Add a Review

  • "The Red and the White" is not a conventional war movie; it moves at a continuous ceremonious pace, like the melody of a slow march. It creates an atmosphere where time seems suspended, and the situation, for all its violence, changeless; one side gains a victory and captures the other's position, then they in turn are captured, and then the balance shifts back again... There is continual motion, also, as the fighters move to and fro through great spacious natural landscapes, shot in sweeping black-and-white Cinemascope; the feeling for space is the most impressive feature of the movie (I'm sorry to say that this effect only comes through well on the large screen). The abstraction is enhanced by a total lack of "ordinary" conversation, which is usually intended to give the audience a sense of knowing the characters better, even if those characters are totally stereotyped. Here, however, there must be only half-a-dozen lines spoken which are not orders. It's hard to explain why all this should not be highly boring; I guess either you are fascinated by it, or you aren't.

    As to the charge of being nothing but propaganda: certainly the Whites are presented in a much more unfavorable light than the Reds; but I don't think we Americans can plead innocent to the charge of demonizing the enemy in war movies. The scenes of atrocities committed by the Whites don't break the tone of the movie, since they are shot in the same calm manner as the rest, and there is no overacting. Most of all, there are no explicit lessons stated, a sure sign of propaganda. If you think this movie is propaganda, you've seen nothing yet; try one of the many Communist-backed films that really are heavy-handed and preachy, like, for example, the East German "Fünf Patronenhülsen", set during the Spanish Civil War.
  • Another great anti-War film by the Hungarian master Miklos Jancso. It does not glorify any action or shows any act of heroism. Instead, it is filled with wickedness, cold-blooded nature of authority, brutality and chaos above all. The events take place during Russian civil war in a small Hungarian territory. It shows the acts of both the sides one by one, holding a monastery and then a general hospital.

    Once again like The Round-Up, it is not quite easy to follow because of the absence of any central character. It follows set of events taking place one after another. Dream-like sequences and symbolism pretty much sums up Jancso's vision about the absurdity of war.

