DbcultAccessing Vault...
Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator
To watch Khleb (1918) is to peer into the very furnace of cinematic history, where the molten ideology of the Bolsheviks was being forged into a new visual language. This isn't merely a film; it is a historical artifact of desperation. Released during the height of the Russian Civil War, a period where the ephemeral nature of film stock mirrored the fragility of human life, Khleb (Bread) serves as a utilitarian masterpiece. It operates on a frequency of raw necessity, stripping away the bourgeois fripperies found in contemporary Western productions like The Soul of Buddha or the melodramatic excesses of Life's Whirlpool.
The narrative arc is deceptively simple, yet it carries the weight of an entire empire's collapse. We are presented with the central problem of the 1918 Soviet reality: the city is starving, and the countryside is hoarding. The film chronicles the mobilization of the Red Guards and the urban workers as they venture into the rural heartlands to extract grain. In this context, bread is not just food; it is the physical manifestation of political legitimacy. The struggle for the loaf is the struggle for the soul of Russia. Unlike the moralistic fables of the era, such as The Pillory, Khleb replaces individual morality with collective destiny.
What elevates Khleb above standard agitprop is its staggering pedigree of talent. The cast list reads like a roll call of the Moscow Art Theatre’s elite. Leonid Leonidov, often cited as one of the greatest tragic actors of his generation, brings a gravitas to the screen that anchors the film’s more didactic moments. His performance is a study in restrained intensity, a far cry from the theatrical gesticulations common in films like The Deemster. But the real fascination lies in the presence of Yevgeni Vakhtangov. Vakhtangov, a visionary who would go on to redefine modern theater, uses his brief foray into cinema to experiment with presence and spatial dynamics.
We also witness early glimpses of Olga Baclanova, long before she became the 'Russian Tigress' of Hollywood and the centerpiece of Tod Browning’s Freaks. Here, she is stripped of the glamour seen in The City of Illusion, embodying instead the grit of the revolutionary woman. The inclusion of Richard Boleslawski is equally significant; his later career in America, directing films and teaching the 'System' to a new generation of actors, finds its humble, rugged roots in these grain-requisitioning scenes. The synergy between these titans creates a tension that transcends the film’s propagandistic intent.
The cinematography of Khleb is born of limitation. There is a jagged, almost violent quality to the editing. The film doesn't possess the polished continuity of Under Cover, but it gains a visceral authenticity because of it. The landscapes are desolate, the lighting is harsh, and the focus is often soft, yet the imagery of the endless wheat fields being harvested under the watchful eye of the bayonet is unforgettable. It captures a moment in time where the camera was a weapon, just as vital as the rifles carried by the protagonists.
While American films of the same year, such as Keep Moving or the lighthearted Two Little Imps, were perfecting the art of escapism, Khleb was leaning into the terrifying reality of the present. It shares a certain grim DNA with V ikh krovi my nepovinny, reflecting a society where the old world had been utterly incinerated, and the new one was being built on a foundation of hunger and iron will.
In the lexicon of early Soviet cinema, Khleb occupies a space of pure utility. It was designed to be shown on 'Agit-trains'—mobile cinemas that traveled to the front lines and deep into the provinces to educate the illiterate masses. This function dictates its form. The symbolism is overt: the kulak (wealthy peasant) is depicted as a bloated obstacle to progress, while the worker is a lean, forward-moving force of nature. This binary opposition is more pronounced than the subtle moral nuances found in Babbling Tongues or the domestic drama of Heart and Soul.
However, to dismiss it as mere propaganda is to ignore the artistic sincerity of its creators. The writers and directors (often working collectively in this era) were attempting to solve a semiotic puzzle: how do you represent 'The People' without falling into the trap of individual hero-worship? They found their answer in the collective action of the harvest. The choreography of the workers in the field anticipates the rhythmic montage that would later be perfected by Eisenstein and Pudovkin. In many ways, Khleb is the rough draft for The General Line.
Contrasting Khleb with Western wartime cinema like The Enemy or Draft 258 reveals a fundamental divergence in the purpose of the medium. While Hollywood was using the war to heighten personal stakes and romantic subplots, the Soviet filmmakers were using the war to dissolve the individual into the state. There is no romance in Khleb. There is only the furnace, the field, and the collective mouth. Even a film as culturally distinct as Cuauhtémoc, with its focus on national myth-building, feels more aligned with traditional storytelling than the radical abstraction of Khleb’s mission.
The film’s portrayal of the 'Princess of Patches' archetype—the impoverished but noble peasant girl—is handled with a lack of sentimentality that would be unrecognizable in a film like The Princess of Patches. In the Soviet eye, poverty is not a character trait to be pitied; it is a systemic failure to be corrected through revolution. This clinical approach to human suffering gives the film a modern, almost documentary-like edge that still resonates today.
Today, Khleb exists largely in the shadows of the giants that followed it. It is overshadowed by Battleship Potemkin and Man with a Movie Camera. Yet, it remains the essential preamble. It is the moment the Bolsheviks realized that to control the grain was to control the body, but to control the image was to control the mind. The performances of Vakhtangov and Leonidov provide a bridge between the psychological realism of the 19th-century stage and the kinetic energy of the 20th-century screen.
For the modern cinephile, Khleb is a challenging watch. It lacks the rhythmic grace of later silents and remains stubbornly tethered to its political moment. But for those interested in the genealogy of film as a social force, it is indispensable. It is the sound of a new world screaming its arrival, muffled only by the grinding of the flour mill and the silence of the black-and-white frame. It is a stark reminder that before cinema was an art, for some, it was a means of survival—as essential, and as basic, as bread itself.
IMDb —
1920
Community
Log in to comment.
