فيلم Nureyev


Nureyev is a movie starring Siân Phillips, Dick Cavett, and Margot Fonteyn. This striking and moving documentary from BAFTA nominated directors Jacqui and David Morris traces the extraordinary life of Rudolf Nureyev. From his birth...

Other Titles
Nureyev: An Orgy of One, Nureyev. Il mondo, il suo palco, Nureyev: Lifting the Curtain
Running Time
1 hours 49 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
David Morris, Jacqui Morris
David Morris, Jacqueline Morris
Siân Phillips, Dick Cavett, Richard Avedon, Margot Fonteyn
Audio Languages
اللغة_العربية, English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
اللغة_العربية, 日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

This striking and moving documentary from BAFTA nominated directors Jacqui and David Morris traces the extraordinary life of Rudolf Nureyev. From his birth in the 5th class carriage of a trans-Siberian train, to his dramatic leap to freedom in the West at the height of the Cold War, and unprecedented adulation as the most famous dancer in the world. The film highlights Nureyev's unlikely yet legendary partnership with Margot Fonteyn and charts his meteoric rise to the status of global cultural phenomenon. Nureyev's life plays out like the sweeping plot of a classic Russian novel. His story is Russia's story. Blending never-before-seen footage, with an original score by award-winning composer Alex Baranowski and spellbinding newly choreographed dance tableaux directed by Royal Ballet alumnus, Russell Maliphant, Nureyev is a theatrical and cinematic experience like no other. This is a portrayal as unique as the man himself. There will never be another Nureyev.

Comments about documentary «Nureyev» (22)

Brenda photo

It is always a joy to see an intelligent, erudite, learned and clever film. This is one of the best. It is also one of the most earnest and heartfelt films I have ever seen. Everything in it is true and balanced. I also love the theme of corruption in Russia, and how the ultra-wealthy are almost at an absolute level of impunity, the sort of thing we see in movies, such as "Lux, Lux, Lux", and others, but this is something that is actually happening in real life. It is also interesting that the film also focuses on the local middle class, which has been utterly corrupted, or at least, does not understand how its wealth and power are in many ways the source of corruption. I find that extremely interesting. The film is also hilarious, as well as touching. The music is also great. Everything about this film is fantastic. It is so well made, it is just stunning. I would recommend this film to anyone who enjoys quality cinema.

Dennis S. photo
Dennis S.

I loved this film. I saw it for the first time in 2008, at a screening of the Criterion Collection on the Island of St. Thomas. I don't know if it was because I was working a lot at the time, or just because it was a new film that I hadn't seen before, but this film was simply stunning to me. I rented it, and watched it from the beginning. The first thing I noticed was the very beautiful cinematography. It was a very simple camera-work, yet it was such an effective and beautiful way to create the film. This is the way I saw the movie, and it really stuck with me. It had a very slow pacing, but it made the pacing so realistic and appealing. The performances were great. The performances were realistic and powerful, even the actors who had short scenes. The script was amazing, and all of the dialogue was very rich, giving it an undeniable air of realism. But this was just my first impression. Once the film started, I really felt the movie. I wasn't expecting much, but I was very surprised to find this. I found it very inspirational and thought provoking. I found this to be an awesome movie. 8 out of 10.

Donna photo

I had read the other reviews before going and I must say that I am really surprised at the different opinions that have been expressed. Yes, the story is really interesting, the title says it all. And there is a lot of truth and many key points that have not been covered, especially in relation to the origin of the cult of Vesyachin. But it's not a documentary, it's not intended to be. It's just about the life of the people in Khabarovsk and the effects it has on their own personal lives. It's not a documentary, but a historical document on a very personal subject, of which it might be some kind of personal scandal. It's also not intended to be a documentary about the cult of Vesyachin. And that's why it's not a documentary about the cult of Vesyachin. The real truth is this: the cult of Vesyachin had a profound impact on the lives of people in Khabarovsk and their whole city. Not only on the lives of the people who were involved in it, but also on the lives of all those people who were involved in this cult, including the priests and the husbands and the parents of the cult's victims. That is what makes it so serious and so interesting. It's a story of people whose lives have been impacted by this cult, but in a different way, from an outsider's point of view. This is a story of how the cult affects the life of the people who have to live with it, and how the people affected by it have to deal with it. It's a very different type of documentary that might be one of the best documentaries of all times. Not because it's about religion or politics, but because it's about a very personal subject. For that reason, I gave it a 8 out of 10.

