ZdenkoMandui

CMST36602/AvantgardeStalinism
Prof.PeterBagrov
PilotsBehavingBadlyandtheVisualAttractionoftheirPlanes:
HowMikhailKalatozovReturnedtoFilmmaking
It'sdifficulttoignorecertainparallelsbetweenthecareeroftheGeorgianborn,Sovietfilm
directorMikhailKalatozovandtheaviatorprotagonistsofhisfirsttwosoundproductions,the
subdued,youngpilotAlekseiTomilininManhood(Muzhestvo,1939)andtheboisterous,
eponymousheroofhisnextfilm,thelegendarySovietairman,ValeriiChkalov.Likehisvery
talentedpilotswhoeithersufferskepticism(Tomilin)oroutrightcondemnation(Chkalov),
Kalatozov'sreceivedcriticalrecognitionaswellasofficialscornoverthecourseofhiscareer.
Hismaturesilentfilms,therenowneddocumentarySaltforSvanetia(Sol'Svanetii,1930)andthe
subsequentagitpropfilmNailintheBoot(Gvozd'vsapoge,1932)showcasedAvantGarde
montagetechniquesandmasterfulcinematography.JayLeydagushedoverSvanetiawhenhe
sawaprintin1934,callingitthemost"powerfuldocumentaryhehadeverseen"1.Thefilm,
however,wascriticizedforpurportedlyshowingancienttraditionsandcustomsthatnolonger
existedintheSovietUnion.NailintheBootwasbannedforitsperceivednegativedepictionof
theRedArmy,essentiallyhaltingKalatozov'spromisingcareer.ButafterattendingLeningrad's
StateInstituteofArtandrunningtheGoskinpromfilmstudioinTbilisiforatime,Kalatozov
returnedtodirectingsevenyearslaterwithManhood,shootingtheadventureespionagefilmat
theLenfil'mstudioinLeningrad.Inthefilm,Tomilin,arecoveringalcoholicandformer
maverickpilot,strivestorevise his nature (peresmatrivat' kharakter). The minor film was
amiable enough to allow Kalatozov to make the biopic Chkalov, which became a resounding hit
with audiences. Jay Leyda claims that Chkalov not only conveys the director's "excitements in
the mere act of flying", but also "his sympathy for a hero whose temperament often got into him
into trouble. 2
1JayLeyda,Kino:AHistoryofSovietandRussianFilm(Princeton,NewJersey:Princeton
UniversityPress,1983),310.
2Ibid.358.

In addition to these para-filmic associations, Manhood and Valerii Chkalov obviously share the
subject of pilot as hero and belong to the aviation film genre of Russian/Soviet cinema. Within
the framework of this genre it is clear that though Tomilin and Chkalov are the protagonists of
these two films their planes are the true heroes on the screen. In this regard, both films have been
faulted for relying on strained narrative motivations and underdeveloped characters. The goal of
this paper is to consider the representation of pilots in Manhood and Valerii Chkalov in
congruence with Kalatozov's use of visual representation of flight. I will examine what kind of
protagonists are Tomilin and Chkalov as well as how their moral flaws are related to the meaning
of airplanes in pre-World World II Soviet society. I will compare Kalatozov's character's and
flight sequences against one of the most popular films of the Soviet aviation genre, Iulii
Raizman's Flyboys (L'otchiki, 1935). While such a comparison has a limited scope, I believe it
will reveal particularities of Kalatozov's film that should suggest how the director adjusted his
filmmaking style to the demands of the genre and the ideological principles of the late 1930s and
early 1940s
Pilots and their morals
Discussing Kalatozov's aviation films in his monograph on the director, Iurii Bogomolov
describes the prominent place the airplane came to have in the 1930s Soviet Union as part of the
hold aviation had on the public imagination. The flying machine was valorized as a utilitarian
vehicle that offered Soviets access and authority over the heavens as well as granting them a
specific kind of visual power bestowed to its operators.3 Pushing back the horizon and expanding
the human field of vision, the aircraft conferred onto pilots a special power over nature and the
illusion of controlling the world's rotation, its velocity and energy.4 Pilots arose as a distinct type
of individual romantic hero, who was very different from the natural born folk heroes of the
revolution like the legendary Red Army commander Chapaev, who was immortalized in the
eponymous 1934 Vasil'ev brothers film. Members of this new class were thought of as demiurges
capable of great acrobatic feats and unrivaled control over their machines and the environment.
Due to the perils of such reverence there arose a need to definitively mark the airplane as a
3IuriiBogomolov,MikhailKalatozov(Moscow:Iskusstvo,1987),95.
4Ibid.100.

