User Reviews

Circus is about an American dancer, who is touring through Moscow – as a dancer in the circus. She falls in love with a soldier in Russia. It's discovered that she is the mother of an interracial child, which displeases her manager. She comes under attack from him, but she is ultimately accepted into the loving embrace of the Soviet people.

The director of Circus – Grigori Aleksandrov – had a specific purpose when making this film - to show that the unity of the people could rise above any opposing force. The film serves as a propaganda piece for Russia, Stalin, and socialism. At the end of the film, when our main character is under attack from the villain, everyone in the circus audience quickly comes to her aid and hides the baby from hard. This represents the unity and equality of the Russian people. Everyone is equal and everyone is accepted.

The film takes place in the 1930s, in Russia. Most of the action takes place within the walls of the circus. Although, at the end of the film, the whole group of performers and friends march through the streets of Moscow in praise of unity, communism, and Russia.

I thought the movie was very interesting and thought provoking. Not only did it contain musical elements, but it also proclaimed an intense social message. I especially liked the story line, because it seemed unique and interesting - how many movies about American dancers in the Russian circus are there?

I would definitely recommend this film to a friend because of the unique story, the 30s-era musical numbers, and the interesting social message. Not many movies usually spell out their message in such a way as Circus did. Imagine if every movie with an important social message had its characters run through the streets at the end, proclaiming the lesson learned!

It's interesting to see a moment in time, in a country where the people are so passionate about unity. You know things were not this perfect in real life, but its fun to see a glossed over version of history - if only to recognize its weirdness.

It`s funny to see Americans so picky about this movie, when Russians at than time and still are portrayed much worse in Hollywood productions. It`s either gangsters or drunk "comrades". Also I have to add that the famous singer Paul Robson was living some time in Soviet Russia and sent his son to Soviet high school. In later interview the son told BBC that it was the only time when he didn`t felt subhuman in his entire life. There`s the racism for you ! As for the Stalin - people didn`t know anything at that time and were just rebuilding the country that was finally theirs, so the jubilant scenes are absolutely rightful,they were supposed to gratify people for their immensely hard work and show what they have already achieved. Plus the march scenes are not a bit more silly than for example "water games" shot in Hollywood and featuring just diving, swimming an endless liters of colored water and smoke. I have to mention the actress in lead role - Orlova. She was a prime dancer of the Soviet cinema. Film features one shot that shows just how great her talent as an actress was. When she dances on the cannon, it`s closed with a thick glass and lit up from inside. The glass during the dance heated up, and when she sits down she actually sits on something like an oven ring. But she continues to sing !! You can only note the slight trepidation in her voice if you know about the accident, otherwise it`s seamless !

Overall, this movie has to be taken along with the context and ability to be fair both ways. After all, Stalins face was used by filmmakers as a means to get their films through,so you can just peel that away as an ugly wrapping.

If you are going to make a movie endorsing the actions of one of history's greatest villains, in this case Stalin, at least make it fun to watch! "Tsirk" is a funny, melodramatic, accessible movie that features several entertaining acts, such as the impromptu Lion Tamer, the dance on the cannon, and the communal ending. It is heartwarming to see an entire country represented as they sing a child to sleep, until you realize that the Yiddish Representatives were executed after the production. The running theme of confusion, over translation and ideologies, provided the movie with several humorous moments of error, and provided the movie with an honest subtext.

Also, worth pointing out, is the movie's fearless attitude towards racism. Hollywood would hint at the problem, but rarely delve into it as much as "Tsirk" has.

