In this movie and book there's not double bottom.
But there's a soul. It's a very rare case when apears a film without exploitation modern dirty themes (sex abuse, drugs, perversions). That is if now somebody (weblen for example) try to shoot a film it'll be a big question: can he show the souls of homeless children without fallen dawn to 'modern dirty themes'...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

If film a modern "Repulic of Schkid" I won't introduce any adult themes.

The only thing which can't be resisted here is some gay subtext.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I tell you what is gay - all that art from Aleksander Daineka!
Dude was definitely on the lavender side quite a bit, loved his muscular, jovial athelete boys and pioneers in tight shorts!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

What is your opinion then on Platonov's Chevengur communitarian, City of the Sun powered by soviet electrical towers of thousands of supernovas ethics and his aesthetics of cosmism esoteric communist folk orthodox christian milleniarism with a tad bit of necrophilia and talking bear-smiths?
Or Gastev's cast-iron orders-poetry, with all that earthly industrial infernalism and terratransforming, where proletarian robot-people dig to Hell to harness enough energy to build tower to the Sun?
I think it is somewhere close to Gaidar's juvenile heroism and SHKID pioneer, gay-brotherhood utopia, it is all part of 1920s avantgarde soviet dream, which was crushed by the Stalinist reaction!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

this is partly true.
there is also Bogdanov to mention (the novel "Red Star"). They believed in a new mankind (here we need to recall the Aristotelian term entelechy, i.e. mankind had to overcome itself through revolution by giving birth to a new society and a new mankind (in da novel "fro" by Platonov main female character clearly speaks 'bout a new mankind in the of the novel lookin' at neighbour boy), which over time will overcome the laws of nature, this is entelechy). In turn, all this is rooted in the utopianism of such philosopher as Fourier.
Yes, they didnt succeed (perhaps so far). There R 2 reasons for this: in Stalin's times, a cynical bureaucrat defeated a romantic revolutionary (Putinism, btw, genetically originates from tose times); the laws of nature had become a very hardly conquered thing.
(Or nature itself prevents self-knowledge. we recall the Strugatsky novel "definitely maybe".) In any case, it's great that mankind is somehow trying to make a metaphysical breakthrough towards utopia, but in the way of it -- mankind -- there's a cynical bureaucrat pulling mankind in da opposite direction -- dystopia (recall 1984 Orwell and Philip K. Dick's Deus Irae).

(Reply to this) (Parent)