An earthy, epic historical drama set during World War I and the Russian Civil War, Shchors is a biographical portrait of the partisan leader and communist Nikolai Shchors, one of the few indisputable Bolshevik icons of Ukrainian origin. The work was commissioned by Stalin himself, who asked Dovzhenko to "give us a Ukrainian Chapayev" - a reference to the popular (though mediocre) 1934 film by Sergei and Georgi Vasiliev depicting the heroic exploits of a folksy Russian Red Army commander. The prolonged production of Shchors proved a nightmare for Dovzhenko, who was forced to submit every creative decision and every episode for high-level political approval, and who found himself accused of Ukrainian nationalism by Stalin's increasingly paranoid henchmen. There is one remarkable, picturesque sequence of burial. Nothing else. Shchors represents the glory of socialist-realist restrictions imposed upon an artist, the ultimate product of Zhdanovist canons. Nothing left of Dovzhenko's dynamic energy and fervent poetry featured in his best picture, 'Earth.'
2 Reviews
The People's Commander against countless enemies or the Fighting Path of Ukrainian Chapaev
lyubitelfilmov27 March 2022
Historical drama. I continue to dig into Soviet cinema, and I got to the picture staged at the Kiev studio by Alexander Dovzhenko himself back in 1939 about the hero of the Civil War Nikolai Alexandrovich Shchors - the Ukrainian "Chapaev" (as Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin said about him). And since I recently watched the magnificent painting "Bogdan Khmelnitsky" of 1941, why not take a look at "Shores"? Moreover, I knew practically nothing about this commander before watching this historical drama. I looked - and for good reason. And here is my brief opinion - The fighting path of the Ukrainian Chapaev. To my great regret, there are shortcomings in the picture that slightly spoiled the final assessment, but I will not forget to mention the advantages. And with this, I finish such a long introduction and get to the point.
So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture takes us to 1918-1919. A civil war is raging on the territory of the former Russian Empire. And in the south, specifically on the territory of modern Ukraine, the partisan movement against the German and Austro-Hungarian occupiers is expanding. Local residents flee to Soviet Russia, where former lieutenant of the Russian Imperial Army Nikolai Shchors forms his brigade. It is his brigade (named after the Zaporozhye Cossack Ivan Bogun) that will have to go through the whole of Ukraine with battles and establish Soviet power on it. And at that time, this territory was a real patchwork quilt, because there were many contenders for power: Simon Petlyura with his bandits, Hetman Skoropadsky with the Germans, the Germans themselves with the Austrians, various "greens", anarchists of Father Makhno (then they were with the Reds in a temporary union), and of course red and white - you are the main contenders. The picture focuses on the combat campaigns of the brigade, which soon became a division, its victories and defeats, its commanders and fighters, about the revolution not only on the battlefield but also in the minds of entire nations. But the main line is dedicated to Comrade Shchors, who got out of the second lieutenant to the head of the division only thanks to his character, fortitude, strength of convictions, loyal commanders and the faith of his fighters, who managed to defeat a more numerous and more experienced enemy in the most difficult conditions, while showing strict moral qualities. And since this is an old Soviet movie, then you have a mandatory pathos, excessive emotionality and monologues that look more like slogans. But all this does not prevent you from enjoying the picture, and in terms of knowledge it will be useful to many.
2. Nikolai Shchors - the whole picture is built around this legendary personality, who was undeservedly forgotten until the end of the thirties of the last century. But this man is a bright representative of the first red "people's" commanders, such as Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, Semyon Mikhailovich Budyonny, Kliment Efremovich Voroshilov, who achieved their command posts only thanks to their personal courage and good organizational skills, for this they were loved and respected by their own fighters, and for this they were hated by Trotsky's nominees - former generals of the old army, for which parts of Shores, Chapaev and Budyonny were called "partisanism". Of course, Nikolai Alexandrovich's excessive hatred of military experts is wrong, but that's exactly what happened in that vague and difficult time for Russia, and therefore the picture shows exactly the view of Shchors. And there is a lot of the main character in the frame, and the angles are set perfectly.
