Song of Russia (1944) User Reviews

Fascinating to see now

[FANatic-10 · 6/10 · 31 July 2009]

"Song of Russia" is far from a great film, but it is really fascinating to look at nowadays, both as a historical time capsule and as an excellent specimen of MGM camp. The film was designed to drum up sympathy for our then-allies, the Soviet Union, and is sheer, unabashed propaganda. It is well-enough made, but, meaning no disrespect to the millions of Russians who suffered and died during the war, it is so cornball and manipulative seen now that its difficult to take seriously. In fact, its most famous now for the after-effects of its release at the end of the 40's in the HUAC meetings where Robert Taylor testified and "named names" and where it caused all sorts of problems for its makers. Robert Taylor rises to his usual heights of bland adequacy here, but Susan Peters, a tragic actress if ever there was one, does quite well as his Russian bride.

Some of the more hilarious scenes include a wedding dance where the entire village takes part and come across more like a Broadway troupe with decades of experience and the depiction of the "typical" Russian village,which looks like a Slavic version of Andy Hardy's small town. Miss Peters character is also quite the Russian Superwoman - a concert pianist who can cook a mean dinner when she's not riding tractors, shooting machine guns and teaching a class of schoolchildren how to make a Molotov Cocktail. Its amazing she was able to be convincing in the slightest degree in this role, but she does as well as anyone could.

Love Wins Out

[haridam0 · 6/10 · 11 November 2005]

It seems HUAC in '47 took depictions of life in the Soviet Union as portrayed in "Song of Russia," '43, much too seriously.

Anyone looking at this film could tell it was a romantic tale the writer contrived to tell a love story against all odds.

Robert Taylor seemed on familiar ground here. Only four years earlier, in "Waterloo Bridge," he'd found a love in war torn England. She was a classical artist who fell madly in love with him. In "Song of Russia" both he and his love are classical artists who make beautiful music together.

Like "Bridge," "Russia" is photographed in sharp black and white, and the film is peppered with lots of musical interludes, mostly by Tchaikovsky. Taylor's "orchestral conducting" was well coached (save for a "lost" left arm) and Susan Peter's "concerto playing" was effectively "mimed." (One of Jerome Kern's most haunting songs, "And Russia Is Her Name," is given a less than adequate rendition.)

It was fun to hear John Hodiak's initial Russian accent finally give way to no accent at all. And the village people do all the stereotypical things, like sing happy rounds while returning from the fields, and performing specialty ethnic dances at evening vodka fests.

Throw in the start of WW2 and the drama's intensified. Still, the power of the lovers' affection is too strong and ultimately that love triumphs.

Necessary Used Car Selling The Allied Cause

[DKosty123 · 6/10 · 31 March 2016]

The first half of this film is the best part. It is obvious this was filmed in America but during the first half an extensive amount of stock news reel footage of the USSR prior to the war. The scenes of the village in Russia look a lot like the village set from many films made in the US set in Eastern Europe.

The best things about this are the Robert Taylor and Susan Peters relationship developing. There is a chemistry between them. The supporting cast does a good job and the character development in this one. For the first half of the film, this is an excellent effort with the music being a plus as well.

The last half of the film is a let down. Robert Taylor (John Meredith) walking for days looking for his wife Nayda with combat going all around him and actually finding her is just not realistic. The ending is a real let down as it is pure propaganda and the film takes the easy way out by explaining what needs to happen but not presenting how that is going to be accomplished. Even the music the second half is not as good as the first.

Merry Comrades and Uncle Joe

[lights-5 · 14 October 2003]

Thanks to TCM for airing this astounding propaganda film in October 2003. Others have commented on the nearly unbearable Soviet propaganda in the film, but I watched the Stalin-supplied footage with awe as I had never seen most of it before, at least in this quality and quantity.

The story is stock melodrama with the morals that we (America) must support our Russian allies at all costs and that the scorched earth policy is major war strategy.

But through it all is the luminous face of Susan Peters, who was tragically paralyzed two years after this film's release and died in 1952. She is charming, delightful and disarming enough to inspire a whole village as well as the American conductor (Robert Taylor) who falls in love with her. They marry in an unlikely semi-religious ceremony.

The notions that 1.)An American would be invited on a 40-city tour of Russia in early 1941, and 2.)That he would be able to take his Russian bride out of the Soviet Union (after the German invasion!) "for the greater good of Mother Russia," are pure fantasy. The huge symphony orchestras and the vast, aristocratic, jewel-bedecked audiences we see at theatre after theatre are laughably anti-communist, and the men would most likely have been conscripted by that time.

