Darwin's Evolutionary Teachings Led to Revolution & Mass Murder - Popular Russian Film "Sunstroke"

"How did it all happen?" - "How did it all begin?"

Enjoy watching the “Sunstroke” film in the link above, complete with English subtitles. This version has the adultery scene removed, so it is safe for viewing.

NOTE: This article is an excerpt from a phenomenal NEW 3-volume set defending Creationism and refuting Darwinism — Make sure to check out the UPDATES regarding the progress in translating and publishing this set!

---

Film Review by Fr. Constantine Bufeev

The issue addressed by Darwinism is immeasurably more important than all the possessions, all the goods, and the life of not only each of us separately, but the life of all of us and all of our posterity in the aggregate.

I think it is proper and possible to express my conviction that of all the worldviews, Darwin's view of nature is the least aesthetically pleasing.
- N.Y. Danilevsky

Film criticism is a completely unfamiliar creative genre to me. I have never written (and have almost never read) reviews of works of art. I am an unsophisticated movie-goer. I do not follow premieres. Since I am busy, I don’t go to the cinemas every month, and once I have seen a film, I very rarely want to see them again. I managed to see Nikita Mikhalkov's "Sunstroke" only three years after it was released. Yet in this case, I immediately had the intention to watch it again, and to take up my pen.

You can't always say "what" a work of fiction is about. What is Leonardo da Vinci's Gioconda about? What is Sergei Rachmaninoff's First Concerto about? What is Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace about?

Let’s not answer these profound questions in a banal, simplistic way, saying these works are "about a girl's smile", "about the composer's feelings", or "about war and peace".

What is Mikhalkov's film about? About the inglorious end of the Russian Civil War? About the complacency of hundreds and thousands of white officers insidiously deceived? About the "river of life" with its bends and wharves, which offers its passengers a lot of fun and amusement (deckchairs, a piano, a sumptuous dinner in a restaurant, a performance by an illusionist, a romantic pastime), but which leads to a terrible tragedy - drowning in the abyss at the end of the journey?

My opinion is this: In cinematic language, Nikita Mikhalkov's film, "Sunstroke", describes the essence of Charles Darwin's evolutionary teachings, showing how its dissemination in pre-revolutionary Russia led to revolution and mass murder.

The film has a repetitive refrain: "How did it all happen?" and "How did it all begin?" This is the clue to the answer to the question about the content of the film.

It all began with the penetration of the ideology that is presented in the tract:

"Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in the Animal and Plant Kingdoms by Natural Selection Translated from English by S.A. Rachinsky."

We see the title page torn out of the book with this inscription in one of the key scenes of the film. Those who have seen the picture, of course, remember what object was wrapped in this book page. But far more important than that pocketwatch are the eloquent words on the crumpled paper. In them is both the clue to a complex plot and the answer to the question, "How did it all happen?"

It is common to speak of the "theory" of evolution (in support or refutation) in the language of philosophy, in the language of science, and in the language of theology. However, apart from N.S. Mikhalkov, not a single mature artist has been found who could raise and illuminate this topic in the language of art, in particular, in the language of cinema.

This topic is extremely important because the evolutionistic worldview in recent decades has penetrated into the minds of most modern people, including most writers, artists, directors, art critics, and representatives of other creative professions. No one speaks aloud, expressing doubts about the truth of Darwin's doctrine. It is not accepted. But on any occasion, and even without any occasion, in replicas and dialogues, on behalf of the main character and episodic characters, authors provide us with examples of evolutionistic thinking in almost all novels and movies.

Thus, often apart from the conscious intention of authors and performers, contemporary art has become a conduit for evolutionistic ideology. It is no longer just science and philosophy, which require a certain mental strain, but fiction and cinema, designed for the mass of readers and viewers, that affirm the average person in the imaginary truth of evolutionism.

