How Were Brezhnev’s Policies Reflected on Television?
The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! made in 1975, demonstrates the continuous influence of the Soviet period on contemporary Russia. This two-part television special produced by Mosfilms is a yearly viewing tradition, a joyous indoctrination tool used even today (reaching around 4.7 million viewers on the Mosfilms official YouTube Chanel). The film uses a romantic comedy structure where two unexpected worlds meet, struggle, and love, all around New Year’s Eve. Set and televised during the Brezhnev era, the film focuses on aspects of the regime’s social and political structures, and how attempts to strengthen the country’s weakened economy impacted the lives of people in urban centers (Hosking 300). Although the film borrows from screwball comedy, its ultimate message remains uniquely tailored to the Soviet Union: no matter the sameness that has been imposed by the regime, we are fundamentally individuals, not at all interchangeable agents of the state. Made only a few years before Brezhnev’s death, The Irony of Fate humorously skewers the regime in a not too-concealed debate over whether policy was serving the people.
The story centers on Zhenya (Andrei Myagkov) an awkward doctor in Moscow, who, prior to proposing to his girlfriend Galya (Olga Naumenko) celebrates with his friends, gets drunk and, with the help of his equally drunken friends, mistakenly flies to Leningrad on the day he was to propose. Using his address (“Construction Workers’ Street”) apartment number and key, the intoxicated Zhenya enters the equivalent of his apartment in another city. There is nothing of note in the new apartment that alerts Zheyna to his mistake. Naturally, when apartment owner Nadya (Barbara Brylska) appears, her repeated attempts to remove Zheyna are futile. In a farcical series of actions, it proves impossible to get rid of Zheyna, and he succeeds at completely infuriating both Nadya’s and his own fiancé. In the chaos, Zheyna and Nadya are stucktogether, and as in any good “rom-com,” they fall in love, demonstrably more “right” for each other than their respective fiancés. A happy ending is achieved because, in this circular structure, Nadya can find Zheyna in Moscow – he has the same address she has in Leningrad.
It is the sameness of the apartments and even the sameness of the drab, ill-planned and uniform public architecture of the Brezhnev era that plays an integral role as both setting and subplot for the film. From the mid-1950s through the late 1980s the Soviet government erected thousands of pre- fabricated concrete complexes to standardize living facilities. They came to dominate the landscape across the nation, and took on political significance as a visible example of the failure of the State’s centralized planning to redress economic stagnation (Alexseev, "The Houses that Khruschev and Brezhnev Built," ponarseurasia.org). The film uses these changes in Brezhnev’s economic policies as a plot tool rather than as direct satirical swipe against the USSR or Brezhnev. The government, as in the majority of socialist films, is depicted as an invisible force, making policy but never directly questioned or made fun of by the people, ironically contradicting the Marxist tenets that supposedly underlay Soviet government policy. However, Irony of Fate's allusions to identifiable outgrowths of Brezhnev era policy, such as the return to central planning and the resultant shortage of consumer goods are unmistakable (Hosking 302).
The opening sequence of the film provides the most direct evidence of the political and social changes of the era. Animation provides a quality of fantasy: the government is the visible hand behind decisions, inserting red tape into every decision and rejecting neoclassical structures (which presumably have some aesthetic grace and singularity) in favor of the approved concrete-like boxes. It provides the only direct assault on the standardization policies, but couches them in the playfulness of the animation. The sequence shows the building in different environments, such as the desert or snow. This can be read two ways: the government’s misguided attempts to create a homogenized nation, regardless of region or tradition and a jab at the ideals of state socialism as an
international cause, which suffered the same flaw of putting policy over individuals. The dilemma would have been familiar to viewers. During the Khrushchev era, the Soviet government implemented an action program to de-Stalinize countries in order to promote a more united international state socialist vision. The plans included construction of utilitarian buildings, considered “utopic” in their conformity, serving to reinforce a vision of a communist solidarity, as well as pragmatically housing people, which was needed to stabilize
the various states. The ultimate aim was to ward off disaffection and the rise of dissident parties. Following on the heels of the Khrushchev era, Brezhnev reinstated central planning, and with it, a continued (perhaps worse) centralized architectural scheme. As Joseph Giovannini of The New York Times stated in 1989, “[with] the stagnation within the stagnation of the Brezhnev era, there was a lack of creativity and truth within the architecture... The struggle in a centrally planed economy is that the government can control what they wanted architects to design and where ... The debate in designing a utopia in a totalitarian state made it impossible to ever get the balance between the revolution in the new hierarchal urban classes and how to be creative in a oppressive environment" (Giovannini, "A Funny Thing Happened to Soviet Architecture," The New York Times, 28). This lack of creativity in an oppressive propagandist based environment is loudly made fun of throughout the animation. In the animation sequence, the music is very Russian and nationalistic, and the building that parades around the central everyman figure illustrates the theoretical (but unrealized) importance of the continuous revolution in the USSR. The scene uses the animated figure to literally illustrate a quality of interaction between the citizens and their government that was impossible in real life. The ending of the clip shows, through its depiction of the building hovering over the world, a tongue-in-cheek version of state socialist pride
dominating parts of the world. This latter concept is ironic since a rebellion against this ideology was beginning to emerge in the cinematic, labor, political (conflicting ideals) and cultural forces parts within countries like the GDR and ČSSR (Hosking 310). Having established the political background for the action, the actual story takes advantage of the fantastical sequence by showing the reality of the urban landscape. Brezhnev’s desire for better utilitarian buildings to support the rising population of a professional class within the urban environment was
clearly an aesthetic and practical flop for the recipients.
