Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cinema and Soviet Society: From the Revolution to the Death of Stalin
Peter Kenez
Film Propaganda: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany (second, revised edition)
Richard Taylor
Jamie Miller
Published in 2010 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd
6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU
175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010
www.ibtauris.com
The right of Jamie Miller to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted
by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof,
may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
A full CIP record is available from the Library of Congress
C
inema has been the predominant art form of the first half of the
twentieth century, at least in Europe and North America. Nowhere
was this more apparent than in the former Soviet Union, where
Lenin’s remark that ‘of all the arts, cinema is the most important’ became
a cliché and where cinema attendances were until recently still among
the highest in the world. In the age of mass politics Soviet cinema
developed from a fragile but effective tool to gain support among the
overwhelmingly illiterate peasant masses in the civil war that followed
the October 1917 Revolution, through a welter of experimentation, into
a mass weapon of propaganda through the entertainment that shaped
the public image of the Soviet Union – both at home and abroad for
both elite and mass audiences – and latterly into an instrument to expose
the weaknesses of the past and present in the twin process of glasnost and
perestroika. Now the national cinemas of the successor republics to the old
USSR are encountering the same bewildering array of problems, from
the trivial to the terminal, as are all the other ex-Soviet institutions.
Cinema’s central position in Russian and Soviet cultural history and
its unique combination of mass medium, art form and entertainment
industry, have made it a continuing battlefield for conflicts of broader
ideological and artistic significance, not only for Russia and the Soviet
Union, but also for the world outside. The debates that raged in the
1920s about the relative merits of documentary as opposed to fiction
film, of cinema as opposed to theatre or painting, or of the proper role
of cinema in the forging of post-Revolutionary Soviet culture and the
shaping of the new Soviet man, have their echoes in current discussions
about the role of cinema vis-à-vis other art forms in effecting the cultural
and psychological revolution in human consciousness necessitated by
the processes of economic and political transformation of the former
Soviet Union into modern democratic and industrial societies and states
governed by the rule of law. Cinema’s central position has also made it
a vital instrument for scrutinising the blank pages of Russian and Soviet
history and enabling the present generation to come to terms with its
own past.
This series of books intends to examine Russian, Soviet and ex-Soviet
films in the context of Russian, Soviet and ex-Soviet cinemas, and Russian,
Soviet and ex-Soviet cinemas in the context of the political history of
Russia, the Soviet Union, the post-Soviet ‘space’ and the world at large.
Within that framework the series, drawing its authors from both East and
West, aims to cover a wide variety of topics and to employ a broad range
of methodological approaches and presentational formats. Inevitably this
will involve ploughing once again over old ground in order to re-examine
received opinions, but it principally means increasing the breadth and
depth of our knowledge, finding new answers to old questions and, above
all, raising new questions for further enquiry and new areas for further
research.
The continuing aim of this series is to situate Russian, Soviet and ex-
Soviet cinema in its proper historical and aesthetic context, both as a
major cultural force and as a crucible for experimentation that is of central
significance to the development of world cinema culture. Books in the
series strive to combine the best of scholarship, past, present and future,
with a style of writing that is accessible to a broad readership, whether
that readership’s primary interest lies in cinema or in political history.
Richard Taylor
Swansea, Wales
CONTENTS
xi List of Illustrations
xiii Acknowledgements
xv Note on Transliteration
1 Introduction
15 Chapter 1 Film Administration and Industry
Development
53 Chapter 2 Censorship
71 Chapter 3 The Purges
91 Chapter 4 Thematic Planning
105 Chapter 5 Representation and Reach:
Cinema Unions and Societies
121 Chapter 6 A Tale of Two Studios:
Mezhrabpomfilm and Mosfilm
139 Chapter 7 Film Education and Training
154 Chapter 8 Film-makers and Film-making
179 Conclusion
185 Notes
203 Bibliography
211 Filmography
215 Index
xi
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
25 A cartoon sketch of a couple leaving an outdoor cinema in the
countryside. In a humourous reference to the regular piecing together
of different film fragments, the couple say to one another: ‘What did
you like most of all in the film?...I liked the part where Dzhulbars bit
Dubrovsky on the golden lake’. From Kino, June 1935.
27 A caricature of foreign film stars sitting on top of one another. The
description reads: ‘What a tolerant audience!’ From Vecherniaia
Moskva, 26 July 1933.
55 A Russian version of an advert for the foreign film Moulin Rouge
(1929). Private collection.
68 Still of the main characters from the film The Hearts of Four (1941).
Courtesy of the Museum of Cinema, Moscow.
84 Photograph of Boris Shumiatsky when he was arrested (1938). The
picture shows that Shumiatsky was not even given the opportunity
to get properly dressed, before being taken away by the NKVD.
Courtesy of the Museum of Cinema, Moscow.
95 Still of actor Boris Chirkov from The Youth of Maksim (1934).
Courtesy of the Museum of Cinema, Moscow.
97 Film poster for the film Lenin in 1918 (1939). Private collection.
103 A cartoon sketch of a bureaucrat pouring money into thematic
planning (1935). From Kino, July 1935.
124 Crowd scene from Protazanov’s Feast of Saint Jorgen (1930). Private
collection.
133 Still of Andrei Abrikosov in a rare moment of sobriety from the
film Stepan Razin (1938). Private collection.
155 Von Kneishchitz terrorises Marion Dixon in a scene from Circus
(1936). Private collection.
161 Still of the class enemy Kuganov, posing as a committed communist
in The Party Card (1936). Private collection.
xii
164 Still of the hero Shakhov from The Great Citizen (1937–39). Courtesy
of the Museum of Cinema, Moscow.
170 Film poster for the film Happiness (1934). Private collection.
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I wish to acknowledge the support of the Arts and Humanities
Research Council in the UK and the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, Canada who both provided the generous funding
that allowed me to write and complete this book. I also wish to thank the
following individuals: Richard Taylor who has provided me with
invaluable materials, constant support and constructive criticism; Birgit
Beumers for her advice and encouragement; Julian Graffy for kindly
arranging access to the SSEES library and film collection and Alastair
Renfrew who first suggested that I do a doctorate on the role of politics
in Soviet cinema during the Stalin era. I am also grateful to the staff of
various institutions, including the Russian State Archive of Literature
and Art (RGALI), The Russian State Library, Rusar publishers and the
Museum of Cinema in Moscow, Lenfilm in St Petersburg, the British
Library in London, IDC publishers in Holland and Esterum in Germany.
Part of chapter one was published in a different form under the title:
‘Soviet Cinema 1929–41: The Development of Industry and
Infrastructure’ in the journal Europe-Asia Studies in January 2006 (article
available at: http://www.informaworld.com). Chapter three has been
updated and shortened from the version entitled: ‘The Purges of Soviet
Cinema, 1929–38’, published in Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema in
January 2007 (article available at: http://www.atypon-link.com). Chapter
seven is a shortened variant of an article entitled: ‘Educating the
Filmmakers: The State Institute of Cinematography in the 1930s’, in
the Slavonic and East European Review in July 2007 (article available at:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com). I am grateful to the publishers of
these journals for allowing me to reproduce and amend these materials
for this book.
xv
NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION
T
he basic shape of the established Western approach to Soviet
cinema, which emerged in the 1930s, and still exists in a traditional,
‘totalitarian’ form of analysis, suggests that, under Stalinism, the
Soviet film industry was brought under the firm grip of an all-
embracing, centralised state and administrative system. This system
crushed the creative spirit of the 1920s and obliged film-makers to
become complicit in the creation of pro-regime film propaganda and
the imposition of an artistically weak socialist realist approach.1 Such
accounts were challenged by ‘revisionists’ who emerged in the 1970s
and 1980s. Richard Taylor began looking at Soviet cinema in the 1920s
from a political point of view, contending that the Party only began
to gain control of the medium at the end of the decade.2 Taylor soon
turned to the 1930s, arguing against the traditional film history
interpretation of the decline into socialist realism. He contended that,
while the aim of creating a ‘cinema for the millions’ was subject to
complex political and economic constraints, the film industry and in
particular its leader, Boris Shumiatsky, managed to lay the foundations
of a genuine mass form of politicised entertainment by the late 1930s.3
Taylor and Ian Christie have also provided researchers with invaluable
resources on Soviet cinema in the 1920s and 1930s, through the
translation and publication of newspaper/journal articles and other
documents, in the collection The Film Factory.4 Taylor later co-edited a
very important contribution to understanding the cinema of the Stalin
era and its legacy, Stalinism and Soviet Cinema, featuring a range of articles
from scholars of different disciplinary backgrounds, including
academics from the former Soviet Union. The collection dealt with
2 SOVIET CINEMA
gender and masculinity and the importance of time and space in the
films of this era. Yevgeni Dobrenko has devoted a book to the exploration
of how Stalinist cinema produced history (as opposed to this work which
looks at the history of the film industry itself) with film playing the role of
a museum that artificially manipulated the past to legitimise the Soviet
present. This new work has emerged in a context of increasing interest in
the broad domain of Russian and Soviet cinema from academics working
in a whole range of disciplinary areas. Such interest is exemplified by the
creation of a new journal, Studies in Russian and Soviet Cinema.10
On the one hand, the current work acknowledges the importance
and validity of elements of historical interpretations that lean toward
traditional or ‘totalitarian’ approaches. It will be argued throughout that
centralised and administrative political control had a fundamental impact
on Soviet cinema during the 1930s. Excessive bureaucracy played a large
role in undermining the film industry and minimising the potential impact
of the envisaged ‘cinema for the millions’. Moreover, political violence
had a significant impact on cinema especially during the late 1930s. At
the same time, however, the analysis argues against certain aspects of the
traditional view, especially those that regard Stalin as wielding complete
control over the industry and the suggestion that any creativity was
completely wiped out during this period. This book also endorses aspects
of revisionist accounts. In addition to the fact that cinema was subjected
to extreme centralisation and bureaucracy, the film industry was also
characterised by organisational chaos and inefficiency. But while these
arguments are important to this book, the aim here is to develop a fresh
approach to Soviet cinema in the 1930s. If we want to understand why
Soviet cinema adopted certain political, economic and organisational
forms and why the aims set out for the film industry led to particular
outcomes, we must begin by examining the ways of thinking that
underpinned its development.
This work not only differs methodologically from previous
interpretations of cinema in the 1930s, but it also deals with a broader
political subject matter than has traditionally been the case. Areas that
have received the particular attention of scholars, such as Peter Kenez,
Taylor and Youngblood, include government and Party policy, cinema
administration and administrators, censorship, the relationship between
politics and socialist realism, questions of genre, the role of popular cinema
and close examinations of directors, individual films or groups of films.
This book also deals with some of these matters, but aims to use the
4 SOVIET CINEMA
and values of various social groups over the long term, but with a particular
interest in medieval themes.14 Moreover, a concern with distinctive
mentalities has also long preoccupied scholars of Russian and Soviet
history. This methodology has proven especially fruitful when examining
the psychological world of individual Bolsheviks, such as Stalin, and has
helped us to understand why they acted in the ways that they did.15 It has
also been applied to collective mentalities manifested during the
Revolutionary events of 1917, as well as in longer-term overviews of
Russian history.16
revolution was a worldwide vision and, for a short period, the Bolsheviks
held out some hope that revolutions might break out in other European
countries. When this did not happen the USSR was isolated. Indeed, not
only did the Western powers attempt to prevent the Bolsheviks from
winning the civil war, there was also a reluctance to recognise the
legitimacy of the Soviet Union as a geo-political entity for several years.
Russia traditionally had a difficult relationship with the West. Rulers, such
as Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, had tried to emphasise the
need for European modernisation, while Slavophiles argued about the
unique nature of Russia which they believed should follow its own path.
This historical tension manifested itself in the Bolshevik desire to see
Russia reach and surpass European levels of development. At the same
time, this development would be guided by Marxist ideology, which
became both a way of attacking the capitalism of the West and a way of
showing how Russia was unique. Throughout the existence of the Soviet
state the Bolsheviks constantly believed they had to defend themselves
from what they saw as an immoral, exploitative Western world.
Thus, in terms of the collective agency of the Bolsheviks, once they
had seized power they could not simply proceed towards the
transformation of the pre-existing structures of tsarist Russia. On an even
more fundamental level the Bolsheviks had to prove the legitimacy of
their ideas and their right to hold power. On the one hand, this meant
intellectual self-justification which, as we have seen, was achieved by
emphasising the importance of revolutionary elites and the role of the
vanguard party. However, more importantly their vision had to involve a
significant degree of mass support and participation which, as we have
also seen, was largely absent when the Bolsheviks came to power. Certain
historians of a purely totalitarian persuasion have sometimes over-
emphasised the combination of ideology and terror, implying that the
Bolsheviks treated the masses with contempt and, therefore, had no interest
in whether or not they had their support.21 But such accounts fail to
recognise the importance of the mass of ordinary people for the potential
realisation of Marxist ideals. Coercion was, of course, an option available
to the Bolsheviks and one that was often employed in the 1930s. Yet, pure
coercion can rarely be the sole basis for the effective functioning of a
modern state. The industrialisation of the Soviet Union required mass
cooperation to achieve its extremely ambitious goals. But the Bolsheviks
wanted more than cooperation. They wanted the masses to believe in the
ideals of the classless society of emancipated human beings and to be
INTRODUCTION 11
part of the transformation towards that society. It was not their intention
to enslave ordinary people.
The Bolsheviks were subject to constraints on various different levels.
As we have seen, on a fundamental level they had to contend with
economic backwardness, which always threatened to undermine their
entire project. But they were also constrained by political and social issues.
In particular, their claim to embody the will of the masses was problematic
given their ideological partiality to the working class. They may have
been able to offer a brief and superficial appeal to the peasantry, but the
Bolsheviks believed in collective ownership, while the peasant was
desperate to maintain a significant degree of private farming.
The Bolsheviks were also constrained and, to some extent, influenced
by the political mentalities and traditions of the past. Generally, autocracy
and coercive government have been regarded as central to Russian history.
While there is a great deal of truth in this, recent research has shown that
there was a long-standing pre-Revolutionary belief in strong government
constrained by religious and national tradition in the interests of the
masses. If the Bolsheviks were too repressive, they might be seen as a
continuation of the worst aspects of tsarism, but if they failed to be ruthless,
they might be perceived as weak utopians. The Bolsheviks ultimately
leaned towards the idea of an extremely powerful and unconstrained
government, which was consistent with their monolithic view that any
power ceded to the opposition, or even the slightest element of pluralism,
would destroy the entire Revolutionary enterprise. Another aspect of the
pre-Revolutionary political mode of thinking was a belief in the centrality
of the state not merely as a mechanism for maintaining public order and
raising taxes, but also for administering justice, acting as a moral arbitrator
in public affairs and playing a substantial role in economic ownership
and regulation. Thus the substantial role of the state was already firmly
rooted before the arrival of the Bolsheviks. Nonetheless, the communist
agenda was very specific in that it sought to use the state’s resources to
gain the support of and mobilise the masses toward a distinctive political
vision, eliminating private property in favour of a state-led form of public
ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.22
These factors limited the strategies open to the Bolsheviks. The
demands they faced from millions of peasants and workers meant they
had to be decisive, strong-willed and, most importantly, they had to
produce visible results quickly in order to maintain their hold on power.
Following years of civil war, the revolutionaries sensibly adopted the course
12 SOVIET CINEMA
play a crucial role in helping to keep the masses on side while they made
good the modernisation gap required to give them the better life that
they yearned for and to provide an interim legitimacy for the Bolsheviks.
Indeed, film’s political function went beyond political education,
mobilisation and persuasion. As we shall see in the final chapter, film
would also play a key role in sharing the Bolsheviks’ burden of political
responsibility with ordinary citizens.
The Bolshevik defensive way of thinking that emerged was shaped by
a range of past and present structures but, most of all, by the irreconcilable
gap between their political aims and the pre-existing structures within
which they had to operate. This defensiveness sought to protect the
communist ideal and Soviet power from being exposed as fraudulent. It
guided policy and administration, which rested on the uneasy foundations
of profound political insecurity and illegitimacy, and was a disaster for
Soviet cinema, bringing it to the brink of productive and creative collapse.
As we shall observe, this defensiveness manifested itself in many different
ways on both an institutional and an individual level. Ultimately, its main
effect was to undermine the very industry that had been intended to serve
as a frontline in the ideological defence of the Bolshevik regime.
15
CHAPTER 1
T
his chapter will examine the role of government, Party and
administrative decision-making and the development of Soviet
cinema’s industry and infrastructure. The 1930s saw a gradual
shift from a preoccupation with the macromanagement of the broader
industry, to organising cinema on centralised principles and imposing
ideological control over the production process. This shift was particularly
evident in official government and Party decision-making, as well as
industry administration. At this time the administration came under
increasing pressure not only to create an industry that reached the masses
and was economically successful, but also ideologically sound. However,
the impact of defensiveness had unintended negative consequences. Boris
Shumiatsky, the cinema chairman, reacted to increasing centralisation
and his own decreasing autonomy by devising an individual defensive
strategy to protect his position of power. This involved an attempt to prove
his credentials as an ideal Bolshevik leader of Soviet cinema, in the course
of which Shumiatsky became obsessed with micromanaging the industry.
His everyday activities shifted from a concern with broader industry
development to checking every film script before production, controlling
individuals’ movements and writing letters to Stalin and Molotov, pleading
for funds or approval of some sort. This made a huge contribution to stunting
the growth and success of Soviet cinema. In this way, Bolshevik defensiveness
had an effect on the day-to-day operation of the system, as well as its output.
Paradoxically, the desire to defend and protect thus provided the source of
the system’s paralysis as well as its chaotic aspects. It helped create elaborate
structures of control while simultaneously undermining these principles of
organisation by taking them to absurd levels.
16 SOVIET CINEMA
By the end of the 1920s, the Soviet film industry was under attack
from government and Party representatives as well as journalists. The
cinema administration, initially under the name Sovkino, was accused of
pursuing an overtly commercial line with too much emphasis on films of
a Hollywood type that did not address the vital political issues of the time
and were clearly intended for profitable export. Sovkino was also criticised
for spending vast sums of hard currency on the import of popular Western
product in the interest of profiteering. In essence, it was considered that
Sovkino showed far more concern for ‘trivial’, ‘bourgeois’ films than the
more ideologically sound products. Yet, ideological reasons were not
considered to be Sovkino’s only shortcomings. It was accused of failing
to develop the industry itself with too few films being produced and not
enough adequate theatres to show these films.1 The criticism culminated
in the first All-Union Party Conference on Cinema which was held on
15–21 March 1928 under the auspices of the Party’s Central Committee.
This was an important turning point as it marked the beginning of the
gradual shift towards centralised administration, which would eventually
have a detrimental effect on Soviet cinema.
The conference was an attempt to bring political order to Soviet
cinema and direct it along a secure ideological path. A series of key
resolutions were made at the event. Acknowledging the public’s love of
action, adventure and comedy, which they had become accustomed to
through popular Soviet films and imported American and European films,
it was stressed that movies should provide communist enlightenment, but
in a form ‘intelligible to the millions’. This meant that cinema had to
convey the political message, but in an entertaining manner that would
engage the mass audience.2 The conference also noted what it regarded
as the political unreliability of those who ran the cinema industry, calling
for more workers and peasants with Marxist sympathies from the spheres
of literature, theatre and journalism to take control. Among the other
important resolutions was recognition of the importance of creating an
expanded cinema industry to reach the masses and a domestic
infrastructure, thus freeing itself from dependency on the foreign market
in areas such as film stock and almost all forms of cinema equipment and
hardware.3
The fact that the Party conference was to help shape the elaborate
legislative framework of subsequent years became immediately evident.
On 11 January 1929, a Central Committee decree was promulgated,
reflecting the aims of the conference resolution that referred to cadres.
