TV/Movies Megathread

[Maladict]

'The Death Of Stalin' - Superb on so many levels. especially liked Michael Palin's turn as Molotov and the northern hardman Zhukov.

Didn't catch who was playing Stalin, it wasn't Bob Mortimer??

No, not Bob. It's a relatively unknown actor I think.

[Sheilbh]

'The Death Of Stalin' - Superb on so many levels. especially liked Michael Palin's turn as Molotov and the northern hardman Zhukov.

Didn't catch who was playing Stalin, it wasn't Bob Mortimer??

No, not Bob. It's a relatively unknown actor I think.

Yeah looked him up - a Northern rep actor

It's a great film - I loved the line from someone that it's not historically accurate, but it is historically truthful. I think Russell Beale is particularly terrific as Beria (as well as Jason Isaacs' Zhukov ).

[The Brain]

'The Death Of Stalin' - Superb on so many levels. especially liked Michael Palin's turn as Molotov and the northern hardman Zhukov.

Didn't catch who was playing Stalin, it wasn't Bob Mortimer??

No, not Bob. It's a relatively unknown actor I think.

Yeah looked him up - a Northern rep actor

It's a great film - I loved the line from someone that it's not historically accurate, but it is historically truthful. I think Russell Beale is particularly terrific as Beria (as well as Jason Isaacs' Zhukov ).

Truthful how?

[Syt]

Truthful how?

I think pretty much all the events in the movie happened as described, though over a longer time frame.

[Tamas]

Yeah I read Court of the Red Tsar some years before seeing the movie, and the movie felt like a black humoured but quite accurate representation of what I read in that book.

[Maladict]

Finished Barry S1, it's pretty funny. Should I quit now or continue?

[celedhring]

Finished Barry S1, it's pretty funny. Should I quit now or continue?

Continue. It's a great show.

[Sheilbh]

Truthful how?

I think pretty much all the events in the movie happened as described, though over a longer time frame.

Yeah and I think it does capture something of that circle. You know it is a farce but it's a sort of farcical fear and terror that pervades the film - I don't think it avoids the darkness/horrror of Stalinism.

Farce is normally caused by something that forces people to do the outlandish or ridiculous - it's why we have sex farces or farces about theatrical productions or upstairs/downstairs country houses. Just in this film what's forcing people to do the ridiculous is sheer terror of getting it wrong, being taken away, tortued and shot.

[The Larch]

Regarding "The Death of Stalin", a couple of videos I saw on Youtube from reputable sources (History Buffs and The Cynical Historian) were not super kind with its faithfulness to historical facts (it is based on a comic book after all).

Their main complaints are about the exageration of the atmosphere of fear and repression as if they were still in the 30s, as at that time the big purges were already over and there were no more "lists", mass executions or wild purges going around. They even point to the fact that the death penalty was even officially eliminated in 1947. There were still some purges going around but they were mostly the result of internal party politics and some specific antisemitic campaigns, like the Doctor's Plot.

Also, Beria was not as powerful by then as he is featured in the film. After the war he was no longer head of the NKVD and was focused mostly on implementing the Soviet yoke in their newly gained satellite countries in Eastern and Central Europe. He only regained control of the internal security apparatus after Stalin's death, when he became First Deputy Premier and head of the Internal Affairs Ministry, in alliance with Malenkov. Also what convinced Krushev and the others to move against him was an uprising in East Germany in 1953 that is not mentioned at all in the film, and the charges that were finally pressed against him in his trial were also omitted (he was officially charged with Treason for WWII stuff, Terrorism for the Red Army purge of 1941 and Counter-Revolutionary activity dating back to the Russian Civil War).

The massacre of civilians attending Stalin's funeral by NKVD forces that they blame on Beria in the film didn't happen either.

[Sheilbh]

Regarding "The Death of Stalin", a couple of videos I saw on Youtube from reputable sources (History Buffs and The Cynical Historian) were not super kind with its faithfulness to historical facts (it is based on a comic book after all).

I'd slightly push back on some of these. I'm not an expert but I've read a little bit around these and I don't know that I agree with all of these.

Their main complaints are about the exageration of the atmosphere of fear and repression as if they were still in the 30s, as at that time the big purges were already over and there were no more "lists", mass executions or wild purges going around. They even point to the fact that the death penalty was even officially eliminated in 1947. There were still some purges going around but they were mostly the result of internal party politics and some specific antisemitic campaigns, like the Doctor's Plot.

So I get that point but I slightly query it. I think this criticism absolutely makes sense for Chernobyl when Shcherbina threatens to throw Legasov out of the helicopter - that wouldn't happen in the 80s and was very different.

But I'm just not sure how much compartmentailisation of a regime people do when they're living through that regime. So in the film there's basically two narratives - the party elite and the orchestra. I think you would be terrified if you were the orchestra and Stalin phoned up wanting something

But even at the party elite level there's a theory, especially in Stephen Kotkin's biography that the entire purpose of the great terror by Stalin was to destabilise and terrify the rest of the party leadership. Basically a way of asserting power - and especially eliminating the Old Bolsheviks. The great terror is really difficult to explain - there's no internal or external force that rationally explains what happens or why it's launched (it's a bit like the Cultural Revolution, but that's more unique). So things may have relaxed a bit by the late 40s early 50s, but all of the leadership at that point were men who had participated in the great terror and knew it could be turned on for no obvious reason at any moment.

