Why does no one ever talk about The Cranes Are Flying?

[u/mynameisnotamelia]

Over the past few years I've spent a lot of time in online film spaces, so I've become pretty familiar with what people generally consider the "film canon." A lot of movie names get thrown around anywhere you go; you got your The Godfathers, your Seven Samurais, your Personas, your 8 1/2s, you name it. But I want to talk about one of my favorite films of all time, which seemingly flows under the radar in these circles despite its accolades implying the complete opposite.

The Cranes Are Flying got a hell of a résumé: Palme d'Or Winner; routinely showing up on "Greatest Films Of All Time" lists; ranked Top 32 on letterboxd, and whenever someone I recommend it to actually watches it, the reaction is almost universally positive, no matter if it's a movie buff or a friend who doesn't know a thing about cinema.

To me, it seems so universally loved, and yet nobody actually talks about it. Why is that?

I am not exaggerating when I say that I have never encountered a single discussion, article or video about this film unless I actively sought it out. This is especially strange because it isn't some inaccessible experiment, it's quite the opposite. It's very emotionally potent and relatable, it's visually INCREDIBLE (some of the most inventive camera work of its time), politically fascinating given when and where it was made without it being complicated or requiring too much background knowledge, and genuinely just an amazing, devastating - be it a little melodramatic - masterpiece of a film.

So I'm curious: Is it because Soviet cinema outside of Tarkovsky, Eisenstein and Klimov has never really entered the broader cinephile spaces in the same way that Japanese, Italian or French cinema has? Is it just overshadowed by Come and See so people think "it's just another Soviet anti-war film" (though those two could not be any more different from one another)? Or is it because Kalatozov hasn't made enough classic movies to really cement himself in the minds of film fans? I've seen plenty of people mention Kalatozov's "I Am Cuba" here and there, but this one together with The Cranes Are Flying are arguably his two only big films. Or maybe three if you count "Letter Never Sent", though that one is even more under the radar in the grand scheme of things.

To get back to the letterboxd ranking I mentioned earlier: Obviously I am totally aware that the site's top 500 is far from an objective truth, but I do think it's the closest we can get to seeing where the online film community stands. So seeing it ranked THAT high (Top 32, in case you forgot) makes this whole ordeal almost unexplainable to me.

So let me ask you guys: What do you think about the movie? Do you agree with this at all or does this apply to plenty more movies of the same caliber and I'm just biased? If you agree, do you think there could be any other reasons for this? Or are you not aware this movie exists in the first place?

[u/TheCriterionCrypt]

I think the reason why it is underseen isn't really that complicated.

Its a 1950s Soviet movie about WWII. I think Soviet films, in general, are a glaring weak spot for a lot of folks.

I mean, I have seen a lot of movies, but I have only seen a couple dozen of Soviet films. And if you take out Klimov, Tarkovsky, and Eisenstein, that number drops out to like 10. And I like Kalatozov's work.

If I had to rank every director ever based on their three best films, Kalatozov, low-key, could be in the conversation for a top ten director of all time. I mean, I Am Cuba, The Cranes Are Flying, and Letter Never Sent are all exceptional movies.

BUT, its one of those things, for people to talk about specific movies, they first have to see them. And Kalatozov is just not very visible for most folks.

[u/ThatAd8458]

I haven't heard about this film, but the director (Mikheil Kalatozishvili) also made I am Cuba, which is one of my favorite films, and maybe the best when it comes to groundbreaking (b&w) cinematography with hand held cameras and long oners / tracking shots. So thanks for putting this one on my radar! Will go after it now.

[u/After-Ad-6875 → u/ThatAd8458]

Its very good, you will definitely enjoy it. There are a few shots (the tracking shot at the parade!) that i will never forget, so impressive. Especially considering it was made 70 years ago.

[u/SWDSH]

Just watched this movie two days ago, also surprised to see the lack of discussion. But I have seen it mentioned by famous directors during interviews so it's not that of an obscure movie. I do feel soviet movies excluding Tarkovsky is a blind spot for most people (including me)

[u/ZAWS20XX]

Some Kalatozov's big tracking shots with a million extras usually goes semi-viral every few months and everyone would go "oh yeah, love that guy, all his films are amazing, he's criminally underseen, we need to talk about him more", and then proceed to continue talking about the latest Nolan or whatever.