practical vehicle and to strip the aura of reckless heroics from their operators.5 Aviation films
took up this task as many of them, Bogomolov asserts, feature a brash pilot who crashes his
airplane and has to deal with social opprobrium and personal shame on his road to reeducation
and rehabilitation.
One of the most successful films in the Soviet aviation film genre, Iulii Raizman's Flyers
(Lyotchiki, 1935) includes the brash aviation instructor Sergei Beliaev (Ivan Koval'-Samborskii)
who crashes his airplane while showing off his remarkable flying skills. When he returns to his
unit following his recovery, Beliaev discovers banners warning other pilots against following in
his footsteps and official condemnations from the commanders of the air unit prominently
displayed in wall newspapers. While the resulting shame drives Beliaev to contemplate suicide,
his story is relegated to the narrative periphery of the film as it shifts to the unlikely romance
between the director of the aviation school (Boris Schukin) and the talented young female pilot
(Evgeniia Mel'nikova). Crashes also feature prominently in Kalatozov's aviation films. But while
Chkalov crashes his airplane as a result of his arrogance, Aleksei Tomilin brings his plane down
for the sake of national security inverting the standard use of this plot device.
The airplane crash in Manhood has positive implications because Tomilin is already in
the redemption stage of his moral reeducation. As opposed to Beliaev, Tomilin begins as a
recovering thrill-seeker (likhach) at the start of Manhood. Tomilin's quest for redemption is
implied when fellow pilots tease him about his former habits, to which he responds by asserting
that he now only flies straight. The film also suggested that Tomilin might have a weakness for
alcohol. He hesitates when the bartender Iusuf (Aleksandr Beniaminov) pulls out the pilot's
personal chalice and readies to pour him cognac. In the end, the reformed offender resists the
temptation and asks for mineral water (narzan). The commander of the airfield (Aleksei Bondi)
directly echoes these implications when he states that many perceive Tomilin as a good but
frivolous pilot ("Vas mnogi schitaiut khoroshim no legkomyslennym pilotom."). The important
mission assigned to Tomilin because of his flying skill is thus a test of his ability to balance
discipline and spontaneity. The mission is an official procedure meant to establish his reliability,
which is especially doubted by the official representative of the army, captain Byistrov. On the

5Ibid.95.

para-filmic level, this must have been similar to what Kalatozov faced when making Manhood,
as even Bogomolov deems this film as a form of punishment and salvation for the director.6
In his monograph on Kalatozov, German Kremlev takes issue with the way Tomilin's personality
is defined in the film and argues that Tomilin's dramatic potential goes unused7 Kremlev laments
that the character is not defined dramatically or through action, but through dull and dry
informative dialogues. However, noting the character's expressed flaws, it seems Oleg Zhakov
necessarily plays Tomilin in a restrained manner thus emphasizing how the reformed daredevil
practices self-discipline in his attempt to improve his character. In this regard the plot of the film
is structured to create the necessity of Tomilin putting to use his remarkable flying skills, which
compositionally places greater focus on the air scenes, as I will explore later when I consider the
flight sequence in both Manhood and Valerii Chkalov. Suffice it to stay that the film's plot
necessitates Tomilin to revert back to his aerial acrobatics to fend off Mustafa Haddzi's illadvised attacks. With regard to the latter film, I believe Kremlev is also wrong in proposing that
the lively Chkalov presents an evolution of the undemonstrative Tomilin.8 If anything, Chkalov
represents a regression to the figure of the reckless, star pilot, who needs to be restrained.
As opposed to the redemptive Tomilin, Vladimir Belokurov plays the eponymous hero of
Kalatozov's next film as a brash and boisterous daredevil, the epitome of a romantic hero driven
by passion. Jay Leyda asserts that the film's thematic conflict between passion and discipline is
reflected in the contrast between Aleksandr Ginsburg's "modest and direct" cinematography and
acting in the film, which Kalatozov apparently encouraged to be performed "passionately on the
edge exaggeration".9 While the question of cinematography will be partly addressed later,
Belokurov's performance of Chkalov is composed of a string of outbursts that build up the
character's passionate personality. As Bogomolov notes, these episodes include: the guardhouse
scene at the beginning of the film, when Chkalov exhibits an exuberant surplus of force as he
begins to sings "It's all the same to me, to suffer or to enjoy" ("Mne vse ravno, stradat' ili
6Bogomolov,MikhailKalatozov,94.
7GermanKremlev,MikhailKalatozov(Moscow:Iskusstvo,1964),6263.
8Ibid.67.
9Leyda,Kino,358.

