Reviews & Ratings for
Mission to Moscow More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Index

37 reviews in total

---

50 out of 58 people found the following review useful:
Grand Propaganda Film, Hollywood Style, 6 April 2004
Author: jacksflicks from Hollywood

Among the comments here I don't see much recognition of the fact that this propaganda film was released at the height of World War II, when the battle against Nazis was focused on Stalingrad, which arguably was the crucial battle of the war in Europe.

The context of this film cannot be ignored or minimized. Propaganda films are morale films, and the omissions and distortions which have been cited in Mission to Moscow are beside the point. Of course Stalin was a monster before, during and after World War II. Of course Joseph E. Davies was a naif, and a pompous one at that. Perhaps that's why he only lasted a year as ambassador.

On one hand, there is an absolutely ludicrous review here, praising Mission to Moscow as dispelling the terrible calumnies against the great Soviet achievements. On the other hand, there are those on the opposite side who, though far more accurate about Stalin and about how this film whitewashes his atrocities, seem so rabid in their responses, they fail to understand, or conveniently ignore, that propaganda films as documentaries are more or less bull, and that it's stupid to criticize a propaganda film because it's a propaganda film.

What is interesting about Mission to Moscow is not what it is trying to say or do, which requires little insight to divine, but how well it does it. This is a Hollywood "A" film enlisted in the service of propaganda. Top cast, direction and production values should have made for a very strong message to 1943 American audiences, whom the government wanted to think of the war against Germany as "We're all in this together."

As to the outrage of Stalin's show trials, I think that the sinister, menacing demeanor of one of the great Hollywood heavies Victor Francen as prosecutor Vyshinsky, versus the rather meek, contemplative demeanor of the defendants, suggests that the film knows what's going on, even if Davies doesn't.

Yes, the relentless pro-Soviet propaganda is a bit hard to take for those who sit smugly in the light of hindsight. But if you look at Mission to Moscow as document rather than documentary, you will gain an insight into the kind of public mindset called for by our government at a crucial moment in our history.

---

30 out of 41 people found the following review useful:
Propaganda can be fun - this isn't!!!, 18 August 2001

Author: howdymax from Las Cruces, New Mexico

I can understand the need for pro-allied propaganda when the outcome of the war was still uncertain, but this was pathetic. It's no surprise that Howard Koch was the screenwriter for this rather sorry effort to promote Soviet propaganda, or that he was later cited by the HUAC. Propaganda can be fun - try North Star or Days of Glory. This movie is not an effort to raise morale or promote a cohesive war effort. It's purpose appears to try to justify any and all the barbaric atrocities committed during the Stalin regime. Example: The show trials were interspersed with remarks by allied journalists approving of the same judicial perversion for which we condemned Germany at Nueremburg. We agreed with the Soviet position that Trotsky was responsible for undermining the good works of the Soviet. We blame ourselves for the Russo-German alliance. The fact that Russia absorbed half of Poland in payment isn't discussed. This movie actually claims it was strategic move to buy time. Davies (Walter Huston) spends the entire movie trying to convince us that the Soviet Union performed a miracle, 5 yrs at a time. Big business is portrayed as greedy capitalists anxious to do business with Germany and Japan in pursuit of the Almighty buck. Russia invaded Finland as an act of self defense etc, etc. The examples are too numerous to mention.

Michael Curtiz' direction, as usual, is exciting and flawless. It is this movies' only saving grace. The early scene when Davies arrives at the Hamburg train station was precious. There are Swastikas everywhere. In typical Curtiz style, shadow troops marched passed the camera. Mein Kampf was for sale everywhere. Pathetic deportees are on the platform - number tags on their chest - waiting for transport to the camps. Hitler Youth marching like toy soldiers. If you can put the politics aside (I couldn't) you can really enjoy the visuals.

But beware, there was a message to this madness.

