I just saw this 1965 classic-it is an all-time favorite of mine. The story was tragic, but the characters were real-and Julie Christie was so beautiful. The score by Maurice Jarre was as close to perfect as can be.
Now, I understand that the film was not released in Russia until years afterward…what did Russian audiences think of it-did they like it?
I keep checking back for tree puns. Yew guys are slipping. 
(Hee hee)
Anyway, FWIW , when I was on a river tour from Moscow to St. Petersburg , the ship played the movie in the room .
Stop being such a birch.
It was Oak Kay.
Wouldn’t beech have been more appropriate? I’ll leave you to pine over that.
Well, many Poplars are susceptible to borers and pasture nicks.
Ralph, the movie, although faithful to the novel’s plot, has depictions of several characters and events that are noticeably different. Overall though I believe the Russians were glad to see there was a new Sharif in town.
This may well prove to be the worst pun I hear all year…
Sorry, no jokes. I can’t compete.
I read somewhere (Hedrick Smith’s The Russians, maybe?), that Russian audiences generally liked the movie, but practically wet themselves laughing at a scene where the doctor is reunited with his parents — I think at a train station. Apparently, he shakes his father’s hand and kisses his mother on the cheek. Real Russians are much, much more effusive than that.
One factor that may have worked in the film’s favor is that the USSR only let in a couple of US movies a year. When I was there in early 1984, it was Tootsie and “Kramer Against Kramer.” Every single Russian I met had seen both movies and loved them. Yeah, they’re both good films. But I’m sure simply being American raised them up in the locals’ estimation.
I read once in Hedrick Smith’s Russians (1975) about a group of Russians who saw a private screening of Dr. Zhivago. They laughed out loud at the scene where Yuri greets his family on the train platform with smiles and handshakes, like an Englishman. Real Russians would be laughing and bear-hugging all around, they are emotionally unrestrained.
[late to the pun party]
it was pretty much pined
Acting was kinda wooden, though.
Well, it was only the rough cut…
Another thing he mentions is that the opening was inappropriate to them, looking like a film celebrating Soviet accomplishments with that damned dam. Of course, that’s precisely why that’s there in the first place – it sets the mood for Western filmgoers. But it didn’t work for the Russians.
I suspect that they would’ve been annoyed by the trimming of the narrative and the time given to many of the stories, although I haven’t encountered anyone saying that.
I was thinking about the characterization of the evil Strelnikov -he’s a dedicated communist, and also a soulless monster. He does experience a reawakening of his love for Lara-who killed him?
Zhivago’s half brother Yefgrav is a complex character-he has managed to stay alive in the Stalin era, and he risks his life to help Lara find her daughter-maybe he is so confident of his position, that he can take some risks?
I also wonder what Russian audiences would make of Komarovski-knowing that the revolution did business with such reactionary criminals-not good for the myth of selfless communism.
Of course, even after Kruschev’s denunciation of Stalin, who would know enough about what went on during the revolution, to have any sympathy for a character like the doctor/poet?
Well, I doubt the Western audiences for whom it was made knew much about that either.
You know, I heard that the film played to larch, enthusiastic audiences all across the country. People loved it.
It was on a different plane to previous movies, for sure.