A Baltimore sandwich shop employee becomes an overnight sensation when photographs he's taken of his weird family become the latest rage in the art world. The young man is called "Pecker" ... See full summary »
Few knew that Stalin spent his last night in the arms of a young Australian woman. Few still knew that their "love-child" brought Australia to the brink of civil war. Until now ... Written by
Hello, I support the opinion, that "Children of the Revolution" is a drama film - however interwoven with absurd and impossible situations. These do not make a comedy, no more than the scene of Stalin perfuming his underpants. The choice of Stalin as the leading theme seems to be rather arbitrary. It is certainly not a film against left politics. We see the Vietnam antiwar demonstrations, and an Australian secret agent admitting that he is used to liquidate communist agitators. And the dictators Stalin, Beria and Chrutschov remarkably enthuse over American music. Actually the film seems mainly concerned with unconditional faith, human wickedness and relational collusions. The viewer is constantly reminded that things are not what they seem. In this respect the film strongly reminded me of "The Truman story" - but perhaps this association is purely personal. If any, the theme of the film may be a satire on personal authority (on the other hand, in "The Truman story" it is the immersion in the community, with in the end Truman sailing away to freedom and loneliness). I will now summarize the story, which seems allowed since the films lacks a climax or the building up of suspense. However, if you dislike being given away the clues stop reading now. Jane has been brainwashed into an ardent communist by her father, and for the rest of her life remains stuck into this pattern. She marries a man who is apparently attracted to strong women and without proper will. Her son Joe develops an uncanny desire for imprisonment, and gets married to the cop who repeatedly arrested him. During the story it remains unclear who is the real father of Joe. The suspicion that it might be Stalin completely changes Joes character and behavior. As a union leader Joe succeeds in taking over the power and control of the police force. And with the possession of the legitimated force, he gains control over the state. Eventually his mother brings about his fall after revealing to the public the name of his professed father (Stalin). Subsequently she is murdered by what seems to be an Australian fascist, and Joe is once again imprisoned. This final incident would signal that people are commonly held accountable for their parents deeds. I must admit that this unraveling puzzles me, since an obvious connection to the preceding events appears to be absent. This lack of coherence may be due to an unwise attempt to extend the film message, and thus a neglect of focus. It could be called a qualitative weakness of the film, but perhaps I am wrong and I welcome other explanations. Any way, basically the overall aim must have been to reveal the idiocy of unconditional authority, irrespective of its source, either family, communism, fascism or perhaps religion (with Jane as both the virgin mother and Judas). It rattles the belief in mans good nature, and urges to persevere in free and independent thought. Being a fan of realism, for me it was an interesting sidestep but not really my cup of tea. Sincerely yours, Emil Bakkum
1 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?