    The photography also makes it wonderful. Landscapes are beautifully captured and almost every shot of the film is visually stunning.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Characterized by visual stylization, elegantly choreographed shots, long takes, historical rural settings, and a lack of psychoanalyzing. The Red and the White is a very interesting well-made movie from director Miklós Jancsó. Set during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922), the Russian-Hungarian film, was originally commissioned to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution in Russia in which the Bolsheviks aggressively seized authority. However, the director chose to set the action two years later in 1919 to show the Communist "Reds" Army in a firefight with the Tsarist "Whites" Army over the control of some hills near the Volga River. While, the movie remains one of the director's most widely seen and admired films; this movie is very hard to follow. The reasons for this, is because the film lacks a central character. Instead, we follow, a number of nameless characters from both sides on their quest to survive the battle. There is one character played by Andra Kovak who kinda ties the whole film together, appearing in the first scene and the last, however, he was never really assuming a central role. Supporters of the film point out that the director aim was to prevent the audience from feeling emotionally identify with any one side. He didn't want anybody to seem like they were winning in the battle of ideologies. Like a chaotic stalemate game of chess. Both sides are just killing each other without any strong offensive. We see, both forces try to take control of an area, only to find himself or herself, having temporary peace, before being execution, a minute later, by the next invading force. While, the movie doesn't show blood. The film hardly has any scenes, where somebody wasn't shooting at somebody. Indeed, the movie had no rest point, from the violence. I guess, it's supposed to tell, the audience. That no matter, how much control, you think you have, there is always, somebody gearing up to take your place. While, the repetitive action makes it a hard sit. It was done on purpose, to show the meaningless nature of war. It's one of the most violent movies, I have ever saw, pre-1970s. The movie also really surprised me on how much nudity, it had for a pre-1970s film. None of it was portray to be sexy. Those sexual abuse scenes were made to be disturbing and degrading. It really haunting imagery on the horrors of war. What I like about the film is while, the list of characters is ever, so changing, the landscape barely moves. It's always set around the beautiful surroundings of the Volga River. You really get to see the large scale of the battle. I also like how the film rejects, the war film convention and clichés. For example, key moments of action, such as the deaths of certain characters are sometimes shot with a long lens from a distance rather than in close-up, making it unclear what has happened or who it has happened to. It's give the movie a feel of mystery. Not everything needed to be explain. The only problem with it, is that it's hard to tell the different between the 'white' army compare to the 'red' army. There were times, where I was often confused, on what army, I was, now watching. It didn't help that the director's choice to use black and white, made everybody look the same. I guess, the choice was made to turn it b/w to serve a deeper viewer's immersion in the historical settling, or to show, that despite your political colors, everybody in war is a shade of grey. The artistic advantage of black and white did help heightens the impact of the film's violence. I love the fact, that the film used a lot of long take unedited movie footage. Since the film has barely any cuts, it transcribes the screen time as if it's real time. While, this movie might seem lawlessness, it does have one strong message show by the actions of a few characters, throughout the piece, such as the one refuses to aim properly during an execution, the one who stops the rape of a peasant woman and one stops the execution of their own soldiers for "cowardice". The message: "a man can fight and still be human." A very strong message, indeed. While, the film might look upon as communist propaganda to the untrained eye. It's barely was. While, yes, Whites are presented in a much more unfavorable light than the Reds. The movie hardly felt heavy-handed political preachy. During the Cold War, Jancsó was often criticized for being formalist, nationalist and generally against the Socialist ideology. A frequent theme of his films is the abuse of power. His works are often allegorical commentaries on Hungary under Communism and the Soviet occupation. It was no surprise, that the film was not well received in the Soviet Union. It was first re-edited to put a more heroic spin on the war for its premiere and then banned, afterwards. However, in Hungary and the Western world, it was more favorably received. The film was even listed to compete at the 1968 Cannes Film Festival, but sadly, the festival was canceled due to the events of May 1968 in France. Overall: This is an Astounding piece, might be a bit hard to watch to some viewers, but if you get the chance to. Try watching it. It might change, your opinion on war.
  • I was surprised to read that some people feel this film is communist propaganda. It is a very sparse, minimalist evocation of the senselessness of war. The characters treat one another not as humans but as machines. "Stand here." "Go there." I found it compelling and 10 years after seeing this film, I have not forgotten it. This is not soviet realism. This is a stylized account of the dehumanization of war. You cannot indulge in sentimental tears after seeing this. You can only shake your head at man's stupidity and inhumanity.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This is a beautifully shot and sparse film that is filled with long takes reminiscent of the Russian Tarkovsky.

    The topic deals with the Russian revolution and the madness it spawned in warfare, namely from the Hungarian point of view, whose volunteers numbered some 48,000.

    It is difficult to understand what motived each character, for people are shot indiscriminately, they are freed in just the same manner, and that is the nature of battle in this intense artistic film.

    The ending is one of the most cinematic moments ever, for those looking for a film with battles, this is not it, it's more contemplative than visual.

    A high point of European cinema at its best.
  • chaos-rampant8 October 2012
    As a muted treatment of the ephemeral moral horrors of war, this is good and will appeal to an audience tired of Spielberg - or the equally histrionic depictions of carnage of Russian war films.

    Something else appears to me greatly, something of specific nature here about visual (cinematic) presentation of a story. And that is because it seems like a smart , elegant solution to the problem of portraying what I call disembodied consciousness; keeping the viewer consistently tethered to the point-of-view of a character is hard enough for most filmmakers, but to break free of that and send us scudding through the air of the story? While keeping us engaged in story? Few manage, very few.

    It is this, I believe, that viewers appreciate when they praise the 'hypnotic' qualities of someone like Tarkovsky, this ability to start 'in character' and slowly expand ourselves to hover out of self to where multiple visions are possible - usually the world of story and sense, plus the mechanisms transmuting the world into a story. If you are positioned the right way as a viewer, this can achieve a feeling of ecstacy.

    And this guy is using Tarkovsky's camera to excellent effect, and knows just how to position the viewer. What does this mean?

    His first job is to remove hard storytelling limits. Which war this is. Who is killing who. Who to be rooting for. What is the cause that justifies all this, if any. We can surmise, but staying within clean boundaries is not the focus. In place of that, he supplies a more fluid notion of hyperreality - things happen presumably as they would if you were there, explanations are absent, but the consequences seem real. You may not know just who is out to kill you, but you know someone is. This is a world with angry blood coursing through its veins.

