There is where to retreat

The first documentary of Alexei Pivovarov about the Great Patriotic War - "Rzhev" - at one time caused hot controversy and accusations of "denoting", including from official structures. Obviously, in his second film “Moscow. Autumn 41st”, the author and his employees took into account criticism, both aesthetic and political, taking Mikhail Myagkov to the main consultants of a completely faithful official historian. And the picture turned out to be more “Parthenovskaya” - with attention to household details, with an attempt to immerse the viewer into the atmosphere of the war years and at the same time with emphasis on the positive values ​​of the past.

This time in the center of the film is not military operations, but the life of the front-line city, which Moscow became in October 41st, after the German troops, surrounding and destroying the main forces of the three Soviet fronts (more than 1 million people) in the Vyazma and Bryansk region, created a direct threat to the capital. The film briefly says about this in a grave defeat of the Red Army, the figures of losses are called, but there is not a word about the reasons for this defeat. The stingy factual data on the bombing of Moscow are also given: in five months of 1941, 1437 people died, 422 buildings were destroyed. Sounds and destruction, of course, considerable, but with human and material losses during the bombing of English and German cities or Stalingrad in August 1942, cannot be compared.

The creators of the film deliberately abandoned the analysis of the Battle of Moscow and focused on the lives of ordinary Muscovites. If in the "Rzhev" events were shown on both sides - in the memoirs of Soviet and German veterans of the Battle of Rzhev, in documents from German and Russian archives, then in "Moscow" there is a look from the mentally - the eyes of Muscovites who survived the alarming autumn of the 41st. The authors of the film took the memoirs of the inhabitants of one communal apartment and embodied them on the screen using actors and computer graphics. The actors also play Stalin and other Soviet leaders (despite the fact that the chronicle-documentary series in the film is poor). Unlike Rzhev, the actors play silently, without pronouncing extremely far -fetched dialogs, and in this regard a new film certainly wins. But the lack of a view of the events from the German side (it would be interesting, for example, to listen to the pilots of the Luftwaffe bombing Moscow) allows us to speak only the truth that is convenient for the authors of the film, adjusting to the conditions of modern television target.

A lot of attention is paid to the details of the military life of Moscow. Pivovarov demonstrates how the windows of cross strips were sealed with paper stripes, and checks how effective it was with air raids. It is shown how incendiary bombs from Moscow roofs were dropped, how they raised balloons that prevented the German bombers from conducting aiming bombing how they masked Moscow, creating artificial houses, streets and bridges (Lenin Mausoleum was masked under the house with mesonin, and its inhabitant was prudently taken to the east). All this in itself is curious, but does not create a feeling of the tragedy of what is happening. Loss statistics are given, for example, it is mentioned that during the bombing of the Kremlin, 46 security soldiers died, but not a single deceased is named or shown. The war in the film of Pivovarov is presented as an interesting thing, but not terrible.

Some walking myths are debunked in the film - for example, the legend that on one of the October days of the 41st Stalin walked for a long time along the platform of the Kazan station, where the echelon prepared for it stood under the pairs, but then sharply turned and headed back to the Kremlin. It is emphasized that no documentary evidence of this episode or at least evidence of eyewitnesses. So, Stalin was not going to leave the capital even at the most tragic moment, when there were practically no Soviet troops left between the advanced German tank formations and the Moscow outskirts. Well, the dictator in time realized that he should not leave Moscow so as not to demoralize its defenders. However, the fact that Stalin’s specific mistakes in the grouping and management of the troops in the Moscow direction, and the general indigenous vices of the Red Army, reflecting the features of the totalitarian system created by Stalin, did not say that the film did not say a word. And it turns out that Stalin is one of the main saviors of Moscow, the "effective manager" of wartime.

The authors of the film show us that the tough measures taken by Stalin, including the introduction of a siege position in Moscow, put an end to the panic and robberies that covered the city after receiving the news of the catastrophe near Vyazma, and thus helped to defend the capital. But nothing is said that, with the regime established by Stalin, only cruel measures were effective and the achievement of success always required numerous victims.

In the current era of the fight against “falsifiers”, especially in the field of the history of the Great Patriotic War, the brewers and his comrades sensitively felt the boundaries of the permitted one and tried not to go out for them. The film turned out to be quite well -intentioned, well, tailored, but, unlike Rzhev, which does not cause strong emotional experiences among the audience.