Strelnikov lives an absolutely miserable existence. He lives in fear suspicion of everyone, even those on his own side. The conversation he had with Zhivago was probably the first truly personal human interaction that he's had in years.
He was nominated for an Academy Award. The producers, directors, etc really rushed to get the film finished in time for Oscar consideration in 1966 (I think)..
I am continually amazed when I see Yuri say so many dangerious things about the revolution and about Strelnikov, that the commander doesn't send him to a Gulag, or have him executed.
Strangely enough, so did I. He was the one I most readily identified with. I recognized some kind of kinship there -- not of ideology or politics, but of personality or character. I was once just a little like that -- cold and stern and cruelly ascetic.
He is indeed. Trotsky's history is very fascinating whether you agree with his ideals or not, shame that not enough people know about him and we don't have much movies about him.
Apart from the train command post and leather coat I don’t see any resemblance; Trotsky always seemed passionate and argumentative-this guy is toneless and monolithic
Well, i don't know. Way i see it, Strelnikov just waited eagerly the revolution and the oprotunity to get in that position as the chekist he was in this scene.
Before the Revolution, Pavel Antipov told Lara that he had no use for the Bolsheviks, because "they don't know right from wrong". I always figured that meant that Antipov was a Menshevik then, but he must have joined up with the Bolos given the picture of Lenin on the wall of his railway carriage.
it's ideological drift, occurring either by itself or forced by practical circumstances...tragic, but not uncommon. See plenty of old hippies turning into white nationalists.
Albert Klarname a good point. I forgot about Pasha leading the “Brotherhood and Freedom” march that was broken up by the Cossacks. That could turn a Menshevik into a Bolshevik in short order.
He tells Lara that the revolution won't be peaceful after what he's seen, and he tells Komarovsky that he cares more about the Revolution than anything. They may delight in esoteric nitpicking when they're sitting in a cafe somewhere, but when things are in motion, a Communist is a Communist. Anyone who wasn't a full-blown reactionary after the October Revolution was on the wrong side of history.
He's gone from a once-humane, poetry-reading minor revolutionary activist to a hard-as-nails and doubtless doctrinaire Bolshevik commander: He's become a fanatic for whom the revolution is everything and all-consuming rendering all personal life and human intimacy dead. Good to see! Ought to be more of it!
Honestly as someone who got involved in revolutionary organizing, this does seem to be the direction history is pushing me in. When I first joined I'll admit I didn't have the will to give everything. I thought I could have a personal life alongside revolutionary organizing. However, I repeatedly ran headfirst into the question - "what would I give to see the red flag fly over the capitol?" Eventually, the answer came to be simply "everything". I know now what sets apart the revolutionary from the radical. The Revolutionary is someone who has tied their fate together with the fate of the revolution. A person becomes a revolutionary the moment they have cut themselves from all individual aspirations within capitalist society. I have no future plans aside from the revolution. I have no personal aspirations, no career plan, no other purpose than the singular drive towards the destruction of all that is rotten, and the liberation of all that is true and good in society. The topic of revolutionary sacrifice is one which comes up often among my comrades, and it is a difficult one to tackle. It's hard to sacrifice, and harder to ask sacrifice of someone else. But when I ask myself "what will it take", the answer is invariably "everything". If someone follows the course of the revolution, they will eventually be forced to decide between fighting at the risk of loosing everything, or caving to the pressures of capitalist society and keeping their job and career at the expense of the movement. We all have to make that choice eventually. Communists get persecuted, black-balled from work, sent to prison, and even killed. The moment we accept that fact, the moment we let go of our desire to keep our careers, our freedom, and our lives, that is the moment we truly become a revolutionary. My comrade asked me the other day if they shouldn't leave University to give them more time to dedicate to organizing. I thought about that for a while. How can we tell if we are acting out of a certain careerism, or simply out of tactical expediency? After a night of thinking, it came to me rather suddenly- as though it should have been obvious the whole time. For a revolutionary, the only consideration is this: "will this action do more to help, or to hinder the cause of the revolution"? If leaving university, work, or home will do more to help the revolution, then that is what must be done. From the moment I realized this, I decided that that simple formula will govern my decisions for the rest of my life.
No comparison: the new version pales....strictly using big stars for effect; very unbelievable and almost insanely comical they even tried to match the original epic.
those bits of Red Felt on the lapels of his leather coat, stuck on with glue, not even sewn, the coat looks as if it was purchased from a store in the Brixton rd. London, the whole scene looks as if was enacted in a garden shed.
Weirdly enough, Stalin and other Bolsheviks spent some time in London doss houses before the revolution - glued lapels in the 20s aren't too far from the truth
Still pretty fancy for the middle of a desperate civil war. The real badge of authority though, was that Strelnikov, or Zhivago's secret policeman brother, could have any number of people shot out of hand.
I liked Sir Alec Guiness. He was a survivor. After the war he got a job as a director of a hydroelectric dam. A cushy job, but too conspicuous to draw attention to himself.
@@kgizzle92 Wrong! It was based on Leon Trotsky. I've studied The Russian Revolution and the Civil War for decades. Read Prof. Bruce Franklin, for one. I'm rereading another history of the Civil War right now. Trotsky travelled, front to front, tens of thousands of miles, in an armored train. Stalin did not. His role in the Civil War was minor.
@@kgizzle92 if you read about Trotsky and the Soviet/Bolshevik/Russian history and seen his pictures, it is too obvious that it's him. Unlike Stalin who's the least interesting person during these times.
@@kgizzle92 No---on Trotsky. Trotsky organized and commended the Red Army, barreled around Russia in an armored train, and affected black leather clothing. Stalin was a relatively minor figure until he botched the attack on Warsaw.
Oh please, get real ! Dumb comment to make in this otherwise intelligent conversation about history and fillm. The venue for your inane comment is Fox TV.
@@gnuumyn Yes, but Trotsky's question was, "Did someone send you here." The truthful answer to that question was yes ---- Yevgrav, the secret policeman had sent him. But to get him away from political danger, of course. But I suppose that's trivial nit picking. It may have been an unconscious lie, rather than a conscientious lie. Or just a mistake. I say "Trotsky" since I think Trotsky is the model for Strelnikov. What do you think?
@@nancyhey1012 Are you kidding. Enemies are killed by shooting them down on the street, poisoning with radiactive cocktails and some locked away. Not on the scale of Stalin, but brutal just the same. The kind of dictator Trimp admires. Brutal.
