Update Article: 361

Original Title

Sanitized Title

Clean Title

Source ID

Article Id01

Article Id02

Corpus ID

Dup

Dup ID

Url

Publication Url

Download Url

Original Abstract

Clean Abstract

Tags

Original Full Text

THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN FILM: CONSTRUCTING A RUSSIAN ORTHODOX NATION IN POST-SOVIET RUSSIA Caroline Prout A thesis submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Global Studies.  Chapel Hill 2024 Approved by:  Michele Rivkin-Fish Kirill Tolpygo Nancy Condee    ii                                       © 2024 Caroline Prout ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii ABSTRACT Caroline Prout: The Russian Orthodox Church in Film: Constructing a Russian Orthodox Identity in Post-Soviet Russia (Under the direction of Michele Rivkin-Fish) Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the development of the Russian Federation, the Russian Orthodox Church has sought to increase its influence with the people and the state. A key way the Church has attempted to this is through the media space, particularly film, which it uses to define what it means to be a “good” Russian Orthodox Christian and thus who can and cannot be considered “Russian.” In this thesis, three films either awarded and/or sponsored by the Church, The Conqueror, The Priest, and The Horde, are analyzed to understand how the Church takes different historical episodes and reshapes them to present the Church and the Russian nation in a positive light. Through these films, viewers are taught a Church and Russian-centric history that argues it is only possible for Russia to succeed if the people are devout followers of Russian Orthodoxy.    iv To my parents, who have supported me since day one and who have had to listen to me connect Russia to every topic imaginable. Thank you.     v TABLE OF CONTENTS  LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………...vii INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1  Historical Background of the Russian Orthodox Church…………………………………5 CHAPTER ONE: THE CONQUEROR (OF UKRAINE AND THE WEST)…………………...22 CHAPTER TWO: THE PRIEST VERSUS PSEUDO-RELIGIONS……………………………62 CHAPTER THREE: THE HORDE AGAINST THE POWER OF MIRACLES………………119 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………177 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………186 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Scene from Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror)…………………………………………24 Figure 2 – Ilya Repin’s Reply of the Zaporizhian Cossacks……………………………………..24 Figure 3 – The Catholic bishop whose miter bears swastika-like symbols  from Александр Невский (Alexander Nevsky)…………………………………………………..76 Figure 4 – The Teutonic Knights’ flag which bears a “striking” resemblance to  the coat of arms of Nazi Germany from Александр Невский (Alexander Nevsky)……………..76  Figure 5 –  The Virgin Hodegetria of Tichvine (The Indicator of the Way)……………………………………………………………………….……………………..93 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ICRC  International Committee of the Red Cross KGB  Committee for State Security (Комитет государственной безопасности) POW  Prisoner of War ROC  Russian Orthodox Church ROCOR Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia USSR  Union of Soviet Socialist Republic 1 INTRODUCTION  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Federation emerged, a country much smaller than any prior iteration of Russia in modern history and with an ideological vacuum looking to be filled. There were many different competing ideas of what could replace the hole left by communism, and many different groups sought to have their ideology come out on top.  One of the key groups that emerged was the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), an organization which traced its history back to the baptism of Rus’ in 988. The ROC sought to push for the tightening relationship between church and state, termed symphonia which, explained further below, envisioned a larger effort to increase the Church’s role in the lives of Russians throughout the country and, more broadly, the world. This goal was outlined in a publication released by the Church in 2000 entitled, “The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.”1 This document, translated here, “reflects the official position of the Moscow Patriarchate on relations with state and secular society,” detailing how all members of the ROC, from bishops down to lay persons, are meant to interact with the world around them.2 1 Refer to this source to see the original Russian document. “ОСНОВЫ СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ КОНЦЕПЦИИ Русской Православной Церкви,” Официальные документы, Патриархия.ru, June 9, 2008, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/419128.html. 2 “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” Background Information, Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, accessed January 23, 2024, http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx#top.   2 One of the sections within the document references how the ROC intends to interact with the media, which it recognizes as having an important role in the 21st century’s social changes and politics. For the Church, this meant not only “co-operation with the secular mass media,” but also the founding of the Church’s “own media means, blessed by the church authorities.”3 In terms of cooperation, the ROC provides “special supplements to newspapers and magazines, special pages, TV and radio series and rubrics, and participating in various forms of public dialogues and debates.”4 Additionally, the ROC participates and/or serves on the board of multiple film festivals, namely the Золотой Витязь [Golden Knight International Film Forum] which recognizes “[духовно-нравственное] кино [moral and spiritual cinema].”5 Alongside these outreach efforts is the Church’s own forms of media which include Orthodox Encyclopedia, a production company founded in 2005, which has released “a number of documentary films” along with a few historical fiction films.6  The films, either recognized by the Golden Knight film festival or produced by Orthodox Encyclopedia, provide key insights into the ideology of the Russian Orthodox Church, going beyond statements made by church leaders or church publications released. In film, arguments are made not simply with words but also through images meant to evoke different feelings and sensations. For the ROC, and more broadly for cinema throughout Eastern Europe, this  3 Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.” 4 Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.” 5 “Международный Кинофорум [International Film Forum],” Международный Кинофорум, Золотой Витязь, accessed January 23, 2024, http://zolotoyvityaz.ru/kinoforum/.  6 Stephen M. Norris, “Blessed Films: The Russian Orthodox Church and Patriotic Culture in the 2000s,” in Iconic Turns: Nation and Religion in Eastern European Cinema since 1989, ed. Liliya Berezhnaya & Christian Schmitt (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 76.   3 recognition of the power of film has led to what Liliya Berezhnaya and Christian Schmitt have termed an “‘iconic turn’…in the form of a renewed cinematic commitment to make sense of the world in religious and/or national terms.”7 The films released as part of this “iconic turn” place a strong emphasis on the connection between religion and nation, and, in the case of Russia, this means close ties between the ROC and the Russian nation.  With the powerful role that the Russian Orthodox Church has in Russian society, it is key then to study the films produced or awarded by the ROC to better understand what message the Church is seeking to promote, both within Russia and more broadly. There are many different films from which one could choose, but those that are analyzed here are two released by Orthodox Encyclopedia, Поп (The Priest) and Орда (The Horde), along with one honored with multiple awards by the Golden Knight film festival, Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror).8 Each of these films focuses on a different region of the post-Soviet sphere: The Priest on the Baltic states, The Horde on Central Asia, and The Conqueror on Ukraine.  In tying Russian Orthodoxy to the Russian nation, the Church has created a clear definition of who is a member of the nation and who is not, and this is obvious in their films. Film outlines “codes of belonging…[which] decide who is part of a (e.g. national) community and who is not” through “semantic structures – like bodily features, knowledge about the past, or insight into some greater truth.”9 In the case of the films used here, there are clear signs used to delineate who is a member of the “in group” and who is a part of the “out group,” and the role of religion is key in defining these groups. Moving between films focused on different parts of the  7 Liliya Berezhnaya and Christian Schmitt, “Introduction,” in Iconic Turns: Nation and Religion in Eastern European Cinema since 1989, ed. Liliya Berezhnaya & Christian Schmitt (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 2.  8 The English title of the film is The Conqueror, but the direct translation from Russian to English is “Taras Bulba”.  9 Berezhnaya and Schmitt, “Introduction,” 13.   4 former Soviet sphere provides a fuller picture of the ROC’s understanding of the Russian nation as closely intertwined with Russian Orthodoxy and who the ROC perceives as enemies of the nation and its religion. Religion connects to the concept of the nation as “the rise of national ideas in the region after 1989 has strongly been determined by the religious dispositions of the populations.”10 National ideas are strengthened by religion due to “direct cultural-symbolic means and references and…by encouraging social responsibility.11” By taking the religious and linking it to the national, “films can for example sacralize the national identity.”12 For the Russian Orthodox Church, this means connecting Church history to the broader history of Russia, showing that the two are so intertwined that it would be impossible for the Russian nation to exist without the Church.  I argue, then, that the message the ROC promotes using these films is that the Russian nation will always prove victorious so long as they are devout practitioners of the Russian Orthodox faith. To be a member of the Russian nation means following the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church, and, without these values, which are portrayed in film, it is impossible to succeed. The Church goes about doing this by taking different historical episodes, sometimes historical fiction and sometimes true events, and revising existing narratives about the past to place both the Church and the Russian nation in a positive light. More specifically, an analysis of the messages communicated in the three films analyzed here will demonstrate that the Church aims to: 1) revise existing historical narratives about the role of Russian Orthodoxy in  10 Berezhnaya and Schmitt, “Introduction,” 11.  11 Miklós Tomka, Expanding Religion: Religious Revival in Post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe, (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Inc., 2011), 188.  12 Berezhnaya and Schmitt, “Introduction,” 17.   5 the past and portray it as the unflagging spiritual anchor and protector of the Russian people; 2) depict the proper relationship to Russian Orthodoxy as unwavering devotion to what is the only true religion. Any Russian who holds possible allegiance to other communities or faiths, viewed as immoral ‘pseudo-religions,’ is on a path towards death/disaster; 3) emphasize that miracles are only possible through absolute devotion to and a willingness to suffer for the Russian Orthodox God.  Historical Background of the Russian Orthodox Church It is necessary to review the history of the Church before taking a deeper dive into the films so as to understand what these films include and exclude and how they are communicating a very specific politicized narrative about the Church, the state, and what it means to be Russian. In this brief historical outline, I will note certain alternative ways of practicing Orthodoxy that get entirely excluded from the monolithic vision of what it means to be Russian Orthodox in these films. I will also note certain ways that certain ethnic or religious groups that the films absorb into Russian Orthodoxy without acknowledging these groups’ distinct sense of identity. This history, while far from exhaustive, provides a background for understanding the alternative ways of understanding what it means to be Russian Orthodox and Russian that these films aim to eclipse.  As previously mentioned, the ROC traces its history back to events leading up to the baptism of Rus’ in 988. In The Russian Primary Chronicles, there are stories which describe how the Slavic people had been in contact with Christianity for centuries, but it was only under Prince Vladimir that the entirety of Kievan Rus’ would convert to Christianity, namely Orthodoxy.13  13 “Marking the 1035th Anniversary of the Christianization of Rus’: The Presidential Library’s Materials Illustrate the Beginning of Christianity in Russia,” News, The Presidential Library, last modified July 28, 2023. https://www.prlib.ru/en/news/1896333. In The Russian Primary Chronicles, usually referred to as The Primary Chronicles or The Tale of Bygone Years and ascribed to the authorship of the monk, Nestor the Chronicler, the claim  6 In the Primary Chronicles, there are four key stories that describe how Prince Vladimir, leader of Kievan Rus’, came to lead the charge in converting the entirety of Kievan Rus’ to Christianity. The first focuses on the arrival of missionaries of Islamic, Western Christian, Jewish, and Eastern Christian religions to Kievan Rus’ and their failure to convert Prince Vladimir. 14 The second describes how Prince Vladimir, on the advice of his boyars and elders, sent out servitors to observe the Volga Bulgars, who practiced Islam, the Germans, who practiced Western Christianity, and the Greeks, who practiced Eastern Christianity. 15 The third and fourth describe Prince Vladimir’s siege of Kherson and marriage to the Byzantine emperor’s sister, Anna, leading to Prince Vladimir’s baptism.16 Following these events, Prince Vladimir and Anna returned to Kyiv where Prince Vladimir “directed that the idols should be overthrown” and dictated that his subjects come to the Dnieper river where they were baptized.17  is made that the apostle Andrew made it to the Black Sea during his ministry.  Following Andrew, it is believed that Saints Cyril and Methodius, who created the Glagolitic alphabet used to transcribe Old Church Slavonic (the language used in religious services), “began their educational activities in Russia.” Furthermore, some of the royals of the Varangian-Russian dynasty along with Princess Olga, Prince Vladimir’s grandmother, are believed to have converted to the Christian faith. 14 The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text, trans. Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953), 96-110.  15 The Russian Primary Chronicle, 110. Upon their return, the servitors described how they were most impressed by what they saw in Constantinople, namely “the sublime church architecture and the beauty of the church service.” They summed up their visit by proclaiming that, during the service, “we knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth.” 16 The Russian Primary Chronicle, 112-110. The Primary Chronicles documented how Prince Vladimir promised to convert to Christianity if he was successful in taking over the city of Kherson. Unsurprisingly, Prince Vladimir was successful in conquering the city. Following this, Prince Vladimir turned his eyes to Constantinople, proclaiming that he would conquer the city unless he was given the Byzantine emperor’s sister in marriage. In response, the Byzantines dictated that Prince Vladimir could only marry Anna if he was baptized. Upon Anna’s arrival in Kherson, she discovered that Prince Vladimir was blind but became healed but became healed following his baptism. 17 The Russian Primary Chronicle, 116-117. This event marks the beginning of the Christianization of Rus’, but other retellings recount other events leading to Prince Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity. These accounts point to economic reasons seeing as the Byzantine Empire was the largest trading partner of Kievan Rus’ or to the influence of Greek missionaries. No matter the reason behind Prince Vladimir’s conversion, it is agreed upon that 988 marks the baptism of Rus’ which remains an important anniversary year in both Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church.  7 Following the baptism of Rus’, the Byzantine patriarch appointed a metropolitan to oversee the emerging Russian Orthodox Church. The metropolitan held his seat in Kyiv until 1299 when the Metropolitan Maxim “transferred his see from Kiev to Vladimir-on-Klyazma.”18 During this time, the lands of the former Kievan Rus’ were ruled by the Mongols as part of their empire, the Golden Horde.  This era of Mongol domination over Russia is portrayed in the film The Horde, with a particular focus on Moscow and its role in freeing Russia from the Mongol yoke. Under the Mongol Empire, the city of Moscow grew in power as leaders “expanded and strengthened their principality, using force and threats, purchasing lands from appanage princes, imposing their governors, and so forth.”19 A key aspect of why Moscow became the most powerful principality over others was that “Moscow acted more pragmatically and rationally, without spending its financial and economic resources on resistance to the Golden Horde.”20 Alongside Moscow’s political prowess, the metropolitan see being moved from Vladimir to Moscow in 1325 under Metropolitan Peter further increased Moscow’s political power as the Church brought its wealth and authority to the city and its leaders.21 From this point on, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church would be based out of Moscow.  From 1448 onwards, the Russian Orthodox Church began to increase its power within the broader world of Orthodoxy and in 1453, the Byzantine Empire fell, bringing Constantinople, the  18 Marat Shaikhutdinov, Between East and West: The Formation of the Moscow State (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2021), 59.  19 Shaikhutdinov, Between East and West, 71.  20 Shaikhutdinov, Between East and West, 72.  21 Michael C. Paul, “Continuity and Change in the Novgorodian Archiepiscopal Office, 1478-1589,” Orientalia christiana periodica 75, no. 2 (2009):   8 seat of the Orthodox patriarch, under the control of the Ottomans, and opening a door for the Russian Orthodox Church to grow its power. With the fall of Constantinople, considered in Orthodoxy to be the “Second Rome,” a vacuum was left and many within the state of Muscovy (which would later become Russia) came to believe “that the legitimacy of the Byzantine Empire vested into the new ‘Third Rome’, i.e. Moscow.”22 This new status was further affirmed by the metropolitan receiving the title of patriarch in 1589,23 recognizing efforts on the part of the Russian tsars, beginning with Ivan IV, “to elevate Moscow’s standing within both Russia and Christendom.”24  However, this change in title “did not translate into actual primacy in the Orthodox world” as the Patriarch in Constantinople continued to be recognized “as the leading authority…[and] continued to appoint metropolitans for the territory of modern Ukraine and Belarus.”25 To assert dominance within the Orthodox sphere, the Russian Orthodox Church “declared its independence from Constantinople” in 1589 and the Patriarch adopted the title of Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus’ rather than Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus, signaling  “that Moscow was seeking to displace Kyiv as the center of the East Slavic Orthodox world.”26  22 Antoni Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia.” Elpis no. 19 (December 2017): 23.  23 Glenn E. Curtis, ed., “Religion,” in Russia - The Russian Orthodox Church, 1st ed. (Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996), 204, https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/ru/russiacountrystu00curt/russiacountrystu00curt.pdf. 24 Peter T. De Simone, “Introduction,” in The Old Believers in Imperial Russia: Oppression, Opportunism and Religious Identity in Tsarist Moscow (London, UNITED KINGDOM: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2018), 12. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unc/detail.action?docID=5739287. 25 Jeffrey Mankoff, “The Orthodox Schism in the Shadow of Empire,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 19, 2018, https://www.csis.org/analysis/orthodox-schism-shadow-empire. 26 Mankoff, “The Orthodox Schism,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/orthodox-schism-shadow-empire.  9 Nevertheless, the relationship between the ROC and the state continued to reflect the traditions of the former Byzantine Empire in which the emperor and government bureaucrats were authorized “to participate actively in the church’s administrative affairs.”27 These traditions were linked to the belief “that the state was necessary for salvation just as the Orthodox Church, while the close ties between the state and the Church symbolised God’s covenant with people.”28  In 1547, when Ivan IV (the Terrible) was crowned tsar, this belief was affirmed when “the abbot of the Volokolamsky monastery Josef…declared that the Orthodox Church and the state should unite in making the Kingdom of God come true in the earth.”29 This mandate to unite church and state tied into the larger idea of Moscow as the “Third Rome” and helped to establish a national destiny off of which the Russian nation was built.30 Tsars used this narrative throughout the time of the Russian Empire to justify expansion, claiming that it was “a God-mandated duty for Russia to gather smaller peoples under its benevolent wings.”31 The ideology of the “Third Rome” and the responsibility that comes with it are currently being revived by the Vladimir Putin regime to justify conservative policies and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  After the death of Ivan the Terrible, Russia entered into the Time of Troubles, “a period of religious and political turmoil” that only ended with the crowning of a new tsar, Mikhail Romanov. This began the Romanov dynasty that lasted until 1917.32 With this political transition  27 Curtis, “Religion,” 204. 28 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 23.  29 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 23. 30 Michael Rywkin, “Russia: Mythology in the Service of Realpolitik,” American Foreign Policy Interests 36, no. 3 (2014): 197.  31 Rywkin, “Russia: Mythology in the Service of Realpolitik,” 197.  32 De Simone, “Introduction,” 13.   10 to a new tsar came religious transition as the patriarch, Nikon, “focused on bringing the Russian Orthodox Church into ritualistic and liturgical conformity with the seventeenth century Greek Church practices.”33 In doing so, Patriarch Nikon upset many believers who saw his reforms “as foreign violations of Russian Orthodoxy” and believed that “conformity with contemporary Greek Orthodox rituals invalidated any sense of a spiritual destiny for Russia and its people.”34 These believers soon split off to form a group that came to be called the Old Believers who “appeared not only as competition to the Russian Church, but also as an alternative culture set to define both Orthodoxy and Russianness itself.”35 Because of the challenge they posed to the Church and the state, the Old Believers were targeted for persecution. Despite this, the Old Believers managed to persist and continue practicing their faith under the noses of the Church and state. Their example, which continues to this day, shows that there were and are other ways to practice Russian Orthodoxy outside of the form that is currently sanctioned by the Russian state and Church. When Peter I became tsar of Russia, he began a series of far-reaching reforms across Russia in an attempt to modernize the country and bring it in line with its European counterparts. In 1685, Peter I incorporated the metropolitanate of Kyiv under the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church “without the approval of Constantinople;” the Patriarch reluctantly approved this incorporation shortly afterwards.36 This move tied into Peter I’s aim of “‘gathering the lands of Rus’” to establish the Russian Empire as it brought Ukrainian believers further under the  33 De Simone, “Introduction,” 13.  34 De Simone, “Introduction,” 13.  35 De Simone, “Introduction,” 14.  36 Mankoff, “The Orthodox Schism,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/orthodox-schism-shadow-empire.  11 control of his new imperial government.37 The film, The Conqueror, follows this narrative established by Peter I as it unites Ukraine and Russia into one land, Russia, that leaves no space for a separate Ukraine to exist.  Along with bringing the Ukrainian metropolitanate under Russian Orthodox control, Peter I reformed the structure of Church leadership to bring the Church itself under the control of the state. Following the patriarch’s death in 1700, Peter I “obstructed the election of his [the patriarch’s] successor,” a sign of what was to come as Peter I later “abolished the patriarchate and replaced it with the institution of the Holy Synod, whose members were appointed by itself.”38 And, if this was not change enough, Peter I also had the Holy Synod “governed by a layman.”39 This change in church governance undercut the power of the ROC, putting it fully under the control of the state.  The Holy Synod would persist until World War I when, in the upheaval all across Russia, the Church would reestablish the patriarchate.  The Holy Synod placed the Church under the control of the state which meant that the ROC became a tool of the state to grow Russian power. Under Alexander I, “the ideology of an Orthodox state based on a symbiosis of ‘Orthodoxy, absolutism, and nationality’” emerged which, under Count Sergei Uvarov, one of Tsar Nicholas I’s ministers, became “Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality.”40 According to Uvarov, this trinity represented “‘the principles which form the distinctive character of Russia, and which belong only to Russia.”41 While this  37 Mankoff, “The Orthodox Schism,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/orthodox-schism-shadow-empire. 38 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 24.  39 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 24. 40 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 25.  41 Paul Robinson, Russian Conservatism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2019), 74.   12 ideology was particularly prominent under Emperor Nicholas I, there have been questions as to whether there has been a return to this under Putin. Following the death of Emperor Nicholas I, Russia began going through a series of reforms and upheavals that would eventually culminate in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Under Emperor Alexander II, in 1862, the serfs were emancipated and “the army, judiciary and state administration” reformed.42 These reforms were weakened under Emperor Alexander III, but he did support “the development of capitalist social reforms.”43 During this time, Church leadership “recultivated the ideas of the Church’s independence of the state,” but they remained unsuccessful in freeing the ROC from the state’s yoke.44  The beginning of the 20th century saw a series of further reforms in attempts to quell political and social unrest that had been simmering since the mid-to-late 1800s. Japan’s defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War and Bloody Sunday sparked a series of protests, now referred to as the 1905 Revolution, which forced Emperor Nicholas II to implement political reforms. The “October Manifesto of 1905” detailed these reforms which “introduced religious toleration, extended the scope of civil freedoms, limited censorship and established a surrogate of the Parliament, the State Duma.”45 During this period, the Church again renewed its calls for independence from the state, going so far as “to convene the Synod” to look into “reforming the  42 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 25 43 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 25 44 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 25 45 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 26.   13 Orthodox Church and determining its position in the state.”46 This laid the groundwork for what was to come in 1917 when the emperor was toppled and a provisional government established.  With the start of World War I and the defeat of Russian forces throughout much of the war, unrest again bubbled to the surface, leading first to the February Revolution and later the infamous October Revolution in 1917. During this time, the Orthodox Church remained supportive of the tsar but also used the opportunity “to restore the canonical electability of bishops and reactivate the patriarchate.”47 This was the first time since Peter I that there was again a patriarch, but this role was repressed or under Soviet control throughout much of the 20th century.   Following the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War and the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922-1923, the Church underwent a period of repression as the Soviets preached the message of atheism. Under these first few years, the Soviet Union “nationalized all church property…[and] twenty-eight Russian Orthodox bishops and more than 1,200 priests were executed, and many others were persecuted.”48 Churches across the country were converted into museums, theaters, clubhouses or were simply destroyed. During the reign of Joseph Stalin, there were “surges and declines in arrests, enforcement of laws against religious assembly and activities, and harassment of clergy.”49 It will come as no surprise, then, to hear that the ROC  46 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 26.  47 Mironowicz, “The Orthodox Church in Tsarist Russia,” 26.  48 Curtis, “Religion,” 206.  49 Curtis, “Religion,” 206.   14 shrunk immensely during this time, and, in 1940, “only about 500 Russian Orthodox parishes were open.”50  During these first few years of unrest and upheaval, many Russian Orthodox priests and believers emigrated abroad, leading to a need to establish a new ecclesiastical community that could act as these emigres’ new spiritual home. Émigré and evacuee church leaders decided to establish the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) to address this issue. The Soviet government sought to discredit the ROCOR, ordering the Patriarch to suspend “the activities of the clergy abroad,’” but the ROCOR responded by decreeing that they “‘must cease administrative contacts with the Moscow Church authority, in view of the impossibility of normal relations with it and as a result of its enslavement by the godless Soviet state.’”51 From this point until 1991, the ROCOR “considered itself the representative of the free part of the Russian Church”52 and evolved into “an independent institution that, in addition to acting as a staunch voice against the depredations of Godless communism in Russia and elsewhere, stood poised to lead ‘traditionalist’ Orthodox movements worldwide.”53 Once again, just as the Old Believers showed that there it was possible to practice Russian Orthodoxy outside of the Church/state-sanctioned way, so too did the ROCOR by establishing its own Church that did not recognize Soviet authority.   50 Curtis, “Religion,” 207.  51 Protopriest Sergii Shchukin, “A Brief History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia , 1922-1972,” The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, 1972, https://www.synod.com/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocorshukin.html. 52 Shchukin, “A Brief History.” 53 Irina du Quenoy, “An Unlikely Reconciliation: The Path of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia toward Canonical Union with the Moscow Patriarchate,” Acta Slavica Iaponica, no. 42 (2021): 1–22.  15 Restrictions on the Russian Orthodox Church within Russia were eased after the start of World War II as Stalin recognized that the Church would be a good ally to rally the people to fight for the Soviet Union. During this time, the number of parishes grew, due to the reopening of churches in the USSR but also due to the Nazis’ act of reopening churches in occupied Soviet territory as part of a propaganda bid to draw the Soviet people to support the Nazi cause. These efforts on the part of the Nazis and the Church to reopen churches are an integral part of one of the films, The Priest, as this period is a controversial but important time in Church history. There are those who accused the Church of collaborating with the Nazis to reopen the churches while others justify the Church’s actions by arguing that it was to benefit the Russian people. No matter with which argument one agrees, World War II is still acknowledged as a pivotal time in Church history led to a revival of Russian Orthodoxy in the western parts of the Soviet Union.   Moreover, as the Soviets began moving westward and incorporating territory from Ukraine and the Baltics into the USSR, the churches there, including churches that were part of the ROCOR, fell under Soviet control, further increasing the numbers of churches in Soviet territory. Following the end of World War II, these newly incorporated churches were allowed to remain open as an attempt to placate new Soviet citizens.54 The numbers of Russian Orthodox churches were further increased as some of the ROCOR churches rejoined the ROC and Stalin subsumed the Greek-Catholic Church within the ROC as the Soviets considered the ROC to be “an instrument of Russification” in the government’s efforts to incorporate these new citizens.55   54 Nathaniel Davis, A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of russian Orthodoxy (Boulder: Westview Press, 2003).  55 Davis, A Long Walk to Church, 24.   16 Soviet leaders’ treatment of the ROC as politically useful persisted throughout the rest of the Soviet period, even as Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev stepped up repression against the Church. The ROC was “sometimes infiltrated by agents of the Committee for State Security,” leading some to view the ROC as tainted, particularly when “the church espoused and propagated Soviet foreign policy.”56 Nevertheless, as part of the liberalization of the Khrushchev era, there emerged “a natural curiosity about the Russian past…[T]he ceremonies and art forms of the Russian Orthodox Church, an inseparable part of the past, attracted particular attention.”57 This interest in Church history on the part of everyday people continued throughout the Brezhnev period and into the Gorbachev period during which the ROC began to emerge in force once again. Under Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, referred to as perestroika and glasnost or restructuring and openness, the ROC saw a rise in status which reached its apex in 1988. In 1988, the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus’ was celebrated, with Gorbachev allowing events surrounding the celebration to be aired on television. Furthermore he “met with Orthodox leaders and explicitly discussed the role of religion in the lives of their followers.”58 These actions, along with the return of church buildings that had been seized by the state to the ROC, pointed towards a change in religious policy in the Soviet Union. These changes were further affirmed by laws passed which “specified the church’s right to hold private property and to distribute publications.”59 These reforms were part of a broader attempt by Gorbachev to reform the Soviet  56 Curtis, “Religion,” 207.  57 Curtis, “Religion,” 208.  58 Curtis, “Religion,” 208.  59 Curtis, “Religion,” 208.   17 Union, but these reforms also helped lay the groundwork for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In the rubble of the Soviet Union, as mentioned at the beginning, there was an ideological vacuum left which many groups, including the ROC, attempted to fill. Throughout the 1990s, Boris Yeltsin’s government began returning “numerous religious facilities that had been confiscated by its Russian predecessors, providing some assistance in the repair and reconstruction of damaged structures.”60 In 1990, a new patriarch, Aleksy II, was appointed, and he sought to strengthen the influence of the ROC both within Russia and around the world. Under his reign, the ROCOR rejoined the ROC, increasing the Church’s influence internationally and strengthening its numbers, particularly after the Greek-Catholic Church split off.61 Under Patriarch Aleksy II, “the church’s social services also expanded considerably with the creation of departments of charity and social services and of catechism and religious education within the patriarchy.”62 Along with serving civilians, the ROC, in another bid to increase influence, “provides for pastoral care of military service personnel of the Orthodox faith” as part of an agreement with “the national ministries of defense and internal affairs.”63  Mentioned above, during Patriarch Aleksy II’s tenure as patriarch, “The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” was published, detailing the role of the Church and its adherents in both modern-day Russia and the world as a whole. Within this document, the Church provides a definition of the Russian nation, using the Russian word нация [nation] to do  60 Curtis, “Religion,” 209.  61 The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia formed after the Russian Civil War by clergy and laypeople who fled the Bolsheviks and rejected the Moscow Patriarchate’s authority.  62 Curtis, “Religion,” 209.  63 Curtis, “Religion,” 209.   18 so, and proclaiming that “to be a member of the new nation…means being faithful to church and state.”64 In this new nation, “the main role the church desires…is that of nation builder, openly asking for collaboration with the state on issues of spiritual and patriotic matters.”65 This request for collaboration is meant to hearken back “to the Byzantine symphony of powers” or symphonia (mentioned above).66 Symphonia is defined as “secular and ecclesial power working together toward common goals” but, in reality, is viewed by the ROC as “efforts to make all state policy conform to Christian standards.”67 These efforts at both symphonia and nation-building can be seen above as the ROC partners with government ministries and forms social service organizations as an outreach effort to the Russian people. The Church also partners with the state on cultural matters, and key here is its relationship with the media. As described above, the Church provides materials to the secular media as part of its “educational, tutorial, and social missions,” but “the church also has its own media outlets, which are blessed by church authorities.”68 Orthodox Encyclopedia is one of these outlets, and it was started under the reign of Patriarch Aleksy II, who went so far as to commission the first fictional film to be produced by the company. It is clear, then, that under  64 Norris, “Blessed Films,” 76.  65 Norris, “Blessed Films,” 76.  66 Galina V. Lukyanova. “Framing Russian Orthodox Church: How Russian State-Owned Media Covered the Church/Religion.” Romanian Journal of Journalism & Communication / Revista Română de Jurnalism Şi Comunicare- RRJC 10, no. 3 (July 2015): 26. https://search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=110910699&site=ehost-live&scope=site.  67 Sonja Luehrmann, “Irina Papkova, The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics,” History of Religions 52, no. 4 (2013): 426–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/669656.  68 Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.”  19 Patriarch Aleksy II, the ROC has expanded in numbers and in influence, both within Russia and internationally.  The current patriarch, Patriarch Kirill, was appointed in 2009, and his reign has seen a further tightening in the relationship between church and state. Prior to Patriarch Kirill’s election, it was clear that he harbored conservative values as seen by an article published in 2000 which detailed his belief that the biggest issue facing the world today is «это противостояние либеральных цивилизационных стандартов, с одной стороны, и ценностей национальной культурно-религиозной идентичности - с другой [the confrontation between liberal civilizational standards, on the one hand, and the values of national cultural-religious identity on the other].»69 In the days leading up to his election, Patriarch Kirill traveled across Russia and visited conservative-leaning monasteries in what critics described as an effort to campaign to become the next patriarch.70 Following his election, it was not immediately clear that the new Patriarch would partner the Church so closely with the Kremlin, particularly after the Patriarch criticized the 2011 parliamentary elections as fraudulent and stated “that it would be ‘a very bad sign’ if the Kremlin did not pay attention.”71 Quickly following this, news reports began to surface which described “luxurious apartments owned by Kirill and his family…of billions of dollars in secret bank accounts, Swiss chalets and yachts,” and these reports were “interpreted by Kirill as a message from the Kremlin not to cross the state.”72 From that point onwards, Patriarch  69 Митрополит Смоленский, “Норма веры как норма жизни,” Независимая, February 16, 2000, https://web.archive.org/web/20220123214342/https://www.ng.ru/ideas/2000-02-16/8_norma.html?print=Y&utm_source=amp_eskimobi&utm_campaign=amp_organic&utm_medium=organic. 70 Jason Horowitz, “The Russian Orthodox Leader at the Core of Putin’s Ambitions,” The New York Times, May 21, 2022, sec. World, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/world/europe/kirill-putin-russian-orthodox-church.html. 71 Horowitz, “The Russian Orthodox Leader.”  72 Horowitz, “The Russian Orthodox Leader.”  20 Kirill has worked to closely align the Church with the state which has proved to benefit both groups.73 The ROC’s “public activity has been increasingly focused on the implementation of state policy. In return, it encounters support from the authorities in matters of its public presence.”74 The Church, as part of its effort to promote state policy, has supported the Putin government in both the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In particular, in 2022, Patriarch Kirill has “repeatedly spoke in support of the war, called for obedience to the president, and encouraged the fight, promising eternal life in heaven for Russian soldiers who died in Ukraine.”75 In turn, the Church has received “tens of billions of dollars to reconstruct churches and state financing for religious schools.” The Kremlin has adopted the Church interests into their agenda, promoting “traditional values” “and how ‘Russian society needs to rise again to grandeur.’”76 The state underscored its support for the Church’s traditional values by arresting and charging Pussy Riot, a Russian feminist punk rock group, after their performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and by amending the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to include “the concept of insulting the feelings of believers” as a crime.77 In terms of the media, the ROC has made itself a “permanent presence on the media scene.”78 A study conducted between 2014-2015 found that, during this time period, state- 73 Horowitz, “The Russian Orthodox Leader.”  74 Marcin Skladanowski and Cezary Smuniewski. “The Secularism of Putin’s Russia and Patriarch Kirill’s Church: The Russian Model of State–Church Relations and Its Social Reception,” Religions 14, no. 119 (2023): 119.  75 Skladanowski and Smuniewski. “The Secularism of Putin’s Russia and Patriarch Kirill’s Church,” 119.  76 Horowitz, “The Russian Orthodox Leader.”  77 Skladanowski and Smuniewski. “The Secularism of Putin’s Russia and Patriarch Kirill’s Church,” 119. 78 Lukyanova, “Framing Russian Orthodox Church,” 30.   21 sponsored media, when covering the ROC, only presented stories that “were positive or neutral” which were framed “with the claim that Orthodoxy was the foundation of [sic] country’s unity and Russian identity.”79 The argument made by the media in relation to Orthodoxy is that “Russia only retains its greatness as the state on the basis of Orthodox spiritual values and support of Orthodoxy as the traditional religion.”80 This argument can be applied to the publications being released by the Russian Orthodox Church which emphasize this strong connection between church and state. On television, viewers in both Russia and the post-Soviet sphere can watch “SPAS,” the ROC’s television channel, and, internationally, viewers from 190 different countries can tune into “the weekly TV program The Word of the Pastor” broadcast on Channel One.81 Programs aired on SPAS align neatly with the messages being put out by the state with documentaries like “Украина. Обыкновенный нацизм [Ukraine. Ordinary Nazism]” being aired multiple times a week and even multiple times per day.82 The Word of the Pastor broadcasts services conducted by Patriarch Kirill on a weekly basis, and as mentioned previously, his sermons and speeches fall in line with Kremlin messaging. It is the Church’s films, rather than its television programs, that are of particular importance here as film plays a key role in how the Church spreads its message. Returning to the beginning of this introduction, there has been an “iconic turn” in Eastern European films as  79 Lukyanova, “Framing Russian Orthodox Church,” 30-31.  80 Lukyanova, “Framing Russian Orthodox Church,” 31.  81 Gaziza Shakhanova and Petr Kratochvíl, “The Patriotic Turn in Russia: Political Convergence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the State?” Politics and Religion 15, no. 1 (2022): 115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048320000620. 82 This airing of “Украина. Обыкновенный нацизм [Ukraine. Ordinary Nazism] applies to the week of January 29-February 4, 2024.   22 “cinema is one of the social sites where nation and religion meet, where the relation of nation and religion is negotiated.”83 The ROC has helped to guide this turn, using “The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church” as their guide. The films studied here, The Conqueror, The Priest, and The Horde, all play a part in achieving the Church’s “educational, tutorial and social and peacemaking mission.”84 Their part, I argue, is to promote the idea of the connectedness of the ROC and the Russian nation, and that it is impossible for the Russian nation to succeed without Russian Orthodoxy. This is done through the revision of historical events, whether they be historical fiction or real, to present both the Church and the Russian nation in a positive light. Using film reviews, statements made by clergy regarding the films, and scholarly articles, I analyze each of the three pieces in their own chapter, working in chronological order by release date. The first chapter focuses on The Conqueror (2009), based on the novel Taras Bulba by renowned Russian author (of Ukrainian origin) Nikolai Gogol. In this chapter, I analyze the portrayal of the Russian Orthodox nation, which includes under its umbrella both Ukraine and the Cossacks, the Polish Catholic nation, which stands in as a representation of the West, and, lastly, the Jewish nation. The second chapter looks at The Priest, also released in 2009, and based off of the memoirs of a priest who served under the Nazi occupation in the Baltics. The nations studied here are, of course, the Russian Orthodox nation, the German Protestant nation, which represents the West, and, to a lesser extent, the Jewish nation. The third chapter explores The Horde, released in 2012, and based off of a story in the history of Saint Aleksii,  83 Berezhnaya and Schmitt, Iconic Turns, 2.  84 Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.”  23 Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus’, in which Metropolitan Aleksii healed the mother of the Mongol khan. Within this chapter, I review the portrayal of the Russian Orthodox nation and the Mongol multifaith nation, meant to represent the East. Each film studied here is set in a different part of the former Soviet Union, enabling a better understanding of the ROC’s definition of the Russian Orthodox nation, who is and is not a part of this nation, and exactly why the Russian Orthodox nation always proves victorious.  