A Personal Introduction to a Master
The first time I watched “The Cranes Are Flying,” I was unprepared for what Soviet cinema could achieve. My knowledge of Soviet film had been limited to Eisenstein’s montage theories and perhaps Tarkovsky’s philosophical meditations. But Mikhail Kalatozov’s 1957 masterpiece shattered my preconceptions with its opening sequence—that breathtaking tracking shot following Veronika and Boris through the Moscow streets, the camera seemingly drunk on young love, weaving between birch trees as if it too were rushing to embrace them. This was not the Soviet cinema of ideological rigidity I had imagined. This was pure cinematic poetry.
Mikhail Kalatozov (1903-1973) remains one of the most visually innovative directors in cinema history, yet his name is criminally absent from many discussions of great filmmakers. Perhaps this is because his career spans such a complex period of Soviet history, or because his most celebrated works were produced during a brief window when Soviet cinema briefly opened itself to formal experimentation. Whatever the reason, any serious study of cinematic technique—of what a camera can do when liberated from conventional grammar—must reckon with Kalatozov’s revolutionary approach to moving images.
The Georgian Foundation
Born Mikheil Kalatozishvili in Tiflis (now Tbilisi), Georgia, Kalatozov came of age during the tumultuous early Soviet period. His Georgian heritage is crucial to understanding his sensibility; Georgian culture maintained a distinct artistic tradition even within the Soviet system, one that valued emotional intensity and lyrical expression. This would later manifest in his films’ unabashed romanticism and visual poetry—qualities that could have been dismissed as bourgeois sentimentality in stricter ideological climates.
Kalatozov’s entry into cinema came through the technical side; he worked as an actor and cinematographer before directing his first film, “Salt for Svanetia” (1930). This early documentary already demonstrated his eye for striking imagery and his willingness to push technical boundaries. Shot in the remote Svanetian region of Georgia, the film combined ethnographic interest with political messaging—it depicted the harsh lives of mountain people before Soviet modernization—but what lingers in memory are its stark, geometric compositions and the way Kalatozov captured the severe beauty of the Caucasus landscape.
The Long Road to International Recognition
The 1930s and 1940s were difficult decades for Soviet artists. The consolidation of Stalinist cultural policy meant increasing restrictions on formal experimentation, and many of Kalatozov’s projects during this period were conventional by his later standards. Films like “The Nail in the Boot” (1932) and “Courage” (1939) showed technical competence but little of the visual daring that would later define his work.
What sustained Kalatozov through these years was his partnership with cinematographer Sergei Urusevsky, which began in the early 1950s. This collaboration would prove to be one of the most fruitful director-cinematographer relationships in cinema history, comparable to Hitchcock and Robert Burks, or Kurosawa and Asakazu Nakai. Urusevsky shared Kalatozov’s ambition to break free from static, theatrical filming and to make the camera itself a dynamic participant in the drama.
The Cranes Are Flying: Soviet Cinema’s Romantic Revolution
When “The Cranes Are Flying” (Letyat zhuravli) premiered at the 1957 Cannes Film Festival, it shocked the international film community. Here was a Soviet film that won the Palme d’Or not through political messaging but through sheer cinematic virtuosity. The Khrushchev Thaw had created a brief window of artistic freedom, and Kalatozov seized it with both hands.
The film tells a straightforward story: during World War II, Boris volunteers for the front, leaving behind his beloved Veronika. He dies in battle while she, devastated and vulnerable, is coerced into marrying his cousin Mark, who has used family connections to avoid combat. The narrative follows Veronika’s psychological disintegration and eventual redemption as she welcomes home returning soldiers, finally accepting Boris’s death.
But to describe the plot is to miss everything that makes this film extraordinary. Kalatozov and Urusevsky approached the material as if they were inventing cinema anew. The famous scene of Boris’s death remains one of the most stunning sequences I’ve ever witnessed. As Boris falls, shot by a sniper, the camera tilts up toward the sky, and we see birch trees spinning vertiginously overhead, their branches reaching toward heaven as if in supplication. It’s a subjective shot that puts us inside Boris’s dying consciousness, a moment of formal audacity that would have been unthinkable in earlier Soviet cinema.
Throughout the film, Kalatozov employs techniques that were revolutionary for 1957: handheld camerawork that follows characters through crowded spaces with balletic fluidity; extreme camera angles that externalize psychological states; rapid tracking shots that build emotional momentum. The scene of Veronika running through the streets after missing Boris’s departure is a masterclass in kinetic cinema—the camera rushes alongside her, creating a visceral sense of panic and desperation.
What struck me most on repeated viewings is how Kalatozov uses these techniques not as mere stylistic flourishes but as vehicles for emotional truth. The subjective camera doesn’t distance us from the characters; it draws us deeper into their inner lives. When Veronika is assaulted by Mark during a bombing raid—the camera lurching and spinning in the darkness—we experience her violation and disorientation directly. This is cinema that understands how form and content can achieve perfect unity.
