Showing posts with label Soviet montage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Soviet montage. Show all posts

Thursday, September 18, 2014

The Lady Vanishes (1938)





Hitchcock surrounding himself with beauty on the set of The Lady Vanishes, 1938




Hitchcock on the set with Dame May Whitty and Emile Boreo





Hitchcock on the set with Margaret Lockwood








Hitchcock with Margaret Lockwood







Hitchcock cameo









THE LADY VANISHES            A-                
Great Britain  (97 mi)  1938  d:  Alfred Hitchcock

I don’t see how a thing like cricket can make you forget seeing people.
—Charters (Basil Radford)

When one thinks of Hitchcock’s greatest films, they usually revolve around Shadow of a Doubt (1943), NOTORIOUS (1946), STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (1951), REAR WINDOW (1954), Vertigo (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), and Psycho (1960), where his British films rarely enter into the discussion.  British film critic David Thomson, for instance, acknowledges that “Hitchcock in England is a career unto itself,” but does not include any of the British films on his list of the director's greatest works.  David Denby writing for The New Yorker wrote, “In recent decades, critical consensus has settled on the American movies from the fifties.”  That means Dial M for Murder (1954), The Trouble With Harry (1955), The Wrong Man (1956), The Birds (1960), and even Rebecca (1940) are often mentioned before his British classics The Lodger (1927), Blackmail (1929), THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934), The 39 Steps (1935), Young and Innocent (1937), and what is arguably his most definitively British film, THE LADY VANISHES (1938).  Ironically the film originated with an American director, Roy William Neill, for a film called The Lost Lady, produced by Edward Black, where a crew was sent to former Yugoslavia for initial background shots, but the police interfered, thinking Yugoslavs were not being well-portrayed in the film, so they were booted out of the country.  A year later, Black offered the film to Hitchcock, which features an exquisite screenplay enhanced by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder, who turned it into one of his best British films. Hitchcock actually received a cable in the middle of shooting this film from producer David O. Selznick in America asking him to come to Hollywood to direct a picture and the rest is history.  Unlike Fritz Lang’s master criminal in his thrillers who has the capability to cloud other men’s minds through hypnosis and disguise, creating hallucinogenic qualities, Hitchcock often uses a luring spirit from beyond the grave, such as the ghostly presence of Rebecca (1940), or Madeleine/Carlotta in Vertigo (1958), Mrs. Bates in Psycho (1960), not to mention the lingering presence of the cadavers in ROPE (1948), REAR WINDOW (1954), and The Trouble With Harry (1955).  Meeting Hitchcock in Hollywood a few years after THE LADY VANISHES, British-American actor and film producer John Houseman found him to be “a man of exaggeratedly delicate sensibilities, marked by…the scars from a social system against which he was in perpetual revolt and which had left him suspicious and vulnerable, alternately docile and defiant.”  Hitchcock was born and raised in London, where according to author and academic Charles Barr in his Criterion essay, The Lady Vanishes: Tea and Treachery: 

The son of a tradesman, Hitchcock was exposed to the subtle brutalities of the English class system from an early age, both in his own education and as a precocious London theatergoer fascinated by the work of such anatomists of English society as Shaw and John Galsworthy.  Like any British filmmaker of the period, he could hardly have avoided class issues when he began as a director in 1926, and his films show a consistent sharpness in handling them, in particular the tensions created by relationships across a class divide, as in the silent films The Lodger (1927) and The Manxman (1929) and the early sound films Murder! (1930) and The Skin Game (1931).