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 17
Boris Shumiatsky
Government and Party decrees were crucial in developing the basic
structure of the industry, but the most important individual was the head
of that industry. The first chairman of Soiuzkino was Martemian Riutin,
who had carried out Party work in Irkutsk, Dagestan and Moscow in the
1920s, before becoming a member of the VSNKh (Supreme Council of
the National Economy in the USSR) Presidium in 1930. He was an
apparently reliable Party figure, advocating strict planning, socialist
production techniques, administrative intervention where necessary, as
well as rigid censorship. On the other hand, Riutin also argued that the
cinema organisations under Soiuzkino’s control must be given at least
some independence and ought to show initiative. He even took the
concerns of the republics into account, persuading the Politburo to halt
temporarily the moves towards full centralisation. Ultimately, the main
reason for Riutin’s brief spell as chairman of Soiuzkino was connected
to his conflicting political relations with Stalin, which would eventually
lead to his arrest. On October 23 1930, the VSNKh ordered Riutin’s
dismissal.10
In the meantime, Konstantin Shvedchikov, who had been criticised
for his commercialism as chairman in the late 1920s, took temporary
charge of Soiuzkino until the VSNKh declared Boris Shumiatsky as the
new chairman one month later on 23 November 1930.11 Shumiatsky
would prove to be the most important leader of the cinema industry
throughout the 1930s, at least until his arrest in 1938. In his first few
years of control, Shumiatsky and his board were preoccupied with the
transition to sound and the construction from scratch of a cinema industry
capable of producing its own raw film stock, cameras, projectors, sound
recording machines, lighting and so on. Consequently, Soiuzkino decrees
were predominantly concerned with approving economic plans or
demanding additions or amendments to those plans. There were endless
orders on producing or acquiring sound equipment along with all the
other necessary components for film-making and on securing the qualified
personnel who could operate the new devices.12 Shumiatsky was very
conscious of the need for the Soviet industry to become independent
from foreign products and during his first few years he repeated much of
the general political rhetoric on how the end of this dependence was in
sight. Thus Shumiatsky gave strong support to ‘mass inventiveness’ such
as a certain Kosmatov’s idea of reusable film stock.13 Directives were
issued supporting such inventiveness, demanding an end to the sabotage
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 21
220 million roubles instead of the zero profit of 1930 and the 17 million
roubles made in 1931. As well as a dramatic increase in financial growth,
Shumiatsky aspired to massive industrial projects, including the building
of a gigantic film stock factory, three new studios in Central Asia,
Belorussia and Eastern Siberia, 100 new cinema theatres in new areas
and kolkhoz centres, 8,500 sound cinema installations and 50,000 new
mobile installations. Shumiatsky’s plan was extremely ambitious. While
it was intended to be a programme for 1932, in terms of the figures
suggested, it would really prove to be a programme for the entire decade.17
Sound
In 1929–30 the central issue of the time for Soviet cinema was the
transition to sound. Such a transition, of course, had huge political
significance. In the 1930s, illiteracy was still a significant issue and, while
film certainly played its role in eliminating this problem, sound cinema
provided the ideal means of reaching the masses in a more effective way.
Sound also constituted a technical and economic shift. The director,
cameraman, scriptwriter and journalist, Nikolai Anoshchenko, recognised
that the rhetoric of the political leadership on ‘catching and overhauling
the West’ could, ironically, not be realised without the technical help of
the West. Other journalists, such as Ippolit Sokolov, believed that the
Soviet sound devices invented by Pavel Tager and Alexander Shorin were
both important and not inferior to their American rivals. 18 But
Anoshchenko argued in March 1930 that, despite Tager and Shorin’s
impressive efforts, sound cinema in the USSR was still at an ‘elementary
stage of development’. In effect, the materials that Tager and Shorin
were working with to develop their ideas were not sophisticated enough
and so the quality of their first experimental films was fairly low.
Anoshchenko realistically contended that, if Soviet cinema wanted to
make a quick and effective transition to sound cinema for the benefit of
quality, propaganda and the overseas trade of Soviet films, then the
cinema administration simply had to rely on American help and
technical advice.19
Regardless of the official government line on independent Soviet
economic development, the government and the cinema administration
succumbed to the practical need for technical assistance. On 25 June
1930, Soiuzkino established an agreement with a New York company
called Audio-Cinema to ‘give Soiuzkino technical help in the planning,
design and installation of equipment for sound studios and theatres,
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 23
Cinefication
The development of sound in Soviet cinema was closely associated with
the development of ‘Kinofikatsiia’ (cinefication) in the country at large.
In essence, this referred to the expansion of the cinema network and the
availability of viewing facilities in both the urban and rural environments.
Even if the production of sound films had been more substantial, the
chances of being able to see them were fairly slim for the majority of the
population. By June 1931, the Soviet enterprises concerned had only
managed to produce one sound projector, which was set up in a theatre
that month.23 The situation remained difficult throughout the 1930s. By
the end of the first Five Year Plan in 1933, there were now 27,578 cinema
installations, but only 224 had sound projectors. In 1938 there were still
only 28,574 cinema installations overall. It seems that many of the silent
projectors had been decommissioned as the proportion of sound projectors
included in this figure had now reached 11,242. It was only by the end of
1938 that the quantity of sound projectors within the overall network
reached the 54 per cent mark.24 Overall then, despite the dramatic increase
between the mid-1920s and the beginning of the new decade, the growth
of cinema outlets was fairly meagre in the 1930s, largely due to the slow
transition to sound. It made no sense to produce more silent projectors,
24 SOVIET CINEMA
yet the technological base was not developed enough to enable the mass
production of sound projectors. We can gain a strong idea of just how
poorly the cinema network was serving the population from the proposals
of the third Five Year Plan declared in 1939. In order to provide adequate
cinema facilities throughout the USSR, Viacheslav Molotov announced
that the network of sound-producing stationary and mobile projectors
would have to be increased by six times.25
The cinefication programme undoubtedly favoured the urban and
European part of the Soviet Union. Throughout the 1930s, the major
towns and cities of the USSR consistently had over one third of the
viewing facilities of the entire Union. Despite Shumiatsky’s wish to create
a network over a five year period that would give cinema access to the
majority of the peasant population, this did not materialise. Moreover,
the quality of cinefication in the urban environment was far superior to
that of the country.26 For example, the Udarnik cinema in Moscow could
boast a one thousand seat capacity and a grand foyer where waiting
patrons could listen to an orchestra, dance, play chess or read. This cinema,
as with most urban equivalents, also had a buffet area where customers
could have something to drink, such as a cup of tea on a cold night, or
some sandwiches, smoked herring, caviar or a pastry. In addition, the
viewing experience was better than in rural cinemas as film goers could
often see newly issued film prints sometimes shown in cinemas equipped
with sound.27
In contrast, films in the countryside were usually shown with silent
projectors which were often aged and subject to constant technical
problems, leading to persistent film stoppages. Due to the frequently poor
state of the film copies, projectionists sometimes had to piece film together
with fragments of different films, causing either confusion or amusement
among the peasants. Throughout the mid-1930s, films in the country
were still being shown in small rooms of about five-six square metres in
kolkhoz administrative offices, which were crammed to capacity and
generally did not even have seats. Such places were often dirty, dark, cold
and sometimes had leaking roofs. Moreover, the projectionist, who was
expected to deliver and set up the mobile cinema on site as well as prepare
the premises and advertise the showing, sometimes did not turn up. At
least certain rural areas had some form of cinema provision, in remote
regions of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and
republics, such as Tadzhikistan, Turkmenia and Kirgizia, cinema was a
rare event.28
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 25
late 1920s. In the summer of 1933, one critic demanded to know why
Moscow’s theatres could only show dated foreign films, including comedies
featuring Harold Lloyd and Monty Banks, escapist westerns or German
thrillers that had been seen time and time again with the exception of
the occasional new import.29 Although by 1934 the import of new foreign
films was reduced to a few on a yearly basis, it did not completely stop.
Events, such as the first international film festival in Moscow in 1935,
brought the Walt Disney cartoons Three Little Pigs (1933), Peculiar Penguins
(1934) and The Band Concert (1935) among other feature films. Even many
of the Soviet films shown in the early to mid-1930s were the hits of the
1920s, such as The Bear’s Wedding (Medvezhia svadba, 1926) or Miss Mend
(1926) rather than the politicised classics. It was clear by the way that
films were being advertised that urban film exhibition still had an
essentially commercial face.
Lower down the distribution ladder the situation was equally
problematic. The difficulty in both workers’ clubs and rural areas was
not an excess of foreign films, but rather the lack of films generally. In
1936 one commentator claimed that eighty per cent of the installations
were showing dated films which, in many cases, were in a condition not
worthy of public exhibition. The typical sort of film shown would again
be Soviet product from the late 1920s, such as Grigori Roshal’s The
Salamander (Salamandra, 1928), a film about the biologist Paul Kammerer,
which was unpopular on its original release, or Amo Bek-Nazarian’s Khaz
Push (1928), a film about a revolt of Persian peasants and craftsmen in
1891. Older foreign films were also shown in the countryside, such as
Duke Worne’s Blue Fox (1921), an American adventure movie. The obvious
concern for Party officials was not only that the more prestigious urban
theatres and, to a lesser extent, the workers’ clubs and kolkhoz buildings,
were still showing many dated foreign films, as well as old domestic
product, but that most new Soviet films were hardly being shown at all
throughout the USSR. Soviet citizens, especially in the smaller towns
and countryside, could only be offered the same films from the 1920s
over and over again. It was clear to all that the new ‘cinema for the millions’
was not reaching the millions.30
The crux of the problem was the lack of prints available for new
Soviet films. In the mid-1930s, it usually took two to three years before
the areas with cinema provision had seen the majority of new Soviet
films due to the low productivity of the newly established copy factories,
and this was compounded by the slowness of production. There simply
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 27
A caricature of foreign film stars sitting on top of one another. From Vecherniaia
Moskva, 26 July 1933.
28 SOVIET CINEMA
GUKF
While the development of Soviet cinema’s industrial base was central for
Shumiatsky in the early to mid-1930s, changes were gradually taking
place which foresaw the shift from macromanagement, concerned with
broad industry matters, to micromanagement concerned with film content
and control over the film production process. The signs were there as
early as 11 February 1933, with a Soviet government decree ‘On the
Organisation of the State Directorate for the Film and Photo Industry’.
This new body replaced Soiuzkino and was to be directly subordinate to
Sovnarkom (Council of Peoples Commissars). The decree gave GUKF
34 SOVIET CINEMA
(the State Directorate for the Film and Photo Industry) direct authority
over several trusts formerly under Soiuzkino control. In the ideological
sphere, the new directorate was placed in charge of all higher education
institutions dealing with the training of new personnel for the cinema
industry in the RSFSR and, more importantly, GUKF was instructed to
‘observe the content of films, examine and confirm basic plans for the
production of the most important films.’44
Although the decree, and the charter that followed it were still, to a
large extent, concerned with economic factors and corresponding matters
of central administration, they also indicated that GUKF was responsible
for examining and scrutinising the yearly and quarterly plans of all union
and republic trusts for all the main types of film, as well as the plans of
the independent Mezhrapomfilm. Moreover, control over film content
was extended to the republics. The statute also devoted a section to the
administrative structure of the new state directorate. This structure was
to be headed by a manager who essentially carried out similar functions
to those of Soiuzkino. As with Soiuzkino, the chairman had a considerable
degree of autonomy.45
A Soviet Hollywood?
Part of his inspiration for developing such a cinema undoubtedly came
from the USA. After returning from his three-month trip to America,
Shumiatsky and the other members of his delegation wanted to apply some
of the best aspects of American film production to the studios of the USSR.
He wanted to introduce the idea of the producer as the key manager of
every Soviet film project. Following Hollywood, Shumiatsky was convinced
of the need for producers who would deal with creating a general plan for
a given film, including estimates and specific dialogues and have full financial
control over resource distribution for a production. The producer would
36 SOVIET CINEMA
also attend to issues of film crew and actor recruitment as well as obtaining
costumes and sets. In short, the producer was expected to deal with the
general organisation of the production, allowing the film director to
concentrate on artistic matters. Nonetheless, the director was obliged to
assist the producer on the artistic aspects of the above issues.49
The Shumiatsky delegation were impressed by other aspects of
American studios which also led to high levels of efficiency, namely the
professionalism of cinema personnel, the constant improvement of
technology and especially the rationalised methods of production, which
led to a highly efficient, conveyor system. In effect, Shumiatsky and his
colleagues had observed Taylorism in practice whereby film production
was based on getting the most out of individual workers through
optimisation methods, such as the division of labour into specialist tasks.
This was hardly new to Shumiatsky as there had been calls for work
rationalisation in the early 1930s. However, this had clearly not developed
in any substantive way. Now Shumiatsky insisted on the idea of dividing
work into specialised tasks, borrowing America’s ideas of how to run a
script department, create stunt and special effects departments and
establish editing departments.50
Shumiatsky’s trip to America also inspired his most ambitious project:
to create a Soviet Hollywood. Again this idea was not entirely new, in the
early 1930s various figures from the film industry had pointed to the need
for Soviet cinema to have a southern base. Shumiatsky himself had first
mentioned the idea to Stalin in June 1934. In that same year, one journalist
described the newly established Yalta studio as such a base, suggesting that
substantial investment from GUKF could create a ‘model cinema village’.51
Nonetheless, Shumiatsky’s experience in Hollywood led to his proposal of
a huge southern cinema complex far more daring in scope than anything
previously put forward. For Shumiatsky, the idea of a Soviet Hollywood
represented the potential solution to the extremely low output of Soviet
films. Shumiatsky argued that Hollywood’s abundance of sun and minimal
levels of rain allowed them to film almost all year round. He was also
impressed by the availability of varied outdoor locations within the bounds
of the Hollywood studios. Thus he proposed the establishment of a similar
base in the Crimea, which would eliminate the difficulties of the long,
harsh winters of the north, as well as ending the expensive trips all over the
USSR to find suitable natural locations. Such a base would therefore save
money but, most importantly, it would improve efficiency, eventually yielding
800 films a year.52 Such output would also be made possible by the
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 37
formally lost the powers granted in its original charter.63 Yet, the Arts
Committee never really took full control of cinema and this redundant
role led to its replacement in March 1938 when the Cinema Committee
was established.
Another method by which Shumiatsky tried to defend himself would
be to appeal to Stalin with whom he enjoyed a relatively good relationship,
or to Molotov, the head of the Soviet government. Shumiatsky’s desire to
please the leader was particularly evident in one of his last measures as
chairman of GUK. This involved equipping the Kremlin cinema with
an automatic projector and lamp, as well as imported and expensive
American sound equipment.64 During the last two years as head of the
cinema industry, Shumiatsky also spent a lot of time writing letters to
Stalin and leading members of the Party and Soviet government. On
occasion, the letters were more substantive reports on industry
development or ideas for the future. Most of them were directed at Stalin,
pleading for more funds for general industry development. Shumiatsky’s
requests for economic support also extended to specific requirements.
For instance, Shumiatsky wrote to Stalin and Molotov in November 1936
asking for 15,000 dollars to provide film stock for cameramen working in
Spain during the civil war.65 More typically, the cinema head would ask
for extra funds for Soviet films which invariably exceeded their budgetary
limits. In December 1937, Shumiatsky wrote to Stalin to inform him of
the necessity of filming expensive battle scenes for part two of the film
Peter the Great (Petr pervyi, 1938). This, Shumiatsky argued, meant that the
overall cost of the film could be up to 7.5 million roubles. In the end the
film was given a budget of between 3 and 4 million roubles.66 Shumiatsky
wanted patronage and approval as a sound, politically reliable leader of
film industry and, until his last few months in control, it appears that he
was relatively successful at gaining the leader’s favour and support. The
result of the battle to defend Bolshevik ideals and personal positions of
authority and influence was the virtual paralysis of film production in
the USSR.
This was perhaps most obvious in Shumiatsky’s increasing role as a
censor. In the mid-to-late 1930s, Shumiatsky became increasingly involved
in determining the fate of films that he or others considered to be
ideologically unsound. When the film was a big production, Shumiatsky
sought advice from senior Party/government officials or from Stalin
himself. In 1935 Shumiatsky had seen an early rough edit of Ivan
Kavaleridze’s Prometheus produced at Ukrainfilm in Kiev. He considered
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 41
productions, they were given the best flats and their actress wives and
girlfriends were frequently given leading roles in their own films.70
implemented, the cinema network was still divided into the trust network,
consisting of exhibition outlets under cinema administration or central
state control and the non-trust network, which was controlled by trade
unions, factories, kolkhoz or sovkhoz administrations, as well as
organisations, such as the Pioneers and educational establishments. The
decree failed to unify these networks. For instance, trade unions continued
to develop their own cinefication programmes and, even for those theatres
that fell within the trust system, organisational chaos reigned. The attempt
to end commercial-style distribution also proved to be an illusion.
Soiuzkinoprokat was aware of the fact that the vast majority of non-trust
installations, especially the workers’ clubs, had been losing millions of
roubles on a yearly basis and that distributing limited supplies of new
film copies immediately to these outlets was financial suicide. The direct
consequence of this reality was the continuation of the system whereby
the highly profitable urban theatres continued to get the new films and
best prints while the workers’ clubs and rural installations received an
unpredictable flow of dated films, which were often in a dreadful
condition.73
The second decree also issued by Sovnarkom on 23 March 1938, was
even more noteworthy for its content. The legislation was entitled: ‘On
the Improvement of the Organisation of Film Production’. The most
noteworthy aspects of this decree are those that indicate a concern with
introducing a firmer political and ideological grip on the film-making
process. Unlike previous years where relatively little had been done from
a legislative perspective to impose political and ideological control, several
aspects of the decree suggested that this was about to change. The changes
were particularly notable in the sphere of script production. The
establishment of script departments, with the tasks of creating scripts
alongside film production plans, establishing a script reserve and attracting
professional script writers, can on one level plausibly be seen as a measure
to prevent script shortages and improve organisation, discipline and
efficiency in the production process. Yet this was essentially an attempt to
gain control over the nature of film content.74
In contradistinction to many of the other centralising measures
introduced in 1938, the creation of a script department within the new
Cinema Committee significantly changed the system of film production.
Now the script, which used to emerge from the studios, would begin its
life in the Cinema Committee’s script department. The difference now
was that this department produced a strict plan of production that had to
44 SOVIET CINEMA
Dukelsky
Semyon Semyonovich Dukelsky became the head of the new Cinema
Committee on 23 March 1938.76 Dukelsky had previously been the chief
of the Voronezh NKVD (People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs) and
his appointment was a political measure intended to accompany the recent
centralising decrees. In fact the new cinema industry head was the
embodiment of the very worst aspects of the Bolshevik defensive mentality
in that he was prepared to destroy film productions that, in his view, did
not glorify the Party, its leaders and its policies in some way. Dukelsky
differed from Shumiatsky through an even stronger emphasis on discipline
and control over cinema. It was not long before he issued a decree on
labour discipline which led to a series of dismissals and legal action against
workers who had been late for work, not turned up, or had arrived in a
drunken state. He also established a military style regime of daily
registration at studios, theatres and enterprises intended to monitor the
movements of each worker.77 Despite Dukelsky’s draconian discipline,
he failed to end the low levels of production that were becoming
increasingly critical. Indeed, Dukelsky’s dogmatic demands that films
made in 1938 should reflect themes of ‘modernity’ helped to reduce
production even more. His misguided attempts to defend and foster the
dissemination of films favourable to contemporary Party-sponsored issues
had an extremely negative impact. The director Mikhail Romm recalls
how he was summoned to Dukelsky’s office along with many other
directors who were told that any production not relevant to modern themes
would be cancelled. The difficulty with Dukelsky’s decision was that this
included several high-profile, expensive films, which were either finished
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 45
in the mid-1930s the directors of Chapaev (1934), Georgi and Sergei Vasilev,
received nearly one million roubles between them from tickets sales for
that film, Vladimir Petrov also received five hundred thousand roubles
for his film Peter the Great while a lesser-known director of children’s films,
Nikolai Lebedev, received approximately three hundred thousand roubles
for his film Fedka (1937).81 Even if we take into account the fact that,
under the new system, directors would also be given a monthly salary of
between 1200 and 2000 roubles, the new changes represented clear state
exploitation of cinema personnel crudely masked as a means of socialist
levelling. The new law was also created to engender conformity among
film-makers as the criterion of ‘quality’ meant quality defined according
to the typical political yardstick. Many film-makers recognised that
producing films according to the required themes and formulas would
now be even more likely to give them a higher income.
