作者：戈冰
前言
当共产主义宏大的意识形态渗透进个体的日常生活时，其对人类心灵的规训便达到了最隐秘的境地。本片将镜头对准90年代初中国社会转型前夜的一个女孩。在这个由红色积木和苏俄历史人物名字构筑的微缩乌托邦里，本该纯真的童年游戏，却无意识地复制了冷酷的权力运行逻辑和“人民审判”。女孩最终在火光中的逝去，表面上是理想主义的落幕，实质上却是一场思想被高度异化后的精神殉葬。这种集体主义幻觉在面对现实的祛魅时，最终走向了毁灭。本文将以片中看似天真的儿童游戏为切入点，逐一剖析其背后隐喻的共产主义话语体系如何对个体思想进行异化与戕害，直面其严酷的精神规训本质。
一，童年乌托邦的崩塌：从红色积木到时代巨变
故事发生在20世纪90年代初中国的一个普通工业城市。一个小女孩在那个年代特有的集体氛围中长大。她拥有一套红色积木，这是她童年最重要的玩具。家里养了几只小动物，她分别给它们取了革命人物的名字，比如猫叫“弗拉基米尔”、小鸡叫“菲利克斯”，还有一只调皮的小鸭叫“贝利亚”。女孩经常模仿大人，以集体的名义“审判”那些犯错的小动物，沉浸在自己创造的平等和理想游戏当中。
后来，外部世界发生了剧烈变化。苏联解体带来的冲击波也传到了这里。女孩身边的“动物伙伴”一个个不见了。她用红色积木和童年幻想搭建起来的小世界，在现实压力下开始崩塌。她曾经坚信的东西正在迅速失去根基，这种成长与时代剧变的碰撞，让她感到强烈的失落和迷茫。
女孩不得不面对现实：家里和街上到处都是新出现的资本主义商品——芭比娃娃、米老鼠等各种洋玩具。但贝利亚离开前，给她留下一块带有红色标记的积木，上面刻着“达瓦里希（同志）”这个最高指示。在幻觉和现实不断交替中，女孩紧紧抱着这块积木和内心的理想，冲出了家门。最后，她在城市拆迁的火光与烟尘中离开了。
女孩的离去，象征着那个年代的理想主义彻底落幕。在她最后的意识里，她又回到了过去大家一起努力的时光。尽管周围满是废墟和变化，她还是选择朝着那个“很多人已经不再相信的梦想”继续走下去。
现在我们逐一分析影片中共产主义对于人类思想的侵蚀戕害。
二，被塑造的天真：意识形态如何进入儿童的游戏
影片前部，贝利亚因为偷盗一块积木而遭到主人公审判：“贝利亚因为盗窃社会主义和人民的积木而要受到处分。”这看似只是儿童游戏中的一句玩笑话，却暴露出影片一个值得关注的细节。小女孩并没有简单地指责贝利亚偷走了“我的积木”，而是将其上升为对“社会主义”和“人民”的侵害。
从这个角度来看，问题不在于女孩的天真，而在于她的天真已经被特定的政治话语所塑造。本应属于儿童的世界——游戏、友谊与好奇心——被宏大叙事重新编码。她不再只是给动物起名字，而是在赋予它们政治身份；她不再只是与动物玩耍，而是在模仿一种权力运行的逻辑。
更值得注意的是，在这场“审判”中，“人民”被作为最终的合法性来源，却始终没有被清晰界定。谁代表人民？谁有权解释人民的利益？谁又能够决定某种行为是否损害了人民？这些问题在游戏中并hu不存在，因为审判者、立法者和解释者实际上都是同一个人——女孩自己。
正是在这种意义上，这场儿童游戏成为一种政治寓言。它所呈现的并非现代法治所强调的程序、权利与制衡，而是一种以抽象集体名义进行裁决的思维模式。当“人民”被视为最高价值时，个体的声音反而容易被淹没；而当“人民”的定义掌握在权力者手中时，谁属于人民、谁不属于人民，也往往不再由个人决定。
三，想象的敌人：意识形态如何替代真实世界
影片中有一个引人思索的细节。在拥挤的电梯里，小女孩忧心忡忡地问母亲：“妈妈，我们的大楼会不会被美国炸掉？”
对于成年人而言，这或许只是儿童的胡思乱想。然而，一个从未见过美国人、不了解国际政治的孩子，为何会将美国与战争和毁灭自然地联系起来？这种恐惧显然不是来源于个人经验，而是来源于她所接触的政治叙事。
从这个角度来看，影片实际上呈现出一种值得警惕的现象：当个体尚未具备独立思考能力时，便已经学会按照既定的话语框架理解世界。世界被简单划分为“我们”和“他们”，“同志”和“敌人”，“人民”和“反人民”。在这样的叙事中，复杂的现实被压缩为道德判断，而抽象的政治身份则取代了真实的人。
这种思维模式在中国近代史上并不陌生。义和团运动时期，许多人相信外部世界是威胁自身生存的邪恶力量；而在互联网时代，部分极端民族主义者也习惯于将国际关系简化为善恶对抗。在两者之间虽然存在巨大的时代差异，但都反映出一种共同倾向：以想象中的敌人代替真实世界，以情绪化的身份认同代替理性分析。
影片中的女孩当然不是义和团成员，也不是今天所谓的“粉红”。但她身上已经出现了类似的心理结构——在尚未理解世界之前，先学会了恐惧世界；在尚未接触他者之前，先学会了定义他者。这或许才是影片无意间暴露出的更深层问题。
四，无法被隔绝的现代性：当商品文化击碎意识形态幻梦
