Stalin (1992)

The end of the film brings up a very important question that I think many previous reviewers had difficulty with. Fact: under Stalin the Soviet Union industrialized to levels never seen before. With industrialization, this could enable the USSR to compete in the world on par with the US. It would also lead to the development of a nuclear and hydrogen bomb, on par with the US. The film brings up the critical question of whether or not Stalin was necessary for the USSR. That is a powerful and thought provoking question that one carries away from this film. Any film that lingers and makes you think has merit.

The history channel put out a video on the parallels of Hitler and Stalin. As I was watching it I kept thinking, "Gee, everything in this documentary is in the film Stalin."

Is it a perfect film? No. Is it historically innaccurate to merit throwing it away? Absolutely not... Robert Duvall does an excellent and convincing job of portraying a monster.


Good Characterization of Stalin, Bad History   August 17, 2003
 30 out of 32 found this review helpful

In the past, apologists for Stalin (including many of his victims) said that Stalin was good, but he was surrounded by bad people. This film turns this on its head saying that Stalin was bad, but he was surrounded by good people. Both of these are wrong--the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution and the leaders of the USSR in the period following the revolution were all up to their necks in blood. Robert Duvall gives an excellent portrayal of Stalin, emphasizing that he, unlike his ranting partner in mass murder Hitler, was soft-spoken and basically uncharismatic. Duvall correctly does not use a "Russian" accented English because Stalin spoke Russian with a heavy Georgian accent. Having said this, the historical aspects of the film are very poor. First of all, Maximilian Schell's portrayal of Lenin is way off base. The Old Bolsheviks like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, Ordzhonikidze and Kirov are shown to be basically well-meaning people who got trapped in Stalin's web. This is untrue, they were all involved in mass terror, justifying it in the name of a "higher good". In Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago", he points out what a pathetic man Bukharin really was and how he so freely shed tears for the injustice committed to his person, and yet he had no pity on the millions of others who suffered. At the end of the film, Khruschev says that Stalin's crimes ("the millions" he liquidated) had to be accounted for, whereas,in reality, he himself took an active role in the Great Terror.
The film shows very little of what the effect of "Stalinism" was on the average Soviet citizen, with the exception of a scene where Stalin's wife confronts the effects of the mass famine in the Ukraine. The film does not really show the "cult of the personality". It would have been effective if the film had shown how, when Stalin would enter a hall full of people, the crowd would applaud for a very long time because everyone was afraid to be the first to stop clapping. Similarly, towards the end of the film, we see a physician nervously examining Stalin without any mention of the infamous "Doctors Plot" frame-up in which Jewish doctors were falsely accused of trying to murder top Soviet officials which would explain the physicians hesitancy in examing his famous patient.

In spite of the many faults of this film, I have still given it three stars rating because it is important for people to become aware of what this monster did to so many millions of innocent people and who was supported by millions of otherwise good people, both inside and outside the USSR.