[Williams]

I find the movie ending deeply troubling, the daughter is told the story by a sympathetic Soviet General (Alec Guiness) who talks about all the progress made by the USSR.

[GreyFriar]

The general was Zhivago’s half-brother and the girl’s uncle. It would have been unusual for a high official at the time to have voiced doubts of Stalin’s successes.

[Sam Clements]

Put me in the camp that is troubled by the end of the movie. I thought it was an attempt to put a positive spin on the Soviets. I was 13 when first viewing this and did not buy it.

In recent listings of great movies, this one is dropping bigly.

[Noob1999]

Lara under the fur bedding! YUM!

[Rockingham]

Such a character and the expression of a Soviet point of view are a dramatic necessity. Since the story is about the brutal utopianism of Soviet Communism imposed on people as they simply try to live with no role in politics, the Soviet side has to have an explanation by a sympathetic character.

If not, if such a character and viewpoint are lacking, then the brutality of Soviet communism against ordinary people becomes like a destructive natural force such as a volcano or hurricane instead of arising from deliberate choices directed by a monstrous philosophy. As it is, the humane sympathy that we develop for Yuri, Lara, and other characters in the movie leads viewers to reject the excuses and justifications that a sympathetic character offers for the brutality of communism.

The more cogent criticism of the movie perhaps is that it emphasized the soap opera elements of Pasternak's masterpiece at the expense of his full depiction of just how terrible and evil Soviet communism was. Smuggled to the West and first published in Italian with secret CIA assistance, Paternak's novel caused an international sensation. Not until 1988 was the full, original version openly published in Russia, but it had long circulated in samizdat and did much to discredit communism in its original and greatest stronghold.