影片中部还有一个颇具象征意味的细节。几位母亲谈论起从西方传入的新式洗发膏，她们兴致勃勃地讨论着产品功效：“对皮肤特别好，silk就是蚕丝的意思。”对于成年人而言，这不过是再平常不过的消费选择；然而在小女孩的耳中，这却意味着某种无法接受的背叛。她认为母亲已经背离了自己所坚信的那个世界，转而向另一个世界靠拢。
这里实际上呈现出一种耐人寻味的反差。儿童仍然生活在意识形态构筑的世界里，而成年人已经开始按照现实利益和生活需求作出选择。当小女孩还在维护自己幻想中的“社会主义”时，大人们却已经开始学习英文单词，讨论进口商品，并主动接受来自西方的消费文化。
这种现象并非第一次出现在中国历史上。晚清时期，统治者一方面以“夷夏之防”的观念警惕西方影响，另一方面又沉迷于西方带来的物质享受。正如圆明园中的西洋楼景观所展现的那样，皇帝和后妃并不排斥西方所代表的舒适与享乐，他们只是希望将这些东西控制在自己能够掌握的范围之内。
问题在于，现代化从来不是一种可以被局部接受的商品。技术、制度、思想与生活方式往往相伴而来。当统治者试图用高墙将西洋景观围起来，用传统秩序隔绝外部世界时，最终迎来的却是更剧烈的碰撞。大刀、梭标和土炮终究无法阻挡工业文明的到来，封闭的梦境也终究无法抵御现实的冲击。
影片中的小女孩实际上重复了同样的逻辑。她愿意接受红色积木构筑的乌托邦，却拒绝理解母亲为何会对“silk”产生兴趣；她试图把理想世界与现实世界彻底分开，却不知道现实早已悄悄进入家门。正如晚清中国最终无法将西方锁在国门之外一样，她也无法阻止那个由商品、市场和消费文化构成的新世界逐渐取代自己熟悉的一切。
五，当历史被美化：胜利叙事中的沉默与缺席
片尾出现的武器耐人寻味。波波沙冲锋枪、莫辛-纳甘步枪、DP-27轻机枪、Tu-2轰炸机、T-34坦克和喀秋莎火箭炮，都是苏联卫国战争时期最具代表性的装备。导演没有选择冷战后期的先进武器，而是将镜头停留在1945年的胜利时刻。这种选择并非偶然，因为1945年的红军象征着共产主义最辉煌、最容易被神话化的历史记忆。
然而，这种钢铁洪流的背后，却看不到大清洗、古拉格劳改营、政治迫害和长期经济困境。影片将复杂而充满争议的历史压缩成胜利与荣耀的叙事，使观众看到的是理想化的苏联形象，而不是共产主义制度在现实中的代价。因此，导演所怀念的并非真实存在过的苏联，而是经过选择性记忆塑造出来的苏联神话。
六，萌化的名字，血腥的历史：三只宠物背后的国家暴力谱系
更细思极恐的是，导演将三只宠物分别命名为弗拉基米尔、菲利克斯和贝利亚。
对于不了解苏联历史的观众而言，这不过是几个普通名字；但对于熟悉历史的人来说，它们分别对应列宁、捷尔任斯基和拉夫连季·贝利亚——苏联革命、秘密警察体系以及国家恐怖机器的重要象征。
导演并没有让这些人物以庄严肃穆的历史形象出现，而是将其降格为宠物。这种处理方式既消解了历史人物的神圣性，也削弱了他们身上的政治重量。曾经影响数千万人的革命领袖、秘密警察首脑和内务部负责人，在动画中变成了围绕主人打转的小动物。
这种反差构成了影片最黑色幽默的一笔。
如果进一步追溯这三个名字背后的历史，则会发现导演的选择并非偶然。
列宁奠定了一党专政的政治框架；捷尔任斯基创建契卡，使秘密警察成为国家统治的重要工具；贝利亚则成为大清洗、古拉格体系和国家恐怖的代表人物之一。
三个人的历史轨迹，恰好对应着苏联国家权力不断扩张的过程。从革命理想，到暴力维稳，再到制度化恐怖，影片用三个看似无害的宠物名字，浓缩了一段极其沉重的历史。
导演没有选择马克思、恩格斯或斯大林，而是选择了列宁、捷尔任斯基和贝利亚。这三个名字共同指向的并非共产主义理想本身，而是维护这一理想所建立起来的国家暴力机器。
结语
从“人民审判”的童年游戏到最终的精神殉葬，女孩的悲剧展现了宏大叙事对个体心灵的极限异化。那些被萌化的苏俄符号背后，是沉重的国家暴力机器。当虚无的集体主义幻觉被现实祛魅，她选择与红色积木一同走向毁灭。这不仅是理想主义的落幕，更是极权话语吞噬纯真、戕害思想的一声沉痛挽歌。
编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：戈冰
A Brief Review of “Forward Darvarian”
Author: Ge Bing
Preface