There are, of course, films specifically devoted to this topic. For example, there is a great demand among TV viewers for educational programs in which, under the guise of "documentaries," they show how "in fact" reptiles lived in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Few gullible viewers realize that such fascinating programs have nothing to do with historical realities, but are 100% the director's fiction and should be classified as science fiction movies.

There are popular science films with creationist content. For the most part, these are produced by Protestants. Unfortunately, however, the artistic value is usually low.

In contrast to the unsophisticated educational films that are sometimes commissioned, N.S. Mikhalkov offered the viewer a quite artistic solution to the problem, at the highest master level. The film images show the metaphysical difference between the Christian and Social Darwinist worldviews.

At the very beginning of the film, the White officers, who have voluntarily laid down their arms and stripped themselves of their shoulder straps, discuss the possibility of taking a group photo with the Red Army and its Bolshevik leadership. Some want the picture to include "them, and us, and everyone." Someone makes a pathological suggestion to call the piece, "Apotheosis of Reconciliation."

"Reconciliation" with whom - the victims with the executioners? With those whose goal is their ruthless and final extermination? Only after the Bolshevik bosses do not give them the "honor" of photographing them together, in one of the final scenes of the film, the humiliated prisoners take a picture "for themselves" ("They let us do it, didn't they?"). The film ends with the immortalized officers being loaded into the hold of a barge and drowned at sea. That is the whole "apotheosis of reconciliation".

Let us ask a question: Who is the main character of the film?

Probably most viewers will say that it is "Mr. Lieutenant", a.k.a. "Mr. Captain", played by Martins Kalita. He is a participant in all the events in both historical cuts of the film — both "with his military shoulder straps" and "with his military shoulder straps cut off". Through his feelings, his thoughts, and his memories, we perceive the development of the plot.

We also see the world through the eyes of the leading lady (the actress Victoria Solovyova). Of course, she is not "just a fellow traveler" (as one lady calls her). At the very beginning, she caught a glimpse of the lieutenant from the deck of "The Flying Ship" steamboat through the captain's binoculars. At the end of the film, the beautiful stranger from the foggy haze on the same deck looks through the same binoculars again. She is the one who has turned the lieutenant's head. It is she who, for the sake of whom she has "laid eyes" on, has begged the captain to return the ship that has cast off from the shore (this, as they say, only happens in films). It was her singing and playing the piano that provoked the lieutenant to disembark the ship "on the very first wharf". She was the one who took the initiative in everything (even regarding that in which well-mannered young ladies are usually passive). She disappeared without a trace when she wanted to. And let’s not forget that it was she who stole the cross from the Lieutenant. She was the designated "witness" of his determination, naive gullibility, and foolishness.

But are this man and woman really the main characters? We don't even know their names. And how do you make a connection with a person "if you don't know their name, or their address, or their city"?

A characteristic style of the Bible is the deliberate silencing of the names of those characters who do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. In the Old Testament the example of Lot's wife, turned into a pillar of salt, is memorable (Genesis 19:26). In seminary folklore there is an amusing proverb that says, "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32). "How, Lord, shall we remember her - we don’t know her name!"

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is remarkable in the New Testament. After death, Lazarus goes to the bosom of Abraham, and this emphasizes the fact that the names of the righteous are preserved in divine memory forever. The rich man ends up in the underworld, and his name is erased from God's memory.

The film is not about the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore the names of people faithful to the old ideals are crossed out, not in the face of God, but in the face of the new socialist Russia. And they have no prospect of future life in their Fatherland. As one character says, "I guess the new Russian spelling rules do not apply to you." Along with the names, heraldic distinctions and ranks are also forgotten (the sonorous title of nobility is replaced with the clownish nickname "Koka").

So who is the main character of the film? Of course, it is the commissar of a special unit of the Red Army, George Sergeevich, a.k.a. the glorious kid, Georgie.

George Sergeevich must be recognized as the main character, both by the central place he occupies in the plot, and by the spiritual significance of his sinister fate. Sinister, because it was on him that the poisonous effect of the fruits of Darwin's anti-Christian ideology manifested itself.