Musical comedy. A screen adaptation of the play "Under the Circus Dome" written by the famous Soviet and Russian writers and playwrights Ilya Ilf, Yevgeny Petrov and Valentin Kataev. Well, the director Grigory Alexandrov was responsible for the production. The main role was played by the main celebrity of the Stalinist era, Lyubov Petrovna Orlova. I have nothing to say about the play, because I have not seen it in my eyes, so I will evaluate the picture as an independent work. The disc with this picture lay on my shelf for a long time, and all hands did not reach to look. Each time, approaching the shelf, I chose a different film, and mentally said to myself, "The circus will be another time." And then came this very "Another time". Therefore, here is my brief opinion - Dramatic backstage of the circus. Unfortunately, the picture did not impress me as a "bombshell", so I intend to tell you about the pros and cons of this comedy. I see no reason to drag out this introduction any further, so I'm getting down to the point. So the pros: 1. The story told - American Marion Dixon flees the country because she gave birth to a Negro baby. She is rescued by the German Franz von Kneischitz, who puts her in a circus troupe, with which she comes to the USSR. And here, in the Land of Soviets, she learns that there are not only bad, but also good people who are ready to accept her and her son, despite the skin color. But the cunning German won't just give up. Love, intrigue, romance, music, humor and a splendid ending - this is all "Circus". The story is somewhat naive, but catchy for the viewer. And although the ending is obvious almost from the very beginning, but its grandeur does not negate this (despite the fact that I watched the color and castrated version from the fifties). 2. "My native land is wide ..." - the legendary song of the composer Isaac Dunaevsky, the author of the text was Vasily Lebedev-Kumach. I knew about the existence of this song from early childhood (thanks to my parents, grandparents), but I just did not know where it came from. Now I am glad that I have filled this gap. Cheerful, patriotic, soulful, energetic, powerful and memorable. It's all about her! Simple words are not just a song. This is a hymn to the generation of the thirties of the twentieth century - the generation of my grandparents. They grew up with this song and built a mighty country (which later some individuals sold and drank, so we are sitting in the current swamp, but oh well, let's not talk about sad things). 3. The USSR of the thirties - a unique time and a generation of unique people who never existed again (hope only for the future). There is ideologization in the picture, but it does not put pressure on perception. The glorification of the USSR and the cultivation of friendship between peoples is an integral attribute of those years. Panorama of Moscow and Red Square with Lenin's mausoleum, double-headed eagles on the domes of the Kremlin towers (which will be replaced with red five-pointed stars in the year the picture is released). As the Soviet people of that time spoke, thought, acted - this picture shows all this, therefore it is still good from the point of view of history. So the cons: 1. Sound - the picture was restored and painted, though not original, but castrated. Okay, this is unpleasant, but you can live with it, but the sound is a big problem. Apparently the source code was not in the best condition, and they decided to leave it "as is", fearing to spoil it. It's a pity, because in the whole picture, thirty percent of the dialogues and songs are difficult to understand. 2. Irrationalities - there are a few blunders in the script that greatly unsettle the viewer, so to speak. Unpleasant, even very unpleasant. Maybe due to the fact that Grigory Alexandrov significantly reworked the original play, which is why Ilf, Petrov and Kaverin demanded to remove their names from the credits of this picture? Who knows comrades? Who knows? 3. Boring middle - good beginning, ending - even better, but middle is so boring that I almost fell asleep from melancholy. Little action. The painting literally sags in the middle. Maybe it's all about the script, maybe something else. But the fact is on the face! A little about the main characters: 1. Marion Dixon performed by Lyubov Orlova is an American circus artist performing in the USSR with a unique number. Has a humiliating (for the USA) secret, which is used by Franz von Kneischitz. It should be said that Lyubov Orlova managed to play the American well, and even with an accent there were no problems. Although in a couple of places the actress clearly forgot about him, trying to quickly say a line. She is convincing and beautiful. Bravo! 2. Ivan Martynov performed by Sergei Stolyarov is one of the most important circus workers who falls in love with Marion and wants to help her with all his might. A bold, honest idealist is practically a symbol of young people of that time (like Pavel Korchagin is a symbol of the Komsomol). Sergey looked great in this role, so bravo! 3. Franz von Kneischitz performed by Pavel Massalsky - Marion's patron and blackmailer. A representative of a typical bourgeois tribe who thinks exclusively about his own benefit and humiliates Marion in every possible way. He falls into the USSR and does not understand that this is not the States. Here is a different culture, and different norms of morality. Pavel did an excellent job with this role. Bravo! And although the picture did not make a very strong impression on me, I simply had no right not to mention its artistic and historical features! This is a good picture, not nonsense (like "Favorite" (wow, when I remember this arthouse, hidden under the cover of a "historical drama" I want to wash myself so much)). As a result, we have a good musical comedy, with a good script, historical surroundings, great music and songs, as well as great acting. My rating is 7 out of 10 and my recommendation for viewing!

