02-17-2008, 05:46 PM
Thanks to both of you,
Medals73, this point on Lenin will be only a passing hypothesis, purely because my entire point will be to allude/show correlation between medallic propaganda between Britain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and to show the intricate symbolism within the medals. I personally think the layout design etc. should be read and interpreted upon, as long as the conjecture is shown and addressed (like you say by stating that research has yet to be done), I agree that naming the order after him, and placing him as a central figure is part of the course, however the final design that was decided upon, is surely worthy of hypothesis? Such as the changes then made which removed the tractor and made that award from a design point of view 'simpler' in form. I do however agree with your point that there is no substitute for research and that our interpretation of this is completely different to that of "Homo Sovieticus" during the reign of the CCCP. However are not most historians guilty of placing 'their' interpretation on history, which is out of place as we always look at it through our eyes and intepret it in our way.
Jeffrey, it truly is a magnificent film (maybe I'm just biased having watched it three times so far, wow my classes were hard ;-) ), however I found it hard to watch without thinking constantly of Monty Python :-). There are so many great Soviet films that are just lost today to non-Soviet audiences, Nevsky being one, the other being Klimov's film (that I mentioned earlier), the interpretayions placed upon the final shots of the film where time is rewound by the shots from the boys rifle is truly spectacular.
Medals73, this point on Lenin will be only a passing hypothesis, purely because my entire point will be to allude/show correlation between medallic propaganda between Britain, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and to show the intricate symbolism within the medals. I personally think the layout design etc. should be read and interpreted upon, as long as the conjecture is shown and addressed (like you say by stating that research has yet to be done), I agree that naming the order after him, and placing him as a central figure is part of the course, however the final design that was decided upon, is surely worthy of hypothesis? Such as the changes then made which removed the tractor and made that award from a design point of view 'simpler' in form. I do however agree with your point that there is no substitute for research and that our interpretation of this is completely different to that of "Homo Sovieticus" during the reign of the CCCP. However are not most historians guilty of placing 'their' interpretation on history, which is out of place as we always look at it through our eyes and intepret it in our way.
Jeffrey, it truly is a magnificent film (maybe I'm just biased having watched it three times so far, wow my classes were hard ;-) ), however I found it hard to watch without thinking constantly of Monty Python :-). There are so many great Soviet films that are just lost today to non-Soviet audiences, Nevsky being one, the other being Klimov's film (that I mentioned earlier), the interpretayions placed upon the final shots of the film where time is rewound by the shots from the boys rifle is truly spectacular.