Both characters are archetypes of the professional class, and the film adheres to this archetype; Zenya and Nadya, are a doctor and teacher, respectively. As the film switches from animation to live action, the audience sees the all-too familiar utilitarian apartments they inhabit. It is the basis of the joke: even though both characters come from different parts of the country, their apartments are nearly identical in terms interior and exterior - layout, furnishings, etc. This massive increase in housing started in 1950 in response to the need to support the demands of a growing population (Hosking 317). In addition to the political needs for standardization stretching across the Eastern bloc, (discussed above) the stagnant economy played a factor in the drive to build. Building supports full employment within the non-professional class. Building between 1970-1975 under the 9th five-year plan was at its peak in Russia (Hosking 526-528). The call for supporting the rising professional urban class had its ironic answer in the soulless, shoddy utilitarian buildings. Even in the live action bulk of the movie, it exploits the disaffection for this type of uniformity, bluntly mentioning thestandardization of interior design and furnishings but ultimately, using the unpopular policy as a foil to the people within the buildings.
Zenya and Nadya, are products of Brezhnev’s and his predecessors’ drive to create a new generation of professionals. Under the Thaw, progressive education began to play a larger role in Soviet life, as distinct from the Stalinist emphasis on the practical. The arts and specialized areas in education were evolving in the 60’s. An increasing proportion of citizens were able to pursue secondary and higher education, showing the impact of: a) Stalin’s pursuit for countrywide literacy and, b) Post-Stalinist liberation of educational opportunities. Given the new societal tilt toward urban professionalism mentioned above, it is not surprising that as a matter of Soviet pride and archetypal familiarity, the protagonists and secondary characters are drawn from within this recognizable set. The film uses this newer generation of citizens to help build its story. It is of note that while the film acknowledges the educational/urban progress of the Stalinist and post-Stalinist years, the Brezhnev years marked a return to a period of artistic limitation (Giovannini) and this may have contributed to the choice of animation to create a marked playful contrast to the more realistic depictions of urban life.
The film also acknowledges other changes in urban life that came with the post-Stalinist reforms. With loosened restrictions on divorce in 1965, there was a concomitant rise in casual relationships in the USSR (Hosking 320) and clearly contemplated by Irony of Fate. Although the film centers on people who are engaged, the new freedom in relationship is demonstrated in the dance scene. They fall into each other’s arm and sway, an action that would have been unacceptable for otherwise engaged people in traditional Russia. In a nod to older values, Zhenya and Nadya are falling in love in the scene – which makes their actions acceptable and serves the plot. The changes in the way relationships emerged post-reform, however, was unsettling to the urban population. Throughout the film both characters talk about being middle-aged and their struggle to find a perfect match.
As in any romantic comedy, the film is devoted the unlikeliness of the developing relationship. In reality, relationships in the USSR developed primarily between people meeting within the same social/educational class. Even with the Soviet Union’s pursuit of more broadly available education, social mobility remained limited due to the inconsistency of educational opportunities within the country and university admission policies. Theoretically, couples should be “like meets like,” as typified in the glimpses we get of the original couplings in The Irony of Fate. Fate, the audience would recognize, meant something intervened, so that you did not marry your geographic, economic doppelganger. It is the emotional, personal mirror of the central planning and architectural uniformity imposed by government policy – it is the peculiarity of the personal.