While Hitchcock was a Londoner at heart, he was also European and cosmopolitan, traveling frequently whenever possible, influenced both by key elements within his national culture as well as formative cinematic influences from elsewhere, such as German expressionism, Hollywood cinema, and Soviet montage.  So it should perhaps come as no surprise that this film is a beautiful composite of these various cultural influences, adapted from the 1936 novel The Wheel Spins by Ethel Lina White, where the film is a romantic espionage thriller that was largely a metaphor for the peace that was about to vanish in Europe.  The film was made in the same year as Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement to Nazi Germany in the Munich Agreement, symbolizing the failure of the West to prevent the annexation and eventual occupation of Czechoslovakia which would be doomed to seven years of Nazi domination, but also Poland’s subsequent invasion in 1939, conditions that lead to the outbreak of World War II.  The film is set in the fictional mountains of an unnamed European country, where the trains have stopped running as an avalanche has stranded the mostly British characters in a picturesque mountain resort, introduced in near storybook fashion where the mountainous backdrop has obviously been artfully painted, while the initial shots zooming into the snowbound village, “one of Europe’s few undiscovered corners,” is clearly a miniature set, featuring toy trains, powdered snow, and frozen figurines, all adding a touch of playfulness.  While the early hotel scenes play out as a comedy of manners, a British comic farce with Hitchcock deriving pleasure at the misfortunes of the British travelers having to put up with the discomforts and confusions of life abroad, as the hotel is besieged by panicked customers who will need another night’s accommodations, the film is essentially a train journey of British passengers anxious to get home who form a microcosm of English society, all filmed in one train car (the rest were miniatures or artificially realized), where the audience becomes absorbed by the characters and the story.  Charters and Caldicott (Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne), are an amusing gay couple who represent the idle rich, the same ruling classes that are working to appease Hitler, where they are more worried about a cricket match than the concerns of others.  Stalled at the desk waiting for a room, they are appalled at the attention given to several spoiled and attractive young girls whose idea of wealth is marrying into it, somehow detesting this idea, as represented by the young and beautiful heroine, Iris Henderson (Margaret Lockwood), an heiress returning home to marry some fabulously wealthy, father-approved Lord who comes with a title and his own coat-of-arms, celebrating her last night with champagne.   

Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty) is the elderly, but surprisingly spry governess enthralled by the local music, and if you blink you’ll miss that the musician she is listening to on the streets below is snuffed out in an instant, unseen by anyone, adding a gripping element of terror to the nonstop comedy, where in this film Hitchcock cleverly disguises and prolongs the sense of urgency from an existing, though largely unseen danger that could threaten all their lives, yet the rising tension is balanced by breezy, lighthearted British comedy throughout.  Musicologist Gilbert, Michael Redgrave in his first starring role, rudely refuses to stop making plenty of racket in his room above Iris, where the two begin as arch enemies, bickering incessantly, though in that delightfully cultivated British sense of humor. Both Gilbert and Miss Froy are coy about their class status, neither one mentioning their past, though both are cultured and well educated.  Finally there is Mr. Todhunter (Cecil Parker), perhaps a lawyer of some sort and his attractive female companion, aka Mrs. Todhunter (Linden Travers), where both are probably cheating on their respective spouses and more concerned about not being detected.  Just before they board the train, Iris has just been hit over the head by a second story window planter that appears to have been intentionally dropped, though likely targeting someone else.  Miss Froy takes her under her wing and looks after her on the train, offering her some tea, the British cure for everything.  Falling asleep afterwards, by the time she awakes, Miss Froy has vanished.  Iris searches the train, but all the other passengers deny ever having seen her, while documents have apparently been forged by the wait staff to suggest Iris earlier had tea alone.  All of this is a growing mystery, where the only person to come to her aid is Gilbert, who feels it’s the only right and honorable thing to do, to help a lady in distress.  They  run into a brick wall, however, where some people have their own private reasons not to get involved, while others are secret collaborators in a Nazi spy ring, but Iris grows more hysterical by the minute, eventually pulling the lever to stop the train.  This draws the ire of most passengers, who begin to think of her as that crazy lady, where Paul Lukas, winner of the Academy Award for Best Actor for WATCH ON THE RHINE (1943), beating out Humphrey Bogart from CASABLANCA (1942), plays a seemingly compassionate brain surgeon Dr. Hartz who attributes the problem to the bump on her head, claiming it’s a very common Freudian symptom for those suffering from concussion-related hallucinations and offers to treat her at his clinic later that same evening. 