24 CHAPTER ONE: THE CONQUEROR (OF UKRAINE AND THE WEST)  Released in 2009, The Conqueror is based on Nikolai Gogol’s novel, Taras Bulba, which was meant to serve as an epic for the Russian nation. The history of the book, however, complicates this narrative as there are two substantively different versions of the book. The first one, published in 1835, had a distinct Ukrainian flavor. In this original version, included in a collection of stories meant to describe “a specific Ukraine of the past,” the Cossacks are not described as having any particular faith and do not have ties to the Russian Empire.85 During Gogol’s time, Cossacks were a key part of Ukrainian history and folk songs, particularly the idea of “the Cossack male warriors’ military feats and the Cossack women’s unhappy life.”86 The Ukrainian Cossacks are in juxtaposition with the enemies in the story, the Poles, who are portrayed using “a simple treatment of the enemy as evil.”87 This original version is based off of “an oversimplified clear-cut division between two cultures” and is not meant to serve as an epic but merely an evocation of the past.88 All of this changes, though, in Gogol’s revised, republished and better known version from 1842. In this newer edition, the Cossacks have “completely internalize[d] a form of the Russian identity,” using the ethnically charged term “русский [Russian]” to describe  85 Saera Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack into a Russian Warrior: Gogol’s 1842 ‘Taras Bulba’,” The Slavic and East European Journal 49, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 431. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20058302.  86 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 440.  87 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 432.  88 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 441.  25 themselves.89 The Cossacks, alongside their new ethnic identity, are given a new religious identity, Russian Orthodoxy, which is linked to the larger idea of “Russianness.” They no longer live in a world that lacks ties to Russia, but in a world “inhabited by those who speak Russian and who fight for the cause of Russian Orthodoxy.”90 This fight is still against the Poles, but, in this version, Poland represents the West and its values, including Catholicism.  By having the Cossacks identify as Russian and the Poles stand in as the West, Gogol has entered the book into the age-old argument of Russia versus the West.91 Russian Orthodoxy is pitted against Catholicism, and Russian values are pitted against Polish values. No longer is the battle simply between good versus evil; the battle is now between two clearly defined civilizations. For Gogol, it is clear that Russian values will prove victorious, as the story ends with Taras Bulba prophesying “Russia’s glorious future” with no force able to stop it.92 The director and screenwriter of The Conqueror, Vladimir Bortko, uses the second version of Gogol’s novel, taking the story and adding imagery to create a visual Russian epic. In choosing this second version, Bortko has chosen a different version of history just as Gogol did. Since the early nineteenth century, the Cossacks have been glorified as Ukrainian heroes who are characterized as fighting “against Russian tsarist rule” and who were “downplayed in Soviet historiography due to fears that it might incite nationalistic and separatist feelings among  89 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 431. This term has the connotation that one is a member of the Russian nation while the term “российский [Russian]” has the meaning of belonging to the Russian state. 90 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 441. 91 In the 19th century, a debate emerged between intellectual groups on what the future path of Russia should look like. Those who pushed for a future that followed the path of Western Europe were referred to as Westernizers while those who thought Russia had a unique path to modernization were deemed Slavophiles. This debate over Russia’s path has continued until the present day.  92 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 438.   26 Ukrainians.”93 In choosing to associate the Cossacks with the Russians rather than with the Ukrainians, Gogol sought to appease his benefactors, who were Russian and wanted a Russian epic, while also emphasizing his own ideological change when “his sympathy for Catholicism ended” and he came to view Poland and Catholicism as “radically antithetical to Russia.”94 Bortko also had the same pressure from benefactors, namely the Russian Ministry of Culture, to create a visual Russian epic of the story. More importantly, though, he created a film that emphasized not only the Poles as antithetical to Russia but that 21st century members of the Slavic nation had turned away from Russia and the Russian Orthodox faith towards the West, thus betraying their nation and their faith. It is a rewriting of Gogol’s second version, projecting modern-day concerns of both the Church and the Kremlin onto a nineteenth century story.  To create the divide between the Cossacks, who are referred to as Russians and Ukrainians interchangeably, and the Poles, Bortko uses religion. The Cossacks practice Russian Orthodoxy while the Poles practice Catholicism, and these faiths are inlaid with different values that further stand in opposition to one another. For the Cossacks, these values “take a masculine tinge of duty, bravery, and strength”95 while, for the Poles, their values take a “feminine, decadent and weak” tone.96  The ROC, in recognizing this film, has thus rewarded the values represented by Cossacks, showing Russian Orthodox people what it means to be a “good Russian Orthodox  93 Tetyana Bureychak and Olena Petrenko, “Heroic Masculinity in Post-Soviet Ukraine: Cossacks, UPA and ‘Svoboda,’” East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies 2, no. 2 (September 8, 2015): 6, https://doi.org/10.21226/T2988X. 94 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 433.  95 Ian Appleby, “Vladimir Bortko: Taras Bul’ba (2009),” Kinokultura 26 (2009). https://www.kinokultura.com/2009/26r-bulba-ia.shtml.  96 Appleby, “Vladimir Bortko.”  27 Christian.” In turn, the Church has shown disapproval for the values which the Poles represent, telling Russian Orthodox Christians how not to behave. This discrepancy in values between the Cossacks and the Poles lays the groundwork for the battle that is to come between these two nations in the film. The ROC also rewards Bortko for his reworking of this novel in which there is further emphasis on the victory of the Russian nation so long as they are devout followers of Russian Orthodox Christianity. Working scene by scene, the distinction between Cossack and Polish values, and which the Church promotes, becomes obvious.  While Gogol’s novel starts off with Taras Bulba welcoming his sons home, Bortko, already rewriting the narrative from the first moment, starts the film off with Taras Bulba giving a speech to the Cossacks before they enter battle against the Poles. This speech emphasizes the idea of brotherhood, fostered by God-given love, that solely exists on Russian land. The concept of brotherhood (and the betrayal of it) is a common theme throughout the film as it embodies the aforementioned values of duty and masculinity which the Cossack represents.  In this speech, the importance of brotherhood goes beyond the Cossacks to include the Russian Orthodox world as a whole. Taras Bulba describes how Polish Catholic values have tainted those who could have been or once were part of the Russian Orthodox nation, implying that this brotherhood could have once included these individuals. He ends the speech by arguing that those who have rejected Russian Orthodoxy still do have a Russian heart inside them which will one day stir again. When this happens, according to Taras Bulba, these men will attempt to repent their sins and rejoin the Russian Orthodox community. He does not use the word “Cossack” to describe the hearts of these men nor their brotherhood but instead the word “Russian” to encompass all of the Russian Orthodox world.    28 Bortko then returns to the narrative as written in Gogol’s novel in which Taras Bulba welcomes his two sons, Ostap and Andrii, home. Ostap and Andrii have been off studying at a monastery in Kyiv, and they return wearing the robes of a monk. Taras Bulba mocks them, asking how one is to run in such clothes to which Ostap, the older son, replies by challenging him with a fight. While Taras Bulba wins the fight, he praises Ostap, declaring that “he’ll make a good Cossack.”97 Andrii, on the other hand, is shown giving his mother a hug and refusing to fight. Taras Bulba responds to this by telling Andrii not to listen to his mother and to not give in to the mother’s pampering.  The two brothers are meant to be compared to one another as Ostap and Andrii will come to represent the Cossack and Polish nations respectively. When the viewer first meets Andrii, it is immediately clear that he does not possess the values of a “good Cossack” like his brother. Andrii is shown as a feminine and weak character, standing alongside his mother and unwilling to fight his father. Ostap, on the other hand, has his father’s stamp of approval by his demonstration of bravery and strength in challenging his father to fight. In this scene, viewers encounter the second instance of Cossack values, particularly masculinity and strength, being pitted against Polish values, femininity and cowardice. While it has not been revealed yet that Andrii will betray the Cossacks for the Poles, this scene foreshadows that by tipping the viewer off that Andrii does not fit in this Cossack world, defined by ideas of masculinity and Russian Orthodoxy.  Although it is his sons’ first night home, Taras Bulba declares that all three are going to travel to the Sich, the Cossack capital, where his sons will find true knowledge and wisdom.  97 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), directed by Vladimir Bortko (Moscow, Central Partnership, 2009), 0:07:03. https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/play/218731/RESOLVE?returnUrl=%252F.   29 Taras Bulba makes it clear that the true purpose of a Cossack is to be among other Cossacks, again emphasizing the idea of brotherhood. His place is not at his homestead, where he serves as a farmer and husband, but rather the Sich, where he serves as a Cossack warrior, reiterating the ideas of bravery and strength. These values of brotherhood, bravery, and strength are the true knowledge and wisdom that Ostap and Andrii can only find at the capital of Cossackdom, the Sich. In the world of the movie, it is impossible to find these values outside of the Sich and/or Russia more broadly, and thus it is impossible for the Poles to have these values.  The narrator, during this sequence of scenes, defines Cossackdom as “a free, wild manifestation of Russian nature. A most remarkable expression of Russian strength.”98 This definition highlights the Cossack value of strength and makes clear that the Cossacks are irrevocably tied to the Russian nation. Taras Bulba is portrayed in these scenes (and throughout the movie) as the epitome of that Russian nature. He is shown wielding a sword, representing his masculinity and strength and preparing for the journey to the Sich, a location defined by masculinity and brotherhood. Moreover, the Sich is from where this Russian nature (and its values) springs, and the journey to it stands as a pilgrimage to fulfill this Russian nature. Viewing the narration and scene as one, it is clear that Bortko is arguing that Taras Bulba, and Cossackdom more broadly, cannot be connected to any nation other than Russia and the values which are part of this Russian nature.  While everyone else is resting before the journey to the Sich, Andrii is shown thinking back to an encounter with a Polish woman, Elzhbeta, while studying in Kyiv. Unlike his father, who is practicing his swordsmanship, Andrii is again portrayed as weak and, furthermore, decadent, indulging in fantasies of romance. In the flashback, Andrii, who is alone, spots  98 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:11:13-0:11:22.  30 Elzhbeta and immediately is taken by her beauty. She laughs at him, which is taken by him to be emasculating, and he attempts to rectify this by trying to stop a wagon rolling by and fails. Despite this, Andrii has been unable to forget about Elzhbeta and clearly still continues to think about her. Above all, though, Andrii’s flashback contains multiple representations of non-Cossack values, namely weakness, decadence, femininity, and individuality. He again is shown as not a “good Cossack,” in that he would rather think back on his encounter with a woman, and a Polish woman at that, than rest and prepare for the journey to the heart of Cossackdom.  While on the way to the Sich, Taras Bulba recounts the birth of his younger son, Andrii, which occurred in the same plains which the trio are now crossing. In this scene, the mother is never fully shown, and only her screams are heard. This imagery “alludes to Gogol’s implication that the Cossacks were an eternal nation, new individuals apparently spontaneously generated out of the steppe.”99 By not showing the mother, it looks as though women are not necessary in the birth of a Cossack but rather the wild Russian nature (literally, in this case) invoked earlier by the narrator. Moreover, this lack of a mother emphasizes that femininity has no place in the world of the Cossacks. In the film, childbirth is the epitome of femininity in that it is a feat which only women can perform, which means that it cannot be shown.  What is shown instead is Taras Bulba carrying the baby to the river and baptizing him under Ostap’s watchful eyes. This baptism invokes the idea that “Andrii, then, is symbolically born from the river and steppe.”100 In this scene, Andrii is shown entering into both a mortal world, defined by the wild Russian nature (literally and figuratively), and an eternal world, as he is baptized into the Russian Orthodox faith. These two are intimately connected as the values of  99 Appleby, “Vladimir Bortko.”  100 Appleby, “Vladimir Bortko.”  31 the Russian nature are defined by Russian Orthodoxy. In baptism, the two worlds become one as the water of the Russian nature is used to baptize into Russian Orthodoxy. Andrii, in this moment, is shown as becoming part of the mortal and eternal worlds to which his father and older brother belong. His later betrayal will include a rejection of both of these worlds, causing his death both literally and spiritually.  Upon arriving at the Sich, the narrator describes the capital as a place from “whence poured forth liberty and the Cossacks, all over Ukraine,” a place in which solely men can exist, and a place where individualism is forgotten in favor of joining the group.101 As the scene cuts from one part of the Sich to another, all of the different values of Russian Cossackdom are shown. A Russian Orthodox church looms over the entire city, representing the men’s devotion to the faith. As well, there is masculinity in that only men live and work here, strength and bravery in men training for battle, and, lastly, duty as the Cossacks enact justice on their own.  This final point is key as the following scene shows how Cossack society functions, by establishing an equality in brotherhood that makes individuals interchangeable. The Cossacks are shown carrying a coffin containing a murdered Cossack and dragging the murderer, another Cossack, along behind it. The Cossack murderer is then laid into the gravesite, covered by the coffin, and buried alive. Just as any Cossack can grant freedom, so too can any Cossack grant death. In this granting of death, though, is the recognition of just versus unjust killing. By murdering another Cossack, the murderer has performed an unjust killing. Having betrayed the brotherhood, he must now reap the consequences. While the Cossacks who punish the murderer recognize that justice must be served, they are still bothered by the killing one of their own, underscoring this idea of brotherhood. This does not stop them, though, from enacting justice as  101 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:18:56-0:19:33.   32 it is the duty of the Cossacks to ensure their brotherhood is strong and thriving. There is no formal judge or jury present to deem the murderer guilty. Instead, the Cossacks themselves serve as judge, jury, and executioner, and anyone can serve in that position, reiterating the equality among members of this community.   The two scenes that follow lay out the breach that exists between Ostap and Andrii, namely in their understanding of what it means to be a Cossack. Andrii questions the act of justice against the murderer, asking Ostap whether the Cossack murderer’s death would be a shame if this man were a Pole. By questioning the Cossack form of justice, Andrii is also questioning the values which make up Cossack society as a whole. While the other Cossacks were uncomfortable at the death of the Cossack murderer, they still understood that Cossack justice had to be enacted. Andrii does not understand this, and thus, he is unable to recognize that the brotherhood that exists in Cossackdom is what makes this justice fair and is why the Poles would not be pitied in the same instance. Ostap’s response, telling Andrii to let the Poles pity their own, demonstrates that Ostap continues to be a “good Cossack,” recognizing the role of brotherhood in Cossack society and its enactment of justice.  The following scene provides a flashback to the pair’s time in Kyiv as Andrii brings Ostap to a Catholic church to show him Elzhbeta, another moment in which the differences between Andrii and Ostap are made clear. Again, no words are exchanged between Andrii and Elzhbeta but only glances. Those in the church, particularly Elzhbeta and her father, are portrayed in decadent clothing, wearing golden head pieces and furs. In the background, the priest is also standing in golden robes, further emphasizing the lavishness of the Polish Catholics, especially compared to Ostap and Andrii’s simple brown robes. Elzhbeta’s father is there, and he notices that she is interested in Andrii. Other Polish men catch on, too, and upon spotting Andrii  33 and Ostap in the church, approach the pair and threaten them, saying “How dare you enter the church, you swine!”102 This leads to a fight outside the church between the Poles and Andrii and Ostap. Andrii is again portrayed as weak as he gets distracted by Elzhbeta while fighting, leading to a Pole taking him down.  This flashback further reiterates the values Andrii harbors and which align more clearly with the Poles than with his fellow Cossacks. He is unable to defeat the Poles in a fist fight, demonstrating his weakness, and the reason for this is he is distracted by Elzhbeta, who represents femininity. While Ostap has gone to the church alongside Andrii, he is unable to at first recognize in which woman Andrii is interested, demonstrating that Ostap is not distracted by beautiful women like his brother. Andrii’s interest in Elzhbeta, above all, has caused him to become morally decadent as he no longer adheres to Cossack values, namely masculinity and strength.   Returning to the Sich, Bortko connects the past to the present by showing that Andrii continues to be weak in comparison to his brother. The Cossacks, including Ostap and Andrii, are shown sitting around the campfire, drinking and challenging one another to feats with different weaponry. Ostap, whose hair and attire now mirror those of the Cossacks around him, is shown as skillful with a sword while Andrii, whose look remains the same, is capable with a gun, shooting an apple out of another Cossack’s hand.  However, Andrii shoots the apple out of the Cossack’s hand when the other is not expecting it, which can have one of two interpretations. Either, Andrii is so talented with a gun that he is able to shoot something out of someone’s hand without the object even being in a position at which to be shot, or Andrii is only able to shoot something (or someone) when the  102 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:24:20-0:24:23.   34 other person is not prepared. This second interpretation fits more closely with Andrii’s character throughout the film as he is not shown as someone able to fight like his brother or father. For Andrii to suddenly be talented and brave enough to shoot an apple out of another Cossack’s hand goes against the portrayal of Andrii as weak.  The Cossack, in return, challenges Andrii to stand with an apple atop his head, and the Cossack shoots it off. Andrii agrees to the challenge, showing some extent of bravery, but it is also meant to be his punishment for shooting the apple out of the other Cossack’s hand. This hearkens back to the aforementioned moment of Cossacks enacting justice on their own as the Cossack here executes justice against Andrii. This scene will also be invoked in a later part of the film, when Taras Bulba kills Andrii, which again serves as a moment of a Cossack putting their form of justice into practice against another. This moment in which Andrii stands with an apple atop his head is meant to connect the prior scenes reflecting Cossack justice and the scene that is to come in which Cossack justice is performed.  Taras Bulba, after witnessing a Cossack shoot at his son, walks off to go and speak with the political head of the Cossacks, the Ataman, about going to war against the Cossacks’ other enemies, the Turks and Tatars. The Turks and Tatars, within the world of the film, are grouped into one nation, presumably defined by the religion of Islam, but their role is minimal. Bortko, by implying the threat of the Turks and Tatars, is invoking the threat of the East on current-day Russia, but this threat is clearly not as pressing to Bortko as the threat from the West.  Entering the Ataman’s home, Taras Bulba watches as the Ataman interrogates and then welcomes a new man into the Sich and, more broadly, Cossackdom. This interrogation is pivotal to understanding the Cossacks’ values as the Ataman asks the man, “Do you believe in Christ?,”  35 “Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?,” and has the man then cross himself.103 After this, the man is welcomed into the Sich as a Cossack. The man is not asked about his prowess as a warrior but about his religion, showing the importance of Christianity to the Cossacks. This exchange underscores the importance of duty and devotion in Cossackdom, and all of the other values stem from these two. If a man is dutiful and devout to Christianity, which for the Cossacks is practiced as Russian Orthodoxy, it is assumed that he will likely be dutiful and devout to his brotherhood as well as strong and brave in an effort to uphold and protect that brotherhood.  Taras Bulba, after the new Cossack leaves, questions the Ataman on why the Cossacks are not going to war against the Turks and the Tatars. The Ataman responds that the Cossacks have signed an agreement with the Sultan for peace. Taras Bulba is furious and, the following day, is shown whipping up the Cossacks for an attack against the Sultan. The Cossacks are shown writing a letter to the Sultan which is full of insults and meant to provoke a fight. Again, there is the message of equality in brotherhood as all of the Cossacks are involved in writing this letter, not simply the leadership. The Cossacks act as one group, dictating the nation’s policy together and fighting together against an enemy. (Presumably, this is the hoped for result of the letter to the Sultan.) Bortko invokes a painting, Reply of the Zaporizhian Cossacks, by Ilya Repin, a famous 19th century Russian painter, in this scene. This painting is particularly well known across the former Soviet sphere as it was beloved by a diverse group of people, including Tsar Alexander III and Joseph Stalin, and “became an object of popular Soviet and post-Soviet kitsch.”104  103 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:27:35-0:27:56.  104 Thomas M. Prymak, “A Painter from Ukraine: Ilya Repin,” Canadian Slavonic Papers 55, no. 1-2 (2013): 20. https://doi-org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1080/00085006.2013.11092725.   36 Viewers from across the post-Soviet world would have immediately picked up on the similarities between the painting and the scene in the film. In both images, there is the clear depiction of brotherhood as the Cossacks sit around the table, laughing and drinking. The painting has “historical reminders of Cossack freedom and camaraderie,” and the film works to recreate it by adding sound and movement. It is an attempt, on Bortko’s part, to connect the film to a well-known Russian painting to add legitimacy to his own film, but it is up to the individual viewer to decide if he is successful.   Figure 1: Scene from Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror)105  105 Mikhail Boyarskiy and Vladimir Vdovichenkov in Taras Bulba (2009), Image, IMDB, https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1242457/mediaviewer/rm2747956992.   37  Figure 2: Ilya Repin’s Reply of the Zaporizhian Cossacks106  The equality in brotherhood that this painting invokes is reiterated in the next scene when, having finished the letter Taras Bulba reveals to his fellow Cossacks that the Ataman has signed a peace treaty with the Sultan. This makes it impossible for the Cossacks to go to war, infuriating the Cossacks and causing them to begin shouting and calling for a new Ataman who will lead them to war against the Turks and Tatars. The election of the new Ataman, which takes place in front of the Russian Orthodox Church, is swayed by Taras Bulba who has his supporters shout out the name, Kirdyaga. As previously mentioned by the narrator, Cossack society was democratic, and this is clearly evinced in this scene as all of the Cossacks participate in the election of their new Ataman. This idea of equality in brotherhood is emphasized as no man’s vote counts for more than another, and all have a chance to suggest a new Ataman. After Taras Bulba suggests Kirdyaga, other men take up the name and elect Kirdyaga as the new Ataman.  Taras Bulba has suggested Kirdyaga because he believes that he will be more amenable in declaring war, giving an opportunity for the Cossacks to show off their values, namely  106 Ilya Repin, Запорожцы пишут письмо турецкому султану (The Zaporozhe Cossacks Replying to the Sultan), 1878-1891, oil on canvas, Directmedia, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_-_Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks_-_Yorck.jpg.   38 bravery, strength, and masculinity. War is all but assured, then, when Taras Bulba’s aide, Dmitro, arrives and reveals that the Poles have razed Taras Bulba’s village and killed his regiment, servants, and wife.  Dmitro has brought Taras Bulba’s wife’s body to the Sich, hoping she would still be alive when they reached Taras Bulba, but this was not to be. This would never have been possible, though, as the Sich is the epitome of masculinity, and no living woman is ever shown there as this would taint that image of masculinity. The Sich, as described above, is from where wild Russian nature emerges and is fostered, and it is only possible for men to have this kind of nature. For a woman to enter this place, it would risk degrading this idea of Russian nature by bringing in femininity and weakness. The Cossacks cannot become infatuated with women (as Andrii has) without losing their strength and connection to the Cossack brotherhood.  Taras Bulba, Andrii and Ostap leave to bury their wife and mother, and, in the meantime, one of Taras Bulba’s men speaks to the crowd, telling them of the crimes that the Poles (and the Jews) have been committing against the Cossacks. He tells of how Russian Orthodox churches are being leased by Poles to Jews who will only allow Orthodox Christians to practice in the church if the Orthodox Christians have paid. This is the first reference to the Jewish nation that appears in the film, and it immediately invokes Jewish stereotypes, namely of greediness.  The man also describes how Catholic priests are harnessing Orthodox Christians to carts to then ride all over Ukraine. This invokes the idea of Polish decadence in that their priests are self-indulgent to the point that they refuse to walk and would rather ride in wagons. The worst news of all, according to this man, is that there were Cossacks among the Poles who had taken up the Poles’ faith. In this statement, the horror is due to the betrayal of the Cossack brotherhood which, as seen above when the man joins the Cossacks, is based off of devotion to Russian  39 Orthodoxy. By betraying the faith, the Cossacks who have converted have also betrayed Cossackdom as a whole. This news rouses the Cossacks to action, who begin calling for the deaths of both the Poles and the Jews. Both nations have harmed the Cossacks in one way or another by having used Polish and Jewish values against the Cossack nation. Some of the Cossacks immediately begin hunting down the Jewish tavern keepers who live in the Sich, destroying their taverns and grabbing all of the alcohol along the way. The Jewish tavern keepers are shown running away and hiding, but the Cossacks manage to find one, Yankel, and chase him to the feet of Taras Bulba. Yankel begins begging Taras Bulba, standing at his wife’s grave, to save Yankel’s life, prostrating before him and showering Taras Bulba with compliments. Turning to the men attempting to harm him, Yankel denounces the Jews who are leasing church buildings, saying that “they’re only fit to spit upon and cast aside, to the Devil!”107 Yankel tells Taras Bulba that he knew Taras Bulba’s brother and lent him money, and, because of this, Taras Bulba saves Yankel’s life from the other Cossacks.  Yankel is the main character from the Jewish nation, which will be the third key nation in the film and is classified neither as a hero nor an enemy but rather as comedic relief and “as scapegoats for Polish misdeeds.”108 Bortko uses antisemitic stereotypes, mentioned above, when portraying Yankel, making him a greedy and cunning character. Again, religion, i.e., Judaism, is used to define this group as an “Other,” and the values that Jews, according to Bortko, hold are used to further isolate them from the Russian Orthodox Cossack population. Yankel, along with the other tavern keepers, does not live in the main part of the Sich but on the outskirts, closer to the cemetery. This will also be the case in Warsaw as the Jews live on the outskirts of the city  107 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:41:43-0:41:49.  108 Appleby, “Vladimir Bortko.”  40 there, too. Their physical distance supports the “Otherness” of the Jewish nation and its values in relation to both the Russian Orthodox Cossacks and the Catholic Poles. In Bortko’s ranking of nations and their values, the Jewish nation and its values fall at the bottom as he does not even deem them worthy of fighting against, unlike the Poles and, to a lesser extent, the Turks and Tatars.  Returning to the town square, the new Ataman announces to the crowd that the Cossacks are going to war against the Poles “to avenge the sorrow, tears and death, the injury and disgrace to our faith [Russian Orthodoxy]!”109 Before leaving, the Russian Orthodox priest blesses each and every soldier. This blessing presses home the Cossack values of devotion and duty to their faith as each man receives this blessing before going off to battle to exhibit their masculinity, bravery, and strength, values based off of devotion and duty.  The scenes that follow portray Cossack attacks on Polish towns, forcing Poles to flee, tying back to the idea that the Poles are weak and thus feminine. The narrator, in a voiceover, describes how “all southwest Poland speedily became a fearful prey”110 and that “all who could flee, fled; all rose up and scattered,” making it sound as though no Poles, during these first initial attacks, attempted to fight the Cossacks.111 In describing the Poles as prey, the narrator could not have more clearly portrayed them as weak and, in turn, the Cossacks as strong. Underlying this description is the idea of the Poles as feminine and the Cossacks as masculine with the Poles being shown as timid and docile and the Cossacks as strong and powerful fighters. Even the few  109 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:43:27-0:43:35.  110 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:46:20-0:46:24.  111 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 0:46:31-0:46:38.   41 Poles who are shown shooting at the Cossacks are running away while doing so and being chased by a Cossack on horseback.  Those who fled are shown entering the town over which Elzhbeta’s father is in charge, and he looks to be completely alone in his castle, waiting for reports on the Cossack attacks. Unlike the Cossacks, who act as a group, the Poles, through Elzhbeta’s father, are shown as individuals, a characteristic the Russians and the ROC use to disparage the West.112 This critique of individuality has already been used on Andrii in prior scenes in the film, particularly in the first flashback when he encounters Elzhbeta. In showing Elzhbeta’s father alone, Bortko is decrying individualism by connecting it with the Poles, the enemy of the film.  A Polish soldier comes in and begins his report, proclaiming that he is the only one to have escaped the battle. The camera then pans over to reveal that Elzhbeta herself is also in the room, and she questions the soldier on the number of Cossacks. However, in the world of the film, women are not able to be part of the group as shown by the world of the Cossacks. Despite her being present in the room, it is still as though her father is alone because she does not count as another person. With her there and contributing to the discussion, it further weakens the position of the Poles as the presence of a woman emasculates the Poles as a group.  Returning to the film, the Cossacks have reached Elzhbeta’s town, and the dichotomy between weak and strong, Pole and Cossack, is further fleshed out. The Cossacks begin an assault, attempting to climb the walls of the city and proving unsuccessful. This leads the  112 Andrei Kolesnikov, “Blood and Iron: How Nationalist Imperialism Became Russia’s State Ideology,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, last modified December 6, 2023, https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/12/06/blood-and-iron-how-nationalist-imperialism-became-russia-s-state-ideology-pub-91181. In the past few years, the Russian government has groomed ideologues who have created a “pentabasis” which is “a five-point list of foundational ideas” for Russia that include ideas like “‘the edification of the individual,’ ‘love for one’s family,’ ‘unity for society,’ ‘order for the state,’ and ‘a mission for the country.’” These are supported by four additional “value constants consisting of Russia’s ‘special path’…, ‘messianism’….’superadaptivity,’ and ‘communalism as the anthesis of individualism.’”  42 Cossacks to change their strategy and begin a siege, blockading the city off from food and other resources. While originally it would look as though the Poles are stronger than the Cossacks, being able to prevent them from entering the city, the Cossacks prove stronger in the longer term by starting a siege. The Cossacks are playing a long game by starving the Poles out and preventing them from accessing any of the resources outside their walls. Furthermore, the Cossacks burn all of the Poles’ grain and all homes located outside the city walls, leading the Poles to become so desperate that they are shown eating the meat off of a dead horse. There could not be a clearer image than this to show the weakness of the Poles versus the strength of the Cossacks. In this moment, the Cossacks are at full strength and the Poles at full weakness as the Cossacks, through the siege, force the Poles to eat a dead horse.  That evening at the Cossack camp, Andrii has another flashback to an encounter with Elzhbeta, underscoring his own weakness. Again, he continues to dream of romance rather than of the battles ahead, further proving he is not a good Cossack. Through her open window, Andrii watches her undress, startling her when he almost falls out of a tree. He then enters her room, and Elzhbeta slaps him and then laughs. She teases him by hanging earrings from his gaping mouth and placing a tiara upon his head, and, in response, he grabs her and the pair begin to kiss. This flashback reiterates Andrii’s weakness and femininity, by having him fumble a romantic encounter and wear a tiara and earrings. It connects to the scene prior to it by showing Andrii at one of his weakest moments, being at the mercy of Elzhbeta and her whims, just as the Poles as a whole are at the mercy of the Cossacks.  Waking with a start from this flashback, Andrii discovers Elzhbeta’s maid standing beside his wagon in the middle of the Cossack camp, and she reveals to him that Elzhbeta is starving inside the city. Prior to this, Elzhbeta has simply been a fond memory for Andrii, but  43 with the maid’s appearance, Elzhbeta becomes real again for Andrii. Hearing that Elzhbeta is starving hits Andrii in his Achilles’ heel as he cannot bear to hear that she is suffering. Andrii agrees to bring food to Elzhbeta, stealing from Cossack food supplies to do so. By stealing food from his fellow Cossacks, Andrii takes the first of what will be many steps in betraying Cossackdom in favor of Elzhbeta and the Poles more broadly. Just as he prepares to leave with the food, his father, Taras Bulba, awakens and looks directly at Andrei, commenting on the presence of a woman with him and saying, “Women will lead you to no good.”113  This quote embodies the argument Bortko makes throughout the film about women, starting with the scene when Ostap and Andrii return home and reaching its pinnacle here. Women cannot be good in the world of this film as femininity is a value of the Poles, who represent all that is bad in the world. By having Elzhbeta be the one to lead Andrii astray, Bortko is hearkening back to Genesis, the first book of the Bible, where Eve leads Adam astray. If it were not obvious enough that this is the connection Gogol, and thus Bortko, is making, he has given these characters names that start with the first letter of Adam and Eve, respectively. This comparison also means that the world of the Cossacks is meant to act as an Eden, and Andrii’s betrayal means that he will be expelled from Cossackdom and never be able to reenter it. In this betrayal, Bortko is arguing that Russia, through the Cossacks, is an Eden while the West, represented by the Poles, is the world of sinners which can lure Russians away and cause them to lose their values and their lives. Upon entering the city, which represents the sinful world, the maid takes Andrii directly to Elzhbeta where he gives her bread and promises to do anything she wishes, telling her that she is his home. In the process, he denounces his father, his comrades, and his fatherland,  113 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:01:13-1:01:17.   44 rhetorically asking Elzhbeta who made Ukraine his homeland. Elzhbeta, according to Andrii, has replaced all of these, and he will do whatever possible “to keep this home – this land,” i.e., Elzhbeta.114 There is no convincing that needs to be done on Elzhbeta’s part for Andrii to betray his family and his Cossack brotherhood. In fact, she even tells him not to denounce them, but he continues to do so despite this. Andrii is weak and self-indulgent, taken in by Elzhbeta’s beauty, and thus willing to sever any connection to his Cossack heritage and the values that are aligned with it.  By telling Elzhbeta that she is home and land, Andrii is rejecting his birth and baptism along what Ostap had told him in the pair’s conversation earlier in the film. As mentioned above, Andrii’s birth was shown as coming from the steppe and the river, i.e., the Cossack land, and his baptism in the river connected him to this land, both physically and spiritually. Later, Ostap had described the land as a mother figure for the Cossacks, meaning they did not need Polish land since the Cossacks’ own would provide for them. By choosing Elzhbeta as his “land” over the land of the Cossacks, Andrii has forsaken Russian Orthodoxy, his family, and the Cossack brotherhood more broadly. In this moment, Andrii is no longer a Cossack but has gone over to the side of the Poles.  After betraying his brotherhood, Andrii begins to have sex with Elzhbeta, and these scenes are interspersed with scenes of the Poles leading Cossack prisoners into the city. Bortko’s choice to repeatedly cut between these two scenes creates the impression that Andrii has also become a prisoner of the Poles by entering into a relationship with Elzhbeta. Andrii will no longer have the same freedom that he did when living as a Cossack, the kind of freedom shown in Ilya Repin’s painting above and seen in the film’s portrayal of the Sich. Instead, he will be at  114 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:07:18-1:07:24.   45 the mercy of the Poles, namely Elzhbeta’s father, the governor, who will use Andrii to carry out an attack against the Cossacks.  It is through the antisemitic stereotypes of slyness and greed, as represented in Yankel, that Taras Bulba finds out about what happened to Andrii. Yankel tells Taras Bulba that he had snuck into the city after the Cossack attack, following after a Polish cornet who has owed Yankel money for years. Taras Bulba then asks if Yankel saw any Cossacks, and Yankel shares that he saw Andrii. Taras Bulba quizzes Yankel, asking rapid-fire questions about what has happened to Andrii, believing that Andrii may have been taken, along with the Cossacks being shown dragged into the city, as a prisoner of the Poles. Yankel denies this and describes how Andrii is bedecked entirely in gold and that Elzhbeta’s father, the governor, has given him “a horse worth two hundred ducats.”115 Taras Bulba cannot process what this means, asking why Andrii is dressed in such a manner, to which Yankel replies, “He went over.”116 Taras Bulba still cannot understand, asking to where he went over, and Yankel’s reply is the last straw as he says, “He’s [Andrii] completely theirs [Poles] now.”117  In Yankel’s description of Andrii and what has happened, Bortko inserts both Jewish values and Polish values. Yankel’s explanation of how he entered the city continues the antisemitic narrative of greediness and cunningness that started when viewers first met Yankel. Throughout the film, it is clear that Yankel is guided by his greediness when making decisions, risking his life both in coming along with the Cossacks to war and in entering the Polish city. His  115 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:12:01-1:12:08.  116 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:12:16.  117 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:12:29-1:12:30.  46 slyness aids him in these decisions as he manages to escape death both at the hand of the Cossacks and of the Poles.  As Yankel is telling Taras Bulba about Andrii, he makes sure to tell of how Andrii is dressed, in golden robes, and of how the governor has given Andrii the expensive horse. In this description, the decadence of both Andrii and the Poles is obvious. There is no need beyond appearance to be wearing golden armor, and Andrii and the Poles, as has already been shown, are self-indulgent and care about looks immensely. Taras Bulba’s misunderstanding is not only due to his inability to believe that Andrii would betray the Cossacks, but also due to the difference in values between the Poles and the Cossacks. As a Cossack, Taras Bulba does not value things like golden armor or expensive horses but traits like duty, brotherhood, and masculinity. Andrii, in wearing this golden armor and riding this horse, has not only changed appearance to look like the Poles but has also revealed his true values, showing his father that he does not adhere to Cossack values.  Yankel then explains in more detail why Andrii went over, revealing that it was for Elzhbeta and that Andrii and Elzhbeta will be married as soon as the Poles defeat the Cossacks., Yankel closes by mentioning that Andrii recognized him and gave Yankel a message to share: “Tell my father, my brother, the Cossacks, tell everyone that they are no longer my father, my brother, my comrades, that I will fight them all, all!”118 In response to this message, Taras Bulba pulls out his sword and chases Yankel off, accusing him of being a Judas.  These will be the last words Andrii ever says to his father, and in them is a rejection of the Cossacks and all of their values. As mentioned throughout, the idea of brotherhood is one of the key values within Cossackdom, and Andrii has rejected it here, going so far as to say he will  118 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:13:55-1:14:19.   47 fight them on the battlefield. By having Yankel deliver this message, Andrii is being cowardly and using an envoy to direct his father’s anger towards someone else. Andrii, in rejecting Cossackdom, “went over” as Yankel said, becoming a Pole as has been foreshadowed by his actions throughout the film.119 That evening, Taras Bulba’s aide, Dmitro, arrives to the camp, announcing that the Tatars have burned down the Sich and have either captured or killed every Cossack who was there. This attack cannot be left unanswered, meaning that the Cossacks split, with some heading eastward to fight the Tatars and others staying behind to continue the attack against the Poles. Again, there is reference to a fourth nation in the film, the Tatars, and the danger this group poses, but it is never enough to cause the Cossacks as a whole to turn eastwards and forget about the Poles in the West.  Later that evening, Taras Bulba speaks to his men, encouraging them before the battle that is to come with toasts to their shared values. He proclaims that this battle “will demand great effort but result in great glory for the Cossacks”120 and then raises a toast “to the holy Orthodox faith, that the day may come at last…that it may be spread in the world…and everywhere there may be but one holy faith!”121 The men toast to this and then toast to the Sich and “to all the Christians living in the world!”122 In comparison to the Poles, who toast to the governor, the Cossacks toast to the defining features of Cossackdom, namely devotion and duty, off of which the other values, masculinity, brotherhood, and strength, are based. The toasts are a stark contrast  119 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:12:16. 120 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:18:27-1:18:33.  121 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:18:41-1:19:01.  122 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:19:49-1:19:45.   48 to one another, reiterating the difference in values between these two societies and arguing that one side (the Cossacks) is fighting for their faith, Russian Orthodoxy, while the other is fighting for a Pole, i.e., the West. For Bortko, the case is clear that Russian Orthodoxy will prove victorious.  The following morning, the Poles ride out and attack the Cossacks. This serves as a proving ground for Ostap where he shows off his fighting prowess, taking down multiple Poles. After the leader of his battalion is killed, Ostap is elected, during the battle, by the others to become the new leader, showing how he has become the “good Cossack” his father predicted back in the beginning. While Ostap does not have as much screentime as his father and brother, the scenes in which he is shown focus on what it means to be a “good Cossack” and to adhere to the values of Cossackdom. He is courageous and strong in battle, loyal to his fellow Cossacks, and devout to the Russian Orthodox faith, all traits of a “good Cossack” and all traits in which his brother falls short.  The Cossacks appear to be winning the battle, but Taras Bulba recognizes that it is not over as Andrii has still not entered the fight. At that moment, Andrii emerges from the town walls, having said goodbye to Elzhbeta and now leading a fresh supply of men. Andrii and Taras Bulba immediately lock eyes as Andrii cuts down Cossack after Cossack. Taras Bulba is horrified, hearkening back to his anger and disbelief following Yankel’s revelation of Andrii’s betrayal. While Taras Bulba knows in his head that Andrii has betrayed his father and the Cossacks, it does not become fully real until this moment when Andrii is murdering his fellow Cossacks. Taras Bulba, determined to punish Andrii for his betrayal and the murder of his own brethren, orders an aide to lure Andrii into the woods where Taras Bulba will be waiting.   49 Entering into a valley among the trees, Andrii finds Taras Bulba standing alone. Taras Bulba asks Andrii what they are going to do and Andrii is unable to respond. Following this question, Taras Bulba asks whether the Poles helped Andrii and if this is how Andrii is going to betray his faith and his comrades, highlighting Cossack values. Andrii still does not reply, so Taras Bulba orders him to dismount from his horse. Andrii’s inability to respond is due to the innate weakness and femininity of his character as he is unable to own up to his own actions. Despite being an adult, Andrii is reduced to a child again in front of his father, unwilling and unable to fight Taras Bulba just as he was in the beginning of the film. Andrii throws his sword to the ground, and Taras Bulba looks at him and tells him that, just as Taras Bulba gave him life, so too will Taras Bulba kill him. Echoing the scene from earlier when a Cossack shoots an apple off Andrii’s head, Taras Bulba points his gun at Andrii’s head and shoots him. Andrii collapses as it thunders overhead, and Taras Bulba kneels over the body, asking “In what way weren’t you a Cossack?”123 Answering this question, it is Andrii’s values that made him not a Cossack. He was too weak, too feminine, too decadent and too individual to have ever been able to be a Cossack like his father and brother. Andrii’s path was also destined to lead to the Poles who shared these same values. In joining the Poles, though, Andrii rejected his family, his people, his land, and, above all, his faith. Andrii as a Cossack had already been killed the moment Andrii betrayed Cossackdom and its values to join the Poles, so Taras Bulba’s killing of Andrii was no longer one Cossack murdering another but a Cossack murdering a Pole who held Polish values.  