Yet, as films reflect the history of our lives, I found this a fascinating chapter of the very brief period of US/USSR alliance. I'd love to see it again.

Breaking Bread and Borscht with the Soviets

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 11 November 2005]

During the period of truce of the Hitler-Stalin pact, American symphony conductor Robert Taylor is touring the Soviet Union with his manager Robert Benchley. Soviet classical pianist Susan Peters stalks Taylor, but eventually gets to meet him when she sits down and plays Tonight We Love. That little piece of Tschaikovsky was a big pop hit in America at the time.

It's a tender love story that develops between Taylor and the classical groupie and they marry. He visits her in her village, meets her people and is really impressed by the way they've just taken to Communism.

Of course Hitler blinks in the game of diplomatic chicken he was playing with Stalin and attacks the Soviet Union. The people organize and resist. What will happen with Taylor and Peters.

Robert Taylor resisted loud and long about doing this film, it seared at his anti-Communist soul. But he was also an agreeable contract employee at MGM and Louis B. Mayer said he wasn't thrilled about it either, but that the request for this film came directly from the Office of War Information. Of course being hammerlocked into doing Song of Russia is what ultimately led to Taylor being a friendly witness at the House Un American Activities Committee.

You could see Taylor's heart wasn't in this one. Susan Peters comes out so much the better. What a tragic loss she was, a bright beautiful girl with a great career ahead of her, paralyzed and eventually dying from a hunting accident.

Like 20th Century Fox's North Star, Song of Russia has so much music in it, it could qualify as a musical. Jerome Kern and E.Y. Harburg contributed a forgettable song called And Russia Is Her Name. Like North Star, Song of Russia was later cited as two of the three biggest examples of Communist influence in Hollywood, the other being Mission to Moscow.

The Soviets at great sacrifice saved the world from Hitler and made it possible for Soviet ideological driven imperialism to move into the vacuum. Now that the Cold War is receding in our collective consciousness, maybe a film showing the Russian contribution to winning World War II can be made without arousing all the right wing yahoos.

This one certainly wasn't it.

Talk about propaganda

[foosi-1 · 1/10 · 16 December 2006]

This film is utter, complete propaganda for Communism and the Soviet Union. Endless smiles, a happy, unified, prosperous people - not a single labor camp or knock on the door at night. Imagine a movie made of nothing but smiling, happy Germans under Hitler - with a team of Nazis as writers - who cleared the script with the German Embassy. Would people not call that a horrifying piece of evil? That's exactly what this film is, and it was rightly skewered when pre-McCarthy HUAC hearings were held on Communist influence in Hollywood. A perversely fascinating document of Hollywood's love affair with the Communist slave state.

Song of the contempt for America crowd.

[gvfj · 3/10 · 19 November 2006]

I own this film on DVD, having bought it from a private collector a while back. I like it, not for its plot, musical score or cinematography, but for the simple reason that it was a brash attempt by the government of the day to encourage Americans to sacrifice themselves to save a regime that represented the secret wishes of an elite circle of Washington insiders. I was stimulated to search for a copy after reading Ayn Rand's 1947 testimony before the HUAC committee on-line. Long interested in this pivotal period of world history, I had previously acquired the German newsreels for the latter part of 1941 (i.e. Operation Barbarossa). German army cameramen had recorded a great deal of the conditions in the cities such as Kiev, Minsk, Smolensk, Nikolayev, and dozens of rural villages in the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Their impossible-to-stage pictures showed first-world, European people, in the middle of the twentieth century, living in a degree of abject poverty, squalor, and despair which Americans would not believe without seeing. It rivaled the worst of the third world. Humans intentionally treated as expendable beasts of burden by their Bolshevik oppressors.

So for Hollywood to produce such a glaring lie (not to mention distortion of the chronology of events) as "Song of Russia" in order to persuade people to support, or even risk life to participate in, a war to save such a regime is practically an act of enmity against its own people, in my opinion. It's easy to see why the Hollywood crowd is trying to make this movie disappear down an Orwellian memory hole. Highly recommended for anyone who doubts that Hollywood is anti-American.

When were movies required to be realistic?