Georgie was an honest, good-hearted boy. He won't take anyone else's things, not even a fish from a neighbor's fishing rod. For the sake of returning his master's forgotten watch, he spent a long time chasing a cabman to the wharf and shouting (according to the film, he didn't make it in time).

He appreciates the beauty of nature in his homeland. He dreams of seeing the sea, for which he saves his earnings, including the coins given by the lieutenant. (He will have a close look at the sea through binoculars when he observes the barge sinking at the end of the movie).

He is literate. He strives for enlightenment and self-education. He is pious. He serves as an altar boy in the cathedral on Sundays and holy feast days. We see him clothed in the altar boy robe. He is never late for services and he manages to catch fish before the liturgy begins (you don't see such industrious altar boys these days).

In short, Georgie is a positive person endowed with rich spiritual gifts (in the Colonel's opinion, he is "the nicest person"). Christian upbringing was instilled in him deeply. After bidding farewell, he reverently and thoughtfully blesses the departing carriage of the lieutenant with the sign of the cross.

The leaven of the Church guides his train of thought even as he finds himself in the inner circle of such ardent haters of Orthodoxy and Russia as the head of the army political department, "Comrade Zemlyachka" and Bela Kun. He dares to address an impertinent question:

- Is it true that our Bolshevik ideas have much in common with Christianity?

To which he hears an iron shout from Rosalia Samuilovna Zalkind:

- A sad delusion!

Zemlyachka develops her thought in a sarcastic and unblockishly aphoristic manner, scornfully disparaging her adversaries, and leaving them no chance for reconciliation:

- They are cunning tactics… “Let us not fight.” “Let’s make offerings with garlands of white roses for Jesus Christ…"

The opinion of Zemlyachka is known in advance. Her answer is foregone. Class struggle until the victorious end, with the total ruthless destruction of all enemies - that is what the "Bolshevik idea" is all about. It’s according to Darwin. This is also what world progress and the new phase of social development is all about. And who are the "enemies"? - All the old regime misfits: officers and generals, Cossacks and kulaks, priests and merchants, landlords and capitalists. Yes, and even the Tsar, the Tsarina, and their children (by the time this part of the film takes place, the Tsar and his family had already been shot two years earlier).

The evangelical Christian attitude to peace is the exact opposite of the Marxist-Darwinist attitude. To love our neighbors and those far away. Bandaging the wounded hands of a comrade before he dies (even though he is a murderer and the marks on his palms betray his sin). To pray for all, including our enemies. And even to love one's enemies. What sincere enthusiasm the captain shows when he recognizes "Georgie" in George Sergeevich! Christ prayed for those who crucified Him: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). And here is joy bursting through the window of the porthole. The joy of encountering the evil one who knows what he is doing.

Thus, Georgie turned from a sympathetic, conscientious boy into a terrorist, who under the guise of "class struggle," carried out genocide against his own people. Perhaps to a greater extent than to the writer's wife ("not Chekhov"), the proverb can also be applied to Georgie:

- In nature, a plump larvae transforms into a beautiful butterfly. Why with women [and also with Georgie] is it quite the opposite?

Why did goodness not come out in Georgie Sergeevich? Obviously, his teachers, who formed his consciousness in the spirit of evolutionism, were to blame. The school biologist was the first in this line, and far from the last, "Comrade Zemlyachka":

- Your opinion is very important to me.

And the opinion is anti-human, anti-Christian: class enemies must be destroyed. And in no case be spared. At the same time, the monstrous principles did not remain only slogans. Georgy Sergeevich became their direct executor. In fact, this is exactly what the film "Sunstroke" is about.

After slamming the hold of the barge behind the officers who entered it, "Comrade Zemlyachka" rubs her hands together and gives her last order:

- Well, George Sergeevich, finish it. Report back when you've sent them off.

