Customer Reviews

The Red and The White

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Great films like "The Red and the White" stun and overpower us into forgetting every other movie we have seen. They don't cater to our prejudices, they don't flatter us into feeling good about ourselves. They refresh the art's potential and risk losing their audiences through their radical singleness of purpose. They transform experience, in short they make a *difference.*

Such works result from one person, usually a director, pursuing an idea with a fascistic insistence that nothing matters more than the film. This is one reason Hollywood so rarely creates great works. Studios with a vested interest in keeping audiences infantile force even the best directors to trim their visions. Hollywood's contempt for the audience makes it impossible for a Miklos Janscó, with his disregard for the rules of smooth construction, indifference to sympathetic characterization, hypnotically absorbing camerawork and pessimism about humanity, to work on the scale his epic conception requires.

Staged on a huge canvas, this dramatization of an obscure incident during the Russian Civil War may take place in the Soviet Union, but at one level exists only in the world created by the film itself. Questions of historical or geographic veracity are moot. What matters is the inexorable unwinding of a logic that reveals the casual brutality of human behavior. Yet while the action is grim, what makes the film so powerful is how *beautiful* it is. "The Red and the White" is full of haunting, unforgettable moments, such as a dance in the forest by nurses commandeered to perform for a White Russian officer, or the shots of mounted Red cavalry fleeing a White bi-plane, or the bitter irony of witnessing the execution of a Cossack for an offense far less serious than those we have seen him commit. All of these moments are exquisitely, but quickly staged, the camera gliding by almost indifferently, as if barely interested in them.

It is tempting to suggest that the DVD's producers are barely interested in them either, since the transfer is at best acceptable. Nonetheless, I strongly recommend that if you are even remotely interested in the film that you buy the DVD without hesitation. Quite apart from the likelihood that it will quickly go out of print, it is rare indeed to be able to support such singularly epic visions, to prove to anyone interested in listening that audiences can, in fact, respond positively when treated as adults.

The first time I saw "The Red And The White" I lost track of the story. The "problem" with this film is that it is not a drama with a focus on character, simply a collection of sequences in a day of fighting. It was disorienting and I wasn't prepared for it. But I was intrigued by the idea, so a year later later I watched it again.

And I'm glad I did.

The second viewing is a real eye-opener. This film is simply extrodinary. Everything that disoriented me the first time, became a feature the second time. "The Red And The White" is one of the most fascinating and unconventional films I have ever seen.

The story involves the attempts by both Red and White Russian armies to hold a monastery during the Russian Civil war. It is told through a series of seemingly simple tracking shots, long takes that pass gently and slowly over the endless Russian landscape. People pass through these frames, on horseback, running, walking, marching, some floating to their destiny -- some we recognize from previous shots but most we will never see again.

Most conventional narrative begins with a point-of-view -- a decription of an event, made relevant by the personal drama of one of the participants. Jansco avoids this almost entirely by using his long takes and graceful tracking shots to capture a geography within which these events occur. How we interpret the actions of those we see is up to us. We aren't participating, simply observing.

There is drama, but not in the conventional sense. Instead of the standard scripted conversations, we hear snippets of arguments: nurses who refuse to seperate their patients by army; a Hungarian who refuses to shoot prisoners; a General organising a massacre. If it wasn't for the flawless tracking shots and perfectly timed framing, I would think it was a documentary. In this world the camera seems indifferent to it's subjects, as if simply recording a series of events. The deaths of hundreds don't appear to be any more significant in the frame than the landscape itself; they are just faces who pass us by. Some of them (the soldier who captures the horse; the nurse who is trapped into cooperating, the soldier who leaps to his death in a masterful -- and rare -- moment of editing), we recognise. But we don't know them. None of them have names. While people in the foreground stand waiting for their fate to be decided, a hundred soldiers march across a distant hill, the cavalry charges, gunfire is heard; our attention is distracted by the actions of distant figures. When we look back to the forground the people are gone.

We don't know them, we will never see them again. But now Jansco's cold hearted camera has made us a witness.