The film’s treatment of wartime sacrifice also represented something new in Soviet cinema. While it honored the heroism of soldiers, it also acknowledged the devastating human cost of war, particularly for those left behind. Veronika is not a model of stoic Soviet womanhood but a deeply flawed human being whose weakness and subsequent suffering feel achingly real. The film’s humanism transcended propaganda, which is partly why it resonated with international audiences.
The Letter That Was Never Sent: Pushing Further into Visual Extremity
If “The Cranes Are Flying” announced Kalatozov’s genius to the world, “The Letter That Was Never Sent” (Neotpravlennoye pismo, 1959) confirmed that his innovations were no accident. This film goes even further in its visual experimentation, creating what might be the most purely cinematic work of Kalatozov’s career.
The story follows four Soviet geologists searching for diamonds in the Siberian wilderness. When they finally discover a rich deposit, a forest fire traps them, leading to a desperate struggle for survival. The film is structured around a letter the expedition leader writes to his wife, a letter she will never receive because he dies before rescue arrives.
What makes this film so extraordinary is its commitment to pure visual storytelling. Long stretches unfold without dialogue, relying entirely on Urusevsky’s astonishing cinematography to convey the characters’ emotional and physical journey. The camera performs impossibly complex movements—swooping down from helicopter shots, pushing through burning forests, tilting at extreme angles to convey the disorientation of the lost geologists.
There’s a sequence where the camera follows a character through a burning forest, flames licking at the lens, smoke obscuring and revealing the frame in rhythmic patterns. How did they protect the camera? How did they choreograph such complex movements through such dangerous terrain? The technical challenges must have been immense, yet the result feels effortless, as if the camera were a spirit moving through this landscape of fire and ice.
The film also represents Kalatozov’s most abstract work. While it ostensibly celebrates Soviet determination and the conquest of nature for state purposes, the overwhelming impression is of human insignificance against elemental forces. The vast landscapes dwarf the characters; their struggle, though heroic, seems almost futile against the scale of the Siberian wilderness. This ambiguity—this sense that nature might be indifferent to human projects, even Soviet ones—gives the film a complexity that transcends its ideological framework.
I Am Cuba: The Rediscovered Masterpiece
No discussion of Kalatozov can avoid “I Am Cuba” (Soy Cuba, 1964), the film that destroyed his career before redeeming his reputation decades later. This Soviet-Cuban co-production was intended as pro-Castro propaganda, depicting the conditions that led to the Cuban Revolution. It was rejected by both Soviet and Cuban audiences upon release—too stylized for Soviets, too Soviet for Cubans—and Kalatozov never recovered from its failure.
But when American directors Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola championed the film’s re-release in the 1990s, it was recognized as one of cinema’s most visually audacious works. I first saw it during this revival, and I remember the collective gasp in the theater during the now-famous rooftop shot—a four-minute unbroken take that descends from a rooftop party, follows a woman as she walks through the building, emerges onto the street, enters a swimming pool area, and finally plunges beneath the water. The logistics alone defy comprehension. How did they protect the camera during the underwater transition? How did they light this enormous space to maintain exposure throughout? How did they choreograph dozens of extras to hit their marks perfectly in a single, unrepeatable take?
“I Am Cuba” is structured as a series of vignettes illustrating Cuban oppression under Batista, each one pushed to almost hallucinatory visual extremes. Kalatozov shoots sugarcane fields like abstract patterns, uses extreme wide-angle lenses that distort space into expressionist dreamscapes, and employs his signature long takes to create sequences of almost unbearable intensity.
The film’s failure is understandable; it’s overwhelming, excessive, almost too much. Every frame is composed like a masterwork painting, every camera movement is a virtuoso performance. There’s barely room to breathe. But this maximalism is also what makes it endlessly fascinating. “I Am Cuba” pushes Kalatozov’s techniques to their absolute limit, showing us both the heights of what’s possible with a moving camera and perhaps the point where technique threatens to overwhelm content.
What’s particularly striking is how Kalatozov maintains this visual intensity across a two-and-a-half-hour runtime. Lesser directors would have exhausted themselves after one or two setpieces, but Kalatozov sustains this fever pitch throughout. It’s simultaneously his most accomplished work and his most frustrating—a film that demands to be admired even when it resists being loved.
Technical Innovation and Philosophical Vision
To truly appreciate Kalatozov, one must understand the technical innovations he and Urusevsky pioneered. They used wide-angle lenses more extremely than almost any directors of their era, creating distorted perspectives that made spaces feel simultaneously vast and claustrophobic. They mounted cameras on motorcycles, attached them to cables for aerial movements, and constructed elaborate rigs for the extended tracking shots that became Kalatozov’s signature.