---

43 out of 68 people found the following review useful:
A bad, bad movie about a most useful idiot, 31 October 1999

Author: Rosabel from Ottawa, Canada

This movie is a piece of fawning, pro-Stalin propaganda. The usual excuse for it, that it reflected patriotic sentiments of the era, can be equally applied to "Triumph of the Will" - there is no excuse for this lying travesty. Fakery follows fakery in this movie - the Ambassador's wife visiting Mrs. Molotov's perfume factory, and declaring the products superior to those of Paris; the Ambassador shaming his properly security-conscious subordinate by declaring it unthinkable that anyone in the Embassy would say anything that they'd be reluctant to say to Stalin's face; the buxom Soviet peasant woman chiding the Ambassador for effete American reluctance to have their women go down the coal mines the way "liberated" Russian women do. And these are only the comic relief. The serious scenes, such as the Moscow show trials, are just beyond pathetic, with the Ambassador commenting that the well-rehearsed confessions of the victims were uncoerced. In its whole-hearted praise of one of the bloodiest tyrants of the twentieth century, this movie is too corrupt and infuriating even to be funny.

---

21 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
If you like a film that glorifies and falsifies the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin then this is for you, 12 June 2006

Author: johno-21 from United States

This film was made to patronize Joeseph Stalin and warm USA audiences to American-Soviet relations. Warner boss Jack Warner called it the worst mistake of his career. Warner was a supporter of FDR and Roosevelt asked him to have this film made based on the 1941 book by former Ambassador to the USSR (1936-1938) Joseph E. Davies. Several films were made during this time to achieve the same effect like song of Russia, North Star and Counter Attack but this was a film for Stalin to see himself, hand delivered on a yet another mission to Moscow by Davies. This film portrays the brutal dictator Stalin as a fair and just man who has turned his backward country into a progressive industrial and agricultural giant that is moving toward democracy and desires peace and protection of it's borders. It mentions nothing of the one million deaths in the Soviet gulags that happened during Davies' ambassadorial tenure on his mission to Moscow. It glosses over the infamous purge show trials where Stalin rid himself of prominent party leaders where he had 50 of the 54 of the three trials executed under the guise of traitors who were conspiring with Germany and Japan to weaken the USSR. Stalin wanted absolute power but this film portrays these as fair and just trials. The costly Russo-Finnish War of 1939 is described by Davies as simply the Soviets wanting to annex Finland to protect Finland from the Nazi's. 23,000 Finns were killed and 43,000 wounded in this so-called effort to protect them. 127,000 Soviets were killed and 265,000 wounded. There is no mention of Stalin's man-made famine of the 1930's that resulted in the genocide of millions of Ukrainians. Stalin is portrayed as everybody's favorite uncle and FDR wanted Stalin to see how sympathetic we were to to him by having him actually view this film to maneuver a FDR-Stalin meeting in Alaska. FDR sent former Ambassador Davies on another mission to Moscow with this film and a message to Stalin from Roosevelt as to how much he respected him. Davies' successor in Moscow Ambassador William H. Standley was not in the loop on this mission and furious and resigned. Davies screened this film for Stalin. Stalin wasn't that impressed with the film or FDR's intentions and stalled on the Alaska summit. FDR was forced to send Secretary of State Cordell Hull to Moscow and Stalin agreed to a summit in Teheran instead of Alaska which would also include Winston Churchill who FDR didn't want for his proposed Alaska summit.

Michael Curtiz is the director and the film looks good from an artistic standpoint. Curtiz was best known for Casablanca and after starting out as an important European director in the teens and twenties he moved to Hollywood and became an important filmmaker. Howard Koch who wrote screenplays for such films as Casablanca adapted the Davies' book for the screen which later got him blacklisted from Hollywood. Bert Glendon who did such films as Hotel Imperial and The Ten Commandments in the 20's, Kidnapped and Young Mr. Linclon in the 30's and One Night in Lisbon and Our Town in the 40's is the film's cinematographer. This film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Art Direction and stars FDR's favorite actor Walter Huston as Ambassador Davies. Also in the talented cast are Ann Harding, George Tobias, Oscar Homolka, Eleanor Parker, Gene Lockhart, Frank Faylen and Cyd Charisse. You can enjoy the documentary style approach to this film and the skills of it's renowned filmmakers and big studio production but you can't get past a propaganda film that glorifies the Stalin dictatorship. I would give it a 4.5 out of 10.

---

13 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
So, was Ambassador Davies duped by the Russians?, 21 April 1999
Author: Varlaam from Toronto, Canada

Is that why he put forward this saccharine view of the Soviet Union? It was done sincerely and naively, was it?