Who will you "send"? Where will you "send" them? Now the murderer Georgie Sergeyevich is going to send thousands of deceived prisoners of war to the afterlife. It seems that professional literary critics and art critics call this the "denouement of the plot". Yes, in vain the unfortunate victims believed the last words of Rosalia Samuilovna:

- You will be evacuated by sea. Quietly! This is done for your own safety.

George almost makes the sign of the cross

Lord, have mercy!

George changes his mind and adjusts his hat

Social Darwinism is not theoretical desk reasoning at all. It is the practice of mass murder. It is the "struggle for existence." It is the realization of the principle of "survival of the fittest". It is the action of "natural selection" via the physical destruction of the losers.

The most powerful scene in the film is when George Sergeevich watches the sinking of a barge filled with hundreds of innocent people, baptized Orthodox Christians. His hand involuntarily reaches to his forehead to make the sign of the cross. “Accept in peace, O Lord, and give rest to the souls of your innocently murdered servants!”

“Thy innocently murdered servants!” These words are not spoken, but are conveyed by a mute gesture. Immediately, however, the commissar of the special detachment recalls what he learned from his teachers, the Marxist Darwinists:

It is impossible to love enemies, it is impossible to sympathize with enemies, it is impossible even to pray for enemies. The sign of the cross is abolished. There's no need for it. A silly relic of the religious past. My hand unclenches my three fingers and fumbles for the visor of my cap...

...Instead of the failed insignia of the cross, a red star with sickle and hammer is deeply drawn on his forehead, as a visible sign of the seal of the Antichrist inscribed on his forehead. It is impossible to describe this scene in words. The director has succeeded in showing it in the language of film.

We hear again the recurring question in the film, "Where did it all begin?" How did the virtuous and respectful child Georgie turn into a cold-blooded executioner? How could his mind have changed so radically? The film provides the answer to these questions.

The musical accompaniment of the film is an expressive means of conveying universal seduction (in the traditional Church sense of the word, the Russian meaning is close to "deception" or "voluntary self-deception"). The charming melody from Camille Saint-Saëns' "Samson and Delilah" is heard on The Flying Ship and in the town, sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes as a background, and sometimes as the main and immediate element of action.

But what does the enchanting, charming Delilah sing about in her aria in French? She is simply casting a witch's spell.

It is a familiar plot from the Old Testament. The mighty, invincible warrior, who has fallen under the spell of a cunning woman, loses his strength, is taken captive by his enemies, the Philistines, and is enslaved and blinded (Judges 16:19-21). Samson, deprived of his eyes, is forced, like cattle, to walk in a circle, driving a heavy millstone. There is a mocking meaning in this grim symbolism. The fact is that the name of the biblical hero (in Hebrew - Shimshon) comes from the Hebrew word shemesh - "the sun".

Thus, "Sunstroke" can be perceived as "a blow to Samson" or even as "a blow that crushes Samson" - and then it would have direct relevance to Russia. Our homeland is rightly called the "sunniest" power. Not, of course, because we are warmer than other southern countries where there is no snow, but because when the sun sets below the horizon in Smolensk, a new dawn arises in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

The spell of Delilah was an intoxicating fog over all Russian life, and it brought the mighty vast Empire to an ignominious and humiliating early end. Thousands of combat officers were defeated by a handful of Bolsheviks led by another Delilah, Rosalia Samuilovna Zalkind: "And now the good news... We will be sailing in an hour." But this is the last chord of the evil magic spell.

How did it all begin?

For the Lieutenant it all began with Saint-Saëns. He suddenly remembered, and even hoarsely whispered the words of Delilah's aria, which his fiancée had often sung ("How she sings! Lizanka, my fiancée"). Immediately the young officer heard this aria in the bright and ringing performance of the charming stranger (is she not Delilah?). Soon, in the middle of the night, the lovers disembarked from the steamer ("A matter of life and death!"). "Sunstroke" also turned out to be a musical.

Here the opening of the plot ends, and the main substantive part of the film begins - the acquaintance and communication of the lieutenant with the main character (we have already mentioned the "denouement" of the film above).