It didn't occur to me until days later, but this is probably what a UN Observer feels like.

Like Ingmar Bergman's amazing film "Shame" (produced in the same year as "The Red and the White", 1968), Miklos Jancso's masterpiece evokes the vast and breathtaking panaroma of civil war on a small scale. No crashing, thundering armies here, and no heroes -- just murder on both sides. No plot really, no easy resolution, no ideology -- just the tension and menace of a venomous snake uncoiling in the sun.

At the center of the movie is a group of Hungarian volunteers who have come to Russia to fight for the Bolsheviks, either in 1919 or 1920. Caught in an abandoned monastery by a battalion of the counter-revolutionary, pro-Tsarist White Army, the Hungarians are let loose, in an apparent gesture of mercy, then hunted down while they scramble along the banks of the Volga futilely trying to escape. No mercy is shown to anyone on either side. Some of the Hungarians eventually meet up with a Red Army battalion, which is wiped out in a quixotic, unforgettable mini-battle against the Whites along the river. From beginning to end, Jancso squeezes every last drop of "beauty" out of war. Moreover, his refusal to romanticize the Bolshevik struggle in the Russian Revolution led to this film being banned by the Soviets for years.

Visually, "The Red and the White" is absolute eye candy. Jancso's genius, like Bergman's, is that he recognized the value of silence. As E.E. Cummings put it, "Nothing can surpass the mystery of stillness." There are whole scenes of this movie where the crickets and the grass say more than the people involved. And arguably, the Volga is a major figure in the film, too, the spectacular and flowing symbol of Mother Russia, a snake more lasting than violence and one that will outlive every blood-letting combatant fighting along her banks.

A dreamy and labyrinthine masterpiece. Get it. Five stars.

This is a beautifully shot and sparse film that is filled with long takes reminiscent of the Russian Tarkovsky. The topic deals with the Russian revolution and the madness it spawned in warfare, namely from the Hungarian point of view, whose volunteers numbered some 48,000. It is difficult to understand what motived each character, for people are shot indiscriminately, they are freed in just the same manner and that is the nature of battle in this intense artistic film. The ending is one of the most cinematic moments ever, for those looking for a film with battles, this is not it, it's more visual.....