I remember this -- the 1943 film version of Ambassador Davies' book -- as quite dull, in spite of its obvious historical and political interest, from when I last saw it a number of years ago. In the notes I took down at the time, I have the film labelled as "disturbing propaganda" and cite two choice quotations:

"At least, one European nation with no aggressive intentions is ready for whatever comes", exclaims Ambassador Davies (as portrayed by Walter Huston).

According to a Soviet minister, "The army is strengthened by the purge of its traitors."

(Stalin almost succeeded in strengthening his army right out of existence.)

Amazon lists a couple of scholarly titles specific to the Ambassador Davies controversy. Perhaps this film will whet your appetite for a little more background.

---

37 out of 70 people found the following review useful:
A movie that makes you re-think black listing, 18 August 2001

Author: gracchi from United States

This movie is pure red propaganda. I sure hope Joseph Davies was not as naive and stupid as this movie portrays. Obviously it was important in 1943 to make movies with an anti-fascist slant, but that does not excuse this piece of left wing propaganda that glosses over the great soviet show trials of 1937-1938 (and Stalin's purges). To show Uncle Joe himself as a great humanitarian who just wanted peace - how pathetic. Since the USSR was a vital ally at the time this movie was made, maybe it would have been best not to have made this movie at all if we were afraid to offend the Soviets with the TRUTH. This movie ranks right up there with 'Battleship Potemkin' and 'Triumph of the Will' as big production propaganda (but it is not as well made). I am a little curious as to the future careers of people involved in this movie (were any of them black listed in the 1950's?). After seeing this film, it makes you think twice about the Hollywood black list in the 1950's. Perhaps a necessary evil during the cold war against leftist who could make Marxist-Stalinist crud like this movie. If you want to counter-act this left wing movie, I recommend 'The Green Berets' - a horrible piece of American right-wing propaganda.

---

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Terrible film, but not for the reasons you might expect., 5 April 2010

Author: DarthVoorhees from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Joseph Stalin certainly wasn't a builder for the betterment of mankind, the millions he sent to the gulag are a testament to that. 'Mission to Moscow' is a terrible film, but not because it tries to glamorize Joseph Stalin. If someone wanted to make a film canonizing Stalin I'd say all the power to him. Art is a concept deeper than political ideology. I'd have no problem giving a good review to a film that thought highly of Stalin, the problem is 'Mission to Moscow' isn't a good film.

The problem with 'Mission to Moscow' is that it assumes it's audience is incredibly stupid. One general rule about propaganda is that the audience should be able to suspend their preconceptions to be subjected to it's message. You know while watching 'Mission to Moscow' that you are watching a propaganda piece. Compare that to say 'Saving Private Ryan' which is a very good film, but has a blatant fetish for the military. Or if we wanted to stay in the realm of the Soviet Union any of Sergei Eisenstein's films. Even a film critic that believes Communism is a philosophical evil will say that "October" or "Battleship Potemkin" are great cinematic achievements. 'Mission to Moscow' goes for cheap emotional triggers. The performances are so over the top and tongue in cheek to have any credibility to them whatsoever. The fourth wall is consistently broken. Walter Huston who was by all accounts a very capable actor is terrible in this picture, but then again what could he have done with this terrible script? Americans are more susceptible to images than they are to anything else. If 'Mission to Moscow' wanted to truly glamorize the Soviets it wouldn't have Huston narrate everything. Images are more powerful than words with propaganda.

And if we want to talk about negative propaganda, why don't we talk about how the film portrays FDR? Franklin Roosevelt has an almost Stalinist Cult of Personality in this film. We aren't even allowed to see his face. The only thing Stalin and Joseph Davies can agree about America is that it has "a great President". If you learn one thing from the terrors of Stalinist Cult of Personality in Russia learn this, no man or political ideology is God like.

---

8 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
FDR's Man In The Kremlin, 8 February 2009

Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York

One of the most controversial films ever made, Mission To Moscow was not good for anyone's career who got involved with the making. Like Song Of Russia made over at MGM, Mission To Moscow was a film made specifically to improve Soviet-American relations in facing the common enemy they had.

The Soviet Union no matter how much the American Communist Party trumpeted their virtues, still had a real image problem in a lot of quarters due to the purges that Joseph Stalin conducted, due to the tremendous dislocation his five year plans created, due to the misery caused by the collectivization of agriculture and the systematic slaughter of Kulaks. Kulaks roughly translated could be anyone who owned a large estate to someone who might own a slightly bigger piece of land and maybe some farm animals. Stalin slaughtered thousands of them to force collectivization.