For Georgie, it all began somewhat earlier. His spiritual corruption came from his biology teacher. The teacher had been poisoned by the newfangled teachings of Charles Darwin and began to teach his students the ideological poison of this worldview. It is unlikely that this provincial teacher was directly urging his young students to oppose God and the Church, the Tsar and the Fatherland. It is unlikely that he advocated outright rebellion, subversive revolutionary activity, and fratricidal civil war. Rather, he was simply dissecting frogs in front of children, comparing skeletons, and demonstrating pictures of "Haeckel's embryos". But in doing so, the idea was planted that everything had formed on its own, without God, and could exist without His wise Providence. And this thought forced everyone to choose between the old (Christian) and the new (atheistic) view of life.

Georgie made his choice painfully, in front of the Lieutenant and in front of the audience. Only the Lieutenant did not notice his mental anguish. As for us, moviegoers, let's try to see it.

Inquisitive Georgie begins an important conversation, but his interlocutor does not perceive it.

- Mister Lieutenant, have you studied science?

The enchanting music of Saint-Saëns is playing.

- Have you heard about Darwin? - The Lieutenant brushes the lad aside and listens to the aria.

- Well, Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"...

Instead of answering, the lieutenant suddenly shuts Georgie’s mouth with his hand. A mezzo-soprano is heard from somewhere, stirring the officer's senses and capturing all his attention. "What kind of nonsense is this little boy talking, disturbing my heart's pleasure like a pesky fly?" - That must have been what the brave officer thought. But in any case, shutting up the interlocutor was not the best start for a scientific and philosophical dialogue.

Georgie, who did not expect such rude treatment, bursts out and clarifies:

- "They teach music here," Delilah's aria comes from the open windows of the music school.

Then they go to the "magicial place". Since they were unable to discuss a serious topic at the first attempt, the inquisitive boy makes another attempt. The intoxicating music plays behind the scenes. The charms continue to work invisibly.

Mr. Lieutenant, what does all this mean? Does everyone come from monkeys?

- And my father, and my mother... Lord, have mercy!

- And the Tsar himself… does he also come from monkeys?... The Tsar... How could it be?...

- We have a teacher. He came from St. Petersburg. He is kind, attentive, responsive. Very kind.

- I wish there were more like him.

- But he doesn't believe in God. He says everything happens without God. Everything comes from a monkey. Is all this true?

Lieutenant, don't be too quick with your answer. Be aware of the possible consequences of what you say. This boy's fate depends on what you say now. And the fate of Russia. And your personal life (which will be tragically cut short in Crimea on Sunday, November 21, 1920). A mistake in answering could be a great and unavoidable catastrophe.

So it is with sincere trust and hope for a wise truthful answer that you are asked:

- Is it all true???

But in the lieutenant's soul, the spell cast by Saint-Saëns does not cease, and he answers absent-mindedly:

- If we accept Darwin's theory, yes.

The answer is wrong. Darwin does not have a "theory," but only a hypothesis. And no one has presented a single reliable fact to support it. This hypothesis is ungodly, or should I say godless. It should not be accepted. It contains the lie that man is an animal.

Georgie, a clever fellow, brilliantly parries the lieutenant's reply:

- So does that mean that you, too, are from an ape?

- Actually, I would not like that.

A glimmer of prudence arises at the moment when you attach an abstract speculative idea to yourself.

The flywheel, however, has already been set in motion. Delilah's aria continues behind the scenes. Now Georgie, stunned by the terrible thought, stops perceiving his interlocutor and brings the idea to its logical conclusion.

- What about me? Am I also from an ape? - He posited this key philosophical question about his own knowledge of himself, the answer to which determines the worldview of a man.

- Georgie, what a man believes, that’s what’s true for him.