The Red and the White has been listed on some film critics' lists of "hundred greatest films". While it is good to listen to voices of authority, I think many viewers might not see the rationale of such a standing. So I offer this review from the non-expert side of the fence. If you are trying to broaden your horizons by exploring foreign films and have been pleasantly surprised, as I have, at the impressionistic beauty and symbolism of such directors as Bergman, Kurosawa, and Tarkovsky, you may have also been surprised to find many of their films are relatively easy to understand and appreciate. I found The Red and the White, however, not to be one of those films that sings to you and strokes your sensibilities. On the contrary; if you come to this film expecting sensitivity,it is instead likely to be an abrasive experience. I think if you are prepared you can avoid an unpleasant surprise. Probably, most of the discomfort arises because we have been conditioned, especially by American movies, to expect a strong leading player to be featured in every film. This movie displays the antithesis of that notion to about the highest degree of any non-documentary film I've ever seen. Instead, what we see are groups of people in which no individual stands out markedly from the rest, and even those who do achieve a modest screen presence are apt to abruptly be executed without so much as a long sentimental goodbye. So you are continually disconcerted, in watching this film, with having no individual you can latch onto and identify with. To add to this discomfort, the action demands close attention, or you will become hopelessly confused about which side is doing what to whom. You need to get on top of this movie from the start, orient yourself, and pay close attention. Okay, so I'll admit I had to watch it twice to reach this happy state of observation. One thing that has been said about this film is that it is deeply anti-war, and it is. But there is also a bias against the counterrevolutionary White army. Both sides are not portrayed as being equally brutal. The Reds capture some Whites and make them undress. Just when you think they are going to be executed, the commander tells them to go home. The Whites capture some Reds, act as though they are going to give them a chance to go free, then massacre them. The White officers as a group have that arrogant Teutonic Knight look about them. The Cossacks under their command brutalize the civilian population. The Reds are egalitarian and down to earth. The White officers have a frivolous party in the woods where the nurses are made to waltz with one another for their amusement. This movie was commissioned to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the Russian Revolution, so this bias is really no surprise, and was probably obligatory. The power struggle between ideological, national, and ethnic groups is a continual theme, but one which might be missed unless you are able to follow the subtitles closely. It is always of utmost importance for those who hold the upper hand at the moment to establish the affiliation of their captives. Are you Russian? Are you Hungarian? Are you a Red? Are you a landowner? So, the essence of the action is not centered around individuals, but around groups of people who are valued according to their affiliation, not their individuality. Such is the leveling and degrading effect of ideology and warfare, and was probably an intentional message encoded within the historical reenactment of this battle of fifty years before. There are no intimate mood-inducing cinematographic(Whew! Is that really a word?) touches to let you feel you are participating vicariously in an exciting adventure. Much of the action takes place in shots that comprise a panoramic view of the countryside, with the human players looking smaller than life. In one battle scene, the soldiers are so far away, it reminds me of Icarus falling into the sea hardly noticed, in Breughel's famous painting. I think the director Miclos Jancso, while nominally showing the upright cause of the Reds against the corrupt and decadent Whites, found several ways to play a trick on his Soviet sponsors. For instance, a pretty young nurse who has befriended wounded Reds is forced under threat of execution by a White officer who is momentarily the conqueror of that little piece of real estate, to identify the Reds in her care. A moment later, a righteous young Red officer has the comely nurse executed. "There Is No Excuse For Treason!" he cries with zeal. A moment still later, this same officer and his small band of compatriots, singing some kind of Russian "Marseillaise" march against an overwhelming force of Whites and are all slaughtered. You can't help but think that if only this guy had bought it a few minutes earlier, the pretty nurse might still be alive. It must have stuck in the craws of the Soviet censors to see a Communist on film doing all the right ideological things but still looking like a horse's butt. Another device used in the film which seemed subtly subversive to me was that when a position changed hands, as happened numerous times, the new masters of that piece of ground seemed to appear out of thin air to put an end to the current reign. This seemed to emphasize the transitory and relative benefit of being in control, no matter whether you were Red or White. So, for all you prospective watchers, I hope this has been helpful. The first time I watched the film, I found it to be jarring and inaccessible. After thinking about it for a while and then viewing it again, I found it to be quite interesting.

Being filmed in black and white, the drama is even more intense as the long shots of the camera hone the viewer's eye to a lovely landscape where the onion-domed spires of a monastery come into view. The first scenes begin in the yard of the Russian monastery. The camera captures different views of this most attractive building. It is a religious building, something which symbolizes peace, love, and human dignity ... a sharp contrast to what actually occurs within its walls. The building is headquarters for the Czarists (Whites). They captured a battalion of Red fighters who are separated by nationality. Two groups emerge, the Russian and international (mostly Hungarian). The Hungarian Communists had come to fight for the cause of their comrades, to bring about a new form of government. They are imprisoned within a small confined yard and march to orders. Eventually they stand up against a wall and are ordered to remove their shirts (which must be a valuable commodity, in short supply, as this happens often in the film). Several soldiers are selected out by the officers, to stand aside. The viewer wonders why are they removed, what will happen to them? The large group is herded out and one hears nuermous shots, they are obviously executed. A large group of Czarist officers arrive. One captive is told to run in the yard. A gun is given to the officer, who takes aim and keeps shooting until he kills the running prisoner. This scene is repeated several times ...

Other great scenes include the Red soldiers wading through the Volga or riding a boat down the river in attempts to escape the pursuing Czarist soldiers. Long views of magnificent scenery includes hills, and forests in the background which serve as the canvas backdrop on which the Czarist cavalry chase the Reds and engage them in battle in Central Russia. The film does not follow any one battalion or group of soldiers ... you get random shots and views of different events happening ... just as chaotic as it would be on a true battle front. Another major event occurs at a farmhouse where a young woman is carrying water from a well. The Czarist officers stop her, some elderly women come out to see what is happening. The young lady is forced to completely undress for the officer and the worst is expected to happen ... Suddenly, the Reds arrive and rescue her from this fate. They kill the Czarist officer ... a battle ensues between the two sides. The message seems, that innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire and made to pay a high price for the ideological and political battle between the opposing forces. Likely, farmers do not care much one way or the other who wins, they just want to eke a living out of the land, like their ancestors before them ...