    Now for the actual, ecstatic expansion of narrative limits. It is simply superb the way he does it, and still seems novel and powerful to me.

    The normal viewing mode is that already within the first couple of minutes of a film, we scan the frame for a protagonist to latch onto, trusting he will be our assigned avatar in the world of the film. The filmmaker provides expressive enough faces that we implicitly recognize as such, that we follow for just the right amount of 'real' time to invest into, then suddenly they are removed from the world, maybe to resurface later. Characters are flippantly ordered shot, make narrow escapes, are summarily discovered again, and so on.

    And a third expansion is of the way we see and navigate this world, by having the camera trace circles around the story and float in and out of corridors in the air, disembodied from any character.

    Though still in the experimental stage, this is great work.

    You have bloodshed as your base layer, what every other war film works from.

    You have this force in man, in the gears of the universe, that moves him to kill which there is no rhyme to, beyond the perpetuating of motion.

    And you have that motion so powerful, we see that in the frantic running of prisoners to escape the firing squad, it enters the human world and mindlessly tears anchors from the ground, and sends our eye skidding to the next turn of the world having stable form again and tears at it, and with each groundless , spinning turn of this ballet, we float farther and farther away to where it is all an abstract blueprint.

    Fluid hyperreality, narrative, and eye - each one placing you a step further from reasoning with this, but deeper in the abstract experience of not just life, of cosmic dimensions in the transitory dance of everything coming into being and going again.

    Humans are vanished and reinstated and vanish again, with death as flippantly decided as someone dismounting a horse, as though it's all a part of some inscrutable game to the amusement of capricious gods.

    Better yet, this is samsara; the cycle of suffering and defilements, causing eternal transmigration to no purpose.
  • gavin694226 November 2017
    In 1919, Hungarian Communists aid the Bolsheviks' defeat of Czarists, the Whites. Near the Volga, a monastery and a field hospital are held by one side then the other.

    Rather than shooting a hagiographic account of the birth of Soviet Communism, Jancsó produced a profoundly anti-heroic film that depicts the senseless brutality of the Russian Civil War specifically and all armed combat in general. There are no heroes here, just death after death for seemingly no reason.

    To no one's surprise, the film was not well received in the Soviet Union, where it was first re-edited to put a more heroic spin on the war for its premiere and then banned. However, in Hungary and the West it was favorably received and had a theatrical release in many countries. It remains one of Jancsó's most widely seen and admired films, although audiences often find it exceedingly difficult to follow because there really is no plot or protagonist.

    Besides the clear anti-war message, the film also has some incredible cinematography, with Tamás Somló's camera moving in and out of the action in very fluid motions. It seems very much ahead of its time and calls to mind the much later work of Seamus McGarvey in "Atonement" (2007).
  • Some opinions reproaching this film with 'communist propaganda' strike me as creepily hilarious. Talk about blind determination and immutability in perception - ironically, the very thing that the movie is about after all. I would easily call 'propaganda' every other soviet or east-European war movie from the 1945-1985 period, if you like. Also, every other Hollywood movie that involves a battle scene and The Flag. But surely not this one. How many films show antagonistic parts performing the same tortuous movements of cruelty and murder, in what seems to be a state of mass hypnosis long beyond reason and ethical justification? This film must be one of the most unformulaic and most effective anti-war (i.e. anti-ideological) films ever, along with Elem Klimov's Come and See. The fact that both could be made in the Soviet Union is nothing short of transcendental.
  • I still cannot make much of that film. Made in 1967 and savagely ruined by the Soviet Censorship, it was never aired and promoted much, and I never heard of it until much later in modern Russia. I was intrigued and wanted to see this work. People told me it's a work of sheer genius and a sheer art. I watched it many times, very accurately and diligently. I still am deeply disturbed and confused. But then, what do we know about war? Is it a grand epic Technicolor feature with great actors and epic special effects? Or is it a dull deep monotony of pain and misery? Here, it is neither. It is so casual, simple and brutal, that you just sit with an open jaw. Yes, I agree that often the camera work makes it almost impossible to grasp who shoots and who is killed and why. But then, this is a severe and sober reality of war - dry, vapid, gory, sad, hopeless, tragic, heinous, suffocating and dreary. This was probably like it was. No heroism every minute or acts of feat. Maybe. But for the most part, it was dry and painful. Just like the movie
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Just a little recap. March 2nd 1917 Nicolas II is thrown out of power and a Provisional Government is formed. March 5th another provisional government formed. October revolution led by Lenin to throw the provisional government which results in a civil war to end in three years with the formation of USSR, a republic under VI Lenin. The white army was basically supported by Ruling class and Red Army was peasant's army. The backdrop of this film is the civil war at its peak during 1918 and characters are the victims or victimizers.