The viewer has every reason to believe Iris is going out of her mind, even though evidence seen with our own eyes suggests otherwise, where something sinister hangs in the air.  To unravel the mystery, they search every car and every compartment, where they even discover another woman dressed exactly like Miss Froy, which only adds to the intrigue.  It has the macabre underground atmosphere of Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet who specialize in the art of the double-cross, always meeting in secrecy while conducting shady business transactions, as there’s a cloud of suspicion hanging over everyone’s head.  By a process of elimination, they have only to confirm the identity of Dr. Hartz’s patient, whose face is wrapped in bandages, guarded by a Catholic nun (Catherine Lacy), reportedly deaf and dumb, though later we hear her speaking perfectly, actually changing sides and helping the British couple, a similar theme initiated earlier in Number Seventeen (1932).  A key clue gives the nun away, opening the door to new possibilities, actually saving their lives when the doctor, who turns out to be a cold-blooded Nazi agent, thinks the snooping team is getting too close, miraculously finding Miss Froy underneath all those bandages, while exchanging patients with the woman wearing her identical clothes, replacing the bandages over her face.  As the doctor gets off with his patient at his intended stop, however, he discovers something is amiss, where we see him speaking to various military officials.  While for a moment Miss Froy is free to breathe again, Gilbert makes an announcement to the British passengers in the train’s dining car just as they are having tea (of course) explaining the nefarious activities of the good doctor who attempted to kidnap Miss Froy, suggesting they all may be in trouble.  With this announcement, the dining car has been separated from the train and shifted to a side track, where it rolls to a stop in the middle of a forest.  Cars can be seen through the trees, along with Dr. Hartz and several military men, where the reaction of the group mimics the standard European reaction to the growing Nazi threat, suggesting things like this don’t happen, they seem like reasonable sorts, perhaps we could reason with them, where Todhunter proclaims with the same assurance as Mrs. Bundy (Ethel Griffies), the bird expert in The Birds (1960), “They can’t possibly do anything to us.  We’re British subjects.”  Leave it to the gayest character on the train, Caldicott, to retort, “Pacifist?  Won’t work.  Christians tried it and got thrown to the lions.”  But as the soldiers quickly advance with guns pointed, Gilbert fires at them before allowing armed men to take over the train.  Disregarding the warnings of others, Todhunter takes the appeasement route and declares, “This is madness, I’ll go out and speak to them,” but he’s shot on the spot, despite carrying a white handkerchief. 

There on that train, in the middle of some nameless forest, a firefight breaks out.  It’s only then that Miss Froy reminds them all, “You shouldn’t judge any country by its politics.  We English are quite honest by nature,” revealing she is carrying government secrets, which have been coded into a musical melody that she heard out her window that night, quickly teaching it to Gilbert before she escapes out the back way.  Leave it to the oldest among them to show her true colors, reminding the embattled group that it will take all of them to stand up to this fascist scourge.  Only by banding together, instead of meekly minding their own business, are they able to change the dark tide, but only through the self-sacrifice of the only working class Brit aboard, where no one in this group even recognizes a lower-class London accent, disguised earlier as the foreign nun, as she turns out to be a civilian Englishwoman that helps save the day.  This is a different kind of espionage film, unlike the gun-toting, misogynistic, martini-drinking James Bond films, as this represents a far more accurate portrayal of the enormous contribution made by female intelligence agents.  Bletchley Park where the Allies decrypted the Nazi codes during WW II was largely run by women, where Churchill referred to these invaluable women as being “the geese who laid the golden eggs, but did not cackle.”  American chef and television personality Julia Child worked for the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during the war, working directly for the head of OSS, General William J. Donovan.  In much the same way, Charters and Caldicott, the cricket obsessed gay Brits who are the most jovial couple in the film, rise to the occasion and prove to be patriotic Englishmen who do not hesitate to use force to defend themselves.  They clearly foreshadow the role of the great British mathematician Alan Turing, the subject of THE IMITATION GAME (2014), a brilliantly educated gay man who devised a number of groundbreaking techniques for breaking German codes.  Winston Churchill said Turing made the single biggest contribution to the Allied victory in the war against Nazi Germany.  Nonetheless, showing the depths of how depraved and empty-headed government cabinet ministers can be (a view likely shared by Hitchcock), Turing was prosecuted for homosexuality in 1952.  In something out of Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange (1971), as an alternative to prison, he accepted what amounts to chemical castration by taking female hormone injections, dying two years later from cyanide poisoning.  It took until 2009 for Prime Minister Gordon Brown to make an official government apology for “the appalling way he was treated.” The Queen also granted him a posthumous pardon in 2013.  Like Renoir’s RULES OF THE GAME (1939) made a year later, there’s a special significance for these films coming on the dawn of World War II, as they are, among other things, a prophetic commentary on the troubled times, anticipating the cataclysmic events to come, while also serving as a clarion call to arms against the forces of fascism. 

