Russia - A Journey With Jonathan Dimbleby : Complete BBC Series [DVD]

After watching three of the five episodes, I looked at many reviews to see if anyone felt like me (slightly disappointed). I found there were several people who felt the same,.I went ahead and watched the remaining episodes in order to see the whole series and to find out if my impression might change.It is inevitable that, in a vast country like Russia, a five-hour series could never be enough to cover it in a satisfactory way. Let’s just say it can only wet the viewers appetite for more, whoever creates such a series has to be selective about what to include in it, so, while this series covers a lot of interesting places/people/situations, it is, as a whole, subject to the selectivity of its writer (who is also its presenter, Jonathan Dimbleby).I understand why some reviewers said it was “politically motivated”, although I’d choose a different wording, I’d say something like, “the presenter filtered his words through his personal baggage”, or through his “socio/political conditioning”, but which someone else might call his “prejudice”.An example of that was the scene of Dimbleby in the Red Square in Moscow, when he said that he recalled Ronald Reagan’s words about the Soviet Union being “the empire of evil”, and saying that he still felt uneasy being there (cringing while he said it). So when a journalist absorbs Reagan’s words lock stock and barrel and lets them condition his reaction to a place, it is easy to see that as a form of prejudice. Needless to say, the same impulses are named differently according to who expresses them: if you’re a Russian describing the West in non-flattering terms, it’s propaganda, if you’re a Westerner describing Russia in such terms, that’s “the truth”.While Dimbleby is not free of his “conditioning” (leading to prejudice), luckily, he did capture a lot of moments that showed the humanity of the people he met, their kindness and generosity, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that. Some of the scenery depicted is stunning, especially in the part about lake Baikal. Relegating two whole episodes to Siberia seemed, however, disproportionate.Sadly, he also fudged some historical facts, either out of lack of sufficent research, or, to fit the premise of the “evil empire”, whereby anything contradicting its narrative must be excluded.First, let’s get a few things straight, I am NO fan of Stalin nor am I out to defend him! However, in Dimbleby’s claim that “millions died in a famine CAUSED BY THE STATE” in Stalin’s days, he was FUDGING the facts BIG time.Just a bit of research online would show that many factors contributed to the famine of 1932-1933. Historian Mark B. Tauger of WEST VIRIGINIA University said “the famine was caused by a combination of factors, specifically low harvest due to natural disasters combined with increased demand for food caused by the industrialization and urbanization, and grain exports by the Soviet Union at the same time.”And here, it is imperative to understand why the “grain exports”:Lyle Hausman explained why the Soviet Union had to focus on grain exports (excuse the long quote but it is integral to understanding why the Soviet Union found itself in the predicament that resulted in that horrifying famine:“the capitalist powers planned to devastate the Bolshevik economy. In 1925, they imposed a ‘golden blockade’, which stated that no country was to accept gold as payment for industrial equipment delivered to Russia. All of a sudden, the Soviet government saw itself unable to pay with gold and forced to trade with timber, oil and grain.With the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression, most economies went under. But instead of lifting the ‘golden blockade’ on the Soviet Union which would have somewhat relieved the Western economies,the main powers placed an embargo on trade with the USSR: the US restricted Soviet imports, France imposed sanctions and Britain ended its trade with the country. The West didn’t stop here, however, and only allowed for one method of payment: grain.The Soviet government was therefore forced to choose. It could either stop importing – which would mean halting its industrial development, as was intended by the capitalist powers – or continue the modernization but having to give up great amounts of grain – which could lead to a famine that might cause an internal crisis. Whichever road he chose, the West would remain victorious.Stalin opted for the latter option. Soviet grain was traded for industrial equipment not to starve part of the country’s population to death, but because there was no other alternative. All hopes were set on the new harvest; unfortunately, the country was struck by a drought which inevitably lead to the famine. The USSR was unable to buy food in exchange for gold or currency because of the blockade and embargos, and urgently tried to get supplies of grain from elsewhere, but by then it was too late. The Western powers were aware of the importance of grain in the Soviet Union and knew that forcing them to trade with only this product could be dangerous for them.”The point being, the Soviet state wasn’t the only one responsible for the famine, and didn’t set out to cause it because of its inherit “evil” as coined by Reagan, and as accepted by Dimbleby, whose words stated that it was a deliberate choice by the state, ignoring the other factors, the PRINCIPAL ONE being the West, which set out to strangle the Soviet economy by the embargo and the dire conditions on trade, knowing fully well what their implications would be. Omitting all these factors and attributing them to the “state” is big time fudging of the facts. Whether it is due to lack of adequate research, or deliberate misrepresentation