    The whole film is just confusion. It took me a long time understand who's who and what's what. I think thats what the intention of the director is because thats what was going on in Russia in 1918. The whole confusion of who's killing who and for what reason is so beautifully captured in the film. Its a unique film. There is no central character. There is no story but if you have a little sense of history or film-making you wont move for one and a half hour. The whole concept of lawlessness is pictured with such a brilliant finesse. By the time you sympathize with a character that story or the character itself is dissolved. Every scene is unique and has some kind of a surprise element. There is nothing which can be remotely termed as artificial. There are lots of things which are very interesting to notice. People are lined up in almost every scene, none of the persons who is be shot runs away or beg for mercy, its about Russia but from Hungarian point of view etc. Should be viewed by history students across the globe. 10/10
  • Cosmoeticadotcom7 June 2012
    7/10
    Good
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Red And The White is not a great film. It's simply too one dimensional and intellectually and emotionally flat. On the other hand, it is an important film, and a good, solid one; basically a good idea, well executed, but limited by the very idea itself, which gets no formal exploration in depth. Its only posit of depth is that this is as close to real war as one will see on screen, and that the main character of any war film should be war, itself. And it delivers. But, unfortunately, it delivers nothing else for the viewer to wrangle with at its conclusion. Or maybe that is a fortunate thing, considering all the horrors real war can unfurl. Either way, it is a film to be seen and appreciated. Just watch what's on screen, and check one's biases at the door, please.
  • Miklós Jancsó reduces war to its ignoble essence. Combatants swagger then cower. There are long periods when nothing very much happens, then a life is lost on a whim. Pettiness and officiousness abound. No transcendent causes, no rousing speeches, just ebb and tide, advantage then defeat. There are two sides, they fight. What more do you need to know?

    The sweep of the camera is majestic, taking in panoramic vistas filled with struggle and slaughter. Thematically, this is the cinematic embodiment of the final lines from Matthew Arnold's poem Dover Beach:

    And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night

    Breathtaking in its conception and philosophical premise, this is an anti-war film that appeals directly to our current war-torn times. A masterpiece.
  • "The red and the white" is situated in the time of the Russian civil war after the Communist revolution of 1917.

    In "The red and the white" Miklos Jancso portrays this war however much less romantic than David Lean did in "Dr Zhivago" (1965). We see relatively little fighting and many executions. In a war there are no winners.

    The film reminded me very much of the Dutch novel "The house of refuge" from the famous Dutch writer Willem Frederik Hermans. In this novel a house is situated on the border between two fighting armies. Sometimes it is occupied by one armie and a little later the other armie takes over. So the inhabitants of the house must know very precisely of which armie they have to talk kindly.

    In "The red and the white" the role of the house is played by a field hospital. This hospital takes care of the wounded from both armies. Contrary to the inhabitants of the house they however refuse to take (alternating) sides. The have no soldiers form the red or the white, they have patients. The nurses pay dearly for this brave behaviour.

    This is characteristic of a general tendency in Jancso movies: men play tough games, women pay the price. Another characteristic is the use of nudity. It is seldom erotic. In this film it is rather used as a means of humiliation.
  • planktonrules3 December 2013
    "The Red and the White" is a Hungarian film about the Russian Revolution that apparently irked some Soviet officials enough that they banned the movie in the USSR. I assume that the version I watched from Kino was the original version--not the one that was re-edited by the Russians. Regardless, this film was supposed to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the revolution but didn't sit well with the Soviet overlords. However, in the West, the film was better received and it even won some awards. I was hoping that I would enjoy the picture but was left feeling a bit cold.

