Monthly Archives: January 2021

  • MLK/FBI

    Sam Pollard (2020)

    This documentary has exactly the right title.  The oblique stroke linking the letters expresses the spine of MLK/FBI – the continuing surveillance of one set of initials by the other, which Sam Pollard uses as a launch pad for mini-biographies of Martin Luther King Jr and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  The visual narrative consists almost entirely of film and still photographs, along with occasional shots of recently declassified documents from the US National Archives.  (For the viewer, these documents are a stylistic device rather than a source of information:  the pages appear as hard-to-read white text on black ground and don’t stay on screen for long.)  Until the last few minutes of MLK/FBI, Pollard eschews talking heads to interpret the evidence of the news footage.

    Not talking voices, though – when one starts to speak its owner’s name usually pops up at the bottom of the frame.  With plenty else for the eye to keep up with, this technique could have been distracting and the voices confusing but Pollard sensibly rations the contributors to eight (and a couple of them make only one or two comments).   They include the academics Beverly Gage and Donna Murch, the writer and broadcaster David Garrow, the journalist Marc Perrusquia, and two people who knew or worked closely with Martin Luther King:  Andrew Young, a leading member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (and future US Ambassador to the UN in the Carter administration) and Clarence Jones, King’s lawyer, speechwriter and close friend.  The remaining voices belong to former FBI employees, Charles Knox and James Comey.   In the conclusion to MLK/FBI, we briefly see all the contributors except for Perrusquia and Comey.

    The last-named, thanks to his prominence in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election and the circumstances of Trump’s firing of him the following spring, is one of the better-known FBI Directors of recent decades.  Comey’s profile doesn’t begin to compare, however, with that of J Edgar Hoover, who has a major role in Pollard’s story.  Hoover’s extraordinary longevity as the man in charge of the FBI – from 1924[1] until his death in 1972 – makes it easy for Pollard to make use of FBI-related material from outside the timespan of its investigation of MLK, and for this still to qualify as a portrait of the contemporary FBI regime.  Two types of filmic material feature in MLK/FBI:  as well as abundant news archive, there are clips from Hollywood dramas, of different vintages, some of them centred on the FBI and heroising its G-men.  The clips have a distinct B-movie flavour but not all these films were made on the cheap.  The period during which the Bureau kept its eyes and ears on King saw the release of, for example, The FBI Story (1959).  A Warner Bros production, running two-and-a-half hours, it was directed by Mervyn LeRoy and starred James Stewart.

    The archive footage of MLK starts in the mid-1950s and continues to the end of his life in April 1968.  The FBI’s surveillance of him, which covers the same period, appears to have started in light of the Montgomery Bus Boycott:  ‘We must mark him now as the most dangerous Negro in the future of this Nation,’ according to an internal memo.  At the start, the Bureau was chiefly concerned with connections between the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the (white) businessman and lawyer Stanley Levison.  An adviser to and friend of King, Levison himself had been under FBI investigation since the early 1950s thanks to his involvement with the American Communist Party.  The focus on King changed when wire taps on hotel rooms he stayed in revealed his extramarital affairs, offering an opportunity to undermine his moral leadership within the Civil Rights movement.  As one of the contributing voices points out, this shift from the explicitly political to the sexual in the interpretation of African-American threat feels like a reflection of inveterate white fear of the Black man as a figure of carnal menace.  (Pollard accompanies this part of the narrative with an apt excerpt from The Birth of a Nation.)

    In the final summing up, David Garrow describes the FBI as ‘a part of the mainstream political order’.  By this stage, he hardly needs to do so.  The characterisation of King as sexual bogeyman cum moral hypocrite may have been intensified by Hoover’s personal preoccupations and pathology but MLK/FBI convincingly shows that the FBI was no rogue outfit made in the image of its singular, longstanding head.  The film makes clear both that a good deal of the Bureau’s activity wasn’t top secret, and the strength of its popularity.  An opinion poll taken when ill feeling between Hoover and King became public showed 17% support for the latter against 50% for the FBI.  The large cast of The FBI Story included, in a cameo appearance, J Edgar Hoover as Himself.  That film also spawned a comic book and Pollard shows examples of similar publications.  He creates a vivid picture of the sustained promotion of the Bureau in popular media.