to construct the “profile of evil” in order to make the image fit the narrative he had in mind as he set out, I cannot tell. However, in a feat of journalism that wants to see itself as impartial, omitting such vital decisive factors to the famine, whether out of laziness or propaganda is unforgiveable. (Because, again, the machinations of propaganda are NOT the domain of one sole country, and claiming that “what they say is propaganda, but what we say is the truth” is, in itself, propaganda)Another thing I noticed was that the presenter did not show any positive side whatsoever to the former regime. But for the meeting with the young man who lived in the communal housing project, who did not give the presenter what he was hoping for about the negativity of such a life, on the contrary (luckily for us, that part was not edited out of the episode) he put things in the perspective of a Russian person. In all his enounters, Dimbleby did not even hint at the education/housing/security that people had under the Soviet regime, how any talented person had the possibility to pursue their talent without needing a fortune, hence the famous Russian musicians and athletes of that era. The only voice “sympathetic” to the Soviet regime that Dimbleby gave space to was to a woman who considered Stalin a hero. Nothing was positive about the past, everything contributed to the premise of “the empire of evil”, a premise that seemed to underly his depiction of the present as well.As I continued to watch the remaining two episodes, the depiction became unmistakable, this was not about showing Russia in any comprehensive way, this was about criticising the Russian regime, past and present, with the moments free of a political agenda being much less than those loaded with it.There wasn’t any attempt at a comprehensive coverage of people’s lives, their hopes and aspirations, but mostly about issues that point to the darkness of the former regime and the current one. Dimbleby had a trademark way of interviewing people, asking them a question about the current regime/how authoritarian it is, how autocratic and undemocratic it is, and if they did not give him a satisfactory answer (that is, confirming his view) he would add a follow up question, which could be a purely hypothetical question, just to up the ante in order to extract something negative out of them. Sometimes it worked, often it didn’t. That is not “unbiased journalism”, not by a far stretch.Ironically, the best reply to such attempts was the one he got from the British businessman “Peter Hambro”, who, along with a Russian partner, owns a gold mine in Siberia. When Dimbleby questioned him about the current regime, how “autocratic it is” etc. etc. Hambro told him that that regime is enormously popular among the Russian people, adding that, as a foreigner, “who am I to tell the Russian people how they should run their lives?” A question that Dimbleby ought to have put to himself.While I don’t mean this should have been a tourist-like video showing just the best of the country, nevertheless, it shouldn’t be its opposite, showing mostly the negative. Like going to cities that have a drug problem and focusing on them with long coverage. Like, when interviewing people, talking AT THEM, bringing up their stance on “democracy” and insisting on pushing them with questions attempting to confirm what he already believes about the country.Then, there were some totally unnecessary condescending/offensive touches, such as him going into a pharmacy to get a medication for a sore throat then saying “it’s like going back to the fifties or earlier” without explaining why, the “reason”for such a remark was not “obvious” (I watched that part twice to see if I missed something) he entered a nice looking pharmacy, was given courteous service, so what on earth was that about? No explanation, we’re just supposed to take his word for it. Or, in a room where he was adding wood and paper to a fireplace, he showed an old magazine with Lenin’s picture on it, the camera zoomed in (so we’d clearly see whose picture was on the page), then he cut it, crumbled it and threw it in the fire, slamming the door shut. Coincidence? I think not! Or when he spent time with the Altai people then said “time to return to what we call civilization”, like they did not belong to it!At another point in the series, upon visiting a town bordering China he said how Checkov wrote that the people of that town enjoyed a lot of freedom because they were so far away from Moscow and its repression, forgetting, perhaps, that Checkov lived and died BEFORE the “Soviets” appeared on the scene (Checkov died in 1904), and that whatever repression Checkov was referring to was of the tsarist regime. Whereas, earlier in the episodes he showed the area where the tsar and his family were killed, saying how important his remains are because he was to be canonized... so, the tsar, who, according to Dimbleby’s words, is considered a saint by the people, was also responsible for the repression Checkov was referring to? Did Dimbleby miss that detail? Or did he think that the viewers, upon hearing the words “the repression of Moscow”, would automatically assume it was the Soviets? Maybe in his keenness to depict the “authoritarianism” of Moscow at every possible occasion, he tripped over himself on this count?In conclusion, while Dimbleby was appreciative of the Russian people and reserved warmhearted words for them that were clearly sincerely meant , he was unable to escape his cold-war-conditioning.He’d have done well to heed the words of the wise businessman Peter Hambro, though.Personally, the video made me eager to find out more about Russia, only in other documentaries that were not filtered through Ronald Reagan’s mindset...

