Children of the Revolution (1996)

One of my all time favorites.

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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

When I saw this film in the TV listings, I thought "could be some good tack." It's much better than that. It starts off almost comedic like, culminating in Stalin singing. Then it enters into the emotional problems Anna has over killing Stalin. The film then focuses on her son Joe, and his problems in finding out he is the son of Stalin, and his gradual descent into Stalinism. The film serves as a warning against Stalinism, about how any abuse of power, no matter the end, is wrong. The interest is held with some superb acting by the cast and the idea of Stalin producing a child and "heir." The movie could use more of an ending, and it does treat itself as being "true" particularly at the end. Having said that this is well worth watching and I recommend it to anyone intrigued by Communism and Stalin.

While Judy Davis and Sam Neill give their usual fine performances, the script is so weak that the entire film crashes. It's supposed to be a chronicle of a wild-eyed Communist who has sex with Stalin and gives birth to an extremist who enjoys being handcuffed. Sight gags (walking into a tree) and silliness (Stalin's successors act up like the three stooges at his death) provide the only comic relief from this dreary tale that seems to go on for hours.

Brilliant performances from the whole cast set a unique story line ablaze with sparkling moments. Dark turns of plot are relieved by fascinating psycho-sexual revelations, and the whole effect is one of uplift as disaster is averted through enlightenment and personal sacrifice.