Note – The Hitchcock cameo comes at the 92-minute mark where Hitchcock, wearing a black coat and puffing on a cigarette, is seen walking on the platform of London’s Victoria Station as Iris and Gilbert are returning to the city.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Our Daily Bread (1934)


















OUR DAILY BREAD      B-              
USA  (80 mi)  1934  d:  King Vidor

“Inspired by Headlines of Today” reads the opening title screen, which gives one pause, begging the question, what headlines?  This is a Depression era film that plays to the pervading sense of hopelessness and desperation that was spreading across a panicked nation, where people’s lives were at an economic dead end, seemingly with no future.  While shown in a somewhat realistic manner, with a few exceptions, this film plays out more as social fantasy, a call to arms offering a utopian dream as a hopeful outlook for the otherwise grim prospects of the future, where the idea of pitching in and working together is reflective of the New Deal era ideal of getting people back to work, needing solutions to help recover from the economic collapse of the banks and major financial institutions, when the unemployment rate of the nation increased to 25%, where one-third of all employed persons were downgraded to working part-time on much smaller paychecks, and almost 50% of the nation's human work-power was going unused.  The plain truth of the matter is that people were desperate for jobs, any jobs, as at this point in history there was no national safety net in place, no insurance on lost savings accounts from failed banks, no unemployment insurance, no Social Security, no help for the poor, as legions of people lost their homes with conditions worsening year by year.  This film was made just after Franklin D. Roosevelt began serving his first term as U.S. President, March 4, 1933, where his first 100 days ushered in the New Deal legislation.  Influenced both by D.W. Griffith's realism and Sergei Eisenstein's montage aesthetic, King Vidor, from Galveston, Texas, shot local events for national newsreel companies before moving to Hollywood, becoming a company clerk for Universal, writing scripts under the pseudonym Charles K. Wallis, as employees weren’t allowed to submit original work to the studio, eventually founding “Vidor Village,” a small studio that imitated similar projects by Chaplin, Sennett, Griffith, Ince, and others, until he was eventually hired by Louis B. Mayer at what would eventually become MGM, where he worked for the next 20 years.  Vidor built a reputation for stylistic experimentation and uncompromising concern for social issues, where the struggle for individualism against the forces of nature or destiny became prominent themes. 

Written by the director and his wife Elizabeth Hill, Vidor had trouble getting backers for this film, as the major studios refused to finance it, making this an independent production that Vidor financed himself, eventually catching the eye and financial support of Charlie Chaplin at United Artists, a company ironically run as a cooperative by leading figures in early Hollywood seeking an outlet to distribute their own works.  Showing a certain amount of political naiveté, Vidor’s intent was to show how ordinary men alone can become extraordinary by working together in this socialist utopian agriculture melodrama that originated from a Reader’s Digest article, with added dialogue by Joseph L. Mankiewicz.  The film was made as a sequel to his earlier Silent film THE CROWD (1928), which presents the reactions of an everyman to the harsh and impersonal conditions of surviving in the city, where John and Mary Sims come to realize they are mere faces in an endless sea of humanity destined to live anonymous lives.  Following the same characters played by different actors, it is now the Great Depression, where John (Tom Keene) and Mary, Karen Morley, perhaps best remembered for her role as Poppy, the negligee wearing gun moll in Howard Hawks’ SCARFACE (1932), are a couple out of work and about to be thrown out of their apartment for nonpayment of rent.  With no prospects on the horizon, Mary’s wealthy uncle decides to offer them an abandoned farm that is about to be foreclosed by the government before he can make any use out of it.  Though John is a city boy with no farming experience, they head for the country and move to the farm, hoping they can live off the land until the economy improves.  Finding it harder than they realized, John welcomes a traveling couple fixing a flat in front of their home who happen to be immigrant farmers from Minnesota that just lost their farm, offering Chris (John Qualen), a happy go lucky Swede, a piece of land and a place to stay for free in exchange for his farming expertise.  In no time, John realizes how much could be accomplished with the addition of just a single man, who has to chuckle at John’s inexperience throwing away weeds that turn out to be carrots, imagining how much more work could be done if he added ten men, posting roadside advertising that eventually draws a crowd.  Unable to say no to anyone, he welcomes one and all, skilled and unskilled, so long as they put in a hard day’s work, creating a socialist farm commune where food, money, land, and expertise are shared collectively by one and all.  