    A big problem with the film is that it is missing context--context that might have been understood just fine back in 1967 but which would only confuse viewers today. But, I am a retired history teacher and I'll try to explain a bit. The film does not begin in 1917 as you'd expect but 1919. The communists (Reds) have nearly won the revolution but there are lots of pro-Czarist (Whites) troops throughout the country. Although they probably shouldn't have been there, Western troops who were no longer needed to fight in WWI were now free to assist the Whites. While the stated mission of this multinational force was just to ensure the safety of their people within Russia, they did assist the Whites but ultimately were of no value. No mention is made of this in the film. However, some foreign communists also came to Russia but to assist the Reds. By 1919, the war was winding down--though you might assume watching the film that the Whites won--as through most of the film they seemed to be in control. But, this is only a small portion of a much larger war.

    As far as the plot goes, there really isn't much nor is there much in the way of plot development. Mostly, it consists of Whites capturing Red soldiers and massacring them. At the end, the Reds lead a counter-attack and the film ends.

    All in all, I really thought the film was pretty dull.You didn't learn much about the revolution and you never really learn much about the two factions nor about individuals. A rather cold film, actually.

    By the way, one reviewer said that this was among the best anti-war films ever. I'd disagree as, just off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few that were much better--such as "Fire on the Plain", "Westfront: 1918", "Burmese Harp", "All Quiet on the Western Front", "The Eagle and the Hawk". The list goes on and on--mostly because these other films make you care about the folks in the film. But in "The Red and the White", I really just didn't care.
  • This is the greatest war movie I've ever seen. The two sides are nearly indistinguishable. The tide of advantage goes back and forth, back and forth throughout the movie. Fortunes changes without notice. And at the end, the only thing left to do is raise the sword, salute the cause, and charge straight into death. War is pointless and savage, from first to last. Beautiful filmmaking.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Miklos Jansco's masterful non-narrative war film "The Red and the White" is perhaps the epitome of strictly objective war film-making. No side is taken, no side is followed, nothing is explicitly stated. While, granted, it appears fairly obvious Jansco opposes war itself as witnessed in vignette after brutally honest and distancing vignette, the viewer is never following one side in this conflict. In fact one often loses sight of which side is which, causing all combatants to meld together into a singular chaotic entity that simply fights because it must. It may be a reflection on drawn out conflict in general where the reasons for such exaggerated violence vanish and the world spins into a deranged circus of blood and flak.

    The long take as engineered by Jansco helps perpetrate the voyeuristic sense in the viewer. Dolly track lines the countryside as we are forced to watch unending bouts of suffering and anguish when we want nothing more than to look away. This is a film that firmly clutches us by the chin and shouts "No! You are going to watch this!" There are no cutaways to safety here. Neither are there any close-ups, as Jansco keeps us as distant as he can so we have no individuals to sympathize with, just humanity itself. Not until the final shot does the camera move into a specific soldier's face as if to remind us after 90 minutes of savagery that yes, these people are human after all, and they must endure the repercussions for their actions.
  • War--chaotic, insane, inhumane, useless, and... calmly graceful? We of the Hollywood diet like our plates full with spastic editing, grippingly colorful images, and fast approach, but none moreso than with war movies, with Tom Hanks surrounded with shrapnel suddenly going surreal on us, or Martin Sheen slowly falling into mental chaos whether in the midst of battle or trapped in a room away from it. What we are not used to are long, slowly moving traffic shots as pretty much faceless groups of soldiers alternatively gain and lose ground, each performing their own atrocities and each making themselves no better than the others, but each the subject of a listless and uncaring camera that seems just as ready to focus on a blade of grass calmly waving in the wind as a troupe of men about to be slaughtered.

    To add to this effect is the fact that half the time, the viewer hardly begins to establish his or herself with a character before the character is removed from the story. It definitely works to show the arbitrariness of war... it might not work so well with ingratiating the audience with the movie. With no characters to care for, well... sometimes it's hard to care so much.