This is a cheap phrase, claiming to be a proverb. But its content is pure nonsense, like Feuerbach's vulgar aphorism: "A man is what he eats." These words of the Lieutenant equate truth and falsehood. In them is the rejection of Truth, and therefore the rejection of Christ. They are the justification and legitimization of every delusion, including the delusion that man, created by God in His own image and likeness, is supposedly descended from an ape. The following words may seem witty and even funny. But it is not good humor:

- Your priest, Father Vasily, he definitely descended from an ape. Ten rubles for the consecration of a cross!

(For those who are not familiar with the plot, the explanation is that the lieutenant's romantic interest took his cross from him as a "keepsake". The lieutenant purchased a new cross and brought it to church, and Fr. Vasily set an exorbitant price for the consecration of the new cross.)

Saint-Saëns sounds unabated behind the scenes. The companions continue their march to the "magic place". Georgie becomes more and more convinced of his delusion.

- Mr. Lieutenant, what does this mean? Everyone comes from monkeys? Even my mother and father? Lord, have mercy!

So, we have sorted out our family tree. Uh-oh! Is it worth honoring your mother and father, if they came from monkeys? The fifth commandment has been abolished. Now there is no longer any reason to honor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16).

But it's not only the family foundation that is being overthrown:

- And the Tsar himself… does he also come from monkeys?

What honorable civil feelings, and even moreso, what loyal monarchical feelings can remain in our souls after this? Our Tsar, as it turns out, comes from a monkey! Delilah's aria does not cease. Georgie continues his line of reasoning:

- What does this mean? If the Tsar comes from a monkey, and the Empress, and their children, and all the Grand Dukes...?

Here, at last, the sacred structure of the state has also been dealt with. Now it becomes clear: all the representatives of the hierarchical structure of power in the empire are "from monkeys".

But this is not all:

- And our Bishop is from an ape... Lord, have mercy!

If we take Georgie’s thought to its conclusion, then not only the local priest, Father Vasily, but also the most reverend diocesan bishop is "from monkeys". After all, the Gospel (Matthew 1, Luke 3) indicates that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, had an earthly lineage. Then it appears that He, too, comes from...

Lord have mercy!!!

This is blasphemy against God, against Christ the Savior, and against His Holy Church. What kind of Son of God is He, if in fact He "comes from a monkey"?

The Lieutenant did not dignify all these questions with an answer. He just didn't get them.

At last they arrived at the marvelous place. Saint-Saëns is no longer heard. The brave Lieutenant is admired for his courage, jumping into the water from a high precipice. The bend in the river takes the viewer's attention away from the subject of Darwinism for a while. But, back in town, Georgie resumes this conversation again. He either turns to the Lieutenant or talks to himself:

- So is it true, then, that man is descended from an ape?

Here, perhaps, it would still be possible to help Georgie. To say firmly, "No, it's not true." To explain to the boy that apes have never had and cannot have reason, or a conscience, or a sense of beauty, or faith in God, or culture, or speech. To convince him not to mindlessly trust dubious and unsubstantiated scientific hypotheses.

One could point to the critical remarks against Darwinism made by the outstanding thinker, Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky.

One could recall that at this time Hieromonk Jerome, the elder confessor of the Russian monastery of St. Panteleimon on Mt. Athos, already had sounded the alarm: "In all secular schools one must soon reconsider the textbooks in all branches of science, for in some textbooks there are teachings opposed to the Holy Scriptures, especially in geology and physiology, which seduce young students and dispose them to disbelief. It is necessary to correct this and all that is similar to it, for otherwise nihilism will extend more and more."

One could cite the opinion of church authorities such as St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, or St. John of Kronstadt.

Georgie, with his Christian disposition of soul, sensitivity, and curiosity, would no doubt have perceived their arguments.

But this happy development of the plot (happy for Georgie and for Russian history) did not happen. The lieutenant probably had a very superficial understanding of the teachings of Charles Darwin himself, and was not at all familiar with the scientific and theological criticism of Darwinism.