The initial rush of enthusiasm, where everyone voluntarily pools their resources and John is elected leader of the group, is tempered by the youthful gee whiz mentality of their leader, which works fine in times of plenty, but serves no purpose whatsoever when they run out of money and food, where people’s spirits are already deflated, made even worse at the onset of drought.  In the face of ruinous conditions, who should drop in but a platinum blonde, Jean Harlow-style gangster’s moll, Sally (Barbara Pepper), who is welcomed like all the others, but refuses to do any work, and instead lies around in her furs listening to jazz records on her phonograph while also making eyes at the boss man, a relationship that is inferred rather than shown, but takes place right under the watchful eyes of Mary who is sorry she ever invited Sally into their home.  This sexual interlude is little more than an unnecessary distraction to the overall story, but was reputedly demanded by United Artists to sell tickets.  John is such a wide-eyed idealist filled with hopes and dreams, the idea that he’d want to run away with this floozy makes little sense, though the temptation of sin and the city parallels similar themes in F.W. Murnau’s masterwork SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS (1927), sending John running back to the farm with a brainstorm.  So long as they’ve got the pumps working in the nearby reservoir, and the collective has plenty of manpower, why don’t they dig a two-mile irrigation waterway to their dying crops?  This renewed enthusiasm is matched with Soviet montage filmmaking, showing beauty in the splendor of work, where in this stirring finale everyone digs to the rhythm of the music, becoming a poetic homage to socialist collectivism.  The film is reflective of a growing sentiment in the 30’s where people were inspired by the idea of men and women working together for the common good, an era when workers took advantage of their collective power, which is in stark contrast to today’s individualism where corporate power has isolated each worker, one from the other, which only contributes to a growing economic insecurity for those at the bottom of the wage scale.  Vidor was instrumental in founding the Directors Guild of America in 1936, becoming the initial President for two years, and alongside John Ford, Frank Capra, and Ernst Lubitsch, were central figures in 1930’s American cinema.  It should be noted that Vidor’s film won Moscow’s Lenin Film Festival prize, while Karen Morley, who played Mary, was later named by Sterling Hayden as a communist sympathizer and blacklisted, while Chaplin’s financing of the film was later used against him during the Red Scare of 1950’s McCarthyism when he was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee, but decided to leave the country permanently rather than testify.  Ironically, Vidor himself eventually became a conservative, while thirty years later peroxide blonde Barbara Pepper returned to the country way of living in the 1960’s television sitcom Green Acres (1965 – 71), playing Doris, the wife of Fred Ziffel (Hank Patterson).        

Sunday, February 17, 2013

China Express (Goluboy ekspress)

































CHINA EXPRESS (Goluboy ekspress)           B+                  
aka:  Blue Express
Russia  (62 mi)  1929  d:  Ilya Trauberg

It’s not often that you can see a film that advocates armed insurrection, but this is certainly one of them, the first feature film by Soviet filmmaker Ilya Trauberg who began as a film critic before venturing into making films.  His documentary LENINGRAD TODAY (1927) caught the eye of Sergei Eisenstein who hired him as an assistant on his 1928 film OCTOBER (TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD) commemorating the tenth anniversary of the October 1917 Revolution in which the Bolsheviks seized power, a film noted for using striking juxtapositions of symbols to comment on the events.  Cinema was still in its infancy during the 20’s when the new Soviet state headed by Vladimir Lenin understood the medium could be used to communicate with the masses, a position later copied by Joseph Stalin.  The State Film Institute in Moscow, aka VGIK, was established in 1919 to train a new generation of filmmakers, the oldest film school anywhere in the world, where Bolshevik Newsreels by Dziga Vertov were the major form of earliest Soviet cinema, but they also created agit-prop films where they attempted to educate the populace about the goals of Communism, using young emerging filmmakers to send the message.  Lev Kuleshov taught a promising group of film students in the early 20’s, including Vsevolod Pudovkin and Sergei Eisenstein, who then began their own filmmaking careers in the middle 20’s, where Eisenstein’s BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925) brought Russia international acclaim, heralding a new style of Soviet cinema, heavily propagandistic, preaching the party line about the virtues of a worker state, using shorter scenes, quick cuts, and a rapid-fire editing technique to produce a rhythmic style of accumulating dramatic tension, paying particular attention to close-ups in what became known as Soviet montage.  To illustrate the burgeoning industry, in 1923 the Soviets released just 38 feature films, but by 1928 that figure was up to 109.  As it turns out, the greatest creative achievements of the Silent era in Soviet cinema, where noted directors Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Dovzhenko, and Vertov produced their most acclaimed works, came from a brief period of film prosperity from the mid 20’s to the end of the decade.    