Ivan Bolshakov
Semyon Dukelsky was removed as chairman of the Cinema Committee,
‘at his own request’, on 4 June 1939. He was immediately replaced by
Ivan Bolshakov, formerly a manager of Sovnarkom affairs.82 Bolshakov
was undoubtedly more liberal than his predecessor and, eventually, he
would give his careful support to a surge of dissatisfaction from below,
which had begun long before his appointment. Under Bolshakov these
criticisms became more and more vociferous and they were no longer
being used as weapons against past administrators, but as calls for change.
It was clear that the way in which cinema had been organised and
administered, with the guiding hand of defensive thinking, had failed to
produce the desired results. On the contrary, the obsessive checks and
heavy-handed discipline had led to an industry that was stagnating in
almost every way. At the chairman’s first meeting with representatives of
the cinema industry in August 1939, Mikhail Romm criticised the script
problem. Romm was concerned about the endless censorship mechanisms
through which scripts had to pass before being put into production. In
particular, he complained that changes had been made to scripts without
the participation of the authors. He also argued that, when working on
the director’s script, the director should have the right to consult
composers, actors, artists and cameramen. As part of the solution, Romm
called for the establishment of a creative union of film-makers. Ivan Pyrev
took this further by calling for the establishment of an artistic council
under the auspices of the Cinema Committee, which would allow film-
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 47
They will scrutinise and discuss the studios’ thematic plans, the
director’s cameraman’s, artist’s and sound engineer’s production
plans, each director’s script, the set design sketches; they will view
shot material from films and discuss it; organise help for individual
film crews and look over completed films before they are handed
over to the Committee.84
read and reread every script and watch every film. This, as it had over
recent years, inevitably slowed down potential output. Bolshakov
proposed that the Committee should only approve of the original
version of the script. This would undoubtedly provide the studio with
more autonomy to develop final versions of scripts. Bolshakov also
argued that the studios should have more economic independence
and responsibility. He, along with Mikhail Romm, believed that the
Cinema Committee should set a financial limit for each production.
Subsequently, the studio would issue the details of how much the film
should cost, how long it should take to make and so on. If a film were
to become more expensive than the set limit, then it would be the
responsibility of the studio to find the resources by making savings on
other film projects. Bolshakov and Romm also argued for the
establishment of a ‘directors fund’ whereby a small percentage of a
studio’s income could be set aside to support productions that might
not provide the guarantee of good financial returns. Sovnarkom turned
down this particular request immediately. 85
A planned Central Committee decree created in 1941 sought to
address some of these issues. The planned decree was undoubtedly
weighted towards more control from above with the call for the script
departments in the studio to be fully subordinate to the administration
and the demand that only approved scripts should be included in the
studios’ plans. The proposal did also make some important concessions,
granting more autonomy to the studios. In response to the proposals
supported by Bolshakov and Romm, it was suggested that the Cinema
Committee only approve original scripts and the cost limits of films
as well as giving permission for production to go ahead and checking
the finished product. This meant that the studio directors and film-
makers would have more autonomy in relation to the development of
the director’s script and in financial areas such as budgeting and
estimates. In addition to the measures already taken, the introduction
of these proposals would have undoubtedly helped to improve the
ongoing crisis in Soviet cinematography. However, the decree was
never introduced due to the onset of the war and was forgotten with
the passage of time.86
An Appraisal
Shumiatsky’s ambition to develop a genuine ‘cinema for the millions’ did
have some success. Although many film-makers themselves had shown
FILM ADMINISTRATION AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT 49
CHAPTER 2
CENSORSHIP
F
rom the late 1920s onwards, Soviet cinema was subjected to an
increasingly draconian system of censorship. In this chapter we
shall observe that censorship operated on a number of different
levels and emanated from different sources of power. It is possible to identify
a distinct element of Bolshevik defensive thinking which, to a large extent,
underpinned the elaborate system of checks and controls. We argued above
that the Bolsheviks tended to subscribe to an inflexible, dogmatic brand of
Marxism with a very real sense of scientific certitude. This generated a sort
of intellectual megalomania whereby the revolutionaries claimed to
understand the ‘riddle of history’. But a constant fear and insecurity
coexisted alongside this megalomania that their political ideal might fail to
engage the masses or be undermined in some way. Thus for cinema to
perform its function as a frontline defence weapon against counter
arguments, cynicism or dissatisfaction with unrealised promises, its film
productions would have to undergo rigorous checks. By the end of the
1930s the rejection of ideas that did not deal with required political matters
of the day, or praise the regime in some way, meant that the prospect of a
genuine ‘cinema for the millions’ was in real jeopardy as the entertainment
aspect of Soviet films was subject to increasing attacks.
The first censorship body properly devoted to controlling Soviet films
was GRK (State Repertoire Committee) established by a Sovnarkom decree
on 9 February 1923.1 In keeping with the relatively liberal spirit of the
1920s, GRK’s censorship regime in these years was mild. But, towards the
end of the 1920s, GRK started to ban films more frequently. Some films
were removed for idealising ‘bourgeois decadence’ or ‘low morals’. Other
films removed from circulation included those that showed crime,
prostitution and other ‘depravities’. The main target, particularly in the
54 SOVIET CINEMA
latter half of the decade, was foreign product such as detective or crime
films. In November 1928, nearly three hundred foreign films were withdrawn
from distribution. It appears that most of these had already been viewed
by the few who had access to decent cinemas, yet the figure included many
popular mass films such as those featuring the German actor Harry Piel.2
GRK also banned many Soviet films between 1929 and the mid-
1930s. It is particularly noteworthy that an unusually high proportion of
the bans, especially from 1929–1933, were imposed on films from Ukraine,
Belorussia, Georgia, Armenia and other Soviet republics. Among some
of the most notable banned films was Kote Mikaberidze’s My Grandmother
(Moia babushka, 1929), a brilliant satire on the Soviet bureaucratic machine.
The Artistic Political Council within GRK imposed the ban rightly
considering the film to be anti-Soviet and likely to engender a negative
attitude towards Soviet bureaucracy and power in general.3 However,
most of the foreign and Soviet films were banned not due to their political
content, but on a basis that they contained what the Bolsheviks regarded
as ‘mindless’ romantic or adventure stories. Many leading Bolsheviks,
who controlled the structures of censorship, felt obliged to denounce
popular entertainment films. They referred to American and Soviet
popular movies as ‘trivial’, ‘vulgar’, ‘banal’ and even ‘harmful’. This
language, which was often highly condescending, revealed a profound
insecurity integral to the Bolshevik defensive mentality which recognised
that the broad mass of ordinary people found their political world rather
tedious and much preferred entertainment films to the idea of participating
in anti-capitalist political debates. The revolutionaries had a profound need
for acceptance by the people they claimed to represent. However, they
mistakenly believed that they could achieve acceptance by ‘civilising’ the
masses and revealing to them exactly what life should be about.
Nevertheless, up until 1935, many older foreign films remained in
circulation, which indicated that Glavrepertkom was not always consistent
in its decisions. These included foreign romantic films and dramas, such
as the German hit Moulin Rouge (1928), starring Olga Chekhova, or Chicago
(1927) a crime story about a heavy-drinking young woman called Roxie
Hart who murders her boyfriend after he leaves her, but somehow avoids
conviction. Given that numerous films were being and had been banned
for containing crime or decadent images of bourgeois life, it is hard to see
how some of these films were distinguished from the others as being worthy
of distribution. The need to make basic financial gains for the cinema
industry was a central factor and still influenced decisions in the 1930s.
C ENSORSHIP 55
However, this inconsistency in cinema censorship helped fuel the calls for
tighter controls and led to a prevailing trend to gradually eliminate the
foreign and popular as well as the nationally distinctive from the Soviet
film repertoire. From 1933 onwards GRK became increasingly
insignificant. GRK was renamed the GURK (see above) in 1933. During
the mid-1930s, however, the new body became a rubber stamp for the
Orgburo’s cinema committee and Stalin. In 1936 GRK, as it was still
known, was absorbed into the Komitet po Delam Iskusstv (All-Union
Committee for the Arts), before then becoming part of the Cinema
Committee structure established in 1938.4
A Russian
version of an
advert for the
foreign film
Moulin Rouge
(1929).
56 SOVIET CINEMA
the film arose, various worker audiences watched the existing version. The
response seems to have been mixed; some heavily criticised the film, others
called for it to be banned, while one worker’s club unanimously agreed
that it should not be banned.5 Eventually, the film remained on the shelf. It
is possible that the negative reactions among workers may have had some
influence on this decision.
Yet the reaction of workers was not always predictable or did not always
correspond to the political views of organisation or cinema administration
heads. In May and August 1930, ODSK arranged viewings of Pavel
Armand’s Ashamed to Say (Stydno skazat, 1930), which dealt with life in the
navy. The film did receive criticisms, such as its failure to show socialist
competition in practice. On the whole though, the film was praised for its
frank references to the illnesses suffered at sea and its clarity on the ‘struggle
for the new reality’. In contrast, Soiuzkino condemned the film as one of
several ‘ideologically harmful movies alien to the proletariat’ that had been
produced by the First Moscow Studio and were subsequently banned.6
This clearly suggests that, generally, the views of workers had little
significance when it came to the final decision on the fate of a film. During
the early 1930s the role of ARRK and ODSK started to decline and, by
the end of 1934, both organisations were effectively finished. This meant
an end to the worker viewings that had taken place in previous years. Indeed,
throughout the 1930s ‘the worker audience’ would be carefully selected to
give its public approval in the official press to films that the Party, government
and cinema administration considered ideal for mass consumption, such
as Chapaev or Lenin in October (Lenin v oktiabre, 1937). Therefore, the possibility
of censorship by the ordinary worker was shortlived.
Studio/Trust Censorship
Censorship at the studio level was imposed in a variety of ways. One of
these was through the introduction in 1929 of Party representatives or
‘cells’ as they became known. Between 1929 and the mid-1930s the
political impact of these cells was rather insignificant. This began to
change in 1933 when the Party cells in the studios gained the right to
discuss film scripts before they went into production. This right was
exercised by the Leningrad studio cell in 1933 when it asked the writers
of the film Friends (Podrugi, 1935) to make some changes to their script
before going into production. Towards the end of the decade the Party
had gained a stronger foothold in the studios. At this stage, the activity of
the Party cells was particularly concerned with ‘educating’ the artistic
58 SOVIET CINEMA
on Dostoevsky’s Notebooks from the House of the Dead (Zapiski iz mertvogo doma,
1862) and sought to explore the writer’s life using sound in a highly
experimental form. Shklovsky changed the name of the script several
times eventually calling it The House of the Dead (Mertvyi dom, 1932). The
script was rejected on four other occasions. However, in the early to mid-
thirties, the existence of the Mezhrabpomfilm studio still provided an
alternative for writers and film-makers. Despite the public denunciations
of Shklovsky as a Formalist, the studio accepted his script and entrusted
the film to the director Vasili Fyodorov.10 Regardless of measures, such as
the unsuccessful establishment of artistic councils in the studios in 1929,
which were created to improve and monitor the ideological and artistic
quality of scripts and films already in production, the script department
remained, for some time, the most important body responsible for
scrutinising, accepting and rejecting proposals.11 Yet, by 1938, the script
departments had become fully integrated into an endless, centralised system
of official checks which would have to pass through various departments
of the cinema administration as well as the industry chairman.
In the latter part of the 1930s the senior leadership of many of the
Soviet studios began to adopt a stronger censorship role. This type of
censorship was essentially an insurance policy for studio administrators
who knew that the submission of unsound ideological films in a general
atmosphere of condemnation would inevitably lead to dismissals. This
sort of pre-emptive ban took place in all the Soviet republics. In the mid-
1930s the Ukrainian studios had several of their films banned. Some of
these bans came from senior Party organs, but the Ukrainian film Trust,
Ukrainfilm, responsible for the Kiev and Odessa studios, issued its own
bans. One of the most notable cases was that of Abram Room’s A Strict
Youth. On 10 August 1936, Ukrainfilm issued a ban on the film. The film
was forbidden on the basis of its allegedly ‘pretentious’ dialogue on
equality and levelling, its claim that the intelligentsia would wield power
in a future classless society, the suggestion that suffering and the fear of
death are intrinsic to both capitalist and communist societies, its portrayal
of a weak Soviet youth, a central character alien to Soviet reality and a
Formalist deviance from socialist realism.12 As was common, this ban was
a pre-emptive reaction to the campaign against Formalism that had begun
earlier in the year. The trust knew that the Ukrainian film Prometheus had
been used as the first example of Formalism by the authorities in the
1936 campaign. Given the content of A Strict Youth, the trust knew that a
ban was necessary to protect themselves from potentially serious
60 SOVIET CINEMA
The Orgburo
From the mid-1930s other agencies became more involved in censorship.
As we have seen, many of the official government decrees pointed to a
C ENSORSHIP 61
Kultpros
Stalin’s dislike of the Orgburo cinema commission may not have only
been because he regarded it as a rival to his own censorship authority. It
also seems likely that Stalin simply did not trust the members of the
commission. It is noteworthy that most of the commission’s key members,
including Stetsky, Bubnov, Dinamov and Kosior were all executed within
a few years. On 25 December 1934, the Politburo decided to liquidate
the commission, handing over the duties of thematic plan and script
guidance, as well as decisions on film release, to the Central Committee’s
Kultprosvetrabota (cultural and enlightenment work) department. The
evidence suggests that Stalin instigated the move, and Stetsky gave his
official support (not having much choice), but one of Stalin’s close
associates, Andrei Zhdanov, played an important supporting role in
drafting the decree.17 This shift of political control over cinema was highly
significant, as Zhdanov would become an increasingly influential figure
towards the end of the decade.
The reorganisation of Party censorship over cinema into Kultpros
was intended to tighten ideological control, yet its functions were largely
the same as the Orgburo’s cinema commission. The new body took the
defence of Soviet history and its leaders to new levels. In January 1937, it
banned the release of Yuli Raizman’s The Last Night (Posledniaia noch, 1937)
due to the fact that the film did not show the ‘role of Stalin in the struggle
for October’. The Kultpros department was distressed that ‘Stalin’s name
was not even mentioned’ in the film. The body decreed that the movie
could not be released in its current form and that GUK should think
about possible changes to the film, given that the administration was
C ENSORSHIP 63
responsible for the movie’s ‘defects’.18 The film’s January release was
delayed until 2 March 1937, when it appeared on screens throughout the
USSR. But, during the intervening period, it is clear that Raizman made
minimal changes to the film. The final cut included no material on Stalin’s
role in the October Revolution or even a mention of his name at an
opportune moment. The difficulty of making changes to this film was
that it could not be done easily. The point of The Last Night was to tell the
story of the Revolution through the eyes of ordinary people rather than
glorified leaders and thus any attempt to introduce the Bolshevik elite
would have necessitated a serious structural change or indeed a complete
remaking of the film. Nonetheless, this was a warning that censorship
was now taking the matter of protecting political mythology to extremes.
The obsession with Stalin and other Bolshevik leaders appearing in Soviet
feature films, which they often did in the late 1930s, showed that
revolutionary political megalomania had reached almost comical levels
and that the claims of blending entertainment with politics were
increasingly difficult to substantiate.
visual aspects of movies, and gave his approval to many films; he also banned
certain films, which he judged to be unsuitable for mass consumption.19
The earliest record of Stalin’s involvement in determining film content
can be traced as far back as 1927. During the final editing of Sergei
Eisenstein’s October (Oktiabr, 1927), Stalin allegedly told the director that,
given the efforts of the Trotskyite opposition to fight against Soviet power,
the scenes showing Trotsky’s involvement in the October Revolution would
have to be cut. Eisenstein cut three scenes featuring Trotsky while two others
were re-edited.20 Notwithstanding this early intervention, Stalin only really
became a consistent censor of films in the early to mid-1930s. In 1933, the
young Leningrad-based directors Alexander Zarkhi and Joseph Kheifits
completed their film My Homeland (Moia rodina). The film, which tells of the
coming to class consciousness of a young Chinese man, was released on
the 23 February 1933. Initially, the film was received very well by the cinema
industry, including Boris Shumiatsky and the press. Nevertheless, in late
March the film was banned by GRK. Then on 3 April 1933, the newspaper
Pravda publicly announced the ban. One of Stalin’s projectionists recalled
how, after watching the film, he heard Stalin dictate to Kaganovich: ‘write
this down…the film My Homeland is to be banned as harmful’. The Pravda
article repeated Stalin’s words, indicating that he was the main source of
the change in attitude towards the film and its ban. Stalin was not satisfied
with the depiction of the Red Army in the film. It is highly probable that
My Homeland was the first film that Stalin himself banned outright.21
One of the most remarkable cases of Stalin’s involvement concerns
the film Shchors (1939), directed by Alexander Dovzhenko. The relationship
between Stalin and Dovzhenko can be traced back to 1928 after the release
of the director’s film Arsenal. Stalin liked the film but the Ukrainian
authorities thought otherwise and began to harass Dovzhenko. The
situation deteriorated after the release of Earth (Zemlia, 1930) and Ivan
(1932), which were heavily criticised and, by this stage, Dovzhenko was
in danger of arrest. However, Stalin played his part in preventing this
and convincing Dovzhenko to move to Moscow in 1933. From this point
on, Stalin formally became a protective father figure/teacher to
Dovzhenko who would meet the leader more often than any other film-
maker in the Soviet Union.22 Stalin recognised Dovzhenko’s talent and
exploited the director’s position of obligation to the leader by compelling
him to make political films in support of the communist system. After
Dovzhenko completed Aerograd (1935), Stalin proposed the idea of making
a Ukrainian Chapaev to the director, based on the civil war commander
C ENSORSHIP 65
Nikolai Shchors. In 1937 Dovzhenko recalled how Stalin told him that
the project was merely a proposal:
Given that Stalin had already saved Dovzhenko from the wrath of the
Ukrainian police, the leader clearly expected that the director would make
the film. Predictably, Dovzhenko carried out Stalin’s proposal. Nevertheless,
after researching his new theme, Dovzhenko found that Shchors was less
of a heroic figure than Stalin believed or wanted him to be. Consequently,
after watching Dovzhenko’s first attempt at the film, Stalin wrote a letter to
Shumiatsky pointing to several shortcomings in the movie:
Comrade Shumiatsky!
1) Shchors has turned out rather crude and uncultivated. You
need to restore Shchors’s true physiognomy.
2) Bozhenko did not entirely work out. The writer, clearly,
sympathises more with Bozhenko than with Shchors.
3) Shchors’s military staff is not visible. Why?
4) It cannot be that Shchors did not have a tribunal, in either
event, he would not have begun to shoot people for no reason
(the snuff box and so on).
5) It is not good that Shchors looks less cultivated and cruder than
Chapaev. This is not natural.
J. Stalin 9/7/36.24
These examples reveal the extent to which Stalin became involved in not
only censoring, but also, sometimes, making his own contributions to films.
Throughout the 1930s Stalin demanded changes and additions to a whole
series of films, including documentaries, placing him at the centre of the
censorship process.
