'Loveless' is an encompassing indictment of Russian society

The film is an Oscar nominee for best foreign language film and is by the extraordinary Russian director Andrey Zvyagintsev.

Anna Matveeva/Non-Stop Production/Courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
Maryana Spivak (l.) and Matvey Novikov star in 'Loveless.'

The most powerful moment in any movie I’ve seen this year occurs roughly 10 minutes into “Loveless,” an Oscar nominee for best foreign language film from the extraordinary Russian director Andrey Zvyagintsev. A divorcing couple, Zhenya (Maryana Spivak) and Boris (Aleksey Rozin), are arguing bitterly in the apartment they share with their 12-year-old son Alyosha (Matvey Novikov). The fight is over custody, but with a catch: Neither parent wants to care for the boy. Zhenya is involved with a wealthy older man and is looking to sell the apartment; Boris has a young and very pregnant girlfriend. The rancorous back-and-forth suddenly cuts to a very brief shot of little Alyosha, soundlessly weeping and fearful. He has been listening to the fight behind a door.

We barely get to know Alyosha before he vanishes from the movie. His unexplained disappearance is first noted by his school authorities and not by his mother, who spent the previous day with her lover. The crisis brings together Zhenya and Boris, but only in more rancor and recrimination. They are enraged by their own feelings of blame and guilt and, perhaps, also by the dawning realization that, on a deeper level, the loss of Alyosha absolves them from caring for him.

This is Zvyagintsev’s fifth feature. Like his most celebrated earlier movies, “The Return” (2003), which was about a father who returns to his wife and two sons after a mysterious 12-year absence, and “Leviathan” (2014), about a corrupt rural mayor who forces a family from their home, it can be approached as both domestic drama and allegory. Set in 2012, in suburban Moscow, the missing-boy scenario is periodically interrupted by televised news reports about conflicts in Ukraine. The sense of apocalyptic doom pervading this movie is felt on both a political and a personal scale. Alyosha, with his pugnacious, beseeching face, is not only a lost boy: In the movie’s terms, he also represents the loss of something spiritually significant in modern Russia, which, as portrayed by Zvyagintsev and his co-writer, Oleg Negin, looks ghastly and grayed out.

The police, believing they are dealing with nothing more alarming than a truant, are of no great help in locating Alyosha. It is left to a well-organized band of volunteers, who tack up posters and fan out across the surrounding wooded terrain, to attempt his recovery. It is dispiriting to note that their mobilization has become second nature: There are so many lost children in the city that one of the first places the volunteers check is an abandoned building where runaways seek shelter.

Zvyagintsev has always been wildly ambitious, sometimes to a fault, and “Loveless” is perhaps his most encompassing indictment of Russian society. Not all of the indicting is equally successful. Those TV bulletins about Ukraine, for example, are too on the nose. He is most effective when the political and the personal are seamlessly conjoined – when we see, for example, how the graspingness of modern society is perfectly reflected in the formidably selfish Zhenya, a beauty salon owner who seems epoxied to her mobile phone and cares only for material gain. Her connection to her rich lover, who affectionately calls her “the most beautiful monster in the world,” is the height of cynicism. And then there is Boris, who works as a middle manager. He is terrified that his ultra-religious boss, who requires his employees to be married with kids, will discover his divorce. (Boris seems less concerned about the revelation of Alyosha’s disappearance.) 

Is the vast comfortlessness of this film’s view of Russia justified? The Soviet era, which is what modern Russia, with its capitalist oligarchs, broke away from, was not, after all, the good old days. (This film could not have been made in that era.) The imposed bleakness in “Loveless” can seem overly coercive. Nowhere, it seems, is there a safe harbor. Even the volunteers with the search party aren’t blameless: They won’t explore the nearby lake because they draw the line at dredging bodies. 

When Alyosha’s parents visit Zhenya’s mother (Natalya Potapova) in the hope that the boy fled there, it’s almost comically awful to discover that the old lady is even more venomous than Zhenya. (Boris calls her “Stalin in a skirt.”) This, at least, helps explain why Zhenya is the way she is – she, too, was an unwanted child.

Zvyagintsev would have done better, I think, to include more of the beauty that has gone out of this world, if only to heighten its loss. Grade: B+ (Rated R for strong sexuality, graphic nudity, language, and a brief disturbing image.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.