Harold A. photo
Harold A.

I'm interested in whether or not the history of Russia actually mirrors what it could have been, if the Soviet Union had been able to function as it did. "The Death of Stalin" aims to do just that, but it never quite achieves it. In its own way, the film is a series of portraits of the exiled and imprisoned people of Russia. The film's most compelling image is the beautiful portrait of Mikhail Kirov (played with remarkable subtlety by Galina Volkova). The plot of the film is that Mikhail Kirov was a liberal and a democrat, who actually attempted to reform the Communist party, by gaining power and controlling the party's central committee. However, he was assassinated in prison. This act of Communist violence also caused the country's general political chaos. This chaos is why many people in Russia would prefer not to know what happened to the late Mikhail Kirov. It's also why many of the people of the Soviet Union, in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, would prefer to ignore the history of their country and its political leaders, and the fact that, from 1923 to 1991, it was actually a Communist party. "The Death of Stalin" uses a variety of different methods to tell the story of Mikhail Kirov. It includes several interviews with his contemporaries, who speak candidly about his policies, and often forget that Kirov had an iron hand, but often supported his policies with a mass-murdering frenzy. It includes a number of interesting vignettes. For example, Mikhail Kirov was known for his tenacity and his fervent desire to eradicate the Communists, but at the same time, his policy was to oppress the rest of his country. The interviewees also recall his handling of the "Eastern Questions", a tricky issue for a Communist. The film ends on a long, interesting, and almost pointless note. As a result, it's impossible to say anything else except that, of course, this film is not going to win any awards. The overall impression is one of disappointment, as you're left wondering why there isn't a better film to tell the story of Mikhail Kirov. The only thing that could make this film better is for someone to do a documentary on the life and times of Mikhail Kirov.

Christian Hernandez photo
Christian Hernandez

The movie's title is of very little interest. The title conveys the Soviet Union's attempt to distinguish themselves from their Soviet predecessors, and in this respect, the film does a good job. The film's title is the first line of the film, and does nothing more than that. It tells us that the film is by an old Soviet, a man who is credited with compiling the archives of the USSR's foreign and domestic policy, and in some cases, of the former Soviet republics, since the death of Stalin. The man in question, Leonid Ivashov, is the one who supervised the creation of the Soviet Union in the early-mid 1960s, and since then, the country has not been the same. We are introduced to him as he reflects on the events of his lifetime, and the film has a very convincing, subtle, and consistent feel to it. For most of the film, Ivashov is being interviewed by a camera crew that is just off-screen. The image is edited out, but the camera moves around the room. The camera is carefully placed to focus on the one person in the room, and we hear the interviews via his voice-over. His voice is filled with empathy and sadness, and the film makes us care deeply about his story, the reasons behind his questions, and the sort of person that he was. Ivashov goes from interviewing (or rather, watching) his family, including a woman who is his mother, and a young man who is his grandfather, to introducing us to his wife and children, and, in the process, we get a taste of the country's general culture. I'll say more about this later. The film is primarily concerned with how the United States has changed, and how the Soviet Union has changed. They talk about the structure of the economy, and the wars that were fought in Eastern Europe in the 1950s, as well as how the Soviet Union came to be the world's largest state-owned and publicly financed military and industrial complex. Some of this material is compelling. As they are interviewing a former Soviet soldier, they talk about how the United States, on a military level, seems to have almost no basis to differentiate itself from Soviet-made weapons. They say they know, that they can make copies and sell them, but nobody knows that they have been made from scratch and are therefore completely different from the originals. The Soviet Union, they say, has so many weapons that it has more than its own armed forces can afford to buy and maintain, yet Americans have had to resort to a variety of other means to obtain their own arms. The problems with the United States, they say, are that it is not clear how they are getting their weapons, and that they have a lot of overhead to cover when it comes to supporting the military needs of the country. They conclude that the United States is a country that is increasingly forced to do things on its own, to support its military, or to support people or institutions, or to do whatever it can to support its economy. The film ends with an interview with a former Soviet Foreign Ministry official, who is interviewed in the same manner. The man complains that he is constantly reminded by the United States that they are the largest economy in the world, while the Soviet Union is not. He complains that they have a huge military, while the Soviet Union only has one soldier. They talk about the Soviet Union's military and industrial output, the USSR's national debt, and how the Soviet Union's military spending makes it the third-largest economy in the world. He complains that the United States, when it comes to weaponry, is a much more advanced nation. The former Soviet official says that he is not sure, since his country was in the middle of a nuclear arms race with the United States when the United States came to power, and that he has had to support other nations in its war efforts. He says that he has even had to sell weapons to some other countries, like China, in order to prevent his country from being invaded by the United States. He says that his country was basically trying to remain neutral during the Korean War, and has to support other nations in