However, while the extent of Stalin’s involvement in examining films
was unusually high, there has been a general tendency to regard Stalin as
an all-seeing-eye, capable of exercising complete, efficient control over
the cinema industry and its films. This has led to the unjustified assumption
that Stalin was always in control of the content of every film. It is important
to point out that Stalin’s control over cinema was not complete or
systematic. There were many examples of controversial films that were
66 SOVIET CINEMA
released for one or several weeks before Stalin had seen them. As we have
seen, the film My Homeland was on release for several weeks before Stalin
saw and banned it. Ivan Kavaleridze’s Prometheus was shown in Leningrad
for one week before Shumiatsky showed the film to Stalin, who agreed that
it should be banned due to its alleged historical distortions on its depiction
of the Caucasus battles of the 19th century. Mikhail Dubson’s Large Wings
was on general release for nearly three weeks before being withdrawn from
cinemas due to its ‘difficult’ content about an aircraft designer who witnesses
the crash of one of his own planes and then attempts to commit suicide,
but lives on and continues to work with the support of the father of one of
the crash victims. Finally, Alexander Stolper and Boris Ivanov’s The Law of
Life (Zakon zhizni), an essentially anti-communist film, was on release for ten
days before hastily being withdrawn due to its depiction of a depoliticised
fun-loving Soviet youth who are less than interested in Marxism.25 It is
clear that Stalin did not see these films before their release, indicating that
it was not considered essential that films should always initially be passed
by the leader. When the head of cinema brought films to him for viewing,
he tended to select the best of industry product. This was more about
entertaining Stalin than asking for approval on each and every film. So, in
effect, there were many cases where thousands of spectators were given the
opportunity to watch films that either challenged or did not fit into the
Party vision of Soviet cinema.
Nonetheless, while it is important that we take into account the
limitations of Stalin’s censorship role, we must acknowledge the fact that,
overall, his influence on Soviet film was disproportionately high. Again
when we look at the content of his decisions, it is evident that the leader
himself was also motivated by a mentality of protecting and defending the
politically sacred. His desire to see Shchors portrayed in the same heroic
light as Chapaev did not merely reflect a wish for Soviet cinema to produce
effective propaganda. Stalin and most of his Bolshevik comrades genuinely
believed in the greatness of Bolshevik heroism as part of the struggle to
achieve the communist paradise. It is thus unsurprising that in every decision
Stalin made on changing film content, there is a strong sense that the material
does live up to some form of political perfection or unwavering greatness.
The main characters from the film The Hearts of Four (1941).
C ENSORSHIP 69
Conclusion
The censorship regime enforced on Soviet cinema from 1929 onwards
became more and more elaborate. After beginning with the official body
GRK, censorship then developed a much more draconian character as
special commissions and Stalin himself began to scrutinise scripts and
films on a more regular basis. The most fundamental goal of censorship
was to remove scripts or films that, even in the slightest way, challenged,
questioned or ignored the Soviet view of reality in the 1930s or the
ideological goals of communism. Such a goal was central to the
legitimisation of that reality and those political ideals. We have seen
that between 1929 and 1941 the censorship enacted by a whole range
of agencies was sometimes very inconsistent and lacking in the
ideological purpose outlined at the Party Conference on Cinema in
1928. We have also pointed out that, despite the terrible impact of
censorship and its apparent ruthlessness, none of the mechanisms of
control were as watertight as is often assumed. But the consequence of
gaps in the net, however small, was the constant increase in ideological
defensiveness year after year. The 1930s saw persistent institutional
changes in terms of how censorship was controlled and each perceived
failure at closing the ideological net simply helped reinforce the defence
mechanisms. Moreover, we have argued that, this defensiveness
manifested itself in the decisions themselves, Soviet film censorship was
built upon the unstable foundations of Bolshevik insecurity and this
was reflected in the patronising condemnation of popular entertainment
movies and the simultaneous praise of Bolshevik heroes and leaders.
The eventual result of reactions on institutional, collective and individual
levels was that censorship played a big role, along with the other
contributing factors, in undermining the very goal set out for Soviet
70 SOVIET CINEMA
cinema in the late 1920s: to reach the masses effectively through a wide
variety of well-produced films that carefully combined entertainment
and politics.
71
CHAPTER 3
THE PURGES
T
he question of how violence and the purges affected Soviet cinema
between the late 1920s and the end of the 1930s remains an area
of research that has received relatively little treatment. Work carried
out over the last twenty years has provided us with some idea of who the
main victims were, especially between 1936 and 1938, and the reasoning
behind their arrests. Nonetheless, post-Soviet Russian accounts of the
purges do not make a distinction between the early and later purges and
often assume that they always achieved their goals.1 We still lack a more
empirical account, particularly of the period between 1929 and 1936,
which might provide us with a better understanding of the real impact of
the purges over these years. This chapter will attempt to address this issue
and will also seek to identify some of the victims of the purges who,
despite their importance for the Soviet film industry, have been omitted
from previous accounts. Moreover, it will try to establish a more detailed
understanding of the circumstances surrounding these arrests and, in some
cases, executions.
In this chapter it shall be argued that, with regard to the most significant
artistic and administrative victims, the purges that took place between
1929 and 1936 had a limited impact. The cinema industry, which was in
desperate need of qualified and experienced personnel, saw a recycling
of specialists and adaptation to new conditions rather than a genuine
purge. During the Great Terror the purges in cinema were much more
ruthless and the number of arrests and executions escalated. By the late
1930s there was a backlash against the foreign influence in the cinema
industry consistent with the Bolshevik defensive outlook. Film-makers
and administrators were especially targeted for their foreign connections
and their enthusiasm for a ‘Soviet Hollywood’. The later purges thus
72 SOVIET CINEMA
this meant that they had no Party card to lose, they were still subject to all
the other aforementioned measures.
The purges were ongoing during the 1930s. However, it is important
to distinguish between the earlier and later periods. It is true that some
figures, either directly working in cinema or at least associated with it,
experienced terrible lasting hardships resulting from repressive measures
taken in the years before 1936. One important administrative figure
arrested in 1930 was Martemian Riutin, the short-lived chairman of
Soiuzkino who had been appointed by Stalin. Riutin was a fairly outspoken
figure who criticised the leader and, it appears, had a disagreement with
him at his dacha in Sochi in the autumn of 1930. Stalin ordered Riutin’s
arrest and the cinema leader was arrested after returning from a holiday
in October of that year. A Soiuzkino directive confirming his dismissal
from the post of chairman appeared on 23 October. Harsh punishments
and shootings were far rarer in 1930 than in 1937, however, and Riutin
was released. In 1932 Riutin became involved in the production and
distribution of an anti-Stalinist programme among members of the
Central Committee in which he accused Stalin of destroying the
Revolution in favour of his drive for personal power. For this Riutin spent
over four years in prison, before eventually being executed in 1937.3
A further instance of an earlier purge, this time of artistic figures
working in cinema, is the case of Alexander Gavronsky, a less well-known
director with a theatrical background. Gavronsky, who was from a wealthy
Moscow family, had studied in Switzerland before returning to work in
his home city, initially in various Moscow theatres and then, after 1927,
as a film director. Certainly, his period abroad would not have helped his
cause, yet the central reason for his arrest on 4 January 1934 seems to
have been his openly anti-Soviet beliefs. In 1931 the OGPU (Joint State
Political Directorate) made a note of Gavronsky’s comments that the
country was in a dreadful state and cinema personnel were losing
motivation due to the demand for the same themes of class struggle and
the glory of the Party. Gavronsky described his latest film The Dark Reign
(Temnoe tsarstvo, 1931) as a counterrevolutionary work. Following his arrest
in 1934, Gavronsky spent nearly 25 years in the Komi camps. He was
released only at the end of 1957 due to ill health and died three months
later.4
Nikolai Erdman, who was arrested along with Vladimir Mass, his co-
author of The Happy Guys on the set of that film along with another writer,
Emil German, had become increasingly involved in scriptwriting for Soviet
74 SOVIET CINEMA
films. The men were arrested on 11 October 1933, for the ‘dissemination
of counterrevolutionary literary works’ and were all sentenced to three
years’ exile in grim Siberian outposts. In particular, Erdman was forced
to confess that he was the author of a series of ‘anti-Soviet and erotic
fables’ for which he had deliberately organised distribution in Moscow
and other towns. After his sentence, Erdman was released but was not
allowed to live permanently in Moscow until 1949. Despite this formal
restriction, Erdman resumed his career as a cinema scriptwriter. Along
with Mikhail Volpin, Erdman wrote Volga Volga (1938) and The Old Jockey
(Staryi naezdnik, 1940), as well as many other successful scripts in subsequent
years. During the war he even worked as a literary consultant for the
NKVD ensemble of Song and Dance.5
However, it is true to say that, on the whole, the earlier purges were
different in method and outcome from those of 1936–1938 and were
hugely different in terms of the number of cinema personnel who were
to fall victim. The typical victims of the early purges were often
administrative heads of departments, who would be considered
responsible for poor performance in their given area. At Mezhrabpomfilm
in 1929 it was declared that Vladimir Shveitser, the head of the script
department, was to be sacked by order of local Party and political control
organs for being ‘improvident’ and for forming a union with ‘anti-Soviet
elements’. Also at Mezhrabpomfilm the well-known actor Porfiri Podobed
was under secret police observation as a potential ‘enemy of the people’.
Yet both men were left alone and pursued successful careers in the industry
working with key directors such as Yakov Protazanov and Konstantin
Eggert.6 Secret police and purge commission indecisiveness was also
evident during the initial purge of Sovkino in July 1929. A purge
commission complained that, despite its decrees on the dismissal of Goldin
(the head of the trade section) and Bufeev (the head of sales), neither
man was dismissed and the departments in question were suffering as a
result.7
The indecisiveness of the purge commissions and the secret police in
cinema up until 1936 is more clearly illustrated in the case of a higher-
profile purge victim. Mikhail Doller had worked in cinema since 1923
and became known for his work as assistant to Vsevolod Pudovkin on the
films Mother (Mat, 1926) and The End of Saint Petersburg (Konets Sankt-
Peterburga, 1927). In 1929 he was caught up in the campaign to rid cinema
of the class enemy. On 8 July 1929 Doller wrote a letter to the
administration of Mezhrabpomfilm, indicating that he had been accused
T HE PURGES 75
of selecting class enemies to work on a recent film project and that Doller
knew the individuals in question as well as their social origins. Doller
described the accusation as a ‘complete lie’, pointing out that he selected
the personnel for purely artistic reasons.8
On 26 August 1929 the Mezhrabpomfilm administration responded
to Doller’s plea for help with a letter to the secretary of the Krasnaia
Presnia district committee in Moscow, concerning the position of Doller
and two other workers. The letter noted that while Doller’s removal had
already been decreed, there would be dire consequences, in terms of film
completion, if the committee did not reconsider its decision on the
production of Pudovkin’s latest ‘highly responsible’ film. The OGPU gave
in to the pleas and Doller rejoined the film crew in September 1929.9
Yet, despite the worrying situation Doller found himself in, the attempt
to purge him was not renewed. In fact Doller went on to lead an apparently
normal career in film throughout the somewhat abnormal 1930s, working
as a co-director with Pudovkin on all of his major productions. Ironically,
a Soviet cinema encyclopaedia later described the main talent of Doller
as his ‘ability to form an actors’ ensemble and select types for films’.10
Although artistic personnel were victimised in the early period of
purges and later during the period of the Great Purge, administrative
personnel were often given more attention by the secret police. In 1929
Moisei Aleinikov, the director of Mezhrabpomfilm, was stripped of his
voting rights ‘as a former participant of the artistic collective “Rus”’. As
with Doller, Aleinikov refused to accept the decision and wrote a letter to
the Central Electoral Commission pointing out that the artistic collective
‘Rus’ was not of a capitalist nature, and had a sound ideological ethos
that served as ‘a powerful weapon of propaganda of our cinema in the
West’.11 In March 1930, Aleinikov, along with other senior administrators,
was purged from his directorial position at Mezhrabpomfilm and regarded
as a class enemy who had no place in Soviet cinema. Nonetheless,
Aleinikov was clearly valued too much by figures within the industry,
who directly defied their political masters. In 1931 a commission on the
purge of Soiuzkino expressed indignation that Aleinikov, ‘removed from
Mezhrabpomfilm for carrying out an ideologically harmful policy and
producing films for the petty bourgeoisie and capitalists of the west’, had
subsequently received a senior position as the deputy leader of the
production department of sound cinema at Soiuzkino. Indeed, Aleinikov’s
deputy, Grigori Arustanov, was also purged at the same time, yet he too
was able to re-establish himself at the Azerkino studio in Baku where he
76 SOVIET CINEMA
had worked in the 1920s.12 Subsequently, far from being ousted once
more, Aleinikov was to maintain a strong and respected influence in
Soiuzkino and Soviet cinema generally and even headed commissions
investigating production problems at Soiuzkino’s first film factory.13
Aleinikov seemed to be able to adapt to changing and difficult
circumstances, channelling his pre-Revolutionary commercial approach
into the ‘cinema for the millions’ of the 1930s.14
A further interesting example reveals how it was possible for leading
industry figures to survive at this time. Anatoli Danashevsky, a reputable
administrator at Soiuzkino in charge of the building of the future Mosfilm
studio, was accused of sabotage and sentenced to execution in June 1931.
On hearing of Danashevsky’s arrest, the American writer Upton Sinclair
wrote a letter to Stalin in which he defended Danashevsky as a man
committed to Soviet cinema and the USSR. Stalin replied to Sinclair,
stating: ‘If you insist, I can apply for amnesty to the senior government
body’. After Stalin’s request, the Politburo made a recommendation to the
OGPU to release Danashevsky and send him out of the USSR, as he had
originally come from America. However, the secret police were, again, more
lenient in practice and Danashevsky was permitted to stay in the Soviet
Union. He continued to work in cinema and soon became director of the
Belgoskino studio. Danashevsky died in 1935 from an unrelated illness.15
effect of the ARRK purges was not the strengthening of its communist
credentials. The organisation never achieved its goal of attracting a strong
proletarian membership. Instead, the purges simply weakened the body
and helped to facilitate its subsequent demise.
As well as directors, such as Boris Svetozarov, who still managed to
forge a career in documentary film, the purges also affected cinema
journalists who were closely associated with ARRK, including Mikhail
Shneider who also lost his job as editor of the cinema journal Kino-Front,
Ippolit Sokolov, Khrisanf Khersonsky and the writer and critic Viktor
Shklovsky.22 Yet the purges failed permanently to remove any of these
important figures from the cinema industry. Shneider and Sokolov
continued to work as journalists in the area of cinema, albeit less frequently
than in the 1920s. Khersonsky continued to work as a respected critic in
the 1930s. Nonetheless, his ability to survive was undoubtedly eased by
his willingness to please the leadership. For instance, after writing an article
in Izvestiia criticising the model Soviet film Chapaev, Khersonsky was
attacked by Stalin and other Party leaders. Subsequently, the critic wrote
a letter to the editor of Pravda apologising for his ‘mistake’. In particular,
Khersonsky suggested that he ought to have offered a better account of
the ‘merits of this beautiful film’ as Pravda had done.23 Viktor Shklovsky
followed a similar ‘safe’ path, opting for cautious regime-friendly articles
and scripts.
ODSK was the least affected cinema organisation during the purges
of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The society was intended as a means
of drawing the masses in to Soviet cinema through the organisation of
lectures, discussions, film viewings and so on. By 1929 the body had
become increasingly subject to the criticism that it was failing to fulfil its
function. In 1930 an editorial article in the journal Kino i zhizn (Cinema
and Life) attacked ODSK for failing to develop a clear political line. The
author also accused the organisation of not fulfilling its main function of
mobilising the worker and peasant masses in the factories and the fields.24
Despite these criticisms, ODSK was never purged as such. As a result of
its weakness, ODSK was not perceived as a political threat, therefore,
when demands for change were made, they focused on the need for
reorganisation rather than the removal of leaders or members. By 1932
ODSK was receiving increasingly less attention in the cinema press and
the organisation only survived until 1934 when it was formally liquidated.
One of the more significant victims of the early purges was the director
of the Cinema Institute, S.S. Lialina, who, along with other right-wing
T HE PURGES 79
and of a lingering suspicion that his true state loyalties did not lie in the
USSR. His wife, Ida Penzo, an actress and ballerina, was arrested the
following year and was only freed from the camps in 1955.32
The differences between the nature of the earlier and later purges is
also manifest in the cases of high-ranking administrators. In the summer
of 1929 the OGPU arrested Albert Slivkin, the technical director of the
Leningrad cinema studio. This was followed by a letter from that studio’s
director, Natan Grinfeld, to Konstantin Shvedchikov, asking whether or
not Slivkin should be finally removed from the studio’s employee list and
whether or not his family should lose the right to live in a flat situated in
the grounds of the studio.33 However, despite Slivkin’s apparently dire
situation, a secret report on Sovkino from 16 December 1929 angrily
complained that not only had Slivkin been released from prison, but he
had simply gone back to Sovkino and was already engaged in talks with
the administration on finding a job once more in cinema. Despite these
protests, Slivkin was able to carry on working in Moscow where he found
employment at Mezhrabpomfilm as a financial administrator and then
at Mosfilm as the assistant director of the studio.34 However, unlike many
other figures who had survived initial purge attempts in the late 1920s
and early 1930s and gone on to lead relatively normal careers, avoiding
the more serious purges of 1936–1938, Slivkin was not so fortunate. On
3 August 1937, Mikhail Romm was temporarily living at Slivkin’s flat
where he was attempting to finish the script for Lenin in October (Lenin v
Oktiabre, 1937). Romm recalled how men in military uniform knocked on
the door late that night and came in to arrest a rather weary and resigned
Slivkin. Slivkin was sentenced to execution on 15 March 1938, accused
of ‘provocatory activity’ in the Communist Party, of which he was then a
member; he was shot on the same day.35
at the time of Shumiatsky’s arrest suggested that out of the 453 individuals
working at GUK, 154 people had politically unreliable backgrounds or
affiliations and emanated from one of the ‘exploitative’ classes. Notably, 61
of these administrators had travelled abroad. In 1938, following the arrest
of Shumiatsky and his colleagues, the cinema administration was hit by a
further series of arrests and executions. In a similar manner to the earlier
purges, most of those arrested were heads or deputy heads of departments.
Among them were Yevgeni Satel, the manager of Goskinoprokat, the
division responsible for distribution; Vladimir Stepanov, the head of the
technical department for feature film production; Fyodor Sokolov, a senior
inspector for the cinefication administration; Alexander Kucherovsky, a
consultant for the building sector and Mikhail Breslavsky, the deputy director
of that sector, as well as Alexander Kadysh and Matvei Shkolnik, the heads
of the sectors for film viewing in two separate departments. In addition,
the head of the department for the production of educational-technical
films, Grigori Pechalin-Perez, was arrested and shot. No department escaped
the terror. The heads of the financial department M.A. Kagan and Rafail
Antikol were repressed, as was the senior economist Vasili Khomutov.
Soiuzintorgkino was targeted due to suspicions of foreign connections
established while films and film materials were being imported and exported
which led to the arrest of the body’s director Samuil Ginsburg who was of
Polish extraction. The deputy of the building sector, a certain Okulov, was
arrested after spending time abroad while a chief engineer of the cinema
mechanical industry, by the name of Petrov, was also under suspicion due
to his foreign ties. One of the leading administrators in the American-
inspired Cine City project, Yuli Piatigorsky, was accused of spying and
executed.39
Arrests were also made within the industry itself especially in the studios.