Russia DVD Jonathan DimblebyIt is the story of a journey from Murmansk to Vladivostok. The vastness of the country is brought out through Jonathan's travels by boat, train, car, tube, truck air, but mostly on the ground. The usual tourist sights are largely avoided with emphasis on meeting ordinary people living, working and travelling along the route. The journey through the great lakes and waterways is awe inspiring when experienced from a sailing boat or on the ferries. He visits rock art several thousand years old in one remote northern lake. It is a rarely visited place but similar to the art found in Sweden. Clearly there have been people living out there lives in the region for millennia. One gradually realises why Russia seems so remote to those of us from crowded western countries. Everything is on a bigger scale than anywhere else. People just get on with their lives. JD meets and talks to them.One village in the lakes is mainly occupied by women whose husbands are in the cemetery victims of rampant alcoholism. It is a poignant but telling scene when they entertain JD and wish he would come and live there.Jonathan visits St Petersburg not to see the museums but to learn about the siege of Leningrad and meet survivors. He talks to the conductor of the orchestra about the remarkable Shostakovich symphony written and performed during the siege by starving people. This really brings out the unbelievable stoic nationalism and belief in Mother Russia that permeates the film.Ruthless totalitarian brutal dictators seem to be the only rulers capable of holding the vast country together. Jonathan talks to a woman who wishes Russia were still governed by revered Stalin and tells incredulous JD the millions killed are an exaggeration. He talks to villagers stoically drawing water from wells and living in places unchanged for centuries. Life expectancy is low, corruption rampant, brutality towards new army recruits acknowledged, but still loyalty to Mother Russia is all-important.JD always brings these things out by talking to actual Russians. The party for a young army conscript is typical in its stoicism with one former mate of the victim telling how much time he spent in hospital during his time in the army. He feels lucky to get out alive. No wonder babushka grandma is tearful, she knows she probably will not see the conscript again since either or both may be dead in a year; life expectancy is in the fifties.The visit to Yasnaya Polyana Tolstoy's home is on the tourist track but it is made interesting by discussions with the current Tolstoy owner about the author's life and motivations. Similarities with current conditions are drawn out.Visits to Perm prison camp are poignant with a former tortured dissident prisoner explaining that cold rather than hunger were the hardest to bear. He is totally opposed to the policy of the current leadership and bravely says so. 1986 is the date in a concrete pathway showing how recent the policy of imprisoning dissidents. Access to speak to current political prisoner Khordokovsky was denied and even the ability to film a piece to camera near the jail was prudently abandoned. A meeting to celebrate Tsarist dissidents draws the parallel with current conditions. A couple of women intellectuals bluntly draw the obvious conclusions of the current disastrous dictatorship. JD also talks to a brave journalist who sees colleagues killed and is himself harassed and prevented from working by having his computers confiscated. He tries to understand the lives of ordinary people but the elephant in the room is the politcs.A southern muslim stronghold brings out the best method of survival where the locals have a history of paying allegiance to the ruling party. This allows them to get on in peace to live their untroubled lives.The way people survive is to concentrate on the present. Young people do not believe in western style democracy. This is the legacy of the first Bush election stolen from Gore. This allowed Putin to say he would take no lectures from foreigners about fair elections or democracy. People are aware of huge corruption and the poverty of most people. Interviews with steelworkers in Volgograd Stalingrad again bring out the nationalism of the defence against the Nazis leading to great patriotism. But it also brings out how the authorities censor the media. People were driven to speak out by the tragedy of seeing pay halved or losing their job and suicides but being banned from speaking of it. Fortunately JD was able to secure the truth out of sight of prying eyes from a suffering bereaved victim who would not be silenced.Englishman Mr Hambro and a Russian partner speak of their hugely profitable gold mine and their concentration on developing the enormous natural resources of Siberia, in this case gold. The despoiled environment is mute testimony in the background. They profess no interest in politics so long as they are left alone to make lots of money.Throughout the film one is impressed with the ability of JD to relate to ordinary people. It is great to see him sitting in a hot spring chatting happily to a great husky female welder or sharing vodka on the train with an immigrant worker.There are clearly huge volumes of film lying on the cutting room floor and sometimes we wish to know more. One episode starts with an emerald mine as an intro. But then nothing more is said of it. Overall it is well edited and certainly not too long per episode. There is lots more to be said about the scientists in Akademgorodok but we get an interesting taster. There are also curiousities like the Jewish settlement in Siberia that is now going through some form of re-birth after it's up and down past. The visit to Beslan school and the reasons behind the massacre are explored with some displaced people. There are just so many interesting things in the DVD that is really needs many viewings.He brings out the vastness of the country and stoicism of the long-suffering public. It just looks like a great country just waiting to assume greatness. JD is moved by the potential and missed opportunities and so are we. It's great strength is that is one experienced personable journalist taking us on a great journey across Russia talking to ordinary people rather than officials. It is what he experienced and is a personal unofficial story that is is moving and very interesting. It is well worth seeing and re-seeing.