The discipline of the human mind reached its most secretive state when the grand ideology of communism permeated the daily lives of individuals. The film focuses on a girl on the eve of China’s social transformation in the early 1990s. In this miniature utopia constructed from red building blocks and the names of Soviet historical figures, what should be an innocent childhood game unconsciously replicates the cold logic of power operation and “people’s judgment”. The girl’s final death in the flames was, on the surface, the end of idealism, but in reality it was a spiritual burial after her thoughts were highly alienated. This collectivist illusion, faced with the disenchantment of reality, ultimately leads to destruction. This article will use the seemingly innocent children’s games in the film as a starting point to analyze one by one how the metaphorical communist discourse system behind it alienates and harms individual thoughts, and confront the harsh nature of its spiritual discipline.
I. The Collapse of Childhood Utopia: From Red Blocks to a Great Change of Times
The story takes place in an ordinary industrial city in China in the early 1990s. A little girl grew up in the collective atmosphere that was unique to that era. She owns a set of red building blocks, which were the most important toys of her childhood. The family had several small animals, and she named them after revolutionary figures, such as the meow of a cat “Vladimir”, the meow of a chicken “Felix”, and the meow of a mischievous duckling “Belia”. Girls often imitate adults, collectively “judging” the erring critters and immersing themselves in the game of equality and ideals they have created.
Later, the outside world changed dramatically. The shockwaves from the collapse of the Soviet Union also reached here. The “animal companions” next to the girl are gone one by one. The little world she had built with red blocks and childhood fantasies began to crumble under the pressure of reality. What she once believed in was rapidly losing its foundation, and this collision of growth and the upheaval of the times left her feeling intensely lost and lost.