One of the last scenes occurs in a lovely wooden structure which is a hospital where the nurses care for both the Reds and Whites as patients. They do not make political distinctions between the injured, they simply care for patients. Some Red soldiers have escaped detection and are hiding in the wood-pile and in the rushes and shrubbery along the Volga. The Czarist soldiers are shooting into the plants along the shore line. They do not find the Reds in the wood-pile. A nurse helps several Red soldiers to find safety within the hospital. One of the Reds corners her in a room and steals a kiss. She is obviously attracted, saying she would love to get naked for him. He knows his time there is limited as the Whites are searching for him. He escapes to the river, where a White soldier spears him dead with a long pole. The head nurse is asked to identify who is Red and who is White among their patients. She will not do it, claiming they are all the same to her. Another nurse is grabbed and given the same order. She is convinced she will die if she does not obey. She points out two Reds, who are executed on the spot. The Reds arrive to drive out the Czarists ... The Reds witnessed the preceding events and despite the head nurse's protests, they shoot the nurse and a White soldier holding them responsbile for the previous murders. This happens despite the protests of the head nurse who is told, "no one can be forced to submit". The Red soldiers are sent into the rye fields to ambush the Whites. In the last scene, a Hungarian soldier walks through the field of rye, viewing the dead bodies of compatriots. He holds his sword to his chest and nose in a good-bye salute, the last witness to a battle bravely fought but obviously lost ...

Essentially, the film is a testament to the human spirit which takes ideology to its fullest limits: to fight for a cause ... that in the end seems pointless and is lost among the human carnage that results from war. The film is an artistic and cinematic masterpiece in how it captures landscapes and beautiful scenery, idyllic and peaceful that is suddenly interrupted by soldiers on horseback armed with firearms and swords ... out to kill their enemy. The contrast is so vivid and contradictory. The viewer is given a ring-side seat to battles, executions and unpleasant events which have likely been sanitized for the viewing public. Having heard from eyewitnesses of real events and atrocities committed by the soldiers of the USSR in Central Europe during World War II, this film is most certainly a laundered version of true events. And even this cleaned up version was banned for many years in the USSR ... As they say, "The truth always hurts ...". This ia an excellent film about the absurdities and senselessness of war. Erika Borsos (pepper flower)

In a very famous episode of "Seinfeld" Jerry tells Elaine the original title for Tolstoy's "War and Peace" was "War. What is it good for"?

I don't know if there's any truth to that but that could have been the working title for Miklos Jancso's "The Red and the White".

As we watch this film don't be surprised if you have no clue what side the characters are on. Normally that would be a flaw in a film. If we don't understand who the characters are, we can't follow the story. But in this film's case, that's exactly the point. We aren't suppose to know who these characters are. Actually I don't think we ever come to know any of these characters names.

But what makes "The Red and the White" the most important Hungarian film ever made? Much has to do with the time it was made and the film's message.

I don't want to bore you here with a historical and political lecture on the history of Hungary but I suppose some background information is needed.

The film was made in 1967, 11 years after the Hungarian Revolution between the Hungarians and the Soviet Union. If that wasn't enough, the film was shot in the Soviet Union! Try to think about the significance of that. Here is a film that deals with Soviets, Communism and Hungarians! The blood was still fresh on the wall from what happened in '56!

Most people should know the plot behind the film. This is one of the better known Hungarian films and is fairly accessible. Still, I'll give a brief run-down of the plot.

The film takes place in 1919. We are in the middle of a war between the reds (the Bolsheviks') and the whites (Czarists) as the Hungarians have volunteered to aid the Bolsheviks.