Billy photo

The film itself was a series of interviews with Russian politicians and cultural figures, to highlight the big picture, while also focusing on the context of the current Russian political crisis. The first interview was with Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev. In that discussion, he clearly makes the point that the conflict in Chechnya is a matter of local politics and that the Russian government will not intervene in that situation. All this is proven in the film by the great Eduard Makhnenko. The second interview was with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Medvedev describes his personal experience of visiting the "Crimea region" of Russia, the "depths" of the Chechen republic. He shows that Russian troops were not in the region at all, but that a secret alliance of Chechen nationalists is planning a coup d'etat. "They are not fighting, they are attacking", he explains. The final interview was with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lavrov states that the main goal of the coup in Chechnya is to make Russia the only true "brother" in the world, without competition. It is unclear what he means by this, since Russia does not seem to have any other relation with Chechnya. That is where he explains the situation in Chechnya: there are Russian people and there are Chechen nationalists. The result of the interview is a very good summary of the situation in Russia in the middle of the crisis, which the authorities are trying to deal with in order to regain the popular support of the population. Overall, the film was an interesting look into the political situation in Russia.

Ryan Hernandez photo
Ryan Hernandez

An absolutely well done documentary of the life of an Iranian violinist, Nader Seyid, who is one of the most famous Iranian musicians and now makes his debut with his first symphony. This film is mostly a narration of Seyid's life, his family, friends, the young musicians and professionals who played with him and was a hero to the people of Iran. It was very touching to see that even Seyid's parents can not believe that he is a professional musician. He and his family are like a museum and there is a touching scene when he tries to explain to his parents that he is a musician and not an actor. He is very well portrayed by his wife who has the hardest job. She had to leave her family to come to America. I really recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a very unique story of a great person and his family.

Anthony S. photo
Anthony S.