Even worse, apparently, was the lieutenant's knowledge of church doctrine and the rules of Orthodox piety. He did not even go into the church, even though it was a Sunday. It is difficult to imagine him praying at the Divine Liturgy. However, the lieutenant was accustomed to wearing a personal cross, so according to the plot of the movie, when his cross is missing, he rushed to buy a new one "in the shop of Sholom Isayevich, a local Jew" and demanded that it be blessed "in the fullest and correct order."

The Lieutenant could answer nothing of substance about the content of Darwin's "theory" and its contradiction to the Orthodox faith. As he said goodbye, he nodded kindly to Georgie:

- And say hello to your teacher.

- I will. I will definitely tell him.

With this greeting to the Darwinists, everything began.

There was a revolution in the worldview of Georgie. He initially perceived the elegant Muscovite as an educated, intelligent man. But it turned out that this homo sapiens is "from a monkey". What kind of authority is he after that?

Mother and father, too, as it turned out, are "from monkeys". Why should we honor their orangutan patriarchal ways?

Our priest (the lieutenant confirmed it!) is also "from a monkey". Therefore, all church teachings are stupid. They speak not of a struggle for survival, but of some dubious humility: Learn from Me, that I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29). “I don’t desire this!”

The Tsar, as we now know, is "from a monkey", along with the Tsarina and the children. And after that, they still want me to serve them? I won't! Because I'm a monkey myself!!! And I will no longer support this old zoo.

The whole monkey "world of violence we will destroy, until it crumbles to the ground," with all its ecclesiastical and monarchical ideals. Life is a struggle. The fittest survive. Uncompetitive individuals are doomed to extermination by the more advanced on the evolutionary ladder.

- Mr. Lieutenant, can you hear me?

That's how it all began.

And it ended with a sad statement by one of the officers, giving away his father's collection:

- There is nothing: no father, no collection, no Tsar, no war, no peace.

Also:

- No shame, no sin.

- There is no reconciliation, and there is no humility.

There is only the triumph of Darwinism. This can also be seen in the fact that, in regard to the ape-like "comrade Zemlyachka", the ape-like Bela Kun calls her "goddess" several times throughout the film (although with an international, sarcastic accent: "goddess"). Well, having rejected God, one has to put someone on a divine pedestal! As one famous bard sang, "I have to pray to someone..."

And what does the esteemed audience do throughout the film? They chase the wind-blown handkerchief of a beautiful stranger across the decks. When I first saw the picture, this prolonged scene seemed unfortunate to me, and even superfluous. The artificiality of the episode is obvious and unpleasant. Comical (but not funny) cartoon characters emphasize the absurdity of the scene (just look at the "father"!).

However, upon a second viewing, the director's intent became more obvious. This grotesque display is meant to emphasize the contrast with the very sensible, calculated, and purposeful actions of the Bolshevik victors. How precisely, with split-second precision, the commissars in leather jackets drove their automobile into the frame of the camera! While the romantic hero is running around chasing a handkerchief (he never manages to catch it - well done, Mikhalkov!), in every provincial and district town there is the invisible work of implanting the ideology of Darwinism into the minds and hearts of young students. The adventures of the steamboat will not end in anything. And the seed of the enemy will soon bring disastrous fruit: a series of revolutions and an exterminating Civil War.

The Darwinist inoculation also infects some of the passengers sailing on the ship. Standing out among them is a hideous, masked illusionist with huge ears and a big nose.

When the magician appears without a mask, we happen to learn that he walks around in a wig. In pre-revolutionary times such dishonest people were called "tricksters" and "knaves". Nowadays the word "swindler" is more common. In Church Slavonic we could say "flatterer" (one of the epithets of the devil).

What does he talk about with the benefactor who saved his reputation? - About how good it would be for him to go abroad ("Have you never been abroad?"). About the new Western doctrines ("Do you know of Marx? No?"). About ideas of progress, the growth of capital, the transformation of society according to Western standards. In a word, about social Darwinism in its various manifestations.