naslazhdat'sia") when he is finally called into actions; the fierce argument Chkalov wages with
the director of the aircraft research facility which stresses the hero's furious temperament; and
after he crash-lands the experimental airplane Chkalov's still praises the aircraft to
Ordzhonikidze fully displaying his disarming and undefeatable optimism.10 These instances
along with others throughout the film develop a set of epic character traits but fail to reveal a
psychological depth that would account for Chkalov's emotional turbulence. Kalatozov at this
time had not yet begun to explore his character's personalities and individuality as he does with
great success in The Cranes are Flying (Leiat' zhuravli, 1957).
Chkalov then remains a romantic hero driven by his passion to command the air, which
subsequently leads him to overstep official boundaries, including orders from Stalin.
The irrationality of his passion is repeatedly on display in the film, as when he wrongly assumes
that commander Alioshin (Boris Zhukovskii) is attempting to seduce his girlfriend. Chkalov's
response is to fly under the arches of a Leningrad bridge for which he is dismissed from the
military. His zeal noticeably intensifies when he demands to fly the experimental plane and then
proceeds to do so despite explicit orders from the director of the research facility. Since
Chkalov's passion will not be restrained by official censure or near-death experience, it becomes
necessary for Stalin, in his role as "father of the aviators" to confront the wayward hero. While
theStalinsequenceswerecutfromthefilmwhenValeriiChkalovwasrereleasedinthe1960s,
Stalin'sconversationwithChkalovattheairfieldisinlinewithhishabitofbeingonhandto
greetpilotsarrivinghomeafteraccomplishinghisfeat.EvenhispaternalscoldingofChkalov
andthemorallessonhedeliverscohereswithaccountsofpilotscallinghim"father".11
When Stalin addresses Chkalov at the airfield, he significantly separates the pilot from the
airplane, stating that the applause is for the airplane and not for Chkalov. The airplane is
demarcated as a utilitarian object, as both Stalin and Chkalov refer to it as "kharoshaia
mashina!", while the pilot is faulted for his recklesness. In the conversation that follows, Stalin
criticizes Chkalov for willing to risk his life. But this is not a pure celebration of life over
foolhardy sacrifices. Stalin's message to Chkalov venerates a life lived for the sake of a greater
10Bogomolov,MikhailKalatozov,110.
11 SheilFitzpatrick,EverydayStalinism:OrdinaryLifeinExtraordinaryTimes:SovietRussia
inthe1930's(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1999)72.

