The director, Eldar Shengelaia, remembers newspapers praising "Blue Mountains", writing that "this is Kafka!" after it premiered on Cannes film festival in 1985. And just as Kafka's "Process" (which this movie was most likely compared to) is often narrowed to a "criticism of authoritarian rule", so is this movie commonly interpreted as (merely) a comedy that satirizes bureaucracy. This is, I think, a misapprehension. Kafka - and here I'll stop using him because I don't think it's all that similar - wrote about life in general, or life as a process where you're declared guilty and sentenced (to death) for reasons unknown to you. "Blue Mountains" is also about life in general.
A young author is trying to get his novel published, walking around the publishing house and delivering copies of his manuscript to different employees, who, despite the protagonist's persistence, eventually don't read it. This is the leitmotif. The reason his novel is not read by anyone is not bureaucracy - they just don't want to. These people are neither too busy, nor hostile or stupid communists who can't appreciate a talented young voice - we don't even know if the novel is any good; They don't want to do what they are currently destined to do, they are indifferent, so they procrastinate, follow other commitments, and sometimes blame bureaucracy (if no one reads the review at least I've learned how to spell this word). I'm not completely denying the portrayal of some problems caused by too much bureaucracy in this movie - especially the part about "removing Greenland", a kitsch painting barely hanging above a desk of an employee who's afraid it will eventually fall on him but can't remove it without a permission, which is not granted to him. However, it would be naive to assume that the enduring fame and appeal for this movie is a result of general audience's disdain of soviet bureaucracy.
Another thing some critics say is that the publishing house, walls of which crack and, ultimately, it collapses, is an allegory of Soviet Union. Allegedly, when Gorbachev saw this movie he told Shevardnadze that unless they do something about it, USSR is going to collapse as this building did. Today it seems like an obvious comparison as we know that USSR has in fact collapsed similarly to the building and this movie predicted it's fall. However, this is not how the movie ends. In the last scene, as we are shown the new building from the outside (new republic after the collapse, if we follow this allegory), where the publishing has moved, we hear the familiar angry voice shouting "remove it (meaning "Greenland")!". Back to the first point, I see this movie as a portrayal of attitudes of different people towards life and work and generally, the will of a man to be doing "something else".
Let's not forget what an amazing collaboration this movie is: film director Eldar Shengelaia working with one of the best XX century Georgian writers - Rezo Chkheidze on the script and soundtrack being written by Giya Kancheli - a composer known abroad chiefly as a contributor to modern classical music and in post-soviet countries as an author of unforgettable scores for movies. The cast consists of both award-winning actors and non-actors. "Blue Mountains" is very lovely. Sometimes I find myself looking for a single scene or a single line and then end up watching the whole movie.
A young author is trying to get his novel published, walking around the publishing house and delivering copies of his manuscript to different employees, who, despite the protagonist's persistence, eventually don't read it. This is the leitmotif. The reason his novel is not read by anyone is not bureaucracy - they just don't want to. These people are neither too busy, nor hostile or stupid communists who can't appreciate a talented young voice - we don't even know if the novel is any good; They don't want to do what they are currently destined to do, they are indifferent, so they procrastinate, follow other commitments, and sometimes blame bureaucracy (if no one reads the review at least I've learned how to spell this word). I'm not completely denying the portrayal of some problems caused by too much bureaucracy in this movie - especially the part about "removing Greenland", a kitsch painting barely hanging above a desk of an employee who's afraid it will eventually fall on him but can't remove it without a permission, which is not granted to him. However, it would be naive to assume that the enduring fame and appeal for this movie is a result of general audience's disdain of soviet bureaucracy.
Another thing some critics say is that the publishing house, walls of which crack and, ultimately, it collapses, is an allegory of Soviet Union. Allegedly, when Gorbachev saw this movie he told Shevardnadze that unless they do something about it, USSR is going to collapse as this building did. Today it seems like an obvious comparison as we know that USSR has in fact collapsed similarly to the building and this movie predicted it's fall. However, this is not how the movie ends. In the last scene, as we are shown the new building from the outside (new republic after the collapse, if we follow this allegory), where the publishing has moved, we hear the familiar angry voice shouting "remove it (meaning "Greenland")!". Back to the first point, I see this movie as a portrayal of attitudes of different people towards life and work and generally, the will of a man to be doing "something else".
Let's not forget what an amazing collaboration this movie is: film director Eldar Shengelaia working with one of the best XX century Georgian writers - Rezo Chkheidze on the script and soundtrack being written by Giya Kancheli - a composer known abroad chiefly as a contributor to modern classical music and in post-soviet countries as an author of unforgettable scores for movies. The cast consists of both award-winning actors and non-actors. "Blue Mountains" is very lovely. Sometimes I find myself looking for a single scene or a single line and then end up watching the whole movie.