Werner Herzog is one of the best living documentary directors so it is no surprise that Meeting Gorbachev is one of the most germane documentaries and a strong contender as one of the best documentaries in 2019. Devil’s advocates facetiously suggest that it may be a good thing that the ties between Russia and US are closer so it is useful to have a documentary that shows what a beneficial relationship between major world powers looks like and the effects of that relationship on others.
I was only a kid when the Cold War ended. Mikhail Gorbachev was everywhere then he disappeared so I was incredibly interested as an adult to explore a time that I experienced, but didn’t logistically understand. How did we get from the USSR to where we are now? Herzog makes Meeting Gorbachev from a European, specifically a German, point of view so the US is never centered in this film though it plays an important role. American viewers may be surprised how many countries’ perspectives share equal time with the US because they are essential to understanding this period and this man.
Herzog frames Meeting Gorbachev as an apology to Russia from Germany. He reminds viewers that Russia was a victim in World War II because this historical perspective is a necessary reminder that that region was not always dominant and powerful and explains a reason why the USSR would think that it is reasonable to be an oppressive, occupying force of other nations. Someone can’t attack and kill you if you conquer them. It is easy to forget that hurt people hurt people, and that phenomenon occurs on the world stage as well. Herzog manages to strike a tricky balance: explaining without rationalizing or excusing later behavior. He proactively takes responsibility for a nation or others as a fellow countryman even if he is literally not directly responsible or does not have the authority to speak for them. He uses empathy to humanize the USSR instead of seeing them as the powerful villain.
Herzog shows us that based on this historical pain that had a tremendous personal impact on Gorbachev, Gorbachev is impressive for emerging from this horror emotionally healthy and embracing the Soviet power structure without adopting its worst traits. Meeting Gorbachev paints the portrait of the country mouse that goes into the world. I wish that Herzog further explored how he could be an activist in the USSR, a term that Gorbachev used to describe himself when he was a student? I found myself comparing this portrait with Rudolf Nureyev, who was from a different region, as he was depicted in The White Crow. Both men are from humble backgrounds, embraced doing things in a new way, but their relationship with the establishment is completely different. Meeting Gorbachev seems to suggest that Gorbachev is good natured, a man that earnestly believed that the system could be fixed from within so was willing to be a part of it and deferential to it in a way that Nureyev couldn’t imagine. Like Nureyev, he wanted to stay in the seat of centralized power, but when ordered, unlike Nureyev, enthusiastically returned home and embraced his orders by finding a path that suited him in his hometown. Gorbachev also seems to be a man shockingly without a big ego, an unusual trait in a politician, especially for a party official, and authentically curious about the world. He could travel then willing return home with what he learned instead of being punished for it. He and the system that accepted him seemed to be blissfully unaware that he was “digging the grave of the system.”
Herzog has a light touch as he orients the viewers to Gorbachev’s ascent in power with an unusual and comedic funeral sequence before he digs into the practical result of Gorbachev’s two guiding principles: perestroika and glasnost or reform and transparency in government correspondingly. Because the end of the Cold War unfolded quite rapidly, I found Herzog’s breakdown of the pivotal events quite enlightening, especially when he compared it historically to USSR’s response in 1956. Herzog’s main point seems to be that because Gorbachev did not feel threatened by the dismantling of the trappings of power, disarmament of nuclear weapons, fall of the Berlin Wall, cutting of the Iron Curtain, reunification of Germany, it could happen without USSR intervening violently and stopping it.
Without explicitly critiquing Putin or Presidon’t, Meeting Gorbachev shows that a genuine closer relationship with another superpower would mean peace instead of another arms race, more freedom and autonomy for individual countries, a stronger NATO and more economic growth. When a confident man without fear is at the helm, he holds power loosely and gives it to others. It is possible to heal historical wounds and move past them, but the drawback is that it will leave that man vulnerable to a power grab from others, which could threaten the overall progress. You will know them by their fruits.
A reasonable criticism of Meeting Gorbachev is that most of this perspective is provided by Herzog and not elicited from the actual interviews with Gorbachev. I’m fine with that because Gorbachev is innately a politician, and it is Herzog’s film. A film just consisting of him droning on would be fairly static and boring, and we are Meeting Gorbachev, the man as he was then and now. We don’t need to be slaves to the literal meaning of the title. I am grateful for the structuring and providing of context. Gorbachev is ever diplomatic and not candid so I didn’t expect a politician to do the heavy lifting. If I do have a criticism, I can’t believe that a man who is eighty-seven years old and once held power has only one flaw: that he was not paranoid enough to hold power. USSR did a lot of dirt, and I can’t believe that he emerged from it as clean as this documentary would have us believe, but if he did, it is impressive. Maybe he was the best of the worst, but what does that mean? I need to know before I can sign the great man petition being circulated by Herzog, the president of Gorbachev’s fan club.
Meeting Gorbachev does not do enough to explain why Gorbachev was promoted for being critical, willing to reform and adopt foreign ideas that resulted in persecution for others. It simply accepts that he was, but I would love to know what made him a special flower nurtured by a regime known for brutal, official suppression. Was it simply timing and willingness to reform out of necessity and survival? I can’t believe it. As an outsider looking in, I’m still puzzled by his ascent. People get backlash for being excellent and different in alleged meritocracies. Teach me!
You don’t have to see Meeting Gorbachev in theaters to fully appreciate it, but if you want to insure that documentaries such as this one keep getting made, and you can afford it, please do so. If you do watch it at home, I would pair it with Zero Days to get an international perspective of how the US ended up in the political hellscape that we are currently in.