[Tom_Barrister · 10/10 · 17 August 2010]

I'll be the first to admit that this film was a bald effort at propaganda. I'll also admit that the conditions depicted in Russia were far from reality. However, this isn't the first effort at propaganda by Hollywood, nor is it the first (or the thousandth) that takes a wide berth from reality.

If you look at the movie's setting (happy Russians with a benevolent leader) as fantasy, and imagine the Russia shown in the movie as a mythical nation, then you have a dandy story here. Propaganda aside, the storyline here is excellent; it's engrossing, well-written and intelligent. The acting is superb, from top stars Taylor and Peters down to the bit players and extras. The dance scenes are well choreographed.

The music, mostly that of Tchaikovsky, is superb, and the soundtrack is masterfully woven into the background throughout the story. The music is well-played and well conducted by Albert Coates (who also did the piano work). As for the piano, Susan Peters does a good job of finger placement that could fool all but the trained eye into thinking that she could actually play the piano (she couldn't at the level shown in the movie). The one fault herein is Taylor's attempts to imitate a conductor: suffice it to say that it's out of sync and overstated to the point of absurdity.

As a side note, many of the members of the Peter Meremblum orchestra (prodigal young musicians, many of whom went on to careers in music, and a few of whom became very well-known in the world of music) appear throughout the movie, mainly as extras and as kids in the village and youths in the Moscow Conservatory. The orchestra also performed some of the background music.

All in all, this is an excellent movie if one can overlook the propaganda and anti-realism and treat it as a fantasy/fiction.

A Boring Movie Despite The Political Controversy

[lsda-80381 · 5/10 · 31 January 2023]

Well, the best thing that can said about this film is Robert Taylor. He was smashing as a an orchestra conductor and his overall performance was very good despite the fact that he strongly objected to doing this film. Robert Taylor was well known for his professionalism and this film clearly illustrates that point. If you are a woman, you can't take your eyes off off him in any film. Susan Peters was lovely, but I did not find their attraction credible. Clearly this movie was made as a pat on the back to the Soviets as our allies in WW II. I found this film to be very syrupy and that undermined the entire production. Meh!

Classical music has played an enormous part in my life ever since seeing "Song of Russia"!

[d-freeman · 7 September 2004]

Like a previous writer, I too saw this movie as a child during World War 11.

I really cannot comment on its artistic value so many years later, however, as a young person ( with my Father overseas)during that point in history, it was something to see to bring closer the effects and personality of war. The one poignant thing about the movie that I still remember clearly was the playing of Tchaikovsky's very famous Piano Concerto #1 in B-Flat. It was my first real introduction to classical music. If nothing else, I am thankful for the film bringing this to me, for it and classical music have played an enormous part in my life ever since! It led me to study music and have been professionally involved in music all my working life. My thanks go to "Song Of Russia" and Tchaikovsky -Doug-

Propaganda??? (Review from Russia)

[first-principle · 9/10 · 13 June 2011]

The song of Russia isn't the face of Russia. The essence of a song (for any creature) is a call for unattainable beauty, isn't it? Does this film call to arms (to be war propaganda like German colored film "Kolberg" or Japan anime "Momotaro: Umi no Shinpei")? Only in the sense of defending the beauty in our hearts (love, devotion, patriotism). No one mention about communism and its spreading, only the call by means of music for help during wartime regardless social and cultural differences, this is a noble step from Americans and why they have been feeling ashamed after that (like enamored and betrayed)? The live action seems to be a beautiful art, not an ugly artificiality, maybe pompous as usual background for love or heroic story wherever it happens, so it can't be regarded like awful propaganda as hurt Ayn Rand said in her HUAC negative testimony about the film. Her words "They (russians) try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman" are totally reductionism. What about American view of Soviet Russia, I've never found it adequate (in contrary to the style of socialistic realism in soviet films), and American stamps in Russian context always looks funny for me, but the humanistic kindness and classical music in the film erases ambiguity and national differences. No wonder I'm pleased with the film =)

It may have been a turkey, but .....

[denisswift · 29 June 2003]

This was the first film that I can recall seeing, way back in the 1940s. I was about 6 or 7 years old at the time (I'm now 66). I can remember nothing of the rose-tinted picture of Stalin's Russia described in John Barnes' comments.

In fact, I can recall little of the plot, other than that it featured an orchestral conductor and extracts from Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto. Thus, the film introduced me to Tchaikovsky and classical music and, for that, I am eternally grateful.