3. Atmosphere - I cannot but note the perfectly conveyed atmosphere of that time of troubles with its unknown "tomorrow" and its destruction, troops scurrying along the roads from different sides of the conflict, endless robbery and terror of various groups of the population (mainly Russians, Jews and Ukrainians). Slogans about the world revolution, nationalist propaganda of the Petliurists are attached.
4. Fights, battles - extras and plausible costumes smooth out some of the sham and absurdity of most of these scenes. At least there are not so many of them.
5. Humor - in such a serious work, the creators competently and very ironically wrote humor so that the viewer would relax after all the dramatic moments. He's really funny and really all the humorous inserts are good.
6. Scene in the theater - I read an angry review of this picture from a certain user on Kinopoisk, full of petty-bourgeois anger and contempt for the working class, and this "gentleman" cites this scene as an example and in every way tramples the Bolsheviks, and indeed the Soviet government, into the mud for daring to touch the bourgeoisie and overthrew them power. But this scene is comedic, ironic and quite revealing, and it is the most memorable in the whole picture. If you don't believe it, then look for yourself.
So, the disadvantages: 1. Tightness - the picture is unfortunately tightened, and it would not hurt to shorten it by ten minutes. And I'm not talking here about pretentious monologues (which are appropriate here), but long arguments and extra minutes of contractions, which were superfluous here.
2. Sound is the cornerstone of criticism, because the picture has been restored and it looks amazing for a 1939 painting, but the sound spoils everything, because you can't make out more than half of the words, especially at moments when the songs of the Shchorsovites sound.
3. The finale - the picture does not focus on the death of the chief, which is strange. But they could have done as in Chapaev - the hero's last battle against a numerically superior enemy. Maybe they didn't do it because of the vague death of Shores, the circumstances of which have not been clarified so far.
A little bit about the main characters: 1. Nikolay Shores performed by Yevgeny Samoilov is a Russian, Ukrainian and Soviet military commander who became a national hero of Ukraine and the entire Soviet Union, undeservedly forgotten. A brave, determined, cunning and skillful red commander who rose from the bottom, whose role was perfectly performed by Evgeny Samoilov.
2. Bozhenko, performed by Ivan Skuratov, is the commander of one of the Shores formations - the same people's commander, whom the fighters lovingly call batka. The second most important and memorable character of the picture.
As a result, no one could move "Chapaev" from the pedestal, no matter how "Shchors" tried, because "Chapaev" is short, sharp and dynamic, and "Shchors" is its complete opposite, but for the purposes of cultural familiarization it is worth looking at.
As a result, we have a good historical picture about the hero of the civil War, with a good script, excellent atmosphere, drawn-out scenes and great acting.
My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
So, the advantages: 1. The scenario - the picture takes us to 1918-1919. A civil war is raging on the territory of the former Russian Empire. And in the south, specifically on the territory of modern Ukraine, the partisan movement against the German and Austro-Hungarian occupiers is expanding. Local residents flee to Soviet Russia, where former lieutenant of the Russian Imperial Army Nikolai Shchors forms his brigade. It is his brigade (named after the Zaporozhye Cossack Ivan Bogun) that will have to go through the whole of Ukraine with battles and establish Soviet power on it. And at that time, this territory was a real patchwork quilt, because there were many contenders for power: Simon Petlyura with his bandits, Hetman Skoropadsky with the Germans, the Germans themselves with the Austrians, various "greens", anarchists of Father Makhno (then they were with the Reds in a temporary union), and of course red and white - you are the main contenders. The picture focuses on the combat campaigns of the brigade, which soon became a division, its victories and defeats, its commanders and fighters, about the revolution not only on the battlefield but also in the minds of entire nations. But the main line is dedicated to Comrade Shchors, who got out of the second lieutenant to the head of the division only thanks to his character, fortitude, strength of convictions, loyal commanders and the faith of his fighters, who managed to defeat a more numerous and more experienced enemy in the most difficult conditions, while showing strict moral qualities. And since this is an old Soviet movie, then you have a mandatory pathos, excessive emotionality and monologues that look more like slogans. But all this does not prevent you from enjoying the picture, and in terms of knowledge it will be useful to many.