Circus which was written by Brigori Aleksandrov and was directed by Aleksandrov and I. Simkov was released in 1936. The movie which is a comedy/musical centers on a U.S.-Vaudeville dancer Marion Dixon on tour with her German manager Von Kneischitz in Mosocow. The woman's act entails her being shot from a canon and is a crowd favorite. When Marion begins to fall in love with the handsome Ivan Petrovich Martynov(Sergei Stolvarov) she falls in love with Moscow as well. When Marion decides she wants to remain in Moscow this does not make her German manager happy. Her manager insists that if she tries to stay in Moscow she will never be accepted after he tells everyone about her son who is half black. As the film progresses and comes to a close Marion confesses her love to Martynov and Kneischitz shows Marion's black child to the circus audience. While Kneischitz thinks he is going to ruin Marion, the opposite occurs. The Russian people accept the child. In the final scene they all march off in unity and happiness.

The purpose of this film is clearly propaganda. The author seems to try and convey multiple messages in this film for that purpose. One message the author tries to convey in this film is that the Russian people are good and the German people are bad. This message is used as propaganda in order to create and increase nationalism amongst the Russian people during a time of conflict between Russia and Germany. Another message which the author tries to convey is not apparent until the end of the movie. This message is the portrayal of the Russian way of living, during the time of the Soviet Union, as the best way of living. The author conveys this message of equality and bliss amongst the Russian people for the purpose of propaganda in the final scenes.

In my opinion the author and the Committee of Cinema Affairs want to portray Stalin and Lenin as Gods and Communism as a type of religion. This is reflected in what I believe to be the theme of the film; The Soviet way of living is the best way of living because all Russian people are equal and happy. This theme reflects the author's purpose of the film as propaganda.

I liked some aspects of the film and some aspects I did not necessarily like but in a way I understood. The parts of the film that I did like were: the love story of Marion and Martynov, the humor associated with the acts of the circus clowns, and the conveyed message of equality and bliss. However some parts of the film may rub certain individuals the wrong way. For example: the way the black child is hidden from the public until the very end of the film. Although I understood that part of this use of a black child was to portray the existence of slavery in the United States during this time period. Another aspect of the film that may be offensive to some is the way that Americans(through the image of Marion) are portrayed as dumb and Russians superior. I would suggest this film to a friend because the film captures a person's interest, is controversial, and is funny. However this film is not for everyone, and I would mostly recommend it for the purpose of study in film or history, not pleasure.

Grigori Aleksandrov's film Circus is an entertaining piece of Stalinist/Socialist propaganda that differs greatly from Eisenstein's historical, earlier film October. October mainly serves the purpose of commemorating and remembering the Bolshevik Revolution and to help reinstate the strength and effectiveness of socialism to the people. Eisenstein's documentary style not only celebrates the revolution, but also aims to help the public better understand the historical process of the political revolution. On the contrary, Circus is a film that touts the greatness of life under Stalin and the superiority of the Soviet state. It contains all the elements of a Socialist Realism film. Through a pro-socialist narrative, Aleksandrov manages to cover many aspects of the Soviet state and current life of the people.

Circus tells the story of an American named Marion who is banished from the US because a black man impregnates her. Marion escapes to Russia to start a new life in the circus and joins up with lustful, anti-Russian ringmaster who happens to be in love with her. The ringmaster knows her secret about the black baby and threatens to reveal it unless she marries him. The problem is that Marion has fallen in love with a Russian acrobat and later out of sheer jealousy, the ringmaster reveals the identity of the woman's child in front of the circus audience. Rather than ostracize the woman, the Soviet audience embraces the child and sings him to sleep. Next we see Marion and the acrobat as a couple leading a huge parade through Red Square singing about the freedoms that Soviet Russia provides. Circus displays the elements of ethnic equality, new and productive construction, and the glory of life under Stalin many times in the film. Ethnic equality is evidently portrayed during the acceptance of the black baby and his talented, but flawed American mother Marion. At the beginning of the film, Marion retreats to Russian as some sort of free land of acceptance, far more tolerable than her native America. The message is clear that socialism is a society of acceptance and capitalism (or the United States in this case) cannot tolerate diversity.