Dostoyevsky devoted his novel The Possessed to this theme. It, too, speaks of the influence of the ideology of Social Darwinism on the consciousness of Russian society. This is evident, for example, in the following dialogue, which is very much in tune with the theme of the film in question:

"- ...Then a new life, then a new man, everything is new... Then history will be divided into two parts: from the gorilla to the destruction of God and from the destruction of God to...

- Before the gorilla?

- ... Before the change of the earth and man physically." The demon acts unnoticeably. Society is poisoned, infected with spiritual disease. People lose faith in the Creator and begin to practice real totemism - belief in their own animal origin: "from a gorilla" or "from an ape".

It is symbolic that the slimy little man in "Sunstroke" (a typical "demon" in Dostoyevsky's terminology) destroys a lovesick lieutenant's watch in an iron trash can, and gives him his own in return. This can be taken to mean: Your time, gentlemen, has come to an end. A new time has come. Our time. You yourself voluntarily and without compulsion gave us your chronometer. Here you will receive for it "destruction and reconstruction". I propose that you accept the new clock ("the clock is in working order... I chose the melody myself") and enter into our new time with it.

But the lieutenant will not accept the diabolical invitation. He will find himself among the White Guards and will not enter the "new life" with the new clock. These clocks (with a broken cover - just a touch to the portrait) will fall into the hands of Georgie ("I have my own!"). Watch the film to see what Georgie will do with it.

A characteristic detail. The captain was the only one to retain his shoulder straps, and with them his officer's honor and dignity. He, full of hatred for the Bolsheviks, ended his life in the "olden times".

* * *

Red Commissar George Sergeevich lost his faith in the Resurrection of Christ and confessed in word and deed the Darwinian doctrine of the descent of man from an ape. As the officers are filling out a questionnaire on the eve of their deaths, he addresses each of them with an exhortation for some reason:

- "Sunday" need not be written. (In Russian, the word for "Sunday" and "Resurrection" are identical.)

But anyone who has kept faith in the Gospel promise of Eternal Life knows without a doubt that he, like his Lord, did not come "from a monkey". The kingdom of heaven is prepared for those who have the image and likeness of God.

It is striking that the doomed, deceived people went into the hold of the barge with a song. That, at least, was how Zemlyachka took it: "Let them sing. It's very symbolic." But Georgy Sergeyevich, of course, understood that it was not a "song", but a prayer. The troparion to the Life-Giving Cross: "Save, O Lord, Thy people, and bless Thine inheritance..."

The intertwining of the themes of the Cross and the wicked Delilah in the film can be seen in the following parallel.

The cunning woman deprived the biblical Samson of God's help. She cut off the hair of the sleeping man and profaned his vow, according to which during all the days of the vow he should not touch his head with the razor, till the days of his commitment to the Lord he should grow the hair of his head (Numbers 6:5). With the breaking of the vow, the gracious power and protection from the Almighty is taken away. It was only when the hair grew back that the defeated Samson was able to accomplish his final feat - to die, destroying many of his enemies, the Philistines, along with himself. In this sense Samson is an Old Testament type of Christ the Savior, who humbled himself to the shameful death of the Cross and destroyed the power of the devil by His resurrection.

The beautiful stranger in the movie "Sunstroke" steals from the Lieutenant, taking his cross, on which it is written: "Save and Preserve". This is the cross, which gives protection and shelter to those who trust in God: "He who lives for the help of the Highest shall live in the shelter of the God of heaven" (Psalm 90:1). Neither the merchant of the First Guild, Sholom Isayevich, nor the cathedral archpriest, Father Vasily, is able to return to its rightful owner the grace of the first and only cross he has lost. And without it, any hero, like the shorn Samson, is doomed in this life to defeat. That is why the antemortem common chanting of the troparion to the Lord's Cross testifies to a victorious feat of martyrdom, like Samson's - a feat of trusting in Jesus Christ - Christ who died and on the third day rose again.

---

NOTE: This article is an excerpt from a phenomenal NEW 3-volume set defending Creationism and refuting Darwinism — Make sure to check out the UPDATES regarding the progress in translating and publishing this set!