This retelling of a classic Communist, collectivist tale is one of the greatest losses to Communism the cinematic world has felt. Destroyed by the Soviets along with several other banned films, restoration artists were able to, more or less successfully, piece the story together again, from the damaged original negative, as a series of stills and a rehashed set of intertitles. The dynamism that must have accompanied the moving images of this film has, unfortunately been lost, but the stills themselves are fantastic, and a great tribute to Eisenstein's art.
8 Reviews
A beguiling fragment
russell-415-61866623 January 2021
A perfect illustration of a totalitarian society
frankde-jong16 December 2022
"Bezhin lug" is a film long thought lost. Only in the '60s fragments were found, but even today the film is far from complete. This makes it difficult to write a review.
The film is situated in a Kolchoz. A farmer with nostalgia for his former existence as a free farmer (Samokhin) is betrayed by his own son (Stepok). Stepok becomes a hero because he has warned against "contra revolutionary elements".
Within the oeuvre of Sergei Eisenstein "Bezhin lug" (1937) can be seen in connection with "Old and new" (1929). "Old and new" is about the collectivization of agriculture. In "Bezhin lug" this collectivization is finished but has to be defended against the already mentioned "contra revolutionary elements".
The film is very revealing about the nature of totalitarian rule. Even in your own family it is dangerous to be honest.
The authorities were not pleased by "Bezhin lug", and the film was not released, disappeared in archives and later gets lost. The question is why?
Is the film, Stepok being the hero, not politically very correct?
The above question is very hard to answer. During his career Eisenstein developed from the convinced Communist of "Strike" (1925) to the doubts expressed in "Ivan Groznyy" (1944 & 1958), which contains hidden criticism on Stalin. "Bezhin lug" is somewhere in the middle of that development. The story is still politically correct, but is the visual language politically correct also?
In numerous images there is a face at the edge of the frame, symbolizing (for me) the omnipresence of traitors in a totalitarion society.
The film is situated in a Kolchoz. A farmer with nostalgia for his former existence as a free farmer (Samokhin) is betrayed by his own son (Stepok). Stepok becomes a hero because he has warned against "contra revolutionary elements".
Within the oeuvre of Sergei Eisenstein "Bezhin lug" (1937) can be seen in connection with "Old and new" (1929). "Old and new" is about the collectivization of agriculture. In "Bezhin lug" this collectivization is finished but has to be defended against the already mentioned "contra revolutionary elements".
The film is very revealing about the nature of totalitarian rule. Even in your own family it is dangerous to be honest.
The authorities were not pleased by "Bezhin lug", and the film was not released, disappeared in archives and later gets lost. The question is why?
Is the film, Stepok being the hero, not politically very correct?
The above question is very hard to answer. During his career Eisenstein developed from the convinced Communist of "Strike" (1925) to the doubts expressed in "Ivan Groznyy" (1944 & 1958), which contains hidden criticism on Stalin. "Bezhin lug" is somewhere in the middle of that development. The story is still politically correct, but is the visual language politically correct also?
In numerous images there is a face at the edge of the frame, symbolizing (for me) the omnipresence of traitors in a totalitarion society.
May have been Eisenstein's best film
zetes27 April 2001
You can find the reconstruction of this film on the Criterion released Alexander Nevsky DVD. The photography is absolutely amazing, and, although the story is a bit confusing in the reconstruction, the mood is preserved fiercely by the photography and the added music (by Prokofiev, Eisenstein's later collaborator). Around 25 minutes long, even this reconstruction proves to be a masterpiece. Too bad we don't have a whole.
Lacks in relevance outside the Soviet union countries
Horst_In_Translation13 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Bezhin lug" or "Bezhin Meadow" is a Soviet black-and-white film from 1937, so this one is almost 80 years old already. It is by the famous Latvian filmmaker Sergei M. Eisenstein, one of the leading Soviet writers and directors from his era. Nont the entire film exists anymore, but creative heads managed to fix it to some extent that we at least can watch this and see what is going on with the plot, characters and story. But still, I was not really impressed by this film that runs for slightly over 30 minutes. In terms of contents, I believe (like most of Eisenstein's works) the focus on the Soviet Union is so strong that people from all kinds of other areas will have a hard time getting interested in this one and this includes myself. I do not recommend the watch. Thumbs down.
what never was is lost; what survives is absolutely mesmerizing
Kieran_Kenney30 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Possible spoilers.
This remarkable work could have been Eisenstein's crowning
entry into film history. Though the footage no longer survives, what
remains (the still frames that were edited together in the sixties)
mark it as a breathtaking visual experience. Eisenstein's mastery
as a filmmaker shows; every scene is a articulately composed
tableau. His casting is as up-to-par as ever, bringing to us the
faces of real people, non-actors who weren't in anything else ever
again. And the irony of the church destruction scene is gorgeous.
Villagers dismantle the icons and decorations, thus becoming part
of the decor themselves. There's even a scene where the leader
of the group - who is also amazingly sexy - breaks down the alter
area with his own strength, thus recreating the whole story of
Samson. The boys higher up must have sensed this and therefore shut the production down. That they did was a huge
loss, for the film was never seen. Ever. What survives merely
scratches the surface.
Sergei Eisenstein was walking a thin line when it came to making
his films. The veil that he pulled over on the censors were thin.