As he kneels before Andrii, a Cossack runs up on horseback and tells Taras Bulba that the Cossacks are looking for him as they wish to see Taras Bulba and be reminded of their values  123 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:28:51-1:28:52.   50 one more time before death. The Poles have gotten reinforcements, meaning that the Cossacks are surely going to be defeated. Taras Bulba returns to the battlefront, encouraging the Cossacks to continue the fight until the very end. Cossack after Cossack is killed, and as each dies, their final words wish a glorious future to the Russian Orthodox nation. Bortko uses these final words to remind the viewer again and again of the connection between the Cossacks and the Russian Orthodox nation along with the values to which a good Cossack, and thus, a good Russian, adheres.  This point is most obviously made by Bortko when the narrator describes how Christ welcomes one Cossack into His heavenly kingdom, saying “‘You have not betrayed your comrades, never committed a dishonorable act. You preserved and defended my Church!”124 This statement, which begins with a comment on betrayal and ends with one on the Church, appears to allude that Andrii, who betrayed both his comrades and his faith, will not be welcomed into heaven. Andrii, in rejecting his nation and faith, has lost both his mortal and his eternal life. The viewer is supposed to take from this that they will only be welcomed into heaven if they are devout to the Russian Orthodox faith and devout to the Russian nation, never turning against it as Andrii has and joining the West, as represented by the Poles in the film. The battle continues, and the Cossacks, even when mortally wounded, continue to cut down Pole after Pole in their attempts to stave off Polish victory and prove their strength and bravery. The same desire to show off bravery and strength cannot be said for the Poles who resort to  sneaking up behind Cossacks to kill them or working in groups to kill one Cossack. The fighting style of the Cossacks is of well-trained soldiers who can fight with multiple weapons and who fight until the very end. The Poles, on the other hand, are portrayed as weaker  124 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:31:04-1:31:10.   51 fighters, unable to take a Cossack down by themselves and having to resort to working together or coming up from behind. Furthermore, some of the Poles, such as the governor, do not even leave the town walls to fight while Cossack leadership, including Taras Bulba, are among their men and in the middle of the battle. It is only because the Poles outnumber the Cossacks that the Poles prove victorious in the end.  As the battle begins to come to a close, Ostap is still fighting, cutting down Pole after Pole until he is taken down by a group of five Poles. Even at the very end, when defeat is all but certain, Ostap continues to be the “good Cossack,” proving his strength and courage again and again. This is the last thing Taras Bulba sees before he is knocked unconscious by a Polish soldier. Upon awakening, Dmitro and Taras Bulba make the journey back to the Sich where they find the Cossacks preparing to travel and fight the Turks. The Cossacks will prove victorious in this battle, showing once again that the East does not have the same level of concern for Bortko as the West.  Taras Bulba does not participate in this battle, though, as he instead travels to Uman, a nearby city, to meet with Yankel, who has also survived the battle with the Poles. Yankel is shown reading the Torah and singing in another language, presumably Hebrew, which is not translated into either Russian or English. Unlike the Polish, which is dubbed into Russian and subtitled in English, Bortko has made the choice to do neither for the Hebrew. This decision further diminishes the status of the Jewish nation in the film as their language is not even worthy enough to be translated.  The conversation that follows further emphasizes the low value Bortko places on the Jewish people as Taras Bulba asks Yankel to take him to Warsaw. Taras Bulba wants to go and see Ostap one final time before Ostap is killed, but there is a warrant out from the Poles for Taras  52 Bulba’s arrest. The reward is 5000 ducats, so Taras Bulba pays Yankel 2000 ducats to prevent Yankel from turning him in for the money. Again, Bortko makes a clear point to emphasize the stereotype of greediness, implying that Yankel would have turned Taras Bulba in if not for the money.  One might try to argue that Yankel might not have turned Taras Bulba due to the pair’s friendship, but Bortko has made it clear throughout the film that the two are not friends. Yankel is placed far below in the social hierarchy when compared to Taras Bulba which is emphasized by Yankel solely referring to Taras Bulba as lord. In return, Taras Bulba has called Yankel a Judas and buys into the stereotypes of Jews as greedy and cunning individuals.  Taras Bulba’s belief in the cunningness of Jews comes out in his explanation of why he needs Yankel to be the one to take him to Warsaw. According to Taras Bulba, he himself is “not tricky enough” to have figured out a way to get into Warsaw, but he believes Yankel is.125 Yankel explains the challenges that face him if he attempts to sneak Taras Bulba into Warsaw, particularly as a Jew. Taras Bulba suggests hiding him in an empty barrel, but Yankel describes how the Poles will immediately run to it, hoping for alcohol, and when they discover there isn’t alcohol, they’ll say, “‘A Jew wouldn’t carry an empty barrel. Something’s in it! Seize the Jew, bind the Jew, take away all his money, put the Jew in prison!’ Because everything that is evil is blamed on the Jew. And everyone takes a Jew for a dog, and they think, ‘He’s not a man because he is a Jew!’”126  Yankel’s rant exaggerates the picture that Bortko has been painting of the Jews, but it would be wrong to say that Bortko has not been insinuating much of this throughout the film.  125 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:40:58-1:41:00.  126 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:41:37-1:41:10.   53 While Bortko placed all that is evil in the film on the Poles, he used Yankel to serve as an antisemitic stereotype and does not give Yankel the same treatment as the other characters in the film, going so far as not to even translate Hebrew. While the Poles, and, to a lesser extent, the Turks, are of equal status to fight against the Cossacks in battle, the Jews are not. The one opportunity that the Jews could have fought, when the Cossacks attack the Jews’ taverns, the Jews are shown instead running away or cowering at Taras Bulba’s feet (in the case of Yankel). While Yankel has survived the battle with the Poles, he is never shown carrying a weapon or fighting against them, making it unclear how he managed to prevail. It is likely that Bortko would make the case that it was due to Yankel’s cunningness, but this is never clearly spelled out in the film.  In the end, Yankel agrees to help Taras Bulba sneak into Warsaw, due in large part to Taras Bulba’s desperate pleas. Before their arrival, the film returns to Elzhbeta and her father, who are now also in Warsaw. While eating a meal, Elzhbeta has to vomit, revealing that she is pregnant with Andrii’s child. Elzhbeta, the epitome of femininity in the film, is able to be shown pregnant because she is a Pole, and Poles represent femininity in the film. Her pregnancy makes her weak, causing her to be in pain and to vomit, further underscoring the weakness of the Poles as a people. By having Elzhbeta be pregnant, it also makes it clear that the Poles as a nation do not come from the land like the Cossacks but from a flesh-and-blood mother. The land, as argued earlier, evokes qualities of the eternal which are then imbued onto the Cossacks/Russians as a nation. In turn, a flesh-and-blood mother evokes a sense of mortality which is then applied to the Polish nation, making it look as though the Polish nation as a whole will some day pass on.  That following morning, the scene opens with the Cossacks being killed one by one while the Poles look on and cheer. The Poles’ reaction is tied into their moral decadence as a whole as  54 they laugh and joke about the deaths of the Cossacks. By doing so, they create a spectacle out of the deaths of the Cossacks, upsetting Elzhbeta and causing her to leave. Already not wanting to be there, Elzhbeta cannot stand by as the Poles mock the Cossacks being killed, especially since she is pregnant with a Cossack’s child. As she leaves, the other Poles look on uncomprehendingly, not understanding why she is leaving what is proving to be a very entertaining show.  In the crowd below, Taras Bulba, disguised as a Pole, arrives in time to hear his son, Ostap, tell his fellow Cossacks to remain silent throughout the executions to prevent the Poles, whom he refers to as heretics, from hearing “how Christians suffer!”127 In telling them this, Ostap is encouraging the other Cossacks to maintain their Cossack values, namely bravery and strength, in death. Ostap is then beaten with a baton multiple times and has a hook driven into his chest, but he remains silent throughout. Even at the very end of his life, Ostap remains the “good Cossack” his father predicted he would be at the very beginning of the film, adhering to the values of duty, bravery, and strength required of a Cossack.  The entire scene of Ostap’s death echoes the death of Jesus Christ on the cross as both were tortured before being killed and refused to let their captors hear their suffering. Even their final words echo each other as Ostap cried out for his father, shouting, “Father! Where are you? Do you hear it?”128 just as Jesus Christ called out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”129 As mentioned earlier, the Poles turned the Cossacks’ deaths, including Ostap’s, into a spectacle, just as the Romans had turned Jesus’ death into a show.   127 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:46:47-1:46:50.   128 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:49:37-1:49:44.   129 Matthew 27:46 (New International Version).   55 There is no form of justice in Ostap’s death which further reiterates the differences between the Cossacks and the Poles. For the Cossacks, death is an opportunity for justice to be enacted and for their duty to one another as part of the brotherhood to be affirmed. For the Poles, death is an opportunity for a spectacle in which the people’s moral decadence is put on full display through brutal methods of torture and killing.   Answering Ostap’s cry, Taras Bulba responds, “I hear, my Son! I hear you!”130 The Poles immediately begin looking for Taras Bulba in the crowd, but he escapes, returning to the Sich to gather men to wreak revenge on the Poles. Taras Bulba and his men then travel from Polish city to Polish city, burning down their towns and churches. Ostap’s death has made him into a martyr for the Cossacks, and Taras Bulba and his fellow Cossacks will stop at nothing to avenge him.   The Polish people are again on the run from Taras Bulba and his men, fleeing to Elzhbeta’s city where she is shown giving birth to her and Andrii’s child. This scene could not be any more different to the earlier scene of Taras Bulba’s wife giving birth to Andrii. Unlike that scene in which the mother is not shown, Elzhbeta is shown here, screaming and writhing in pain. Underscoring this even further is the location of the birth of Andrii and Elzhbeta’s child. While Andrii was born in the middle of wild Russian nature, Elzhbeta is giving birth inside a dark castle, furnished with gold curtains, candelabras, and multiple portraits, all befitting the materialistic Poles. In Elzhbeta’s giving birth, just as in Andrii’s mother’s giving birth, the values of their respective societies are on full display. The decadence and femininity of the Poles has reached its epitome in this scene just as masculinity, devotion, and duty were at their height when Andrii was born.   130 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:49:45-1:49:50.   56 While she is giving birth, her father meets with his advisors to discuss the Cossack attacks as the attacks have left the Poles in grave danger. The governor calls to unite all of Poland together to fight against the Cossacks, proclaiming that the Poles “face grave danger”131 since the Cossacks are “not human.”132 As they reach this decision, a nurse comes from Elzhbeta’s room to reveal that Elzhbeta has died in childbirth. It should come as no surprise that Elzhbeta has died as there is no longer any need for her in the story as Andrii is no longer around and the child is born. Her purpose throughout much of the film was to lure Andrii into betraying his family and his brotherhood which proved successful. Then, after Andrii died, her purpose was to give birth to their child. The child is now born which means Elzhbeta’s purpose has been fulfilled in the story, and she is no longer necessary. More practically, there is no longer any need for her as the film is coming to a close. By killing her, one of the loose ends of the story is tied up.  The child, a boy, survives, and when the governor first looks at the child, he pulls out his sword, intending to kill the baby. This intention can be tied back to his statement a few minutes prior in which he described the Cossacks as inhuman. Looking upon this child, the offspring of a Cossack, the governor does not see his grandson at first but rather a threat to Poland. By contemplating killing the child, the governor emphasizes the weakness of the Poles as the baby is in no position of strength over them. The boy is a newborn, at his weakest moment, but it is the governor who is afraid, not the child. In the end, the governor is unable to kill his newborn grandson, letting the boy live. The reason why the boy lives seems to be revealed in Taras Bulba’s speech which is discussed just below.   131 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:53:03.  132 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 1:53:04-1:53:05.  57 The last few scenes of the film depict the battle between the Poles and Cossacks where the competing values of the two nations are put to the test for one final time. The Poles trap the Cossacks at the edge of a river, but Taras Bulba, in an attempt to escape, leads his men in pushing through the Polish forces, shooting down Poles as they go. As the Cossacks push through to the other side, Taras Bulba spots further Polish soldiers approaching and realizes that it will be impossible for his men to survive without him turning himself in. He claims that he turns back to pick up his dropped pipe, but, in reality, it is to save his soldiers’ lives by giving them extra time to escape while the Poles capture him. This gesture underscores the commitment to his brothers that Taras Bulba has shown throughout the entire film, but it is particularly poignant here as Taras Bulba knows turning back will mean his death.  Upon Taras Bulba’s capture, the governor, Elzhbeta’s father, approaches him and declares that the Poles will burn Taras Bulba to death. Tying him to a post atop a mountain, the Poles watch on as Taras Bulba begins to burn. This gruesome death echoes the deaths of the Cossack prisoners in Warsaw, and Taras Bulba also does not cry out in pain as the flames begin to lick his feet. Instead, Taras Bulba calls out to his men, who he sees being chased down by Polish forces, and guides them to safety by shouting directions at them. His last act, saving the lives of his men, reiterates Taras Bulba’s commitment to the Cossack brotherhood.  Both his last words to his men and his final words, directed towards the Poles, belie what looks like a Cossack defeat. Taras Bulba instructs his fellow Cossacks to return the following spring and “make merry.”133  The Cossacks have not been chased off by the Poles forever but will return in the spring to continue the fight against the Poles and their values and to avenge the death of Taras Bulba. Turning to the Poles, Taras Bulba tells them that “‘the time will come  133 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 2:00:55-2:01:03.     58 when you shall learn what the Russian Orthodox faith is like! The peoples far and near are beginning to understand, a Tsar shall arise from the Russian soil! There will be no power in the world that shall not submit to him!”134  In this statement, viewers could read that the tsar shall arise from the child born of Elzhbeta and Andrii. This boy, who scared the governor so much that he contemplated killing the baby, could bring to fruition the fears of the governor and be the answer to Taras Bulba’s prophecy. There is no clear answer, either in Gogol’s book or Bortko’s film, about who this tsar will be, but this final statement does emphasize “a new ecstatic beginning of Russian patriotism.”135 This patriotism will obviously include Russian Orthodoxy as the film has made clear that the values of the Russian nation come from the Russian Orthodox faith.  The film ends with an invocation of Taras Bulba’s last words as the Cossacks return the following spring to attack the Poles while the narrator gives a voiceover. The narrator, in his final words, vocalizes the argument that the film, through Taras Bulba, has been making throughout as the narrator asks, “Can any people, flame, or power be found on Earth capable of overpowering the Russian strength?”136 (The answer, clearly, is no.) The final words of the entire film come from the Cossacks themselves, though, as they begin battle with the cheer, “‘For our faith!’”137 These final two statements could not make it any clearer, then, that the Russian nation will always be victorious so long as they have their Russian Orthodox faith and the values it fosters.   134 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 2:01:16-2:01:49.  135 Yoon, “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack,” 438.  136 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 2:01:53-2:02:05. 137 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 2:02:22-2:02:24.   59 I have clearly outlined above the values of the Russian Orthodox Cossacks, the Poles, and the Jews. For the Russian Orthodox Cossacks, these boil down to devotion, duty, brotherhood, masculinity, bravery and strength. Devotion and duty, first to Russian Orthodoxy and then to the Cossacks as a nation, are particularly key since other values stem from them. The Poles, as the enemy in the film, possess the opposite of the Cossacks’ values, embodying heresy, cowardice, individualism, weakness, femininity, and decadence. The Poles’ faith, Catholicism, fosters these traits just as Russian Orthodoxy fosters the Cossacks’ values. Unlike Russian Orthodoxy, which supports positive values, Catholicism brings out the negative in the Poles, particularly their self-indulgent decadence. The third nation in the film, the Jews, share the trait of weakness with the Poles, but they also represent greediness and slyness, typical antisemitic stereotypes. Their faith is used to emphasize the position of the Jews in society as the lowest in the social hierarchy.  The role of gender in the film, along with religion, is pivotal to understanding the differences between the Cossacks and the Poles in particular. As mentioned throughout, the Cossacks are defined by masculinity and the traits of bravery and strength that go along with it. There is no room for women in the Cossacks’ world, particularly in the Sich which, as the narrator says, is from where Cossackdom spread throughout Ukraine. The Sich embodies the masculine values of the Cossacks, and the only way a woman can enter, as Taras Bulba’s wife did, is if they are dead. Even outside the Sich, the role of women is minimized or nonexistent in the lands of the Cossacks as seen in the scene where Taras Bulba’s wife gives birth to Andrii. By not showing her but Taras Bulba and Ostap instead, Bortko emphasizes the lack of femininity and preference for masculinity in Cossackdom.  In the Cossacks’ minds, as Taras Bulba says, women only serve to lead men astray like Eve led Adam to sin. Acting as an Eve luring Adam to sin, Elzhbeta, through her femininity,  60 leads Andrii to sin, betraying his family and his nation in favor of the Poles’ values. Unlike the Cossacks, where the role of women is almost nonexistent, Elzhbeta plays a key role as one of the Polish characters. She embodies the traits Bortko gives to the Poles and the warning Taras Bulba gives to Andrii that women will only cause trouble. Defining the Poles by their femininity, then, causes viewers to associate the Cossacks’ beliefs about women with the Poles more broadly. Above all, though, this film is about a battle between two nations, the Russians and the Poles, who are defined by religion first and foremost. Bortko conflates religion, namely Russian Orthodoxy, with the Russian nation, making the two one and the same. There is no possibility for the Russian characters to practice any faith other than Russian Orthodoxy without being shown as betraying their nation. In turn, those who practice other faiths, like Judaism, Islam, or Catholicism, are prohibited from joining the Russian nation. By creating an equivalence between the nation and religion, the film shows that only those who practice Russian Orthodoxy can be considered Russian, and, furthermore, only those who are devout to Russian Orthodoxy and the values that go along with it can be a “good Russian.”  The Conqueror was released in Russia on April 2, 2009 as part of the bicentennial celebration of Nikolai Gogol’s birth on April 1. Bortko, the director of the film, is well-known for his film adaptions of Russian novels, particularly Mikhail Bulgakov’s Heart of a Dog (1988)  “which initiated the trend to reappropriate banned or out-of-favor Soviet ‘classics’ in film.”138 A typical characteristic of Bortko’s adaptations is “an almost pedantic accuracy, even slavishness, with regard to the words of the literary text” which generated a lot of controversy around his  138 Catherine Theimer Nepomnyashchy, “Re-Visioning the Past: Russian Literary Classics in Film,” World Literature Today 85, no. 6 (November/December, 2011): 56. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41310392.   61 adaptation of Taras Bulba.139 The controversy came in large part from Ukrainians who were upset that Bortko, who is of Ukrainian heritage, and Bogdan Stupka, who plays Taras Bulba and who is Ukrainian, chose to make the film using the second version of Gogol’s novel which is notable for its pro-Russia messaging.140 For example, in the Ukrainian newspaper «Зеркало Недели» (Mirror of the Week), the author, Oleg Vergelis, accuses the film of being “программный маркетинговый политход — по заказу телеканала «Россия» [a programmatic political marketing trick – commissioned by the Rossiya TV channel.]”141 In their commentary on the film, Ukrainian critics and viewers recognized much of what has been discussed in this chapter, namely the nationalistic portrayal of Russia in the film.  In Russia, reactions were more mixed with critics praising the movie while at the same time recognizing the propagandistic themes of the film. For example, Pavil Basinskii of «Российская Газета» [Russian Newspaper] praised the film, saying that «Это мощный фильм. При всех своих очевидных недостатках.» [It is a powerful film. Despite all its obvious shortcomings.]142 Others, such as Новая Газета [New Newspaper], had a different reaction, proclaiming, «при переводе на экранный язык литературный исполин ссыхается.» [When translated into screen language, the literary giant shrivels.]143 For Larisa Maliukova of Новая Газета, Gogol’s story is “too complex to allow any easy adaptation,” and Bortko’s film does not  139 Theimer Nepomnyashchy, “Re-Visioning the Past,” 56.  140 Theimer Nepomnyashchy, “Re-Visioning the Past,” 56. 141 Олег Вергелис, «Гоголь Попутал. «Тарас Бульба» — «Идеальный» Фильм для Президента,» Зеркало Недели, April 3, 2009, https://zn.ua/ART/gogol_poputal_taras_bulba__idealnyy_film_dlya_prezidenta.html.  142 Павел Басинский, «На экраны страны вышел «Тарас Бульба» Владимира Бортко,» Российская Газета, April 3, 2009, https://www.rg.ru/2009/04/03/buljba.html.  143 Лариса Малюкова, «А поворотись-ка, Гоголь,» Новая Газета, April 1, 2009, https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2009/04/01/43368-a-povorotis-ka-gogol.   62 succeed in translating the story to the screen.144 She finishes the article by asking readers, “Why is this costumed propaganda needed today?”145 which is what this chapter as a whole is answering.  The reaction of the ROC, however, was decidedly positive as the film, analyzed above, contains a strong message promoting the connection between the Church and the Russian nation. The film received multiple awards, including the Grand Prix,146 at the Golden Knight film festival, «Ежегодный кинофестиваль духовно-нравственного кино» [An annual film festival of spiritual-moral cinema]147. Trustees include Patriarch Kirill, head of the ROC, Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, and, at the time, Russian Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova.148 From this list of names, it is clear that the Church and the government have a large amount of influence on the festival.  Speaking about the film before an audience at the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Patriarch Kirill talked about the wars which Russia has faced and why the country has proven victorious in all of these battles.149 He talked about the Great Patriotic War (which Russians refer to World War II as) which will be highlighted in the next chapter, saying  144 Stephen M. Norris, “Vladimir Bortko: Taras Bul’ba (2009),” KinoKultura 26 (2009). https://www.kinokultura.com/2009/26r-bulba-sn.shtml.  145 Малюкова, «А поворотись-ка, Гоголь.» 146 Сергей Щетинин, ««Тарас Бульба» Владимира Бортко завоевал Гран-при фестиваля «Золотой Витязь».» Российская Газета, April 6, 2009, https://rg.ru/2009/06/04/vityaz.html.  147 «Международный Кинофорум,» Золотой Витязь, accessed February 22, 2024, http://zolotoyvityaz.ru/kinoforum/.  148 «Международный Кинофорум.»  149 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ,» Русская Православная Церковь last modified May 31, 2011, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1501407.html.   63 that he believed the Red Army won because “так Богу было угодно» [God wanted it that way.]150 Patriarch Kirill then asks the audience why, throughout history, people have defended their country, and he argues that «люди защищали свои убеждения, свою веру» [people defended their convictions].151 According to him, these beliefs were how people defined themselves as a nation, and, in the case of Russia, this belief was Russian Orthodoxy.152 He then connects this to The Conqueror by asking the audience, many of whom he assumes have seen «замечательный фильм «Тарас Бульба»» [the wonderful film Taras Bulba/The Conqueror], how Taras Bulba defines himself in the film. 153 He then answers his own questions by saying that Taras Bulba defined himself by his faith.154 Patriarch Kirill continues on, describing how this defending of the nation as identified through faith remains the same today and that is why it is important for the Church and the military to work together.155  For the Church, the film is a vehicle for pro-Church messaging which is why they have worked so hard to promote it in film festivals and in speeches. It is not enough for individuals to see the film; the Church also needs to interpret the film for these viewers to ensure that they get the “correct” message out of the film. This message, of the connection between faith and nation,  150 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.» 151 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.» 152 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.» 153 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.» 154 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.» 155 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.»  64 is why, in the mind of the Church, the film is needed today. The ROC wants viewers of this film and those discussed in the following two chapters to leave the theaters believing in the close connection between the ROC and the Russian nation.  The Conqueror, as a film, takes the second version of Gogol’s 19th century story, Taras Bulba, and puts it into the 21st century where arguments about Russia and the West continue. The film clearly defines the idea of the Russian nation and who is and is not able to be a part of it. In the argument of the film, one must be Russian Orthodox in order to be Russian and, from there, must follow the values which come from being Russian Orthodox. If one goes astray, as Andrii does in the film, rejecting the values of the faith and joining the West, he or she will lose both their mortal and eternal life. Therefore, without Russian Orthodoxy and its concordant values, the Russian nation will be unable to succeed.    65 CHAPTER TWO: THE PRIEST VERSUS PSEUDO-RELIGIONS  The Priest was released in 2009, the same year as The Conqueror, and was based off of an eponymous book by Alexander Segen and published in 2007. The book centers around the Pskov Orthodox Mission, a group of priests sent to the regions of Nazi-occupied Russia to reestablish churches and minister to the needs of the local population.156 Patriarch Alexy II, Patriarch Kirill’s predecessor, commissioned Segen, who had written other historical novels, to write this book as Patriarch Alexy II’s father was a priest in occupied Estonia during World War II.157 The book was always intended to go on to become a film with Patriarch Aleksy II telling Sergei Kravets, head of Orthodox Encyclopedia at the time, “of the Church’s desire to see a film produced about the experiences of Orthodox clergy in Nazi-occupied Soviet territory during the Great Patriotic War.”158 Segen and the director of the film, Vladimir Khotinenko, then worked together to adapt the book for the screen, writing the screenplay to what would become the film The Priest.159 In large part, Segen based his book off of the memoirs of a priest, Father Aleksei Ionov, who served in the Pskov Orthodox Mission. The Mission, more formally known as the  156 Johannes Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia: The Pskov Orthodox Mission and Religious Revival, 1941-1944,” The Slavonic and East European Review 94, no. 3 (July 2016): 468. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.94.3.0468. The book was published by Strentsky Monastery Publishing.  157 Anthony Anemone, “Vladimir Khotinenko: The Priest (Pop, 2009),” KinoKultura 30 (2010). https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-aa.shtml.  158 Seth Graham, “Vladimir Khotinenko: The Priest (Pop, 2010),” KinoKultura 30 (2010). https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-sg.shtml.  159 Graham, “Vladimir Khotinenko,” https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-sg.shtml.   66 Orthodox Mission in the Liberated Regions of Russia, was started following the Nazi German occupation of the Baltic States in 1941.160 Metropolitan Sergii (Voskresenskii), “exarch of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Baltic States” and a loyal follower of the Moscow Patriarchate,161 was the catalyst for starting the Mission, negotiating with German officials to send “a group of Orthodox missionaries into the occupied districts of northwest Russia.”162 Ionov was one of the priests selected to be a part of this group, and he worked to rebuild the Russian Orthodox communities throughout the Pskov region in Latvia.   To rebuild these communities, Ionov worked alongside the Nazi German occupiers to reintegrate religion, namely Russian Orthodoxy, into Russians’ daily lives. Ionov, in particular, as part of his argument to teach the Bible in schools, emphasized to the Germans “that the Russian people had always been – and still remained – religious.”163 His argument tied back to Metropolitan Sergii’s larger argument at the beginning of the occupation, namely that “the Russian Orthodox Church under Moscow had never truly come to terms with the atheist Bolshevik regime.”164 The Nazi Germans bought into this, permitting religion to be introduced in schools due in part “to the persistent efforts of the missionaries and the local priests”165 and to the usefulness of religion as propaganda against the Soviet Union.166 The Nazis recognized that,  160 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 468.  161 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 468-469.  162 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 470. 163 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 474-475.  164 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 470.  165 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 475. 166 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 471.   67 by partnering with priests like Metropolitan Sergii and reopening churches, the Russian people in return would be grateful and express “‘joy and gratitude for the liberation from Bolshevism.”167  Alongside integrating religion into the school curriculum, Ionov “organized a ‘Russian Red Cross’.”168 This organization was geared towards serving Soviet POWs in German prisoner of war camps especially, and Ionov and others were “able to provide the prisoners with ‘a humane meal twice a week’,” lowering the death rate of the POWs.169 Seeing as the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention, which concerned how POWs were treated, the Nazi Germans used this to treat the Soviet POWs “as subhuman creatures that had ‘lost every right to treatment.’”170 The International Committee of the Red Cross even volunteered “‘its assistance to the Soviet Union during the war,’” but the Soviet Union turned down these requests, not wanting to “reward” those who had been captured and not wanting the ICRC to have “‘access to camps in the Soviet Union.’”171 Grassroots organizations, like Ionov’s “Russian Red Cross” were the best resource for these Soviet POWs, but they were only permitted by the German government as the organization’s provisions improved the quality of the Soviet POW workforce.   167 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 471.  168 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 476.  169 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 476. 170 Thomas Earl Porter, “Hitler’s Rassenkampf in the East: The Forgotten Genocide of Soviet POWs,” Nationalities Papers 37, no. 6 (November 2009): 847, https://doi.org/10.1080/00905990903230785. 171 Robert Coalson and Dmitry Volchek, “‘Do Not Respond’: Did the Soviet Government Abandon Its WWII Prisoners?,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, last modified April 9, 2018, https://www.rferl.org/a/do-not-respond- did-the-soviet-government-abandon-its-wwii-prisoners-/29217414.html.  68 Father Aleksii Ionov left “with the Germans towards the end of the war, never to return to Russia.”172 He then moved to the United States, where he published his memoirs detailing his time as a priest in the Pskov Orthodox Mission. A large part of his, and other priests’ memoirs recounting the Mission, was an emphasis on how the Church and its priests had NOT collaborated with the Germans. As Due Enstad highlights, Russian historians have different interpretations of the actions of the Mission with some accusing “the Mission of submitting entirely to the occupation regime, becoming a political tool in the hands of the German security services.”173 On the other hand, there are historians who “see the priests as being engaged in a strictly religious endeavour [sic], sidestepping German demands and thus avoiding complicity with Nazi crimes.”174 In his article, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” Due Enstad gives credence to both sides of this debate, arguing that “each position captures important elements of the Mission’s role, but both tend to make too sweeping claims and end up painting a reductive, black-and-white picture of the Mission.”175  It should come as no surprise, since the film and book are both based off Ionov’s memoirs, that both support the argument that the priests did not collaborate with the Nazi Germans but solely pursued religious aims. During the war and after, Soviet citizens who had lived in the occupied parts of the USSR were tried for collaboration with the enemy, and priests tried to avoid this fate by arguing that they were “‘following our spiritual calling.176’” This  172 Anemone, “Vladimir Khotinenko,” https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-aa.shtml. 173 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 478.  174 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 478. 175 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 478. 176 Due Enstad, “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia,” 488.   69 defense did not work for every priest as many were sent to the Gulag,177 and thus the story of the Mission “was written into Soviet history as a simple case of the Orthodox Church’s treasonous collaboration with the Nazis.”178 With the resurgence of the ROC in the past few decades, though, Church leadership has returned to the argument made by priests at the time to reframe the history of World War II and their involvement in it, arguing that those who served in the Mission were “saintly men of God and true Russian patriots…[who] administered to the spiritual needs of the Russian orthodox population in a time of national crisis.”179 A key part of this defense is the representation of the priests as “true Russian patriots” with the emphasis being on Russian in particular.  In Khotinenko’s film, the Russians and the Germans are differentiated by the concept of devotion. Within the Russian population, there is devotion to the Russian Orthodox Church first and foremost and then devotion to Soviet ideology. In the world of the film, explored in more depth below, Soviet ideology acts as a “pseudo-religion.” The Soviets, who are shown as either partisans or collaborationists, are not “true” Russians because they practice either the pseudo-religion of communism or of fascism. The film argues, though, that it is possible to convert any Russian to Russian Orthodoxy because the Russians did not truly believe in Soviet ideology, tying back to the argument made by the Pskov Orthodox Mission. Russian Orthodoxy was always present in the hearts of the Russian people, making them an innately spiritual people despite Soviet ideology.   177 Natasha Drubek, “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11: Sacralizing National History and Nationalizing Religion,” in Iconic Turns: Nation and Religion in Eastern European Cinema since 1989, ed. Liliya Berezhnaya and Christian Schmitt (Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013), 94.  178 Anemone, “Vladimir Khotinenko.”  179 Anemone, “Vladimir Khotinenko.”  70 As Father Ionov’s memoir highlighted, the Russian Orthodox people aided those who have suffered from the war whether they be civilians or prisoners of wars. Unlike the Soviet Union’s ideology, which prohibited helping prisoners of war in particular, Russian Orthodox Christians have a higher calling in their faith to help any who are in need. This calling goes above and beyond any earthly ideology and ties back to the Russians’ inherent spirituality which, as the film shows, makes them innately caring, too. As well, those who adhere to Russian Orthodoxy experience miracles which lead to their God-given purpose being fulfilled. It is due to their devotion to Russian Orthodoxy that they experience these miraculous coincidences, and it is impossible for those who do not practice the faith to experience these miracles.  The Germans, on the other hand, are portrayed as devoted to fascism, another pseudo-religion. All of the German characters in the film are fascist without exception, and this trumps their religious beliefs. Unlike Soviet ideology, which is only skin-deep, Nazism is represented as the true nature of the German people. The Germans, due to their Nazi beliefs, are cruel and only able to experience “anti-miracles.” Unlike the miracles which the Russian Orthodox Christians experience, categorized as blessings and fulfillments of their purpose, the German anti-miracle affirms the inherent cruelty of the Germans, reveals the flaws of their ideology, and crushes the hopes of the viewers that the Germans can be redeemed. As I review the movie scene by scene, the dichotomy between the Russian nation and the Nazi German nation as defined by devotion becomes strikingly clear. Just as in The Conqueror, each scene in this film provides a message on what it means to be a “true” Russian and the values to which one must adhere. In a similar fashion, The Priest also shows what ideologies and their respective values disqualify an individual from being a part of the Russian nation. In the case of this film, it is not enough to simply be Russian or to practice Russian Orthodoxy; one  71 must be a practicing Russian Orthodox Christian who has forsaken all other ideologies and is also a member of the Russian nation to truly be successful.  The film starts with a sweep over a quiet Latvian village, occupied a year and a half prior by the Soviet Union, on June 21, 1941, a day known to all Russians as the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.180 Entering into the home of the protagonist, Father Alexander Ionin, viewers see pictures on the wall and paper icons lying on the table, specifically the icon of Saint Alexander Nevsky. This saint plays a key role in the narrative of the film, and the film’s narrative echoes Alexander Nevsky’s hagiography. According to The Second Pskovian Chronicles, which includes a chapter entitled “Tale of the Life and Courage of the Pious and Great Prince Alexander,” Alexander Nevsky was a politician and military leader who most famously defeated the Teutonic Knights in the infamous Battle on Ice, portrayed in Sergei Eisenstein’s film Alexander Nevsky, discussed further below. By invoking Alexander Nevsky, Khotinenko is creating a connection between the 20th century mythologizing of the medieval battle between Russia and Germany in which Russia proved victorious and the twentieth century battle between Russia and Nazi Germany in which Russia will again come out on top.  Sitting at the table, Father Alexander is cutting out icons and religious imagery while his wife, Alevtina, is outside feeding the chickens. Alevtina is portrayed in the film as the good peasant wife who has both spiritual and earthly knowledge, understanding nature and what it is  180 There is no explanation provided in the film as to why Latvia is a part of the USSR as the circumstances surrounding Latvia joining and/or being occupied by the USSR are controversial. They tie back to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, an agreement signed in 1939 by the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany respectively, which created corresponding “spheres of influence” for the two countries. For the Soviet Union, the Baltic States were included as part of their sphere, and in 1940, the Soviet Red Army entered Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, incorporating by force the three countries into the USSR. The Baltic States look back at this time as a period of Soviet occupation, but the film shows these countries, Latvia in particular, as having been peacefully annexed into the Soviet Union.    72 telling her. Their neighbor, Moisei, approaches their home and requests to speak with Father Alexander. Moisei, who is Jewish, explains to the priest that his daughter, Hava, desperately wants to convert to Russian Orthodoxy and will not be convinced otherwise. He pleads with Father Alexander, asking him to discourage Hava from converting, and Father Alexander agrees to speak with her.  Going to Hava, Father Alexander describes that this conversion will be permanent and will have an effect on Hava’s relationship with her family, but the girl has made up her mind. He then describes how, if she is baptized but then is not a good Christian, “this is something terrible and severe.”181 In this comment, Father Alexander is foreshadowing the characters in the film who ascribe to both Russian Orthodox and Nazi or Soviet ideology. These individuals, by following two ideologies, are unable to be a good Christian because, as the Bible says, “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other.”182 Father Alexander encourages Hava to think over her decision, but he tells her that, if she does decide to be baptized, he will be the one to perform it. He adds to this that her name will be changed to Eva or Eve if translated into English. The name Eva has obvious connotations with the first woman created by God, Eve, and the meaning of this name change becomes clearer as the film progresses.  The film then shows a title card, telling viewers that it is All Saints Day, before returning to the Latvian village where a caption says it is June 22, 1941, the day the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. This use of religious dates versus secular dates occurs throughout the film, and it is meant to create two layers to the film, one which is heavenly and the other earthly. The  181 Поп (The Priest), directed by Vladimir Khotinenko (Moscow, Orthodox Encyclopedia, 2009), 06:37.  182 Matthew 6:24 (New International Version).   73 heavenly layer is one which is eternal while the earthly is temporal. Those who celebrate the religious holidays and follow the religious calendar are living on an eternal timeline while those who follow the earthly calendar and its holidays, i.e., the Soviets and the Nazis, will perish. To add on to this, these two layers overlap in the Russian characters in the film, particularly when they experience the aforementioned miracles.  Entering into the church, Father Alexander is reciting prayers and celebrating the service while Hava sits outside. Suddenly, an announcement comes through on the town’s speakers as Vyacheslav Molotov, Soviet foreign minister and of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact fame, announces that the Nazis have invaded the Soviet Union. As Molotov talks over the loud speakers, Father Alexander and Alevtina see a Red Army tank roll by their home on the way to the battlefield. It slows to a stop in front of their home, and a Red Army soldier jumps out, approaching Father Alexander and asking for a blessing. Father Alexander rushes back inside to grab his holy water, but the soldiers leave before he is back with the water. Father Alexander tries to bless the tank, but it is already too far away to be touched by the holy water. Both this soldier, who misses the blessing, and Kirill, the soldier who mocked the Church in an earlier scene, are never seen again, and it can be assumed from this that both die on the battlefront. In the narrative of the film, though, had these two soldiers truly been devout to their Russian Orthodox faith, they would have survived.  Jumping ahead to July 6, 1941, Father Alexander is performing Hava’s baptism in the church while the Nazis enter the town, beginning their occupation. Khotinenko cuts between the scenes of Hava’s baptism, particularly the moment where Father Alexander asks her, “Do you renounce Satan and all his works, and all his servants, and all his serving, and all his trickery?”  74 and the Latvians welcoming the Nazis entering the town.183 These cuts underscore Eva’s salvation by conversion to Russian Orthodox Christianity while at the same time connecting the Latvians and the Nazis to Satan and all his works, seeing as the Nazis are performing Satan’s deeds and the Latvians are not renouncing them (as baptism calls those being baptized to do).  