A similar trend prevailed in all the studios as a series of departmental heads
were arrested. At Mosfilm the former director Boris Babitsky and the new
director Elena Sokolovskaia, were both arrested and executed as were the
heads of the department of colour cinema, the planning department and
the sets and decorations department. The director of Lenfilm, Yakov
Smirnov and his assistants, Leonti Katsnelson, Natan Grinfeld, as well as
the artistic director of Lenfilm, Adrian Piotrovsky and the technical director,
Vasili Mikhailyk were arrested. Solomon Orelovich, the director of the
Kiev studio Ukrainfilm, suffered the same fate, as did leaders from other
key bodies including the Odessa and Armenian studios. In Azerbaijan the
head of the cinema administration, Gulam Sultanov, was accused of giving
86 SOVIET CINEMA
jobs to family and class enemies in the administration and at the studio
Azerkino. He was arrested and executed. In Georgia, the head of the cinema
industry, Amvrosi Titberidze was arrested and shot. The head of
Sibtekhfilm, Mikhail Chertulov, was arrested as was his predecessor, Mikhail
Mordokhovich. Former studio directors and leading script consultants at
all studios were arrested and the purges affected other personnel, including
editors, sound technicians, engineers, pyrotechnic experts, accountants,
drivers and firemen.40
Furthermore, the purges, as they had in earlier years, extended beyond
the administration and the studios. For instance, the State Cinema Institute
which, as we have seen, provided refuge for many controversial figures during
the 1930s, was subject to attack by the secret police. As we have also seen,
the head of the cameramen faculty, Vladimir Nilsen, was arrested and
executed, as was Lev Monosson, the head of the faculty of the organisation
and economics of cinema, and Vanda Rossolovskaia, a lecturer on foreign
cinema. One of Eisenstein’s former students, Kira Andronikashvili, was
also arrested and spent a few years in the labour camps. Kei-Kheru, the
head of department of socio-economic science was accused of spying and
shot in 1938. Again, it is noteworthy that four out of these five victims had
foreign ties of some sort. Nilsen had travelled abroad with Shumiatsky,
establishing many connections in the world of cinema technology, while
Monosson was the USSR’s film trade representative in New York in the
late 1920s and early 1930s. Kira Andronikashvili was married to the writer
Boris Pilniak who had established friendships with Western writers, including
Upton Sinclair, during a visit in the early 1930s. Finally, Kei-Kheru came
from Korea which meant that he became an instant suspect at such a
dangerous time. In the sphere of journalism the editor of the newspaper
Kino, Grigori Vovsy, was arrested and executed and the editorial board were
dismissed. Vovsy and his colleagues were accused of giving a voice to class
enemies through the publication. Pavel Shukailo a Belorussian professor at
VGIK, and a previous editor of Kino in the early 1930s, fell victim to the
terror. Kirill Shutko, a leading journalist in the field of cinema, was arrested
in 1938 and died in prison in 1941.The secretary of the organisational
bureau of the Central Committee of the Union of Film Workers, and
Latvian-born, Karl Blium, was arrested and executed. The terror had a
broader impact on the mass of workers in the entire film industry. Directors
of factories, theatres and countless projectionists, among many others, were
caught up in the wave of arrests all over the USSR.41
Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the fact that some individuals
T HE PURGES 87
from the artistic sphere of cinema, both well known and not so well known,
did suffer heavily during the height of the terror. The victims were drawn
from all areas of film-making endeavour. Among them were fairly eminent
directors, including Konstantin Eggert, famous for his 1920s blockbuster
The Bear’s Wedding. He was arrested and only released in the 1950s.42 Mikhail
Dubson, another director virtually forgotten by history, was arrested in 1937,
following the ban on his controversial film Large Wings. Dubson had started
to make a name for himself at Lenfilm in the 1930s, before being sent to
prison; he was released in 1939, but his career never fully recovered and he
found it difficult to find work in cinema.43 Lesser-known assistant director,
scriptwriter and actor Viktor Portnov was arrested at Lenfilm in April 1937
and shot the following year. Ukrainian director Faust Lopatinsky fell victim
to the purges at Ukrainfilm in 1937. Documentary film-maker, and a cousin
of Leon Trotsky, Lev Bronshtein, was arrested in August 1937 and only
released in the 1950s, dying only after a few days of freedom. The assistant
director, Nikolai Dirin, who had made a name for himself on such films as
Vladimir Gardin’s Poet and Tsar (1927) and the controversial My Homeland,
was arrested and executed in 1937.44
Many scriptwriters were arrested during the height of the purges,
including Alexander Kurs, the writer of Lev Kuleshov’s The Great Consoler
(Velikii uteshitel, 1933); Boris Gusman, who co-wrote The Gay Canary (Veselaia
kanareika, 1929) also with Kuleshov, Tatiana Zlatogorova, initially an actress,
but then a co-writer with her husband Alexei Kapler, who was later arrested
himself, on Three Comrades (Tri tovarishcha, 1935) and Lenin in 1918; Raisa
Vasileva, who wrote the script for Leo Arnshtam’s Friends (Podrugi, 1935);
Sergei Tretiakov, who became known in the world of cinema for his theory
and criticism in the 1920s, but also wrote scripts for several films; Yakov
Zaitsev, a scriptwriter and assistant director at Mosfilm along with the writer
Isaac Babel, who were both involved in the lengthy rewriting of Eisenstein’s
Bezhin Meadow; Vasili Lokot who wrote the script for the hit film A Girl in
a Hurry (1936); the actor, Ivan Koval-Samborsky, who played in Yuli
Raizman’s Flyers (Letchiki, 1935) and had spent some time working in
German film, spent nearly twenty years in the camps, he was released in
1956. Yvan Kyrlya, famous for his role as ‘Dandy’ Mustapha in The Road
to Life (Putevka v zhizn, 1931) was arrested and sentenced to ten years
imprisonment in 1937, he died in 1943. Pyotr Pirogov a well-established
actor at Lenfilm was arrested and shot. The well-known actor of cinema
and theatre, Alexei Diky was arrested in 1937 and was only released four
years later. Dmitri Konsovsky who had acted with Diky in Erwin Piscator’s
88 SOVIET CINEMA
Revolt of the Fishermen (Vosstanie rybakov, 1934) was arrested, however, he was
executed in 1938. Another film actress victim of the mass repressions was
Yevdokiia Urusova who spent most of the 1940s in prison and, consequently,
only came to prominence later in her life. The foreign artist, Hungarian-
born Yevgeni Enei, who had worked in cinema from the 1920s was exiled
to Kazakhstan for several years, fortunately though, he managed to return
to the film industry in the 1940s.45
Again, the purges of artistic personnel extended to the republics. The
director, Boris Shpis, who was based at Belgoskino and co-directed the
Return of Nathan Becker (Vosvrashchenie Neitana Bekkera, 1932) and the banned
film Engineer Goff (Inzhener Goff, 1935,) was sentenced and executed in 1938.
Belorussian writers Anatol Volny and Mikhas Charot were arrested in 1936/
1937 and later shot; Galina Yegorova, an actress based at the same studio,
was accused of spying and executed; the Armenian scriptwriters Yeghishe
Charentz and Aksel Bakunts fell victim in 1937 as did the scriptwriter Yeghia
Chubar, who was arrested in June 1937 and shot the next year. Maria
Dzherpetian, an Armenian actress who played in the popular film Pepo
(1935), was arrested as a ‘socially dangerous element’ and sent to Kolyma
for five years only returning to Armenia in 1945. That republic also saw
the arrest of director Amasi Martirosian, later released, but in poor health.
The Georgian scriptwriter Bachua Kuprashvili is also named in the list of
executed purge victims. Ivan Kulik, scriptwriter of Georgi Tasin’s Nazar
Stodolia (1937) fell victim to the purge of Ukrainfilm in 1937. Ukrainian
poet and scriptwriter, Nikolai Vorony, was sentenced to eight years in the
camps in June 1937. The next month another Ukrainian scriptwriter,
Zinaida Tulub, was sentenced to ten years in the camps, but was only
released in 1956. Mikhailo Iogansen, a writer, from Ukraine, was arrested
in August 1937 and executed in October 1938. The cameraman Alexei
Kaliuzhny, also from that republic, fell victim in December 1937. The
Azerbaidjani director and actor, Abbas Sharifzade, was accused of spying
and executed.46
It is clear that these purges were far more ruthless than previously, only
now there was more emphasis on anti-communist wreckers, foreign
infiltrators and spies than issues of, say, poor work discipline. By way of
illustration, Eggert was arrested due to the fact that his second name matched
that of a Swedish baron, while Dubson had been under suspicion for his
ties with Germany and because his wife was also German. The director
had spent many years working in Berlin during the 1920s. Indeed, paranoia
over any foreign connections led to the arrest of many immigrant cinema
T HE PURGES 89
Conclusion
As we have seen, the earlier purges did see the arrest and execution of
some individuals from the cinema industry. However, we have argued that
in terms of high-profile victims specifically associated with film, especially
in the RSFSR, the early purges often turned out to be a mere recycling of
specialists and had limited success. But, in terms of the later purges, we can
state that, from the point of view of its supporters and implementers, these
purges did remove many individuals who were regarded as subversive or a
threat to the Soviet state, including many people who had survived previous
attempts to get rid of them. In 1938 Soviet cinema was being run by a very
90 SOVIET CINEMA
different kind of administrator and this was most evident in the new
leadership. Semyon Dukelsky and his assistants from the NKVD were
characteristic of the new upwardly mobile workers who were filling the
posts vacated by purge victims.
To some extent, cinema was not targeted as an area that should receive
special attention by the secret police and many of the arrests were not
specifically connected to cinema activity as such. The cases that we have
examined suggest that cinema personnel were victimised for the same
reasons as the rest of the population. Yet the film industry was also targeted
for a specific reason. Cinema was very much a foreign art form and the
connections between Soviet artists and administrators and their Western
counterparts were particularly strong. The need to learn from the West’s
technical innovations in cinema meant that these associations continued
throughout the 1930s. This explains why in the case of cinema foreign
associations constituted one of the main reasons for arrest and execution
during the late 1930s, especially when we consider how Shumiatsky’s
administration supported the idea of a ‘Soviet Hollywood’. The turn to
the West for ideas undoubtedly provoked indignation and resentment among
the Party hierarchy and NKVD who wanted to see cinema run purely on
the Soviet principles of planning and discipline. According to the secret
police interpretation, Shumiatsky’s administration had rejected the Soviet
approach (this was untrue) and rejection was dealt with by a dangerous
form of defensiveness. We have also indicated that the impact of the purges
on cinema was specific in another sense. While we have noted the fact that
many artistic figures fell victim, it is clear that administrators were arrested
in greater numbers than directors, scriptwriters, cameramen, actors and so
on. In this way cinema differed significantly from the other arts, some of
which were decimated.
In the end, though, the NKVD’s attack on cinema merely contributed
to the existing decay within the industry, as they either physically or mentally
destroyed many talented people who, even under the politicised laws of
that time, were completely innocent of the absurd accusations levelled
against them and were all rehabilitated during the 1950s and beyond. The
attack on cinema exposed a regime that had simply run out of ideas.
Moreover, although the later purges undoubtedly engendered a strong sense
of fear among cinema personnel, these measures along with many other
Bolshevik policies, were simply counter-productive and self-defeating.
91
CHAPTER 4
THEMATIC PLANNING
I
n the broader Soviet context, the year 1929 saw the beginning of the
shift towards the command economy and the idea of planning. The
Bolsheviks believed that planning production, distribution and exchange
would ensure a fair distribution of resources, taking economic matters away
from the erratic and exploitative control of the market and placing them in
the control of human hands. The revolutionaries argued that such an
economy would satisfy human needs more effectively than its capitalist
rival. However, the Bolsheviks application of planning was not only confined
to economic matters. Such an approach was also applied to the sphere of
culture and ideas where planning was introduced, not only for rational
economic reasons, but also to help control the very content of cultural
production. For cinema to follow the path outlined at the Party conference
in 1928, it too would be subject to a system of central planning. The Party
believed that the plan would put the future development of the studios in
their hands. The thematic plan would designate a particular quantity of
films that should be made in a given year; it would, in theory, act as another
means of quality control; it would carefully distribute the financial and
other means required for each production and, most importantly, it would
provide the studio with a series of particular themes that had to be covered.1
Thematic planning became an integral part of the Bolshevik defence
strategy to harness cinema to the needs of the young Soviet state. However,
as we shall argue, the defensive mentality that helped create the elaborate
system of thematic planning also tended to undermine that system.
Plan Compilation
The compilation of thematic plans involved a series of institutions and
individuals. From the very beginning of planning in 1928, the Party’s
92 SOVIET CINEMA
the Party leadership, indicating that the opportunity for the writers to
fully shape their own ideas would always be constrained to some extent.
First, the draft plan was sent for discussion to workers’ meetings and literary
organisations. Second, studio personnel could make any required changes
and consider whether or not the plan could be implemented. The studio
leadership would have to give final approval for their individual thematic
plans. Third, every year the cinema administration would have to give its
confirmation of the final plan. Fourth, the official censorship body, GRK,
had to approve each plan. Fifth, the agitprop department of the Central
Committee had already been giving its assent to thematic plans since the
late 1920s, as well as offering its own recommendations for implementation.
Agitprop also set up committees that offered their conclusions and
proposals for discussion under the oversight of agitprop. From 1933
onwards, the Central Committee’s Orgburo discussed the thematic plans
and, within the studios themselves, Party organisations began to get more
involved in the debates and criticism of the plans. Finally, from the late
1930s onwards, in addition to providing the themes that should be covered
in each plan, the Soviet government and the Party’s Central Committee
began to issue decrees approving the final version of each yearly plan.5
But the main Party-sponsored means of improving the ideological and
organisational influence of the plan was the establishment of yearly thematic
planning conferences, which began in 1931. These conferences would be
attended by senior Party figures from the Central Committee’s agitprop
department, as well as a broad cross section from the film community,
ranging from studio administrators to directors and scriptwriters. Every
year the conference would examine how effectively script work was going
in the studios, taking into account how far Party directives on the need for
film production to be based upon fully prepared scripts were being carried
out. The conference would also look at issues of genre as this lay at the very
centre of the thematic plan structure.6
In the latter part of the 1930s, a series of films, which were planned
under the historical-revolutionary banner, were made concerning the
leaders of the Party, during the Revolution. Examples include the films
Lenin in October and its sequel Lenin in 1918. These films sought to reinforce
96 SOVIET CINEMA
such as If War Comes Tomorrow (Esli zavtra voina, 1938) or Sailors (Moriaki,
1939). The government needed cinema to help convince the masses that
they must be ready to protect the USSR on land, sea or in the air from
the threats of external powers, particularly that of Nazi Germany. Thus,
to a great extent, the annual thematic plans coincided with government
campaigns and concerns at a given time.
98 SOVIET CINEMA
Plan Implementation
The first proper thematic plan was discussed and confirmed in July 1928
and would become an established feature of Soviet cinema.7 However,
the early plans were somewhat primitive, attracting wide criticism with
some figures questioning the need for any planning whatsoever.8 On 10
July 1928, Sovkino’s artistic council held a meeting to discuss the thematic
plan for 1928–1929, decreeing that the plan should be accepted on the
condition that it would be further refined by a specially appointed
committee. The committee met the very next day to consider the final
plan. The committee reflected on the shortcomings of the themes in films
over the past year, concluding that there were few films dealing with
international matters, issues of political and economic construction, as
well as an absence of anti-religious films. Moisei Rafes, who read out the
conclusions of the committee, suggested that there was a need to
strengthen ‘the political commitment of our thematic plan’. In order to
do this it was proposed that the plan should contain a clear division of
T HEMATIC PLANNING 99
thematic areas that were mandatory. There were nine divisions in the
plan with the following titles: ‘political questions and economic
construction in the urban sphere’, ‘political questions and economic
construction in the rural sphere’, ‘the cultural revolution and reality’,
‘international themes’, ‘youth themes’, ‘films for children’, ‘historical and
historical-revolutionary films’, ‘comedies’ and ‘newsreel-political films’.
Under each division a series of scripts were listed as either being ready to
be filmed or in the process of being written. The scriptwriter was listed
along with a description of the proposed project. All of this was clearly
intended to narrow the possibilities down to the demands of the Party.
The committee requested the establishment of special artistic council
meetings to view finished films.9
As we have seen, from the mid-1930s onwards, the thematic plan
does appear to be a reasonably sure way of controlling and determining
film production and film content. However, this was not always the case.
For instance, under the division ‘political questions and economic
construction in the urban sphere’, the plan contained Ermler’s Fragment
of an Empire which was described in the plan as concerning ‘Soviet relations
at a factory and Soviet reality through the eyes of a person brought up on
tsarism’. While this is not an inaccurate description, it gave no indication
whatsoever that Ermler intended to make a Formalist film that was critical
of Soviet reality and revealed the extent to which the early plans relied
on trust rather than compulsion.10
In the autumn of 1930, during the development of the first Moscow
studio thematic plan for 1930–1931, an anonymous commentator stated
that, although two and a half years had passed since the Party Conference
on cinema, the goals laid out by the conference had not been achieved.
The blame for this was firmly attached to the cinema leadership, claiming
an ‘absence of a correct artistic political leadership of cinema production’.
The author pointed out that there had been several cases of cinema
creative personnel moving away from the tasks put forward by the Party,
as well as the ‘distortion’ and ‘vulgarisation’ of these tasks in films that
had been initially presented in thematic plans, but had been banned.
The author cited the films The Path of the Enthusiasts (Put entuziastov, 1930)
and Quiet Flows the Don (Tikhii Don, 1930) as examples, claiming that
planning had so far only existed ‘on paper’. The temporary head of
Soiuzkino, Konstantin Shvedchikov, offered an even more frank assessment
of the existing system: ‘the main shortcoming in our work at Soiuzkino
relates to plans. We do not have any plans – we work from case to case’.11
100 SOVIET CINEMA
Conclusion
Thematic planning was considered to be one of the central means by
which the Bolsheviks would take full control of Soviet cinema in the late
104 SOVIET CINEMA
CHAPTER 5
S
oviet cinema was similar to other artistic endeavours and was also
treated as another branch of industry. Its personnel therefore
required the means to defend their interests on a collective and
individual level. They required organisations for the purpose of engaging
in debates and exchanging ideas, as well as promoting cinema. However,
these needs were to come into conflict with the political requirements of
the Soviet regime which was more concerned with using cinema
organisations as a means for mobilising the industry’s workers for the
realisation of Party goals, and for conveying official ideology. Political
interference eventually meant that none of these functions would be
adequately met and the cinema industry would be denied a proper
organisation to represent the needs of its participants. Nonetheless, by
the mid-to-late 1930s, an unofficial system of rewards and patronage
had developed whereby a privileged group of film-makers now had access
to funds and many other benefits that the broader mass of creative and
other personnel lacked. Moreover, towards the end of the 1930s members
of the privileged group were also given a significant role within the
decision-making structures of the industry’s bureaucracy. Thus they
differed from the majority in that they managed to compensate, to some
extent, for the lack of union bargaining power by exploiting their position
of privilege and having some influence in the production process.
1929. The role of the organisation was basically the same as that which
had been outlined in 1924. Nonetheless, the charter inevitably reflected
the times with references to the need for Soviet films ‘saturated in
proletarian ideology’ and the requirement to fight against the emergence
of ‘bourgeois’ ideology in Soviet films. To some extent, the association
adhered to its own rules and regulations governing its powers and activities.
It had the right to discuss, debate and provide a research forum relating
to any area of cinematography. It could also organise lectures and viewings
of new films. The results of debates or any new knowledge could then be
publicised in the cinema press. These functions remained at the heart of
ARRK’s activities in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The lectures and
debates were wide ranging and included discussions on the state of the
Soviet cinema industry, creative matters connected to all the main cinema
professions, as well as exchanges on technology. For instance, the
development of sound was one of the more common preoccupations in
ARRK at the turn of the decade and the lectures and debates undoubtedly
helped to publicise and improve understanding of a problematic area.6
ARRK also had powers to approve any visits of its members to foreign
countries in the interests of technical and practical knowledge gathering.
For example, when Sergei Eisenstein, Grigori Alexandrov and Eduard
Tisse received an invitation from the American company United Artists
to produce a film in the USA, the three men had to write to the board of
ARRK, requesting permission to take up the offer.7
It is important to note that ARRK was an association of cinema
professionals, not a trade union. In the 1920s up until 1934, the cinema-
photographic section of the arts union Rabis was responsible for
monitoring working conditions, examining grievances among cinema
personnel, ensuring the enforcement of labour legislation, regulating
wages, hours and social insurance. Rabis also got involved in other areas,
such as supporting unemployed cinema personnel to gain new training,
or find work in other sectors. While Rabis was fairly active in the defence
of its members’ interests in the 1920s, as the decade wore on, cinema
personnel felt increasingly neglected by the trade union. Rabis accorded
cinema less importance than the other arts. In particular, the union gave
disproportionate attention to the needs of theatre. Leading cinema
personnel perceived Rabis as essentially a union which dealt with theatre
actors. Part of the problem may have been Rabis’s huge membership
which reached around 150,000 members by the early 1930s, dealing with
nearly 600 different professions. It was clear that Rabis was simply unable
108 SOVIET CINEMA
to cope with the demands that were being placed on it.8 As a direct
consequence, by the end of the 1920s and, in the early part of the 1930s,
ARRK’s role began to expand beyond that of a typical professional
association aimed at promoting the interests of cinema and its members.