Government policy also tried to engineer relationships to suit both the Socialist and economic needs of the State. In the 1970 census, 86% of women in the USSR had a full or part-time job (Hosking 315). Yet, a major pay and responsibility gap between the sexes was a reality despite Marxist-based ideological and policy drives for gender and pay equality across the nations’s entire sphere of influence. In the Soviet Union of the 1970s, progress for women was incremental. The movie shows Nadya not at work, but preparing her apartment for her boyfriend, including cooking and cleaning, demonstrating the struggle between the new reality and traditionalism in the USSR. As Nadya and Zhenya fall in love, the film begins to address these issues in a casual manner - both of them are bad at cooking. However, traditional Russian gender roles are shifting: he is in the kitchen, if inept, and she is in the kitchen, with almost an almost equal lack of success. It is a humorous wink at progress, and simultaneously serves the point of the love story – they are compatible.
The film also touches on other problems familiar to its intended audience. Alcoholism plays a major factor within the film and in USSR society. From the start of the journey, the casual over-consumption of alcohol and the culture around it are the animating event for the narrative, and could easily have led to disaster. Given the comic nature of the film, the consumption of alcohol is treated lightly, and in the guise of celebration. Nevertheless, the mistaken flight and Zhenya’s inability to identify his building rest on his compromised mental capacity. Later, as his relationship and romantic interests develop, alcohol is an element of romance. Further, when Nadya’s friends come to meet her so-called fiancée (Zhenya pretends to be her boyfriend), they drink in celebration, a concerted distraction effort by Nadya as the apartment is crawling with evidence of her actual boyfriend. In reality though, alcoholism was at an extremely high number throughout the USSR in response to the social and economic conditions (Hosking 338). This was openly acknowledged at the time, and attributed to failing economic conditions (as well as the long standing Russian tradition) and failing social conditions in work and home (social welfare payments were increasing and at its highest in 1986). 13 In the telefilm, allusions to alcoholism are one of the few openly anti-government messages, but covered with enough humor to make the drinking socially incorrect, but not politically incorrect. These types of issues made Soviets desire a change of leadership to someone with new ideas to tackle the epidemic (Hosking 528).
The Irony of Fate lays out the social changes within the urban USSR in the 1970s without directly mentioning the specificities in politics nor the key politician. The genre plays as a form of escapism, celebrating the successes of Brezhnev’s social, educational and economic policies, while addressing the key dissatisfactions and issues in a humorous animated sequence that tackles the effects of the ill-conceived policies. The escapism inherent to the screwball comedy format gave the director a lot of cover to reveal the problems of the era, while still appealing across generations and regions within the USSR. Still shown annually in Russia, Irony of Fate is an artifact of the life of a new social class in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The movie plays as a symbol of the Soviet ideal in the midst of international and domestic political struggles to stabilize the failing economy yet it is the characters and their exploits that command the center of the telefilm. Given the radical changes that would soon ensue in the Soviet Union, one could conclude that people and their love and laughter prevailed over policy, both in this popular cinematic moment and reality.
The story centers on Zhenya (Andrei Myagkov) an awkward doctor in Moscow, who, prior to proposing to his girlfriend Galya (Olga Naumenko) celebrates with his friends, gets drunk and, with the help of his equally drunken friends, mistakenly flies to Leningrad on the day he was to propose. Using his address (“Construction Workers’ Street”) apartment number and key, the intoxicated Zhenya enters the equivalent of his apartment in another city. There is nothing of note in the new apartment that alerts Zheyna to his mistake. Naturally, when apartment owner Nadya (Barbara Brylska) appears, her repeated attempts to remove Zheyna are futile. In a farcical series of actions, it proves impossible to get rid of Zheyna, and he succeeds at completely infuriating both Nadya’s and his own fiancé. In the chaos, Zheyna and Nadya are stucktogether, and as in any good “rom-com,” they fall in love, demonstrably more “right” for each other than their respective fiancés. A happy ending is achieved because, in this circular structure, Nadya can find Zheyna in Moscow – he has the same address she has in Leningrad.
It is the sameness of the apartments and even the sameness of the drab, ill-planned and uniform public architecture of the Brezhnev era that plays an integral role as both setting and subplot for the film. From the mid-1950s through the late 1980s the Soviet government erected thousands of pre- fabricated concrete complexes to standardize living facilities. They came to dominate the landscape across the nation, and took on political significance as a visible example of the failure of the State’s centralized planning to redress economic stagnation (Alexseev, "The Houses that Khruschev and Brezhnev Built," ponarseurasia.org). The film uses these changes in Brezhnev’s economic policies as a plot tool rather than as direct satirical swipe against the USSR or Brezhnev. The government, as in the majority of socialist films, is depicted as an invisible force, making policy but never directly questioned or made fun of by the people, ironically contradicting the Marxist tenets that supposedly underlay Soviet government policy. However, Irony of Fate's allusions to identifiable outgrowths of Brezhnev era policy, such as the return to central planning and the resultant shortage of consumer goods are unmistakable (Hosking 302).