A key scene that shows the hierarchy of nations within the film occurs as the Latvians welcome the Nazis into the village, and other villagers call them out for it. One man sees a Latvian family carrying bread and salt to the Nazis and asks them a question in Latvian. The father/husband replies in Latvian, but neither the question nor the reply are translated into Russian. By not translating the Latvian, the director has left viewers to speculate and read off of facial signals and tones what words are being exchanged. Later in the film, when German is spoken, it will be translated into Russian for viewers to understand, placing the German language and its corresponding nation above Latvian and Latvia. However, Latvia is not at the bottom in this hierarchy but rather Judaism which does not have its adherents even speaking their own language, Yiddish. In this scene, Khotinenko has made it clear to the viewers that Latvian is the language of Nazi collaborators and thus does not merit being understood. As the Latvians approach the Nazis to deliver their welcome gift, the film returns to Hava’s baptism as Father Alexander asks her whether she unites herself with Christ. She replies in the affirmative, and at the same time, the Latvians present their gifts to the Nazis, uniting themselves with Nazism. Father Alexander then dunks Hava, now Eva, into the water, and the film cuts between her baptism and the Nazis washing themselves with water from buckets. Both Eva and the Nazis have an ecstatic look on their faces as they are submersed in the water, but it  183 Поп (The Priest), 13:18-13:25.   75 is only Eva who is truly cleansed as she joins the community of Russian Orthodox Christians. The Nazis will never be cleansed from their sins as they practice the pseudo-religion of fascism.  Upon returning home, Alevtina tells Father Alexander that he has received a letter from Metropolitan Sergii summoning Father Alexander to Riga, the capital of Latvia. On July 12, Father Alexander arrives in Riga which has also been occupied by the Nazis. Walking through the streets of Riga, viewers are introduced to Metropolitan Sergii who is shown speaking with a Nazi colonel of German Russian ethnicity named Ivan Freihausen.184 Ivan is retelling his life story to the Metropolitan, recounting how he ended up serving the Nazis as a colonel but remains Russian Orthodox. Father Alexander approaches the pair, listening to the conversation from a distance. The Metropolitan asks Ivan whether Hitler intends to regrow the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia to which Ivan replies in the negative. Hitler, as mentioned previously, only began reopening churches as a propaganda move against the Soviets, but this did not stop the ROC from taking advantage of this for their own goals, namely reviving religious life in Russia.  In the following scene, Metropolitan Sergii is having tea with two other priests and discussing sending priests to the Pskov region in an attempt to revive Russian Orthodoxy in the area, affirming the aforementioned statement. Father Alexander arrives, and before entering the room, Metropolitan Sergii tells the two other priests how Father Alexander will be the first priest sent to the Pskov region as he is “the best example for a Russian priest.” 185 According to  184 Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist republic, Abingdon: RM Education, Ltd, 2020. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/books/volga-german-autonomous-soviet-socialist-republic/docview/2459444079/se-2. During the reign of Catherine the Great, many Germans came to Russia as colonists and “settled on both banks of the Lower Volga” River, earning them the name Volga Germans. During World War II, many of the descendants of these original German colonists were “accused of collaboration, [and] were deported to Siberia and Central Asia.”  185 Поп (The Priest), 19:07-19:11.   76 Metropolitan Sergii, Father Alexander gives powerful sermons and has experienced deportations and concentration camps at the hands of the Soviets during the 1920s and 1930s.  Father Alexander’s history is one that a lot of priests at the time would have had due to Soviet repressions throughout the 1920s and 1930s, but there is no clear reason provided to the viewers on why Father Alexander was finally released from the camps or how he ended up in Latvia. Viewers are left to wonder whether Father Alexander collaborated with Soviet authorities in order to be released as many priests throughout the period of the USSR did, or if it was a miracle that Father Alexander was freed. As discussed at the beginning, the theme of miracles is one of the key narrative devices of the film, so it is highly possible that Father Alexander’s release is meant to be one of these miracles.  Upon entering the room, Metropolitan Sergii and one of the other priests explain to Father Alexander that they are sending him to reopen churches in the Pskov region with the Nazi Germans’ aid. Father Alexander is shocked, telling the priests that “it is not good” to be working with the Germans on this.186 He understands that churches should be reopened, emphasizing that “people are kind of lonely without churches,” but argues that working with the Germans to do this means betraying their country, i.e., Russia.187 Metropolitan Sergii replies that the Soviet Union is not their country as the Soviets have no God. Father Alexander agrees with this, but still argues against working with the Germans by invoking his namesake, Alexander Nevsky, who protected the Russians by defeating the Germans many centuries before. Father Alexander then says to his fellow priests, “We are Russians,” with the underlying message of this statement being that the other priests should not forget what the Germans have done to the Russian people  186 Поп (The Priest), 20:14-20:15.  187 Поп (The Priest), 20:20-20:22.   77 in the past, such as during the time of Alexander Nevsky.188 In Father Alexander’s argument, it is clear that he believes that the Germans remain a threat to the Russian people and working with them will be a betrayal of for what the Russian nation stands. Throughout the film, the Russian nation is portrayed as explicitly anti-fascist, and working alongside the Germans will run the risk of tainting the nation with German fascism.  Metropolitan Sergii refutes this argument by telling Father Alexander that the Russian people will suffer throughout the war at the hands of the Germans and thus it would be wrong to deprive them of God and His teachings. This argument appeals to the idea of a higher calling which is what distinguishes the Russian nation from the German nation and is the justification for why the Russian Orthodox priests worked alongside the Nazis to reopen churches. This higher calling connects to the spirituality of the Russian nation and is what will prevent the Russian Orthodox people from becoming tainted by German fascism. Father Alexander agrees with Metropolitan Sergii, telling the Metropolitan that he will go wherever he is needed. In reply, Metropolitan Sergii sends him to the village of Zakati where there is a church dedicated to Alexander Nevsky, Father Alexander’s patron saint. The consistent references to Alexander Nevsky throughout the film are meant to serve as a reminder that the Russians beat the Germans once and they will do it again due, at least according to the film, to their devotion to the Russian Orthodox faith. As Patriarch Kirill said in his speech to the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, the reason the Russians won the Great Patriotic War was because «так Богу было угодно» [God wanted it that way.]189 In this film, the  188 Поп (The Priest), 20:50.  189 «Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной академии Генерального штаба Вооруженных сил РФ.»  78 reason God wanted the Russians to win was because of their devoted faith, the only true religion in the film when compared to Soviet and Nazi ideologies. The film then cuts to a trio of Nazis on their way into the village of Zakati where they encounter Russian villagers, including a teenage girl, Masha, splashing around and enjoying the lake. This encounter will be the first anti-miracle in the film as Nazi ideology is demonstrated through a cruel act that at first provides hope to the viewer only to then crush it. Masha and the children watch as the Nazis approach the lake and get off their motorbike to ask the children for a photo. The Nazis want the photo as evidence of their occupation, but Masha and the children do not understand and are fearful of the men. The Nazi photographer taunts one of his comrades, telling the latter that he can confirm his theory of whether Russian women wear underwear. The Nazi lifts up Masha’s dress as the photographer tries to take a photo, and she runs back before the photo is taken. The Nazis try again, but this time Masha slaps the one attempting to lift her dress. In response, the Nazi pulls out a gun and goes to shoot Masha, but his comrades pull him back before he does so. As they get back on the motorbike, Masha and the children look on, and, before they pull away, the Nazi pulls out his gun again and shoots at Masha. Initially, it looks like he misses, but the camera pans to Masha ,who collapses to the ground as blood begins to stain her dress. It is revealed now that the Nazi did not miss and has killed Masha.  As mentioned above, this is the first in a series of anti-miracles in the film, associated with both Nazi and Soviet ideology. Unlike the miracles of Russian Orthodoxy which give the viewers hope, these anti-miracles, like the appearance of a Nazi missing but in reality hitting Masha, give hope only to then crush it. Nazism, argues Khotinenko through this film, is only able to perform anti-miracles due to the faults in its value system, and it is only Russian Orthodox Christianity that can provide one with hope.  79 Father Alexander, on his way home from Riga, spots Nazis on the side of the road, again filming and taking photos of the Russian people to document the Nazi occupation and the crimes which the Nazis have perpetrated. In this scene, there will be two instances in which Father Alexander witnesses Nazi depravity, underscoring Metropolitan Sergii’s message about the Russians’ suffering at German hands.  The first instance of this is when the Nazis have killed a cow and are filming as a Russian woman curses them and cries over the cow. As she sobs, she asks, “Where are you, Lord?!,” and it could not be better timing as Father Alexander, an exemplar priest, has just arrived. Father Alexander’s appearance at this exact moment is one of the miracles of Russian Orthodoxy, following right after a scene portraying a Nazi anti-miracle. The priest is there to provide hope to this woman and later to all Russians whom he encounters and who are suffering under the Nazi occupation. Rather than crushing her hope, as a Nazi anti-miracle would, Father Alexander is there to foster hope by preaching the good news of Jesus Christ and eternal life through Him. Her question affirms what Metropolitan Sergii had said to Father Alexander about the Russians suffering and needing God, and it also affirms what both the real Metropolitan Sergii and Father Aleksei Ionov said about the Russian people still being religious. As Father Alexander moves to approach her, the second instance of Nazi cruelty occurs as the Nazis lead Soviet POWs to a concentration camp, injured and wounded. Both Father Alexander and the Nazis observe this parade of prisoners go by, and the Nazis record it on their film camera. They joke and laugh about the Soviet POWs as they go by while Father Alexander simply looks on in silence. The woman has left at this point, and one of the Soviet POWs approaches the cow and milks it. The Nazis mock him for this, but Father Alexander looks on in understanding. It is after these two consecutive moments of Nazi cruelty that Metropolitan  80 Sergii’s words are now fully understood by Father Alexander and he comes to recognize what kind of pain the Nazi occupation will bring on the Soviet people.  Returning to the religious calendar, it is the holiday of Transfiguration, and Father Alexander and other priests of the Mission are headed to their respective villages accompanied by the Nazis, including the German Russian Nazi colonel, Ivan. It is the first time Father Alexander and Ivan will speak, developing a connection between the two men that will persist throughout the rest of the film. Alevtina, Father Alexander’s wife, is nervous, remarking to her husband that they are traveling to unknown places, but Father Alexander reminds her that Pskov is an old Russian city, alluding to the history of this town and its connections to Russian history, including the defeat of the Germans at the hands of Alexander Nevsky. Ivan listens in on their conversation, commenting at one point that he recognizes Father Alexander from somewhere. Father Alexander reminds him that they encountered each other in Riga, and Ivan laughs in response, remembering that Father Alexander was eating ice cream when he spotted him. From this point onwards, Father Alexander and Ivan’s relationship will develop as Ivan struggles between following both Russian Orthodoxy and Nazi fascism. In the end, their relationship will underscore the argument that Khotinenko makes throughout the film, namely that it is impossible to be both fascist and Russian Orthodox.  The film cuts to a grassy field and introduces a new character, a Soviet soldier named Aleksii, who was Masha’s boyfriend and who will play a key role in distinguishing between Soviet versus Russian throughout the film. While looking at a photo of Masha, Aleksii has a flashback to an evening in the Soviet community center in Pskov. Aleksii and Masha, along with other townspeople, are watching the Sergei Eisenstein film Alexander Nevsky, particularly the scene where the Teutonic Knights burn the children of Pskov.   81 Eisenstein’s film, released in 1938, was made at a time of strained relations between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The anti-Nazi messaging is obvious in the film as the Teutonic Knights, who are called Germans in the film, are shown bearing flags with eagles that closely resemble the Nazi eagle and the Catholic priests wear miters bearing symbols that mirror Nazi swastikas. The messaging of the film centers around the values of Soviet ideology, namely the collective over the individual and to be observant of those around oneself as anyone could be a traitor.  Figure 3: The Catholic bishop whose miter bears swastika-like symbols190  190 Александр Невский (Alexander Nevsky), directed by Sergei Eisenstein (Moscow, Mosfilm, 1938), 01:10:28.  https://tubitv.com/movies/623154/alexander-nevsky?start=true&tracking=google-feed&utm_source=google-feed.  82  Figure 4: The Teutonic Knights’ flag which bears a “striking” resemblance to the coat of arms of Nazi Germany191 Khotinenko rejects the messaging of Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky, however, by using this scene to give Masha and Aleksii the chance to talk to one another. Instead of the collective, Khotinenko uses the moment to create a relationship between two individuals while everyone else is distracted by the film. This conversation between Masha and Aleksii belies the message by arguing for the individual over the collective. More broadly, by undermining the messaging of Alexander Nevsky, Khotinenko is also undermining Soviet ideology and showing how it is not a viable ideology in the world of the film. While Alexander Nevsky and its messaging are sparse on Russian Orthodoxy, Khotinenko makes up for it throughout The Priest and in this particular scene by having Masha ask Aleksii whether he was aware that the community center used to be a church dedicated to Alexander Nevsky. Converting church buildings into Soviet spaces was a very common practice during the 1920s and 1930s, but it is a coincidence, or more precisely, a miracle, that this community center, where the film Alexander Nevsky is being shown, used to be a church dedicated to  191 Александр Невский (Alexander Nevsky), 01:15:53.   83 Alexander Nevsky. The Eisenstein film is used to create this miracle and, in the process, connect the figure of Alexander Nevsky to the ROC rather than to the Soviet state. Alexander Nevsky, according to Khotinenko’s film, is not meant to be a Soviet hero but rather a Russian Orthodox hero, and this scene underscores that.  The film then returns to the present as Aleksii suddenly hears a voice singing and looks up to see Eva, disguised as a boy, walking through the same field. Both are traveling to the village of Zakati, Aleksii to find Masha and Eva to find Father Alexander. It is only by a miracle of God that this encounter occurs as the chances are little to none that the two would cross paths in the same field in the Russian wilderness. Aleksii and Eva, as the film progresses, will become a couple destined to lead the new Russian nation, and it is this moment here that sets them on this path. Aleksii asks Eva whether she has any food, and she responds that she is carrying fish and bread, invoking the story from John’s Gospel in which Jesus takes five loaves of bread and two fish and uses them to feed five thousand individuals. This first meeting between the two is layered with this kind of biblical symbolism, both in the story from John’s Gospel and in their names themselves which echo Adam and Eve. In having these biblical references, it is clearly no coincidence that the pair would meet but rather a miracle.  The film returns to Father Alexander as he and the other missionaries are still on the bus, and Father Alexander is explaining the purpose behind the Mission. According to him, the reason for the Mission is “to make the desert reborn,”192 and that “it is not without meaning that tomorrow is the celebration of Appearance Changing [Transfiguration.]”193 Again, there is a moment of a miraculous coincidence as the missionaries go to change the appearance of the  192 Поп (The Priest), 30:13-30:15 193 Поп (The Priest), 30:20-30:22.   84 Baltic region, returning it to Russian Orthodoxy, while at the same time celebrating this religious holiday. By having Father Alexander comment on this, Khotinenko is emphasizing the importance of miracles, disguised as coincidences, throughout the film.  Finally, the bus rolls into Pskov where there is a large Russian Orthodox church looming in the background (in case the viewers forgot this film was about the Church). Ivan jumps out of the bus and greets the other Nazis who refer to him using the German version of Ivan, Johann. He is clearly well-liked among his fellow soldiers, laughing and joking around, and Father Alexander and the priests catch this from their position on the bus. Again, Ivan’s character is torn between Russian Orthodoxy and Nazi fascism, and, in the end, it will be Nazi fascism that wins out as there was no other choice for Ivan in the narrative of the film.  One of the other priests, Father Gheoriy (who had been in Riga), remarks to Father Alexander that the Nazis are jolly and wonders whether they are laughing at the priests’ expense. Father Gheoriy’s commentary underscores the differences between the Nazi Germans and the Russians while at the same time expressing concern about what the Nazi occupation will mean for the Russian Orthodox priests. He remarks that “even the pig is more modest,” contrasting Nazi values to those of the Russian nation, namely the Nazis’ lack of humility.194 Father Alexander reprimands Father Gheoriy, asking him why he is looking to cause trouble. Father Alexander then begins to remind the other priest that “it will be necessary”, but trails off before finishing the sentence.195 Father Gheoriy fills in the ending, though, by revealing to the viewers that the priests are going to attempt to trick the Germans. He believes this will be challenging, but Father Alexander invokes history, reminding him that the priests “crushed the Bolsheviks” so  194 Поп (The Priest), 32:15-32:17.  195 Поп (The Priest), 32:23.   85 it should not be hard to “fool the sausage-makers (Germans).”196 Father Gheoriy responds by revealing that he is a descendant of the German Russians which is why he knows it will be hard.  There are clear comparisons that can be drawn between Father Gheoriy and Ivan, the German Russian colonel, but the most obvious comparison is between their respective ideologies. Father Gheoriy is a Russian Orthodox priest who does not buy into fascist ideology, mocking the Nazis. Ivan is also of Russian Orthodox faith, but he buys into Nazi ideology. While Father Gheoriy is German Russian, he is able to be a part of the Russian nation in the world of the film because he is a devout Russian Orthodox Christian. Ivan, who is also German Russian, is unable to be part of the Russian nation because he is a follower of the pseudo Nazi religion. Through Father Gheoriy and Eva, Khotinenko is making the argument that it is possible for individuals of other nations, like the German Russians or the Jews, to join the Russian nation by becoming Russian Orthodox. However, it is impossible for an individual who, in other ways, might be included in the Russian nation, to truly be a member if they adhere to another religion, whether it be a pseudo-religion like Nazism or communism or another biblical religion like Judaism.  Arriving to the village, Father Alexander and his wife stand in shock in front of the former church which has been converted into the Soviet community center. It bears no resemblance to the church that it used to be, but Father Alexander still crosses himself before it. In front of the church is a statue of Lenin and above the doorway is a photo of Stalin. The onion dome of the church is covered in a map of the Soviet Union and topped with a red star to further emphasize that this building now belongs to the Soviets. He and Alevtina both recognize that  196 Поп (The Priest), 32:30-32:34.   86 there is much work to be done in rebirthing the Russian Orthodox Church in this community, but that is what they are there to do. That evening, Aleksii and Eva also arrive to the village and split up with Aleksii going to find Masha and Eva to find Father Alexander. In this scene, Aleksii finds out about Masha’s death, starting his journey first towards becoming a Soviet partisan but ultimately towards becoming a Russian Orthodox Christian. Aleksii goes to Masha’s home, calling for her through the window. Her family hears, though, and opens the door, welcoming Aleksii in. Masha’s younger brother tells Aleksii that Masha has been killed, and her parents confirm it, telling Aleksii that it was the Nazis who murdered her. Aleksii begins to back away in shock, unable to process what he has just heard and Masha’s father follows him. Eva, who has followed Aleksii, watches on from the edge of the forest as Masha’s father gives Aleksii a gun and encourages him to use it against the Germans. Aleksii accepts the gun and bullets with a look on his face confirming that he will be seeking vengeance against the Germans for Masha’s death.  As said above, Masha’s death is one of the anti-miracles in the film, emphasizing the differences between Nazi ideology and Russian Orthodoxy. However, her death is also necessary because it leaves Aleksii single and thus able to be with Eva. By having Eva follow behind Aleksii to hear the news of Masha’s death, Khotinenko has thus presented her to viewers in such a way that she looks to be the replacement for Masha. While Aleksii does not view Eva as a viable romantic partner at the moment, Eva clearly has him in mind for a future husband as seen by her questions about whether Aleksii has a fianceé and her telling him that she does not.  Above all, it was impossible for Masha and Aleksii to end up together because neither was Russian Orthodox. The only relationships presented in the film are those between Russian Orthodox individuals, like Father Alexander and Alevtina and later, Aleksii and Eva. In doing so,  87 Khotinenko has made the argument that the only relationships that will last are those founded on Russian Orthodox faith. If this is the only way possible, then, for a romantic relationship to exist, then it is also true that Russian Orthodoxy is the only way possible for the nation to grow and flourish, seeing as there are no children shown except for those who are Russian Orthodox.  The following morning, the villagers have gathered together to convert the Soviet community center back into a church, affirming the belief held by Metropolitan Sergii and Father Aleksii Ionov that the Russians retained their spirituality even under Soviet rule. One individual is shown painting over the map of the USSR on the dome while another removes the portrait of Stalin above the doorway, revealing an icon of none other than Alexander Nevsky beneath. Others are shown removing portraits of Lenin and other important Communist figures and replacing them with Russian Orthodox icons. Father Alexander enters, awed at the progress that has been made, and sweeps off the altar, removing all of the Soviet paraphernalia covering it. From the lake in the middle of the village, the church bell is found and carried back by villagers to be reinstalled. Khotinenko cuts between the discovery of the bell and the uncovering of an icon of Jesus painted on the inside of the dome, looking down on the congregation.  Rather than having a character announce that a miracle has occurred, as in other prior scenes, Khotinenko is more subtle here, using this cutting back and forth to make his point that the bell being found is a miracle. The miracle of finding the bell cannot be understated when discussing the rebirth of the church in this village due to the fate of many other bells within the USSR and the importance of church bells for the practice of Russian Orthodoxy. Many church bells, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, were melted down for use by the state, so the Russians of the film would have been surprised to discover that their church bell did not experience the same fate. Church bells, both then and now, act as “an integral part of Orthodoxy’s divine services,”  88 and their “ringing is dedicated to calling believers to divine services; expressing the triumph of the Church and of her divine services; announcing to the faithful…the most important moments of the divine services; strengthening Christians in piety and faith by its sound.”197 By reinstalling the church bell, the sound of Russian Orthodoxy once again rings out over Russia, reminding all those who hear the bell of the Church and its role for the Russian nation.  As the Russian people continue to restore their church, Eva emerges from a hay bale where she had been hiding and calls out to Father Alexander. Father Alexander is surprised to see her there, and he goes to talk with Alevtina about bringing the girl into their home. During their conversation, in which Alevtina agrees to welcome Eva in, Father Alexander reveals that Eva’s family has been killed by the Nazis. This will be the only mention in the film of the fate of the Jewish population during World War II, and its mention here is to emphasize the miracle of Eva surviving. Father Alexander even says, “She was not baptized in vain,” alluding to the fact that the reason Eva survived is due to her baptism and conversion to Russian Orthodoxy just before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.198 Had she not converted in the nick of time, argues the film, she would have perished alongside the rest of her family. The film also includes no mention of the Nazis targeting the Jews in particular but instead emphasizes the Nazis targeting the Soviet population as a whole. This narrative connects to the larger Soviet retelling of the events of the Great Patriotic War. In the Soviet Union, “accounts about the war in general played down or universalized the murder of the Jews,”199 instead  197John Burnett, ed., “Typikon for Church Ringing,” trans. Mark Galperin (Editorial Board of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2002), https://www.russianbells.com/ringing/typikon-bellringing.pdf.  198 Поп (The Priest), 43:30-32:31.  199 Olga Baranova, “Conceptualizations of the Holocaust in Soviet and Post-Soviet Ukraine and Belarus: Public Debates and Historiography,” East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 34, no. 1 (February 2020): 244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325419831349.   89 choosing to focus on “the atrocities committed by the Nazis against Soviet citizens” as a whole.200 By adopting the Soviet account of atrocities, the film was able to ignore the persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Instead, Khotinenko can brush aside the suffering of the Jews in favor of focusing on the suffering of the Russian nation, particularly those who practice Russian Orthodoxy.  On September 11, 1941, more Nazis, including Ivan, arrive in the village, bringing with them Nazi propaganda films like Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph des Willens [Triumph of the Will] to begin inculcating the Soviet people with Nazi ideology. That evening, the Nazis show one of the films on the outer wall of the church, and Aleksii watches on from the edge of the crowd. The Nazi propaganda film justifies the invasion of the Soviet Union, pointing to the threat of communism, and provides updates on Nazi advances further into the USSR. It shows Soviet citizens celebrating the arrival of the Nazis, but looks are exchanged between the villagers, underscoring their lack of belief in these messages. Father Alexander, sitting next to Ivan, questions him on why the Nazis are showing this film, asking, “You want to trample on us definitively?”201 Ivan answers that it is his job to do this, and the pair turn back to the film as Soviet POWs are shown.  Father Alexander mentions his concern for these prisoners, asking, “Who will take care of them?”202 His concern for the POWs persists throughout the rest of the film as caring for POWs is a defense used by the Church against those who claim that Russian Orthodox priests collaborated with the Nazis for the sole benefit of the priests. In the film, Father Alexander is  200 Baranova, “Conceptualizations of the Holocaust in Soviet and Post-Soviet Ukraine and Belarus,” 243.  201 Поп (The Priest), 45:55-45:57.  202 Поп (The Priest), 46:12-46:13.   90 shown as genuinely concerned for these Soviet soldiers and wanting to aid in any way possible without receiving anything in return. Ivan shares Father Alexander’s concern, telling him that there are over 2 million POWs and some are housed nearby in a concentration camp. He justifies their suffering, though, by pointing to the fact that Stalin had not signed the Geneva Convention which, as previously mentioned, covered the treatment of POWs. Ivan also mentions that the prisoners are suffering because the International Red Cross has been prohibited from getting involved. While Ivan intends these to serve as a justification for the prisoners’ suffering, it does not free the Germans from the responsibility of having caused the POWs to be in this position in the first place. Ivan blames the POW’s fate on the Soviets, but in reality, the Germans are at least partly to blame for the prisoners’ suffering due to their cruel treatment of them. One of the following scenes shows the Soviet policeman, Vladikin, to whom Masha was engaged, snapping a photo of the Soviet police who are now collaborating with the Nazis. For the film, these Soviet collaborators are the lowest of the low, on par with the Nazis, because they have betrayed their nation and traded one pseudo-religion for another. These men look on as Father Alexander rides by on a bike, mocking him and the Church, further underscoring the fact that they do not belong to the Russian Orthodox Church and thus to the Russian nation. The next scene reveals where Father Alexander is riding on his bike – the concentration camp where the Soviet POWs are being held. Entering the camp, the Soviet prisoners are laying around in different states of misery with some looking near to death. Father Alexander recognizes one of the prisoners, Stefan, and calls him over, asking about conditions in the camp. Stefan tells Father Alexander that they are being fed barely any food. Before he can ask another question, the Nazis close the gate, putting Father Alexander on one side of the barbed wire and Stefan on the other. Nearby, the Nazis demand that the Soviet POWs sing as they work, but  91 Stefan remains focused on talking to Father Alexander, introducing him to a man named Kolika the Crazy. Kolika is the “holy fool” in this film, someone who is presented as mentally ill but who at the same time is in contact with the Russian Orthodox supernatural.203 The role of the concentration camp in the film is to display Nazi ideology in action while at the same time emphasizing the suffering of the Russian nation as a whole. Rather than showing a concentration camp where the Jews were murdered en masse, Khotinenko chose to focus on a POW camp where Russians from all across the Soviet Union were imprisoned. In this scene, the cruelty of the Nazis is put on full display as they taunt the Soviets, forcing these men into acting like animals by withholding food, clothes, and medicine. It is up to Father Alexander and the Russian people themselves to care for these men, and Father Alexander promises Kolika that he will return with these items. By having Father Alexander provide for the needs of these prisoners, Khotinenko is making the argument that the priests’ collaboration with the Nazis in this case was to benefit the Russians rather than to improve the standing of the Church under the Nazi occupation. According to the film, it is now the holiday of the Protection of the Mother of God, according to the spiritual calendar, or October 14, 1941, if following the earthly calendar, and the village is covered in snow. Father Alexander has invited Ivan over to his home to celebrate the holiday, and as they are finishing up their dinner, gunshots are suddenly heard outside the window. It is revealed that the cause is drunk Nazis who are celebrating the Nazi army having reached the outskirts of Moscow. According to Ivan, the Muscovites are welcoming the Nazi  203 Ewa M. Thompson, Understanding Russia: The Holy Fool in Russian Culture (Boston: University Press of America, 1987), 1. Kolika is meant to invoke the Russian “holy fool,” a person who “possessed mysterious powers and was in some way in contact with the supernatural” while at the same time being “mentally or physically ill.”203 In the villages of the Russian past, “the influence of holy fools on the Russian peasantry can hardly be overestimated” as these individuals were “often treated with more consideration by the villagers than the local priest.”203  92 troops with open arms as liberators, but it is clear Father Alexander does not completely buy into this. Ivan remains outside to celebrate with his men, but Father Alexander and Alevtina stay inside their home, watching and worrying.  For Russian Orthodox Christians, the capture of Moscow would have been particularly painful as the city is the seat of the Patriarch of the ROC. For Ivan to be celebrating the capture of the city, it reveals where his true loyalties lie – not with the Church but with the Nazis. Father Alexander and Alevtina are understandably upset, recognizing that the capture of Moscow would mean the Soviet Union all but being defeated and the seat of the Patriarch being in the hands of the pseudo-religious Nazis. This is not something to celebrate as the Nazis do but rather something to mourn, particularly if one is a member of the Russian nation and a devout follower of the Russian Orthodox Church. As the winter continues, the Nazis are shown cutting down trees while the Soviet partisans, with whom Aleksii has joined up, are hiding in the forest and observing the Nazis. The partisans watch on as Father Alexander walks to the church/former community center, and they discuss how the church used to be a “nice place” before it was restored.204 Aleksii gets up, telling the others that he is going to the church, and they warn him off. This does not stop Aleksii, though, who leaves the hideout to follow Father Alexander.  Inside the church, the camera cuts between Father Alexander and the icon, the Virgin Hodegetria or “The Indicator of the Way”, pictured below. This icon, as its title suggests, has Mary, the Mother of God, gesturing for the viewer to look at Jesus, who is referred to in John’s Gospel as the Way. Jesus has his hand raised as though He is blessing the viewer. The icon is believed to be able to work miracles, including the protection of the Russian people against their  204 Поп (The Priest), 57:19-57:20.  93 enemies.205 It is no mistake, then, that this icon is displayed in Father Alexander’s church, due to its allusions to miracles, a constant theme throughout the film, and to protection from the enemies of another nation.   Figure 5: The Virgin Hodegetria of Tichvine (The Indicator of the Way)206 At first both Father Alexander and Aleksii are standing in the dark, but Father Alexander flicks the lights on, revealing another icon, the one of Jesus looking down from the ceiling. Aleksii begins to speak, remarking on how the inside of the building has changed, and Father Alexander is startled, not realizing that Aleksii was standing there. Aleksii orders Father Alexander to turn off the light and, after the light is turned off again, pulls out his gun. Father Alexander asks Aleksii, “You wouldn’t want to kill me, would you?” to which Aleksii answers  205 Anatoly Vilkov, “Return of a National Treasure,” 2009, https://www.tretyakovgallerymagazine.com/articles/4-2009-25/return-national-treasure.  206 Ouspensky and Lossky, “The Meaning of Icons,” 82.    94 that he has not decided yet.207 In response to that, Father Alexander asks what he has done to wrong Aleksii, and Aleksii replies, “You have rotten [sic] the very core of my life.”208 Father Alexander begins to question this, and Aleksii orders him to be silent and listen as he begins to explain.  Aleksii accuses Father Alexander of serving the Germans and then speaks of how he was born and grew up in this village, and it is where he loved for the one and only time. He then describes how the Germans killed his love and turns towards Father Alexander as though to kill him. Father Alexander begins to stand to refute this, and Aleksii fires his gun, shooting at Father Alexander. He misses, instead hitting the Virgin Hodegetria icon.  It is a miracle that Aleksii missed Father Alexander and no coincidence that he hit the Virgin Hodegetria icon instead. The two were standing not far apart from one another, so there is no reason Aleksii should have missed. The film presents his miss as an act of God through the icon of the Virgin Hodegetria. As mentioned above, the icon has acted as a protector of the Russian people, and in this case, it protected Father Alexander.  The reason why the icon protected Father Alexander is revealed in how the two respond to Aleksii’s attempted killing of the priest. Aleksii is astonished that the priest is not scared, but Father Alexander reminds him that he has faith and, if it is his time, “then glory to the Lord.”209 The priest then offers to forgive Aleksii of his sins before he tries to kill Father Alexander again. Aleksii is at first reluctant to participate, but, in the end, he gives in and Father Alexander begins  207 Поп (The Priest), 58:36-58:37.  208 Поп (The Priest), 58:50-58:52.  209 Поп (The Priest), 1:00:12.   95 the chant to forgive Aleksii of his sins. As he is chanting, Aleksii looks at the icon of the Virgin Hodegetria, which now has a bullet hole in it. In this moment, Father Alexander and the Virgin Hodegetria are acting in the same role, indicating the way to salvation to Aleksii. In fact, Father Alexander has played this role throughout the film, first to Eva and now to Aleksii, guiding them towards Jesus, who will save them both mortally and spiritually. By converting Eva to Russian Orthodoxy, Father Alexander opened the way for her to become the matriarch of the new Russian nation that is to follow after World War II. By forgiving Aleksii, Father Alexander has cleared him of his sins, particularly the murder of those two Nazis and of the attempted murder of the priest, clearing the way for him to join the Church and become the patriarch to the new Russian nation. As Father Alexander forgives Aleksii for his sons, a light flares through the bullet hole of the icon, literally lighting the way for Aleksii towards Russian Orthodoxy, the only true religion in the narrative of the film.  Aleksii leaves the church, and Father Alexander begins to repair the icon, thanking the Mother of God for saving his life and Aleksii’s life. While having literally protected Father Alexander from death, the icon also prevented a spiritual death for Aleksii. From this point onward, Aleksii’s life has changed as he begins to turn away from the Soviet pseudo-religion and towards the religion of the Russian nation, Russian Orthodoxy.  In one of the next scenes of the film, the Soviet police collaborators are practicing their shooting skills on a scarecrow with a sign around its neck that reads “I am a partisan.” In the myth of the Great Patriotic War, the role of the partisans is key. Under Leonid Brezhnev and successive leaders, artwork depicting the partisans was one of the common motifs, showing the  96 importance of these fighters to the myth of the war.210 Their importance has continued to persist throughout the Putin era as the cult of the Great Patriotic War itself continues. For example, at an entertainment park sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defense, visitors can walk through a replica of a partisan village to “learn about ‘the legendary partisans and their exploits, about the children in the partisan units and the difficult conditions in which the partisans lived and fought.’”211 To have the Soviet policemen shoot a figure meant to stand in as partisan further disconnects these collaborators from the larger myth of the Great Patriotic War and reiterates their status as traitors of the Soviet Union.  Father Alexander passes the Soviet policemen, who mock him, returning home to tell Eva that he and Alevtina have officially adopted her as their daughter. Eva is thrilled with this news, hugging both of her new parents. She appears to have no sense of loss or sadness for her former Jewish family who have all been murdered. This has been the case throughout the film, but it is particularly noticeable here when she has taken on the patronymic and last name of Father Alexander, cutting all connections to her former life as Hava altogether. At this moment, there is again the reminder that Judaism is one of the false faiths within the film, and it is only Russian Orthodoxy, through her conversion under Father Alexander, which saved Eva’s life.  That evening, the Soviet policeman and Nazi collaborator (and Masha’s former fiancé), Vladikin, has dinner with Father Alexander and Alevtina and questions their loyalty to the Nazi occupiers. Father Alexander tells Vladikin that he is “for Jesus Christ” and is a priest under the  210 Nina Tumarkin, The Living and the Dead: The Rise and Fall of the Cult of World War II (New York: Basic Books, 1994), 140.  211 Elizaveta Gaufman, “The Militainment of World War II Memory in Post-Soviet Russia,” in War and Remembrance: World War II and the Holocaust in the Memory Politics of Post-Socialist Europe, ed. Paul Srodecki and Daria Kozlova (Leiden: Brill | Schöningh, 2023), 74.  97 authority of the Metropolitan of Moscow, the patriarch.212 Vladikin does not like this response, accusing Father Alexander of serving the Germans while at the same time serving Moscow. He tells Father Alexander that this arrangement will not work forever, and, when the Soviets retake their village, both Vladikin and Father Alexander will be killed for the same reason – collaboration. Father Alexander replies to this by comparing himself to Jesus, who was crucified alongside two criminals. Vladikin rebukes Father Alexander, telling him not to compare himself to Christ but then continues the metaphor, comparing himself to the criminal who repented while on the cross. He asks if he should repent as well and be forgiven for his sins, and Father Alexander reminds him that it is not up to him for his sins to be forgiven. Vladikin then tells Father Alexander how he had been taken prisoner by the Nazis and, rather than being killed, was offered a position working for the German army. He accepted this position and began working for the Nazis, recounting at one point how he killed a family, including a baby. Vladikin revels in the retelling of this story while Father Alexander listens with tears in his eyes, understanding that Vladikin is not sorry for his actions. When Vladikin finishes the story, Father Alexander asks him, “What kind of forgiveness can I give you?” since he feels no remorse for what he did.213 In response, Vladikin simply laughs and tells Father Alexander that they both shall see whether Vladikin cannot be forgiven. In this scene, there is a comparison to be drawn between Vladikin and Aleksii, two people who have committed or attempted to commit murder. Aleksii, unlike Vladikin, seeks forgiveness from Father Alexander, accepting his offer to forgive Aleksii’s sins. Vladikin, on the other hand, mocks Father Alexander, enjoying that his story brought Father Alexander to tears,  212 Поп (The Priest), 1:03:54.  213 Поп (The Priest), 1:08:04-1:08:05.   98 and is unwilling to recognize any wrongdoing on his part. Because of this, according to the narrative of the film, it is impossible for Vladikin to truly be a part of the Russian nation and to lead the Russian nation forward at the end of the film. Vladikin is not a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, as seen by his mocking of Father Alexander in prior scenes and through his lack of guilt over his sins, which is why he cannot be considered Russian. Aleksii, who has begun his journey towards joining the Russian Orthodox Church by having Father Alexander forgive him of his sins, is able to be a part of the Russian nation and to go so far as to become the head of the new Russian nation formed at the end of the film.  The film has now reached Easter or April 5, 1942, depending on which calendar one uses, and the Soviet POWs are being escorted by the Nazi soldiers to celebrate the holiday at the church. Once inside the church, the holy fool, Kolika, looks around in awe and wonderment, reiterating his connection to the spiritual, as Father Alexander leads the congregation in singing. As they sing, Alevtina begins a procession, and the congregation sings as the Germans’ dogs bark and tug at their leashes as though to attack the Russian Orthodox Christians.214 The German soldiers do little besides hold them back, allowing the dogs to bark and growl, scaring the Russian Orthodox parishioners. The dogs’ barking and snarling along with the soldiers’ inaction underscores the film’s argument of the Germans as practicing a pseudo-religion, fascism, which goes against all forms of true religion, namely Russian Orthodoxy. Their dogs cannot even abide by the practicing of the true faith, according to the film, and simply seek to disrupt and attack the Russian Orthodox Christians. Across the lake, the partisans watch these proceedings and plot their attack on all Soviet Nazi collaborators, including the priest. Marking a change in his character, Aleksii attempts to  214 Unsurprisingly, the dogs are German Shepherds.   99 prevent his fellow partisans from killing Father Alexander, saying, “He seems like a good priest.”215 Aleksii then tells the Soviet commissar, the leader of their group, to avoid creating a scuffle with the Germans, claiming that it only helps the Soviet prisoners who do not deserve to be helped seeing as they have been caught. The commissar simply scoffs in response to this, accusing Aleksii of wanting to protect all those whom the partisans suggest killing. The commissar then explains how the people of the village have been led astray, and it is up to them to “bring the people on the straight path.”216 In the world of the film, though, Soviet ideology is not the straight path at all but rather Russian Orthodoxy, belying the commissar’s statement about the people having been led astray.  As the partisans continue to watch, they hear Father Alexander announce to the congregation that Christ has risen, and these words clearly have an effect on Aleksii. He sneaks into the town to visit Eva who greets him with the Easter message, “Christ has risen!”217 Eva then tells him that it is customary to kiss three times, and on the third time, she moves so that he kisses her on the lips. She is thrilled at this because she clearly romantically likes Aleksii, but he is surprised and somewhat taken aback. For Aleksii, Eva continues to remain the young girl he met in the woods, but she has begun growing up and views Aleksii as a viable romantic partner. This kiss will change the way Aleksii views Eva as he will come to recognize her as a young woman and as someone in whom he could be romantically interested.  Aleksii tells Eva to warn Father Alexander that he needs to be careful as the Soviet commissar has plans in mind that could lead to harm for Father Alexander. This warning ties  215 Поп (The Priest), 1:11:46-1:11:47.  216 Поп (The Priest), 1:12:07.  217 Поп (The Priest), 1:13:12.   