It now began to adopt functions that would normally have fallen within
the remit of Rabis, without having the powers of that union.
In January 1929, an actress by the name of Rosiner was dismissed by
director Ivan Pyrev from his latest film The Strange Woman (Postoronniaia
zhenshchina, 1929). The actress then wrote to the actor’s division of ARRK,
claiming that Pyrev had mistreated her and unfairly relieved her of her
role. The association acknowledged that it did not have the power to
demand Rosiner’s reinstatement, but it gave the actress its full support,
making a statement in the press, lobbying Sovkino and making a plea to
the central committee of Rabis.9 Indeed, ARRK’s involvement in such
labour disputes became the norm and it soon began to support
unemployed cinema specialists by publicising the situation and applying
pressure when possible.10
ARRK’s struggle to support the cause of cinema and its members
was made more difficult by the organisation’s lack of financial means. In
1929 it was claimed that only a third of members had paid their fees
while Sovkino, the cinema administration, had failed to give ARRK the
5000 roubles that it had promised to provide. The association was also in
debt to various organisations, including Rabis and ODSK and this simply
made it harder for the body to function.11 Ultimately though, finances
had little bearing on the fate of the association. On the other hand, the
years of cultural revolution had a devastating effect. By 1932 ARRK, as
noted above, had been purged to the extent that the organisation was a
pale remnant of its former self. Yet it managed to survive, despite the
liquidation of RAPP, which was fairly influential in the world of literature
and had helped push ARRK toward the proletarianisation agenda. Why
did it survive? It was certainly not perceived as a political threat anymore.
Indeed, by the end of 1932, there was a considerable degree of apathy
among the most senior members of the association, even in the Leningrad
branch, which had been subject to constant suspicion over its political
and artistic loyalties in the late 1920s. However, ARRK was to receive a
new role which gained support from its leadership headed by Vsevolod
Pudovkin and the cinema press. It was agreed that the weakness of ARRK
lay in its isolation from the production process. The association was no
longer to engage in abstract debate and argument, it had to help in the
R EPRESENTATION AND REACH 109
ODSK
ODSK or The Society of Friends of Soviet Cinema, was founded in
November 1925 as the industry’s first truly mass voluntary organisation,
intended to replace its short-lived predecessor OSPK (The Society of
Builders of Proletarian Cinema).14 The cinema writer, Grigori Boltiansky,
described the new organisation as having ‘enormous significance’.
Boltiansky suggested that ODSK’s fundamental role would be as ‘an
instrument of education and knowledge’.15 Most importantly, ODSK was
supposed to provide the connection between the Party, Government and
cinema industry on the one hand and the masses on the other hand. In
order to provide this central link, ODSK was expected to carry out a
series of tasks. The most commonly employed function was the use of
viewings of Soviet films followed by discussion. There were many sceptics
in the film industry who questioned the ability of poorly educated and,
sometimes, illiterate workers and peasants to contribute to a useful debate
110 SOVIET CINEMA
cinefication of the country, especially in the rural areas. The role of ODSK
in the cinefication of the country was also negligible. On one occasion
the society had raised the money for the purchase of some mobile projectors
for rural areas. Nevertheless, in 1931 one commentator described the work
of ODSK in helping the cinefication project as ‘very bad’. He pointed out
that the local ODSK cells dotted around the Soviet map were not
participating at all in the cinefication project and that this was evident in
the high number of projectors in disrepair.18
Nevertheless, while ODSK’s influence was relatively weak, the society
did carry out some useful work in certain areas. The Voronezh branch
could boast success in the production of its own local magazine as well as
the production of two films which it sold to the cinema administration.19
ODSK also played a significant role in educating projectionists to serve
the cinema network throughout the USSR through its correspondence
courses. The society provided an entry point for some young creative
personnel who wanted to make a career in cinema. Yevgeni Andrikanis,
who went on to become one of the USSR’s best-known feature film
cameramen, began his career as a volunteer for ODSK. Mate Galka, an
older friend and member of ODSK’s central council recommended
Andrikanis to the State College of Cinematography. Subsequently,
Andrikanis became a student and never looked back.20
The society’s weakness at carrying out its tasks was, in a similar manner
to ARRK, related to an absence of financial means. Although the Party,
cinema administration and trade unions often referred to the importance
of the society as the main connection to the masses, they were reluctant
to provide it with resources. A certain Mamet, a member of the society’s
central council reported in 1931 that no financial help whatsoever had been
offered by these bodies. He pointed out that, despite their official rhetoric,
Soiuzkino and the central trade union organisation ‘underestimated the
significance’ of the society. The cinema administration clearly regarded
the work of the body as essentially voluntary and failed to accept that its
demands on ODSK had to be backed up with some sort of financial
support.21
Failure to fulfil its mission was also due to weak leadership, poor
organisation and recruitment in the regions and republics. Due to its
voluntary nature, ODSK struggled to establish a strong leadership that
could guide the society. Vladimir Kirshon described ODSK as an ‘army
without a commander’. Indeed, the society’s central council only met
twice a year due to the fact that its leaders had many other priorities to
112 SOVIET CINEMA
offering two or four week breaks for 180 or 360 roubles. This was
undoubtedly of great value to those who could afford the expenditure.
The union also made efforts to improve working conditions at studios, as
well as applying pressure when wages or salaries were late or not being
paid at all. However, such protective measures were invariably
accompanied by other demands. These demands often involved helping
the cinema administration implement its orders. For instance, in 1935
the studios in Moscow and Leningrad were found to have incorrectly
spent money assigned to wages. The cinema trade union and GUKF
worked together to deal with the problem. The trade union also assisted
GUKF in its efforts to enforce labour discipline at cinema studios and
enterprises throughout the country, this included the introduction of wage
systems that depended, to some extent, on how well plans were being
carried out.27 As a consequence of the union’s politicised nature, much
of its work that claimed to protect the workers was in fact aimed at getting
more out of them.
Indeed, despite the new concern with the broader mass of workers
within the cinema industry, the work of the trade union aimed at improving
the conditions of its most ubiquitous members, the rural projectionists,
was rather ineffectual. The union’s rhetoric on the importance of the
projectionist and the need to look after his or her needs and demands,
especially labour conditions, had little substance. In practice, the mass of
projectionists in the country lived in poor conditions and often had to
sleep rough with a low income that was less than enough to cover the
costs of accommodation, food and the expense of making the journey
around the countryside with his or her projector for which they received
no extra money. Unfortunately, the cinema trade union did little to improve
the lot of projectionists, such difficult conditions persisted throughout
the 1930s and, as a direct result, the projectionists, who were often very
young, were leaving their jobs in significant numbers to find a better life.28
The trade union also failed to fulfil its promise to help ensure that a
new generation of creative workers would break through in the studios.
As we shall see, the 1930s were a time of great difficulty for aspiring film-
makers who struggled to make a career in the relatively small Soviet film
industry. Once again, regardless of the intentions set out in 1934, the
cinema trade union did not and could not do much to change this situation.
The union was successful in gaining joint control over the newspaper
Kino alongside the cinema administration. Nevertheless, it failed to increase
the frequency of issue from every six days to every three days as it had
R EPRESENTATION AND REACH 115
planned. It was also clear that, while the trade union’s activities were
given substantially more attention than ODSK had received, the cinema
administration was the more powerful partner in the running of the
newspaper.
Towards the latter part of the 1930s the cinema trade union became
less and less representative of its members. This was particular evident
among creative personnel. In July 1938, Sovnarkom issued a decree that
effectively gave the rights of authorship to the scriptwriter, taking them
away from the director. This represented a strong attack on the artistic
value of the director in Soviet cinema, but the trade union fell notably
silent, showing no support for its director members. This left the directors
with no official organisation with which they could defend and protect
their own interests. The absence of a proper lobbying or bargaining
organisation meant that cinema personnel had to find other means of
presenting their views and arguments to the authorities.
Nonetheless, the absence of a means for lobbying and bargaining
was more of an important issue for some than it was for others. Towards
the end of the decade, a privileged group was emerging among cinema
creative personnel, consisting of largely established film-makers. This
development was evident in many areas, especially that of income.
Although Dukelsky’s salary reforms would soon reduce the incomes of
the broader mass of film-makers, the privileged group would still receive
increased salaries for making politically ‘correct’ films and the promise in
the future of generous pensions which meant that, in practice, the elite
remained fairly wealthy. For instance, for the film Lenin in 1918, director
Mikhail Romm was given a raised salary of 100,000 roubles and his
cameraman Boris Volchek received 30,000 roubles. The same amounts
were given to director Alexander Dovzhenko and cameraman Yuri
Ekelchik for the film Shchors, while director Sergei Yutkevich and
camerman Zhosef Martov received 75,000 and 25,000 roubles
respectively for The Man with a Gun (Chelovek s ruzhem, 1938).29 In each
case the film-makers were being rewarded for producing ideologically
‘sound’ films. In addition, this group enjoyed large budgets for their films.
Instead of spreading limited resources to give outsiders and younger artists
a chance, excessive amounts of money were being used on individual
films and lavish productions which were almost always given to the same
favoured directors.
Rewards also came in other forms too. The privileged group of film-
makers enjoyed extremely comfortable lifestyles compared with most of
116 SOVIET CINEMA
their colleagues in the film industry and the population at large. In the
first place, they lived in spacious, private flats rather than communal
accommodation, which was the norm at this time, and many of them
were given the best cars to drive, usually foreign models such as Ford.
This group was also given opportunities to travel to Europe and America
on official film festival visits or to acquire knowledge of Western
technological developments. These visits were used as unofficial holidays
and to make foreign friends in the industry. These film-makers enjoyed
substantial rest at home. They had access to Party canteens and regularly
engaged in drinking, billiards and card playing.30 They received symbolic
awards of prestige given to film-makers for the quality of their work or
perceived contribution the Soviet film industry, which helped to consolidate
their privileged status. These were similar to those applied across the
board and included ‘the Order of Lenin’, ‘the Order of the Red Banner’,
‘the Order of the Red Star’, as well as prestigious arts awards, such as a
‘People’s Artist’.31
This economic well-being did, to some extent, placate the most
privileged film-makers who, on the whole, were happy to buy into the
Bolsheviks’ defensive outlook by making heavily politicised films to defend
the regime’s past, present and future. Nonetheless, while they enjoyed
economic prosperity, they were often excluded from the process of artistic
and administrative decision-making in the film industry. There were a
few options open to film-makers beyond the official trade unions. They
could make appeals in newspapers, as Eisenstein and his colleagues did
in 1940, concerning the dreadful state of the Institute of Cinematography
in Moscow.32 They could meet the leader of the cinema administration
and his deputies to discuss artistic matters, or questions of industry
organisation. In such cases the film-makers usually struggled to make
themselves heard. Meetings with Semyon Dukelsky in 1938–9 proved to
be extremely difficult as the chairman tended to treat film-makers with
contempt rather than listen to their grievances.33 Later meetings with
Ivan Bolshakov acknowledged the views of cinema personnel, but little
was done in practice to satisfy their concerns. One of the most direct
methods increasingly employed by film-makers in the late 1930s was the
individual or collective letter addressed to the Soviet government or the
general secretary. Following the failure of the cinema trade union to
provide a platform for grievances after the decree that included the clause
on film authorship, the industry’s leading directors came together to write
a letter of protest to Viacheslav Molotov, calling for changes to the new
R EPRESENTATION AND REACH 117
given time, such as the actor problem. Their planned programmes also
included lectures and discussions on music, art and scripts, as well as
evenings of rest and entertainment characteristic of a club.38
Whereas ARRK maintained a significant degree of independence
until the 1930s, the houses of cinema were subject to control from the
cinema administration, which provided the finances for the organisations,
as well as giving its approval to the houses’ activities. Before its liquidation,
RosARRK ran the everyday affairs of the houses of cinema. When
RosARRK folded in 1935, the creative section of the cinema trade
union took over this responsibility, although the central committee of
the union now controlled the property and budget of the houses of
cinema and participated in the planning of their work alongside the
creative section. Leonid Trauberg summed up the rather feeble
capacities of the creative section by describing it as a ‘still-born baby’.
He pointed out that, despite its shortcomings, ARRK provided a proper
arena for debate and argument that was essential for cinema industry
development. He pointedly suggested that such a powerful creative
forum was essential for film-makers to express their views and ideas to
leading cinema administrators. Trauberg proposed a solution, which
had support from fellow film-makers throughout the industry: they
wanted the recreation of an independent creative union of
cinematographers, as ARRK had once been.39
Such an independent creative union would not emerge until the 1950s.
In the meantime, the houses of cinema were the closest creative personnel
would come to free association. Unfortunately, these organisations did
not provide the lively forum of debate that many wanted. In October
1936, leading cinema personnel from the Moscow House of Cinema
complained that the organisation did not provide them with the
opportunity to participate in a genuine creative exchange. They suggested
that film viewings were almost always followed by concerts and dancing,
attended by a large proportion of individuals who had little to do with
films or the cinema industry in general. Moreover, when interesting
discussions were organised by GUK and the cinema trade union, many
members of the club were not always invited. In 1936 Shumiatsky ordered
the Moscow House of Cinema to end its discussion of a Pravda article,
which involved much criticism of the state of Soviet cinema on the eve
of the 20th anniversary of the October Revolution. This was a clear signal
to film-makers that their desire for free association appeared to be further
than ever from realisation.40
R EPRESENTATION AND REACH 119
Conclusion
The establishment of unions and societies in Soviet cinema was very
much an ongoing process in the 1920s and 1930s, which reflected the
political, social, economic and cultural changes of the times. In the end
the system of interest representation failed to give adequate support to
either the film-makers or the mass of workers employed in the Soviet
film industry, while the transitory idea of engaging the masses in film
production and assessment came to a swift conclusion in 1934. In the late
1920s up until 1934, the trade union Rabis had been unable to give the
cinema industry the attention it deserved. ARRK struggled to offer a
form of substitute representation, but the association was not established
as a trade union. It had been set up as a professional society with the
function of an interest group aimed at promoting the new art of cinema.
The creation of the new cinema trade union briefly offered hope that
both film-makers and cinema workers’ rights more generally would now
be protected. This largely proved to be an illusion. Another aspect of
film-maker emasculation was the increasing difficulty of engaging in
collective debate. ARRK had once provided such a forum, but this was
effectively ended by the cultural revolution. The establishment of the
houses of cinema in the 1930s again seemed to offer promise of a new
forum for creative workers. As we have seen, in practice they were closer
to social clubs than arenas of intellectual exchange and ferment. The
houses of cinema did replace ARRK to a limited extent, however, as the
themes and debates became subject to control from above, free and open
discussion became harder to achieve. Film-makers were, for much of the
1930s, also excluded from artistic and administrative decision-making.
This began to change, albeit temporarily, in the late 1930s and early
1940s, but film-makers were often forced to adopt what proved to be
ineffectual unofficial channels for lobbying, such as letter writing to
bureaucrats and leading government and Party figures. However, we have
argued that a privileged group of film-makers began to emerge in the
1930s who enjoyed high incomes and a lifestyle that were significantly
better than those of their younger colleagues in the studios who were
struggling to break through. The gap was even wider between the
privileged artists and the rank-and-file workers, such as projectionists.
Not only did these men and women find that the new trade union
intended to represent their interests was more concerned with the
implementation of government and administrative policy, they did not
have the consolation of luxurious flats and trips abroad. The political
120 SOVIET CINEMA
CHAPTER 6
T
his chapter will draw a comparison between two studios;
Mezhrabpomfilm during the early to mid-1930s and Mosfilm
towards the end of the decade. By making this comparison it will
be evident how, over a relatively short period of time, centralisation had
such a telling effect on the studios and the nature of film production in
general, taking bureaucracy to absurd levels and threatening the creative
process. The chapter will also examine the fact that hyper-centralisation
essentially failed to develop the film industry and demands from film-
makers to become involved in running production led to reforms at the
turn of the decade. The most important of these reforms was the
emergence of artistic councils in the studios, which gave the film-makers
a powerful means of response. While the councils were in practice not
necessarily purely democratic bodies, the Mosfilm example suggests that
they were still a very positive step forward. Unfortunately, the reforms
were soon gradually reversed. The comparison between the
Mezhrabpomfilm and Mosfilm studios at this time thus serves not only to
show just how bureaucratic the film-making process became, but more
importantly, it reveals just how deeply the Bolshevik defensive mentality
was entrenched and how their lack of flexibility undermined potential
progress.
year, although it was not actually released until August 1930.6 Yakov
Protazanov’s The Feast of Saint Jorgen is an example of reasonably efficient
film production from a prolific film-maker. This was possible as the process
of checking and approval was, not entirely, but largely in the hands of
the studio where the main decisions were taken.
Moreover, this autonomy stretched right down to the film crews at
Mezhrabpomfilm. In 1934 the studio’s charter stated clearly that the
director was the leader of the film crew, but in addition to his creative
leadership, he/she was also in charge of broad organisational,
administrative, and economic matters It also stated that the administrative
head of the film crew was ‘directly subordinate to the director’.7 This
official recognition of film-maker autonomy had always been part of
Mezhrabpomfilm’s spirit. Indeed, this may well have encouraged the
creative and cooperative atmosphere that prevailed during the making
of films, such as The Feast of Saint Jorgen. Vladimir Shveitser, a co-writer
on several Protazanov films, who was present in Yalta when the outdoor
scenes were being shot, observed Protazanov at work with a large mass
of extras:
the early to mid-1930s the script began its life in the studios, by the end
of the decade the first stop for preliminary checks would be the Cinema
Committee’s script department. Fyodor Filippov’s and Valentin
Kadochnikov’s The Magic Pearl (Volshebnoe zerno, 1941) began its journey
on 21 March 1939 when Nikolai Semyonov, the chief editor of Cinema
Committee’s script department gave initial approval to the Mosfilm
project. As with all films at the early checking stage, The Magic Pearl was
A T ALE OF TWO STUDIOS 125
approved due to its sound ideological and artistic content, but also as a
Soviet fairytale that would be appealing to both children and adults.9
The script would then be passed onto the studio’s script department, which
had often unofficially seen it before the Cinema Committee, but could
now make its own comments or criticisms.
GUPKhF, which was a sub-division of the Cinema Committee, would
then maintain constant control over each film from the pre-production
period until completion. In February 1940, GUPKhF ordered the film-
makers to shorten their movie down to 1800 metres. However, film
directors were often reluctant to carry out large cuts and at least attempted
to avoid making such changes. The directors sent a letter to the deputy
director of Mosfilm, stating that they had cut the film by 538 metres,
bringing its overall length down to 1895 metres. They claimed that they
had fulfilled the demands made by GUPKhF and concluded that a ‘further
cut of the script by 95 metres was impossible because this would bring an
even bigger loss to the overall quality’.10 Unfortunately, Grigori Zeldovich,
the head of GUPKhF, did not accept the directors’ conclusions, arguing
that, while the implemented changes had made the script more compact,
there were still many irregularities. Zeldovich claimed that the length of
each shot in the directors’ script had been calculated incorrectly and that
‘further cuts in the script [were] not only possible, but expedient’.11
All feature films since the mid-thirties had to go through a preparatory
period before the actual filming process itself could begin. This was
intended to weed out any potential difficulties and ensure that actors
were adequately prepared. GUPKhF had to approve the beginning of
the preparatory period, including its cost and time frame. A typical feature
film, such as Yuli Raizman’s Mashenka (1941) would be given approximately
two months to prepare for the production itself.12 GUPKhF also considered
the preparatory period to be important because it gave the film-makers
the opportunity to present a more rigorous production plan and a more
realistic financial estimate for filming costs.
