User reviews

The work is absolutely stunning visually, at times radical in its framing. It is perfectly understandable that since the film was made only 5 years after Stalin's death the political strictures under which it was made forced the director to be careful to avoid depicting the persecution suffered by returning Soviet POW's under his rule, but by focusing on the suffering they, and most particularly the protagonist, experienced as prisoners in German work camps and the steadfast and heroic endurance they maintained in the face of cruelty and hardship he is completely successful in politically rehabilitating them as patriots, both for their contemporaries and for Soviet posterity. A beautiful and at times quite moving film. Highly recommended.

Sergey Bondarchuk is probably best known for his epic spectacle "War and Peace" (1966), and his outstanding feature debut "The Destiny of Man" (1959) was made in the same tradition of the war genre, though not in a similarly big fashion. Like many other Soviet war films made during the cultural thaw in Eastern Europe caused by the spirit of Geneva such as "The Cranes Are Flying" (1957) and "Ballad of a Soldier" (1959), "The Destiny of Man" focuses on the human experience in the bleak misery of war. It tells the story of an ordinary man who lost everything during a war that meant nothing to him.

The historical legacy and the poignantly present memory of the Second World War played an integral role in almost all of the Soviet films made during the cultural thaw. It is as though life itself was approached from this perspective. An entire generation was left alone with their problems to sink into oblivion in the era of Stalin's cult of personality. Not until the new political waves of the 1950's arrived were these people dealt properly in cinema.

"The Destiny of Man" cuts right to the memory of WWII as it begins from the first spring after the war. A man recalls his experiences during the war and ponders why life has mistreated him so in a long flashback. Bondarchuk's mobile camera fluently shifts to the past -- the memory -- revealing its reality before our eyes. His style is very modern, as is the case with other films from this period, born from dynamic movement, montage and intensity of close-ups. Accompanied by an astonishing soundtrack with nearly surreal tones and a great score by Venyamin Basner, this poetic voyage to the days gone by touches our very core.

The film was made in the same year with Masaki Kobayashi's masterful trilogy "The Human Condition" (1959-1962) which also highlights the experience and moral disappointment of an individual in times of immeasurable brutality. "The Destiny of Man" also includes a sequence taking place in a POW camp where the prisoners are forced to work, thus inevitably triggering an association with the first part of Kobayashi's trilogy. A perceptive spectator (or an obsessive fan of Kobayashi) might even observe a shot bearing a striking resemblance to the iconic image of workers walking up the hill.

What makes "The Destiny of Man" to stand the test of time and lifts it up to the same level with "The Cranes Are Flying" and "Ballad of a Soldier" is its profoundness. It is not a profoundness achieved simply by story, but by form. This can be seen in the film's aesthetics which is tremendously rich of tone and meaning. Bondarchuk truly achieves to depict the complexity of human experience and historical conditions. The cinematic repertoire of the image, the scenes and even entire sequences extends from the brief vibrations of the dramatic surface to the aesthetic profoundness of human existence.

At first I thought this film would be the usual war film in total line with the politburo's view on The Great War. But after 15 minutes in the film, something changes. First we have a scene in which Sokolof (the main character played by director Bondarcuk)) comes home drunk - something I have never seen in an older Soviet movie, than the war breaks out and after a slightly over the top scene in which Sokolof says goodbye to his family all hell breaks loose. The scene where Sokolof drives his car filled with ammunition across the frontline is incredible, and this is only the beginning of the war. Although the story sometimes is quit melodramatic, the photography of the film is exceptional modern for a film made in 1959. In beautiful black and white the viewer witnesses the whole damn thing called war. The film is not as heartbreaking and in-your-face as Come And See by Klimov, but Klimov must have seen this film and used it as an inspiration. Russia lost 20 million people during the second world war (some because of Stalin) but what it meant for and how it changed the life of ordinary people is all to clear in this story. This man's fate as he calls it. Although the film, I suppose, is rare, see it if you ever have a chance.

