Red Army

[Pine Bluff Variant]

Would have loved to see this film, but it seems I missed the one screening they had here. just gonna have to wait for the Blu-Ray.

 

[Falling Snow]

Would have loved to see this film, but it seems I missed the one screening they had here. just gonna have to wait for the Blu-Ray.

Is there some release date ?

 

[Car2014]

Is there some release date ?

The German Facebook page mentions 26/6 for the DVD, BluRay and VOD, but I'm not sure if that's true elsewhere as well.

 

[hutdevil]

i watched it last night, it would be great if they have less interview

 

[Yakushev72]

i watched it last night, it would be great if they have less interview

I understand that you may want to watch more hockey highlights, but the whole purpose of the film was to tell the inside story of the rise to prominence of Soviet hockey from the vantage point of those who actually built the Soviet machine. I haven't seen the film, but from all of the reviews, the purpose was to explore the Soviet players as people, and to show what they had to endure in order to build what they built! There were apparently some noted absences, such as the failure to allow Tikhonov to defend his decisions and methods while he was still alive (maybe they did allow him the opportunity to offer his perspective, but maybe he declined to be interviewed). But to Westerners who are not really familiar with the internal mechanisms of Soviet society, I suspect it offered a new perspective.

 

[Jablkon]

Aren't you one of them who are always complaining about the refereeing at the 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups? And heck, I agree totally that it wasn't fair & unbiased, although I do maintain that Team Canada played better in the 1984 semi-final.

Speaking of the 1984 tournament, the Soviets were missing the injured Vyacheslav Fetisov, a fairly important player, right? His absence maybe didn't show so much during round-robin, but they would have needed him in the semi-final game (e.g. the Soviet PP sucked throughout the game). Still, it was matchup that could have gone to either team.

In 1987, who did the Soviets have beyond the Green Unit and Bykov's line? On paper, it was one of the weakest teams they had had since the 1960s, especially after Svetlov, who was one of their best in the early part the tournament, was injured. Still, the superstar-filled Team Canada managed to beat them only by one goal with just 1:26 left of game 3 of the final. Tikhonov's actions during the rest of the game were nothing to write home about; as always, he did not even pull the goalie, but then again, that was the unfortunate Soviet way back then.

Tarasov's teams lost to Czechoslovakia in the 1968 Olympics, then twice in the 1969 World Championships, couldn't beat them in the 1971 WHC either... luckily for him, CSSR could not dominate the other teams like the Soviets could, so despite that USSR won gold in each of those tournaments (by points or goal differential). But there is the evidence right there of Tarasov failing to get 'everything' out of his teams also.

In era of 68-71 (especially 68 OG) russians faced probably the most motivated czechoslovak team ever because of occuppation in 1968. No one really cared that we did not win these tourneys, win over russians was celebrated as a gold here. So I would not blame Tarasov that he could not get everything from his team because we played for 140% in that matches....

 

[VMBM]

In era of 68-71 (especially 68 OG) russians faced probably the most motivated czechoslovak team ever because of occuppation in 1968. No one really cared that we did not win these tourneys, win over russians was celebrated as a gold here. So I would not blame Tarasov that he could not get everything from his team because we played for 140% in that matches....

The invasion had not happened yet at the time of the 1968 Winter Olympics; it was about six months after that. I think the emotion/hate factor was at its biggest at the 1969 WHC.

And well, I wouldn't blame Tikhonov for his team losing by 1 goal (and under those circumstances) to Canada at the 1987 Canada Cup either. He actually got quite a lot from that team that did not have a great depth.

 

[Jablkon]

The invasion had not happened yet at the time of the 1968 Winter Olympics; it was about six months after that. I think the emotion/hate factor was at its biggest at the 1969 WHC.

And well, I wouldn't blame Tikhonov for his team losing by 1 goal (and under those circumstances) to Canada at the 1987 Canada Cup either. He actually got quite a lot from that team that did not have a great depth.

May fall, peak was 69 in Sweden....