Girls have to face reality: their homes and streets are full of new capitalist commodities —— Barbie dolls, Mickey Mouse and other foreign toys. But before Beria left, he left her a block with a red mark on it, engraved with the highest instruction “Darvarihi (comrade”. In a constant alternation of illusion and reality, the girl rushed out of the house, holding the block tightly and her inner ideal. Finally, she left in the fire and smoke of the city demolition.
The girl’s departure symbolizes the complete end of the idealism of that era. In her last consciousness, she returned to the time when everyone worked together. Despite the ruins and changes around her, she chose to continue walking towards that “dream that many people no longer believe in”.
Now let’s analyze the erosion of human thought caused by communism in the film one by one.
II. Shaped Innocence: How Ideology Enters Children’s Play
At the beginning of the film, Beria is tried by the protagonist for stealing a building block: “Beria is punished for stealing a building block of socialism and the people.” This may seem like just a joke in a children’s game, but it reveals a noteworthy detail of the film. Instead of simply accusing Beria of stealing “my building blocks”, the little girl raised it to an attack on “socialism” and “the people”.
From this perspective, the problem is not the girl’s naiveté, but that her naiveté has been shaped by a particular political discourse. The world that should belong to children ——games, friendships and curiosity—— is recoded by the grand narrative. She no longer just names animals, but gives them political identities; she no longer just plays with animals, but imitates a logic of power operation.
It is even more noteworthy that in this “trial”, “the people” are presented as the ultimate source of legitimacy, yet they are never clearly defined. Who represents the people? Who has the right to interpret the interests of the people? Who can decide whether an action harms the people? These questions do not exist in the game, because the judge, legislator and interpreter are actually the same person —— the girl herself.
It is in this sense that this children’s game becomes a political allegory. It presents not the procedures, rights and checks and balances emphasized by the modern rule of law, but a mindset that adjudicates in the name of an abstract collective. When “the people” is regarded as the highest value, the individual voice is easily drowned out; and when the definition of “the people” is in the hands of those in power, who belongs to the people and who does not belong to the people are often no longer determined by the individuals.
III. Enemies of the Imagination: How Ideology Can Replace the Real World
There is a thought-provoking detail in the film. In the crowded elevator, the little girl asked her mother worriedly: “Mom, will our building be blown up by the United States?”
For adults, this may just be a child’s fantasy. Yet why would a child who had never met an American and did not understand international politics naturally associate the United States with war and destruction? This fear clearly stemmed not from personal experience but from the political narratives she was exposed to.
From this perspective, the film actually presents a phenomenon worth being wary of: when individuals do not yet have the ability to think independently, they have learned to understand the world according to the established discourse framework. The world is simply divided into “us” and “them”, “comrades” and “enemies”, “people” and “anti-people”. In such narratives, complex realities are compressed into moral judgments, while abstract political identities replace real people.
This mindset is no stranger to modern Chinese history. During the Boxer Rebellion, many people believed that the outside world was an evil force threatening their own survival; and in the Internet age, some extreme nationalists are also accustomed to reducing international relations to a confrontation between good and evil. While there are significant differences in time between the two, both reflect a common tendency to replace the real world with imagined enemies and rational analysis with emotional identities.
The girl in the film was certainly not a Boxer, nor is she what is known today as “Pink”. But a similar psychological structure has emerged in her ——learning to fear the world before she understands it; learning to define the other before she touches it. This may be the deeper problem that the film inadvertently exposes.
IV, the uninsoluble modernity: When commodity culture shatters ideological dreams
There is also a rather symbolic detail in the middle of the film. Several mothers talked about the new shampoos that had arrived from the West, and they enthusiastically discussed the product’s effects: “It’s especially good for the skin; silk means silk.” For adults, this is just another common consumption choice; however, in the ears of little girls, it means a certain unacceptable betrayal. She believed that her mother had turned away from the world she believed in and moved closer to another world.
There’s actually an intriguing contrast here. Children still live in an ideologically constructed world, while adults have begun to make choices based on real interests and life needs. While the little girl is still defending her fantasy “socialism”, the adults have begun to learn English words, discuss imported goods, and actively accept consumer culture from the West.
