Sochi opening ceremony: glimpse of New Russia, echo of the old

The opening ceremony of the Sochi Olympics included a technical glitch and many impressive moments. But best of all, it arrived someplace real and emotionally resonant at the end.

Jung Yeon-je/AP
Actors perform during the "Moscow/The Dream" portion of the opening ceremonies of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, Friday.

[Updated 9:05 a.m. ET] Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he hopes that the Sochi Olympics will show the world that his country has shaken off the shackles of a narrow past to embrace a boundless future. Friday’s opening ceremony provided support for his optimism but also, at its heart, suggested that Russia is still sorting through its complicated legacy.

The event held Friday night here to begin the 22nd Olympic Winter Games had something for everyone.

It was, for long stretches, an ambitious interpretation of what an opening ceremony "should be," from the idealized window into a host nation's past to the waifish child as a pseudo-narrator to a Cirque du Soleil carnival of spectacular floating and glowing things.

It was, at other times, fuel for the folks at the "Sochi Problems" Twitter feed when the fifth of five floating, glowing snowflakes failed to transform into an Olympic ring during the signature opening sequence. One could almost hear Mr. Putin's palm slapping his forehead.

Yet, as the performance built, there at last came moments of true insight into the nation's soul, when all the artistry was less about dropping jaws and more about conveying something real and poignant. 

And, tellingly, that was the Soviet portion of the program.

In the end, a journalist might say that the opening ceremony buried the lead.

By choosing a programmatic structure – following Russian history in a strictly chronological timeline – the Sochi opening ceremony missed an opportunity to be more than just another fabulous light show.

We saw the founders of Russia, who looked a lot like the cast of "300." We saw a visually stunning, glowing, floating troika pulling the sun. We saw a "festival" of floating boyars and men bouncing around on giant inflatable sprinkled doughnuts (well, that’s what it looked like) to celebrate the Russian rite of spring. We even saw an homage to Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" that brought the Bolshoi to the Black Sea for at least an evening.

But in the end, what did it amount to? They seemed things designed to awe and to impress, not an expression of the yearning of the Russian spirit, whatever that might be.

Then came the Russian Revolution, and we began to get a glimpse.

If Putin is indeed correct and his country is emerging into a New Russia, then it is doing so precisely because it is evolving out of its Soviet past. In London, the opening sequence of the opening ceremony gave the world a glimpse of the post-imperial world, when a former world superpower looked back on its legacy and accepted it, both good and bad. That is the New Britain, and director Danny Boyle hit the world over the head with it from the start.

Had the directors here made a similarly bold move, it could have been an artistic confirmation of Putin's statements. Instead, the world was made to wait 90 minutes to get to the raw heart of modern Russia – and that fact bespeaks a nation still a bit tentative as it processes its past.

That's understandable. There's a lot to process, and when the ceremony attempted to do it, it was engrossing stuff.

The communist order swept in by the Russian Revolution was all cacophonous noise – a visceral, throbbing beat that was at once fearsome and intoxicating. The elements of industry assembled and broke apart overhead – the grand idea aspiring but constantly failing to amount to something solid. Below, menacing gear-choked machines seemed more suited to grind men under spiked wheels than reap a proletarian utopia. The program notes include a mention of "54 tractor warriors."

Here, at last, was at least the beginnings of an answer to the questions that would seem to loom over a New Russia: Who was Lenin? Who was Stalin? What is the legacy of the Soviet era? Do we embrace it? Do we pretend it never happened?

The answer, it seemed, was none too nostalgic. And yet, coming from that scene of blood-red machines and the coal-black of a massive steam locomotive, followed the most emotionally resonant scene of the entire show.

And it was joyous.

There, rising out of the industry of the revolution, was Soviet Moscow. Above floated the ponderous ideals of the state, the hammer and sickle, giant busts of the idealized worker man and woman. Yet underneath, Moscow sparkled.

Fifties-era cars zipped across the stage as Uncle Styopa, a policeman character from a series of Soviet children's poems, safely shepherded pedestrians across the street. And all the artifice melted away. Radiating from the floor of the Olympic stadium was finally something from the heart of Russia itself, a snatch of a poem from childhood remembered, a fleeting scene of stories handed down from mother and grandfathers – not ideal, perhaps, but cherished all the same.

This, the ceremony were saying, is who we are.

Out came a swirling circle of baby carriages, and when the women lifted the babies out, it was impossible not to think that they were the Russia of today, born of a complicated time still held dear.

Is this a New Russia?

In the last act before the torch was lit, the young girl through whom the story was told released a single red balloon, which floated away before being extinguished – and in that moment, the young girl motif and the floating and the glowing all made sense. 

Russia, it seems, is learning to let go.

But what comes next? That, apparently, will have to wait for the opening ceremony of the next Russian Olympics.

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