 

[Yakushev72]

The invasion had not happened yet at the time of the 1968 Winter Olympics; it was about six months after that. I think the emotion/hate factor was at its biggest at the 1969 WHC.

And well, I wouldn't blame Tikhonov for his team losing by 1 goal (and under those circumstances) to Canada at the 1987 Canada Cup either. He actually got quite a lot from that team that did not have a great depth.

I won't disagree with you that Tikhonov achieved major accomplishments for which he should be revered as one of the greatest coaches in hockey history. But I do disagree that the Soviets couldn't match talent with Canada in the '87 Canada Cup, if that is what you are saying. As much as the trio of Gretzky-Lemieux-Messier deserve to be considered as some of the greatest superstars in hockey history, I think the line of Larionov-Krutov-Makarov matched up the Gretzky line adequately. And once you get past Canada's first line, the talent level really falls off, with outstanding but not superior players like Sutter, Propp, Hawerchuk and Gilmour making up the remainder. I would at least equate the Bykov line and the Semenov line with Canada's 2nd and 3rd lines in '87.

Tikhonov achieved a long line of victories, but he had a lot of resources to work with. He could cherry pick any player in the USSR, and he was given total control over them to train them as hard as he chose for 11 months out of the year. In that respect, the level to which the Soviet team rose was based on what he did or did not personally contribute to the Soviet program. What the film is apparently saying, as articulated by nearly the full spectrum of key players that he coached in his glory years, is that he accomplished what he did by providing order and structure, which was missing from 1972-76. His most notable shortcomings, by their account, was his philosophy that to motivate the dog, you have to beat the dog, and if the dog doesn't respond, then you beat him harder! By their account, the guys got weary of being beaten, and, according to Slava Fetisov, even discussed, but did not follow through on, deliberately losing if it would get Tikhonov fired.

You can't always love your boss, and your boss can't always be a nice guy, and Tikhonov was right when he said that if the team doesn't win, the "main coach" is the one who takes the blame. But if they are telling the truth, the players seem to be saying that his alleged philosophy of "beat the dog harder" eventually took its toll, and while their skill level increased, they say that their motivation level declined. I agree with you with that losing by 1 goal to that Canadian team was no shame, but it seems to me, in looking at film, that the Canadians were clearly the more motivated team. If the players aren't telling the truth about Tikhonov, then shame on them!

 

[Kshahdoo]

An interesting game USSR - Canada in WHC 1982. The only World Championship where Wayne Gretzky played. Of course Canadians lost their first game to Italy, but this game was very good. I mean the speed was on par with what we see right now in WC.

 

[JackSlater]

An interesting game USSR - Canada in WHC 1982. The only World Championship where Wayne Gretzky played. Of course they lost their first game to Italy, but this game was very good. I mean the speed was on par with what we see right now in WC.

Very nice find, thanks for posting. Many on this website would be shocked to see the hockey of 1992 resembling the hockey of today in any way.

 

[VMBM]

An interesting game USSR - Canada in WHC 1982. The only World Championship where Wayne Gretzky played. Of course Canadians lost their first game to Italy, but this game was very good. I mean the speed was on par with what we see right now in WC.

No, it was a 3-3 tie. I guess might as well lost though!

Canada (and Gretzky) did not impress much at first, but they got better and better, not very surprisingly. The Finnish press were quite hostile towards Gretzky at first (so this is the 'million dollar man'?), but were more respectful in the end.

 

[tony d]

Haven't watched it but sounds interesting, those Russian teams back then where incredibly strong.

 

[Canuckistani]

An interesting game USSR - Canada in WHC 1982. The only World Championship where Wayne Gretzky played. Of course Canadians lost their first game to Italy, but this game was very good. I mean the speed was on par with what we see right now in WC.