From the first shot of the opening credits, 'Dirty News' is an unabashedly obnoxious melodrama that makes no bones about its being a satire on modern journalism, even if it does feature a sensationalistic over-the-top opening scene with two youths deciding to crash a political rally. The real-life controversy surrounding the movie's first act - that of its release in an un-PC environment in America - is hardly worth repeating here. The premise of the film is of course absurd, but there's no denying the film's ability to effectively lampoon the news media in all its grotesque glory. The film doesn't focus on political scandals, but on journalistic scandals, most notably in the lead-up to the 2000 US presidential election. There's nothing revolutionary here, but it's hardly a scandal to be endured, either. Instead, the filmmakers opted to make the film a dark and witty satire on news outlets, news organizations, and their completely insane relationship with the media. The film's main action is the voyeurism of two journalists, who kidnap and then murder the daughter of a prominent figure in the Russian government. The viewer is never really sure whether the reporters are serious or if the incident is an ironic form of "inspiration," or simply a result of excessive prurience. Either way, it makes for a truly enjoyable movie that has a true sense of irony and humor. 'Dirty News' is definitely an absurd movie, but it has the ability to make you laugh at the absurdity of what it pretends to satirize. In its own way, it's also a truly thought-provoking comedy that's strangely, surprisingly funny.

Timothy photo

In this second instalment of the Shawshank Redemption series, Red makes his way into an American prison and after a wild night, he meets up with another inmate named Morris (played by Anjelica Huston) and they both share a confession. Red is sentenced to life in prison for murder, and he is also sentenced to spend the rest of his life in a mental institution. This means that he is permanently confined to the prison for the rest of his life. However, this was all a dream, and his father (Henry Winkler) convinced him to come to Shawshank for a one-time treatment. But after Red tries to break out of the mental institution, he is suddenly confronted with another prisoner named Darby (David Morse) who also wants to escape the institution. He is aided by Red's fellow inmate Cole (Charlie Sheen) and they set out to rescue Red, who is now locked up in a secure cell, being watched by a guard named Murphy (Colin Farrell). Now, Red must use all his cunning to try and escape from the prison, as he is the most wanted prisoner. This is the first Shawshank Redemption film, and it is a complete re-imagining of the original story. It is a good film, but it is slightly confusing. What the film tries to do, is to create a completely new story and it succeeds in doing this. However, there are some things that are also different from the original story. In the original film, Red is a fool and his mother, played by Susan Sarandon, is completely out of his league. In the Shawshank Redemption film, Red is a prisoner, who is in control of his own destiny. I found that this helped create a completely new character in the film. But, again, there are some problems with this. The thing that I liked the most about the film was how well this was filmed. It is beautifully filmed, and the cinematography is superb. The cinematography is very well done, and the shots are very dynamic. There are shots where the camera moves from one angle to another and the shots are very well done. The thing that makes the film so great is that everything is so well done, and there are many shots that are quite beautiful. The actors are good. There is a great performance from John Cusack, who is actually really good in this film. Cusack has done some great movies in the past, such as The Bonfire of the Vanities, but he has also done some bad ones, such as A Beautiful Mind. Cusack is always a good actor, and he shows it in this film. Anjelica Huston is again good, and she is a great actress, and she does a great job here. She is also a good singer, and she does well here. Charlie Sheen is also good, and he is also a good actor. The thing that I found really good about this movie is the music. The music is really good, and it is not one of those songs that are really bad. The music is well-done, and the music is really beautiful. In conclusion, this is a good film. It is different from the original film, but it is still a good film. The story is interesting, and the acting is good. The cinematography is really good, and the music is great. Overall, this is a good film, and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good film.

Jessica W. photo
Jessica W.