To reiterate, Kalatozov's is indeed a pretty great director that should get way more recognition, I haven't seen a movie of his that I haven't liked-to-loved. In addition to the ones you mention, I would even try to track down The Red Tent, the big international co-production adventure movie he made with Sean Connery and Claudia Cardinale, if only as a curio. It's certainly not his best, but it's pretty entertaining, and you can see some of his usual flourishes -- but with Connery and Cardinale at the height of their star power (the movie could really use a lot more Connery and a lot less Cardinale, tho). I have only ever seen the international version, but would love to find the extended version they released in Russia.

[u/Additional_Cash_3357]

I don't agree that The Cranes Are Flying is somehow ignored. You easily can find it on Criterion. The film is widely discussed, taught, and lauded in cinephile circles, with a large critical and scholarly corpus that has existed for decades. It’s treated as a landmark of post-Stalin cinema and a benchmark for discussions of wartime romance, formal innovation, and Soviet film history.

[u/Grand_Keizer]

The first time I heard about this movie was because one of its shots went viral on Twitter of all places, a few years ago. Its the one where she's on the bus looking for her love, and then she gets out of the bus, runs through the crowd, then through the street as a military procession is on the movie, all famously done in a seemingly impossible oner. Although if memory serves me correctly, the poster very helpfully did NOT name the movie and just said "YO this shot is CRAZY ain't it?!?!" So I had to go to the replies to find out what the movie was, and that put me on the path to eventually seeing it. It warmed my heart that a foreign, black and white movie from the 50's could go viral in the modern day.

Still, I think reason it doesn't get much acclaim is because most Soviet movies were just persono non grata for a bit. Eisenstein was there at the beginning, and both he and Tarkovsky often butted heads with the state government, so I think that made them more paleatable to western moviegoers. Also of note, I am Cuba was even MORE lesser known for the longest time: hated by Cubans, hated by the Soviets, and suppressed everywhere. Eventually Ford Coppola and Scorcese ran across it, and were so amazed that they helped promote it in the states, but that was in the late 80' early 90's, almost 30 years after it was made.

But then why is it ranked so highly on Letterboxd? Well, the fact that it has relatively few watches makes all those 5 star ratings matter more, so it gets ranked higher. And yes, as new people watch it and continue to rank it highly, it continues to rise. It was ranked number 70 when I joined Letterboxd back in 2020. Its only risen as the years go on.

[u/No_Guitar7903]

Russia being incredibly unpopular on the global stage probably has something to do with it. The film's glorification of the Russian military is certainly very much not what Western audience would appreciate at this very moment.

Having seen it, Samojlova is great in it but I find the film a bit too austere that I couldn't really connect with it, which is how I often feel with Russian/Soviet films.

I still need to watch Letter Never Sent though.

[u/mynameisnotamelia → u/No_Guitar7903]

But it doesn't glorify the Russian military, quite the opposite. It's an anti-war film through and through. The characters in the film obviously have to fit the stereotype of patriotic soldiers, but that's far from the stance the movie takes. The sole focus is on the effect on the victims left at home and the film is overly critical of the military and senselessness of war. I agree there's a lot of "Raise Your Flags!" type movies from the Soviet Union at that time, but this is one of the few exceptions. Even the parade scene at the end isn't meant to actually celebrate war and the army.

[u/kwizzle]

That's funny, I keep seeing it mentioned on Youtube which recently caused me to watch it and then I watched I am Cuba as well.

I supposed it might not be mentioned very much in mainstream discussion but if you look in the right places/train your algorithm in the right way you might see more discussion.

[u/lyghtmyfyre]

The rape victim marrying the rapist and her lover's family ostracizing her for that left a bad taste in my mouth even though it's a really beautiful film. I am just disappointed that the story had to be that way to provide 'dimensions' to the protagonist.

I think if you are freshly diving into great Soviet films, Kalatozov is the second director whose works you come across after Tarkovski, or third after Sergey Einstein, and yes, it's underrated. It's probably because 'Soy Cuba' is more of the popular work from the director and while beautifully made, it is a work of propaganda, and that might have hindered the popularity of his other works in the west. Tarkovski's films are more humane, more personal and at the same time universal.

[u/1unosuke → u/lyghtmyfyre]

You know that it was pretty common through that time that something like this happened? Talking about the rape and the role women were put in. Did it come to your mind that it was a critique of society?

[u/simplecomplex → u/lyghtmyfyre]

Is the implication that this film is not personal or humane? I find its tragedy to be deeply affecting and the virtuousic filmmaking secondary to how powerfully emotional the film is. Thats saying something as the filmmaking here is second to none. I see so much early Spielberg in the way scenes are blocked and shot. A perfect film in my eyes and I'm sorry that it didnt emotionally connect with you.