That was a pretty good game

Soviet Union 4, Canada 3
First Period
0-1 Canada, Barber (Gretzky, Green) 9:46
1-1 USSR, Kozhevnikov (Tjumenev, Golikov) 14:58
Second Period
2-1 USSR, Gimayev 9:38
3-1 USSR, Makarov (Larionov) 15:42
Third Period
3-2 Canada, Reinhart 8:14
4-2 USSR, Larionov (Makarov) 12:14
4-3 Canada, Propp 16:13
SOG: USSR 29, Canada 19, Goal: Tretiak, Millen

The Soviets won gold against Canada in the first game of the medal round a couple days later, 6-4. That's how outmatched everyone else was: the Soviets clinched gold with two games to spare!

 

[Finnpin]

Finnish national tv showed this last saturday on primetime. Very good documentary. I saw the Red Army playing when I was a kid but this certainly brought lots of new stuff I didn't know or had forgotten.

 

[Erikfromfin]

Finnish national tv showed this last saturday on primetime. Very good documentary. I saw the Red Army playing when I was a kid but this certainly brought lots of new stuff I didn't know or had forgotten.

Jea is visible for month for finnish viewers in areena.. also Docventures has it one of its documentaries later on in the season 3.
http://areena.yle.fi/1-2507411?autoplay=true

 

[Jussi]

Finnish national tv showed this last saturday on primetime. Very good documentary. I saw the Red Army playing when I was a kid but this certainly brought lots of new stuff I didn't know or had forgotten.

Jea is visible for month for finnish viewers in areena.. also Docventures has it one of its documentaries later on in the season 3.
http://areena.yle.fi/1-2507411?autoplay=true

I also watched in on the weekend via Areena. When the two Russians were going at it earlier in the thread, the documenatry gave a reason to support Yakushev's view that Soviets declined towards teh end of the 80's. It mentioned how in 1985 already the Soviet or rather communist system was collapsing and they were running out of money. Players were beginning to get tired of Tihonov (the Homutov incident really tixcked off Fetisov) and the 11 months of training a year was wearing them out mentally. Gorba brought in glasnost and perestroika and players were beginning to look out towards west. Surprisignly the documentary didn't mention the 87 CC at all. The Lake Placid USA loss seemed to be really hard for Fetisov to take. The uprising of the players against Thonov and Kasatonov snubbing the other players left a long mark on both players, Kasatonov seemed too ashamed to talk about it.

No, it was a 3-3 tie. I guess might as well lost though!

Canada (and Gretzky) did not impress much at first, but they got better and better, not very surprisingly. The Finnish press were quite hostile towards Gretzky at first (so this is the 'million dollar man'?), but were more respectful in the end.

Not as hostile or rather arrogant as the Swedes who thought Gretzky wasn't good enough to tie Patrik Sundstöm's laces. Gretzky shut them up by scoring 2+3 against Sweden in their final game and securing the scoring title.

 

[VMBM]

Not as hostile or rather arrogant as the Swedes who thought Gretzky wasn't good enough to tie Patrik Sundstöm's laces. Gretzky shut them up by scoring 2+3 against Sweden in their final game and securing the scoring title.

He was slightly helped by the farcical 0-0 tie between the Soviets and Czechoslovakia (which secured silver medal for CSSR) - i.e. Shalimov and Makarov were only 1 point behind and they didn't try 'too hard' to score in the game.

 

[johan f]

The documentary was shown yesterday here in Swedish Television. I am a bit disappointed as a whole. Some years ago there was another documentary about Soviet-hockey that captured a lot more about hockey and how they lived than this one which was more about a few players and politics involved.

I for one can not see the fascination with how Fetisov grew confidence in the interviewer. Is that a must to be able to manage an interview? Fetisov acted very weird in my opinion.
It feels like the director did not connect with the russians, not being able to make them talk. One thinki he could have done research on their culture, prepared them more and make them confident before the shooting. Kasatonov just sat there hardly speaking.
I have seen him in another documentary where the interviewer squeezed out more from Kasatonov than this guy managed.

Interesting to see how they trained physics in the past. Can't really see the point by tumbling around on grass with sticks or even on ice. It would be interesting to see a whole documentary about tarasov, his work his philosphy.