It's a bit like the Cultural Revolution in that way (although the second, 70s phase actually killed more than the 60s phase) - if you're in the politburo around Mao in the mid-70s, I don't think you're that much more relaxed because it's not like it was in the mid-60s when the Red Guards were out in force because I think you know Mao can always do that.

I think everyone including elites may get more comfortable in Khrushchev or Brezhnev or, say, Deng or Hu eras that it's not going to be like it was under Stalin or Mao. But I don't know if psychologically you compartmentalise it that way. Especially if you're Khrushchev who was purging the Moscow party or Beria who was plotting against his boss and purging the Caucus (where he was able to cultivate his relationship with Stalin) etc.

Also, Beria was not as powerful by then as he is featured in the film. After the war he was no longer head of the NKVD and was focused mostly on implementing the Soviet yoke in their newly gained satellite countries in Eastern and Central Europe. He only regained control of the internal security apparatus after Stalin's death, when he became First Deputy Premier and head of the Internal Affairs Ministry, in alliance with Malenkov.

I think this is fair but partially goes to the point above. Beria left the NKVD and then Stalin started making appointments of anti-Beria figures in the NKVD that were probably targeted at Beria. Given that that's what Beria had done with Stalin to Yezhov in the late 30s (and what Yezhov did to Yagoda) - I think Beria probably was quite scared and on edge at this point.

Also what convinced Krushev and the others to move against him was an uprising in East Germany in 1953 that is not mentioned at all in the film, and the charges that were finally pressed against him in his trial were also omitted (he was officially charged with Treason for WWII stuff, Terrorism for the Red Army purge of 1941 and Counter-Revolutionary activity dating back to the Russian Civil War).

It's fair point on the charges. I don't agree on the uprising point. I think that was the event that was used to justify the coup but I don't think it was the motive, I think it was just the pretence. The real motive, I think, was that Khrushchev feared that if he didn't move first against Beria, Beria would move against him. Khrushchev's aides at the time remember that in 1953 Beria started to notice and pay more attention to Khrushchev. Beria tried to involve Khrushschev in a move to get rid of Malenkov and that gave Khrushchev the opening to get Beria and the rest of the leadership on board.

I don't think there's any evidence that it was driven by policy issues or some mistake Beria made. I think it was pure self-preservation.

The massacre of civilians attending Stalin's funeral by NKVD forces that they blame on Beria in the film didn't happen either.

Fair - it wasn't a massacre.

Edit: I suppose this is what I mean by it being not historically accurate but historically truthful, in my view.

[Josquius]

Criticising the death of stalin on history is like doing the same for monty python. It's missing the point.

[Syt]

Just finished the first season of The Good Place. The first few episodes were a bit ho-hum, but I was hooked by the end. Had strong Terry Pratchett vibes for me at times.

And of course it was nice to see Marc Evan Jackson again after finishing Brooklyn Nine-Nine. He is an incredibly pleasant screen presence.

[Barrister]

Just finished the first season of The Good Place. The first few episodes were a bit ho-hum, but I was hooked by the end. Had strong Terry Pratchett vibes for me at times.

And of course it was nice to see Marc Evan Jackson again after finishing Brooklyn Nine-Nine. He is an incredibly pleasant screen presence.

[spoiler]Did you see the twist coming?  Or had it been spoiled for you?[/spoiler]

[Syt]

Just finished the first season of The Good Place. The first few episodes were a bit ho-hum, but I was hooked by the end. Had strong Terry Pratchett vibes for me at times.

And of course it was nice to see Marc Evan Jackson again after finishing Brooklyn Nine-Nine. He is an incredibly pleasant screen presence.

[spoiler]Did you see the twist coming?  Or had it been spoiled for you?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I didn't have it spoiled for me, and I didn't see it coming. And it worked quite well for me.

Though I did kind of feel that Tahani didn't quite belong, because she was clearly vain; so I expected her to be outed as being one of the pariahs.[/spoiler]

[Barrister]

Just finished the first season of The Good Place. The first few episodes were a bit ho-hum, but I was hooked by the end. Had strong Terry Pratchett vibes for me at times.

And of course it was nice to see Marc Evan Jackson again after finishing Brooklyn Nine-Nine. He is an incredibly pleasant screen presence.

[spoiler]Did you see the twist coming?  Or had it been spoiled for you?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I didn't have it spoiled for me, and I didn't see it coming. And it worked quite well for me.

Though I did kind of feel that Tahani didn't quite belong, because she was clearly vain; so I expected her to be outed as being one of the pariahs.[/spoiler]

Season 2 was also really good, even wackier perhaps.  I think season 3 got lost in the weeds a little bit, but sets up for a really satisfying ending in season 4.

[spoiler]There are more twists coming, but none compare to the big one at the end of season 1.[/spoiler]