Featuring interviews with Russian artist Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Russian philosopher Ilya Somin, Russian-American journalist Edward Kubler, and Russian writer Gijs Klimt, the documentary focuses on one of the most significant contemporary artists of Russian art. Nuri Bilge Ceylan is a staunch defender of modern Russian art, and has organized the largest art show in Moscow's metro system ever. But he is also an avant-garde artist who paints images which could have been included in a Russian "Pomo novoe" (1930s-1950s), or a "Magna Carta" (1840s-1860s). The film can be summed up in two themes: The fate of artists, and the power of "Pomo novoe". In order to comment on the fate of those artists who might have lived in a historical context, the film focuses on each individual artist, and examines the way their work has been interpreted by both the rest of the Russian art world, and the rest of the world. Most of the interviews are with the directors and publishers of the titles most associated with the artist's work. One of the most interesting and fascinating subjects is in fact the artist himself, who gives in-depth interviews in English, and in French. He speaks about his work as an artist, and about his personal background, as well as his political stances. Among the many topics touched on are the reaction to his work to the Russian audience, and the future of Russian art. Some of the things he talks about are very strange, and I think it's worth watching the film to get a sense of how strange they are. One of the more interesting things about the film is the connection between his art, and the power of modern art. The work is called "Pomo novoe", which is "Pomo" in Russian, and translates roughly as "Pomo". One of the most basic means of communication in the Russian language is the letters "pomo". The name of the word has been translated as "pomo" in English. So the films director and interviewer have a very interesting insight into the meaning of "pomo" in Russian. As I said, the film is basically about how modern art is changing the Russian art world. Not that it is changing the world as a whole, but that modern art is changing the lives of artists. In one of the interviews, the director and interviewer speak about how modern art is pushing the boundaries of the possible in terms of the limits of human consciousness, and the viewer's own creativity. So the artist and the viewer are indeed the same thing, but they are not always the same thing. I think it's a very interesting insight into how modern art is not necessarily what the artists intended it to be. The audience is left wondering what exactly is going on, and where the artist has gone with it. To conclude, the film is worth watching, and I have to give it a recommendation, because it is a very informative, and interesting documentary about Russian art.

Ronald Romero photo
Ronald Romero

The reality is that anything could happen at any time. If the worst happens, we still have a choice. How many times has that happened? This documentary brings us the very first time that a Soviet official was arrested on a trumped-up, trumped-up charge of "enmity towards the Fatherland". I think that the most shocking part of the film is that this is really happening, and at the end of it we see the official, not the perpetrator, admitted as innocent. We are given no details about what happened. There is no doubt that there was a right-wing extremist bent on overthrowing the Soviet Union, but no one was arrested or charged with a crime. This is a rare documentary, the kind that I would not have expected to see if not for the presence of the documentary-maker.

Amy S. photo
Amy S.

If you love chess and/or you like to study it, you will love this. Very moving, with some humorous moments. It was filmed in his hometown (Mashinostroyenie) of Moscow. Some people are protesting, but they should look into it and then. You will see how the laws of the world are changed by such changes in human culture.

Robert photo

This is a landmark documentary, not only for the history of the Gulag system but also for the period from Stalin to Gorbachev and the post-Soviet years. The documentary begins at the moment the system was founded by Kaganovich. Here we get a clear understanding of the truth of the system, what it is like for everyone and the methods and means by which the system operates. At the same time, we get a lot of information about the prisons, the working conditions and the rehabilitation of political prisoners. This documentary is no typical documentary, it is very much a sociological documentary that takes a very positive view on the prisoners and the regime. For example, when we see a film of a former Gulag prisoner, we see that the latter tries to keep his dignity and his dignity of which he worked under and from which he receives his names. On the other hand, we hear from another former prisoner that he is only working for his own benefit. So in this way, we can see that even in the best of times, there are ways of living in the system and it is not always a nice thing. And the documentary also shows us how important it is for the guards to know how many prisoners there are, for example, and how many people are in the camp. On the other hand, it does not show a positive view of the authorities, especially the Red Army who can be seen as the bad guys who take the best of the system and are almost always the bad guys. On the other hand, this documentary is not a documentary for a particular type of Soviet citizen or in any way for a specific time. It is a general picture of the system, how it works and what happens to the people.