 

[Jussi]

The documentary was shown yesterday here in Swedish Television. I am a bit disappointed as a whole. Some years ago there was another documentary about Soviet-hockey that captured a lot more about hockey and how they lived than this one which was more about a few players and politics involved.

I for one can not see the fascination with how Fetisov grew confidence in the interviewer. Is that a must to be able to manage an interview? Fetisov acted very weird in my opinion.
It feels like the director did not connect with the russians, not being able to make them talk. One thinki he could have done research on their culture, prepared them more and make them confident before the shooting. Kasatonov just sat there hardly speaking.
I have seen him in another documentary where the interviewer squeezed out more from Kasatonov than this guy managed.

Interesting to see how they trained physics in the past. Can't really see the point by tumbling around on grass with sticks or even on ice. It would be interesting to see a whole documentary about tarasov, his work his philosphy.

That's because Kasatonov was mostly asked about the break up with Fetisov and why he supported Tihonov instead of his team mates. He specifically said he wasn't ready to talk about it yet.

 

[patnyrnyg]

The subject matter is similar, but the focus of these documentaries is different. The ESPN "30 on 30: Of Miracles and Men" tells the story of the literally overnight rise of the Soviet Union to the pinnacle of World hockey under the guidance of Anatoli Tarasov, who created a hockey program out of nothing under orders from Vasily Stalin, son of Josef. He was not allowed to obtain books and films from outside the USSR, and so he had to rely on his own creativity, passion, obsessive drive, and ability to find the strangest analogies to hockey in unrelated activities such as ballet and chess. His players had to endure the most grueling training and conditioning imaginable, and yet they loved him because he earned their trust and respect. Ultimately, however, he refused to knuckle under to the Politburo brass, and was removed from his coaching responsibilities shortly before the 1972 series. Soviet hockey took a turn for the worst after that, culminating in the debacle known as the "Miracle on Ice" at Lake Placid, which chronicled the most significant hockey event in American history through the eyes of the Soviet players (Slava Fetisov visited the Lake Placid rink to relive the experience with his daughter, Anastasia)

I haven't seen the documentary "Red Army," but based on the notes from the Director and reviews, it apparently deals mainly with the relationship between the guys who led the Soviet team in the 1980's - Krutov, Makarov, Larionov, Fetisov and Kasatonov - and coach Viktor Tikhonov, who was Tarasov's ultimate successor. In contrast to Tarasov, who was depicted in "30 on 30" as a creative genius, poet, and friend and confidant to his players, Tikhonov was depicted as a heartless bureaucrat who functioned like an accountant who kept his players confined to training and away from their families for the sake of victories. There may be some oversimplification there, but that is the theme the film apparently espouses. It also apparently covers the Russian players' transition to the NHL at great length.

Whatever their political or national loyalties, hockey fans should appreciate the recognition given to Tarasov and the beautiful hockey that he presented on a World stage.

.

Of course, that is such baloney; Soviet hockey was never stronger than in 1978-84, with the exception of that one friggin' tournament in 1980.

No matter what an a**hole Tikhonov possibly was, he still produced maybe the greatest team the world has ever seen; the Soviets were much more difficult to beat during Tikhonov's than during Tarasov's (and Chernyshev's who is sadly always forgotten) time.

That is what I always thought. Always thought the Soviets best era was the mid 70s to mid 80s with the height being the late 70s.

 

[patnyrnyg]

That's because Kasatonov was mostly asked about the break up with Fetisov and why he supported Tihonov instead of his team mates. He specifically said he wasn't ready to talk about it yet.

Has he ever spoken about it publically? Has he ever explained his side of things?

 

[patnyrnyg]

Players were beginning to get tired of Tihonov (the Homutov incident really tixcked off Fetisov)

Was that when he slapped a player in the lockerroom or on the bench? Heard about such a story, but was told it was Kamensky at the 87 Canada Cup.

 

[Fantomas]

I loved the interviews. They were different than what you typically get with American media.

