Adam Curtis made an excellent choice not to narrate Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone. Although at times I've almost heard his voice and it would have fitted perfectly, the images were so strong and speaking for themselves that narration would've just spoiled them.
In fact it would be very difficult to summarize in one review what this documentary tried to convey. We saw a lot of extremes one associates with Russia, probably intensified because we're observing a country partially rooted in European culture.
It was inevitable that Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone offers some insights in the former Soviet republics, as well, even some satellites of the Warsaw pact. I'm pointing this out since it still puzzles me why a lot of people use the terms Russian and Soviet interchangeably.
Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone was very good, both in terms of content and delivery. Even the inevitable bias, given the footage stemming from BBC archives, was so slight that it didn't ruin the objectivity of the documentary.
In fact it would be very difficult to summarize in one review what this documentary tried to convey. We saw a lot of extremes one associates with Russia, probably intensified because we're observing a country partially rooted in European culture.
It was inevitable that Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone offers some insights in the former Soviet republics, as well, even some satellites of the Warsaw pact. I'm pointing this out since it still puzzles me why a lot of people use the terms Russian and Soviet interchangeably.
Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone was very good, both in terms of content and delivery. Even the inevitable bias, given the footage stemming from BBC archives, was so slight that it didn't ruin the objectivity of the documentary.