The opening sequence of the film provides the most direct evidence of the political and social changes of the era. Animation provides a quality of fantasy: the government is the visible hand behind decisions, inserting red tape into every decision and rejecting neoclassical structures (which presumably have some aesthetic grace and singularity) in favor of the approved concrete-like boxes. It provides the only direct assault on the standardization policies, but couches them in the playfulness of the animation. The sequence shows the building in different environments, such as the desert or snow. This can be read two ways: the government’s misguided attempts to create a homogenized nation, regardless of region or tradition and a jab at the ideals of state socialism as an
international cause, which suffered the same flaw of putting policy over individuals. The dilemma would have been familiar to viewers. During the Khrushchev era, the Soviet government implemented an action program to de-Stalinize countries in order to promote a more united international state socialist vision. The plans included construction of utilitarian buildings, considered “utopic” in their conformity, serving to reinforce a vision of a communist solidarity, as well as pragmatically housing people, which was needed to stabilize
the various states. The ultimate aim was to ward off disaffection and the rise of dissident parties. Following on the heels of the Khrushchev era, Brezhnev reinstated central planning, and with it, a continued (perhaps worse) centralized architectural scheme. As Joseph Giovannini of The New York Times stated in 1989, “[with] the stagnation within the stagnation of the Brezhnev era, there was a lack of creativity and truth within the architecture... The struggle in a centrally planed economy is that the government can control what they wanted architects to design and where ... The debate in designing a utopia in a totalitarian state made it impossible to ever get the balance between the revolution in the new hierarchal urban classes and how to be creative in a oppressive environment" (Giovannini, "A Funny Thing Happened to Soviet Architecture," The New York Times, 28). This lack of creativity in an oppressive propagandist based environment is loudly made fun of throughout the animation. In the animation sequence, the music is very Russian and nationalistic, and the building that parades around the central everyman figure illustrates the theoretical (but unrealized) importance of the continuous revolution in the USSR. The scene uses the animated figure to literally illustrate a quality of interaction between the citizens and their government that was impossible in real life. The ending of the clip shows, through its depiction of the building hovering over the world, a tongue-in-cheek version of state socialist pride
dominating parts of the world. This latter concept is ironic since a rebellion against this ideology was beginning to emerge in the cinematic, labor, political (conflicting ideals) and cultural forces parts within countries like the GDR and ČSSR (Hosking 310). Having established the political background for the action, the actual story takes advantage of the fantastical sequence by showing the reality of the urban landscape. Brezhnev’s desire for better utilitarian buildings to support the rising population of a professional class within the urban environment was
clearly an aesthetic and practical flop for the recipients.
Both characters are archetypes of the professional class, and the film adheres to this archetype; Zenya and Nadya, are a doctor and teacher, respectively. As the film switches from animation to live action, the audience sees the all-too familiar utilitarian apartments they inhabit. It is the basis of the joke: even though both characters come from different parts of the country, their apartments are nearly identical in terms interior and exterior - layout, furnishings, etc. This massive increase in housing started in 1950 in response to the need to support the demands of a growing population (Hosking 317). In addition to the political needs for standardization stretching across the Eastern bloc, (discussed above) the stagnant economy played a factor in the drive to build. Building supports full employment within the non-professional class. Building between 1970-1975 under the 9th five-year plan was at its peak in Russia (Hosking 526-528). The call for supporting the rising professional urban class had its ironic answer in the soulless, shoddy utilitarian buildings. Even in the live action bulk of the movie, it exploits the disaffection for this type of uniformity, bluntly mentioning thestandardization of interior design and furnishings but ultimately, using the unpopular policy as a foil to the people within the buildings.
Zenya and Nadya, are products of Brezhnev’s and his predecessors’ drive to create a new generation of professionals. Under the Thaw, progressive education began to play a larger role in Soviet life, as distinct from the Stalinist emphasis on the practical. The arts and specialized areas in education were evolving in the 60’s. An increasing proportion of citizens were able to pursue secondary and higher education, showing the impact of: a) Stalin’s pursuit for countrywide literacy and, b) Post-Stalinist liberation of educational opportunities. Given the new societal tilt toward urban professionalism mentioned above, it is not surprising that as a matter of Soviet pride and archetypal familiarity, the protagonists and secondary characters are drawn from within this recognizable set. The film uses this newer generation of citizens to help build its story. It is of note that while the film acknowledges the educational/urban progress of the Stalinist and post-Stalinist years, the Brezhnev years marked a return to a period of artistic limitation (Giovannini) and this may have contributed to the choice of animation to create a marked playful contrast to the more realistic depictions of urban life.