When the non-Russian reveals the black baby, Marion finds great comfort in the fact that she is welcome among Soviets. The crowd proves this emotion when they embrace and protect the child from the ringleader while singing him a lullaby in several different languages. The lyrics of the song include lines that say the baby has a bright future awaiting him in Russia. Also, Marion's acrobatic lover says to her, "I always considered you to be a socialist." The message is that good people are all socialists. Concerning new construction and soviet productivity, there is a scene towards the end that shows the brand new underground subway system. It is obvious that the system is new and it is a symbol of the work and rewards of socialism. We see many people using the transportation system and a shot of the mammoth escalator leading to the subway points out the difficulty in building the system.

Perhaps the most absurd and blatant form of propaganda comes and the end during the massive parade that is lead by Marion and her acrobatic lover. They are marching with a giant banner of Stalin and Marion is asked, "Do you understand? (the socialist system)" and she replies, "Now I do." I think it is amusing that it takes a huge march through Red Square singing about freedoms to the backdrop of their leader and claiming to be the "most democratic of democratic constitutions" to understand the Soviet system. Perhaps this was put in the film so the viewers would walk out of the film thinking they too "understand" the system.

The movie Tsirk is about a Russian woman named Mary who was a socially out casted for having a black child. During her escape she is meets her soon to be German manager Von Kneishitz. After running away from her previous life with her new born baby, she joins the circus. In this new group she is at least making a living but she still feels like she must hide from her past. Her manager, Von Kneishitz, is always reminding Mary of her situation and frequently threatens to reveal Mary's illegitimate child. As Mary becomes more at home in her new environment she begins to have feelings for the ideal Russian man. As her feelings continue to grow for the great Russian man the threat to reveal her child becomes more real. While pursuing her new love Mary's plans are thwarted by the conniving and evil German. The film ends in glory after Von Kneishitz reveals Mary's son. All the people under the big top unite to welcome the newly discovered child into the warm embrace of the Russian state. All of this happens while they laugh at the silly German for being racist and turn him into the outcast.

This film is brimming with propaganda. This film shows just how great the Russian people are when they unite together to belittle the foolish and backward German. There is also a scene that features a giant poster of Stalin that helps the viewer to see that this work was used as propaganda. While on the one hand it supports Russian unity and demonstrated the evils of the German people it also was racist in its own rite. During one of the final scenes all of the different ethnic groups sing to the child in their own native language. The shot with the Jewish group singing to the child was cut out of the official soviet release.

This was an interesting film but I would only recommend it to those interested in seeing how the Russian government was interested in spreading the message of the state through film.

Grigori Aleksandrov co-directed some of the best films by Sergei Eisenstein, "Staroye i novoye", "Oktyabr" and "Que viva Mexico!". He was as much talented as Eisenstein, but with much more sense for genre movies, especially comedy. In his films he blended brave formal devices, a genre narration and a humor, and he did it with a great skill. "Tsirk" is an excellent example of Aleksandrov's style. The film is visually expressive, includes some typical modernistic devices, but with populist aim, some scenes are made in Busby Berkeley way, and so on. Also, "Tsirk" is a great propaganda movie and it tells the truth about American racism of those times, using this for glorification of Soviet Union as a tolerant and progressive society. (In fact, regarding racism, Soviet society of that time really was progressive in comparison with the United States.) Final scenes celebrates Lenin, Marx and Stalin in superb artistic way (a long double exposure is fascinating), and the film glorifies not only Soviet Union, but Soviet Russia, too. In fact, Soviet Russia is adored homeland in the film as a result of Stalin's Russian nationalism.

We rented this movie for my Russian grandmother; she's seen it, she says, 17 times. Scary. This is a saccharine romance in which an American actress, impregnated by a black man, escapes to Russia and starts a new life. She loves one man; the heavy, however, threatens that if she doesn't marry him, he will reveal her secret. This continues for a long time until the end, when he does so; indignantly, the masses at the circus rise and say that it doesn't matter what color the baby is, this is tolerant Russia! Then, for no reason whatsoever, the actress and her new lover are marching at the head of a huge parade singing about the freedom that Soviet Russia provides.

This is one of those knock-off comedies that Aleksandrov made after returning from Hollywood. It even features a Chaplin impersonator. It's not that great, and anyone who masochistically feels they simply must learn about Soviet film in the 1930s would be advised to stick to Eisenstein and The Three Songs Of Lenin.