    But otherwise it's brilliant, magnificent, and... sort of epic, in a contained and concise way. What I want to know is how they pulled off the sound. The sound is always very spot on to the activities going on, but are so perfect, even in long shots, that it makes a complete mystery of where they possibly could have put the mic. Fascinating, in case the rest of the movie isn't.

    --PolarisDiB
  • Sure it's boring! Sure it's confusing! Sure it's stupid! ...But that's what war is all about, isn't it? Well...boring, that is if you have the chance to live long enough...

    This film is a piece of art. See how the camera moves, floats, count the shots (about 300, compared to a 600-800 norm), Admire the long takes, try to guess who's going to live through the nonsense of this war...

    Who didn't understand that the only thing that this film is promoting is peace and not war nor communism? And, excuse me, but...where did you see the propaganda exactly?
  • The best I've ever seen I guess is Band of Brothers,and this one is right up there. Good war films seem real, closer to real life, you see it and you know this is how it should happen, even if you have never experienced it. "good" people do some bad things and "bad" people do some good things. Guess there are more degree of cultural freedom in Hungary in those years to let this kind of film come to light.

    I watched it the first time without moving my eyes off of it, and then I watched it a second time. It feels really beautiful, so vast is the background and the storyline is so unique. The third time I tried watching it, almost all the scenes feels so bloody that I cannot watch it.
  • Rodrigo_Amaro4 November 2012
    Rare times when a movie perfectly succeeds in presenting the horrors of war just the way it happens, or close to a predicted version of what we think it must be. I put "The Red and the White" next to "Come and See" and "Schindler's List" in terms of quality and truthful brutal depiction of what war makes to people, the perpetrators and the victims. Miklos Jancsó's film stands above Spielberg's film mainly because it doesn't have the famous stars the Oscar winning film had; rather than that we have unknown actors, therefore we don't create over-sentimental bonds with their personas but really for their characters and what they go through. That's the valuable aspect of the movie. Nothing and no one to cheer or support. But we can feel for the casualties of war, all the lives wasted amidst the domination, oppression and conquest of territories and people.

    The title seems to say it all but it doesn't (quite an irony here, specially if considered the way it was filmed). And not even shows it all. It's more than just Hungarian (White) fighting against the Communist Soviet (Red), the latter supported by Communist Hungarians during the WWI; it's more about realizing that is people slaying people, nothing making sense and one cannot tell which side is good or bad, not even identifying who they are. Armies, militaries and divisions come and go and you have to force yourself to figure out which is which and what they stand for. This is the director's intention in demonstrate that ideologies, concepts are very subjective, completely pointless except to kill and destroy. Subjective, invisible yet powerful and destructive.

    Jancsó ignores the use of close-ups, distantly filming the battles, the war games coldly played by the Soviet, then later the Hungarian's unmerciful revenge. He tries to keep us distant from the event but he also knows such is impossible since his images of cruelty and despair brings us closer to the tragedy of lost lives in the most atrocious way. Take a look at the agony of the young men who were given a small amount of time to escape from their executors to later realize it was all a trap prepared by the Soviet. They inflicted hope for like five minutes, made them run towards a great wall and then killed them all. While doing all that they kept on smiling, treating this like it was a game to be won, with winners and losers.

    Unbelievable as it might sound, "The Red and the White" isn't a dated picture. Even if most of us are quite stoic when it comes to violent films, this manages to create a profound impact on us way after we have seen it. Its characters are filled with insensitivity, carelessly displaying any kind of consideration (even some of the victims as well, those in a resigned way). We're the ones who have to care for everything of what's happening. Emotions are left to us, but far from making us cry. Gotta be angry with what human race can do itself.

    Tragic, epic, hypnotizing and one of the greatest war films ever made. 10/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film uses minimalism to make a pacifistic point. However, the decision to refrain from following one specific person and instead following many people without allowing the audience to make an emotional connection to any one character defeats the purpose. At the end, you don't care about anyone, so their deaths mean nothing to you. And given that most of the men take one or more misogynistic actions during the course of the movie, for some you are kind of celebrating their death. I understand that the director was trying to portray the namelessness of war, and how it will affect everyone, but his message is lost in the indifference of the audience to the characters.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Some points...

