Discuss the Relationship Between Nationality, Generation and Gender in The Prisoner Of The Mountains

000305581017

Vis-20004

The purpose of this essay will be to look at the film ‘Prisoner of the Mountains’ and try to define whether there is a relationship between nationality, generation and gender. ‘Prisoner of the Mountains’ tells the story of two Russian soldiers whom after an ill fated patrol are captured by Chechen rebels and held hostage. The soldier’s dislike of each other is clear to see from the start with them being of completely different experience and background. Zhilin (played by director Sergei Bodrov’s son) is a naive, raw recruit in contrast to the battle hardened Sascha who can be recognized as the conniving Mitia from ‘Burnt by the Sun’. However, after being forced to spend time together the two form a strong friendship that helps them through their ordeal.

The film is set against the impressive backdrop of the Caucasus, a region inhabited by varied sized nations and various religions. Although their borders may be blurred by the harsh landscape, each country remains fiercely independent with the inhabitants being strongly patriotic. We can still see the feeling involved today with the attacks going on in Russia by Chechen rebels. Most famously the theatre and school attacks. However, with their ways of life not having changed for generations, it becomes slightly clearer why they are so opposed to being ruled by a different country. This stubbornness is shown by the looks of disgust when the prisoners enter the village. The Russians in ‘Prisoner of the Mountains’ are seen as invaders and treated as the enemy.

It would have been impossible for the director to make such a film without a strong sense of history and by purposely using actors from the village; it gives it a ‘real life’ feel. Kauffmann rightly highlights that “These are faces that were there before the czars and after, that survived the seventy years of the New Order. Thus, visually, Bodrov underscores his film with history.” (1997, p24)

The idea behind the film did not originally come from the director but has been adapted down the years by different authors. Pushkin first wrote about a captive soldier in his poem but it was more famously told as a short story by Leo Tolstoy one hundred and twenty years previous to the film. Bodrov, who had heard the tale as a child, took the theme from ‘Prisoner of the Caucasus’ (the name of the story) and adapted it to fit in with the current situation in the Chechnya region. However, the original was strongly biased with the author making it patriotic by portraying Russian soldiers as brave and calling the captors “evil smelling”. Bodrov tries to stay impartial throughout ‘Prisoner of the Mountains’ by keeping it balanced, presenting both sides plights however he does not shy away from showing their darker sides. Examples of this are apparent throughout the film. Sascha swilling back vodka and randomly firing his machine gun into a billet after a disturbance does not exactly endear the viewer towards his character. The same goes for the Chechens. Even though we see the male guard Hassan’s lighter side when he is laughing with the hostages, we also know that he killed his wife’s lover after an affair. After time goes by though, Sascha’s snappy temperament mellows and we begin to warm towards him although the blatant disregard for his own life is confusing at first. His only concern is that if he dies, he wants somebody to look after his child.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The age gap between certain characters seems to have a lot to do with the kind of relationships that they form. We are introduced to a young girl called Dina whose attitude towards the prisoners and interaction with other villagers is way beyond her years. However, although she may seem to be wise, she is still left vulnerable by her age. It’s hard to believe that she is only twelve years old and it is interesting to know that she came from the village that they filmed in (a mountain village called Rechi in Dagestan). Apart from the interaction between the two soldiers, Zhilin’s relationship with Dina is interesting for different reasons. Kauffmann again says “Every day Dina brings the Russians their rations and is childishly, reticently, fascinated by Vania (Zhilin)...These two are enemies, a fact that is never completely lost.” (1997 p24) However, because of their youth and to some extent their naivety, they seem to connect on the same level. It becomes a little strange though when she talks of no one wanting to marry her due to a lack of dowry and even more strange when Zhilin offers to marry her himself either out of pity or as a loving gesture. It seems to be part of the Chetchnyan culture to marry young.

Gender is also important as to the temperament of the characters. It is stated by Andrew that “In all three tellings, the basic plot situation is men seeking to prove their own manhood by attacking, imprisoning and, if necessary, killing other men.” (No date, p2) One could agree with this as in a mainly male dominated film, the few women involved, for example Zhilin’s mother, are shown in a completely different light. They don’t carry weapons and don’t drink excessively. Once the mother has found out that her son has been taken into captivity, she rushes from her home to the prison where Abdoul Mourat’s son is being held. Here she believes she will guarantee the release of Zhilin however things don’t go to plan when Mehmet shoots the policeman we know to be his son. Dina is similar, she doesn’t hold the vengefulness that the males show and even when she knows her last brother alive has been killed, she still fetches the keys for the young soldier to open his shackles. The trust between the two innocents is founded early on when she delivers food. In return he builds a toy bird which as Gillespie and Zhuravkin (1996, p58) suggest, acts as a symbol of freedom. It isn’t just Dina he builds trust with; he also earns respect from her father by fixing his watch not long after being captured. Although Zhilin is dressed up in his camouflage, the audience soon forgives him as he is said to be a poor soldier by Sascha and never manages to fire a shot.