However, in some cases, such as The Magic Pearl, the preparatory period
would take much longer than the norm. The artistic council at Mosfilm
expressed concern over whether or not the ambitious technical demands
of the script could be realised in practice. It thus called for the carrying
out of experimental shots during the preparatory period of the proposed
combined special effects shots to indicate the feasibility of the film-makers’
plans. The studio director, Konstantin Polonsky, asked for special
permission from GUPKhF to allow for this experimentation, pointing
126 SOVIET CINEMA
out that it was necessary to see if the film could work artistically, as well
as to enable the compilation of a general estimate and plan for the actual
filming process. The head of GUPKhF, Alexander Kurianov, approved a
preparatory period lasting until 1 August 1940. The technical complexities
of the experimental shots meant that the preparatory period went on for
much longer than expected. On 26 August 1940, Nikolai Kiva, the new
studio director, wrote another letter to Kurianov requesting a further
extension of the preparatory period, as specialists had not been available
to ensure the success of the combined special effects shots. Kurianov and
other members of the cinema administration approved the extension until
mid-September, but this was not the end of the matter.13 On 19 November
1940, Kiva informed the new head of GUPKhF, Polonsky, that, given
their demands for cuts to the film and the suspension of funding largely
due to uncertainty over the budget for the actual production, the
preparatory period would have to be extended once again until mid-
December.14 Finally, on 7 December, Ivan Bolshakov gave his approval to
a production period lasting from 25 November 1940 until 31 October 1941
with a budget of 2,194 906 roubles. Thus, while the expectation at
Mezhrabpomfilm at the start of the 1930s was that a film could be completed
within three months, by the end of the decade this had extended to nearly
a year. At last, filming of The Magic Pearl seemed to be underway.15
In the early to mid-1930s the studios had a significant level of
autonomy. For example the board at Mezhrabpomfilm, in close
conjunction with the studio’s director, made all the decisions on film
budget, the distribution of resources, the nominaton and salaries of the
film crew as well as decisions on whether a film was ready for production
or release. This all gradually changed as successive cinema administrations
took control of film production and the 1938 decree gave approval to
thorough checking at the top of the cinema administration. In practise
this meant that each film could now only go ahead if it had received
official sanction by the Cinema Committee chairman. This authorisation
would be sent to the given studio and included several strict criteria. The
filming process was to fully conform to the approved director’s script and
the agreed set design, it would include a financial estimate for every film
to which the film crew had to strictly adhere, it nominated the film
producer, director and cameraman, as well as their assistants, it gave the
film crew a precise thermal coefficient for their given film stock to prevent
it from excessive expansion or contraction and, finally, the authorisation
laid down a specific period of time for the project, including a submission
A T ALE OF TWO STUDIOS 127
In April 1941, the director’s script of The Magic Pearl was subject to
yet more scrutiny by Moisei Aleinikov, who now found himself in a very
different film production context in Mosfilm’s script department. He
demanded yet further changes to the ending.19 Subsequently, in 23 May
and June 1941 further meetings took place at the studio, attended once
again by the studio director Groshev, Eisenstein, Aleinikov, representatives
of the Cinema Committee, the film’s directors and its cameraman, where
more changes and monitoring of the sketches and the set construction
were approved.20 This sort of intervention was the norm for all films and
not only those being produced by young film-makers in need of guidance.
Moreover, the significant involvement of studio artistic and script experts
revealed more than a concern for ensuring a high-quality end product.
The sort of changes demanded by both administrators and artists suggests
a desire for creative input that may have reflected a context of creative
frustration and the domination of procedure and bureaucracy. Finally,
the proper production process could soon begin.
Therefore, by the end of the 1930s the central characteristic of Soviet
film production was the bureaucratic process of checking and approval
at every stage. The aforementioned examples were just some of the main
points of this process, but by no means present the full picture. Although
the bodies doing the checking changed from time to time, we can
summarise the basic process as follows: first the scriptwriter would have
to present his/her work to the script department of the Cinema
Committee, if approved it would also be sent to the studio’s script
department. The director would then devise his own version of the script
ready for film production. This script would then undergo a parallel,
rigorous series of checks carried out by numerous departments in the
cinema administration and in the studio, although authority and
monitoring ultimately rested with the Cinema Committee. Most
significantly, the chairman of the the Cinema Committee would have to
give personal approval to each and every film. After this, any necessary
changes would be made and the cast and budget prepared, before the
film could be set into production.21 A senior secret police representative
would later note the concerns of film-makers at the desperate problems
of obsessive checking. He noted the scriptwriter Mikhail Bleiman’s
comments that there were a minimum of twelve points of approval for a
script, before it could get to the production stage. In the same report the
director, Sergei Yutkevich, referred to the ‘monstrous bureaucracy’ that
was destroying Soviet cinema. He noted that in the late 1920s bureaucrats
A T ALE OF TWO STUDIOS 129
found that their autonomy had eroded and that they had become middle
men responsible for the implementation of orders handed down from
the cinema administration. Most correspondence from the cinema
administration concerning film production would be addressed to the
director of a given studio and, in a similar manner, film-maker responses
or requests also had to be filtered through the director. As well as being
expected to ensure the successful implementation of plans imposed from
above, the director would receive an annual demand from the cinema
administration to provide a studio plan for a given year, including
comprehensive statistics, inventories and so on. The director then ordered
individual departmental heads within the studio to provide clear accounts
to date and plans for the foreseeable future. As he had been previously,
the director was also responsible for the more important everyday matters
involved in running a studio, ranging from the provision of
accommodation for creative and administrative personnel to the
implementation of fire safety procedures.
The absence of studio director power was most evident in a financial
sense. In the early 1930s the principle of khozraschet (economic
accountability) was introduced in studios throughout the USSR, including
Mezhrabpomfilm. This meant that they were, to a large extent, intended
to be self-supporting on the basis of money from film distribution which
would be carefully managed on a cost-effective basis. In 1938 this was
brought to a swift end and replaced by a system whereby the studios
would have to hand over their turnover to the Cinema Committee for
‘redistribution’. Each studio was now mainly dependent on GUPKhF for
all of its production funding.25 By the end of the decade the command
system of economic management had reached absurd levels. For example,
if the studio wanted to make even small expenditures that were not
foreseen in production plans and estimates, they had to obtain
administrative approval. In January 1941 Mosfilm director, Kiva, wrote
a letter to Ivan Bolshakov requesting permission to pay director Yuli
Raizman 15,000 roubles for his contribution to the script for the film.26
Under the new centralised system of financial distribution, the studios
constantly had to request funds from the cinema administration. Most
transactions would have to be ordered or approved by a GUPKhF letter,
depriving the studio director of meaningful financial autonomy.
In the latter part of the 1930s, the director would always be forced to
accept cinema administration decisions. Indeed, studio policies would
often reflect those of the industry heads and micromanagement from the
A T ALE OF TWO STUDIOS 131
centre filtered down the chain of command to the very production process.
However, it is important to remember that this bureaucratic subservience
was inevitable given the constant threat of arrest due to perceived or real
failure to fulfil often unrealistic plans. This was especially true in the late
1930s. Alexander Anninsky, a leading film administrator (the equivalent
of a producer in the West) recalls in his diary, as he worked on the filming
of Stepan Razin (1938) in the summer of 1937, that the then Mosfilm
director, Elena Sokolovskaia, would constantly send telegrams demanding
full justifications for overexpenditures and delays while Anninsky would
frequently have to ask for resources and permission to make organisational
decisions. Sokolovskaia reminded Anninsky that the film was ‘politically
important’ especially as it was part of the anniversary celebration of the
October Revolution.27 However, as the film, and others that were being
produced at the time, continued to take excessive amounts of time and,
due to the vast sums of money that were being spent, the political pressure
on Sokolovskaia increased until her arrest in the autumn of 1937. Her
replacement, the aforementioned Konstantin Polonsky, arrived from the
ranks of the NKVD as part of the attempt to ‘sort out’ the problems of
the film industry.
Studio directors of the Polonsky mould were even gladder to carry
out unpopular measures from above, such as the series of personnel cuts
and tough measures that were taken at the turn of the decade. At this
time the studios saw a rationalisation process whereby departments were
either closed or reorganised, leading to many job losses. While at
Mezhrabpomfilm earlier in the decade, the studio director was firmly in
control of the hiring and dismissal of his/her own personnel. Studio
directors were now powerless to stop Ivan Bolshakov from dismissing
several extremely talented individuals, including Viktor Turin who made
the remarkable Turksib (1929), Kote Mikaberidze who created the film
My Grandmother, one of the best Soviet films of the late 1920s, and Mosfilm’s
Nikolai Ekk who was under suspicion following the rejection on ideological
grounds of his incompleted film Bluebird (Siniaia ptitsa), but who had
established himself as first-rate director. Vladimir Shneiderov, who was
firmly committed to the ‘cinema for the millions’ project with such high
quality films as Dzhulbars (1935) was demoted to work on educational
films at Mostekhfilm, while Alexander Ivanov (who would later attract
political controversy) was to be placed under close observation.28
This rigid top-down chain of command inevitably influenced the
process of film production. In contrast to the order and harmony that
132 SOVIET CINEMA
characterised the making of The Feast of Saint Jorgen in 1930, the film-
making process became fraught with both petty and serious conflict.
Personality clashes undoubtedly played a significant role, however, the
gradual erosion of creative autonomy fostered an atmosphere of
frustration and led to a proliferation of yet more defensive strategies,
the most significant of which was refusal to carry out orders or particular
tasks. In chief administrator Alexander Anninsky’s diary we learn that
he had to deal with an uncooperative attitude from the directors Olga
Preobrazhenskaia and Ivan Pravov during the making of Stepan Razin.
However, the breakdown in relations between administrators and artistic
personnel was partly due to the constant interference by the former
into the creative process, with demands for script changes in the middle
of production, or complaints about the ideological direction of a
particular character. The once clear authority of the film director in all
matters had now vanished and this led to endless conflict over who was
in charge of a given area. This in turn caused a breakdown in leadership.
It was felt within the film crew as a whole and resulted in unprofessional
behaviour. For example, during the filming of Stepan Razin, constant
heavy drinking, especially amongst administrators and actors, day and
night, caused a great deal of conflict, leading on one occasion to physical
confrontation between Andrei Abrikosov, who was playing the role of
Razin, and several colleagues from the crew. Actors continued to delay
production by failing to learn their lines and sometimes not turning up
on time.29 Judging by Anninsky’s description of other film productions
in the late 1930s, it is clear that this sort of chaos had almost become
the norm.
There were still efforts though to maintain a facade of order. Even
when Mosfilm was temporarily merged with Lenfilm at Alma-Ata in 1941,
when war with Germany began, the studio’s director, Tikhonov, ensured
that the system of studio discipline introduced by Semyon Dukelsky would
be re-established. Although the studio was now located far away from
the centre, Tikhonov ordered the continued use of registration tables to
closely monitor the arrival and departure of all studio personnel. Everyday
a registration count would be passed on to the planning department at
ten o’clock, indicating the number of individuals at work and a list of
absentees and latecomers, with surnames, occupations and reasons
provided for absence or lateness. Delays in the film production process
caused by unjustified absence would be noted in the daily register and
disciplinary measures would be taken accordingly.30
A T ALE OF TWO STUDIOS 133
Conclusion
The comparison between Mezhrabpomfilm in the early 1930s and
Mosfilm at the end of the decade provides us with an important insight
into the Soviet studio system and the problems of the cinema industry
more generally at this time. Overall, we have seen that the 1930s saw the
gradual centralisation of cinema, reaching extreme proportions in 1938.
The reform of studio organisation in 1940 was, to some extent, recognition
of the fact that hyper-centralisation was paralysing production and, by
giving senior film-makers real powers, it would satisfy their grievances
and help to revitalise the stagnating industry. The reforms were certainly
not ideal. They only really gave participation to senior film-makers which,
on one hand, did mean studio creative personnel could rely on their
138 SOVIET CINEMA
experience and qualified advice. On the other hand, there was no change
to the essentially bureaucratic nature of script and film approval which
appeared to be as elaborate as it had been in recent times. The artistic
council at Mosfilm began with a liberal attitude towards films with
questionable Soviet credentials, not entirely predictable given the political
loyalty of many of the film-makers in the council. The reaction from
above was again defensive in nature. The Bolshevik obsession with their
ideology being potentially undermined or ignored meant that the reforms
were slowly reversed as artistic councils fell under stricter Party control.
The Bolshevik defensive mentality which had guided the rise of a tightly
controlled Soviet cinema had resurfaced, undermining the initially brave
efforts at liberalisation.
139
CHAPTER 7
T
he Bolsheviks wanted Soviet cinema to be an effective mass
medium of propaganda and persuasion. Yet, for such a cinema
to materialise, a new generation of educated artistic personnel
would have to be established. Although by the end of the 1920s several
Soviet film-makers had gained recognition throughout the world, Party
and administrative leaders wanted to foster the rise of young, new, loyal
and politically committed film-makers, who could be relied upon to
establish the envisaged ‘cinema intelligible to the millions’ alongside their
‘re-educated’ peers. This meant the creation of a new cinema for the
masses that would combine the political message with entertainment,
rejecting the idea of cinema as an elite or intellectual art form. In this
context, examining the development of Soviet film education from the
end of the 1920s through the 1930s will provide us with a better
understanding of industry development during these years and the precise
contribution education made to the evolution of a truly Soviet cinema,
which was intended to play a central role in the legitimisation of the
communist regime and its ideological goals.
graduates was even less, touching fifty one in 1936. VGIK, as it became
known, remained an academy until 1939 when this temporary status was
ended and it became a standard VUZ once more. The academy years,
however, had shaped its basic future direction, which would continue to
emphasise professionalism and standards. The cinema administration
could have blamed the Soviet government for the quota policy, yet, due
to a weak estimate of its own financial power and a lack of research and
communication, the stark truth was that Soiuzkino itself had almost no
idea of how many students were required to satisfy the demand within
the cinema industry or what that demand was. It only belatedly
acknowledged that its estimates had grossly exaggerated personnel
requirements in the film sector.10
Indeed, the establishment of the Institute as an academy would, it
was hoped, address one of the central problems that had plagued Soviet
film education from its inception and throughout the 1930s: its financial
poverty and the lack of adequate resources. In the first place, the premises
of the Institute were a source of considerable difficulty. Since 1923, the
Institute had been situated in what was previously the famous ‘Iar’
restaurant in Moscow. The existing building had a limited number of
rooms mostly with poor lighting, an occasionally leaking roof, bad
ventilation and a broken central heating system.11 Despite the promise of
more funding before and after being given academy status, lecturers and
students had to endure the same building until 1939. In that year the
government assigned five million roubles for the construction of a new
building, which would include more lecture theatres, four filming areas
and a huge gym.12 Unfortunately, this plan was slow to materialise and
the same old difficulties continued for many years.
Living and study conditions were extremely challenging issues for the
majority of students who wanted to make a career for themselves in the
Soviet cinema industry. One of the Institute’s main hostels in Moscow
was less than adequate. There were no toilets in the building, the walls
had not been plastered and the rooms were filthy. Students were given
used mattresses that had not been disinfected and this was compounded
by the general threat of disease due to the fact that the building was
‘swarming with parasites’. Moreover, there were no tables and chairs, as
well as an absence of light, making study very difficult. Cultural activity
of any kind was also lacking within the Institute itself and there was no
reading room. The somewhat spartan facilities were summed up by the
Institute’s single shop, which could only offer biscuits and cigarettes.13
FILM EDUCATION AND TRAINING 145
Similarly, in the same year twenty-four directors had graduated, but of these
only nine found work in the studios, mostly as assistants and as documentary
film-makers; and of eight scriptwriter graduates only one had managed to
secure a contract.17 A similar figure for cameramen in that year was not
provided, it was claimed that the majority had found work. However, it was
well known that high unemployment was still a serious problem among
cameramen.18 To some extent, this was directly related to the weak preparation
of many graduates, but the trend continued throughout the decade, despite
the later improvements in academic standards.
The film-makers who had established themselves in the 1920s
predominantly occupied the main posts in the studios, while those graduates
of the 1930s who were employed were either sent to the dead-end studios
in the republics where career opportunities were extremely limited or
found themselves permanently in the role of assistants. If we look at
the directors who worked at Mosfilm in 1941 we can see just how difficult
it was for the graduates of the 1930s to break through. In that year
there were twenty-five directors working at the studio. Of this total
sixteen had never received any specific type of education in the area of
cinema. This figure included many well-known directors, such as
Eisenstein, Mikhail Romm, Ivan Pyrev, Grigori Alexandrov, Yuli
Raizman and Vsevolod Pudovkin, many of whom had a theatrical or
other type of professional background unrelated to film. A further four
individuals had graduated from GTK and a cinema acting school during
the mid-1920s. They were Ivan Pravov, Efim Dzigan, Boris Barnet and
Tatiana Lukashevich. Only five of the directors in work at Mosfilm in
1941 had graduated from the Institute during the 1930s, including
Konstantin Yudin, Fyodor Filippov, Valentin Kadochnikov, Alexander
Stolper and Boris Ivanov. With the exception of Yudin, the other
directors were paired up to work together to direct their first films. The
studio formally had five other directors on its books, including graduates
of the Institute. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of
these directors progressed from being assistants and their careers appear
to have come to naught.19
If we look at the fate of the majority of Institute director graduates
of 1936 and beyond we find that few of them gained major recognition.
Many of them did get work as director’s assistants, but never got the
opportunity to make their own films. As we have seen, Filippov and
Kadochnikov were among the fortunate graduates, as was the Georgian
student Konstantin Pipinashvilli who also became a director within three
FILM EDUCATION AND TRAINING 147
young men and women arriving after graduation. Moreover, the committee
was incapable of doing anything to prevent the contraction of the industry
towards the end of the 1930s with the closure of both the Mezhrabpomfilm
and Vostokfilm studios in the middle of the decade. The new children’s
studio Soiuzdetfilm could not absorb the personnel from these studios and
many had to be given work at Mosfilm thus decreasing available places
further.23 Furthermore, at the end of the 1930s the introduction of financial
discipline led to a series of personnel cuts and demotions in the main studios.
These cuts and demotions simply heightened the frustrations of aspiring
film-makers who were facing growing obstacles.24
It is clear that, by the end of the 1930s, Soviet cinema studios were
far from being places of career mobilisation and opportunity. On the
contrary, they had become largely closed off by older directors,
cameramen and scriptwriters who had established themselves, and now
blocked the path for the younger generation. In this way the case of cinema
provides an important contrast to the sphere of politics. According to
Fitzpatrick’s well-known argument, the proletarians and peasants who
rose up through the political education system in the late 1920s and early
1930s were able to fill the shoes of the old specialists purged during the
Great Terror.25 In the artistic sphere of cinema we find a very different
situation. The majority of proletarians who entered the Institute in that
period would never work in cinema and, in the same way as those who
graduated in the mid-to-late 1930s, were blocked by an older generation
who, fortunately, largely survived the purges. They lived relatively well
compared to the rest of the population and had privileged access to limited
resources. Consequently, they were, predictably, reluctant to spread those
resources too widely. Although, economic factors played the central role
in hindering the rise of young film-makers, studio bosses and creative
personnel also tended to be reluctant to trust the graduates.
Indeed, cinema stands out as an area bereft of opportunity compared
not only to the upwardly mobile managers and administrators, but also
to the broader ‘new class’ of educated professionals. For this new class,
opportunity and mobilisation were a fundamental characteristic of the
1930s. However, the cinema industry simply did not have the capacity to
give jobs to film graduates. Although cinema was a potentially massive
weapon of mobilisation and persuasion, the Bolsheviks did not adequately
seize this weapon as they had planned to, choosing instead to invest
disproportionately in heavy industry and defence. This explains why the
Institute, along with the rest of the cinema industry, was expected to
FILM EDUCATION AND TRAINING 149
The Institute was not immune from Marxist orthodoxy. For example,
all students entering the Institute had to have a good knowledge of
dialectical materialism, which, moreover, they were expected to study for
a certain amount of hours during a given course. This influenced the
content of certain courses especially the study of film history. In addition,
other political pressures, such as the purges mentioned above, did have
an impact on the Institute. Despite this, the ethos of the Institute was one
of broad learning and creativity. Eisenstein adopted a teaching style that
enabled students to simultaneously learn and express their creative ideas.