100 back to the one given by Vladikin a few scenes prior as he said that the Soviets would view Father Alexander as having collaborated with the Nazis. It is clear that the Soviet commissar believes this to be the case, particularly after having observed Father Alexander at the Easter service with the Soviet POWs, who are viewed as weak and a disgrace in the eyes of the Soviet government. According to the secular calendar, it is now May 25, 1942, and outside Father Alexander’s window, a child shouts, asking to be let inside. Father Alexander begins talking with the boy, and as he does, two more children approach, asking for Father Alexander to feed them. Stepping outside, Father Alexander asks from where these children have come, and they tell him that they have escaped from Leningrad. At the beginning of the war, the Nazis began a siege of the city of Leningrad which lasted until January 1944. The siege led to mass starvation inside the city, and many died because of it.218 The legacy of the Siege of Leningrad is “a compelling story of steadfastness and heroism,” and this persisted throughout the period of the Soviet Union and into the present-day. By including the characters of refugee children in the film, Khotinenko is bringing in one of the trademark myths of the Great Patriotic War and using children to do so in order to evoke more sympathy towards the Russians and more anger and hatred towards the Nazis who perpetrated this crime. It is unsurprising that the first thing these children would want is food, and they tell Father Alexander that they are walking until they find it. Father Alexander invites them in, telling them that he was just about to eat lunch, to which the children gladly agree.   218 Lisa A. Kirschenbaum, The Legacy of the Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1995 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 3. By invoking Leningrad, Khotinenko is once again reminding the viewers of the crimes committed by the Nazis. The siege of the city is considered to be the deadliest siege in history, lasting close to nine hundred days. The death toll of the siege is estimated by historians to be “a figure of one million deaths due to starvation.”218   101 Father Alexander and Alevtina bring the children to the church where they are baptized into Russian Orthodoxy and join the film’s idea of the Russian nation. The children are thrilled to be baptized, jumping around and squealing at the thought of starting a new life away from Leningrad and the horrors there. To hammer this point home, the youngest child stands in front of an icon of Jesus and asks Him, “Lord, from now on will you defend me?”219 It is meant to be a heart wrenching moment as Father Alexander and Alevtina, along with the viewers, fully understand all that this child has been through. The film, in its narrative, has answered this question in the affirmative, both with Eva and now with these children. By joining the Russian Orthodox Church and thus the Russian nation, these children are now protected from the crimes of the Nazis and their pseudo-religion.  Across the lake, the partisans have prepared and are beginning their attack against the Nazis and those who have collaborated with them, including the Soviet policemen. Aleksii is lagging behind, clearly concerned about what the partisans are about to do, again underlining how he has changed from a “good” Soviet to a “good” Russian Orthodox Christian. He ends up deciding to go along with the partisans who begin sailing across the lake, showing that he still remains in this gray space between the two ideologies.  On the other side, the village is quiet except for a small party of the Soviet police. Vladikin, who is standing outside having a smoke, is one of the first to see the partisans emerge from the lake. The partisans begin shooting at anything and everything, hitting the windows of Father Alexander’s home and hitting Vladikin, killing him. As Vladikin had recognized in one of the prior scenes, he was to be killed due to his collaboration with the Nazis which is exactly what happened. In the world of the film, though, Vladikin was always going to have to die, seeing as  219 Поп (The Priest), 1:15:53-1:15:57.   102 he followed the pseudo-religion of Nazism and never converted to the true religion of Russian Orthodoxy. Even when he had the opportunity to repent of his sins, Vladikin felt no remorse and thus was unable to be saved. Because of this, there was no way the film could keep him alive without undermining the broader message of Russian Orthodoxy being the only way for one to be saved. After the partisan attack is over, the villagers gather the bodies of the Soviet collaborators and lay them on the ground, asking Father Alexander to “depart” them as is Russian Orthodox custom. Father Alexander refuses to do so, telling the parents and loved ones of those deceased that any songs and prayers said over those who have died would be insincere as these people were “the betrayers of the country and killers of innocent people.”220 His words, which are incredibly harsh, reiterate the message of the film once again. Vladikin and his fellow Soviet police collaborators, by having betrayed the Russian nation, are unable to receive the blessings of the Russian Orthodox Church. If they ever were part of the Russian nation, they are no longer and thus have not merited the benefits that come from being a part of this nation and its faith. It is now the Nativity of the Theotokos or September 21, 1943, and Father Alexander has traveled to Pskov to meet with Metropolitan Sergii to discuss the concentration camp for the Soviet POWs. Metropolitan Sergii pushes this topic aside, instead wanting to discuss the election of the new Patriarch. Both Father Alexander and the Metropolitan are overjoyed at this news, but it is bittersweet as the Nazis are requiring the Metropolitan “not to recognize the choice of the Patriarch in Moscow.”221 Father Alexander asks what the Metropolitan is going to do, and the Metropolitan responds that he is putting his hope in God to figure something out. The message in  220 Поп (The Priest), 1:21:19-1:21:22. 221 Поп (The Priest), 1:25:07-1:25:09.   103 this scene is that God will help the ROC and its leaders to make the right choice and emerge from this position victorious, having worked for the good of the Russian people rather than for the benefit of the Nazis or the Soviets.   There is further bad news, though, as the new patriarch has declared that all priests found guilty for having worked with the Nazis are to be excommunicated. The letter with this news refers to the priests’ actions as a betrayal and describes the priests themselves as traitors to both their faith and their country. Metropolitan Sergii tells Father Alexander to ignore this message and to continue doing what he has been doing. This is one of the few moments in the film where there is a Soviet anti-miracle as there is hope, the Soviets have appointed a new patriarch, that is quickly taken away, the new patriarch has declared the priests of the Pskov Mission traitors.  Ivan, who has been hovering throughout this conversation, chimes in, telling the Metropolitan that the best case scenario is that the Soviets will chase the priests and their mission out of the region and that their time is up, meaning they need to pay their dues to the Germans. Both Metropolitan Sergii and Father Alexander are astounded at this, and the Metropolitan responds, “But we don’t owe anybody anything” and that the dues they do owe are of the kind that will be paid in heaven.222 Father Alexander chimes in, adding, “Neither the Germans nor the bolsheviks [sic] are eternal. But only one Jesus Christ.”223 In this sentence is the entire argument of this film. According to the narrative of the film, both the Germans and the Soviets follow a false faith that will not provide them with eternal life, either on earth or in heaven. It is only Christianity, namely Russian Orthodox Christianity, that will provide this. Within the film, it is only those who are Russian that can also be members of  222 Поп (The Priest), 1:26:57-1:26:58.  223 Поп (The Priest), 1:27:07-1:27:12.  104 the Church, and they only survive when they are devoted to the faith and thus can experience its miracles. The other two religions have anti-miracles, instants in which the opposite of hope and love occur, further reaffirming the mortality of their ideologies and of their respective nations. Jesus Christ is the only being who is eternal, and followers of the Russian Orthodox Church and thus members of the Russian nation share in a part of this eternality, knowing that their nation will continue forever and they will have eternal life in heaven.  The conversation ends with Ivan asking what he should do in the current moment as what the priests discuss will only happen later, and the Metropolitan responds by telling him, “Save the children.”224 This sentence has two meanings to it, and both fit the narrative about the Church’s relief work in the region. The first is the literal meaning of the word “children,” as in those under the age of eighteen. The Metropolitan could be telling Ivan to protect the children as Father Alexander has done with both Eva and the refugees from Leningrad. In the other interpretation, the word “children” refers to all of those who follow Jesus Christ, i.e., God’s children. In this case, the Metropolitan is telling Ivan that the Church is going to try to save as many Russians spiritually before the Soviet Union prevents them from doing so. This was the original purpose of the Pskov Orthodox Mission, and this is why this could be the second meeting of this brief sentence. Neither meaning takes precedence over the other, and there is no right answer. In fact, it is more likely that both of these interpretations are the right answer, especially after reviewing the scenes building up to this moment.  Returning to Pskov, Father Alexander is sitting in a truck alongside more refugee children, tying back to the more literal meaning of the Metropolitan’s statement, as he is taking them back to the village. The priest tells them that they will be taken into the Church, but the  224 Поп (The Priest), 1:27:20.   105 children are afraid, asking whether their blood will be taken there. Father Alexander is surprised at this question, asking the children if blood was taken from them before. One of the children replies, telling him that the Germans took blood from all of them with the excuse that “German children did not have enough blood.”225 This explanation horrifies Father Alexander, and he promises them that nobody will take their blood here.  Just as the children who escaped from Leningrad were meant to emphasize the crimes committed by the Germans there, these children who have their blood drawn are meant to again remind the viewers of the cruelty of the Germans. The excuse given by the Germans was likely a lie, and the blood was instead used for military purposes, especially for German soldiers who had been wounded and needed blood. The role of children throughout Khotinenko’s film is to evoke sympathy for the Russians and disgust towards the Germans as the children represent all that is sweet and innocent about the world. To have committed these crimes against children is regarded in the narrative of the film as the ultimate in depravity, underscoring the inhumanity of the Nazis and their pseudo-religion.  Arriving in the village, Alevtina and Eva are there to greet Father Alexander and the children. While Alevtina and Father Alexander are inside their home reading a letter from their sons, Eva remains outside with the children, telling them what life is like here, signaling the beginning of her new role as a mother figure for the Russian nation. This role will be further fleshed out in the following scene as she leads the children in learning about the Bible and Christianity more broadly. There is an interesting development in terms of roles here as Eva, rather than Alevtina, is acting as the mother figure, foreshadowing what is to come later as Eva will soon fully replace Alevtina as the mother to the new Russian nation.   225 Поп (The Priest), 1:28:00-1:28:02.   106 In the next set of scenes, Father Alexander is on his way back from baptizing children in the surrounding villages while the Nazis are setting up gallows in the middle of the village. He arrives back as the Nazis are just about to begin the executions of the Soviet partisans, and Eva runs to him, telling him what is happening. Father Alexander pulls out his Bible and vestments, running over to the gallows despite Alevtina’s shouted plea not to do so. Nazi soldiers push him back, but the priest calls out for Ivan who grants Father Alexander permission to approach.  Father Alexander interrupts the man reading out the charges, calling out to all in the crowd as Christians, first and foremost, and secondly as Germans and as Russians. He begs them to “be merciful” and to not execute the partisans. 226 Ivan exchanges looks with another Nazi, clearly frustrated by the priest’s pleas to prevent these deaths. Father Alexander tells the crowd that Jesus is there among them, and that “He is with the executed, not with the ones who execute.”227 As he says this, Ivan approaches and Father Alexander turns to him, begging for his help. In response, Ivan orders Father Alexander to go home, but Father Alexander refuses, instead beginning to read from the Bible. Another Nazi then orders the soldiers to take Father Alexander away, and they begin pulling him away from the gallows.  As Father Alexander leaves the scene, the nooses are put around the partisans’ necks but Ivan has his back turned to all of this. Another Nazi orders the car to drive, pulling the platform out from the under the partisans’ feet, but the car gets stuck in the mud, unable to completely remove the platform. In this moment, it looks like there is to be a miracle in which the partisans do not die due to the failure of the Nazis’ car to drive. However, this hope is crushed by Ivan  226 Поп (The Priest), 1:35:08.  227 Поп (The Priest), 1:35:16-1:35:19.   107 turning around and shoving the car forward with his foot, removing the platform completely from under the partisans’ feet.  Again, it is another anti-miracle as seen throughout in connection with the pseudo-religions of Soviet communism and Nazi fascism. In this case, though, it is particularly painful for Father Alexander as Ivan is supposed to be a Russian Orthodox Christian. In the world of the film, though, Ivan, who was a Nazi German, could never truly be part of the Russian nation and thus part of the Church. In this scene, Ivan’s true character as a fascist executioner is fully exposed, and Father Alexander’s line about Jesus not being with the executioner is affirmed. There is to be no redemption for Ivan in the narrative of the film as he has been a participant in an anti-miracle which shows his devotion not to Russian Orthodoxy but rather to Nazism.  Father Alexander is absolutely horrified at the events that have just transpired, unable to move from his bed and telling Alevtina that he is “out of power.”228 This phrase is interesting because it is not entirely clear what Father Alexander means when he says this. He could mean it in the literal way, saying that he is out of power because he has been unable to stop the events that have just occurred. It seems more likely, though, that he means out of spiritual power, particularly as Alevtina has just told him he should be praying as she is doing. Seeing as how he resorted to begging the crowd and the Nazis to not kill the partisans on the basis of them all being Christians, it is understandable that he would feel as though his spiritual power is gone.  Above all, though, it seems like it is a combination of these two things. He is unable to stop the events that have occurred despite having used the Russians’ and Germans’ shared religion to do so. However, as the film has pointed out time and time again, the Russians and the Germans do not have a common ground in Christainity. The Germans, instead, follow the  228 Поп (The Priest), 1:38:05.   108 pseudo-religion of Nazi fascism which leads them to do cruel acts like this execution. There is no middle ground over which the Russians and the Germans can meet which is why Father Alexander’s pleas to them on this basis had no effect. He is out of spiritual power with the Germans, but he never had any spiritual power with them to begin with, seeing as they have followed a pseudo-religion throughout the film.  A few days later, Father Alexander, Eva, and some of the other villagers are looking for Alevtina who has disappeared. Her disappearance is important within the film’s narrative but also for the overarching story which the film is telling. For the former, it establishes Alevtina as a martyr, and, for the latter, it opens the door for Eva to replace Alevtina as the mother figure. Eva tells Father Alexander that Alevtina had been “complaining that her head was hurting very badly”229 and that she had not eaten all day. In their home, Eva finds a letter from Alevtina which had been hidden in the Gospel and is addressed to Father Alexander. Inside the letter, Alevtina tells of how she caught typhus from the last time she had been at the concentration camp and that she has gone away to protect Father Alexander and the children. As she reads the letter in a voiceover, the film shows her walking through the forest during a dreadful snowstorm, stumbling and falling multiple times. It is clear that Alevtina is not going to survive, both from the typhus and the weather, but she asks in the letter that she be remembered by Father Alexander and the children and thus surviving in their memories.  As said above, Alevtina’s death serves two purposes in the role of the film: the death of a martyr and an opening for Eva. In terms of the first reason, her death is that of a martyr because she dies in order to protect Father Alexander and the children, evoking the imagery of Jesus. Her death is meant to be recognized as a sacrifice for her family and is meant to be reminiscent of the  229 Поп (The Priest), 1:40:52-1:40:53.   109 sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sinners. Having Alevtina die, though, opens the way for Eva to become the new mother figure in the film, thus fulfilling the second purpose. With Alevtina out of the way, there is no other female protagonist left in the film other than Eva. Father Alexander, resting after the search for Alevtina, has a dream which connects together all the points of the movie into the larger argument about Russian Orthodoxy against the pseudo-religions of Nazism and Soviet communism. Returning to the dead cow on the side of the river from earlier in the film, a young girl stands by dressed in all white and takes the bucket filled with milk, passing it on to a Soviet POW. He then hands it to his fellow POW, and the bucket begins to be passed among the Soviet POWs and Nazis, including Ivan. Father Alexander then follows both the young girl and Kolika through the crowd, who are all drinking from the bucket, and he is lead to an empty field. The girl disappears, and Father Alexander approaches the edge of the field, looking out on what appears to be the pathway to hell. There are masses of people walking amidst guard towers and speaking a mixture of German and Russian. In the distance, there is a column of white light that is streaming down into a part of the crowd, acting as a gateway to heaven above. As Father Alexander observes all of this, he hears Alevtina call out to him which startles him awake.  In this dream sequence, the divisions between Russian Orthodoxy and the pseudo-religions are shown. The young girl and Kolika, the “holy fool,” embody the values of Russian Orthodoxy, namely innate spirituality and kindness. They are pure individuals, particularly the young girl who is dressed in all white, which is why they are the guides in Father Alexander’s dream. The Nazis and the Soviets form one large mass which seeks to entrap Father Alexander, but Russian Orthodoxy is what allows him to escape from this crowd. Looking out on the pathway to hell, it is not clear whether the imagery is meant to invoke a Soviet or Nazi  110 concentration camp, and that is purposeful. In the narrative of the film, they are both pseudo-religions which share certain values, like violence and cruelty. People who follow either ideology, as the film shows here, are sentenced to hell. The column of white light, however, provides an escape to those individuals who convert and are devout Russian Orthodox Christians, demonstrating the forgiveness that exists through Christ. As shown through Eva and Aleksii, one is not condemned to walk this path to hell but has the ability to convert to Russian Orthodoxy and thus be graced with salvation from the hellish fate shown here.  According to the secular calendar, it is now December 25, 1943, which is when the Nazis celebrate Christmas, but, as the film shows, a Nazi Christmas is a pseudo-religious celebration filled with demonstrations of the Nazis’ value of cruelty. Father Alexander finds the Nazis burning a tree and riding around it on motorbikes while singing “Silent Night.” Some Nazis, standing on the edge of the circle, are shooting off their guns. It is clearly a very different religious celebration from those celebrations of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Nazi Christmas is filled with pagan imagery, particularly with the use of fire. Since the Nazis had come to power, they had sought to connect Christmas to “ancient ‘Nordic’ rituals and the ‘national rebirth’ of the German community” through the use of “fire and light.”230 Traditions from “the solstice rituals of pagan Germanic tribes” were incorporated into Christmas celebrations throughout Germany, and the bonfire shown in this film was a typical tradition in Nazi Germany.231 As if the film had not already made it clear enough that the Nazis practiced a  230 Joe Perry, “Nazifying Christmas: Political Culture and Popular Celebration in the Third Reich,” Central European History 38, no. 4 (2005): 579. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20141153.  231 Perry, “Nazifying Christmas,” 579.   111 pseudo-religion, the connection to pagan ideology in this scene would be more than enough to confirm it.  It is now January 1, 1944, and Father Alexander and Eva are standing at Alevtina’s graveside, remembering her while at the same time acknowledging that Eva has come to replace Alevtina as the mother figure in the household. As the pair walk back towards home, Father Alexander tells Eva that he knows she has been seeing Aleksii and encourages her to marry him, saying, “he is a good boy.”232 Affirming what has been said throughout this chapter about Aleksii and Eva’s relationship, Father Alexander then tells her that “there will be new times and you will be like Adam and Eva. The ancestors of a new seed.”233 In this scene, Father Alexander’s encouragement of marriage affirms the fact that Eva is now viewed as an adult both in his eyes and in the eyes of the film as a whole. No longer is Eva one of the children of whom Father Alexander needs to take care; instead, she, and Aleksii alongside her, are to be the caregivers, raising the new generation of the Russian nation.  As they approach their home, Ivan is sitting outside and waiting for Father Alexander in the hopes of talking to him. The reason why Ivan has come to talk with Father Alexander is revealed when Ivan tells the priest that the Rosenberg Department234 has ordered all of the priests of the Pskov Orthodox Mission “to make daily services and pray for the victory of the German army.”235 This order is not because the Nazis have suddenly begin believing in the power of  232 Поп (The Priest), 1:52:06-1:52:07.  233 Поп (The Priest), 1:52:08-1:52:16.  234 Jürgen Matthäus and Frank Bajohr, The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg and the Onset of the Holocaust (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), 3. The Rosenberg Department refers to Alfred Rosenberg’s ministry over the Nazi occupied parts of Eastern Europe. Rosenberg was “one of the most influential Nazi intellectuals who, in the course of his political career, accumulated a number of important Party and state functions.” 235 Поп (The Priest), 1:54:05-1:54:10.   112 prayer, as Father Alexander originally believes, but to further affiliate the Russian Orthodox priests with the Nazi regime. Father Alexander is shocked that Ivan would ever think the priest would agree to this but realizes the reason why the Nazis are ordering this, asking, “they want to get us even more dirty, in the end?”236 Father Alexander knows that the Soviets already believe the priests have been collaborating with the Nazis, but praying for German victory would be the final nail in the coffin which is why he refuses. He reminds Ivan that the Nazi occupation is coming to an end, and thus it is not necessary for him to do this as the Nazis will soon be gone. Ivan tries to convince him, anyway, invoking Father Alexander’s children and promising that the entire family will be evacuated to Germany if he agrees. Both know what will happen to Father Alexander when the Soviets arrive, but Father Alexander again refuses, proclaiming that the veil of the Mother of God protects the children and that he refuses to take them to Germany after Germans had drawn some of the children’s blood. Ivan understands, then, why Father Alexander refuses and asks the priest to take his confession, likely to confess the crimes Ivan himself had committed as part of the Nazi occupation.  After Ivan’s confession, the pair are standing outside the church and the Nazi reveals to Father Alexander why he has become a Nazi and what this means for him overall. For Ivan, he is at “work for his people," and this means that he has been broken in two by this fate.237 Father Alexander’s final words to him, “May God save you,” are meant to guide Ivan in the right direction, towards Russian Orthodox Christianity.238 In the end, though, Ivan leaves with the Nazis, retreating to Germany never to be seen again. Ivan, unlike the other German Russian of  236 Поп (The Priest), 1:54:37-1:54:39.  237 Поп (The Priest), 1:55:55-1:55:57.  238 Поп (The Priest), 1:56:15.  113 the film, Father Gheoriy, was never able to join the Russian nation as he was not a devout Russian Orthodox Christian. Ivan made the wrong choice by continuing to follow Nazi fascism, one of the pseudo-religions of the film, meaning his fate led to the hell Father Alexander saw earlier in the dream sequence. According to the film, it is now Elijah’s Day or August 2, 1944, and the village is once again under the control of the Soviets, meaning Father Alexander’s time as a priest in the village has come to an end. The Soviets are cleaning out his home, commenting on how well the priest lived, and are returning Soviet symbols to the village, including the statue of Vladimir Lenin and the Soviet flag. Aleksii rides into town, dressed in a Red Army uniform once again, but he is no longer the “good” Soviet soldier that he was at the beginning of the film as he asks Eva where Father Alexander is, showing that he is no longer non-religious. Eva tells him that Father Alexander is in a nearby town, and as Aleksii gets ready to leave to find him, he studies Eva and comments that she is different, recognizing that Eva has grown up and is now a viable romantic partner. While Father Alexander will no longer be able to father these children, Aleksii, through showing interest in Eva, is ready to step into this role and become the new father figure for this new nation.  Father Alexander is at the remains of the Soviet POW concentration camp, saying the final rites for the prisoners whose bodies are lying on a pyre. There are no signs of the camp that was once there beyond a single guard tower which is due to a Nazi attempt to erase the crimes committed there. By performing the final rites for these men, Father Alexander is including them in the Russian nation unlike when he refused to “depart” the Soviet police collaborators earlier in the film. These Soviet POWs, who were treated as traitors the Soviet Union, are not disgraced in the eyes of the Russian nation, according to this film, which connects with the narrative the  114 current Russian state is telling about the Soviet POWs. This narrative centers around the idea that “the majority of units fought heroically in 1941 and that it was military factors which forced Soviet soldiers to surrender” leading to them becoming POWs.239 This coincides with how the Soviet POWs are portrayed in the film: not as traitors to the nation for surrendering but as men forced to do so.  As Father Alexander finishes up, Aleksii rides up to give Father Alexander the news that the Soviets have begun arresting all of the priests who participated in the Pskov Orthodox Mission. This is the news for which Father Alexander has been waiting ever since he read the letter from the newly appointed Patriarch, and he is not surprised to hear this. Aleksii encourages the priest to leave, telling him that the fate of these priests will either be Soviet concentration camps or being sent to the frontlines to fight. Father Alexander asks Aleksii where he would go and reminds Aleksii, “Haven’t run away from the Germans, will I run away from mine?”240 In this question, the Church has rewritten history: the prototype for the character, Father Aleksy, did run away with the Germans and never returned to the Soviet Union. However, portraying that history would have undermined the message of this film which was the loyalty of Russian priests to the Russian nation in the face of both Nazi oppression and Soviet errors/sins.  In the next scene, Father Alexander is shown to be true to his word on not running away as he undergoes interrogation at the hands of Aleksii’s Soviet commissar in the church. The Soviets have a confession prepared for Father Alexander to sign which claims that he “collaborated with the Hitlerists,” and they encourage him to sign it, telling him it will be the  239 Mark Edele, Stalin's Defectors: How Red Army Soldiers became Hitler's Collaborators, 1941-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 161.  240 Поп (The Priest), 1:59:05-1:59:07.   115 easiest thing for both him and them.241 Father Alexander refuses to sign it, though, as he refuses to lie about himself and his actions, arguing, “All I did was praying for the deliverance of the land from our enemies.”242 He mentions how he took provisions to the Soviet POWs and that he did this to “help ours.”243 Father Alexander’s response infuriates the Soviet commissar who pulls out his gun and pistol whips the priest, knocking Father Alexander to the ground, where the commissar then begins kicking him as the icon of Jesus looks down from above.  After harming Father Alexander, the commissar steps outside the church for a smoke and Eva and the children approach to beg for the priest’s release. This will be the final moment between Father Alexander, Eva, and the children and marks a transition point during which Eva takes on the role of parent completely. The commissar orders the children to leave, but, right after he says that, Father Alexander is escorted out of the church by Soviet soldiers. Father Alexander orders Eva to “take care of the children” and begins to cross himself in front of the church before being pushed away by the Soviet commissar.244 Father Alexander is then loaded up into a truck alongside Soviet soldiers while his family and the villagers look on in tears. They clearly do not agree with the Soviet government’s suppression of religion, and this becomes obvious by how easily the villagers returned to Russian Orthodox Christianity after Father Alexander first arrived in the village. The villagers’ actions throughout the film reiterated what the true Metropolitan Sergii and Father Aleksii Ionov argued about how the Russians were  241 Поп (The Priest), 1:59:52-1:59:54.  242 Поп (The Priest), 2:00:08-2:00:12.  243 Поп (The Priest), 2:00:25.  244 Поп (The Priest), 2:01:30.   116 religious despite Soviet attempts otherwise. With their tears here, these villagers have shown this devotion to Russian Orthodoxy until the very end.  Eva and the children stand on the steps of the church, looking on as Father Alexander is driven away, emphasizing Eva’s transition into the head of this family that both Father Alexander and Alevtina have been forced to leave behind. Together, the family forms the beginning of the Russian nation that emerges following the end of the war, a nation devoted to the values of the Russian Orthodox Church. Having the Soviet soldiers ride off as well further emphasizes that this village is not a place for pseudo-religions, like Soviet communism or Nazi fascism, but a place for the true religion, Russian Orthodoxy, which was rebirthed here and its corresponding nation, Russia, which will be regrown here, starting with Eva, Aleksii, and the children. As the truck drives off, the church bell rings, highlighting the return of the Church to the region and expressing the triumph of the Church over the pseudo-religion of Nazism.  It is now 1979 and an elderly priest is shown approaching the Holy Dormition Pskovo-Pechorsky Monastery where a multitude of bells are ringing. As the priest approaches, the song “Rivers of Babylon” by Boney M., a German disco group, begins to play. It is quickly revealed that the song is being played by a group of young people who drive up to the monastery. They call out to the priest, asking him whether they can come into the monastery and eat, but the priest ignores them at first. When they ask again whether they can come into the shelter, the priest finally turns and responds, revealing that it is an elderly Father Alexander. He has been released from the Soviet concentration camp and has returned to the region to continue fostering Christianity there, starting with these young people. The film ends with a broad sweep over the monastery complex, showing how the Pskov Orthodox Mission was successful in returning Christianity to the region.   117 As the film fades to black, it tells the viewers what happened to the protagonists of the film. Starting with Father Alexander, the film says he served his full sentence in the Soviet concentration camps, a common fate for many of the priests of the Mission. Metropolitan Sergii was killed by the fascists on April 29, 1944. Eva and Aleksii do indeed get married and raise both their own biological children and the refugee children from the war. One of the children even went on to become a priest at the same church at which Father Alexander had served in the village. Ivan Freihausen went on to publish his memoirs in the 1970s but did not include any reference to Father Alexander whatsoever.  The irony in this ending is that Father Aleksii Ionov did not stay in Latvia to be arrested by the Soviets or serve time in the Soviet concentration camps. Instead, he retreated with the Nazis and never returned to the Soviet Union.245 The film is presented, though, as if it is based off of the memoirs of Father Aleksii Ionov, but “once viewers learn that the decades spent by the film’s saintly hero in Stalinist gulags were invented, their confidence in the film’s reliability will be minimized, if not completely eliminated.”246 It is not surprising, however, that the Church changed the ending as one of the purposes of the film was to show how the Church did not collaborate with the Nazis. If they had kept the original (and true) ending, it would have undermined this message entirely. By having Father Alexander serve time in the camps and then return to the Pskov monastery, the Church is able to make the point that they survived Stalinist repressions and even were able to grow (as seen through the Pskov monastery), demonstrating their strength and resilience as an organization.  245 Anemone, “Vladimir Khotinenko,” https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-aa.shtml. 246 Anemone, “Vladimir Khotinenko,” https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-aa.shtml.  118 Just as The Conqueror was released around an important Russian holiday, so too was The Priest – released for “closed and festival screenings” on September 9, 2009 and around the world on April 5, 2010.247 Since the time of Peter the Great, September 10 has been recognized as “the day of memory” for Saint Alexander Nevsky, thus making it no coincidence that this film, with its strong messaging about Alexander Nevsky, would be released right around a holiday to the saint.248 The second date, April 5, 2010, corresponded with the celebration of Russian Orthodox Easter, and took place in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, where Patriarch Kirill had been enthroned as Patriarch a year prior. This date and location reiterated the religious aspects of the film and the idea of Russian Orthodoxy triumphing over all other ideologies as Jesus triumphed over death on Easter, and the cathedral itself was rebuilt after being destroyed by the Soviets.  In the end, the film generated $1,672,683 from ticket sales, a modest sum, but the blame for this is threefold.249 Firstly, the film was pirated and released on the Internet three weeks before it was released in theaters which meant many people had the opportunity to watch the film prior to its official release.250 Secondly, Orthodox Encyclopedia sponsored “private screenings for the clergy in 23 Russian cities in March 2010,” further decreasing the number of people who would go to see the film when it was officially released.251 Lastly, another film centered around  247 “Фильму «Поп» присуждена первая Патриаршая премия в области киноискусства [The film “The Priest” was awarded the first Patriarchal Prize in the field of cinema],” Церковь и Общество, Русская Православная Церковь, last modified April 29, 2010, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1149563.html.  248 “The Order of St. Alexander Nevsky Established,” On this day, Presidential Library, accessed March 7, 2023, https://www.prlib.ru/en/history/619280#:~:text=Alexander%20Nevsky%20established,-1%20June%201725&text=%E2%80%9CFor%20services%20and%20Fatherland%E2%80%9D.&text=On%20May%2021%20(June%201,Master%20Grand%20Duke%20Alexander%20Nevsky..  249 Drubek, “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11,” 94.  250 Drubek, “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11,” 94. 251 Drubek, “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11,” 94.  119 World War II and which also had religious overtones, Утомлённые солнцем 2: Предстояние (Burnt by the Sun 2: Exodus), was released around the same time, pulling viewers away from The Priest.  Despite the low box office sales, the ROC was still pleased with the film and how it drew “attention to the complex history of the orthodox church in Russia.”252 The film was the first to receive the Patriarch’s Prize award in April 2010 with Patriarch Kirill, at the awards ceremony, praising the film and commenting on how “‘и с художественной точки зрения, и с точки зрения постановки, игры актеров, и с точки зрения сценария он заслуживает, конечно, очень высокой оценки [both from an artistic point of view, and from the point of view of production, acting, and from the point of view of the script, it deserves, of course, very high praise].’”253 To underscore the point on acting, Patriarch Kirill awarded Sergei Makovetsky, who played Father Alexander,  the Order of St. Innocent recognizing “his ‘вклад в становление православного киноискусства [contribution to the development of Orthodox cinema].’”254 Like The Conqueror, The Priest received the Grand Prix while Makovetsky won best actor at the Golden Knight film festival, further emphasizing the Church’s support for the film.255 Along with awarding the film, Patriarch Kirill has given speeches to different audiences addressing the importance of the film and its role in telling the “truth” about events during World War II. When meeting with the Supervisory, Trustee, and Public Councils of Orthodox  252 Drubek, “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11,” 94. 253 Русская Православная Церковь, “Фильму «Поп» присуждена первая Патриаршая премия в области киноискусства.” 254 “Патриарх Кирилл наградил Маковецкого за роль в фильме «Поп»,” Lenta.ru, November 25, 2010. https://lenta.ru/news/2010/11/25/pop//  255 Вита Рамм, ««Поп» получил «Витяза»,» Известия, June 4, 2010, https://iz.ru/news/362415.   120 Encyclopedia, the Patriarch described the impact the film had on him and the message he took from it, namely that “для Церкви самое главное – человек [for the Church, the most important thing is people.]”256 He responded as well to criticism of the Church’s actions during the occupation, arguing that “Церковь призвана в любых условиях нести свое служение [the Church is called to carry out its ministry in any conditions]” as part of its goal of “[спасение] человеческой личности [the salvation of the human individual].”257 In his conclusion, Patriarch Kirill spoke about how The Priest “это важное и правдивое слово о жизни Русской Церкви в трудные годы войны [is an important and truthful word about the life of the Russian Church during the difficult years of the war.”258 The irony of describing The Priest as truthful has been discussed above, seeing as the ending does not match with the reality of what happened to Father Aleksii Ionov. Perhaps, Patriarch Kirill meant that the spirit of the film is truthful to the events that happened as he argues that the priests of the Mission were patriotic as acknowledged in the film, but he does not provide this disclaimer, making it seem as though the entire film was truthful when in reality it was anything but. Outside of the Church, the film received mixed reviews with many critics finding fault with how the film did not dive more deeply into the background of the mission and with Khotinenko’s directing ability. For example, Max Milian of Кино-театр.ру critiqued Khotinenko, comparing Khotinenko’s films of the past, such as Макаров [Makarov] or Мусульманин [A Moslem] which were well-known in Russia, with his more recent films, such as  256 Святейший Патриарх Кирилл, «Фильм «Поп» -- важное и правдивое слово о жизни Русской Церкви в трудные годы войны,» Правмир, November 6, 2009, https://www.pravmir.ru/film-pop-vazhnoe-i-pravdivoe-slovo-o-zhizni-russkoj-cerkvi-v-trudnye-gody-vojny/.  257 Святейший Патриарх Кирилл, «Фильм «Поп.»»  258 Святейший Патриарх Кирилл, «Фильм «Поп.»»   121 1612 or The Priest, which have a more propagandistic feel to them. 259 Milian disliked the fact that Khotinenko «[потерял] чувство меры и вкуса [lost his sense of proportion and taste]» as seen in these more recent films like The Priest, but he did acknowledge that films like this one have their purpose. 260 According to Milian, the takeaway is that this film is “не о патриотизме, а о превратностях судьбы одного человека и его семьи [not about patriotism, but about the vicissitudes of the fate of one man and his family].”261 Nonetheless, Milian recognized, too, that «есть о чем поразмышлять, даже если это что-то осталось за кадром [there is something to think about, even if it is left behind the scenes],» referring to the debate over whether the priests collaborated or not.262 Unlike Church sources, which rated the movie very highly, film critics were more cynical, recognizing the film as akin to the state-ordered films of the Soviet era but, in this case, a Church-ordered film. The key aspect of the film, The Priest, which determines whether one is or is not a part of the Russian Orthodox Church and thus the Russian nation, is devotion solely to Russian Orthodoxy. One cannot be a follower of another religion or pseudo-religion, whether it be Judaism, Soviet communism, or Nazi fascism, and expect to be included in the Russian nation at the same time.  Focusing especially on the pseudo-religions of Soviet communism and Nazi fascism, they are presented as false religions which lead their followers astray and produce anti-miracles. Throughout the film, these anti-miracles appear, at first providing the viewers with hope only to  259 Макс Милиан, «Поп,» Кино-театр.ру, March 30, 2010, https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/art/pr/1601/.  260 Милиан, «Поп.»  261 Милиан, «Поп.» 262 Милиан, «Поп.»  122 then crush it moments later, underscoring the perfidiousness of these pseudo-religions. Those who are devoted followers of either of these pseudo-religions cannot at the same time but devoted followers of Russian Orthodox Christianity as the two belief systems are incompatible to one another. While Soviet communism and Nazi fascism are violent and cruel, unable to provide hope and eternal life, Russian Orthodoxy is kind and caring, giving its followers hope and an eternal life in heaven. Because one cannot be a devoted follower of both Russian Orthodoxy and these pseudo-religions at the same time, thus choosing the pseudo-religion, the only path which they can follow is the path to hell as seen in Father Alexander’s dream sequence. Russian Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is a religion of miracles, disguised sometimes as coincidences, that provide hope and protection, both in this mortal life and into eternity. Above all, this is represented in the character of Eva, who started the film as Jewish but converted just in time to be saved from the Nazis’ oppression and murder of the Jewish population. It was a miracle that she converted when she did, and this conversion provided her with hope for a future with Aleksii and her adopted family while at the same time providing her with protection against the Nazis. Other characters, like Aleksii and the refugee children, experience the miracles Russian Orthodoxy has to offer as well, having been saved from following the pseudo-religion of Soviet communism in the case of Aleksii and from the Nazis in the case of the children. Above all, Russian Orthodoxy provided the Russian nation with hope for eternal life and protection as represented in Aleksii, Eva, and the refugee children who led the new generation of Russia forward.  The Church’s first feature film, The Priest, seeks to reshape the historical narrative of the Russian Orthodox Church as having collaborated with the Nazis during World War II, instead showing how the Church worked to serve the Russian people who suffered at German (and  123 Soviet) hands. As part of this, the film works to clearly distinguish between who is considered Russian versus who is considered German and even goes so far as to distinguish between Soviet and Russian, too. This is done through religious identification, whether that be the “true” religion of Russian Orthodox Christianity or the pseudo-religions of Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. The film underscores this by emphasizing the importance of devotion, arguing that one can only truly be devoted to one faith and that it is impossible to follow two ideologies. From this devotion comes miracles, whether they be true miracles or anti-miracles, that further affirm the aforementioned characteristics of Russian Orthodoxy or of the pseudo-religions of Nazism and Soviet communism. To be a member of the Russian nation thus means experiencing the miracles that come from being a devoted member of the Russian Orthodox Church. Without this devotion, argues the film, the Russian nation would not exist as it does today.   124 CHAPTER THREE: THE HORDE AGAINST THE POWER OF MIRACLES  The final film, Орда (The Horde), directed by Andrei Proshkin and released in 2012, is based on an event in the life of a Russian Orthodox saint, Metropolitan Aleksei, who led the Russian Orthodox Church from 1354-1378. During this period, much of Russia was under the control of the Golden Horde, a Mongol khanate, whose power within the region was weakening throughout much of the 14th century. This led to the Prince of Moscow defeating Mongol forces in the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, recognized officially as the beginning of the end of Mongol control over Moscow and what would later become the Russian state.  For the film, Metropolitan Aleksii’s journeys to the Golden Horde are of particular importance as he is said to have performed a miracle while visiting the Mongol capital. In 1357, the wife/mother of the khan, Taidula, went blind, and the khan ordered the Prince of Moscow to send the Metropolitan to cure Taidula of her blindness. According to the hagiography of the saint, the Metropolitan responded to this call by saying, “‘That is beyond my power…but I believe that God, Who gave sight to the blind, will also help me.’”263 Upon arriving in Sarai, the capital of the Golden Horde, Metropolitan Aleksii’s statement was proven true as Taidula was healed after Metropolitan Aleksii prayed and sprinkled her with holy water. Had he not been able to heal her, the khan had threatened to attack Moscow, but Metropolitan Aleksii proved  263 “Saint Alexei, Metropolitan of Moscow, Wonderworker of All Russia,” Lives of the Saints, Orthodox Church in America, accessed March 15, 2024, https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2019/02/12/100506-saint-alexei-metropolitan-of-moscow-wonderworker-of-all-russia.  