Our first ambassador to the Soviet Union was William C. Bullitt who was sent there in 1933. The Republican post World War I presidents did not diplomatically recognize the Soviet Union, Franklin Roosevelt's first foreign policy initiative was to extend recognition. Bullitt was a guy at first enthused, but then got very disillusioned by what he saw. He and FDR had a falling out and he left Moscow in 1936.

Joseph E. Davies was an industrialist and large Democratic contributor who did go back with FDR to the Wilson administration. He was appointed US Ambassador and after that became a cheerleader for the Soviets. As is shown in the film, Davies just blindly accepted every piece of propaganda handed to him. Films made in 1943 were not going to cast a critical light on the dark underside of Communist Russia.

Walter Huston dusts off his Sam Dodsworth persona to play Ambassador Davies. Ann Harding plays his dutiful wife and Eleanor Parker their daughter. Vladimir Sokoloff is President Kalinin, Gene Lockhart plays Prime Minister Molotov and Oscar Homolka plays Foreign Minister Litvinov all well known personalities of the day. In the Soviet Union like other countries Davies would have been required to present his credentials to the president and Russia did have a figurehead president who was a great deal less than Mission To Moscow makes him out.

At that time Joseph Stalin was only the Secretary of the Presidium of the Communist Party, but as such wielded the real power. The People's Republic of China adopted a similar set up that never changed with Mao Tse-tung as Party head and holding the real power while Mao lived.

Stalin is played by actor Manart Kippen and is only seen once as Davies is prepared to leave the Russian embassy. He's so shy and retiring the portrayal is so absolutely ludicrous that it leaves me laughing. But Davies sitting through the purge trials and accepting without question all the testimonies and forced confessions is also ludicrous.

After his time was up as Ambassador, Davies wrote the book on which this film was based and did go on a speaking tour promoting Russo-American cooperation. He was doing this on behalf of his friend and president FDR, but Davies had also become a real true believer in the 'miracle' that was Soviet Russia.

When the Cold War started three films became the targets of the House Un American Activities Committee, they were ripe targets that the conservative members were grateful for. The three films were The North Star from 20th Century Fox, Song Of Russia from MGM, and Mission To Moscow. None got more criticism than this one. Screenwriter Howard Koch who had won an Oscar this same year for Casablanca, earned a place on the blacklist because of Mission To Moscow. Whatever Koch's personal political convictions were, in this case all he did was translate to the screen what was in Davies's book.

Davies was held up to ridicule and in some measure deserved a bit of it because of Mission To Moscow. Time and the end of the Cold War have given us a proper perspective of the Russian contribution towards defeating the Nazis. In fact it was the lion's share in Europe. Policy decisions were made on the basis of keeping the Russians in the war before the Americans and British and respective allies got on the European continent with forces to make it a two front war, first in Italy and then in France. There was a justifiable fear that Stalin would make a separate peace with Hitler just as he signed the non-aggression pact with him before World War II started in 1939.

Of course the reports that Davies wrote off about the brutality of the Soviet Union were also true. The reactionaries had a field day with him, he was never taken seriously again. For that reason Mission To Moscow has not worn well either as history or entertainment.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Strange Propaganda Film From Warner Bros, 20 January 2010

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A few months ago I saw a documentary called BEHIND CLOSED DOORS which focused upon the machinations and political intrigue in the Kremlin during the second world war . A clip from MISSION TO MOSCOW was shown and is a habit of mine I decided to look it up on this site only to notice that despite being directed by the great Michael Curtiz it was lowly regarded but decided to track it down anyway

There's an old saying that " My enemy's enemy is my friend " and nothing proves this more than the second world war where the capitalist democracies of Britain and America supported the Soviet Union during the second world war . The film revolves around painting the Soviet Union as a country Britain and America can do business with and a key ally against the aggression of the Nazis and imperial Japanese . There's nothing wrong with this of course and 1943 had seen massive defeats for Nazi Germany at Stalingrad and Kursk which put the writing on the wall that Nazi Germany was going to lose the war