    To the frustration of Hoover and his colleagues, evidence of King’s sexual misbehaviour didn’t build up the head of steam they hoped for.  The evidence could still damage his posthumous reputation, though.  Some relevant textual material is already available but, as MLK/BFI makes clear, the tapes won’t follow suit until 2027.  Pollard includes reference to a written report on one of the tapes, according to which King witnessed a female parishioner being raped in a hotel room by a fellow Baptist minister.  Whoever added a manuscript note to the report overplayed his hand by claiming the tape revealed that ‘King looked on and laughed and offered advice’:  how does an audiotape prove that someone ‘looked on’?  Nevertheless, present-day perceptions of male abuses of power in relation to women make it hard to think that, only six years from now, the FBI’s secret recordings will do nothing to detract from MLK’s image.

    It’s arguable Pollard doesn’t give enough attention to how and why the accusations against King didn’t gain traction during his lifetime – that his documentary is consequently able to ignore how appalled  much of King’s churchgoing African-American support base would have been to learn of his maculate private life.  In the main, though, MLK/FBI is fair-minded, as well as instructive and incisive.  It describes MLK’s exceptional gifts but stops short of hagiography.  It gives a detailed account of what more than one contributor terms the most shameful dirty tricks campaign in the FBI’s history (the competition for which superlative must be strong) while acknowledging elements of truth in its original suspicions about Stanley Levison.

    Pollard starts with footage of the March on Washington in August 1963 and the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech.  He goes on to illustrate the versatility of King’s extraordinary eloquence in less expected contexts – a chat show, for instance.  In a complementary way, the racial benightedness of the era comes through loud and clear not just in explicit abuse and disparagement.  In a TV interview from what seems to be the mid-1960s, a white journalist asks King why he thinks ‘the Negro’ has found it harder than other immigrant groups to assimilate to American life.  MLK keeps his cool in explaining that the other groups didn’t come to the country as slaves.  In the same exchange, he refers to ‘thingification’ of Blacks, a phenomenon Pollard has shown in action in an earlier interview, in 1950s Alabama.  This comprises footage of conversation between King and a (different) white interviewer just before they go on air – though conversation isn’t quite the right word.  King, asking if there’ll be a brief dummy run, is meaningfully addressing his white interlocutor.   The latter, with an off-handed reply, doesn’t even glance in King’s direction.  Thingifying the Black man standing beside him comes naturally.

    24 January 2021

    [1]  The organisation was called the Bureau of Investigation at the time of Hoover’s initial appointment.  It added ‘Federal’ to its name in 1935.

  • Dear Comrades!

    Dorogie tovarishchi!

    Andrei Konchalovsky (2020)

    A year after Agnieszka Holland’s Mr Jones, here’s another recreation of another brutal episode in the history of the Soviet Union.  The atrocity in Holland’s film, witnessed by her young Welsh title character, was the Stalin-made Holodomor famine in the Ukraine in the 1930s.  In Dear Comrades! the octogenarian Russian director Andrei Konchalovsky dramatises the Novocherkassk massacre of June 1962, from the perspective of the protagonist, Lyudmila ‘Lyuda’ Syomina (an invented character, unlike Gareth Jones).  The Holodomor killed millions.  The death toll in Novocherkassk, when Soviet soldiers and KGB operatives opened fire on unarmed protesters, was twenty-six[1].  But Dear Comrades! is an altogether bigger film than Mr Jones.

    The action takes place in and around Novocherkassk over the course of four days, beginning on the eve of the shootings.  Konchalovsky (who wrote the screenplay with Elena Kiseleva) makes clear, in a succession of short scenes, that rising prices and diminishing food supplies are the talk of the town.  They’re the main topic of conversation between Lyuda (Julia Vysotskaya), a member of the City Committee, and her boss, Loginov (Vladislav Komarov), as she gets up from the bed they’ve been sharing.  (Loginov’s wife is due back home the following day but that’s the last we hear of her.  The  affair is quickly, and entirely, overtaken by events.)  Lyuda says she needs to get to the local store for provisions before they disappear.  On arrival there, she threads her way through a long queue, into a back room where a female store assistant produces a cache of various basic foods, along with special extras:  cigarettes for Lyuda’s elderly father; ‘chocolate curd bars’, her teenage daughter Svetka’s favourite.