Linda Austin photo
Linda Austin

The use of brilliant actors and talented directors in telling the story of the Great Patriotic War in Russia in the beginning of the 20th century, is what makes this film. And if you look closely at what they are telling, you will find that there are great stories here, often seen too close to the great history and of course sometimes very slightly false. The team of Anna Pavlovova and Yuri Medvedev is a wonderful film and it has a great sense of history. The inclusion of the story of Edelstein, where he saw the atrocities on the death of some of his friends during the War is just so true and so beautiful. You see how he sees the world and you feel that all of the people around him are not acting the way they would and this film is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The war that started from this country, is a brilliant tale of all the people who died in a war that many of us have never seen, and we know almost nothing about. It's a great film, and all of the stories are very true. I can't say much more, but I really hope you watch this film. I hope you get a great sense of history and you realize how much love and the strong spirit of a country can make a difference in a world that is suffering. This is the story of a people, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Rose photo

There's a lot to learn from "There's A Few Good Men" but one thing stands out. It is the true story of the "American Pie" series. Now, before you get all fired up, I do not think that this film is particularly good, at least not on the level of the "American Pie" movies. So I really wanted to know what it was like to make the "American Pie" movies and what it was like to do it. I found this movie to be very informative. The film is quite slow to begin with but soon moves at a rapid pace. There's lots of information, but I think this is a good thing. It's not just a bunch of facts that we can all take away from. There's a lot of nice things in the film that just make us all feel a little better about life. It gives us a great sense of comfort when we come across something we may have overlooked before. It shows us that we need to love one another. I recommend the movie to anyone who loves to be informed.

Sandra photo

A film about what the Soviets did to innocent people during the Vietnam War is certainly a much needed document. The movie is very well made. The conversations are candid and usually detailed, which is rare in this genre. However, the movie does have some serious problems. One can easily detect that the movie is edited in an attempt to conceal bad events. For example, in one interview one of the Russian soldiers explains to his wife that the Viet Cong just shot him for his knowledge of the Viet Cong strategy. Another example is that the movie fails to show a genuine demonstration of an actual shoot-down of a US helicopter in Vietnam. This is important because most Americans believe that the Vietnamese were only shooting down the helicopter for the sake of making money. Nevertheless, as a non-Vietnamese I was very disappointed that the movie had not included a visual demonstration of the actual shooting down of the helicopter. Another problem is that the movie does not show the dirty and sickening thing the Russians did to the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese suffered a lot from the Soviets and their mercenary and drunken sons. One can imagine the Russian Red Army going to the Vietnamese farmers and killing them in the fields. One can also imagine the Viet Cong and their families being raped and tortured for all they were worth. However, the most shocking event in the movie is the Soviets' horrific bombings in the Vietnam War. These bombs are described very accurately and in a very succinct fashion. Nevertheless, the movie does have a moral tone, which is exactly the opposite of what the movie should have. The movie does not show Soviet civilians as human beings, but as guilty parties, which would be wrong if the movie was intended for a Western audience. For this reason the movie is not just a documentary about the Soviet Union, but an important document on the horrors of the Vietnam War. One of the major criticisms of the movie is that it does not show enough. In the movie we hear one of the soldiers talking about how the Soviet Union would commit mass murder in Vietnam and so forth. However, one can see that this would be just as horrific if it were an American occupation of Vietnam. The movie fails to show such acts that are only a shadow of the Soviet crimes. I agree with the reviewer who said that the movie is too long and that the narration is weak. However, I do not see how one can argue that the movie is too long. In the end, I think that the movie is a useful document that Americans can learn from, but that Americans and Vietnamese alike should not have to look back at the Soviet Union and Vietnam. The movie is worth a viewing, but the story and narration of the movie could have been stronger. One can certainly have a better experience by visiting a museum, which would be an excellent way of learning about the horrors of the USSR. However, one should be careful, as the story has a very strong anti-US and anti-American sentiment.

Jose photo

Being a Russian, I like this movie a lot. But I think the fact that it's a true story also makes it more attractive. One can think that the movie won't be as good as it could be, if it were a documentary. It's a bit better, but still, it's good. But the American thing is that it doesn't really show Russians as they really are. It makes them seem like a bunch of characters that have no individualities. I like that, so I'm fine with it. It's a documentary, and they don't really show us the real Russians. But if you really want to see Russians, this documentary is the best way to do it.