    1. Though Miklos Jancso's "The Red And The White" takes place in 1919, when Hungarian irregulars supported the Communist "Reds" in fighting the Tsarist "Whites" along the Volga River, the film deliberately ignores any political or historical context and instead goes to great lengths to blur the identities, objectives and motivations of its various characters.

    2. The film lacks characters and plot. Instead, Jancso gives us war as cosmic ballet, the audience witnessing the ever-shifting balance of power between sides, a constant and repeated cycle whereby the defeated become victors and victors the defeated. Jancso emphasises this process by highlighting the various parallels between the two sides; the way they both perform the same rituals of humiliation, vengeance and forgiveness throughout the film.

    3. The film is positively radical in the way it unfolds. Imagine an expansive landscape adorned with forts, forests, farms and villages. Now place clusters of troops, prisoners and civilians on this landscape and set them in motion. Finally, imagine a constantly moving "God's Eye" camera that floats above this landscape, gliding from one location or group of people to the next. There is no "story" here, only a constant state of flux, Jancso inviting us to become disembodied God's who study the rhythms of combat and the rhymes of war.

    4. Characters enter the story as quickly as they leave it, their deaths occurring off-screen or at a cold distance. There is one character who ties the whole film together, however, appearing in the first scene and the last, but never really assuming a central role. He is a Hungarian played by András Kovák, a familiar figure in Jancso's filmography. Significantly, he's given a key statement in the film: "A man can fight and still be human."

    5. Whenever a group of soldiers is conquered, the victors force them to strip and run away semi-naked, often sniped as they do so. Throughout the film, these acts of ritualised degradation are protested by ancillary characters. One symbolically hands back his rifle, one refuses to aim properly during an execution, one stops the rape of a peasant woman and one stops the execution of their own soldiers for "cowardice". The message: "a man can fight and still be human."

    6. The theme that Jancso stresses throughout the film is the cyclical and futile nature of war. In the opening scene a Red soldier is shot by a White Cossack while his comrade makes an escape back to base, where it is a Bolshevik commander who is now holding captured White troops at his mercy, whom he releases at gunpoint, but not before relieving them of their uniforms. Yet within minutes, White troops have stormed the Red base and the communists are being forced to undergo the same humiliation of fleeing for their lives naked. This continuing shift of power and authority in the blink of an eye continues throughout the course of the film, on an increasingly larger scale; eventually captains are shooting captains and companies killing companies. This dynamic equilibrium and the waste of life becomes maddening to the point of exasperation, yet effectively depicts the pointless carnage and cost of civil war.

    7. Jancos is constantly highlighting the randomness of combat. For example, one officer is picked up for execution but is randomly saved when another officer arbitrarily sends him away. Time and time again, little "flukes" occur which either spare lives or result in deaths.

    8. Janco's later films became very rigid and almost motionless. But here, like most of his films throughout the 60s and 70s, his camera is always in motion. The film is comprised of huge long takes, his moving camera chartering massive chunks of land. Of all the masters of this style - Ophuls, Tarr, Mizoguchi, and Angelopoulos - no one has ever taken it to the level Jancsó achieved, perhaps because he is determined not to explore the inner motivations of his characters. He is more interested in external motion as meaning.

    9. The choreography here is exquisite.

    10. The film stresses how victory leads to senseless humiliation, both for the winners (due to an absence of larger military goals) and the losers.

    11. In one scene, a brigade removes their jackets and runs hopelessly downhill toward a group of similarly white shirted soldiers. It's a point made by many war films - everyone wears the same uniform, there are no sides – but effective all the same.

    12. The film ends with a close up shot of a soldier's face, the audience asked to recognise the sorrow in his eyes. This "final war movie shot" has become a cliché and I don't think it works here. Why not end the film one scene prior when the army charged headlong – with futility – down a hill? Why abandon the detached aesthetic of the rest of the film?

    9/10 – New DVD releases of this film add an explanatory title card along with a silly scene in which horses charge toward a camera, before the beginning of the film. Ignore these additions completely.