purpose. Thus the ideological message that comes through the wayward pilots of Flyers,
Manhood,andValeriiChkalovpromotesacarefulbalancebetweendisciplineandspontaneity
forthegreatergoodofthenation.
Valerii Chkalov's climactic episode interestingly underemphasizes the airplane, as there
are only few external shots that breakup the dominance of Chkalov, Baidukov, and Beliakov
inside the aircraft. The brief external shots are used at the end of the film to only mark the
passage of time and don't cohere into a representation of the airplane's total flight to America. As
opposed to the previous flight sequences when Chkalov is symbiotically connected to his plane
through external shots, in the final episode Chkalov and the other are disconnected from their
aircraft, which has the effect of emphasizing the main hero's super-human qualities. In this
manner the final episode focuses on Chkalov's heroictraitsHedisplayssuperhumanabilityto
withstandhighaltitudeflyingwithoutrecoursetoaoxygenmask,successfullylandstheairplane
onAmericansoil,epitomizingthebalancebetweendisciplineandspontaneityofskill.
ComparingFlightSequences
AlthoughFlyers,Manhood,andValeriiChkalovallcontaincaptivatingflightsequences
variationsinthesesequencessetthefilmsapart.Specificallydistinguishingthefirsttwofilms
BogomolovclaimsthatwhiletheairacrobaticsinRaizman'sfilmservetodevelopthedramaon
thegroundbetweenBeliaevByistrovaRogachev,Kalatozovputsallpsychologicalmotivations
andconflictsonthegroundintheserviceofthespectacleintheair.12TheclaimBogomolov
makesrestsontheplacementoftheflightsequencesineachfilmaswellastheirsignificancein
thenarrativeofeachfilm.Airplanesinflightarepredominantlyfeaturedinthefirsttwosections
ofFlyers,titled"Flyingcadets"(Uchletyi)and"Catasthrope"(Katastrofa).Thesesections
includeshotsfilmedonboardBeliaev'sairplane,afewoftheairplanefilmedintheair,anda
majorityofshotsfilmedfromtheground.Whenairplanesareagainfeaturedinthefinalsection
ofthefilm,titled"TheDistinctiveMarkoftheAirplanedesignedbyN.Rogacheva"
(Otlichitel'nyiznakcamoltakonstruktsciiN.Rogacheva),Byistrova'sflightisviewedonly
throughshotsfromthegroundataveryfardistance,whichpresentsRogachevviewofthe
12 Bogomolov,MikhailKalatozov,100.

action.Asopposedtothis,inManhood'smorethanthirtyfiveminutesofthefilmareconstituted
byshotsofTomilin'sairplaneinflight,includingatwentyfiveminutesstretchinwhichTomilin
transportstheJapanesearmyspyMustafaHadzhi.
SinceTomilin'sacrobaticescapadescomeinthefinalthirdofManhooditwouldseem
Bogomolov'sclaimaboutthestructureofKalatozov'sfirstsoundfilmistrue,asallactionand
dramaticdevelopmentleadsuptotheshotsofTomilin'sairplanebanking,rolling,risingand
diving.However,despitethestructuraldifferencesbetweenFlyersandManhood,bothfilms
utilizesomeofthesamedevices,inparticular,thesubstitutionoftheultimatecrashwitha
reactionshot.InFlyers,asBeliaevairplaneisplummetingtowardthegroundthefilmcutstoa
closeupshotofByistrovawhoshriekstosignifythattheinstructor'splanehascrashed.Inavery
similarfashioninManhood,acloseupshotofthefemalepilotFaiziisutilizedtosignifythat
Tomilinhascrashlanded.Inbothfilms,thecloseupappearsnecessaryinordertobothproduce
asenseofsuspenseandtragedyaswellastodistinguishthepreviousshotsofplummeting
aircraftfromthoseinwhichtheaircraftmiraculouslypulledupintime.
WhatisparticularaboutManhood is the number of cinematographers employed during
the production of the film. Veniamin Leventin is credited as the main cameramen, while G.
Shurkin is listed as the cameraman in charge of combined shots. In addition to this, there were
also two assistant cameramen, M. Shurikov and V. Bogdanov directly mentioned in the film's
credits. While a detailed study of the work of these cameramen is beyond the scope of this paper,
it is important to consider how this collaboration is borne out in the visual design of the film. In
this regard, some of the most captivating shots of the film are extended follow shots of Tomilin's
airplane in the air. As compared to the onboard shots and the brief aerial follow shots in Flyers,
the extended follow shots in Manhood were likely filmed from another airplane by Kalatozov's
team of cameramen. Considering the director's own training as a cameraman it would be
interesting to discover what role he played in planning and filming these images.
Over the course of the film, these shots grow more complex as Tomilin's plane banks,
rolls, and dives. The innovative filming in Manhood is not without its rough edges, as there are
times when the airplane moves outside the frame, suggesting the difficulty of keeping a flying
aircraft centered in a follow shot. Despite these shortcomings, the film includes images that truly
convey Kalatozov's excitement in the mere act of flying. Chief among these is the 14.3 seconds

