90's kid did not live through. But while educational, the hockey made it entertaining at the same time. The film interviews top ex USSR players; in a way they are the protagonists of the film - with Fetisov as the main character. It's great to have their experiences on tape. The interviews are alternated and supported by authentic film of the day, creating an immersive experience. In retrospect it's insane to see how much people are affected by the larger history they're part of and didn't choose.
Critical Notes:
(*) The movie tells us how the hockey team was propaganda for the Soviet regime. However, I fail to see why capitalist societies, when displaying good performances and results, that isn't seen as propaganda. All professional sport teams in the West are embedded in profit driven organisation; so they're also part of a system which seeks good performance and competition. Similarly, we clearly see the president tell the USA team when they beat the USSR team for the first time that he's "proud of them", to which the interlocutor responds that it " shows the superiority of their way of life." How is that not similar in function? It is also broadcasted on TV, thus displayed for the public. Why isn't profit driven performativity considered as propaganda, yet more centralised bureaucratic driven performativity is considered as it? A question to reflect on, for the American journalist who tells us this, and the movie's decision to go with it, lacks some nuance in this regard. My view in this regard is simply that propaganda in the West is much more subtle because the system is much more complex due to its decentralised nature and the different forces (classes, coörperations, state, civil society, etc...). The media is swayed by many different interests, not serving one political purpose. Still, if one has an understanding of the capitalist system and its own share of problems, propaganda - which aligns or distracts from the system's issues - seems very present in many aspects of life. One could even argue that it is simply more succesful in reproducing the ignorance of the public.
(**) We often feel the same in today's society; that were a clog in a much larger system. While I believe that the the complexity and scale of globalisation work to this effect, it is very different than compared to the rigid bureaucracies of 20th century communist societies. In today's world there's also no supreme leader because of our democracies and distinction of powers. (judicial, executive, lawmaking) - while the supreme leader decides on all three fronts. This was often justified as a necessity to defend the nation from foreign capitalist imperialists, at least to my knowledge; judging from interventionism this isn't always wrong. But they abused their power and were often imperialists themselves, but state-oriented (often real historical socialism is called 'state-capitalism' for it reproduces all the similar contradiction but through the centralised system). The big questions are: were people happy? Did they feel free? Do you need to feel free in order to be happy? Could they be happy and repressed at the same time? If yes, is that a possibility in capitalist society's?
Just an example of the question that were raised upon viewing this film.