As I mentioned earlier we never really know who is on what side. And ultimately that's the message behind the film. War is a senseless confusing act. In Woody Allen's film "Love and Death" Allen's character describes war as the following.."we kill a few Frenchmen, they kill a few Russians and before you know it, it's Easter." Something about war just doesn't seem logical and rational.

But how does Jancso get this point across? It's very interesting what he does with the camera. Pay close attention and you'll notice the camera is never giving us a particular character's POV (point of view).

The camera takes a non-bias stance. It remains on the outside of the action. It is merely an observer, like us. Because of this we can't readily identify with anyone. We never really get close enough to any character or situation long enough to firmly grasp what is really going on.

It must have been a pretty bold statement Miklos Jancso was making at the time. Especially when you put the film in its historical context. I wonder what the reaction was like in Hungary during the film's release. I know just within my own family it stirs strong emotions. I must have seen this film 10 or 15 times (but who's counting anyway). It's my father's favorite movie.

Jancso usually pushed the envelope in his films. They make very bold political statements. In some ways I can see "Hungarian Rhapsody" being played on the same bill as this movie. If you're interested try to make a double feature night for yourself.

Here is a film that is truly unforgettable, bold and powerful. It doesn't back down. For political and social reasons it is the most important Hungarian film ever made (realize though I'm not saying "the best"). And perhaps Miklos Jancso best.

Bottom-line: Powerful anti-war film that is the single most important Hungarian film ever made!

Miklos Jancso is unlike any other director ever. Complex movements of the camera and people and things. Random brutality usually not shown graphically overshadows the causes. Seemingly principal characters usually don't last long. Memorable scenes include a birch forest with people flickering in and out of existence and the final battle with its tiny figures falling like dolls. I sampled a few minutes just to make sure the dvd was good and ended up watching the whole thing at 2 am.

War--chaotic, insane, inhumane, useless, and... calmly graceful?

We of the Hollywood diet like our plates full with spastic editing, grippingly colorful images, and fast approach, but none moreso than with war movies, with Tom Hanks surrounded with shrapnel suddenly going surreal on us, or Martin Sheen slowly falling into mental chaos whether in the midst of battle or trapped in a room away from it. What we are not used to are long, slowly moving traffic shots as pretty much faceless groups of soldiers alternatively gain and lose ground, each performing their own atrocities and each making themselves no better than the others, but each the subject of a listless and uncaring camera that seems just as ready to focus on a blade of grass calmly waving in the wind as a troupe of men about to be slaughtered.

To add to this effect is the fact that half the time, the viewer hardly begins to establish his or herself with a character before the character is removed from the story. It definitely works to show the arbitrariness of war... it might not work so well with ingratiating the audience with the movie. With no characters to care for, well... sometimes it's hard to care so much.

But otherwise it's brilliant, magnificent, and... sort of epic, in a contained and concise way. What I want to know is how they pulled off the sound. The sound is always very spot on to the activities going on, but are so perfect, even in long shots, that it makes a complete mystery of where they possibly could have put the mic. Fascinating, in case the rest of the movie isn't.

--PolarisDiB

This movie kept me at the edge of my seat the whole film! The reason being, prior to viewing the movie I had read quite a bit on the Russian Civil War and I knew more or less what to expect (mass executions, no mercy given to either side, etc.). On a whole the film appears historically accurate. However, I found some parts hard to believe. The "cat and mouse" scene strikes me as being highly unlikely because the White Army was advancing on Moscow - they had little time to chase prisoners (which they had just released!) all over the countryside. Not to mention it made no sense to waste ammunition (especially grenades) in that pursuit, because such supplies were very limited and needed to be conserved. Other than that, at an aesthetic level, it is a very beautiful film. The shots are crisp and the rolling countrysides are amazing to take in (even though the film is in black and white!). Also, they did a great job with the dress for both sides - the Whites with their clean officer uniforms and the Reds with their mismatched papakha outfits. Great for the military modeler or wargamer! The film ended somewhat abruptly, but if you think about it, you know how the rest of the story goes, so it ends up being anti-climactic in a way. It does however leave you longing for a Red and the White II, complete with large battle scenes and, of course, more action.