follow shot of Tomilin's initial takeoff from the airport. As opposed to the grounded shots of
planes taking off in Flyers, which follows an airplane's takeoff with a panning movemen, in
Manhood a particular uncanny quality is achieved when the camera rises in parallel with the
ascending aircraft, with the frame of the shot strikingly detaching from the pull of gravity. This
effect is further expanded in the following shot in which the camera rapidly ascends away from
the ground, which was likely filmed from underneath of a plane taking off.
Although Valerii Chkalov lacks the number of aerial follow shots featured in Manhood,
it's complexity lies in another vein, namely, the number of spectator positions identified
particularly during the air show sequence, beginning in the thirty-fifth minute of the film. While
in Flyers, and Manhood as well, spectators are usually grouped together in one or two locations,
in Valerii Chkalov the number of spectator positions is expanded to include the audience in
stands of the air show, the announcer who narrates Chkalov's flight, Pasha Palich and another
mechanic, Stalin with Ordzhonikidze along with other officials who watch the show from a
raised podium, commander Alioshin, as well as a group of pilots standing atop a stationary
aircraft. Intercutting of these various spectator positions and the follow shots of Chkalov's
aircraft in the sky is meant to increase the tension during this sequence and expand the suspense
of the malfunctioning landing gear. In opposition to this rising tension, close-ups and medium
close-up shots of Chkalov in the air display the character's calm demeanor in the face of death
promoting his heroic qualities. When he refuses to abandon the aircraft and writes Olga a
farewell note Chkalov asserts his close, almost symbiotic relationship to the plane with which he
is willing to go down. This offers an explanation for his ability to perform great aerial feats. As if
operating in a unit of matrimony, the plane and Chkalov can only be separated in death.
The use of Chkalov's former copilots to replicate some his aerial tricks suggests to what
extent authenticity of the image was one Kalatozov's concerns in making his aviation films. But
aside from concerns for the veracity of these images, in both Manhood and Valerii Chkalov shots
of airplanes in flight display a concentrated interest in the impact of filming flying aircraft that
likely drew its effect from the hold that aviation had on the Soviet public. While the aerial shots
in Flyers already demonstrates the desire to film airplanes from the air, Kalatozov's films benefit
from the visual appeal of watching airplanes from an external, aerial point-of-view, which places
the viewer already captivated by the notion of flight in an unimaginable position to observe
stunning acrobatic feats and man's mastery of the air.

In addition to their strategies of suspense and visual attraction pursued through the use of
follow shots and multiple spectatorial positions, both Manhood and Valerii Chkalov also feature
the extensive use of shots filmed in studios in front of screens with full size airplanes as well as
models, as opposed to Flyers in which this strategy doesn't appear to be utilized. These kinds of
shots work to varying degrees in Kalatozov's films in terms of how realistic or artificial they
appear. I would be very curious to find out how contemporary audiences of these films perceived
these shots, as imitations of reality or as the real thing itself. In poor instances, such as when
Chkalov flies under the arch of a Leningrad bridge, the artificiality of these images is detectible
through their lack of depth, unnatural movement of objects, or the sharp tonal contrast between
the object and the projected background. More successful uses of the moving screen integrate the
movement of the prop with that of the background such as in sever shots in Manhood, filmed
from the nose of Tomilin's aircraft. The artificiality of the shots filmed in front of projected
images is dissipated when they are combined with shots filmed on location or in the air, as is the
case with Manhood and Valerii Chkalov.
Conclusion:
Evaluating Manhood and Valerii Chkalov, Iurii Bogomolov explicitly draws a connection
between the acrobatic skills of Tomilin and Mikhail Kalatozov's artistic capabilities, which I
noted in the introduction. While Tomilin has the expertise to work as a test pilot he serves in the
civil air force. Kalatozov, who had shown such great skill in Salt for Svanetia and Nail in the
Boot and would later again be recognized for The Cranes are Flying, in 1939 makes a normal
action film, " undemanding, flat, without special compositional delights, without any sharp
montage movements, without acute angles."13In this essay, I have attempted to undermine this
simplistic reading of Manhood by connecting its visual style to Kalatozov's next film. Even
though circumstances forced the director to move away from avant-garde montage techniques,
Manhood and Valerii Chkalov and particularly their aerial sequences suggest how Kalatozov
continued to develop his techniques of visual representation. While these films for the most part
follow the genre rules in their depiction of pilots whose egos had to be or already are curtailed,
their essential appeal is of acrobatic flight maneuvers filmed from the air. Leaving behind the
13Bogomolov,MikhailKalatozov,94.

dynamic visual effect of montage aesthetics, Kalatozov discovered a new kind of visual appeal in
filming airplanes in flight.