I want to own this movie

[ideaconduit · 8/10 · 13 June 2006]

Anyone know where I can get it? I've been trying for years. It's a pity, as I'm a Russophile and as such am interested in all historical/period pieces without having to label them as propaganda. After all, when WE do it, we call it Education. It's only when others do it that we call it Propaganda. Need proof? Geroge W. Bush and all the hateful lies. We live in a purely propagandized state. This website asks for 10 lines of text in order to get posted, but all I want to know is where I can get a copy of this film of my own. It made an impression on me three years ago when Teddy Baby aired it (more than once, too, and I missed the opportunity to record it).

"Song of Stalin" would be more like it...

[Piper12 · 21 November 2000]

Who knew that life under a brutal totalitarian regime could be so carefree? Even though the film was made for World War II propaganda purposes, the inanities that litter this film have to be seen to be believed. (That would be difficult, I know, since it is not available on videotape. or DVD.)Among the aspects of Russian life, circa 1941, to which this film introduces us are: town meeting democracy, freedom of religion, rural peasants who eat hearty meals at tables set with china, crystal and silver, and on and on. Soviet barbarities are played down or, more usually, ignored altogether. I saw this film in Washington around 1983 as part of a twin bill with the other infamous WWII paeon to Stalin's Russia, "Mission to Moscow." I think the latter was, in places, at least a bit more honest than this rose-colored clunker. If ever you wondered why Congress went hunting for Communists in Hollywood, check out these two films.

Historical accuracy is not always a filmmaker's goal.

[SirIvanhoe · 30 October 2004]

"Song of Russia" was never made to accurately portray Soviet peasantry, but rather to enlighten the West of the Anti-Nazi plight of the Russian citizens.Director Gregory Ratoff is no more guilty of tainting the truth for entertainment's sake than were many American directors for their careless, racist portrayal of the "savage" American Indian.

Stalin and Hitler were both maniacal murderers, but in 1943 much less was known of the atrocities these two leaders committed. If Western leaders had known better in 1943, greater efforts should have been made to stop the bloodshed. 20/20 hindsight gives us great power to criticize filmmakers of that period, but what of Roosevelt and Churchill? What did they know, and what did they do about it?

"Song of Russia" was a warning and a call for help.Although Russian peasants weren't as "Americanized" as the film portrays, they did defend their land against the fascists and lost over 20 million people doing it.I enjoyed the film, and yes, I thought the peasants looked a bit well-to-do for the period, but that helped me imagine what we as Americans might have confronted if the Nazis had made it past England and Russia.

Susan Peters!! and the way things had-to-be

[churei · 2 April 2004]

Revisionist history can prove unfortunate. There is very little that moves along with apparent 'truth' in this film, BUT it was made at a critical time in our history -- a time when it was necessary to create unity between those fighting the horrors of Nazism. No, the film is not a very good one, but it is a formidable piece of history and should be watched with the adult comprehension of the time. And there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for the wreckage wrought by McCarthy-Cohn and their henchpeople during the Red Scare era that destroyed lives!! No excuse at all. As for SONG OF RUSSIA, it should also survive as a reminder of the screen aura of Susan Peters. (As for her true abilities, watch this one and then SIGN OF THE RAM!!) Along with the obvious propoganda about the 'perfect' society of the USSR, the worst part of this film, of course, is the usually awful performance of Robert Taylor, whose post-War attitudes were those of a true coward, as well as a lousy actor.

Propaganda film? of course. Soviet propaganda? Huh uh; at least not directly.

[rjearle · 14 April 2010]

Look: This film IS propaganda, but it certainly isn't Soviet propaganda. I think it is clear from watching the film disinterestedly and/or reading ALL of the transcripts of Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony that it was American wartime propaganda aiming at 1) strengthening political ties with its then-ally Soviets, and 2) convincing the American's that they should support the joint effort with the Russians against Germany. The US was too afraid to admit to the American people that they, like, Churchill said, had to work with the devil to defeat Hitler; they used propaganda film instead (ad not just here, but overtly as part of Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series). Further, I think it is probable, as a previous poster mentioned, that they are only guilty of writing a very ill-conceived "love knows no bounds" kind of war time love story; this is just a year or so after Casablanca, after all! The movie certainly was picked up, partly on the basis of the love-knows-no-bounds angle, but more overtly b/c, as the awful Robert Taylor pointed out in his own HUAC testimony, the request came from the US State department.