This phenomenon is not the first time it has appeared in Chinese history. During the late Qing Dynasty, rulers were wary of Western influence with the concept of “defense against the barbarians and the Xia”, while also indulging in the material pleasures brought by the West. As the view of the Western-style building in the Old Summer Palace shows, the emperor and his concubines did not reject the comforts and pleasures represented by the West; they simply wanted to keep these things within their grasp.
The problem is that modernization is never a commodity that can be accepted locally. Technology, institutions, ideas and lifestyles often go hand in hand. When rulers tried to enclose the Western landscape with high walls and isolate the outside world with traditional order, they ended up with a more violent collision. Big knives, shuttle markers and earthen cannons will not be able to stop the arrival of industrial civilization, and closed dreams will not be able to resist the impact of reality.
The little girl in the film actually repeats the same logic. She is willing to accept the utopia built of red blocks, but refuses to understand why her mother is interested in “silk”; she tries to completely separate the ideal world from the real world, but she doesn’t know that reality has already quietly entered the house. Just as China in the late Qing Dynasty was ultimately unable to lock the West outside its borders, she was also unable to prevent that new world of goods, markets, and consumer culture from gradually replacing everything she was familiar with.
V. When History is Beautified: Silence and Absence in Victory Narratives
The weapon that appears at the end of the film is intriguing. The Poposha submachine gun, Mosin-Nagant rifle, DP-27 light machine gun, Tu-2 bomber, T-34 tank and Katyusha rocket launcher are all the most representative equipment of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War. Instead of choosing advanced weapons from the post-Cold War period, the director kept the camera focused on the moment of victory in 1945. This choice was no accident, as the Red Army in 1945 symbolized communism’s most glorious and easily mythologized historical memory.
Yet, behind this torrent of steel, there is no sign of the Great Purge, Gulag labor camps, political persecution and long-term economic hardship. The film compresses a complex and controversial history into a narrative of victory and glory, allowing viewers to see an idealized image of the Soviet Union rather than the real-life cost of the communist system. Therefore, the director does not miss the real Soviet Union, but the Soviet myth shaped by selective memory.
VI. Cute Names, Bloody History: The Genealogy of State Violence Behind Three Pets
On closer reflection, the director named the three pets Vladimir, Felix, and Beria.
To viewers unfamiliar with Soviet history, these are just a few common names; but to those familiar with history, they correspond to Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, and Lavrentiy Beria ——important symbols of the Soviet Revolution, the secret police system, and the state terror machine.
Rather than presenting these characters as solemn and historical figures, the director reduces them to pets. This approach both dissolves the sanctity of historical figures and weakens the political weight they carry. The revolutionary leader, head of the secret police and head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, who once influenced tens of millions of people, is transformed into a small animal that revolves around its owner in the animation.
This contrast constitutes the film’s darkest humor.
If the history behind these three names is further traced, it will be found that the director’s choice was not accidental.
Lenin laid the political framework for a one-party dictatorship; Dzerzhinsky created the Cheka, making the secret police an important tool for state rule; and Beria became one of the representatives of the Great Purge, the Gulag system, and state terror.
The historical trajectories of the three people correspond exactly to the process of continuous expansion of Soviet state power. From revolutionary ideals, to violent stability maintenance, to institutionalized terror, the film condenses an extremely heavy history with three seemingly harmless pet names.
The director chose not Marx, Engels or Stalin, but Lenin, Dzerzhinsky and Beria. Together, these three names refer not to the communist ideal itself, but to the state apparatus of violence built up by upholding it.
Conclusion
From the childhood games of “People’s Judgment” to the final spiritual burial, the girl’s tragedy demonstrates the extreme alienation of the individual psyche by grand narratives. Behind those cute Soviet symbols is a heavy state violence machine. When the collectivist illusion of nothingness is disenchanted by reality, she chooses to go to destruction with the red blocks. This is not only the end of idealism, but also a painful elegy for totalitarian discourse to devour innocence and harm ideas.
Editor: Feng Ren Proofreader: Feng Ren Translation: Ge Bing