2. Nikolai Shchors - the whole picture is built around this legendary personality, who was undeservedly forgotten until the end of the thirties of the last century. But this man is a bright representative of the first red "people's" commanders, such as Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, Semyon Mikhailovich Budyonny, Kliment Efremovich Voroshilov, who achieved their command posts only thanks to their personal courage and good organizational skills, for this they were loved and respected by their own fighters, and for this they were hated by Trotsky's nominees - former generals of the old army, for which parts of Shores, Chapaev and Budyonny were called "partisanism". Of course, Nikolai Alexandrovich's excessive hatred of military experts is wrong, but that's exactly what happened in that vague and difficult time for Russia, and therefore the picture shows exactly the view of Shchors. And there is a lot of the main character in the frame, and the angles are set perfectly.
3. Atmosphere - I cannot but note the perfectly conveyed atmosphere of that time of troubles with its unknown "tomorrow" and its destruction, troops scurrying along the roads from different sides of the conflict, endless robbery and terror of various groups of the population (mainly Russians, Jews and Ukrainians). Slogans about the world revolution, nationalist propaganda of the Petliurists are attached.
4. Fights, battles - extras and plausible costumes smooth out some of the sham and absurdity of most of these scenes. At least there are not so many of them.
5. Humor - in such a serious work, the creators competently and very ironically wrote humor so that the viewer would relax after all the dramatic moments. He's really funny and really all the humorous inserts are good.
6. Scene in the theater - I read an angry review of this picture from a certain user on Kinopoisk, full of petty-bourgeois anger and contempt for the working class, and this "gentleman" cites this scene as an example and in every way tramples the Bolsheviks, and indeed the Soviet government, into the mud for daring to touch the bourgeoisie and overthrew them power. But this scene is comedic, ironic and quite revealing, and it is the most memorable in the whole picture. If you don't believe it, then look for yourself.
So, the disadvantages: 1. Tightness - the picture is unfortunately tightened, and it would not hurt to shorten it by ten minutes. And I'm not talking here about pretentious monologues (which are appropriate here), but long arguments and extra minutes of contractions, which were superfluous here.
2. Sound is the cornerstone of criticism, because the picture has been restored and it looks amazing for a 1939 painting, but the sound spoils everything, because you can't make out more than half of the words, especially at moments when the songs of the Shchorsovites sound.
3. The finale - the picture does not focus on the death of the chief, which is strange. But they could have done as in Chapaev - the hero's last battle against a numerically superior enemy. Maybe they didn't do it because of the vague death of Shores, the circumstances of which have not been clarified so far.
A little bit about the main characters: 1. Nikolay Shores performed by Yevgeny Samoilov is a Russian, Ukrainian and Soviet military commander who became a national hero of Ukraine and the entire Soviet Union, undeservedly forgotten. A brave, determined, cunning and skillful red commander who rose from the bottom, whose role was perfectly performed by Evgeny Samoilov.
2. Bozhenko, performed by Ivan Skuratov, is the commander of one of the Shores formations - the same people's commander, whom the fighters lovingly call batka. The second most important and memorable character of the picture.
As a result, no one could move "Chapaev" from the pedestal, no matter how "Shchors" tried, because "Chapaev" is short, sharp and dynamic, and "Shchors" is its complete opposite, but for the purposes of cultural familiarization it is worth looking at.
As a result, we have a good historical picture about the hero of the civil War, with a good script, excellent atmosphere, drawn-out scenes and great acting.
My rating is 9 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