Fetisov was very funny, ironic. He was having some fun with the interviewer, but it wasn't mean-spirited. You could tell they knew each other for a while.

Segments with Krutov were very heartbreaking.

The most interesting thing about the documentary, for me, is what it revealed about Russian attitudes towards authority - specifically the attitudes of people, players, from the Fetisov generation. Fetisov, in particular, likes authority and collectivist values - just not the Tikhonov kind. He likes the Tarasov kind. He never did embrace American individualism, nor did his other contemporaries, I think.

 

[PALE PWNR]

That's because Kasatonov was mostly asked about the break up with Fetisov and why he supported Tihonov instead of his team mates. He specifically said he wasn't ready to talk about it yet.

Exactly, Kasatonov was put in a really hard position in that interview and obviously was uncomfortable with the questioning.

I loved the interviews. They were different than what you typically get with American media.

Fetisov was very funny, ironic. He was having some fun with the interviewer, but it wasn't mean-spirited. You could tell they knew each other for a while.

Segments with Krutov were very heartbreaking.

The most interesting thing about the documentary, for me, is what it revealed about Russian attitudes towards authority - specifically the attitudes of people, players, from the Fetisov generation. Fetisov, in particular, likes authority and collectivist values - just not the Tikhonov kind. He likes the Tarasov kind. He never did embrace American individualism, nor did his other contemporaries, I think.

I found that interesting as well. As much as Fetisov attempted to portray himself as a figure who liberated Russian hockey players to do what they wanted to do, he is still very much so, subservient to the authority figures in place today. I mean how can he be that guy and still say things like this, less then a year after this film came out?

Slava Fetisov, a former NHL defenseman that is now a senator in Russia, has called for the country to place a ban on young Russian players from playing in the NHL, restrictions that used to be in place until the late 1980s when Fetisov himself was one of the first players from the country to make the jump to North America.

Fetisov told Russian news agency R-Sports, via the Associated Press, that there should be a federal law in place to prevent players from moving to North America before they turn 28 in an effort to "keep our most talented guys, the ones who the people come to see."

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on...ov-wants-ban-on-young-russians-playing-in-nhl

Krutov was hard. You could just see something was wrong, and likely was the reason his interviews seemed off. I believe he passed away a mere weeks after those interviews.

I understand that you may want to watch more hockey highlights, but the whole purpose of the film was to tell the inside story of the rise to prominence of Soviet hockey from the vantage point of those who actually built the Soviet machine. I haven't seen the film, but from all of the reviews, the purpose was to explore the Soviet players as people, and to show what they had to endure in order to build what they built! There were apparently some noted absences, such as the failure to allow Tikhonov to defend his decisions and methods while he was still alive (maybe they did allow him the opportunity to offer his perspective, but maybe he declined to be interviewed). But to Westerners who are not really familiar with the internal mechanisms of Soviet society, I suspect it offered a new perspective.

That is exactly what the film was about. It showed a different side of the dreaded Russian hockey teams that we as westerners, have never seen. It delved into a lot of stories involving these men that we never knew or heard. Tikhonov was asked to be interviewed and be a part of the film and declined, I wouldn't hold that against him though. A very large portion of the documentary were a lot of his former players absolutely ripping him to shreds. Their loyalty to Tarasov was unquestionable. The film was very, very slanted against Tikhonov, I wasn't alive during those times, so I couldn't possibly have a personal opinion on him. But I think he probably deserves some more credit then he was given in this film.

The film skips the summit series in 72 as well as the team's games against the Canadiens and Flyers which I felt were pretty big omissions. It jumps straight from way early years of Soviet hockey to the 1980 Olympics. Larionov and Makorov were both not interviewed, either. Either because they did not want to or because they were not given the opportunity I'm not sure. Much of the film is completely told from Fetisov's viewpoint, which is interesting because he didn't even want to participate in the film and didn't finally relent to be interviewed until the last day he was filming, AND only gave him 15 minutes of interview.