The problem with the film is that it doesn't celebrate the bloody victories won by Soviet blood but starts before the war where ambassador Joe Davies visits the USSR and finds it completely like the United States . Soviet workers only give a proportion of their pay to the state similar to taxation and there's even American advisers working in the socialist state who have become bored living on a diet of caviar The only real difference between Soviet Russia and America is that the Soviet state is being held back by a conspiracy involving Trotskyite agents and Nazis who are embarking on a campaign of sabotage against Stalinism . We know this must be true because it's pointed out by an American adviser and later Davies states that the trial of the saboteurs is no different from a trial held in the USA . There is no doubt that the defendants such as Tukhachevsky and Radek are guilty as charged . Davies says it's a fair trail so if an American says that it must be true

There is a bitter irony in portraying the Soviet Union is such a light and that was that the film was targeted as being communist propaganda in 1950 by the House Of Un-American Activities that led to Jack Warner himself being questioned by congress . It seems strange that nations suffer from a collective amnesia where politics is concerned . The film is nothing more than a propaganda piece for an anti- Nazi ally though not a very good one and remains a curiosity more than anything else

---

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
awful yet fascinating, 1 May 2010

Author: suttonstreet-imbd from United States

An odd little movie. "Mission to Moscow" was brought to my attention by a BBC documentary on Stalin in the war years "WWI Behind Closed Doors". It describes the intense diplomatic efforts made by the allies during WWII to bring the Soviet Union into the war against Germany. Leaders in the West were willing to cast a blind eye to Soviet brutality and repression, including the massacre of Polish military officers at Katyn and the establishment of puppet governments in the territories they controlled, in order to keep them on the side of the West. This effort involved swaying public opinion in Western countries, and Joseph Davies' "Mission to Moscow" was cited as an example of this effort. There is an excellent article on Davies in Wikipedia, which describes how keen he was to see only the positive in the Soviet Union. Ironies abound in this film. Molotov appears as a kindly old professorial gent, Stalin is a hopeful visionary yearning for world peace. The glimpses of daily life in the Soviet Union include ice skating parties with piles of food, high fashion for the ladies, English-speaking railroad workers with nothing but love for their country, and American expatriates expressing admiration for the inventiveness of the Russian hosts they are there to help. In fact, while Davies was ambassador, a large number of American expats were being imprisoned by Stalin as counter-revolutionaries, despite having voluntarily emigrated to the Soviet Union to contribute to building a new society. Many petitioned the US Embassy to have their passports restored, and Davies refused to intervene. At one point, the US embassy staff in Moscow threatened to resign en masse. When Stalin consolidated power with the purges of his former associates in 1936 ~ 1938, Davies attended several of the show trials, and in "Mission to Moscow" he is shown nodding knowingly when Bukharin and the other defendants "confess" to their anti-Soviet activities and conspiratorial association with the now arch-enemy Trotsky. In the movie, Davies repeatedly insists that his mission is to see the **real** Soviet Union first-hand, yet in his visits were said to have been highly scripted and organized by the Soviet authorities. In retrospect, Davies comes off as a naïve fool, but seen in the larger context, perhaps someone a little more competent would not have been able to supplied the West with the kind of pro-Soviet view Davies could supply.

But let's put history aside for a moment. This is just a bad film. It is stilted, over-scripted, and whatever points it is trying to make are spoon-fed to the audience. Davies had control over the final script, and his scenes come off as highly self-serving: Davies warning of the dangers of war over the objections of more experienced statesmen, Davies being congratulated at every turn by one world leader after the next for his insight into the coming war in Europe. You know pretty much at the beginning of each scene what is going to unfold – a vacation with the family to get away from world affairs ends with a phone call from the White House, a meeting with senators expressing doubt about the strength of Germany will end with Davies convincing them with facts to the contrary. And Walter Huston is just overworked here – he has to carry virtually every scene, because really, Mission to Moscow is mostly about Davies himself.

A just plain awful movie and yet fascinating to watch, especially for a glimpse into this brief period of time when the US actually tried to like Stalin, and fascinating also for the fantasy views of Soviet life in the late 1930s. And particularly worthwhile if you also take the time to research the persons and events portrayed in the movie and juxtapose these against the events portrayed in Mission to Moscow. It is a very educational experience.

At the time I saw this movie, it was not available on DVD, but could be downloaded from the Warner Brothers movie archive.

---

---

Page 1 of 4:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history