The film also acknowledges other changes in urban life that came with the post-Stalinist reforms. With loosened restrictions on divorce in 1965, there was a concomitant rise in casual relationships in the USSR (Hosking 320) and clearly contemplated by Irony of Fate. Although the film centers on people who are engaged, the new freedom in relationship is demonstrated in the dance scene. They fall into each other’s arm and sway, an action that would have been unacceptable for otherwise engaged people in traditional Russia. In a nod to older values, Zhenya and Nadya are falling in love in the scene – which makes their actions acceptable and serves the plot. The changes in the way relationships emerged post-reform, however, was unsettling to the urban population. Throughout the film both characters talk about being middle-aged and their struggle to find a perfect match.
As in any romantic comedy, the film is devoted the unlikeliness of the developing relationship. In reality, relationships in the USSR developed primarily between people meeting within the same social/educational class. Even with the Soviet Union’s pursuit of more broadly available education, social mobility remained limited due to the inconsistency of educational opportunities within the country and university admission policies. Theoretically, couples should be “like meets like,” as typified in the glimpses we get of the original couplings in The Irony of Fate. Fate, the audience would recognize, meant something intervened, so that you did not marry your geographic, economic doppelganger. It is the emotional, personal mirror of the central planning and architectural uniformity imposed by government policy – it is the peculiarity of the personal.
Government policy also tried to engineer relationships to suit both the Socialist and economic needs of the State. In the 1970 census, 86% of women in the USSR had a full or part-time job (Hosking 315). Yet, a major pay and responsibility gap between the sexes was a reality despite Marxist-based ideological and policy drives for gender and pay equality across the nations’s entire sphere of influence. In the Soviet Union of the 1970s, progress for women was incremental. The movie shows Nadya not at work, but preparing her apartment for her boyfriend, including cooking and cleaning, demonstrating the struggle between the new reality and traditionalism in the USSR. As Nadya and Zhenya fall in love, the film begins to address these issues in a casual manner - both of them are bad at cooking. However, traditional Russian gender roles are shifting: he is in the kitchen, if inept, and she is in the kitchen, with almost an almost equal lack of success. It is a humorous wink at progress, and simultaneously serves the point of the love story – they are compatible.
The film also touches on other problems familiar to its intended audience. Alcoholism plays a major factor within the film and in USSR society. From the start of the journey, the casual over-consumption of alcohol and the culture around it are the animating event for the narrative, and could easily have led to disaster. Given the comic nature of the film, the consumption of alcohol is treated lightly, and in the guise of celebration. Nevertheless, the mistaken flight and Zhenya’s inability to identify his building rest on his compromised mental capacity. Later, as his relationship and romantic interests develop, alcohol is an element of romance. Further, when Nadya’s friends come to meet her so-called fiancée (Zhenya pretends to be her boyfriend), they drink in celebration, a concerted distraction effort by Nadya as the apartment is crawling with evidence of her actual boyfriend. In reality though, alcoholism was at an extremely high number throughout the USSR in response to the social and economic conditions (Hosking 338). This was openly acknowledged at the time, and attributed to failing economic conditions (as well as the long standing Russian tradition) and failing social conditions in work and home (social welfare payments were increasing and at its highest in 1986). 13 In the telefilm, allusions to alcoholism are one of the few openly anti-government messages, but covered with enough humor to make the drinking socially incorrect, but not politically incorrect. These types of issues made Soviets desire a change of leadership to someone with new ideas to tackle the epidemic (Hosking 528).
The Irony of Fate lays out the social changes within the urban USSR in the 1970s without directly mentioning the specificities in politics nor the key politician. The genre plays as a form of escapism, celebrating the successes of Brezhnev’s social, educational and economic policies, while addressing the key dissatisfactions and issues in a humorous animated sequence that tackles the effects of the ill-conceived policies. The escapism inherent to the screwball comedy format gave the director a lot of cover to reveal the problems of the era, while still appealing across generations and regions within the USSR. Still shown annually in Russia, Irony of Fate is an artifact of the life of a new social class in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The movie plays as a symbol of the Soviet ideal in the midst of international and domestic political struggles to stabilize the failing economy yet it is the characters and their exploits that command the center of the telefilm. Given the radical changes that would soon ensue in the Soviet Union, one could conclude that people and their love and laughter prevailed over policy, both in this popular cinematic moment and reality.
For a list of the sources referenced, check out our list of books here.