Discussion Film / Brother1997

The article main text seems a little hateful and xenophobic (to cite the article itself).

I am one of the youths that were born in the 80's in Russia, and a representative of the intelligentzia social group (if there is one) in modern Russia. I am a film study Ph D, and have worked and had fun for some time in culture-related circles, including movie people. So the viewpoint I'll try to express is not YMMV, but is based on an almost two-decade-long overview of critique concerning this film.

The author of this movie, Balabanov, was one of the most respected, profound and uncompromising filmmakers in post-Soviet Russia. The break-out success of "Brother" did have a lot to do with revanchist and xenophobic streaks in 90's Russia, but only to the extent it reflected the society. Sure, Balabanov got much heat over xenophobic tones in Brother, but these were sparked by the film's popularity (and aimed at him more by the most fervent liberals, many of whom later withdrawn their vitriol).

He set out to make a small action/crime movie to pull him and his friends out of a hole (he did Kafka's Castle, a doc about Russian punks, and an extremely bleak art-house picture earlier, among others). But it "backfired" making Brat an overnight sensation. Because it reflected the gloom and ambiguity of Russia in the 90's.

The xenophobia is very hard to take as an American, I'm sure. And it is a bad thing, any decent person who praises the movie in Russia staunchly agrees with that. But the xenophobia in-movie is borne out of the massive crime/business expansion that actually occured in the 80's and 90's in Russia, in large part driven by the diasporas from North Caucasus. It is a fact (as much a fact as that most street markets, real estate development and even some media are still dominated by North Caucasian kingpins).

Now to the movie itself. I realize that the opinion expressed above may be just that, a YMMV. So let's break it down, according to the analysis of the movie that's been done over years by dozens of film critics of every political persuasion (not all of them Russian, of course).

Danila Bagrov was a clean slate, a tabula rasa. He is an Everyman turned Vigilante. He grew up in a tough criminal neighbourhood, grew up decent still (with strong survival principles), and got drafted in time for the Chechen war. He turned out to be a war hero (the fact he tries to conceal, having no pride in killing and burying friends for unclear goals and no resolution to the conflict).

Upon his return, he evaluates the "civilian" life as it's presented to him. The mother who instinctively respects criminals because they're the main force for now. Then his brother who became a sleazy hitman. And a lawless reality that is in part dominated by his former enemies from Caucasus. It turns out he thrives in situations of war and strife (although he is cut out for better things - he loves the pacifist Russian rock and dreams of a decent life). Also, he steadfastly insists that family ties are above all else.

So Danila takes new orders, this time from his brother ("kill bad people" - not unlike in the war, where this was the only justification, considering Chechens were technically his compatriots). But he looks out for himself and keeps evaluating this new reality against his unspoken moral standards. In the end, he decides the "thug" reality is also flawed and unjust (his only friend and ally turns out to be a hobo living in the graveyard), rights the wrongs he can with his bullets, and goes away to try and start everything from scratch in Moscow. (This is a symbolic transition - St. Petersburg was a notorious criminal haven in the 90's, and Moscow is a sacred city, The Big City in Russian psyche, so if you had all that St. Pete had to throw at you, you could try Moscow - not only as a small criminal, but as a symbolic Russian Everyman who searches for answers and meaning.)

In the second film (that was made under pressure from the popularity of the first) Danila becomes a truly post-modernist vehicle for sorting out the quirks Russians of the time had with everything. From rich businessmen and media stars to, of course, Americans, who were in equal parts loved and hated (for a BUNCH of reasons that are too long to even list here). Likewise, his brother keeps working as his counterpart - a dumb, vengeful, naive, cocky Russian. And Danila keeps playing his part - a Grim Reaper that measures how much justice everything holds, from Russian backroom politics and thug feuds to US way of life, political correctness and black pride (yeah, a lot to say about "xenophobia" and "racism" in that movie too).

In the end, I propose to rework the article. The original author clearly has a one-sided view, very strongly worded (I wouldn't interfere at all if it was just a "view from the other side" but the current text is vitriolic). At the very least, the movie represent a massive lot of internal Russian problems and issues in a very intelligent, efficient way (it wouldn't be the most quotable Russian post-Soviet film today if it didn't). This deserves a more balanced article. Not Wikipedia-level balanced, but at least not hateful. And xenophobic.