    Lyuda doesn’t take this privileged treatment for granted.  She offers the woman in return one of two pairs of pantyhose she recently managed to acquire.  Her tone changes sharply, though, when her benefactor laments the economic situation.  It seems obvious enough that a staunch Communist like Lyuda doesn’t want the Central Committee’s name taken in vain by those less committed to the system yet the rebuke is still striking.  In Loginov’s bed, Lyuda herself criticises the cost of living and food shortages:  her lover reminds her that the current situation will lead to ‘higher living standards in the nearest future’.  Lyuda’s flip-flop is the first example of what becomes a recurring feature of Dear Comrades!, and a convincing feature of the political allegiances it describes.  People change their tune according to where they are, who they’re talking to.

    Along with milk and meat supplies, pay rates at the Novocherkassk Electromotive Building Factory (NEBF) have also declined while production quotas have increased.  The resulting industrial unrest is discussed at her own workplace and Lyuda is again hardline, disparaging the factory workers as ignorant criminals.  At home, she’s differently impatient with her father (Sergei Erlish), who glumly looks forward to death, and with her daughter (Yuliya Burova), for all manner of things.  Svetka is too questioning on political matters; besides, she won’t darn the holes in her socks or wear a bra, despite being well developed.  (How well developed is confirmed in an unnecessary full frontal of the girl as she emerges from behind a shower curtain.)  After an argument with her mother over the family’s evening meal, Svetka walks out of the apartment.  She hasn’t returned next morning when Lyuda leaves for work.  Within hours, the offices of the City Committee in the town square are under siege from protesters from the NEBF and elsewhere.  Armed forces arrive to disperse the demonstration.

    The shooting that follows is the kinetic centre of Dear Comrades! and a startling piece of cinema.  Konchalovsky and his editors, Sergei Taraskin and Karolina Maciejewska, do well to convey the chaos of the situation.  People are shot and fall down but it’s unclear where the bullets are coming from.  There’ll be arguments to come over who did the more damage – troops on the ground or KGB snipers on rooftops.  She and her work colleagues are ushered from their building to a place of safety but Lyuda is soon in the thick of the mayhem:  she’s anxiously looking for Svetka, who she thinks may have been among the protesters.  The previous day, Lyuda went to the hairdresser’s in the square.  As Konchalovsky’s camera re-enters the salon, a shot through the plate glass window kills the woman who runs the place.  Lyuda helps another woman, with a leg wound, into the hairdresser’s, and onto a chair by the window.  Another bullet kills this woman, too.  A radio in the salon plays light music throughout the sequence.

    The hint of satirical comedy in the title – and its exclamation mark – is reinforced by the script’s regular supply of apparatchik-speak.  The synergy between this and the horrifying events that unfold makes for a narrative as absurd as it is gripping.  Konchalovsky develops a tone that’s consistent but consistently disconcerting.  It’s remarkable, in view of the close-to-home subject matter, to see a Russian-made film manage this complex balancing act much more successfully than, for obvious example, Armando Iannucci’s The Death of Stalin.  Eager to toe the party line, Lyuda stands up in a meeting presided over by two Central Committee officers, sent to Novocherkassk on Kremlin orders; she urges an ‘extreme penalty’ for those inciting the protest.  Her intervention doesn’t go unnoticed.  Through Loginov, she’s asked by the Moscow visitors to put in writing the punitive measures she has in mind for troublemakers, one of whom may be the daughter that Lyuda is increasingly frantic to find.

    Prior to the arrival of Khrushchev’s emissaries, Basov (Dmitry Kostyaev), a high-ranking official from elsewhere in the region, has been dispatched to Novocherkassk to sort things out.  He cluelessly addresses the crowd of protesters and gets a rock thrown at him.  Fat, sweaty Basov is the closest that Dear Comrades! gets to a comedy character, thanks to a combination of his appearance and his ridiculous behaviour.  KGB man Viktor (Andrey Gusev) is a more ambiguous and intriguing creation.  He’s taken by surprise by the killings.  Viktor, who thought the soldiers would be firing dummy ammunition, seems not to have known in advance that KGB agents would also be involved.  The following day, he reports to a superior that the heat of the blood that splattered the asphalt in the town square has made it impossible to remove.  He doesn’t argue with the instruction from the other end of the phone line – to put down another layer of asphalt to cover the bloodstains.  Soon afterwards, Viktor arrives at Lyuda’s apartment with a search warrant.  He, for different reasons, is also looking for her daughter.