It is also the males who are shown to be greedy. Rather than only taking one hostage, they decide to take two. However, even though we see the bad side of masculinity, forgiveness is shown at the end when Abdoul spares Zhilin’s life. In some respects, the way that both genders are shown is stereotypical. The women can be seen as maternal and avoid conflict where as the men show physical strength but are mentally weaker. Today’s developed world is heading towards gender equality but the same stereotypes could be said to exist everywhere years ago. Even though at a basic level, some of the characters display weak mindedness, Zhilin shows incredible mental strength in surviving his time as a hostage. It is also interesting to know that his name actually contains the word ‘life’. Zhit’ in Russian means to live. By adjusting that to Zhilin, his name carries a meaning. Whether Bodrov uses this without realizing or wants it to be there subconsciously, it is definitely important to the film. The presence of Sascha also goes a long way to keep Zhilin going. As I have mentioned before, there is the maternal mother but in some respects, Sascha acts as a father figure. The speed in which he owns up to killing the shepherd without hesitation is a massive sacrifice. Something that maybe only a father would do to save his child.

Even though the film deals with the miserable theme of war, there is light relief in parts. It is hard to believe that after all that Hassan has endured he would be able to smile but a heart-warming moment arrives when the prisoners share a drink with their guard. This is a crucial moment in the formation of the soldiers friendship as they are now stripped of their backgrounds. Their age, rank and experience is irrelevant as they must find things in common to co-operate.

Another subtle meaning that Bodrov slips in is when the hostages are relaxing and listening to the radio. The voice we hear is instantly recognizable as Louis Armstrong and although the film may be set in the middle of nowhere, through this, the audience knows that they are not totally out of touch with the civilized world. The song he sings carries an important message. As identified by Von Bussack (1997) its title ‘Let My People Go’ (a Negro freedom song) can be related to the soldier’s situation. Music is used at several points during the film to create different atmospheres.

Generation and gender seem to be the controlling factors in where power lies but in the case of generation, this is thrown out of the window when we are introduced to the Chechen gorilla fighters. Abdoul Mourat’s power over the hostages seems to be rendered useless when they enter the film. He never seems entirely happy with this but there is little he can do as their strength in numbers and physical strength belittle him. Another noticeable thing is how the younger Chechens seem to have less respect for tradition. The dress code for the majority of powerful males seems to be long trench coats and oversized hats but the gorillas disregard this and dress in their camouflage uniforms. Mehmet’s son also goes against his elders. Working for the Russian police is seen as such as betrayal (effectively working for the enemy) that his father decides that he has no other choice but to kill him. Although never talked about in detail during the film, honor killings seem to be part of Caucasus culture.

Finally, the ending of the film shows “the absurdity of war” (Berardinelli 1997) Even though one of the soldiers is released, his comrade has had his throat cut and we presume most of the people that he formed a relationship with would have been killed by the helicopter guns ships. Perhaps Ross sums it up best when he says “The final scene is one that you’ve seen in a thousand other anti-war movies, but your heart mourns nevertheless.” (The Bear Truth, 1997) However, in ‘Prisoner of the Mountains’ death does not spell the end. After the brutal scene of Sascha having his throat cut, he comes back on a couple of occasions to guide his younger friend. Part of Russian folklore, the older man tells his younger friend how peaceful it is after death and if he wanted, he could join him. However, this only spurs Zhilin on to stay alive. Bodrov refrains from using too much blood and guts and by doing this, keeps the film focused on the characters. This cleverly forces the audience to evoke emotion.

In conclusion, through the use of several discussed points it has been shown that there stands to be some kind of relationship between nationality, generation and gender in ‘Prisoner of the Mountains’. It would be ignorant to say that there is no relationship at all between the three but it is the strength of the relationships that is maybe more important. Other examples can be drawn from similar films such as Gillo Pontecorvo’s ‘The Battle of Algiers’. Here we have a similar struggle for freedom with the focus being mainly on a young hero but also on his relationships with others around him. In relation to Bodrov’s production, the link between nationality and generation is upset by Mehmet’s son with him selling out his country to be part of the Russian police and the same goes for the balance of power between young and old. It is difficult to find a strong, unquestionable correlation in either film, as between the three factors, there always seems to be an exception to the rule.

Bibliography:

Andrew, Joe (no date) ‘I love you, dear captive’: Gender and Narrative in Two Versions of The Prisoner of the Caucasus. In: J. Andrew (ed.) (no title). (No publisher), (no place).

Gillespie, D. and Zhuravkina, N (1996) Sergei Bodrov’s A Prisoner of the Mountains. Rusistika 14:56-58

Kauffmann, Stanley (1997) Mountains, Minders. New Republic 216:24

Websites:

Berardinelli, James (1997) Prisoner of the Mountains: A Film Review, Reelviews,

Ross, Andrew (February 1997) The Bear Truth, Salon,

Von Busack, Richard (1997) The Far Country, Metro Active,