Sergei Bondarchuk directs the film and plays the lead himself. Thus he dominates the entire film from beginning to the end, and although he is a most qualified actor and director, you lack the smallest shade of polyphony. The story is by Mikhail Sholokhov, the main Soviet nationalist, and his tendencies to glorify Soviet Russia shines through especially in his treatment of the Germans, who are all abominable stereotypes - with the exception of one drunkard and the final general. There is not a shred of the slightest sense of humour in the film and almost no smiles even, except in the last moment when the boy comes in and and lets in some well needed and most comforting sunshine. Thus the dreadful story ends with the victory of humanity. It's a masterpiece, of course, but the whole film is a slow and depressing ordeal.

This immensely powerful film represents the directorial debut of Sergey Bondarchuk who also takes the main role of Andrey Sokolov. It is based upon a short story by Mikhail Sholokhov who received a Nobel Prize under Krushchev and became a hardliner under Brezhnev. Already evident here is Bondarchuk's astonishing sense of the visual and his skill with actors. As with subsequent films he does have a tendency to 'overcook it' but that is a minor criticism. The film is aided by Venyamin Basner's marvellous score and great camerawork by Vladimir Monakhov. Zanaida Kirienko is as touching here as she is in 'Quiet flows the Don' and there is a chilling performance by Juli Averin as a German Kommandment. A highlight of the film is when he spares Sokolov's life because of the latter's capacity for drinking large amounts of vodka on an empty stomach! Excellent scene. Sokolov loses so much in the course of the film but gains 'compensation' at the end. Bondarchuk is excellent in the role. It is difficult to find a sub-titled version of this but the story is so gripping and the film so visually impressive that somehow it doesn't seem to matter. Fully deserving of the Grand Prize at the 1st Moscow International Film Festival which also honoured Bondarchuk six years later for his monumental 'War and Peace'.

A WWII Soviet soldier is captured by the Nazis but strives to escape and return home to his family.

Another of those great Russian war films from the late 50s/early 60s, which, as with Japan, seems to have been the nation's best era for cinema. The quicksilverlike photography is predictably superlative, and there are solid performances all round, especially from the lead, Sergey Bondarchuk, who also directed the film.

There's a number of clumsy transitions between scenes in the last half hour of the film that don't really work, and it perhaps runs a little out of steam once he has escaped, but that's about the most I can come up with in terms of criticism, and the final impression one takes away is less of battlefields than the healing, rebuilding and moving on from them that has to take place afterwards.

Well worth watching if you're in the mood for a 90-minute war epic, alongside The Cranes are Flying and Ballad of A Soldier.

This first directorial effort from actor Bondarchuk (mainly known for his monumental War and Peace) shouldn't have starred the director. His ruddy countenance didn't convince me one bit he suffered through all the mishaps in his life during the Great War. Furthermore I found it very hard to believe the Germans went to so much effort to save the lives of these Untermenschen. There were good performances though and it is shot beautifully.

Watch instead Come and See (Idi i Smotri) for a shattering experience of the Great War.

a Sholokhov adaptation. powerful and honest. a Bondarchuk gem. and map of a war. it is a great Soviet film. not only as artistic work or testimony about elements of a period. not as sign of post Stalin evolution of art. but for silence of images. for the message after decades to its viewer. because the fate of man is, in fact, the fate of East Europe in last period of XX century. sufferance, pain and death. and delicate hope as freedom space. love as only gun against cruelty of a time. camps as metaphor for Nazi and Soviet system. fear, struggle for survive, guilty because innocence is only fiction. and sense of life, again and again, as fruit of battle against yourself. a film about life. pure life. without exception or pink ingredients. cold, bitter, strange but beautiful. if you discover force to remain yourself in middle of each storm.

the novel by Sholokhov. the performance of Bondarchuk. the wise script. the close-up. and the life of a man who seems be only new Job. a film who impress not only for the drama but for its profound poetry of small details. a confession. and the hope. the war's traces. and the future as new beginning. it is part of a long chain who defines the Soviet cinema as artistic treasure. it is, in same measure, fruit of a political situation. but, more important, it is a fine work. because it reflects human feelings, duties and pain out of ideological circle. because it is an universal story. and one of beautiful examples of high cinema. that could be all. not a great show but useful exercise about the force of art. and, sure, for the Eastern public, a travel in history, against wars, crisis, disasters. and cases of survive.