    The second half of Dear Comrades! largely comprises the hunt for Svetka, which Lyuda and Viktor carry out together.  He’s drawn to, and soon determined to help Lyuda rather than bring Svetka to book but he still makes use of his KGB credentials to assist the process.  A search for a missing child, in conjunction with Viktor’s shifting feelings, might seem to suggest the film turns into more conventional human drama yet it doesn’t.  Konchalovsky, rather, continues to illustrate the clash of Lyuda’s mother love and political loyalties, and shows Viktor’s personal and professional impulses operating in parallel.  Lyuda discovers some of the corpses from the massacre didn’t end up in the hospital morgue that she visited.  Instead, they were transported outside the city for disposal.  In the cemetery where the bodies were dumped in unmarked graves, the man responsible, in reply to Lyuda’s urgent questions, recalls that they included the body of a girl.  Unprompted, he also remembers there were holes in the toes of her socks.  Lyuda’s distraught reaction is memorable but so too is Viktor’s quiet response to her – that it’s right and proper for these dead people to be forgotten.  Even feeling sympathy for Lyuda, Viktor knows what view a man in his position should have of the matter, and is prepared to voice it.

    Konchalovsky’s visual and musical choices give Dear Comrades! a sense of unvarnished reality.    Andrey Naydenov’s monochrome cinematography, apt for a story set in the era of black-and-white television news, serves as a means of underlining that the core event of the film actually happened.  The images are contained in a square frame that buttresses the narrative’s matter-of-factness.  A fragment of the Russian national anthem is heard during the brief opening titles; a choir sings during the more extended closing ones.  In between, as well as the music coming from TVs or radios, a band tunes up outside the venue for a dance event, hurriedly arranged by the authorities to distract from the previous day’s bloodshed.  As they drive along in his car, Viktor, who belongs to a choir, and Lyuda sing the words of a patriotic song, with powerfully mixed feelings.  But Konchalovsky eschews the use of a dramatic score to interpret what’s happening on the screen or shape reactions to it.

    His expedition with Lyuda over, Viktor drops her outside her block.  She enters the apartment to learn from her father that her daughter has returned home unscathed.  Like the earlier quest to find the girl, this sounds like a familiar device – a last-minute twist that delivers an against-all-odds happy ending – but the effect is more complex:  the finale is rich in uncertainty and ambivalence.  Svetka is terrified of what’s going to happen to an agitator like her.  Viktor leaves the film wrongly assuming she’s dead.  Lyuda has experienced the ordeal of assuming the same – and the closing reunion is too brief to expunge the emotional weight of her accumulating despair over more than an hour of screen time.  The viewer is left full of how it felt that the mother had lost her daughter, even though it turns out she hasn’t.

    All the main actors are highly effective; lean, fair-haired Julia Vysotskaya is – as the story demands she should be – outstanding.  (Born in Novocherkassk in 1973, Vysotskaya is married to Andrei Konchalovsky, thirty-six years her senior.)  It’s plain to see why men are attracted to (the widowed?) Lyuda and her charisma, though continuously subjugated to the urgency of her predicament, is always part of the atmosphere.  But Vysotskaya realises especially well the collisions between Lyuda’s confident political spiel and her unbidden, disruptive displays of emotion.   People in Dear Comrades! tend to look back to better times.  A nurse in World War II, Lyuda regrets the passing of the Stalin regime while her father is nostalgic for his Cossack upbringing and youth.  (He has put on his old Cossack tunic when Viktor calls at the apartment.  ‘Grandpa’s just fooling around,’ Lyuda nervously assures their visitor.)  In contrast, the film’s closing words are about looking forward.  Clutching her weeping daughter, Lyuda insists, ‘We will do better’.  Is this a vow to improve her relationship with Svetka or a pious hope for the future of the USSR?   Perhaps it’s both.  At any rate, Konchalovsky’s film does a fine job of dramatising political versus personal conflicts and confusion.

    21 January 2021

    [1] This is the official figure.  According to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, ‘Information from a variety of sources is more or less unanimous that some seventy or eighty people were killed’.

Posts navigation