125 successful and prevented this attack.264 According to the hagiography of the saint, because she had been healed, Taidula also “presented the saint [Metropolitan Aleksii] with a parcel of land that belonged to her in the Kremlin and on which the saint subsequently founded the well-known Chudov monastery.”265 In the logic of the film, Taidula’s healing is only possible through Russian Orthodox Christianity as this is the only “true” religion. All of the other religions shown in the film, including other forms of Christianity, namely Catholicism, are shown as failing to either cure Taidula and/or to let followers leave the Mongol capital, whether alive or dead. Russian Orthodoxy proves to be the only religion capable of both healing blindness and of enabling Metropolitan Aleksii to leave Sarai at the end of the film. Without his faith, argues the film, he would not have been able to leave because he would not have been able to heal Taidula.  As is the case for the prior two films, religion is a key marker of distinction between the different nationalities represented in the film. The Russians are, of course, followers of Russian Orthodox Christianity while the Mongols follow a multitude of different religions, including Islam and paganism, as represented by Chinese and Indian medicinal practices along with witchcraft. By portraying the Mongols as religiously pluralistic, Proshkin has rewritten history. In reality, the Mongols had converted to Islam in the beginning of the 14th century and did not practice any other faiths, including the pagan religions shown in the film.266 By having the Mongols practice multiple religions, Proshkin is further differentiating them from the devout Russian Orthodox Christians and further emphasizing the sinfulness of the Mongols. Lastly,  264 “Saint Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow,” Lives of the Saints, Transfiguration of Our Lord, last modified 2010, http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/saints_Alexis_Moscow.html. 265 Transfiguration of Our Lord, “Lives of the Saints.” 266 Perrie, “Andrei Proshkin.”  126 there are two Italian monks who act as secondary characters and who practice Catholicism, and they are meant to represent the West.  What makes this film more complex than the other two is that the Russian characters, while nominally practicing Russian Orthodoxy, are not always true followers of the faith. At times, there are Russians, namely Prince Ivan of Moscow and Fed’ka, Metropolitan Aleksii’s servant, who question Russian Orthodoxy or even break from it altogether. By questioning Russian Orthodoxy, though, these individuals are not able to protect either themselves, in the case of Fed’ka, or the Russian nation, in the case of Prince Ivan, from the Mongols. It is only Metropolitan Aleksii, a true believer in Russian Orthodoxy, who is able to save both himself and the burgeoning Russian nation. He, unlike the other two key Russian characters, defines what it truly means to be a Russian and shows that devotion to the faith is necessary if the nation is to ever succeed.   While Metropolitan Aleksii, as a “true” Russian, represents positive characteristics, the Mongols represent all that is sinful. Most clearly shown by the khan, Janibek, the Mongols are portrayed as superficial, incestual, gluttonous, and violent. The superficiality of the Mongols ties into the film’s argument about their religions being fake. From their superficiality stems all of the other characteristics that define the Mongols. Their incestuousness, gluttony, and violence all contribute to the film’s implication in “that Mongol power was in essence a similar form of spectacle [to a magic performance], learned simply by observation and imitation.”267 The Mongols, when observing how other empires used political power, attempted to adopt this for themselves but in the process distorted it by combining it with their false religions. In doing so,  267 Tom Roberts, “The Horde,” in The Contemporary Russian Cinema Reader: 2005-2016, ed. Rimgaila Salys (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2019), 217–38.  127 the Mongols created a superficial form of power defined by false religions and the aforementioned traits of incestuousness, gluttony, and violence.  The Italian monks, who practice Catholicism, are minor characters in comparison to the Russians and the Mongols, and they are defined by a weaker faith than Metropolitan Aleksii. Their faith is unable to help them escape Sarai after being trapped there in the beginning of the film, and they end up having to rely on Metropolitan Aleksii, whose faith allows both him and the Italian monks to leave in the end. Interestingly, though, the Italians are portrayed as spiritual brothers to Metropolitan Aleksii rather than as enemies as has been the case in the other two films. While their faith is not as strong as the Metropolitan’s, they still do share one larger faith, Christianity, connecting Russia with the West rather than dividing the two as the other films had done. In this case, Russia and the West are allies and “are shown as potential victims of the Horde” rather than as enemies of one another.268  The film, which was produced by Orthodox Encyclopedia, acts as a visual representation of the Church leadership’s beliefs about what it means to be a member of the Russian nation and a practicing follower of the Russian Orthodox Church. In going scene by scene, the differences between the Russian Orthodox nation and the Mongol multifaith nation are displayed. The scenes of this film, even more so than in the prior two films, show what it means to be considered a “true” Russian and the values that correspond to this. In turn, the Mongols represent sinfulness and its synonymous values, showing what happens to those who practice a “false” faith or who are not true believers in Russian Orthodoxy.  268 Maureen Perrie, “Andrei Proshkin: The Horde (Orda, 2012),” Kinokultura, no. 39 (2013), https://www.kinokultura.com/2013/39r-orda.shtml.  128 Unlike the other two films, which start with Russian being spoken, The Horde starts with Karachay-Balkar, a Mountain Turkic language, and Italian. Already, the film has taken a different turn from the previous two by starting with languages that require subtitles for Russian viewers. It establishes from the get-go that the Mongols and the Italians are separate from the Russians, both in language and in customs. This continues throughout the rest of the film despite the fact that, in reality, the Russians and the Mongols, in particular, experienced a mixing of cultural traditions and values. For the narrative of the film, this must be rewritten to show how the two did not mix as the Russians could not risk being tainted by the paganism of the Mongols and the accompanying values.  One of the Mongols leads the Italian monks through the halls and tells them that they are approaching a threshold on which, as the Italian explains to his companion, they cannot step per Mongol customs. Approaching the threshold, the first Italian points it out to the second and warns him to be careful, stepping over it gently. Once in the hallway leading to the great hall, the Mongol orders the Italians to crawl as they approach while still avoiding stepping on the threshold.  The Italians, by being forced to enter on their knees, are put into a position of weakness in comparison to the Mongols, and this remains their role for the entirety of the film. By demeaning the monks in the very first scene, Proshkin is making an argument about the West as a whole, showing them as weak and in need of the aid of Russia which will come later. In making the Italians monks, Proshkin also shows the weakness of their faith, Catholicism, which has not put them in a position of strength against the Mongol pagans but in a position of weakness, as they crawl in wearing the robes of a monk, hindering them from easily crossing over the threshold. In their challenges, the Italians are shown unable to fit into the world of the  129 Mongols at all while the Russians, as is later shown, are better able to understand and follow the Mongol customs. The Italians need the Russians to aid them in their interactions with the Mongols if they ever hope to leave Sarai, alluding to a larger argument that Russia is a necessary bridge between the cultures of the East and the West.  Once inside the room, the camera pans to reveal the Mongols, clearly in a position of strength, as they are eating from mountains of food and are dressed in luxurious fabrics. They mock the Italian monks, asking their Mongol escort where he found them and commenting on their appearance by comparing them to beggars. The khan calls the escort forward, having him drink from his goblet while asking where the Italians’ gifts for the Mongols are. As the escort tells the khan that the monks have no gifts, one of the monks calls out and interrupts, asking the escort to tell the khan that the Italians’ gifts were stolen by Mongols on their journey to Sarai. It is clear that this interruption is a breach of Mongol etiquette as the escort attempts to shush the Italian monk. The khan waves the escort aside, though, and approaches the monks, ordering one of them to eat from his hand. The monk refuses, telling the khan, “I can’t. I won’t.”269 The other monk, who speaks Karachay-Balkar, explains to the khan that their faith prohibits them from eating “the flesh of killed animals”270 In response, the khan jokingly asks the monks whether they can eat the flesh of live animals and then tells them how his brother, Janibek, once ate the tailbone of a live ram. The Mongols all begin to laugh, and Janibek, at first looking nervous about why the khan has referenced him, then begins to jokingly attack and eat the tailbone of a Mongol sitting next to him.   269 Орда (The Horde), directed by Andrei Proshkin (Moscow, Orthodox Encyclopedia, 2012), 0:04:17-0:04:18. https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Video/b/?ie=UTF8&node=2858778011&ref_=nav_cs_prime_video.  270 Орда (The Horde), 0:04:23-0:04:24.   130 In this scene, there is the first invocation of the Mongols as crude and violent which creates a contrast between them and the Italian monks. The khan, rather than using the word tailbone, uses the word “arse-bone” which has a more vulgar tone to it and, in telling this story to the monks, he seems to hope to shock them and, possibly, disgust them. Janibek’s response, to then attack another Mongol jokingly, makes him, and the Mongols more broadly, look more animalistic than human, following their baser nature of crudeness and violence. The monks, on the other hand, choose to avoid eating animal flesh, whether that flesh be alive or dead, and are repulsed by the Mongols’ vulgarity and violence. While the Mongols think of the Italian monks as beggarly and uncultured, the Italians think of the Mongols as uncultured and backwards, having not moved past crude jokes and violence towards one another. It is the Italians’ religion and its corresponding values that distinguish them in their minds as more cultured than the Mongols, and, in the minds of the Mongols, it is their religions and their values that have made them stronger than these beggarly Italians.  As the Mongols continue feasting, the monks begin to explain their purpose for having come to the khan, but the khan is still upset that the monks have refused to eat from his hands, thus disrespecting Mongol culture. The khan interrupts the monks, telling them that the Mongols would never refuse to eat from his hand and proves this by feeding one of the Mongols. Turning back to the monks, the khan then tells them that he knows why they have come. They want to know whether the khan intends to go to war against the Pope. The monks confirm this, and the khan in reply asks them, “So what do you think my answer will be?”271 The monk who does not speak Karachay-Balkar replies that he does not think the khan will go to war against the Pope as  271 Орда (The Horde), 0:06:28-0:06:29.   131 it is too far away for the khan. The other monk translates this for the khan but changes the translation, saying that the khan will not attack due to his “good sense and kindness.”272  Clearly, the monk who speaks Karachay-Balkar understands to a certain extent how to do politics with the Mongols while his companion is too proud to humble himself before the Mongols. Again, here is Proshkin’s argument that the Italians, representing the West, are too proud to work with the East at an equal level. Instead, the proud Italian monk assumes that the Mongols will not fight simply because the distance is too much and tells the khan as much. It is only through the monk’s companion, who speaks Karachay-Balkar and better understands Mongol customs, that the Italians do not offend the Mongols further by insulting them again, this time in reference to their fighting ability.  The khan responds, however, that he will go to war against the Pope and proceeds to explain why he will attack. He tells the monks that the Mongols need land to graze their sheep which is why he will raze their city to the ground. He asks the Italians whether it is better for sheep to graze in an open field or in a city made of stone, alluding to his belief in the Italians’ lagging development by describing their cities are not nearly as well-developed as those of the Mongols. The proud Italian monk replies that it is better to graze in an open field, and the khan agrees, telling him, “You are right, ram-head,” thereby insulting the monk thrice over by telling the monk that the Mongols will attack his city, the reason why they will attack his city, and then calling him a ram-head. The relationship between the Mongols and the Italians is clearly not one of love or even of mutual respect but rather of disdain and judgment on both sides. Their relationship will later be put in comparison to the relationship between the Mongols and the  272 Орда, (The Horde), 0:06:42.   132 Russians which, while still not a relationship characterized by love, is one at least defined by respect for one another.  The khan then tells the monks that he will not harm the Pope but will instead make him the chief shepherd, mocking the position of the Pope who is considered to be the shepherd of the Catholic people and infuriating the proud Italian monk who challenges the khan. Prior to this, the monks had been kneeling before the khan, but at this point, the proud monk climbs to his feet and tells the khan that they “have knights with a true Christian faith” to protect them.273 His invocation of the word “true” implies multiple things about the argument the film is making about the beliefs of the West. First, “true” argues then that there must be a “false” Christian faith, but it is never fully revealed what this “false” Christian faith would be. Perhaps, Proshkin wants to make it sound as though the Catholics do not believe in any other Christian faith, but this will later be proven untrue when the monks encounter Metropolitan Aleksii and consider him one of their own. The other implication is that the monk is arguing that the Mongols and their soldiers follow a “false” faith which aligns much more neatly with the argument that the film is making about the Mongols as pagan and false believers. This invocation of the word “true” is then the first time that Proshkin’s argument about the Mongols’ faiths and their invalidity is made, and it is interesting that it comes from the Italian monks rather than the Russians. As previously mentioned, though, the films allies the Italians with the Russians, and the Russians, namely Metropolitan Aleksii, are who protect the Italians in the end, serving as the “knights with a true Christian faith.” 274 By having the monks refute the khan with this argument about “true” faith,  273 Орда (The Horde), 0:08:01-0:08:02.  274 Орда (The Horde), 0:08:01-0:08:02.  133 Proshkin is alluding to what is to come in the film when different faiths will be put to the test, and the “true” faith, Russian Orthodoxy, comes out on top.  When the Italian monk stands, all of the other Mongols in the room also get to their feet and take a fighting stance, seeking to protect their khan. The khan holds them back, though, and instead approaches the monk while pulling out his sword. The khan comments that the monk is a brave warrior and then challenges him to perform a feat of skill, asking the monk whether he can snuff a lit candle using a sword. In this moment, the khan has given the monk an opportunity to prove himself before the Mongols, but the khan has done so by putting forth a challenge that is meant to prove Mongol values. The monk agrees, and the khan hands the monk his own sword, ordering him to prove it. The monk follows through, cutting the candle apart, but the khan and other Mongols laugh at him, and the khan tells the monk that he did not mean for the monk to cut the candle in two but rather to snuff the flame. It should come as no surprise that the monk fails at the challenge as he has already proven his distaste for the Mongols and their culture, and this challenge was the epitome of Mongol culture and values, namely of violence and obedience to one’s leader, in this case the khan.  Returning to the table, the khan tells the monks that if he lets the Pope stay in Avignon, it is because “all is in the hands of Allah and me,” one of the few times that the Mongols’ belief in Islam is referenced.275 In reality, the Mongols had converted to Islam in the “early 14th century,” but this does not fit the narrative of the film in which the Mongols are supposed to represented sinfulness in a multitude of ways.276 Had the film kept that plotline while at the same time making the Mongols solely Muslim, Proshkin risked insulting the Muslim population of Russia,  275 Орда (The Horde), 0:10:04-0:10:05.  276 Perrie, “Andrei Proshkin.”  134 including the Tartars, descendants of the Mongols. By making them paganistic, however, Proshkin still did insult the Tartars who disliked how their ancestors were portrayed as “crude and bloodthirsty savages.”277  This description of the Mongols as “crude and bloodthirsty savages” aptly fits what happens next when Janibek, who is sitting behind the khan, leans forward and begins choking the khan with a cord. The other Mongols watch on in silence as Janibek climbs atop the khan and chokes him to death, clearly demonstrating that this is not the first time something like this has happened. The transition of power, like much of the rest of Mongol culture shown thus far, is defined by crude violence. Finally, one of the Mongol women jumps up, presumably to help the khan, but she is pinned down by another Mongol and held there while Janibek finishes murdering his brother. After Janibek finishes choking his brother, he lies next to the body for a moment and pants before crawling over to drink some water. Clearly, Janibek overexerted himself in killing his brother as emphasized by his panting and need for water. Janibek’s lack of physical fitness will be a theme throughout the film to further emphasize the gluttony of Mongol culture.  Turning to all in the room, Janibek throws the water goblet at the monks and orders them and everyone else in the room to get out, clearly needing to think through what he has just done and what is going to happen next. As everyone scrambles to leave, some men stay behind and kneel before Janibek, clearly seeking to demonstrate their loyalty to the new khan. Janibek orders them to bring Taidula, and they all get up to go get her, leaving Janibek alone. He then proceeds to continue eating his meal, again emphasizing the gluttonous aspect of his character. In the background, there is a noise and it looks like the former khan may still be alive. Janibek, going  277 Perrie, “Andrei Proshkin.”  135 over to check, affirms, however, that his brother is dead and proceeds to remove one of the rings off of his brother’s finger. It is clear Janibek feels no remorse for the killing of his brother but rather is already thinking ahead to what this means for his chances of becoming the new khan. Janibek, in the world of the film, is meant to serve as the embodiment of the sinfulness of the Mongols, as seen through his willingness to commit murder, his gluttony, his lack of remorse, and, lastly, his hunger for power. As the film progresses, Janibek continues to embody these sinful traits while taking on more to fully represent the godlessness of the Mongols.  As Janibek sits in the great hall, three women enter and he arises, telling them that “something dreadful has happened: Tinibek, your son and my beloved brother, has died.”278 One of the women, revealed to be Taidula, Tinibek and Janibek’s mother, approaches the body and questions Janibek on how Tinibek died and whether it was murder. Janibek continues to lie, describing the death as a tragedy and that the cause was due to choking on a mutton bone. It is clear Taidula does not believe Janibek, but she accepts his statements, nonetheless, reiterating that events like Tinibek’s murder are common in Mongol society. Janibek approaches her, carrying Tinibek’s sword and telling her that he is ready to fulfill Taidula’s wish for “a great khan for the Great Horde” if only she will bless him.279 She agrees to his request, blessing him with a sword, before striding off. Even though she crowns Janibek the next khan, Taidula is obviously not thrilled that Janibek has become the new khan, recognizing his faults as a person and how these will affect his role as a leader. The film then jumps forward in time to winter, and Taidula is shown in Janibek’s palace, pushing her way through Janibek’s wives and slapping one for a perceived slight. Taidula’s  278 Орда (The Horde), 0:13:55-0:14:01. 279 Орда (The Horde), 0:14:58-0:15:00.   136 status among these women (and Mongol society more broadly) is obvious as all of the women kneel before her and allow her both to slap them and push them around. Taidula then orders them all to leave while Janibek looks on and laughs. He asks Taidula why she hates them, and she replies that it is up to Janibek to love them, not her. Janibek then tells her that he does not love them but Taidula, tying back to the story of Metropolitan Aleksii told at the beginning of this chapter. In his hagiography, Taidula is identified as both the wife and mother of Janibek, and this scene is the first moment where viewers see Taidula in both of these roles. It should come as no surprise that Janibek is, of course, laying down and eating while having this conversation with his mother, again emphasizing his gluttonous and lazy personality.  Taidula encourages Janibek to love fighting rather than her, emphasizing the importance of violence in Mongol society while at the same time pointing to Janibek’s preference for slovenliness. Janibek tells her that it is impossible to fight without hatred, implying that he has no one to hate, and Taidula refutes his point, arguing that it is impossible to love and not hate at the same time. This comment goes against the teachings of the Bible which encourages Christians to “love your neighbor as yourself”280 and to “do good to those who hate you.”281 It is clear from this conversation and events prior to it that the Mongols do not follow the Christian teachings but rather a religion of violence, crudeness, and savagery.  Taidula notices that there is a new piece of furniture in the room, a throne, which points to how Janibek intends to rule the Golden Horde. Commenting on the throne, Taidula remarks that Tinibek did not have one. Unlike his brother, who was shown at the beginning of the film as willing and able to fight, Janibek intends to sit on his throne and rule the Golden Horde from  280 Mark 12:31 (New International Version).  281 Luke 6:27 (New International Version).   137 there, rather than from on the battlefield. This throne is meant to underscore the laziness of Janibek lest viewers forget this about him. She then proceeds to sit on the throne while Janibek sits between her knees on the footrest below.  Looking up at her, Janibek remarks, “If you were not my mother, I would have married you,”282 again recalling the hagiography of Metropolitan Aleksii in which Taidula is described as both Janibek’s mother and wife. It is interesting that Proshkin chose not to explicitly affirm this dual relationship within the plotline of the film as it would have further emphasized the godlessness and amorality of the Mongols. He does make references to it, though, which still get this point about the Mongols across, as seen in comments like this one here and in the actions following it, namely when Janibek grabs his mother and thrusts her into himself. Taidula’s response further alludes to the incestual nature of their relationship as she tells her son that she would not have slept with him as he is “too fat and lazy.”283 Janibek grabs her breast in response, holding onto it, and then Taidula thrusts his face into her chest. Taidula holds Janibek into her chest and returns to the conversation about the throne, emphasizing the Mongol values of violence and prowess on the battlefield by telling Janibek that he should not have a throne at all but should be out fighting. She argues that Janibek loves the city too much for a descendant of Genghis Khan, who should instead be riding free to the edges of the Earth. Taidula then asks Janibek when the last time he went to fight was, once more underscoring the laziness of Janibek. Most poignantly, she then tells him, “A Mongol who no longer fights, isn’t a Mongol.”284 As the film progresses, it will be Taidula, rather than Janibek,  282 Орда (The Horde), 0:22:33-0:22:38.  283 Орда (The Horde), 0:22:42-0:22:43.  284 Орда (The Horde), 0:23:08-0:23:09.   138 who begins to turn away from Mongol values and towards the Christian values soon to be  introduced by Metropolitan Aleksii. Taidula begins to recognize the cruelty and savagery into which the Mongols have descended and which her son Janibek represents, and she will reject these in the end. The next scene shows Janibek, Taidula, and the royal court sitting and watching a magician perform tricks, invoking the aforementioned ideas of Mongol power as imitation and spectacle akin to a magic trick. Janibek is amazed by the performance, cheering and gasping at the magician’s tricks, until Taidula reveals at the end of the performance how these tricks were performed. With the spell having been broken and the magic ruined, Janibek is infuriated and attacks the magician, beating him bloody before ordering his men to drag the magician away.  This is the first scene in which magic is involved, and the film argues that the Mongols are easily impressed and quick to believe any sort of falsity, such as magic, until it is revealed to be a fraud. This will be expanded to include all kinds of religions deemed “false” by the film as they will be shown to believe in all different kinds of religions as having powers. It is also a commentary on the Mongols’ power itself as a kind of falsity that simply needs to be exposed as fake just as Taidula revealed the magician’s tricks. Magic is presented in this film as a false, earthly form of power which then means that the Mongols’ power, with its affiliation to magic, is also presented then as an earthly form of power. It is only Russian Orthodoxy, which can perform miracles, that is a heavenly power, and Russian Orthodoxy grants this heavenly status to the Russian nation as followers of the faith.  Taidula and Janibek, having exited the throne room, look out the windows of the castle and observe the goings-on below, namely the dragging of Russian captives into Sarai. Janibek uses their status as prisoners to justify his prowess as a warrior to his mother, arguing that having  139 control over Russia and being able to take Russian captives makes him a good warrior. Taidula does not buy into this, though, and instead decides to go down to the square to see the prisoners firsthand. This is the first time Russians are shown in the film, and it is in a clear position of weakness in comparison to their Mongol captors. These Russian prisoners have an important role to play throughout the film, though, as they lead to miracles and curses being performed. Thus, while they may be in a position of bodily weakness in contrast to their Mongol overlords, in reality, the Russians are in a position of spiritual superiority over them through their faith.  Once in the square, Janibek descends from his horse and approaches the Russians, asking the prisoners whether any of them have a skill which could be of use to the Mongols. Taidula has other worries on her mind, particularly how the Mongols are to feed these prisoners as winter is a time of scarcity. She asks Janibek whether he intends for the Mongols to eat people again in order to survive, invoking another amoral trait of the Mongols, i.e., cannibalism. It is not enough for Proshkin to make the Mongols bloodthirsty and crude savages, but he has to further emphasize their godlessness by making them cannibals, too. Janibek tells her, “It is bad to eat people. The demon steals into your soul,” but this clearly does not bother Taidula.285  Placing Russians up against a wagon wheel, Janibek decides whether or not they are going to be killed based on height. Those who are too tall are labeled for death, seeing as they would require more food to eat during the winter. Janibek orders one of his men to kill the tall prisoner, and the Mongols joke about it, warning the ordered Mongol not to cut himself in the process. The Mongol hops into the bed of the wagon and pulls out his sword, proceeding to decapitate the Russian prisoner. The casual displays of violence have already been shown to be a part of everyday Mongol life, and this decapitation is simply another one of those moments. The  285 Орда (The Horde), 0:29:32-0:29:41.   140 Mongols cheer as they watch the body spurt blood and the head roll on the ground, emphasizing their bloodthirsty and savage nature.  As the next Russian prisoner is called forward and killed, Taidula begins to stumble forward, holding out her hand as though reaching out for something that is not there. When she touches a horse’s snout, the horse whinnies and rears back and Taidula collapses to the ground. It is revealed in the next scene that Taidula has been struck by sudden blindness, akin to what happened to Saul (later Paul) after Jesus spoke to him on the road to Damascus in the book of Acts. Just as it took a Christian disciple to heal Saul, so too will another Christian disciple be needed to heal Taidula.  The following scenes portray different religious practitioners attempting to heal Taidula using their respective religious methods and failing in the process. The first uses Chinese medicinal practices, rubbing camel dung and herbs on Taidula’s eyes in an attempt to heal blindness, but this of course does not work. The second uses Hindu medicinal practices, intending to cause Taidula pain in order to foster healing. Janibek does not let this Hindu medicine man even start causing Taidula pain, instead ordering him to be whipped. The third, a witch doctor, dances around Taidula in ceremonial garb and spitting in her face, causing Janibek to order his men to take the witch doctor away so Janibek never has to see him again. Janibek’s men interpret this to mean killing the witch doctor, tying back to the innate violence of Mongol culture, and they drag the witch doctor outside Taidula’s tent and cut his throat. It should come as no surprise that all three alternative forms of medicine failed to heal Taidula as it will only be Russian Orthodoxy, the true religion through which God works, that will heal her. Her blindness was caused by the slaughtering of Russians, and thus it is only through a Russian that Taidula will be healed, not through a person of another nation and faith.   141 The film then cuts to two Mongols entering a village, later revealed to be Moscow, that is made entirely of wood and in which there are no villagers. The comparisons to be made between Sarai and Moscow are obvious as these are the only two cities presented throughout the entirety of the film. Sarai is presented as a developed city in which there is constant trade of goods from across the Mongol Empire, and there is a diversity of peoples from all over the Empire living in the city. In comparison, Moscow is presented as a less developed village in which there is little to no trade and none of the hustle and bustle present in Sarai.  The Mongol pair are surprised to find Moscow looking this way, asking one another where all of the villagers are and joking that perhaps they had all gone to the moon or had been eaten by dogs. They finally encounter a few individuals and question them on where the Russians and their Grand Prince are. These people, who are of Mongol ethnicity, respond that they are also Russians, but it is clear that the Mongol pair do not recognize them as such, asking their question again but rephrasing it to ask where the Muscovites are. This is the only moment in the film in which Proshkin acknowledges that there was an overlap in Russian and Mongol culture, and that the two nations lived peacefully side by side for many years prior to the events portrayed here. Even in this moment, though, Proshkin still makes it clear to the viewers that the Russians and the Mongols are two separate nations and that, even if there are Mongols living in Moscow, they are still not considered to be Russians.  The Mongols explain that all of the Muscovites are at church. At this point, it should be expected that the majority of Russians to be first introduced in the film are the devout churchgoers. The Mongols enter the church on horseback, emphasizing their lack of respect for religion and the godlessness of their nation. This terrifies the Russians who rear back from the Mongols and gasp in terror. The priest officiating the service does not stop saying the  142 communion rites, despite the presence of the Mongols, and it will be revealed that this priest is Metropolitan Aleksii. His continuing to perform the service is of no surprise as he is portrayed as a godly character throughout the film, focused on the heavenly rather than the earthly. He notices, though, that the other priests have been frightened by something, and the Metropolitan asks whether they have seen a demon. The priests respond, “The pagans, Holy Master. On their horses.” 286 Again, there is the reiteration that the Mongols are pagan and not Muslim (as was the case historically), further underscoring the godlessness of the Mongol nation as a whole.  Acknowledging the Mongols’ presence, Metropolitan Aleksii continues the religious service under the watchful eyes of the Mongol pair. From the scene in the village prior to this, it is clear that the Mongols are looking for the Grand Prince of Moscow, but in this scene here, it becomes obvious that they had been looking for the priest, too. One Mongol tells the other, “Here is the sorcerer Alexei,” referring to him with a title that falls more in line with the Mongol understanding of religion (in the film) than the title of “priest.” Metropolitan Aleksii then begins to quote from the Bible, saying, “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be based; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”287 In this biblical quote, Proshkin is foreshadowing the events that are to come in the film as Janibek, who is currently exalted as khan, will be debased at the end of the film while Metropolitan Aleksii, who will humble himself throughout the film, will be exalted at the end. As Metropolitan Aleksii begins a prayer for the congregation, the Grand Prince of Moscow, Ivan, exits the church to meet with the Mongols, underscoring Ivan’s lack of religiosity in favor of political machinations. Outside the church, Ivan talks with the Mongol envoys while  286 Орда, (The Horde), 0:37:41-0:37:42.  287 Орда (The Horde), 0:38:57-0:39:03.   143 eating nuts, underscoring his own gluttonous habits and creating a connection between him and Janibek, two individuals who value religion based off of its usefulness for their own goals. Ivan asks the Mongols why Janibek has sent them, and Timehr, one of the Mongols, replies that they are there for Ivan’s head. Ivan asks them what happens if he refuses, seeing as his head is comfortable on his body, and Timehr replies, switching languages from Karachay-Balkar to Russian, “The dead will envy the living,” a confusing statement that seemingly threatens Ivan and the Muscovites with some level of painful death such that Ivan will regret refusing.288 In response, Ivan says, “The dead, especially those in hell, have always envied the living,” invoking a reference to religion and the Christian idea of hell, showing that, to some extent, Ivan is a religious individual.289 The other Mongol understands that Timehr has mistranslated the statement, and he seeks to clear this up for Ivan, telling Ivan that Janibek’s message was that “the living will envy the dead” which makes much more sense in this context.290 Timehr then approaches Ivan, telling him Janibek’s message means “Moscow is done for” unless Ivan pays Janibek to not attack the city. 291 Ivan asks whether this payment is supposed to be his head, and Timehr replies that payment can be made in the form of handing over Metropolitan Aleksii, again referring to him as a sorcerer.  The next scene is a conversation between Metropolitan Aleksii and Ivan in which the Grand Prince seeks to convince the priest to go with the Mongols in order to save Moscow. Throughout this scene, there are multiple references to biblical events related to the days leading  288 Орда (The Horde), 0:40:32-0:40:33.  289 Орда (The Horde), 0:40:37-0:40:41.  290 Орда (The Horde), 0:40:50-0:40:53.  291 Орда (The Horde), 0:40:59-0:41:01.   144 up to Jesus’ death on the cross. Firstly, Ivan and his boyars seek to find Metropolitan Aleksii, asking one of the priests where the Metropolitan is and being told that the Metropolitan is in the garden, “reminiscent of Christ’s praying in the Garden of Gethsemane” prior to his suffering and death.292 Once outside, Ivan finds Metropolitan Aleksii washing his feet in a bath prepared for him by his servant, Fed’ka. Ivan demands Fed’ka to make him a bath as well, but Metropolitan Aleksii offers his own bucket to the prince, “invoking Christ’s washing of the disciples feet at the Last Supper.”293 From both this scene and Metropolitan Aleksii’s quoting of the Bible earlier, it is clear that the priest is to play a martyr role in the film, sacrificing himself to protect the Russian nation as a whole.  Dipping his feet into the bucket, Ivan advises Fed’ka that the pinecones in the water should be saved as a potential food source, hinting at the harsh winter and Mongol attacks that are yet to come. The Metropolitan asks Ivan why they should save the pinecones, and Ivan tells the priest that the Tartars are intending to attack Moscow. Metropolitan Aleksii is surprised that the Mongols are giving the Russians a warning prior to their attack, commenting that this is unusual for the Mongols. In response, Ivan reveals to Metropolitan Aleksii the Mongols’ stipulation to prevent an attack – the priest traveling to the Horde and performing a miracle. Metropolitan Aleksii asks, “What kind of miracle?,”294 to which Ivan replies, “A Christian kind, of course,” implying in this statement that there may be other kinds of miracles from other religions and thus revealing Ivan’s lack of complete devotion to Russian Orthodoxy.295 The  292 Roberts, “The Horde,” 226.  293 Roberts, “The Horde,” 226. 294 Орда (The Horde), 0:43:39-0:43:40. 295 Орда (The Horde), 0:43:42-0:43:44.   145 priest then asks what kind of miracle the Mongols would like him to perform, and Ivan tells him that they want him “to heal a blind person.”296 Sarcastically, Metropolitan Aleksii questions whether they would also like him to make the lame walk or “the handless to play on a pipe.”297 Ivan ignores this sarcasm in favor of telling the Metropolitan that it is Taidula who has gone blind, hoping this will be more likely to convince the priest to agree. The Metropolitan continues to be sarcastic, however, commenting on how “easy” this miracle will be and that “everything in this world is in our power.”298  Sensing that the priest is preparing to refuse, Ivan gets down on his knees before him, begging him to perform this miracle as it will cost him nothing. Metropolitan Aleksii responds to this claim by deeming Ivan a blasphemer and reminding him, “Miracles lie with God and not with Man.”299 Ivan continues to beg, though, asking the Metropolitan whether God is all-merciful and thus willing to perform a miracle for the Muscovites, protecting them from death by the Mongols. The Metropolitan refuses to keep listening to Ivan and walks off, but Ivan calls after him, asking, “What do I have left? To pray to the old gods? Or run to the old witches, or the wild spirits?”300 In this question, Ivan’s lack of devotion to Russian Orthodoxy is revealed alongside his view of religion as a tool to help him succeed politically. For both Ivan and Janibek, as political leaders, religion is meant to assist them in achieving their goals, but the film will show that Russian Orthodoxy does not work like that. Instead, one must humble themselves  296 Орда (The Horde), 0:43:58-0:43:59. 297 Орда (The Horde), 0:44:16-0:44:18. 298 Орда (The Horde), 0:44:22-0:44:30.  299 Орда (The Horde), 0:44:39-0:44:41.  300 Орда (The Horde), 0:44:51-0:44:57.   146 before both God and other men, as Metropolitan Aleksii quoted earlier, and be devout in their religious beliefs if they wish to see a miracle performed.  Metropolitan Aleksii orders the prince to get up and stop begging, and Ivan stands and approaches the priest to continue pleading with him to agree to perform this miracle. The prince reminds the priest of how, after praying over every home, Metropolitan Aleksii eradicated the plague cursing the town. Metropolitan Aleksii does not acknowledge this as a miracle, though, telling the prince that it may have just been chance that the plague was eradicated following his prayers. Neither Ivan nor Fed’ka believe this, however, and both tell the Metropolitan that he can perform the miracle of curing the blind just as he performed this prior miracle. The Metropolitan clearly does not agree, getting up and walking off, leaving Fed’ka and Ivan to themselves.  It is not clear whether the Metropolitan has decided to go to Sarai until the next scene in the film when he is shown walking through Moscow, blessing the villagers prior to leaving for Sarai to cure Taidula of her blindness. As the Metropolitan, the priests, and the prince walk through the village, there is a voiceover of the Metropolitan praying, asking God, “why did you cast this terrible burden upon me? Why are you tempting me? It is only on Thee that I set my hope. Do not forsake me…,”301 invoking Christ’s final words on the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”302 In the film, as previously mentioned, Metropolitan Aleksii serves as a Christ-like figure, sacrificing himself for the good of the Russian people just as Christ sacrificed Himself for mankind. This entire scene once more evokes the story of Christ’s final days before death on the cross as Metropolitan Aleksii walks through the city of Moscow, receiving cheers and blessing the villagers, just as Christ walked through the city of Jerusalem on  301 Орда (The Horde), 0:48:04-0:48:27. 302 Matthew 27:46 (New International Version).   147 the Sunday before His death, also receiving cheers and performing blessings. In just a few days’ time, though, both the Metropolitan and Christ will be alone, beaten and bloodied as part of a larger journey to salvation for those around them. Along the journey to Sarai, the film has another voiceover of Metropolitan Aleksii praying to God, begging for Him to provide His aid in curing Taidula of her blindness. These voiceovers reiterate the devoutness of Metropolitan Aleksii to Russian Orthodoxy and remind the viewers that prayer is the key way by which one communicates with God. It is through prayer, argues the film, that God listens and responds to His followers. During the prayer, Metropolitan Aleksii again asks God not to forsake him, invoking Jesus’ final words on the cross another time. This journey, in case it were not clear enough to the viewers already, is meant to be reminiscent of Jesus’s journey and death on the cross.  While riding along, Fed’ka asks the Metropolitan whether he has ever been to the Horde before, and the Metropolitan asks Fed’ka why he wants to know. Fed’ka reveals that he wants to know for what kind of reward he should ask once the priest performs the miracle, revealing Fed’ka’s true nature. Prior to this scene, Fed’ka has been a minor character, and it was not clear to the viewers whether he was truly a devout Russian Orthodox Christian or not. In this question, it is revealed that Fed’ka is not as he views this miracle through a lens of greediness, wondering what he can get from the Mongols. The Metropolitan tells Fed’ka that the Mongols have everything, and Fed’ka decides that he will ask for a fox fur coat. The Metropolitan jokes that, once Fed’ka heals Taidula, then he can ask for everything, including the fur coat, but Fed’ka replies that it is only the Metropolitan who can heal her, revealing that, to some extent, he is a believer in God or some form of a higher power able to perform miracles.   148 Fed’ka’s follow-up statements reveal once more that he does not truly understand Russian Orthodoxy and its beliefs as he suggests that the Metropolitan should tell Taidula and the khan that they need to be baptized into Russian Orthodoxy or else God will not heal her. The Metropolitan clearly disagrees with Fed’ka, calling him a fool, before riding ahead. Fed’ka’s suggestion shows that he does not understand that baptism will not make believers out of Taidula and Janibek. It is instead belief and devoutness to the faith, the film argues, that makes one a Russian Orthodox Christian.  That evening, the Mongol envoys, Metropolitan Aleksii, and Fed’ka sit around the fire and have a conversation about their respective cultures. Timehr toasts to Janibek, claiming that there will never be a leader as noble as the khan, but Metropolitan Aleksii adds that Prince Ivan is just as noble. Timehr replies to this by asking the priest whether he loves the Grand Prince, and Metropolitan Aleksii responds by asking whether Timehr loves Janibek. Timehr does not give a straight answer, instead offering a blessing to Janibek, showing his true feelings about the new khan. It is obvious that Timehr does not think of Janibek as a good khan, but he has no choice but to follow Janibek’s orders as per Mongol culture. Timehr asks his Mongol companion what happens if a sword is thrust into one’s stomach and turned right, and the companion replies that it leads to a very painful death as all of one’s guts are pulled out. Timehr then tells the Metropolitan that Timehr would be the sword and Janibek the stomach and guts, revealing how much he truly dislikes Janibek as the khan.  He then asks Metropolitan Aleksii how much he loves Ivan, but the other Mongol answers for the priest, saying that the Metropolitan loves Ivan in the same way that Timehr loves Janibek. The other Mongol then demonstrates how the Metropolitan would thrust his sword into Ivan’s stomach just as Timehr would to Janibek, and the Metropolitan does not make any  149 response to this, neither affirming or denying the statement. The Metropolitan, as prior scenes showed, clearly recognizes that Ivan is not truly a devout Russian Orthodox Christian which is why he might agree to the Mongol’s statement that the Metropolitan would act as the sword to kill Ivan. At the same time, though, the Metropolitan cannot agree that he would kill someone as this would go against the Ten Commandments. Either way, the Metropolitan’s lack of a response affirms more about Ivan’s character, as a political figure akin to Janibek, than it does about the Metropolitan’s.  After the demonstration, the Mongol gets up and approaches one of the horses, cutting it to fill a goblet with blood which disturbs Metropolitan Aleksii, causing him to get up and leave the fire. Approaching the horse, Metropolitan Aleksii begins stroking it and seeing to its wound, placing his hand over the cut. Moving his hand away after a few seconds, it is revealed that the cut has been healed, showing that the Metropolitan, through God, does have the power to perform miracles. It clearly was not just chance, then, that the Metropolitan eradicated the curse from the town a few years prior but rather a work of God. This healing foreshadows Metropolitan Aleksii’s healing of Taidula that is still yet to come in the film.  As Metropolitan Aleksii is looking over the horse, Fed’ka can be heard reading aloud the biblical story of Jesus healing the blind man, another moment of foreshadowing of what is to come while also further tying the Metropolitan to Christ. His reading continues as a voiceover while the Metropolitan, the Mongols, and Fed’ka continue their journey to the Horde. Along the way, Fed’ka reads the part of the story in which Jesus’ disciples ask who was the sinner who caused this man to go blind – himself or his parents. Jesus’ reply, “Neither hath he sinned nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him,”303 also applies to the  303 John 9:3 (King James Version).   150 situation of Metropolitan Aleksii healing Taidula as her healing will be another instance of the work of God being manifest in someone.304 Fed’ka then goes on to read how Jesus performed the miracle, spitting into the dirt to create mud and then rubbing that mud on the eyes of the blind man, healing him. The entire biblical story alludes to viewers what is to come as Metropolitan Aleksii will soon try the exact same methods to heal Taidula as part of a larger effort to show God’s power to perform miracles.  