But technique alone doesn’t explain Kalatozov’s achievement. Many directors have impressive technical facilities without creating meaningful art. What distinguishes Kalatozov is his philosophical commitment to cinema as a medium that operates beyond language. His films argue that certain truths—emotional, psychological, existential—can only be conveyed through moving images, that the camera’s motion through space can express things words cannot.
This is why his films often feel more like visual music than conventional narrative. They have rhythm, tempo, crescendos, and diminuendos. The camera’s movements create patterns that operate on viewers at a pre-cognitive level, bypassing rational analysis to access something more primal. When the camera spins in “The Cranes Are Flying,” we don’t think “this represents disorientation”—we feel disoriented. The form becomes the content.
The Soviet Context and International Influence
Understanding Kalatozov requires understanding the paradoxes of Soviet cinema. The Soviet system imposed strict ideological controls on filmmakers, yet it also provided resources that few Western directors could access. When the state supported a project, directors like Kalatozov could afford elaborate set pieces, thousands of extras, months of location shooting, and experimental techniques that might not survive Hollywood’s commercial pressures.
This paradox produced a strange freedom within restriction. Kalatozov had to serve ideological purposes—his films needed to align with Soviet values—but within those parameters, he could push formal boundaries in ways that would have seemed financially irresponsible in capitalist film industries. “I Am Cuba” could never have been made in Hollywood; no studio would have funded such visual excess without guarantee of commercial return.
Kalatozov’s influence on international cinema has been profound, if often unacknowledged. You can see his impact in the work of directors as diverse as Terrence Malick, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Alfonso Cuarón. The long takes in “Children of Men,” the roving camera in “The Tree of Life,” the fluid movements through space in “Boogie Nights”—all owe something to Kalatozov’s pioneering work.
Contemporary music video directors and commercials cinematographers have particularly absorbed his techniques. The flashy camera movements that define much modern visual culture trace a lineage back to Kalatozov and Urusevsky’s experiments. Of course, these descendants often use his techniques as empty style, divorced from the emotional and philosophical purposes he served. But this is the fate of all innovators—to be imitated until innovation becomes convention.
Later Career and Diminished Opportunities
After the failure of “I Am Cuba,” Kalatozov’s career essentially ended. He made a few more films, including “The Red Tent” (1969), an Italian-Soviet co-production about a polar expedition, but none achieved the visual heights of his earlier masterworks. The Soviet film industry moved in different directions during the 1960s, favoring more conventional narratives, and Kalatozov’s maximalist style fell out of favor.
There’s something tragic about an artist whose innovations are rejected by their own culture, only to be vindicated decades later by foreign admirers. Kalatozov died in 1973 without knowing that his films would eventually be recognized as groundbreaking achievements. He spent his final years marginalized, his greatest works dismissed as excessive formalism by Soviet critics and unknown to Western audiences.
Why Kalatozov Matters Today
In our current moment, when digital technology makes complex camera movements easier than ever, Kalatozov’s work reminds us that technical facility means nothing without vision. The fact that he and Urusevsky achieved their effects with primitive equipment, enormous physical effort, and meticulous planning makes their accomplishment all the more remarkable. They couldn’t rely on Steadicams, drone cameras, or CGI—every movement had to be engineered from scratch, every shot carefully choreographed.
But more importantly, Kalatozov’s films demonstrate cinema’s unique capacity to externalize interior life. His camera movements aren’t just impressive; they’re meaningful. They show us that form and content are inseparable, that how we see a story is as important as what we see.
For contemporary filmmakers drowning in options—infinite digital effects, every conceivable camera movement now possible—Kalatozov’s discipline offers a valuable lesson. He pushed technical boundaries in service of emotional truth, never using a technique simply because he could but because it expressed something that could be expressed no other way.
A Personal Coda
I return to Kalatozov’s films regularly, and they never exhaust themselves. Each viewing reveals new subtleties, new relationships between camera movement and character psychology, new ways that visual rhythm can create meaning. “The Cranes Are Flying” still makes me weep, not through manipulative scoring or melodramatic acting but through the pure language of cinema—the movement of bodies through space, the play of light and shadow, the camera’s loving attention to human faces caught in moments of joy and devastation.
Mikhail Kalatozov deserves recognition alongside Eisenstein, Vertov, and Tarkovsky in the pantheon of Soviet cinema masters. His films prove that even within a restrictive system, even when serving ideological purposes, true artists can create works of genuine humanity and formal brilliance. They remind us why we love cinema—not for its ability to tell stories, which other media can do equally well, but for its unique capacity to make visible the invisible, to capture in movement and light those aspects of human experience that resist words.
If you haven’t experienced Kalatozov’s work, I envy you the discovery ahead. Start with “The Cranes Are Flying,” let it transport you, and then follow this remarkable director through his brief, brilliant period of peak creativity. You’ll never look at cinema the same way again.
Pingback: Sergei Urusevsky: The Visionary Lens of Soviet Cinema - deepkino.com