It's always interesting to see a work of fiction have sequences imagined by characters within the work itself, because it is an occasion to watch a story move along a sliding scale of "not real" to "also not real". "Aelita: queen of mars" is a movie outwardly comprised of two sections- the "real" parts on earth and the "fantasy" parts on mars. But of course the scenes on earth are just as much fantasy as the rest because of their very appearance in a fictional film. This imaginary line between the fake and the even more fake is especially carefully tread after our protagonist, Los, returns from his 6 months away from home. Los and his narcissistic fantasy (of the queen of mars becoming utterly infatuated with him) come crashing together after he shoots his wife. Or at least that is one perspective of the events, but stating that scenes up to that point were grounded in reality creates some incongruities.I do not believe that Los shot his wife, instead I think that that scene was also in his mind. His ability to accept and forget his wife's death goes against the jealous and insecure character we've seen from him. His attitude towards his wife's murder doesn't make sense unless it's in the context of the rest of his fantasy.There is an interesting dynamic between fantasy and reality throughout the film that is further emphasized by the over-acting in many of the scenes trying to be presented as real. The acting and the characters constantly give a jarring reminder to the audience that even in the 'real' scenes we are still watching a film, and unfortunately this hurts the experience. Other than the jumps between fantasy and reality, this movie is not very interesting and hard to watch.

Russian films from the era of Leninism, before the fall of the wall, continue to fascinate me. For that reason I bought the DVD Aelita, without really knowing the plot. At the time, IMDb was still a big unknown. How dumb can you be? Luckily, I gambled right, because Aelita is quite charming (although she appears to have three breasts). Let me give some, hopefully appetizing, comments. The film is produced during the first years of the Russian revolution, when there is some idealism left, and the Stalinist terror, dogmatism and censorship are yet in their infancy. The film even dares to advocate some freedom of speech. A second advantage is the absence of the adamant (= the very first insect) realism, that prevails in the documentary but terrible plots of Eisenstein (Strike, Potemkin). In fact the narrative is fairly subtle and multi-layered, with a realistic layer, a dramatic layer, and a fairy tale. In my humble opinion the realistic part is the most interesting. We witness the rising Soviet society, just after the civil war has essentially come to a conclusion. The soldiers return home, and life again takes its normal course. The Leninists and Soviet leaders begin to organize their new society. The planning starts with the distribution among the people of the production, for the time being in kind. It is still a diet, meaning die with a t, with insufficient proteins, meaning in favor of young people. The housing is reorganized, and the common people are lodged in the former gentleman's houses. It reminds of this other giant epos, Doctor Zhivago. The bourgeois and nobility are ostracized (reduced to the size of an ostrich), and mourn their lost wealth. In secret they try to continue their old way of living. Some of these former rich become engaged in illegal and even criminal activities. Money is not everything, but it keeps the kids in touch. Fortunately the main characters of Aelita are decent workers and engineers. The dramatic part shows the consequences of jealousy in a workers marriage. I am not an expert on the subject, but I suppose that this part intends to describe the evils of the bourgeois life style and morals. Eventually we learn, that this sad story line only exists in the imagination of our sympathetic "hero". Leninism is the catalyst (names of cows written in alphabetical order) of cooperation, honesty and trust. Finally, the fairy tale part is a parable of the proletarian revolution, but in an imaginary world. Here the revolution of the workers is led by a king, a bit like in "Metropolis" - indeed Aelita does not excel in originality. Since the workers do not make their own revolution, they become the victim of a bourgeois betrayal - unlike the Metropolis plot. They are just instrumental in a regime change in the bourgeois system itself. Obviously this is meant to be an arraignment (stormy weather). Fortunately in the end the main characters are lucky enough to find themselves back in the real Soviet world, miserable though it may be. What more do you want from a Leninist film? If you prefer modern versions of the Leninist ideology, I recommend "The Garage" or "Moscow doesn't believe in tears". In addition many of my reviews concern Leninist films from East-Germany. Oh and unless you are totally bored, don't forget to check off "useful: yes".

After TRIP TO THE MOON (1902), only HIMMELSKIBET (1918) and FRAU IM MOND (1928) are the only titles, along with AELITA (1924) in the silent science fiction section of my video library.Aelita (Yuliya Solntseva) is a Frida Kahlo-like queen from Mars with unibrow and spectacular costumes! I am not sure she had 4 breasts, but one of the outfits did actually have 4 cups. Maybe we'll never know if martians actually exist or if they practice monarchy... According to what I see, martian women dress in elaborate and complicated gear, not friendly to use in daily life (designer Aleksandra Ekster) and the same go to buildings and other landscapes. I can not picture 3 or 4 women together inside an elevator with those headdresses, they could end up injured!I am sure this futuristic movie influenced other like METROPOLIS, FLASH GORDON, and who knows, maybe even TRON's costumes... I liked the segments that took place on Mars over all, and not so much the ones on earth... with the situation in Russia and all that.

On the Opening night of the San Francisco Silent Film festival I was quite excited to see films that are historical and well not common. The guest speaker who opened this film created a sense of hype towards the obscurity, and how this film is underrated. The sci-fi part of the film was very interesting and fantastic for its time, but i'm not sure if it was due to the fact it was shown directly after the Brilliant 1928 "The Wind" or if it seemed that Russian filmmakers take after what Russian novels are famous for (hundreds of characters, tangled plots) but I know for certain that the dramatic parts, as in the parts on Earth, made absolutely no sense, were boring and I became lost within about twenty minutes. Maybe it was the acting but I found myself convinced as to why this film is "unknown and underrated": It's boring, there is no plot or basic story and the acting is horrible. This certainly is no "Battleship Potemkin", however I will say that Russian films do not make a real good effort in lightning up what life in Russia is like.