    Worth two viewings.
  • The Red and the White is a movie that could have easily been named Gunshot. It purposely runs without any sort of central character, and almost everyone the audience meets is, at some point, shot to death. With very little important dialogue, it seems like Jancsó was more interested in letting guns do the talking. Which, considering the magnitude of his project, was a bold move.

    Miklós Jancsó is a Hungarian filmmaker who was granted funding from the Soviet Union to make a tribute to the 1917 Russian Revolution. Rather than make a film that praised the Bolsheviks, Jancsó aimed his efforts toward a project that played no favorites. He wanted the audience to know that war is wrong, arbitrary and absurd.

    The Red and the White takes place two years after the October Revolution, 1919, in the hills overlooking Volga. The "Red" Army is made up of Hungarians who support the communist movement. The "Whites" represent the Tsarist that is fighting to remain in power over Russia. There are no main characters in the film; Jancsó chose to show both sides represented through nameless men and women for the purpose of keeping the audience at the distance. It is a film without heroes, kind of like war.

    As you might have imagined, a Russian-produced, anti-heroic film about the atrocities of war was not what the Soviet's had in mind. The film was quickly reedited before its release in the Motherland, and then eventually banned for several years. Outside of the Union, The Red and the White went on to become Jancsó's most praised and popular film.

    The subject matter is grittier than your average war film from the time period. It features scenes of attempted rape, killing of innocent people, humiliation and death in abundance. In one scene, Hungarian men are forced, shoulder to shoulder, onto the ground and shot, one-by-one, in the head. Each time, the next person in line is forced to witness a comrade die. And that is just one example. Death is the theme. And for what? The audience never really knows….

    One heavy criticism of The Red and the White is that it can be very difficult to follow at times. Characters are constantly being introduced, killed and replaced at an extremely rapid pace. It is impossible to become attached to anyone in the film because no person is alive long enough to develop an on-screen personality. For me, this is a perfect compliment to the feeling of despair that Jancsó was trying to achieve. I am of the anti-war sort. One interesting thing about war film is that, no matter how hard they try, a filmmaker will almost always make war look like fun. I highly doubt it is fun. The Red and the White looks awful, so it does its job. I do not need a hero, I need reality.

    Aside from the daring concept, the film is also shot in a visually interesting style. The camera lenses get a hefty workout of quick-zooms in and out of focus. Some character's deaths are sharply detached from the audience after an unexpected fade or blur. The black and white is crisp and clean (though I would like to see a Criterion release) with well placed shading and emotionally appropriate shadows over hauntingly violent moments. The looming insanity of war is palpable from the overcastting darkness of the open hills.

    If I have to admit a flaw in The Red and the White I would say that there is not enough (any) blood. I am not sure if this was an artistic choice, a budget restriction or if it had something to do with the Soviet's overhead – but with the amount of people being shot in the film, you'd think there'd be some blood.

    Maybe I am a little too American in my taste for cinematic violence, but if you want to push the absurdity of wartime there is no better strategy than showing an audience exactly what happens during wartime. When a person is shot, their bones break, their muscles tear and blood spills out of the wound. There is a visible entry and exist wound. But not in The Red and the White. Rather, people merely grab their stomach in pain and fall to the ground. They kinda look like they have gas… In terms of a "war film", The Red and the White is a unique look through the eyes of soldiers. It is a strong anti-war statement that hinds under the guise of a Soviet bandwagon film. Though it was dry at times, I still found it to be visually striking and emotionally compelling. It is black and white. It is in Russian/Hungarian. I recommend you watch it anyway.
  • igiba11 September 2000
    This film is great for serious movie lovers. It is very long, and can be quite tiresome if one isn't used to the European style of still life shooting. But it does have absolutely beautiful cinematography with wide sweeping panoramic shots, and if you like this kind of thing, I highly recommend it.
  • This film definitely not for children. A must see for Russian Civil War buffs. Tends to wander a little bit from one battle scene to another quite haphazardly....but manages to bring home the point: nobody was safe on either side of this conflict....including civilians. Death and retribution is dealt out liberally from both sides be they the Imperial Whites or the Red Guards. For military minded people only...civilians can not comprehend the political/military depth of this movie.
An error has occured. Please try again.