Ryan H. photo
Ryan H.

I was interested to hear about the story of this little man and his extraordinary journey, so I watched this documentary. The movie was very interesting. It showed how the man survived in a harsh environment, his perseverance and his spirit. He managed to stand against the odds and to overcome obstacles. It was also great to see what he went through as a child and how he went through puberty. The movie didn't portray the story badly, but it also did not treat the subject in a critical way. I thought that it was actually more about the challenges that he had to face, and he faced them very well. And that is what really makes the movie so great. Overall, it was very moving and very educational.

Karen R. photo
Karen R.

Like everyone else, I watched this film with my husband and father of two. He was already deeply in love with the subject of the film. I thought the acting, editing and cinematography were all top-notch. We were able to sit through the entire film without ever losing our interest. You can see that it was painstakingly researched, based on fact and an overall tribute to those who were truly and deeply affected by the events of 9/11. If you are going to watch this film, you'll definitely want to sit down with your loved ones and take a moment to remember the people who were lost on that tragic day. As you watch this film, you will be able to see that you are not alone. If you have any knowledge of the events, you'll have a better idea of what the film is really about. The film is a very personal reflection of an event that has been wrongly forgotten by most of the country and the world.

Kathryn F. photo
Kathryn F.

This documentary is about the bizarre of Russian society. The Russian people of that time was trying to live a high social class and then some. What we can understand is the extreme poverty of the people, poor food, bad people and they are all interested in sex. The problems that the people had with the authorities. They tried to make the people get along with their friends, but the people tried to get money through the police and the police would not listen to the people. People tried to sell drugs and many died because of that. The movie is very slow, very entertaining, very truthful and a lot of people that you would not expect. I was very surprised. It's a little bit too long but it does not matter, it does not matter.

Sharon photo

For anyone interested in the Soviet Union's secret arsenal, there is plenty to be had in the documentary "From The Ashes." Director Kenneth Dietz has assembled a fascinating and intriguing cast, ranging from veterans such as Doris Lessing, Vladimir Jabotinsky, Alexei Sayle, Klimov, and others, to young people in the fields of art, cinema, and the arts of the human spirit. Of particular interest are interviews with the prime minister of the USSR, Konstantin Chernenko, director Vladimir Jabotinsky, and renowned Soviet actor Alexei Sayle. They provide the viewer with an extensive knowledge of the history and culture of the Soviet Union and its role in the post-World War II era. However, in spite of its historical merit, the film is neither informative nor compelling. However, even if the film's focus is on the former Soviet Union, the real subjects are the recent events in the Ukraine. Dietz's keen interest in history, rather than political controversy, is a refreshing element in an otherwise poorly-structured documentary. Overall, the film is worth seeing if one is interested in the history of the Soviet Union. However, it will probably not change the world, as has been suggested.

Danielle Hill photo
Danielle Hill

What made you decide to do this film? Was it your curiosity, was it your interest in Soviet politics, or was it your desire to give an example of how to really tell this story. This film is about Mikhail Yegorovich Nureyev, who has been the ruler of Chechnya for the last three decades and has not been able to bring order to his troubled land. After the death of his father, Yegorovich Nureyev became a state-appointed man in charge of Chechnya. In this new role he was able to gain respect and sympathy in his people, but also to give power and powerlessness to his people. The new ruler went on to murder his father and is said to have been on the run from the law ever since. This film is an eye-opener. The film does not set out to be a propaganda piece, it simply tells the story of a man who has led Chechnya for 3 decades, and is held accountable for the violence of his regime. This film is not intended to be a military victory, but rather to show how such a regime can fall. We are reminded that one has to be able to behave decently, while the other has to be able to act in a way that serves the public good. This film is a testament to the power of the people, and that we have a right to know how such a regime can fall.