Upon entering the capital of the Golden Horde, Metropolitan Aleksii and Fed’ka are bombarded by the sights and sounds of the Mongol capital, and the Metropolitan instructs Fed’ka on Mongol customs. The priest tells Fed’ka to “never step on the threshold here, or they’ll kill you,” reminding viewers of the first scene of the film in which the Italians were discouraged from doing the same.305 A parallel is created here between the Italians, who first entered the Mongols’ domain and were forced to enter crawling on their knees, while the Russians are allowed to ride in on horseback as guests of the khan. However, both nations are not entirely familiar with Mongol customs and must be reminded or taught certain things to avoid offending their hosts. The Italians and the Russians, in this moment, share a cultural similarity that distinguishes them from the Mongols, but the Russians, who are welcomed into the city, are more familiar with the Mongols and their ways, thus allowing the Russians to later act as a bridge between the two cultures.  Approaching the khan’s castle, there are two large fires in two braziers, serving as a testing ground for all who wish to see the khan and as a testing ground for one’s faith. Of course, the Mongols use fire as a testing ground as it fits with their values as a nation of pagans defined  304 Орда (The Horde), 0:57:13-0:57:20.  305 Орда (The Horde), 1:00:49-1:00:52.  151 by cruelty and violence. As mentioned in Chapter Two in regards to the Nazis and their use of fire, the symbol of fire has often been related to paganism which is why it is connected here with the Mongols. Metropolitan Aleksii explains to Fed’ka that they must pass between the two fires if they wish to see the khan and Fed’ka refuses. The Metropolitan reprimands him, telling Fed’ka that the Mongols will force him to do so no matter what. Metropolitan Aleksii goes first, crossing himself before the flames before walking through entirely unscathed.  Even though the flames touched him and his cloak the entire time, Metropolitan Aleksii never caught on fire, another miracle that is due to the priest’s devotion to God. Fed’ka again tries to refuse, but the Mongols forcibly drag him forward, pulling him towards the flames. Prior to going through, Fed’ka begins to pray and crosses himself and then runs through the flames. Unlike Metropolitan Aleksii, who managed to come out unburned, Fed’ka’s sleeve catches on fire, revealing how far Fed’ka’s devotion to Russian Orthodoxy and God truly goes. He did not believe, as Metropolitan Aleksii did, that he could walk through the flames without being burned which is why his sleeve caught on fire.  Once inside the castle walls, Metropolitan Aleksii and Fed’ka are forced to bow before the khan who asks what they are going to need to perform the miracle and then begins to list off different items for which other religious practitioners had asked. Metropolitan Aleksii turns down all of these items and instead simply asks for a fur coat for Fed’ka. For the Metropolitan, performing the miracle is not about the glory or fortune that could be gained from it but solely about offering glory to God, emphasizing his devoutness to Russian Orthodoxy and difference in character from others in the film, namely Janibek, Ivan, and Fed’ka. The khan agrees to his request and then takes the Metropolitan and Fed’ka to Taidula’s encampment to perform the miracle.   152 Once inside Taidula’s tent, Janibek introduces her to Metropolitan Aleksii, again describing him as a sorcerer and thus reiterating how the Mongols view all religions, i.e., akin to magic. Janibek tells her, “Soon you’ll see the light,” which is to be true both literally and spiritually.306 Taidula will literally be healed of her blindness by the end of the film, but her eyes will also be opened to Russian Orthodox Christianity and its teachings.  The khan then orders Metropolitan Aleksii to begin performing the miracle and, upon exiting the tent, tells Timehr that the priest will have healed Taidula by that evening. Inside the tent, Metropolitan Aleksii is circling Taidula with incense and praying to God, asking Him to heal her as Jesus healed the blind man and to open her eyes to “see the grace of Thine divine light,” once more invoking the idea of her blindness being both in a literal and spiritual sense.307 He then sprinkles her with holy water and once more asks God to hear his prayer. Metropolitan Aleksii then orders Taidula to open her eyes and asks whether she can see again, but Taidula is still unable to see.  Fed’ka begins to question how this is possible, but the priest silences him and tells him that they will continue working to cure her blindness. Metropolitan Aleksii and Fed’ka then begin to discuss other methods to try and cure Taidula’s blindness, but she tells them these will not work, underscoring that she is still blind to the power of Russian Orthodoxy. She orders them to leave, but the priest pleads with her and asks whether she will let him try one more time. Just as he asks, the khan enters the tent and asks if she has been cured. She answers in the negative and tells the khan to send Metropolitan Aleksii away. Fed’ka, turning to Metropolitan Aleksii, begins quoting the story of Jesus healing the blind man and suggesting that this is what the priest  306 Орда (The Horde), 1:04:16-1:04:17.  307 Орда (The Horde), 1:06:11-1:06:15.   153 should do to heal Taidula. The Metropolitan does tries this, running outside the tent and finding some mud which he begins to pile into his hands. He then spits in it and returns to the inside of the tent, carrying the pile of mud. Under the watchful eyes of Janibek and his courtiers, Metropolitan Aleksii smears the mud onto Taidula’s eyes. After a moment, she smears the mud off and opens her eyes, revealing that this has not worked to cure her blindness either.  It is no surprise that the miracle was not successful right away as this would not have caused Taidula to be cured of her spiritual blindness nor would it have proved Metropolitan Aleksii’s role as a martyr for the Russian people. His suffering is what will heal Taidula and save the Russian people just as Christ’s suffering saved mankind, and this has yet to occur in the narrative of the film. In anger, Fed’ka begins shouting and stomping all over the threshold of Taidula’s tent, violating a key Mongol custom and leading to a dreadful fate for him. He shouts at the Mongols, “Take that you pagans!,” once again reiterating the film’s argument that the Mongols are pagans who deserve to be punished first by Taidula’s blindness.308 In response to his shouting, some of the Mongols begin beating him up and whipping him as punishment. At this moment, Fed’ka is shown as having reached a low point in both his life and his faith, and he can choose to either rely on Russian Orthodoxy to aid him in recovering or he can continue down a new path which rejects Russian Orthodoxy. His prior lack of devout faith foreshadows which path Fed’ka will choose, i.e., the rejection of Russian Orthodoxy and thus unable to save himself from suffering at the hands of the godless Mongols.  As Metropolitan Aleksii exits the tent, he is grabbed and dragged to the middle of the encampment where the first step on his journey towards his own metaphorical cross begins. Just  308 Орда (The Horde), 1:11:53-1:11:55.   154 as the Romans stripped Jesus of His clothes, so too do the Mongols strip Metropolitan Aleksii of his. Once he is stripped naked, Janibek then pours the priest’s holy water onto Aleksii, baptizing Aleksii into his new life of suffering. Janibek then orders Aleksii to leave, telling him that he is of no use to the khan any longer. From this point onwards, Aleksii has become a martyr of the Russian people, going through multiple forms of suffering to protect the Russian nation from death.  Once the Metropolitan has left the camp, Janibek calls Timehr forward and orders him to follow Metropolitan Aleksii. Janibek explains that he does not want the priest to die before seeing the city of Moscow destroyed. Timehr agrees but is clearly uncomfortable with this, hearkening back to his earlier discussion with Metropolitan Aleksii about Timehr’s feelings towards Janibek. Timehr recognizes that the Metropolitan is a holy man, and he does not agree with the punishment Janibek has decided to inflict on the priest. This punishment is cruel and violent, traits which throughout the film have been associated with the Mongols, so Timehr has no choice but to agree or else risk punishment himself.  That evening, Metropolitan Aleksii is shown wandering through Sarai and coming upon two other individuals who have suffered at the hands of the Mongols, the Italian monks. The city is crowded with individuals selling goods and performers on tight ropes, but Metropolitan Aleksii, a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, is not distracted by any of these earthly pleasures. Instead, he is simply looking for water to quench his thirst and finds it in a fountain in the poorer parts of the city. As he drinks from the fountain, one of the Italian monks approaches and asks the Metropolitan, “Are you from a Christian country by chance?,” recognizing that the  155 Metropolitan by his face and beard.309 The Metropolitan replies, “I’m Russian,”310 which thrills the Italian monk who praises God and saying, “I’ve found someone I can talk to.”311 The monk then approaches Metropolitan Aleksii and tells him, “It has been ages since I saw a human face,” making it obvious that the Mongols do not count as human in the eyes of the monk.312 Looking more closely, the monk realizes that Metropolitan Aleksii is shaking and in need of clothing, and he invites the Metropolitan back to his home to provide him with clothes.  Once inside, the Italian monk shares what has happened to him and his companion since they arrived in the Horde and it is another tale of suffering. According to the monk, they have become beggars and have been stuck in Sarai for ages. The monk tells Metropolitan Aleksii that the Mongols refuse to sell horses to the Italians since the Italians did not arrive with gifts, but as mentioned in the beginning, the Italians’ gifts were stolen by the Mongols along their journey to the Horde. The monk then asks Metropolitan Aleksii whether he had brought gifts, but Metropolitan Aleksii responds by telling the monk, “I live here too,” an interesting response to this question seeing as the Metropolitan does not live in Sarai. However, Metropolitan Aleksii does live under the control of the Mongol Empire which may be what he was trying to say to the monk. Either way, the Italians and the Russians have a different relationship with the Mongols, as the film has argued throughout, and the Russians serve as a bridge between the Italians and the Mongols. As the Italian monk recognized, the Russians are Christians like the West, but they live under Mongol domination, meaning they understand but do not share the customs of the East.  309 Орда (The Horde), 1:16:34-1:16:37.  310 Орда (The Horde), 1:16:49.  311 Орда (The Horde), 1:16:51-1:16:53.  312 Орда (The Horde), 1:16:54-1:16:57.   156 Rather, Russia is a unique nation that exists somewhere in between the East and West, acting as a bridge for the two cultures. I suggest that the reason why the Church is willing to have Russia act as this bridge between East and West, even going so far as to have the Russians understand Mongol culture and interpret it for others, may boil down to the fact that the ROC does not view the Mongols, who represent the East, as a threat in the same way that it views West. Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Church has been working closely with the government to target other Christian denominations and minority religions across Russia more broadly. This is most obvious in the 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations and the 2006 Law on Public Associations which targeted minority religious organizations while recognizing “the ‘special contribution’ of Russian Orthodox Christianity to the country history.”313 The Church has used this status to urge the government to repress other religious groups, namely Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Scientologists.314  While these laws have been used to repress Muslim groups, it does not appear to be at the Church’s demands, particularly since the Church has made statements which suggest that the Church wishes to work with the Islamic community as well as with the other “traditional” religions of Russia, namely the Buddhists and the Jews.315 For the Church, it is the West and its religions that are of particular concern as the ROC worries about these groups infringing on the Church’s religious territory. Ergo, in the case of the three films presented here, the West, in both  313 United States Department of State, Russia, 2017, 6,  https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/171717.pdf.  314 Robert C. Blitt, “Russia’s ‘Orthodox’ Foreign Policy: The Growing Influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Shaping Russia’s Policies Abroad,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011, 363–460, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1725522. 315 Blitt, “Russia’s ‘Orthodox’ Foreign Policy.”   157 The Conqueror and The Priest, is presented solely as a threat to Russia and Russian Orthodoxy while the Mongols, representing the East in The Horde, are not the same kind of threat, seeing as the Mongols are never shown as proselytizing to the Russians in the same way that the religions of the West do.  Returning to the film, after having given Metropolitan Aleksii food and clothing, the other monk begins questioning the Russian priest, claiming that he recognizes the Metropolitan and asking him what his name is. Metropolitan Aleksii’s reply, “I don’t know. I have no name anymore,” further emphasizes that the Metropolitan is on this journey of suffering to gain salvation for the Russian people.316 His name no longer matters in the narrative of the film but only his actions which reveal his devoutness to Russian Orthodoxy and the Russian nation. At this point, the character of Metropolitan Aleksii has been subsumed into the larger role of martyr for the Russian people which is why he no longer needs a name. By losing his name, Metropolitan Aleksii also loses any identification as a person within society, whether that be Russian or Mongol society, which further contributes to his suffering. He becomes like a ghost, traveling through the world without being seen until he is seen by first his fellow Russians and then God Himself, making the Metropolitan into a person with a name once again.  The next scene of the film portrays Metropolitan Aleksii in the wilderness which further connects him to Jesus who also wandered in the woods and was tempted by the devil. Throughout his wanderings, Timehr follows him as ordered by Janibek, but Timehr does not interact with the Metropolitan, staying far away and thus maintaining the film’s portrayal of Aleksii as a ghost-like figure during this time. At a certain point during his wanderings, Metropolitan Aleksii lies on the ground and becomes covered with bugs who believe him to be  316 Орда (The Horde), 1:18:42-1:18:49.  158 dead. In a way, the Metropolitan is dead, though, in that he is no longer of the mortal world, whether it be the world of the Mongols or the world of the Russians. He exists in a spiritual plane throughout these wanderings just as Jesus did in His own wandering through the desert.  Metropolitan Aleksii only reenters the mortal world after spotting Russian prisoners being marched to Sarai and proceeding to join them on this march, echoing the «[история] апостола Петра [the story of the apostle Peter]» who fled from Rome only to return after a vision of Jesus encouraged him to do so.317 This reentrance into the world, though, will only lead the Metropolitan to further suffering, just as it did for Peter, as he becomes a prisoner alongside his fellow countrymen. For the film’s argument, it has to be Russians who bring Metropolitan Aleksii back into society because he is serving as a martyr for these people, and the ordinary Russians are portrayed as the devout Russian Orthodox Christians within the narrative of the film. It would have been impossible for the Mongols to assist the Metropolitan along his journey since they are portrayed as sinful pagans. In terms of the Italians, they aided in starting the Metropolitan along his journey, but they could not help him return to the world of the living as they are not from the same nation as Metropolitan Aleksii. It was only possible for the Russians to do this as they are both part of the same nation as the Metropolitan and are devout Russian Orthodox Christians. From a distance, Timehr watches on as Metropolitan Aleksii joins the prison march and does not stop him, recognizing that this is part of the Metropolitan’s journey of suffering. The next shot repeats the sorting of prisoners in Sarai, but this time Metropolitan Aleksii is one of these prisoners. The Mongols ask the Metropolitan what skills he has, and the  317 Кравец, «Чудо на заказ.»  159 Metropolitan replies, “Nothing.”318 His response fits in with his previous response to the Italians in regards to his name, showing that the person who he was prior to the failed miracle is no longer who he is at this moment. As well, his response connects with the view that the Mongols at this point have about Russian Orthodoxy in regards to its usefulness. Metropolitan Aleksii failed at healing Taidula, and thus he has no skills which the Mongols would find valuable. The Mongols order for him to be killed, seeing as he has no skills and is too tall to feed, but Timehr saves his life, telling the Mongols that Metropolitan Aleksii cannot be killed.  Instead, they decide to send Metropolitan Aleksii to the baths or, more literally, the furnace beneath the baths. The furnace is meant to evoke the idea of hell as it is a dark, underground space that is extremely hot from the constant fires burning. All of the people who work in the furnace are Russian prisoners which comes as no surprise since this work in the furnace acts as both a part of Metropolitan Aleksii’s journey of suffering but also as a place where he finds himself again through the aid of his fellow prisoners. Just as Jesus had to descend into hell prior to His resurrection and salvation, so too does Metropolitan Aleksii have to descend into hell before he can provide salvation to Taidula and the Russian people.  As Metropolitan Aleksii begins working in the furnace, he discovers that Fed’ka has also ended up there after having beaten and dragged away by the Mongols. The priest is astonished and calls out to Fed’ka, telling him, “It’s me, the Holy Master,” which causes all of the other Russians to begin laughing.319 They cannot believe that a Metropolitan would have ended up alongside them in the furnace as a prisoner to the Mongols. Fed’ka, though, does not acknowledge the Metropolitan at all; instead, he turns away and continues to work. From this  318 Орда (The Horde), 1:23:05.  319 Орда (The Horde), 1:26:29-1:26:33.   160 response, it is clear that Fed’ka is not thrilled to see the Metropolitan and that something has changed about Fed’ka. Prior to this, it had been shown that Fed’ka was not a fully devout Russian Orthodox Christian, but, with his reception of Metropolitan Aleksii here, it is obvious that he has turned away from the faith entirely.  The film then cuts to Janibek and Timehr who are discussing Metropolitan Aleksii while also testing out a new weapon from the Chinese, underscoring the Mongol propensity for violence. Janibek asks Timehr whether the Metropolitan is suffering enough to which Timehr replies in the affirmative, but then Janibek refutes this by saying that, had Metropolitan Aleksii suffered enough, he would have returned to Moscow. Since he has not left for Moscow, it is clear that the priest needs to undergo even further suffering. The Mongols, as the ones inflicting this suffering on the priest, act as the devil to Metropolitan Aleksii’s Jesus. They are no longer simply the sinful pagans but have become the devil who tortures the Christ-like martyr. Timehr again clearly disagrees with Janibek’s decision to inflict further suffering on the priest, but unlike before, he speaks up and refutes Janibek’s interpretation, saying, “Maybe he returned here, to suffer the way his God suffered?” 320 In this question, the connection between Metropolitan Aleksii and Timehr is revealed along with how this connection has changed Timehr as a person. Having observed Metropolitan Aleksii in the wilderness, Timehr has formed a relationship with the priest which has led to a change in Timehr’s outlook on the world and on Mongol customs. He no longer obeys the khan without question but speaks up, sharing his opinion and showing that he is no longer the obedient Mongol courtier that he previously was.  320 Орда (The Horde), 1:27:28-1:27:33.   161 Janibek is unsurprisingly unable to understand why Metropolitan Aleksii would want to suffer like his God, asking Timehr, “What sense does that make?”321 Again, Janibek is portrayed as viewing religion as something which solely serves to benefit its followers, and his character, as gluttonous and power-hungry, is unable to understand why someone would want to suffer because of their religion. Timehr’s reply further emphasizes his changing spiritual and cultural character as he tells Janibek, “I don’t talk about sense – I talk about God.”322 According to Janibek, these are one and the same, but Timehr disagrees with this and tells the khan so, again showing that he is no longer the same person he was at the beginning of the film. Janibek then asks Timehr whether burning down Moscow will help Metropolitan Aleksii in his journey of suffering, and Timehr disagrees, saying he does not think this will help. When Janibek asks what Timehr does think will aid in Metropolitan Aleksii’s suffering, Timehr replies that he does not know but he does not think the Metropolitan knows either. Rather, he thinks the Metropolitan is trying to figure that out, underscoring much of the film’s argument in the portrayal of Metropolitan Aleksii. The priest is undergoing a journey of suffering for which he does not yet know the purpose but merely that this is what God is calling him to do, thus showing the devoutness of the Metropolitan’s faith. He is willing to undergo this period of intense suffering because his Lord told him to do so, and he does not yet need to know the reason why. The fact that Timehr understands this shows that he is different from the other Mongols in the film, and that he is not a “good” Mongol because of this understanding.  Janibek responds by saying that the Mongols should help Metropolitan Aleksii figure it out so that his suffering makes sense, showing that Janibek does not understand Russian  321 Орда (The Horde), 1:27:35-1:27:36.  322 Орда (The Horde), 1:27:38-1:27:41.   162 Orthodox Christianity and what it asks of its followers. He then laughs and tells Timehr that he had come to like “the old madman,” asking Timehr whether he likes the priest, too.323 Timehr’s reply connects back to what he said around the fire earlier in the film as he tells Janibek, “It’s not my job to like anyone; I just carry out your orders,” alluding to the fact that Timehr does not like Janibek.324 Janibek does not pick up on the subtext, though, seeing as he is crude and unclever. He then tells Timehr that he has come up with an idea on how to help Aleksii figure this out: killing “every third slave every day, so he sees.”325 Timehr agrees but not without making a sarcastic comment, telling Janibek, “I wish only that you live and never die,” which viewers all know not to be the case.326 Again, Janibek does not understand the subtext and tells Timehr that he believes he will never die, an arrogant statement if ever there was one. As Timehr walks away, he makes the comment again that he wishes Janibek would live forever, but this time Janibek does not hear him as he is distracted by the new weapon, further reiterating the violent character of the Mongols.  Outside the city, Metropolitan Aleksii and the Russian prisoners are busy gathering dung to use as fuel for the baths’ furnaces, but this will change after the Mongols appear and act out Janibek’s orders to increase the Metropolitan’s suffering. One of the Russians instructs Metropolitan Aleksii on what dung can and cannot be used before asking the priest about himself. He first asks the priest from what order he is, i.e. social class in Russia, and Metropolitan Aleksii tells the Russian that he is a boyar. The Russian clearly does not believe the  323 Орда (The Horde), 1:28:13-1:28:16.  324 Орда (The Horde), 1:28:19-1:28:23.  325 Орда (The Horde), 1:29:08-1:29:11.  326 Орда (The Horde), 1:29:13-1:29:16.   163 priest, joking that if Metropolitan Aleksii is a boyar then he is a prince. Metropolitan Aleksii responds by telling the Russian that he is not lying about being a boyar, and the Russian then asks why the priest did not just buy his way out of being a prisoner. In reply, the Metropolitan tells the Russian that he came of his own free will, and the Russian is stunned, telling the priest that people die as Mongol prisoners in three weeks due to dehydration. The Russian then repeats himself, asking why the priest came here, and the Metropolitan tells him that he cannot explain why he came, tying back to Timehr’s conversation with Janibek when Timehr said he did not believe the priest knew why he needed to suffer. It shows that the Metropolitan is going through this journey of suffering because God has called him to do so and for no other explainable reason. Metropolitan Aleksii’s response is not good enough, however, for the Russian, who kicks over the priest’s basket of dung and orders him to continue working.  As they continue to gather dung, two Mongols are shown approaching, and they begin counting off Russian prisoners in order to determine who will be killed that day. They approach one Russian and kill him before any of the other prisoners even notice, showing the skills of violence and killing which the Mongols possess. The Russians look up after their fellow prisoner has been killed, and they all run over to see what has happened. They cannot understand why the Mongols have killed the Russian prisoner since the innate cruelty of the Mongols does not align with the Russians’ outlook on the world. Viewers understand, though, why this death had to happen, having seen the prior conversation between Timehr and Janibek but also knowing the film’s characterization of the Mongols as violent and savage people.  The film then returns to the furnace where Fed’ka is shown praying to Allah, having completely betrayed his Russian Orthodox faith and converting to one of the Mongols’ faiths. Metropolitan Aleksii is stunned to see this, and he approaches Fed’ka later that evening to talk  164 with him. Fed’ka refuses, though, and begins choking Father Alexander in an attempt to kill him, only being stopped by other Russian prisoners. Metropolitan Aleksii orders the other prisoners to stop attacking Fed’ka, and they comply. However, one of the other prisoners asks the group if Fed’ka is right in attempting to kill Metropolitan Aleksii since the Mongols killed another Russian prisoner yesterday. Metropolitan Aleksii asks the prisoner whether he is the reason these killings are happening, and the Russian prisoner tells him that he may not be the reason, but the killings only began with Metropolitan Aleksii’s arrival.  While it has been clear throughout the film that Fed’ka is not entirely devout to his Russian Orthodox faith, this scene shows how far he has strayed from it, turning to the religion and customs of the Mongols. Prior to this, it would have been unthinkable for Fed’ka to have attacked Metropolitan Aleksii, but with his conversion to the Mongols’ religion, Fed’ka has also taken on their customs of violence and cruelty which allow him to attempt to murder the priest. Despite this, Metropolitan Aleksii, serving as a Christ-like figure, still seeks to protect Fed’ka from the other prisoners just as Christ sought to protect sinners despite knowing they had done wrong. Even with all of Fed’ka’s sins, Metropolitan Aleksii has refused to give up on him and still wants to protect Fed’ka’s place just as Christ protected mankind by sacrificing Himself. In this moment, Metropolitan Aleksii shows the same kind of forgiveness Christ showed mankind after having been attacked and nearly killed in the case of the priest and crucified in the case of Christ. Metropolitan Aleksii’s devoutness to his faith continues to show through here as he continues to try and protect the Russian people even when they do not offer him anything in return.  The following day, the Mongols enter the furnace to choose the third prisoner to kill and this time it is Fed’ka who is chosen despite the fact that the Metropolitan was originally chosen  165 as the one to be killed. The Metropolitan, after Fed’ka is chosen, approaches the Mongols and asks them to take his life instead, again invoking the idea of a Christ-like martyr, but the Mongol refuses. Metropolitan Aleksii refuses to give up, though, and throws the bucket of dung at the Mongol and telling him that he had chosen Metropolitan Aleksii to be killed. The Mongol again refuses and tells the priest that Fed’ka will be killed rather than the Metropolitan. The priest cannot accept this, watching on as the Mongols drag Fed’ka away. In the choosing of Fed’ka as the next prisoner to be killed, the Mongols have increased the Metropolitan’s suffering tenfold as this is someone he knows rather than simply another Russian prisoner. Even if it were another Russian prisoner, though, it is likely that Metropolitan Aleksii would have attempted to put himself in their place now that he has figured out that the Mongols are killing Russians because of him. Either way, the choosing of Fed’ka drives home to Metropolitan Aleksii that his suffering will not be alleviated any time soon but will only continue until he has died. If he wishes to preserve the lives of his fellow Russians, the Metropolitan’s only option, in his eyes, is to sacrifice himself for them.  Rather than following Fed’ka, Metropolitan Aleksii returns to the furnace flames and, as he works, lets himself become engulfed in the flames. All of the prisoners watch on as this happens and one even crosses himself, recognizing that they are watching something miraculous occur. With Fed’ka’s death soon to come, Metropolitan Aleksii has reached the nadir in his journey of suffering and he feels as though he has nothing left for which to live. At this moment, he cannot understand what God has called him to do or for what this journey of suffering is, and so he sacrifices himself to the flames of the furnace which represent the flames of hell. The prisoners, though, respond by grabbing water and cloaks to put the flames out, showing that they care about the priest despite his presence having led to some of their deaths. These ordinary  166 Russians are shown in this moment to be devout Russian Orthodox Christians as they carry Metropolitan Aleksii to safety and stop him from sacrificing his life for no reason. They understand that the priest has a higher purpose and that his life cannot be snuffed out by the flames of a Mongol furnace/the flames of hell.  Carrying Metropolitan Aleksii out of the furnace, they lay him down in the streets of the rainy city and leave him there to recover, both physically and spiritually. Timehr approaches and, looking at the weather, tells Metropolitan Aleksii, “This is the day of judgment. Allah passes his judgement on us. No one will be spared.”327 It had to be Timehr who says this to the Metropolitan as there is no other spiritual person in the film at this point. Fed’ka has betrayed Russian Orthodox Christianity, Taidula has yet to be cured of her blindness, and Janibek and Prince Ivan, as shown throughout the film, view religion as a tool to gain power. Timehr, from the prior conversation with Janibek, is the only one who recognizes that the Metropolitan is on a spiritual journey akin to that of Christ which is why he recognizes that this weather will be a reckoning for that journey. Timehr then gets up and rides off, leaving Metropolitan Aleksii to weather the physical and spiritual storm alone. Lying there, the Metropolitan calls out to God, asking, “O, Lord, where are you? I can’t see You. Can’t see anything.”328 The Metropolitan’s suffering, similar to that of Christ and Job, has led him to reach such a low point where he no longer feels as though God is there and as though he is blind to God’s presence. As Timehr said, this is the day of judgment, and the Metropolitan could at this point either turn away from God or pull closer to Him. In these statements, the Metropolitan first invokes Christ’s final words on the cross and then connects  327 Орда (The Horde), 1:40:51-1:41:01.  328 Орда (The Horde), 1:41:21-1:41:31.   167 himself to Taidula as he experiences spiritual blindness akin to her physical blindness. Once again, it is the killing of a Russian prisoner that has led to blindness, and in both cases, this blindness will lead to spiritual awakening.  Lying there in the mud, the Metropolitan has a vision of Moscow on fire and calls out to God, saying it is his fault that this has happened which further emphasizes his role as a Christ-like martyr for the Russian people. Continuing to pray, Metropolitan Aleksii tells God that he is afraid and then calls out again, asking God, “Where are You?,” once more invoking Christ’s final words on the cross.329 Begging God, the priest asks Him to have mercy “and lay his sins on me, the sins of Fyodor, the apostate. Take my life but spare his.”330 This plea further reaffirms the idea of the Metropolitan as meant to be a Christ-like figure for the Russian people as he begs God to place the sins of another on him just as Christ did.  Metropolitan Aleksii’s final words before collapsing into the mud are another cry for the Russian people as he asks God, “Do not abandon your servants, Father…”331 Rather than shouting at God in anger as Fed’ka did following the failure of the miracle, Metropolitan Aleksii has turned closer to his Lord, asking Him to protect both himself and the Russian people as a whole, including those like Fed’ka who have turned away. This is the epitome of the priest’s devotion to both God and to the Russian people as the priest pulls closer to God and asks not for Him to save solely the Metropolitan but to save all Russians. In this plea, Metropolitan Aleksii’s suffering has reached its end as he has come to rely on God completely.   329 Орда (The Horde), 1:42:21-1:42:22.  330 Орда (The Horde), 1:42:35-1:42:47.  331 Орда (The Horde), 1:43:28-1:43:32.   168 The rain continues throughout the rest of the night, invoking the biblical story of Noah and his ark. In the story, God tells Noah that He is going to flood the earth to cleanse it of those who “had corrupted their ways” and who had filled the earth with violence.332 In the film, those who have corrupted the world and have infected it with violence are, unsurprisingly, the Mongols, who are defined by this trait. It is Metropolitan Aleksii who plays the role of Noah, being saved from the flood due to his devotion to God. The rain is used to further emphasize the idea of this being a day of judgment as the rain wipes the metaphorical slate clean and allows for a rebirth of the world when it is over. The following morning, the khan and his men ride out and find Metropolitan Aleksii, lying in the mud and appearing to be dead. The old Metropolitan died in the storm the night prior, and the new Metropolitan has awoken, a man even more devout than he had been to his God and his nation. The khan and all of his men bow before Metropolitan Aleksii before Janibek pulls out his whip and lashes Timehr with it, angry that Timehr has “almost driven this saint to death.”333 To some extent, Janibek has changed and has come to recognize Aleksii no longer as a crazy old man or a sorcerer but as a saint. However, this change has only come about as Janibek has gotten what he wanted from the priest – the healing of Taidula which happens off screen and is implied to have taken place during the prior evening.   The Mongols then carry Metropolitan Aleksii to the same baths beneath which he previously worked and let him bathe there. The priest cleanses himself of the mud, ash, and blood that coat him, and this bath serves as a kind of baptism as Metropolitan Aleksii is reborn into the community of Russian Orthodox Christians. He is then clothed in all white, symbolizing  332 Genesis 6:12 (New International Version).  333 Орда (The Horde), 1:45:18-1:45:20.  169 his purity, faithfulness, and that he has been cleansed of his sins by God, leaving him “as white as snow.”334 This sequence of scenes, amidst the wealth of the Mongol baths, shows how far Metropolitan Aleksii has come in just twenty four hours and emphasizes that his suffering is over.  In the following scene, the khan gives multiple gifts to Metropolitan Aleksii, including fine cloths, an edict freeing from the Church from Mongol taxes, an emblem that will allow the priest to travel safely, and, lastly, that “there will be no war.”335 The khan then asks whether the Metropolitan wishes for anything more, and before the priest can answer, a Mongol rides up with another gift, Fed’ka. Metropolitan Aleksii’s prayers worked as Fed’ka’s life was spared, another miracle performed on the day of judgment. Despite Fed’ka’s sinfulness and turning away from the Russian Orthodox God, Metropolitan Aleksii’s intercessions worked and Fed’ka was spared. The khan provides Fed’ka with the furs that he had originally asked for upon arrival in the Mongol capital, and then the khan orders Fed’ka to never return. Fed’ka cannot understand why he has been saved, and Timehr tells him that Fed’ka will be imprisoned upon returning to Moscow. Fed’ka responds that he is used to that, seeing as he served as a prisoner for the Horde, but he does not look too bothered at this prospect. Rather, he is pleased that he has been saved from death and understands this to be at the hands of Metropolitan Aleksii. It looks as though Fed’ka has turned his back on Islam, approaching the priest and aiding him in mounting his horse. While Fed’ka may not understand what has happened, he recognizes that it was not Islam which saved him but rather Russian Orthodoxy through Metropolitan Aleksii. As Timehr said, the prior evening was a day of judgment for all, and it looks as though Fed’ka has not been  334 Isaiah 1:18 (New International Version).  335 Орда (The Horde), 1:48:05-1:48:07.   170 spared as he has realized that it is only through Russian Orthodox Christianity that his life was spared.  Escorting Metropolitan Aleksii and Fed’ka out of the Horde, Timehr comments to the priest that “the day of judgement hasn’t come yet.”336 In this comment, the film shows that while Timehr remains a spiritual person, he has not fully come to recognize the power of Russian Orthodox Christianity which is why he remains with the Mongols. It is impossible for him to convert to Russian Orthodox Christianity or to even travel back with Metropolitan Aleksii and Fed’ka because he is unable to recognize the miracle that the Christian God produced the prior evening. Timehr jokes with Metropolitan Aleksii that he wondered what took the priest so long to perform the miracle, but the priest responds seriously, telling Timehr, “I didn’t do anything,” underscoring the priest’s belief that it was God who performed the miracle of healing Taidula.337 Timehr disagrees, though, and asks the priest why he would deny having worked a miracle, and the film answers this by again having Metropolitan Aleksii repeat that he was not the one to perform the miracle. As the film argues, it was God who performed the miracle, but Metropolitan Aleksii’s claims are belied by the fact that it was Metropolitan Aleksii’s devout faith as embodied through his suffering and his prayers begging God that led to God performing the miracle. As they are leaving the village, Metropolitan Aleksii spots the two Italian monks who remain unable to leave Sarai, and he helps them, repaying them for their assistance as he began his journey of suffering. Climbing off his horse, Metropolitan Aleksii approaches the Italian  336 Орда (The Horde), 1:49:53-1:49:55.  337 Орда (The Horde), 1:50:07-1:50:08.   171 monks and hands them the reins, telling them, “God be with you.”338 The Italians stand there in shock, realizing that they have been granted their freedom by Metropolitan Aleksii and will finally be able to return home. In this moment, Metropolitan Aleksii has provided them with a miracle, too, as they otherwise would have never been able to leave the Horde. Just as the priest saved Fed’ka from death at the hands of the Mongols, so too does he save the Italians. One more time, the Russians serve as a bridge between the East and the West, connecting the two cultures through a mutual understanding of both. Before parting, Timehr gives Metropolitan Aleksii a gift from Taidula – the ring Janibek had originally given to Taidula after having removed it from Tinibek’s finger at the very beginning of the film. The priest accepts it and tries to show it to Fed’ka who turns away, showing that he has rejected the Mongols and their customs despite having previously accepted them. Fed’ka recognizes now that the Mongols are not whom he should aspire to be like as their lifestyle is defined by crudeness, violence, and greed. The Metropolitan then returns it to Timehr and tells him to “keep it,” and Timehr thanks him.339 Unlike Fed’ka, who is able to reject Mongol society and return to Russian Orthodoxy, Timehr still retains some of the values of the Mongols, like greed as he keeps Taidula’s ring. Metropolitan Aleksii then asks Timehr whether he would like to come with them, and Timehr refuses, telling the priest, “No. We live here.”, which further emphasizes the fact that Timehr remains a Mongol.340 Timehr wishes the priest  338 Орда (The Horde), 1:50:49-1:50:55.  339 Орда (The Horde), 1:51:52.  340 Орда (The Horde), 1:52:08-1:52:09.   172 well, though, with his parting words, “Go with peace.,” which show that, although Timehr is still a Mongol, he does not possess all of their characteristics, namely violence.341  This is the last the viewers see of both Metropolitan Aleksii and Fed’ka, and as they walk off, the other Mongol comments to Timehr how strange the priest is for denying that he performed the miracle and then asking whether Timehr has “ever seen anyone like him?”342 Timehr replies that he has not and then asks why it matters, and the other Mongol simply replies that it does not. In the end, the Mongols remain unable to understand Metropolitan Aleksii or Russian Orthodoxy more broadly, and the film would argue that this is because the Mongols possess pagan beliefs and are sinners of the highest degree. It would be impossible for them, then, to understand that it was not Metropolitan Aleksii at all who performed this miracle but the Russian Orthodox god. Fed’ka, while not as devout as the priest, is still able to understand that it was a higher power who performed this miracle, and he recognizes that, since it was through Metropolitan Aleksii, it must be the Russian Orthodox God. Fed’ka is able to understand this because he himself is Russian and no longer shares the values of the Mongols, having been saved through Metropolitan Aleksii’s pleas with God. Unlike the other two films, which make more overt claims about Russians having a strong spiritual understanding, The Horde is more subtle as it does not explicitly have a character make the claim but instead shows it through the events of the film itself, namely the miracles at the end.  Returning to Janibek’s castle, the film ends as it began with the Mongols surrounded by luxurious fabrics and eating piles of food, again emphasizing the gluttony of the Mongols. This time, though, there are dancer magicians present who are performing for the khan and his  341 Орда (The Horde), 1:52:12.  342 Орда (The Horde), 1:52:26-1:52:27.   173 courtiers. It is a final reminder to the viewers that the Mongols’ power is above all a spectacle, imitative of a magic show and its gaudy tricks.  Again, Janibek is amazed by their performance, unable to recognize the deception behind it. As one of the members of the troupe performs on an instrument, a child emerges and begins climbing a rope into the air. As he does so, Janibek pronounces this trick to be “a miracle” just as he viewed Metropolitan Aleksii/God’s healing of Taidula, showing that, in the end, Janibek still does not understand the difference between magic and religion.343 For him, they remain one and the same, reiterated once more by the fact that he dedicates this magic trick/miracle to his mother, raising his glass in a toast to her sharp sight.  Another Mongol gets up and begins to attempt to perform the same magic trick, climbing the rope that the child had climbed, as an attempt to amuse the Mongols. Timehr is not amused, showing that in some ways he remains different from the other Mongols in that he can recognize the difference between magic and religion. Janibek and the other Mongols laugh along, though, and Janibek gets up, slicing the rope with his sword which hearkens back to the Italian monk’s cutting the candle at the beginning of the film. Both the child and the Mongol fall to the ground, and Janibek jokes, “That’s a miracle for you!,” making a mockery of both the performance and of Metropolitan Aleksii/God’s miracle.344 He then puts on the instrument/mask that the musician was wearing and begins playing it to amuse his court, once more demonstrating the crudeness of the Mongols. However, this is not only to be a moment of crudeness but also a moment of violence as Janibek begins to asphyxiate before collapsing to the ground and dying on the same stage which the performers had just been on, showing once again that Mongol power is simply a performance.   343 Орда (The Horde), 1:56:04.  344 Орда (The Horde), 1:57:07-1:57:08.   174 Timehr then approaches Janibek’s dead body and removes his sword, approaching Janibek’s son, Berdibek, and kneeling before him, giving him the sword and declaring Berdibek khan. Throughout the film, Berdibek has loomed in the background of all of Janibek’s scenes, observing his father as khan. The film “frames Dzhanibek’s rival and ‘understudy,’ his son Berdibek, as a witness to political intrigue and violence,” thus contributing to the film’s argument that Mongol power is imitative, learned above all by observation.345 Just as the film started with the killing of one khan as a power grab, the film ends in the same way as Berdibek seeks to take his father’s place through a similar method of violence while relying on his father’s crude behavior to serve as his downfall.  Berdibek and his men then ride off to find Taidula who will officially proclaim Berdibek khan just as she had done with Janibek, but this time, things are different. Taidula has not been seen since her blindness has been cured, but now it is revealed that she has changed in appearance, no longer wearing the gaudy makeup of the Mongols. Instead, she is bare-faced and dressed in simple clothing, showing that she has changed and no longer adheres to the same Mongol values as she did before going blind. Just as Saul/Paul was changed in the Bible after encountering Jesus, so too has Taidula changed as she no longer follows the religion and values that she once did before her miracle.  Just as before, Taidula asks how Janibek died, and Berdibek gives the same excuse that Janibek choked on something. He then demands Taidula crown him the Great Khan, but she refuses, infuriating Berdibek who spits on the threshold of her tent and tells her that he will be khan no matter what she does. He asks her, though, why she refuses to crown him, and she replies, “Because God does not want it!,” showing that her spiritual blindness was lifted  345 Roberts, “The Horde,” 236.   175 alongside her physical blindness.346 Taidula is now a believer in a single higher power and is no longer a pagan like the other Mongols. Berdibek cannot understand and asks her what God wants then, and she responds, “I don’t know,” which connects back to Timehr’s conversation with Janibek about Metropolitan Aleksii.347 In their conversation, Timehr remarks that the priest was suffering like his God for a reason unknown both to the priest and Timehr, and it is the same here. Taidula does not understand why God wants her to refuse crowning Berdibek; all she knows is that is what He is asking of her.  