>>7
>In Vietnam, we are often taught that, "Russia" means "Eastern Rus", so it is absurd to use "Russia" in the context of the 12th century.
Well, "Russia" has meant different things at different times and places. So whether it is absurd or not depends on which meaning you're using...
Until WW1, and often even after, the discourse in Russian and English imperial capitals and academic centres was that "Russians" are what are called "Eastern Slavs" today, and could further be split into "Great Russians" (Velikorossy), who mainly live in what's now known as Russia, "Little Russians" (Malorossy) who mainly live in what's now known as Ukraine, and "White Russians" (Belorossy) who mainly live in what's now known as Belarus (the country that has kept its name the closest). Kind of like Americans being separated into Yankees, Dixielanders, Appalachians, etc, but with a longer history and more language/dialect divergence.
As a result of WW1, due to both external (Germans conquering and ruling much of the Western Russian Empire for some years) and internal (communists coming to power) forces, the names shifted. But not everybody used the changed terms or was even aware of what this shift of terminology meant or why it was done.

I'm not quite sure, but I have this impression that in the medieval era, and also in the Imperial era until WW1, if you'd asked most people in any of those three regions what they were, they would have said "I'm Russian", and if you asked them to specify further, they would have said "I'm Great Russian" or "I'm Little Russian" or "I'm White Russian". After WW1, the "Great Russians" kept answering "I'm Russian" but the others were encouraged to not answer that way any more, and their native language/dialect variations were heavily promoted by the state (for various reasons, such as wanting the Soviet state to be more multicultural).

Perhaps if the capital of the East Slavs had stayed in Kiev/Kyiv, the locals would have gained more territory than they ended up having and been proudly calling THEMSELVES the "Great Russians" and eventually simply "Russians", while the people living in Moscow might've been encouraged to call themselves Novgorodians or Pomorians or something, and speaking Novgorodian or Pomorian which honest-to-goodness has nothing to do with "Russian", and is a member of the civilized Scandinavian family of nations... ;)

So eventually, you got the current situation where "Russian" usually means what "Great Russian" used to mean (in English it can also just mean "citizen of Russia", while in Russian that's two different words), and "East Slav" means what "Russian" used to mean.

But the famous 19th century writers are still widely read, so the old meanings are not forgotten either! It causes a lot of misunderstandings, since two people can use the same words and mean very different things by them. If you want to increase the risk of eventual conflict between people, that's a pretty good way to do it...

Well, since I know this is going to come up...
I'm aware of the whole Kyiv/Kiev thing. In this case, I used "Kiev" and Russian personal names for the credits in the subtitles because this film was made in the Soviet era and that was more widespread at the time (plus for names, I'm less likely to make a mistake that way).

For post-independence Ukrainian cartoons on this site, I use the Ukrainian transliterations.

>>2
Will try to watch them !
Despite the "weirdness" of the film, the metaphore is quite simple so o I wouldn't be surprised if kids understood it, but I'm also surprised how kids weren't scared of the surrealism and disturbing scenes haha, but I guess it was the times

>>4
Oh besides the CW I punted out here, I was just thinking of pointing out in next films (if I find it) distubing and graphic stuff that are sensitive to the regular audience. (nudity not counting as it is rather natural) For example: scenes of decapitation, SA, self deleting(? and graphic blood scenes

An odd feature of this cartoon is that the traffic lights are "upside down"; they have red on the bottom and green on the top.

Some people on RuTracker asked about this back in 2013 - here's a translation of the reply of user "dvdss" there, who did some research:

Previously, the location of signals at traffic lights was not regulated, and the red light in some countries was located at the bottom of the traffic light. Only in 1949 was the Convention on Road Traffic and the Protocol on Road Signs and Signals adopted in Geneva. This unified national traffic standards and established the modern type of traffic light with the red signal located on top.

Therefore, the pre-WW2 Soviet New Year tree toy "Traffic Light" (Светофор), made of cardboard, had the upper light green and the lower one red. (The year of installation of the first traffic lights in the USSR was 1935)



This suggests the conclusion that, despite the fact that the cartoon was created in 1952, and the adoption of the Convention on the Unification of Colors in Geneva occurred in 1949, these rules reached the USSR a little later (at least 3 years later). Although in those days this was probably not the most important thing in the country, but an interesting fact!

And for sure, the traffic lights were not switched over to the new color layout in one day, so the director and artists likely drew the old traffic light model only because the new ones were not yet in front of their eyes - but who knows!

>>1
I agree, this is one of my favourites as well. Also, for how abstract and metaphorical parts of it are, it is surprisingly well-received by children.

I've got to add more of Hrzhanovskiy's films on here, but many of them require attentive and careful translation (such as his famous Pushkin trilogy).

>>3
>Right now, would it be fine if I mark some "heavy scenes" (graphic stuff) in the comments just in case as CW/TWs (only if it's really present)?
If you feel like it, sure. I suppose for this one, I thought the words "tragic folk story" in the first sentence was enough of a hint that this wouldn't be easy viewing. Mostly, I've been writing warnings for things like nudity, even when it's not actually objectionable (like in "Olympians" - which has male nudity but which I don't feel deserves the "NSFW" genre). Are there some other things you've noticed, then?

>>4
>I was wondering if this has a name?
Well, it's based on Azeribaijani carpet art... so I guess that would be the place to look, if there's a particular name for it. I think the name would be the name of that particular carpet art style...

It is precisely one of the strengths of cutout animation that it allows for a wider range of visual styles (at the cost of being harder to animate smoothly).

Absolutely loved the technique, colours and surrealist scenes on this! Will definitely save it on a playlist

>>3
I agree in a lot of this! I was looking for more info of the director but couldn't find more stuff more than his profile on animator.rus, which is a shame because I wanted to see more stuff exactly like this oof. Cut out is one of my favourite animation techniques recently, and every film is different in aesthetic but this one in particular caught my eye. I was wondering if this has a name?