While CHINA EXPRESS is blatant propaganda, very much in the cutting edge style of early Soviet cinema, it begins with tugging sentiment, where the happy greeting of two Chinese brothers quickly turns to sorrow with the realization that their sister has been sold into servitude to a corrupt capitalist merchant who hideously treats her as his own property.  Both mired in poverty, neither can lift a finger to help the girl, who is forced to endure the cruel and degrading treatment of her new owner.  This sets the stage, and the train, in motion, becoming one of the earliest unstoppable train movies, like Buster Keaton’s THE GENERAL (1926), where nearly all the action takes place on the train, ultimately a coming of consciousness picture where people slowly rally to her defense, not just a young girl, but fighting for the plight of all exploited workers across the nation.  To make things easily understood, the coach fare is divided by social class, where first class contains the white European dignitaries and the wealthy Chinese aristocrats, second class contains the professionals and merchants, while third class are the poor and slaving workers.  Like POTEMKIN, there is an incendiary spark that produces instant outrage, when a pair of inebriated Englishmen decide to brutally molest the Chinese girl, threatening her with rape until her brother intervenes and kills one of the white men, which sends a shock wave into each coach.  The brother along with his rescued sister return to the protection of his Chinese comrades in third class, while first class erupts in enraged fury, immediately sending in armed troops to apprehend the offender.  But the Chinese passengers, a stand-in for the Russian masses, stick up for one another and rather than be shot down like dogs, decide to arm themselves with guns and ammunition from a munitions shipment on the train.  This is one of the few films you’ll ever see that encourages Asian minorities to arm themselves against the corrupt power of the white ruling class, who are guided by their deplorably racist intentions. 

Within the train itself, the spirit of revolution is in the air, with both sides armed to the teeth with plenty of innocent bystanders who just happen to be there.  The first wave of militia sent in are shot, so the imperialists and their bought-and-paid-for Chinese associates send an entire army to attack the coach class car which holds its position and refuses to be bullied by armed oppressors defending imperious white men who think they can rape Chinese girls with impunity.  With fighting inside and outside the train, with more offensives to gain control of the engine, and still more battles going on outside to control the railway switches, the train is a bloody battleground of the political ideologies of good and evil.  Featuring a steady stream of close-ups and nearly non-stop action, the film has been citied as the main inspiration of Josef von Sternberg’s SHANGHAI EXPRESS (1932), a film that helped transform a not-very-successful German actress into an international sex goddess, Marlene Dietrich as the world-weary courtesan Shanghai Lily, known in the film as the “White Flower of the Chinese coast.”  CHINA EXPRESS is hardly subtle, but it is notable for staging a worker’s revolt on a speeding, out of control train, where the train itself becomes synonymous with the fiery, yet unstoppable revolutionary movement surging across the lands of Mother Russia.  It’s a bit ironic, as the Chinese are depicted as a metaphor for the Russian people in the film, but seen some 80 years afterwards, the Russian Revolution fizzled out with glasnost and the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, unable to meet the needs of the extended empire, where the ideology of Communism never took root in the hearts and minds of its population, leading to severe economic stagnation, where the Soviet Union disintegrated into fifteen fiercely nationalistic separate countries that couldn’t wait to kick the Russians out.  On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party remains the founding and current ruling party of The People’s Republic of China, but has integrated capitalist measures into their overall Marxist social strategies, heading one of the strongest economies in the world, and by any measure remains one of the world powers.  If only they’d allow unfettered Internet access and expressions of dissent, perhaps the world would be a better place, but as is, the revolution remains a work in progress.