She hugs Berdibek before repeating one final time that she does not know what God wants and then riding away, never to be seen again. While the viewer does not know where Taidula is going or why, she appears to be fulfilling what she told Janibek earlier in the film, i.e., that Mongols should ride free. Having been freed of her spiritual and physical blindness, Taidula is no longer bound to Mongol society and its customs. Instead, the film seems to show Taidula as no longer a Mongol at all as she has given up the crude, violent, gluttonous, and paganistic traits which define this nation in favor of belief in one God and a willingness to suffer to understand his call. While the film does not go so far as to show Taidula converting to Christianity, it leaves viewers with the question of whether this is possible for her.  The film ends with the Mongols bowing before Berdibek and recognizing him as khan, showing the cyclical nature of Mongol society with the film ending in the same way it began. As the screen fades to black, a voiceover tells viewers, “Berdibek was killed two years later, and the unending war for the Khanate began. Fierce strife broke the Khanate into small parts which with  346 Орда (The Horde), 2:01:41-2:01:42.  347 Орда (The Horde), 2:01:50.   176 time were assimilated by the growing Rus’. And that was the end of the Great Horde.” 348 This ending makes it sound as though it were inevitable that Russia would soon overtake the Golden Horde as the power in the region, and it makes sense that it would be so, seeing as the Russians have Russian Orthodox Christianity on their side while the Mongols have their pagan gods. As shown in the film, it is the Russian Orthodox Christians’ devoutness to their faith that saves them from death at the hands of the Mongols, and thus it would be this devotion that would allow them to succeed in defeating the Mongols in the coming years.  Unlike the other two films, which have a clear narrative of “good” Russians versus “bad” Other, The Horde is more complex in that there are individuals from both the Russian and Mongol nations who are good and bad. Janibek, Prince Ivan, and Fed’ka (to a certain extent) all fall on the side of “bad”, but even with this categorization, they are not represented as evil in the same way that the Poles and the Nazis are in the prior two films. Yes, Janibek is portrayed as a violent person, but this violence is not portrayed in the same way as the Nazis and the Poles who are shown as violent for religious purposes, whether it be the pseudo-religion of fascism or Catholicism respectively. The Mongols are not ever shown as attempting to eradicate Russian Orthodoxy or to convert Russian Orthodox Christians to Islam or one of the pagan religions. Rather, the Mongols are violent simply for violence’s sake, using it as a punishment for all, whether they be Mongol, Russian or Italian.  As well, there are no characters, including Metropolitan Aleksii, who represent pure “goodness” although the Metropolitan, Timehr, and Taidula come closest to this. The film, unlike the prior two, has more realistic, multi-dimensional characters. Metropolitan Aleksii may embody the Christ-like martyr in the narrative of the film, but he is also shown as sometimes  348 Орда (The Horde), 2:03:58-2:04:17.   177 doubting his ability, and thus God’s ability, to cure Taidula’s blindness. Taidula and Timehr, while both Mongols who can be characterized by the traits the film gives to the Mongol nature, are not unable to change as they come to recognize the spiritual power Metropolitan Aleksii possesses which leads them to have a different outlook on the world. This puts the Mongols again in contrast with the Nazis and the Poles who are shown as unable to change when confronted with the power of Russian Orthodox Christianity.  If the nations of the film cannot be easily split into two categories as they were in the prior two films, how then does The Horde make its argument that the Russian nation will prove victorious so long as they have Russian Orthodoxy on their side? In the case of this film, it all boils down to the idea of devotion. The reason the Russian nation is able to survive the potential attack from the Mongols is due to the devout faith of Metropolitan Aleksii. Without his faith, which cured Taidula’s blindness, the film argues that Janibek would have gone forward with his attack against Moscow, razing the city to the ground. Interestingly, though, it is Metropolitan Aleksii’s faith, first and foremost, that saves the Russian people from this fate which is very different from the other two films in which there were multiple characters working together to strengthen and protect the nation. That is not to say that there are not Russian characters in this film who assist Metropolitan Aleksii along the way, namely the Russian prisoners, but their role is minimal in the larger narrative of the film. It is Metropolitan Aleksii, above all, who acts as the martyr for the Russian people, sacrificing himself in an attempt to save their lives.  So, how does the film define who is and is not a member of the Russian nation? Again, The Horde goes about this in a completely different way from either The Conqueror or The Priest as it instead works to define who is not a part of the nation in order to show then who is. As reiterated throughout this chapter, the Mongols are defined by crudeness, violence, gluttony,  178 imitation, and spectacle. These traits all appear again and again when the Mongols are seen on the screen, and they help the viewer to identify and remember who is a Mongol in the world of the film. The Russians may share some of these characteristics, as Prince Ivan is also portrayed as gluttonous, but no Russian possesses all of these traits, thus distinguishing them from the Mongols. Along with the Mongols, the other nation shown in the film is the Italian nation as represented by the two monks. They do not appear much on screen, but the few times they do, they are shown as unable to fully understand Mongol customs and as viewing the Mongols as lesser in comparison to the West. They believe in the superiority of their customs and their religion, Catholicism, against the Mongols’ customs and beliefs, particularly after witnessing the events in the royal hall in the very first scene in the film. However, the film argues that the West will not be successful in defeating the East without the aid of Russia, and what ties the West and Russia together is their shared belief in Christianity. It is their shared faith that allows the Italians to leave the Golden Horde at the end of the film. Despite their shared faith, the film makes it very clear that the Italians and the Russians are separate nations, namely in showing how the Russians are better able to function in Mongol society than the Italian monks. The Russians have a better understanding of Mongol customs than their Italian counterparts and view the Mongols as equals rather than as a lesser nation. This understanding then allows the Russians to become a bridge between East and West, connecting the two societies together and easing tensions between them.  If the Russians do not have the traits of the Mongols nor the Italians, what traits do they have then? The film does not provide an exact definition of who exactly makes up the Russian nation except for the characteristic of devotion. By having the Russian nation depend on this idea  179 of devotion, Proshkin has made it so that presumably anyone can be part of the Russian nation so long as they are a devout Russian Orthodox Christian. The film appears to argue for this through Taidula, who rejects Mongol society in the end of the film and rides off into the wilderness, and it is unknown to where she is riding. It is obvious, however, that she has begun believing in a higher spiritual power, referring to this power as God, and her leaving can be interpreted as going off to begin a spiritual journey towards finding what that God wants.  If, in the end, she finds God and becomes a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, it would appear that, in the narrative of the film, she could then go on to join the Russian nation, too. By making it so that anyone can be a part of the Russian nation so long as they are a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, the film expands the definition of the nation to include any individual around the world who believes in the faith. It is a much broader definition than the two prior films, but it aligns with the Church’s goals of incorporating all Russian Orthodox Christians worldwide under the banner of the Moscow Patriarchate.  The film’s reception was mixed as critics praised the imagery used to portray the Golden Horde while disparaging the message of the film itself. For example, Roman Volokhov of KinoNews argues that «атмосфера той эпохи была воссоздана пугающе достоверно [the atmosphere of that era was recreated in a frighteningly authentic way],» but even with this, «прилежная и амбициозная режиссура не смогла превратить скромный сценарий в эпос [diligent and ambitious directing was unable to turn a modest script into an epic].»349 According to Volokhov, Proshkin fails in doing so because he «внезапно свел все страдания святого  349 Роман Волохов, “Рецензия к Фильму Орда. Скромная Эпопея,” KinoNews.ru, September 21, 2012, https://www.kinonews.ru/article_24898/.  180 человека на нет [suddenly reduced all the suffering of a holy man to nothing]» by not making the message of the film more obvious to the viewer.350  Another critic disagrees, arguing that the film is «последовательно [сбивает] с ног громкими заявлениями [consistently knocking you down with loud statements]» in regards to the idea that «чудо не случается просто так, его надо выстрадать [a miracle does not happen just like that, it must be suffered].»351 Sotnikova, though, also praises the scenery, commenting on how «Прошкин превращает ее в фантастический город, филиал ада на земле [Proshkin turns it into a fantastic city, a branch of hell on earth].»352  A third critic, Elena Chekulaeva, praises the film for its message, too, focusing on how the film argues that «духовный подвиг как путь к подлинному величию дается непросто — и ведет через страдание [spiritual achievement as a path to true greatness is not easy – and leads through suffering].»353 She critiques the film, though, by commenting on how Proshkin seems to focus more on the imagery than on the message of the film, but she recognizes that this was his first big-budget film and generally considers it to be a success.354 For critics, the message of the film rested mainly on the suffering undergone by Metropolitan Aleksii, and it was a mixed bag on whether this point was truly gotten across effectively. Nevertheless, all praise the imagery  350 Волохов, «Рецензия к Фильму Орда.»  351 Ann Sotnikova, “Фильм Орда (Россия, 2011) – Афиша-Кино,” Афиша, September 4, 2012, https://www.afisha.ru/movie/orda-210983/. 352 Sotnikova, «Фильм Орда.» 353 Елена Чекулаева, “Орда - Рецензия На Фильм, 2012.,” Transvision, September 9, 2012, http://www.tramvision.ru/recensia/2012/orda.htm. 354 Чекулаева, “Орда.”  181 of the Golden Horde and of life more broadly in the 14th century, remarking on how Proshkin managed to effectively put on screen what life looked like during those times.  Interestingly, the Church also had mixed reviews on the film and there are no speeches from Patriarch Kirill either praising or criticizing it. Rather, the only information that can be found about the Patriarch’s perspective is from Proshkin recounting a conversation that he had with the Patriarch following a showing of the film. According to Proshkin, Patriarch Kirill commented, “в жизни Алексия нет ничего про то, что мы показали в «Орде» [in Aleksii’s life there is nothing about what we showed in ‘Horde’],» seemingly showing his disapproval for the narrative of the film. However, Patriarch Kirill, according to Proshkin, then added «но ведь в житийном сюжете ничего не сказано про то, что этого не было. «Значит, ваша трактовка имеет право на существование,» [but in the hagiography, nothing is said about the fact that this did not happen. “So your interpretation has a right to exist,”].»355  This is not the same high praise that the prior two films received, and it does not reveal why Orthodox Encyclopedia decided to make The Horde their second feature film. This is explained, however, in an article written by the head of Orthodox Encyclopedia. Describing the goals of the film, Sergei Kravets tells readers and viewers that «нам было очень важно, чтобы зритель с самого начала поверил в достоверность того, о чем ему рассказывают в фильме, что это не сказка. [It was very important for us that the viewer from the very beginning believed in the authenticity of what they were told about in the film, that this was not a fairy tale].»356 Continuing on, Kravets highlights how, «В "Орде", таким образом, сталкиваются как бы две  355 Ярослав Щедров, “Андрей Прошкин: «Современная Российская Власть — Та Же Орда»,” 73online.ru, September 20, 2012, https://73online.ru/readnews/20206. 356 Сергей Кравец, “Чудо на заказ. Сергей Кравец о фильме «Орда»,” Pravoslavie.ru, June 26, 2012, https://pravoslavie.ru/54477.html.  182 мировоззренческих позиции, одна из которых — это мировоззрение «абсолютной пользы», а именно: во всем должен быть толк. [In “The Horde,” thus, two ideological positions collide, as it were, one of which is the worldview of “absolute benefit,” namely: there should be a sense in everything.].»357 According to him, this is the worldview of Janibek and the Mongols more broadly. Kravets even argues that this is the kind of ideology 21st century people possess in terms of their relationship towards God.358 It is all about receiving one’s requests of God immediately rather than waiting as Metropolitan Aleksii does. He argues for this other position, saying «Однако весь вопрос в том, что Бог на самом деле — это не "толк", это не "польза". Он выше пользы, Он — иное по отношению к пользе, и об этом фильм говорит. [However, the whole question is that God is not really a “use”, it is not a “benefit”. He is above benefit, He is something else in relation to benefit, and this is what the film talks about.].»359 For the Russian Orthodox Church, then, the purpose of the film was to show the victory of Russian Orthodox ideology coming out on top over Mongol ideology in a realistic way with which viewers could connect.  The film was released on September 20, 2012, “the eve of the Day of Military Honour commemorating the victory over the Golden Horde in 1380”360 and went on to receive multiple awards at the Moscow International Film Festival361 and the Golden Eagle Awards from the  357 Кравец, «Чудо на заказ.» 358 Кравец, «Чудо на заказ.» 359 Кравец, «Чудо на заказ.» 360 Drubek, “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11,” 95.  361 Сусанна Альперина, “Фильм Андрея Прошкина ‘Орда’ Получил Две Награды 34-Го ММКФ,” Российская газета, July 1, 2012, https://rg.ru/2012/07/02/orda.html.  183 National Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences of Russia.362 For the Russian Orthodox Church, it looks as though this film was a success, furthering the message of Russian Orthodoxy as victorious over all other ideologies, in this case Mongol paganism and its views of religion as a political tool. Unlike the other two films, The Horde complicates the narrative of the Russian nation always being victorious due to its faith in the Russian Orthodox Church. In this film, the characters, both Mongol and Russian, exist in a gray space, representing neither solely good nor solely bad. Despite this, Russian Orthodoxy still comes out on top, but it is not due to the Russian nation as a whole but rather one man, Metropolitan Aleksii, sacrificing himself in Christ-like fashion for the Russian nation. His devotion to his faith is what allows the Russian nation to survive and flourish in the years following the narrative of the film, and without this devout belief, argues the film, the Russian nation would have been unable to succeed. In Metropolitan Aleksii is an example of how one should act if they wish to be a part of the Russian nation, and this is what distinguishes the Russian nation from the other two nations represented in The Horde.   362 “Фильм «Орда» кинотелекомпании «Православная Энциклопедия» удостоен премии «Золотой орел» в 5 номинациях,” Церковь и культура, Патриархия.ru, January 28, 2013, http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2754757.html.  184 CONCLUSION   The Church recognized in “The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church,” that the 21st century required new methods to form relations with both the Russian people and the world more broadly if the Church sought to, as it claims in this document, serve as the nation-builder in this new, post-Soviet Russia. For the ROC, film is detailed in the document as one of the methods that the Church intended to use as part of its goal to build the Russian nation, and the ROC went about doing this by working alongside the secular media and by founding its own production company, Orthodox Encyclopedia. Through both forms of media, the Church has striven to get its messaging out to Russia and internationally, and this messaging focuses in large part on what it means to be part of the Russian nation, namely “being faithful to church and state.”363 The films, analyzed here, embody this argument, albeit going about in slightly different ways.   The first film, The Conqueror, followed the second, russophilic version of Nikolai Gogol’s novel, Taras Bulba, an epic depicting a fictional battle between the Russian/Ukrainian Cossacks, who practice Russian Orthodoxy, and the Poles, who practice Catholicism and serve as a stand-in for the West. In the film, there is a clear distinction between the Cossacks and the Poles as shown through the different traits ascribed to each nation. For the Cossacks, they are defined by devotion, masculinity, duty, bravery, and strength while the Poles are defined by femininity, weakness, and decadence.   363 Norris, “Blessed Films,” 76.   185 The first key moment of the film that underscores what it means to be part of the Russian nation is when Andrii, Taras Bulba’s younger son, betrays his Cossack brotherhood and his Russian Orthodox faith in favor of joining the Poles due to his love for a Polish noblewoman. Andrii’s betrayal goes against all of the traits which define the Cossacks as he instead takes on the negative traits of the Poles. Having failed to be loyal to either church or state, Andrii loses both his mortal life, being cut down by his father on the battlefield as punishment for betraying the nation, and his eternal life, having betrayed his faith for a woman.  The second moment is when Taras Bulba has been captured by the Poles and is being burnt to death, but this does not stop him from prophesying that “the time will come when you shall learn what the Russian Orthodox faith is like! The peoples far and near are beginning to understand, a Tsar shall arise from the Russian soil! There will be no power in the world that shall not submit to him!”364 In these words are found the traits that define the Cossacks, namely their devotion, duty, bravery, and strength. The Conqueror fits into the Church’s goal of building a Russian nation as the film sought to become a visual epic for the nation with glorified heroes, in characters like Taras Bulba and his older son, Ostap, and despicable villains, in Taras Bulba’s younger son, Andrii, and the Polish governor. By being an epic, the film also has a lesson within it, namely instructing individuals on how to be a “good” Russian through being loyal to both church and state and in taking on the traits of masculinity, duty, bravery, and strength which define the nation. If one betrays the nation and the faith, as Andrii does, then that person has lost their life, both mortal and eternal, and is no longer able to be a part of the Russian nation.   364 Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror), 2:01:16-2:01:49.   186 The second film, The Priest, is set in Latvia during World War II and centers around the story of the Pskov Orthodox Mission, a group of Russian Orthodox priests who worked to reestablish Russian Orthodoxy in Nazi-occupied territories. The main character, Father Alexander, is a paragon of a Russian Orthodox priest, someone who is kind and generous to all, gives inspiring sermons which any listener can understand, and is a devout believer in Christianity. He and his family, made up of adopted war refugees, represent the Russian Orthodox nation while the Nazis represent the German nation/the West and the Red Army soldiers represent the Soviet nation.  Just as in The Conqueror, religion is what initially defines the differences between these three nations. The Russians, of course, practice Russian Orthodox Christianity, considered the only “true” religion in the film. The Germans practice Nazism/fascism, a pseudo-religion which is defined by its violence and cruelty. Lastly, the Soviet soldiers follow bolshevism/communism, another pseudo-religion defined by violence. Unlike the Russian Orthodox nation, which is shown as eternal and blessed by God, the Soviet and Nazi nations are presented as ephemeral and human-made. Viewers, with hindsight, know that both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union collapsed, but the film’s argument as to why both collapsed alludes to the idea of both of their religions being a sham. From these religions comes the idea of miracles and anti-miracles. The Russians in the film are shown as experiencing miracles, events which aid them in following their God-given paths to resurrect the Russian nation following the end of the war. The Soviets and the Nazis, on the other hand, are only able to experience anti-miracles, events which at first provide the viewers with hope only to then be ripped away because of the cruelty ascribed to these nations.  187 These miracles or coincidences serve as a plot device to move the story forward, but they also act as a way to affirm the differences between the three different nations in the film.  The clearest example of the Russian Orthodox miracle is in the character of Hava/Eva, a Jewish girl who converts to Russian Orthodoxy and is adopted by Father Alexander and his wife. Eva’s conversion occurs just in the nick of a time before the Nazis begun to occupy Latvia, and this miracle is what saves her life. The other key miracle that revolves around Eva is her encounter with Aleksii, a young Soviet soldier, who leads her towards Father Alexander and towards her destiny, marrying Aleksii and leading the new Russian nation forward. Eva represents the saving power of Russian Orthodoxy and also the motherly aspects of the faith, as she first parents the adopted refugee children and will come to parent the rebirthed Russian nation.  In reverse, there are clear examples of Nazi and Soviet anti-miracles that occur in the film which emphasize the cruelty and violence which define both nations. For example, at one point in the film, the Nazis are hanging Soviet partisan soldiers, and the truck which is pulling the gallows’ footrest away gets stuck in the mud, preventing the partisans from dying. For a moment, there is hope that the partisans will be able to live, but a moment later, this hope is ripped away as one of the Nazi officers manages to get the car unstuck and the footrest is taken away. In terms of the Soviets, their anti-miracle is the appointment of a new Moscow Patriarch, which provides the priests with hope that the Church will once again have a place in the USSR, only to have that hope quickly snatched away as it is revealed that the new patriarch has declared all of the priests of the Pskov Orthodox Mission traitors. In both of these instances, the Nazis and the Soviets are shown as acting in complete opposition to the Russian Orthodox which is why, the film argues, these two nations were unable to last while the Russian Orthodox nation is eternal.   188 The Priest, the first film produced by Orthodox Encyclopedia, has a clear connection to the Church’s stated goal of building a Russian nation, seeing as the film presents a historical event that shows how the Church preserved the nation despite attempts by the Nazis and the Soviets to crush it. Furthermore, the film argues for the eternality of the Russian nation as only possible through Russian Orthodoxy, emphasizing that the nation can be rebuilt following World War II (and presumably following the collapse of the Soviet Union) only through the help of the Church. In the narrative of this film, the idea of devotion is taken beyond The Conqueror to demonstrate that it is through devotion that miracles are possible and these miracles are what makes the Russian nation victorious over any other. The final film, The Horde, is set in the 14th century Golden Horde and centers around the hagiographic tale of Saint Metropolitan Aleksii, reputed to have healed the khan’s mother of her blindness. This film, unlike the other two, does not have a clear cut argument of “good” Russians versus “bad” Mongols but a complicated narrative in which there are characters from both nations who exist on either side of that spectrum. Despite this, religion continues to be used to distinguish between the two nations as the Russians practice Russian Orthodox Christianity while the Mongols are pagans.365  Unsurprisingly, Russian Orthodoxy is shown as the victorious faith in the film, and it is due in large part to Metropolitan Aleksii, who acts as Christ-like martyr for the Russian nation. After failing to perform the miracle of healing the khan’s mother, Metropolitan Aleksii begins a journey of suffering that ends with him attempting to sacrifice himself for his Russian servant, Fed’ka. During this attempt, Metropolitan Aleksii reaches the nadir of his suffering and begs  365 By the 14th century, the Mongols had converted to Islam, but this religion is simply one of the many practiced by the Mongols of the film.   189 God to save the Russian people. God fulfills his pleas, healing the khan’s mother which in turn protects the Russians from a Mongol attack. It is only due to the Metropolitan’s suffering, argues the film, that the Russians were saved and thus were able to go on and take over much of the Mongol Empire in the coming years. The Horde takes the idea of devotion that was started in The Conqueror and fostered in The Priest a step further to show how the Russian nation will not be successful without this devotion to Russian Orthodox Christianity. In the other two films, the characters are shown as successful because they are both Russian Orthodox Christian and members of the Russian nation. In The Horde, though, it is no longer simply enough to be a member of the Russian nation and nominally devoted to Russian Orthodoxy. One must truly be devout to the faith, first and foremost, before the nation will ever succeed. Without devotion to the faith, argues the film, there cannot be devotion to the nation.  Having discussed these films in their entirety, there are still questions which remain to be answered and which I offer up here as ideas for further research in the future. I will attempt to offer up some thoughts myself, but I do not intend to answer any of these questions definitively.  Firstly, why did Orthodox Encyclopedia stop producing feature films after their 2015 production, Наследники (Heirs)? Directed once more by Vladimir Khotinenko, the director of The Priest, Heirs is a film about St. Sergius of Radonezh, a highly revered Russian saint, who founded the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius in Moscow. Unlike the other two films produced by Orthodox Encyclopedia, it is much more challenging to find information related to Heirs online or to even find a copy of the film to watch, leaving one to wonder why this is the case.  There is no good answer to this thought, but it does tie back to the larger question of why the Church stopped making feature films altogether. Perhaps, as seen in Patriarch Kirill’s  190 comments about The Horde, the Church decided that it was too difficult to control the narrative of these films which is why they decided to turn away from making films in the next few years. Another answer could be that, following Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea, the Church had a new set of goals which did not include the making of these types of films. Lastly, it may be that the Church simply decided to put its money elsewhere, particularly after the low turnout for The Priest and the high budget for The Horde. Whatever the answer is, or if there even is an answer, it is still interesting to note that the Church did stop making these kinds of films and leaves one wondering why this would be so.  This first question leads into the second larger question of whether these films were truly successful in achieving their purpose of portraying a Russian nation that is successful so long as its members are devout followers of Russian Orthodox Christianity. There is not a clear yes-or-no answer to this question as the successful of the films is different, in my opinion, from the success of the argument. I would argue that the films themselves were not successful in attracting viewers, either domestically or internationally, to the cinemas, but the arguments presented in the films, as part of the Church’s larger attempt to act as the Russian nation-builder, were, to a certain extent, successful. As seen in the previous three chapters, all of the films received mixed reviews from secular critics, and none did particularly well at the box offices. Despite the films receiving praises and awards, these largely came from Church- and government-affiliated organizations who had a stake in making the films and thus wished to see them do well.  What does succeed, to a certain extent, is the argument about devout faith in Russian Orthodoxy being the only way for the Russian nation to succeed. Statistics from the Pew Research Center show that the Church has succeeded in making itself an integral part of how one defines the nation as 57% of Russians said that “being Orthodox is very or somewhat important  191 to truly be a national” of Russia.366 The percentage of people who identified as Russian Orthodox when this survey was conducted was 71% which is a large increase from the 37% who described themselves as such in 1991, but only 6% of people attend church weekly and only 17% pray daily.367 Clearly, a majority of people believe that to be a member of the Russian nation means being Russian Orthodox, but this has not translated over into being a devout member of the faith.  It is interesting that this is the case especially since the Church has gone to such effort, through the films listed above and other forms of media, to put out this argument about the nation needing devout members of the faith to succeed. It speaks above all, though, into the kind of influence the Church truly has on the Russian people. Despite the Church’s efforts to present itself as a moral leader, the results of this have been mixed as “a majority among the believers do not necessarily agree with the Church” on its “campaigns for a ‘return’ to traditional values.”368 Overall, outside of just these campaigns, according to Kolstø and Blakkisrud, the Church has “failed to develop into a dominant moral norm entrepreneur,” and this connects to why the films have not been successful in getting audiences and thus getting their message about being a devout Russian Orthodox Christian across.369 Even with acknowledging this about the films and their impact on everyday Russian people, it is still critical to study these films to understand what kind of message the Church has promoted in the past and how this has influenced their message now. It is clear through these  366 Pew Research Center, “Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe” (Pew Research Center, May 10, 2017), https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/05/10/religious-belief-and-national-belonging-in-central-and-eastern-europe/. 367 Pew Research Center, “Religious Belief and National Belonging.”  368 Pål Kolstø and Helge Blakkisrud, “Not So Traditional After All? The Russian Orthodox Church's Failure as a ‘Moral Norm Entrepreneur,’" PONARS Eurasia Policy Memo 710, George Washington University, October 2021. 369 Kolstø and Blakkisrud. “Not So Traditional After All?.”   192 films that the Church has a clear idea on what it means to be a part of the Russian nation and exactly who can and cannot be a part of that nation. For the Church, one does not have to be a citizen of the current Russian Federation to be a part of the Russian nation as is made clear in these films which blur the lines between Russian and Ukrainian and which allow peoples of other nations to join Russia. Above all, what matters to the Church is whether or not one is a devout follower of Russian Orthodoxy as this is what determines whether an individual is a true member of the Russian nation. It is only this combination of being both a member of the Church and of the nation that allows the Russian nation to prove victorious over all other faiths and nations.  193 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anemone, Anthony. “Vladimir Khotinenko: The Priest (Pop, 2009).” Kinokultura 30 (2010).  https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-aa.shtml. Appleby, Ian. “Vladimir Bortko: Taras Bul’ba (2009).” Kinokultura 26 (2009).  https://www.kinokultura.com/2009/26r-bulba-ia.shtml. Baranova, Olga. “Conceptualizations of the Holocaust in Soviet and Post-Soviet Ukraine and  Belarus: Public Debates and Historiography.” East European Politics and Societies and Cultures 34, no. 1 (February 2022): 241–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888325419831349. Berezhnaya, Liliya, and Christian Schmitt. “Introduction.” In Iconic Turns: Nation and Religion in Eastern European Cinema since 1989, edited by Liliya Berezhnaya and Christian Schmitt, 1–32. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Blitt, Robert C. “Russia’s ‘Orthodox’ Foreign Policy: The Growing Influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Shaping Russia’s Policies Abroad.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2011, 363–460. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1725522. Bureychak, Tetyana, and Olena Petrenko. “Heroic Masculinity in Post-Soviet Ukraine: Cossacks, UPA and ‘Svoboda.’” East/West: Journal of Ukrainian Studies 2, no. 2 (September 8, 2015): 3–28. https://doi.org/10.21226/T2988X. Burnett, John, ed. “Typikon for Church Ringing.” Translated by Mark Galperin. Editorial Board of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2002. https://www.russianbells.com/ringing/typikon-bellringing.pdf. Coalson, Robert, and Dmitry Volchek. “‘Do Not Respond’: Did The Soviet Government Abandon Its WWII Prisoners?” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, April 9, 2018, sec. Russia. https://www.rferl.org/a/do-not-respond-did-the-soviet-government-abandon-its-wwii-prisoners-/29217414.html. Cross, Samuel Hazzard, and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, trans. The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text. Cambridge: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953. Curtis, Glenn E., ed. “Religion.” In Russia: A Country Study, 1st ed., 202–19. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/master/frd/frdcstdy/ru/russiacountrystu00curt/russiacountrystu00curt.pdf. Davis, Nathaniel. A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy. Boulder: Westview Press, 2003. Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. “Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church.” Background Information. Accessed January 23, 2024. http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx#top.  194 Drubek, Natasha. “Russian Film Premieres in 2010/11: Sacralizing National History and Nationalizing Religion.” In Iconic Turns: Nation and Religion in Eastern European Cinema since 1989, edited by Liliya Berezhnaya and Christian Schmitt, 81–98. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Edele, Mark. Stalin’s Defectors: How Red Army Soldiers Became Hitler’s Collaborators, 1941-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021. Enstad, Johannes Due. “Prayers and Patriotism in Nazi-Occupied Russia: The Pskov Orthodox Mission and Religious Revival, 1941–1944.” The Slavonic and East European Review 94, no. 3 (July 2016): 468–96. https://doi.org/10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.94.3.0468. Gaufman, Elizaveta. “The Militainment of World War II Memory in Post-Soviet Russia.” In War and Remembrance: World War II and the Holocaust in the Memory Politics of Post-Socialist Europe, edited by Paul Srodecki and Daria Kozlova, 65–80. Leiden: Brill | Schöningh, 2023. https://doi.org/10.30965/9783657790920. Graham, Seth. “Vladimir Khotinenko: The Priest (Pop, 2010).” Kinokultura 30 (2010). https://www.kinokultura.com/2010/30r-pop-sg.shtml. Horowitz, Jason. “The Russian Orthodox Leader at the Core of Putin’s Ambitions.” The New York Times, May 21, 2022, sec. World. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/21/world/europe/kirill-putin-russian-orthodox-church.html. IMDb. “Mikhail Boyarskiy and Vladimir Vdovichenkov in Taras Bulba (2009).” Accessed March 8, 2024. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1242457/mediaviewer/rm2747956992. Kirschenbaum, Lisa A. The Legacy of the Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kolesnikov, Andrei. “Blood and Iron: How Nationalist Imperialism Became Russia’s State Ideology - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, December 6, 2023. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/12/06/blood-and-iron-how-nationalist-imperialism-became-russia-s-state-ideology-pub-91181. Kolstø, Pål, and Helge Blakkisrud. “Not So Traditional After All? The Russian Orthodox Church’s Failure as a ‘Moral Norm Entrepreneur.’” PONARS Eurasia, October 2021. https://www.ponarseurasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Pepm710_Kolsto-Blakkisrud_Oct2021.pdf. Luehrmann, Sonja. “Irina Papkova, The Orthodox Church and Russian Politics.” History of Religions 52, no. 4 (May 2013): 426–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/669656. Lukyanova, Galina V. “Framing Russian Orthodox Church: How Russian State-Owned Media Covered the Church/Religion.” Romanian Journal of Journalism & Communication / Revista Română de Jurnalism Şi Comunicare- RRJC 10, no. 3 (July 2015): 25–32.  195 Mankoff, Jeffrey. “The Orthodox Schism in the Shadow of Empire.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 19, 2018. https://www.csis.org/analysis/orthodox-schism-shadow-empire. Matthäus, Jürgen, and Frank Bajohr. The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg and the Onset of the Holocaust. Blue Ridge Summit, UNITED STATES: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2015. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unc/detail.action?docID=4086002. Mironowicz, Antoni. “The Orthodox Church in Tsar Russia.” Elpis, no. 19 (2017): 21–27. https://elpis.uwb.edu.pl/index.php/Elpis/article/view/179.  Nepomnyashchy, Catharine Theimer. “Re-Visioning the Past: Russian Literary Classics in Film.” World Literature Today 85, no. 6 (November/December2011): 55–58. Norris, Stephen. “Blessed Films: The Russian Orthodox Church and Patriotic Culture in the 2000s.” In Iconic Turns: Nation and Religion in Eastern European Cinema since 1989, edited by Liliya Berezhnaya and Christian Schmitt, 65–80. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Norris, Stephen M. “Vladimir Bortko: Taras Bul’ba (2009).” Kinokultura 26 (2009). https://www.kinokultura.com/2009/26r-bulba-sn.shtml. Orthodox Church in America. “Saint Alexei, Metropolitan of Moscow, Wonderworker of All Russia.” Lives of the Saints. Accessed March 15, 2024. https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2019/02/12/100506-saint-alexei-metropolitan-of-moscow-wonderworker-of-all-russia. Ouspensky, Leonid, and Vladimir Lossky. The Meaning of Icons. Translated by G.E.H. Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983. Parthe, Kathleen F. Russian Village Prose: The Radiant Past. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.  Paul, Michael C. “Continuity and Change in the Novgorodian Archiepiscopal Office, 1478-1589.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 75, no. 2 (2009): 1–45. Perrie, Maureen. “Andrei Proshkin: The Horde (Orda, 2012).” Kinokultura, no. 39 (2013). https://www.kinokultura.com/2013/39r-orda.shtml. Perry, Joe. “Nazifying Christmas: Political Culture and Popular Celebration in the Third Reich.” Central European History 38, no. 4 (2005): 572–605. Pew Research Center. “Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe.” Pew Research Center, May 10, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/05/10/religious-belief-and-national-belonging-in-central-and-eastern-europe/.  196 Porter, Thomas Earl. “Hitler’s Rassenkampf in the East: The Forgotten Genocide of Soviet POWs.” Nationalities Papers 37, no. 6 (November 2009): 839–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905990903230785. Presidential Library. “Marking the 1035th Anniversary of the Christianization of Rus’. The Presidential Library’s Materials Illustrate the Beginning of Christianity in Russia.” News, July 28, 2023. https://www.prlib.ru/en/news/1896333. Presidential Library. “The Order of St. Alexander Nevsky Established.” On this day. Accessed March 7, 2024. https://www.prlib.ru/en/history/619280#:~:text=Alexander%20Nevsky%20established,-1%20June%201725&text=%E2%80%9CFor%20services%20and%20Fatherland%E2%80%9D.&text=On%20May%2021%20(June%201,Master%20Grand%20Duke%20Alexander%20Nevsky. Prymak, Thomas M. “A Painter from Ukraine: Ilya Repin.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 55, no. 1–2 (June 2013): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2013.11092725. Quenoy, Irina du. “An Unlikely Reconciliation: The Path of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia toward Canonical Union with the Moscow Patriarchate.” Acta Slavica Iaponica, no. 42 (2021): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14943/ASI.42.1.  Repin, Ilya. “Запорожцы Пишут Письмо Турецкому Султану (The Zaporozhe Cossacks Replying to the Sultan.” In Wikipedia, January 2, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ilja_Jefimowitsch_Repin_-_Reply_of_the_Zaporozhian_Cossacks_-_Yorck.jpg&oldid=697835513. Roberts, Tom. “The Horde.” In The Contemporary Russian Cinema Reader: 2005-2016, edited by Rimgaila Salys, 217–38. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2019. Robinson, Paul. Russian Conservatism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2019. Rywkin, Michael. “Russia: Mythology in the Service of Realpolitik: American Foreign Policy Interests.” American Foreign Policy Interests 36, no. 3 (June 5, 2014): 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10803920.2014.925345. Shaikhutdinov, Marat. Between East and West: The Formation of the Moscow State. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2021. Shakhanova, Gaziza, and Petr Kratochvíl. “The Patriotic Turn in Russia: Political Convergence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the State?” Politics and Religion 15, no. 1 (March 2022): 114–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755048320000620. Shchukin, Protopriest Sergii. “A Brief History of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia , 1922-1972.” The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, 1972. https://www.synod.com/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocorshukin.html.  197 Simone, Peter T. De. “Introduction.” In The Old Believers in Imperial Russia: Oppression, Opportunism and Religious Identity in Tsarist Moscow, 1–27. London, UNITED KINGDOM: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2018. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unc/detail.action?docID=5739287. Skladanowski, Marcin, and Cezary Smuniewski. “The Secularism of Putin’s Russia and Patriarch Kirill’s Church: The Russian Model of State–Church Relations and Its Social Reception.” Religions 14, no. 1 (2023): 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14010119. Sotnikova, Ann. “Фильм Орда (Россия, 2011) – Афиша-Кино.” Афиша. Афиша, September 4, 2012. https://www.afisha.ru/movie/orda-210983/. Thompson, Ewa M. Understanding Russia: The Holy Fool in Russian Culture. Boston: University Press of America, 1987. Tomka, Miklos. Expanding Religion: Religious Revival in Post-Communist Central and Eastern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Inc., 2011. Transfiguration of Our Lord. “Saint Alexis, Metropolitan of Moscow.” Lives of the Saints, 2010. http://www.holy-transfiguration.org/library_en/saints_Alexis_Moscow.html. Tumarkin, Nina. The Living and the Dead: The Rise and Fall of the Cult of World War II. New York: Basic Books, 1994. Vilkov, Anatoly. “Return of a National Treasure | The Tretyakov Gallery Magazine.” The Tretyakov Gallery Magazine, July 9, 2016. https://www.tretyakovgallerymagazine.com/node/4976. “Volga German Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.” In The Hutchinson Encyclopedia. Abingdon, United Kingdom: RM Education, Ltd, 2020. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2459444079/citation/4DF52193911406APQ/1. Yoon, Saera. “Transformation of a Ukrainian Cossack into a Russian Warrior: Gogol’s 1842 ‘Taras Bulba.’” The Slavic and East European Journal 49, no. 3 (Fall 2005): 430–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/20058302. Эйзенштейн, Сергей, director. Александр Невский (Alexander Nevsky). Mosfilm, 1938. 1hr., 49 min. https://tubitv.com/movies/623154/alexander-nevsky?start=true&tracking=google-feed&utm_source=google-feed. Альперина, Сусанна. “Фильм Андрея Прошкина ‘Орда’ Получил Две Награды 34-Го ММКФ.” Российская газета, July 1, 2012. https://rg.ru/2012/07/02/orda.html. Басинский, Павел. “На Экраны Страны Вышел ‘Тарас Бульба’ Владимира Бортко - Российская Газета.” Российская Газета, April 3, 2009. https://www.rg.ru/2009/04/03/buljba.html.  198 Бортко, Владимир, director. Тарас Бульба (The Conqueror). Central Partnership, 2009. 1hr., 7 min. https://www.vudu.com/content/movies/play/218731/RESOLVE?returnUrl=%252F. Вергелис, Олег. “Гоголь попутал. «Тарас Бульба» — «идеальный» фильм для президента.” Зеркало недели | Дзеркало тижня | Mirror Weekly, April 3, 2009. https://zn.ua/ART/gogol_poputal_taras_bulba__idealnyy_film_dlya_prezidenta.html. Винокурова, Любава. “Поставили крест на военнопленных.” Московская Немецкая Газета, May 17, 2020. https://ru.mdz-moskau.eu/postavili-krest-na-voennoplennyh/. Волохов, Роман. “Рецензия к Фильму Орда. Скромная Эпопея.” KinoNews.ru, September 21, 2012. https://www.kinonews.ru/article_24898/. Золотой Витязь. “Международный Кинофорум,” July 6, 2021. http://zolotoyvityaz.ru/kinoforum. Кравец, Сергей. “Чудо на заказ. Сергей Кравец о фильме «Орда».” Pravoslavie.ru, June 26, 2012. https://pravoslavie.ru/54477.html. Малюкова, Лариса. “А поворотись-ка, Гоголь.” Новая газета, April 1, 2009. https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2009/04/01/43368-a-povorotis-ka-gogol. Международный Форум «Золотой Витязь». “Международный Кинофорум.” Золотой Витязь, July 6, 2021. http://zolotoyvityaz.ru/kinoforum. Милиан, Марк. “«Поп».” Кино-Театр.ру, March 30, 2010. https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/art/pr/1601/. “Патриарх Кирилл Наградил Маковецкого За Роль в Фильме ‘Поп.’” November 25, 2010. https://lenta.ru/news/2010/11/25/pop//. Патриархия.ru. “Выступление Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла в Военной Академии Генерального Штаба Вооруженных Сил РФ,” Приветствия и Обращения, May 31, 2011. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1501407.html. Патриархия.ru. “Фильм «Орда» кинотелекомпании «Православная Энциклопедия» удостоен премии «Золотой орел» в 5 номинациях.” Церковь и культура, January 28, 2013. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2754757.html. Патриархия.ru. “Фильму «Поп» присуждена первая Патриаршая премия в области киноискусства.” Церковь и Общество, April 29, 2010. http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1149563.html. Прошкин, Андрей, director. Орда (The Horde). Orthodox Encyclopedia, 2012. 2hr., 9 min. https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/mystuff/ref=atv_hm_hom_c_9zZ8D2_mys_mn.  Рамм, Вита. “‘Поп’ получил ‘Витязя.’” Известия, June 4, 2010. https://iz.ru/news/362415.  199 Святейший Патриарх Кирилл. “Фильм ‘Поп’ - важное и правдивое слово о жизни Русской Церкви в трудные годы войны.” Правмир, November 6, 2009. https://www.pravmir.ru/film-pop-vazhnoe-i-pravdivoe-slovo-o-zhizni-russkoj-cerkvi-v-trudnye-gody-vojny/. Хотиненко, Владимир, director. Поп (The Priest). Orthodox Encyclopedia, 2009. 2hr., 10 min.  Чекулаева, Елена. “Орда - Рецензия На Фильм, 2012.” Transvision, September 9, 2012. http://www.tramvision.ru/recensia/2012/orda.htm. Щедров, Ярослав. “Андрей Прошкин: «Современная Российская Власть — Та Же Орда».” 73online.ru, September 20, 2012. https://73online.ru/readnews/20206. Щетинин, Сергей. “‘Тарас Бульба’ Владимира Бортко завоевал Гран-при фестиваля ‘Золотой Витязь.’” Российская Газета, April 6, 2009. https://rg.ru/2009/06/04/vityaz.html.

Clean Full Text

Language

Doi

Arxiv

Mag

Acl

Pmid

Pmcid

Pub Date

Pub Year

Journal Name

Journal Volume

Journal Page

Publication Types

Tldr

Tldr Version

Generated Tldr

Search Term Used

Reference Count

Citation Count

Influential Citation Count

Last Update

Status

Aws Job

Last Checked

Modified

Created