On the surface, they come across as visually astounding
propaganda. When examined a little more carefully, though, they
seem to harbor more questionable messages. Like I said, the
scene where the villagers destroy the church. Sergei also had a
penchant for casting the most disgustingly beautiful men in all of
the USSR. They're in Potemkin, October, Strike and, yes,
especially in this film. They come across as good actors, though,
not just window dressing. In fact, he makes good use of them as
symbols of the communists, the young, revitalized lifeblood that
stands up against and defeats the old regime, played by character
actors that are either grotesquely overweight or grotesquely old.
The scene on the chapel steps in this film is a good example of
this.
Forget the Battleship movie. This is Eisenstein's crowning
achievement. What is with us now is a tantalizing suggestion of
what might have been.
This remarkable work could have been Eisenstein's crowning
entry into film history. Though the footage no longer survives, what
remains (the still frames that were edited together in the sixties)
mark it as a breathtaking visual experience. Eisenstein's mastery
as a filmmaker shows; every scene is a articulately composed
tableau. His casting is as up-to-par as ever, bringing to us the
faces of real people, non-actors who weren't in anything else ever
again. And the irony of the church destruction scene is gorgeous.
Villagers dismantle the icons and decorations, thus becoming part
of the decor themselves. There's even a scene where the leader
of the group - who is also amazingly sexy - breaks down the alter
area with his own strength, thus recreating the whole story of
Samson. The boys higher up must have sensed this and therefore shut the production down. That they did was a huge
loss, for the film was never seen. Ever. What survives merely
scratches the surface.
Sergei Eisenstein was walking a thin line when it came to making
his films. The veil that he pulled over on the censors were thin.
On the surface, they come across as visually astounding
propaganda. When examined a little more carefully, though, they
seem to harbor more questionable messages. Like I said, the
scene where the villagers destroy the church. Sergei also had a
penchant for casting the most disgustingly beautiful men in all of
the USSR. They're in Potemkin, October, Strike and, yes,
especially in this film. They come across as good actors, though,
not just window dressing. In fact, he makes good use of them as
symbols of the communists, the young, revitalized lifeblood that
stands up against and defeats the old regime, played by character
actors that are either grotesquely overweight or grotesquely old.
The scene on the chapel steps in this film is a good example of
this.
Forget the Battleship movie. This is Eisenstein's crowning
achievement. What is with us now is a tantalizing suggestion of
what might have been.
I agree with the other user comment I have read on this film:May have been Eisenstein´s best film!!
anton-612 January 2002
I saw the reconstruction of this film on the Criterion Collection dvd set Eisenstein: The sound years.The photography is fantastic and I think it would have been a masterpiece but it was destroyed.It could be a bit confusing to follow the story in the reconstruction(it´s something about 30 minutes long)but it´s still very interesting.
You still can enjoy the magical images, guess what a masterpiece it could have been and lament it never was
Falkner197623 March 2022
It is impossible to assess a film that does not exist and never existed, but it is also true that one cannot ignore the masterpiece that it undoubtedly could have been when viewing the very few remains that miraculousy have been restored to us. Just a few photos, focused on a series of important scenes.
They are not shots, because in one shot there is movement, nor are they probably sequences since it is doubtful that all the successive shots of any of the scenes that were shot are preserved, although we would like to think so.
But then there's the famous church desecration scene, in which the town turns a church into a meeting room, dismantling and removing all Orthodox iconography. This sacrilegious scene becomes, by the work and grace of Eisenstein's genius, one of the most beautiful and elevated sequences in the history of cinema. We do not watch to how a religion is destroyed or humiliated or abused, but how it is transformed, reborn into a new one. By dismantling the statues, the icons and replacing them with themselves, the people incarnate in angels, apostles, in the Virgin Mary and in the child Jesus. A Samson separates the columns of the iconostasis, a child is crowned and raised in arms to the heavens. Prokofiev's beautiful music underlines this sacred character of the scene. What could have resulted from blasphemous cruelty, as so often in Soviet cinema, becomes a scene of sweetness and purity unmatched in the history of cinema.
If it is impossible to value a film that no longer exists or that really never existed, we still can value the beauty of some images, imagine how the rhythm and movement would enhance them and regret that a masterpiece of such caliber had been lost. The remains are still a creation of absolute beauty and a lesson about cinematography.
They are not shots, because in one shot there is movement, nor are they probably sequences since it is doubtful that all the successive shots of any of the scenes that were shot are preserved, although we would like to think so.
But then there's the famous church desecration scene, in which the town turns a church into a meeting room, dismantling and removing all Orthodox iconography. This sacrilegious scene becomes, by the work and grace of Eisenstein's genius, one of the most beautiful and elevated sequences in the history of cinema. We do not watch to how a religion is destroyed or humiliated or abused, but how it is transformed, reborn into a new one. By dismantling the statues, the icons and replacing them with themselves, the people incarnate in angels, apostles, in the Virgin Mary and in the child Jesus. A Samson separates the columns of the iconostasis, a child is crowned and raised in arms to the heavens. Prokofiev's beautiful music underlines this sacred character of the scene. What could have resulted from blasphemous cruelty, as so often in Soviet cinema, becomes a scene of sweetness and purity unmatched in the history of cinema.
If it is impossible to value a film that no longer exists or that really never existed, we still can value the beauty of some images, imagine how the rhythm and movement would enhance them and regret that a masterpiece of such caliber had been lost. The remains are still a creation of absolute beauty and a lesson about cinematography.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