He would begin his classes with a background lecture which provided a
context for the artistic tasks that would then be put before his students.
This task often involved making the artistic connection between cinema
and the various arts that he had now introduced into the curriculum. For
instance, second year students were given the task of establishing the
mise-en-scène for Dessaline’s arrest in Anatoli Vinogradov’s novel The
Black Consul (Chernyi konsul, 1932). After Eisenstein had provided the
students with the historical background lecture to the work, they then
had to conceive space, physical movements, character behaviour,
architectural ensembles, sets, costumes and so on for a given scene.
Eisenstein would pose specific questions to the students and they would
offer their solutions. Sometimes, the director would indicate that their
responses were ineffective. In such cases Eisenstein would explain to them
the answer he had in mind and why it would be most beneficial.28 This
was essentially a process of creative trial and error for the students.
During this process, Eisenstein encouraged his students to identify a
central idea contained in the relevant part of each play, painting or
piece of music which they examined. Then, in order to express the
central idea, students learned both from Eisenstein’s supplementary
lectures and the interactive spontaneous creativity of the seminars how
to depict this idea by utilising all the techniques of mise-en-scène, shot
construction and montage.
The students were then expected to apply what they had learned in
theory to practical classes. Although practical work did not lead to the
jobs it was supposed to, it still formed a key part of the Institute’s program,
amounting to as much as one third of the entire course. In the mid-1930s
students were given the opportunity to carry out practical work on the set
of Eisenstein’s Bezhin Meadow. Students were given very specific tasks,
which could involve creating a director’s elaboration of the mise-en-scène,
the dialogues and the montage of a given part of the film. Subsequently,
FILM EDUCATION AND TRAINING 151
Teaching work thus provided these individuals not only with an additional
outlet for creative expression, but also with a forum in which they could
share and test their ideas. As indicated, the teaching was open to the
broadest spectrum of creative experience and theories from both the
USSR and the West at a time when many branches of education were
subject to the imposition of disciplinary orthodoxies and, in some cases,
rigid dogma.
Conclusion
I have argued that a combination of mistaken political policies, poor
administration and an unwillingness to provide the Institute with even
adequate funding, despite its obvious strategic importance, combined to
minimise the potential contribution of film education and thus retard
the growth of the film industry in a broad context of advancement for
educated professionals. As a result of these factors the Institute became
an isolated academic community without a clear purpose, as even after
reorganisation, a small minority of graduates would ever establish
meaningful careers in the industry. This crisis of function extended to its
teaching, which, on one hand, was creative and challenging and open to
a broad range of ideas. The Institute also provided artistic and political
outsiders with a means of creative expression and established the
foundations of film education for the future. On the other hand, the
academics failed to engage in the needs of a popular cinema, maintaining
little relevance to the realities of film production in the 1930s and so
many of their ideas had a limited practical application.
154 SOVIET CINEMA
CHAPTER 8
E
arlier we observed that, at the Party Conference in 1928, leading
Party figures had decided that the future of Soviet film-making lay
in the formula of a ‘cinema for the millions’ whereby the political
message would be conveyed in an entertaining form accessible to the
masses. It appeared that they had learned the lesson from the 1920s that
ordinary citizens were not interested in experimental or ‘intellectual’
cinema. On the contrary, it had been shown time and time again that the
people wanted action, adventure, love, romance and light comedy. To
some extent, certain film-makers were prepared to make such films in
the 1930s and, in certain cases, the fusion of politics and entertainment
was successful. In this chapter, in addition to these films, I shall also
examine some of those films produced in the 1930s that avoided the
rigid formulas of the time and offered an alternative artistic vision.
However, overall I will contend that the defensive temptation to emphasise
the political elements of film was to have an increasingly overwhelming
effect on production. A significant number of movies made in this era
sought not only to politically educate the mass audience, but to transfer a
large amount of political responsibility for the regime’s shortcomings on
to the ordinary person. Excessive politicisation thus undermined the
potential for the development of a truly popular cinema that would engage
the ordinary Soviet citizen.
who is banished from a small Kansas town after it is discovered that she
has a black baby. She is brought to Moscow by Franz von Kneishchitz, a
villainous entreprenneur who yearns for Marion’s affections, but also
exploits her. However, Marion falls for the honest, handsome Russian
acrobat Ivan Martynov. When Kneishchitz learns of Marion’s plan to
stay in the USSR he tries to get revenge by showing the circus her black
child. But, the multi-ethnic audience welcome the child in a show of
internationalism and Dixon’s awareness that she is no longer in the
backward world of racists and capitalists, but in the free, idealistic Soviet
state, is now complete.
observed, is essentially coded in the Art Deco style with its ‘glitter, beauty,
affluence and consumerism’.2 This luxury is evident in much of Dixon’s
elegant clothing, as well as her spacious, hotel room which includes a
grand piano. These opulent surroundings are deliberately conveyed in a
fairy-tale representation which is particularly noticeable during the evening
shots when we see Red Square with its magical illuminations that give
the viewer the sense that Dixon inhabits a world of fantasy. The film-
makers perpetuate this sense through carefully selected shots of some of
Moscow’s most grand locations, including a rooftop view of the Bolshoi
Theatre, the Moskva Hotel and the newly built underground system.
Overall, the look of the film is designed to play its beguiling role of
persuading the viewer to imagine Soviet life as it could be, both abundant
and moral at the same time.
The film is contextualised within the Soviet imperative of ‘catching
up with and surpassing the West’. For Dixon the key motivation behind
her rejection of America and her acceptance of a new Soviet identity is
the nature of social relationships. Yet Alexandrov’s film seeks to claim
that the USSR is not only morally superior, but also technically superior.
This is most evident in the ‘flight to the moon’ sequences. After seeing
the American version of ‘From the Cannon to the Moon’, performed by
Dixon, the director of the circus decides he wants to create a Russian
version of this stunt entitled ‘Flight to the Stratosphere’. The outcome is
significantly more impressive than the American effort. Dixon is
accompanied by Martynov both dressed in futuristic costumes with silk
gowns. Dixon is fired from the cannon, triggering a catapult mechanism
that sends Martynov skywards too. As Dixon swings from a bar that will
eventually become a parachute, Martynov flys around the arena with the
help of invisible cables. This extraordinary scene suggests that the Soviets
can better any of America’s technical achievements and foresees the later
escalation of the Cold War space conquest rivalry.
Although The Circus has all the necessary ingredients to be a highly
entertaining film, it is the music that gives the movie its uplifting feel and
makes it a popular classic. Indeed, the director later commented that the
music was the most important part of the film and everything else was
built on its foundations.3 The music and lyrics for the movie were written
by Isaac Dunaevsky and Vasili Lebedev-Kumach respectively. The film
is rich in terms of musical genre and the range of melodies and instruments
adopted. For example, Song on the Cannon (Pesnia na pushke), one of the
opening compositions in the film, has a distinct jazz feel with its ragtime
FILM -MAKERS AND FILM -MAKING 157
These words convey a sense of safety and hope, not only for the child’s
present and future, but for the audience too. Along with the music, the
lyrics have a soothing effect on the viewer, creating a strong sense that
158 SOVIET CINEMA
Soviet films produced in this era. As we shall see, the ‘cinema for the
millions’ agenda was often undermined by an excessive emphasis on
politics over entertainment that demanded political engagement from
the viewer rather than transporting them into the world of fantasy.
to control the wild southern frontiers of the USSR, but this was conveyed
by means of action and adventure that, according to its director, made
the film a popular classic among Soviet citizens.6
Other movies took adventure into the skies or dealt with maritime
themes. Several films were made on the fashionable subjects of aeroplanes
and pilots. These included Yuli Raizman’s Flyers (Letchiki, 1935) which told
of the conflict between a daring stuntman student pilot and the disciplined
flight instructor whose views predictably prevail. A similar plot characterised
the less well-known Ukrainian film The Fifth Ocean (Piatyi okean, 1940) where
a young aspiring pilot learns that disciplined professionalism is what Soviet
aviation is all about. Soviet heroism was celebrated in Efim Dzigan’s We are
from Kronstadt (My iz Kronshtadta, 1936) which recalled the victory of the
Baltic fleet over Iudenich’s whites during the civil war.
There were also a few successful mass-orientated comedies made during
the 1930s that were part of the ‘cinema for the millions’ agenda. Mikhail
Verner’s A Girl in a Hurry (Devushka speshit na svidanie, 1936) tells of how an
engineer and a shoemaker go to a holiday resort, leaving their passports at
home. Their wives go to the same post office to send them on to the men,
but the female clerk mixes up the envelopes. The men end up with each
other’s passport leading to a series of slapstick comic moments. Konstantin
Yudin’s A Girl with Character (Devushka s kharakterom, 1939) offered similar
light-hearted comic relief. It told of a strong-willed girl who is unsatisfied
with life on an animal sovkhoz in the East of the Soviet Union and makes
her way to Moscow where she finds love, excitement and adventure. While
we can identify a few films of this type, such popular comedies were not
common and given less priority in thematic plans, perhaps due to the
difficulty of using them to convey ‘serious’ political messages.
Still of the class enemy Kuganov, posing as a committed communist in The Party
Card (1936).
theme explicit. He argued that the time of making films for elite, artistic
purposes had passed. Film-makers should now be making accessible
movies that showed that the artist was aware of what was going on around
him. Pyrev believed that the film-maker should select themes that worked
‘in unison with the construction of our country’ and were of great necessity
for millions of cinema-goers. In The Party Card Pyrev wanted to make a
film that called on the audience to show ‘revolutionary vigilance’ and
‘hatred towards the enemy’, he wanted the spectator to leave the cinema
with this strong hatred which would force the individual to be
‘guarded’,‘circumspect’ and, having seen the enemy’s tactics on the screen,
they would be able to ‘discover Kuganovs on their own area of socialist
construction’.8 The critics welcomed Pyrev’s efforts to raise vigilance
among the population. In Kino, the critic Litovsky praised the film for
how effectively it showed the mechanics of class enemy behaviour and its
emphasis on the importance of the Party card. He regarded it as having
‘enormous educational-propaganda significance’.9 Alexander Macheret,
writing in Iskusstvo kino (Art of Cinema), gave a similar positive assessment,
suggesting that the unmasking of Pavel Kuganov gave the film good
dramatic tension. Macheret believed that The Party Card was a good
example of a film that showed Soviet reality as it is.10 The Party Card was
released in the spring of 1936 in a country on the verge of mass arrests
and executions, and thus proved to be tragically prophetic.
writing for Kino, suggested that the movie was especially valuable for mass
‘education’ given the recent show trials, while, Abramov, a critic for the
newspaper Vecherniaia Moskva (Evening Moscow) also praised the movie,
describing it as a ‘new victory for Soviet cinema’.16 Nonetheless, there
was also significant criticism in Iskusstvo Kino, as well as the mainstream
newspaper Pravda, albeit restrained, of the film’s excessive reliance on
political gatherings and its fundamentally tedious content.17 Nonetheless,
while sources on general audience reaction to films in the 1930s are still
emerging, it is fair to say that some class enemy dramas that made an
effort to entertain, as well as educate, were popular. For example, Vaks,
the critic for the newspaper Vecherniaia Moskva reported that a Moscow
audience viewed Komsomolsk with ‘excitement’ and ‘cheerfulness’ especially
at the arrival of 200 female Komsomol volunteers when the audience
broke into ‘thunderous applause’.18 Nonetheless, the evidence suggests
that even in a context where audience choice had been greatly reduced,
viewers generally did not opt for films with excessive political content. By
way of illustration, Maya Turovskaya has pointed out that, in terms of
receipts per film copy, a little-known Armenian adventure film, reminiscent
of Chapaev, entitled Karo (1937), was more than twice as popular as the
movie Lenin in October, one of the typical politicised films of the late 1930s.
It is almost certain that, when The Great Citizen was released in the late
1930s, the mass spectator would not have regarded the film as a
memorable event. One avid cinema follower, by the name of Adrian
Shaposhnikov, kept a diary in which he gave ratings to films of the era.
Although he found some purely political films, such as Lenin in October
and Lenin in 1918, to be ‘good’ movies, he described The Great Citizen as
‘mediocre’.19
been released and was enjoying modest returns when suddenly the review
appeared, criticising Medvedkin of slandering the Russian peasant,
suggesting that the class war in the countryside had died off, and that the
kulak had peacefully been integrated into the socialist project. The film
was then withdrawn from distribution and was banned.22
Medvedkin later stressed that the point was to show that Khmyr’s dream
and idea of happiness was unrealistic. Yet there is little about this remarkable
film that could make it comparable with much of the formulaic cinema
product of the same time. In the same way as Medvedkin’s previous work,
the film gives a humorous and honest portrayal of country life. It focuses on
individual experience and shows the harsh realities of this life as an endless
struggle for resources and survival. Although the film is a statement against
greed, the viewer is, to some extent, supposed to sympathise with Khmyr.
There is an absence of the cliché of coming to consciousness or any real
sense that Khmyr has fundamentally changed. The film’s uniqueness can
also be found in a visually rich use of Russian folklore stylistic devices and a
dark satirical humour which makes the film stand out from other popular
Soviet comedies of the time. Khmyr’s failure ‘to die’ and lie in his coffin and
the desperate nun’s attempt to commit suicide on a revolving windmill are
among the humorous moments that convey Medvedkin’s comic skills.
As Widdis points out, Medvedkin’s strategy of satirical exposure as a
means of persuading people to improve their approach to work or social life
may have been intended to work in favour of the Soviet regime, but the
director’s biting comedy allied to his eccentric film-making style also threatened
to undermine that regime, especially in the eyes of many Bolsheviks.23 Indeed,
this is where Medvedkin differed from many of his fellow communists. As we
have argued, the defensive outlook of political and administrative figures
that had such a strong impact on Soviet cinema was about denial, about
attempting to claim a legitimacy that simply did not exist. Medvedkin
understood that the Bolsheviks had taken on an enormous task. Yet, while he
too was an idealist who believed in the communist future, he also understood
that the project would not have a chance of fruition without an open, honest
dialogue about the realities of Soviet society. He realised that a problem
could not be solved by pretending that it did not exist.
lives rather than grand historical events. The film, in a similar manner to
The Last Night, did not resemble the general direction of films produced
before and during the war with their emphasis on glorious Soviet victories.
Raizman’s work reveals that it was possible to be relatively creative and
independent during the 1930s when thematic planning and censorship
made life very difficult for film-makers.
and the production of ‘correct’ films. In the case of Medvedkin there was
a firm commitment to the communist case, but on his own unique terms.
We have also seen that very few of the proletarian and peasant cadres
who entered cinema education in the late 1920s and early 1930s would
forge any career at all for themselves in the film industry. Other film-
makers, such as Lev Kuleshov, were of aristocratic origins, but the majority
were either from a middle or lower middle-class background and personal
struggle or childhood poverty were not typical experiences for most of
them. It has become something of a cliché to assume that the artist under
the Soviet regime was generally locked in a persistent struggle with a
repressive state. While there is some truth in this, it is not unreasonable to
consider directors, such as Ermler and many others, to be true believers
in the political ideal.
However, there were other sources of motivation which were arguably
even stronger. Certain directors, including Pyrev and Ermler, had
experienced the difficulties of censorship early in their careers and knew
that efforts to exercise full artistic licence could jeopardise their future. In
the early 1930s both considered the idea of retiring early from cinema. If
they wanted to continue to work in the industry it was clear that making
films that fulfilled the utilitarian demands of a consolidated Stalinist
leadership would make their lives far easier and their careers infinitely
more secure. Moreover, the the promise of material wealth that the
majority of the population could only dream about was also a key factor.
In terms of salaries and other material rewards it was clearly profitable
for film-makers to commit themselves to making films that glorified the
communist state and its leaders. In a country where the majority of
ordinary people led very difficult lives, the temptation to please in return
for a comfortable and prestigious lifestyle was clearly too great for many
artists.
The ‘cinema for the millions’ agenda was compromised by a
defensive mentality obsessed with reaching and persuading the people
with its political ideas and messages, which all too often sidelined the
entertainment aspect of cinema, essential in gaining the attention and
sympathy of the mass audience. Films preoccupied with ordinary people
coming to political consciousness, understanding, supporting and
actively playing their part in the Soviet system revealed the desire among
Party leaders, cinema administrators and some artists to see the illusion
of widespread regime support to at least come alive on the screen, as it
had not really happened in reality. We have argued here that a significant
FILM-MAKERS AND FILM-MAKING 177
W
hen they seized power after the October Revolution in 1917,
the Bolsheviks suffered from a substantial political legitimacy
deficit due to their minority status and the irreconcilable gap
between their promises of mass liberation from exploitation and toil and
the impending harsh realities of collectivisation and industrialisation.
These uneasy political foundations meant that the Bolsheviks were always
on the defensive and cinema became a key part of the strategy not only
as a means of education or mobilisation, but to defend the very existence
and legitimacy of the Soviet regime. Defensive Bolshevik thinking
manifested itself in different forms.
In the first place I examined the role of government, Party and
administrative decision-making, as well as the development of the Soviet
cinema’s industry and infrastructure. The defensive mentality guided the
form of state decrees, decision-making and administration. The 1930s sees
a gradual shift from a preoccupation with narrowing the development gap
in cinema to organising the cinema industry on centralised principles. This
shift is both evident in official government and Party decision-making, as
well as industry administration. At this time the administration came under
increasing pressure not only to create an industry that was economically
successful and independent of imports from the West, but also ideologically
sound. However, the impact of defensiveness had unintended negative
consequences. Boris Shumiatsky, the cinema chairman, reacted to increasing
centralisation and his own decreasing autonomy by devising an individual
defensive strategy to protect his position of power. This involved an attempt
to prove his credentials as an ideal Bolshevik leader of Soviet cinema, in
the course of which Shumiatsky became obsessed with micro-managing
the industry. His everyday activities shifted from a concern with broader
180 SOVIET CINEMA
The analysis also looked at the role of the thematic plan in the Soviet
film industry. As a means of protecting their power and ideology, the
Bolsheviks sought to maintain at least the illusion that they had secured
mass consent. Thus controls over the content of film production were
part of the process of regime legitimacy and an integral part of cinema
industry development in the 1930s. This was evident in censorship, but
also in the system of thematic planning whereby the Party would support
the use of movie themes that were particularly relevant to government
policy and which defended the history of the regime. For instance, the
late 1930s saw the emergence of many anti-fascist films in response to
the rise of the Nazis in Germany and, at the same time, a series of feature
films indicating that the USSR should be prepared for possible war. These
were accompanied by many films about the Revolution, its leaders or
senior Bolsheviks. However, the strengthening of thematic planning after
a weak start led, once again, to unintended consequences. Not only did
thematic plans fail to provide a guarantee of ideological soundness, but
they were organisationally weak and wasteful of scant resources. The
obsession with defending and protecting the politically sacred and the
need to defend current policy, which was always changing, brought the
Soviet film industry to the brink of collapse.
From Chapter Five, the emphasis shifted towards the role of the
film-makers in the Soviet film industry at this time. I discussed the nature
of unions and societies. It was pointed out that the efforts to involve the
masses in the development of the industry were transitory, while the
bodies responsible for representing the interests of film-makers and the
broader workforce, as well as the organisations created to provide a
forum for debate, increasingly failed to fulfil their tasks. Nonetheless, it
was argued that a privileged group of film-makers had emerged by the
second half of the 1930s for whom such representation was less vital.
This group, which even had a significant degree of administrative and
artistic decision-making influence for a few years, enjoyed living in
spacious flats, driving nice cars, going abroad to Europe and America
and having a high income, as well as access to production finances that
were beyond the reach of most aspiring film-makers. Thus, while this
elite still protested about the state of the film industry, they were often
happy to make politically orthodox films in order to guarantee continued
prosperity.
Subsequently, I drew a comparison between the Mezhabpomfilm and
Mosfilm studios in the 1930s. The chapter compared the manner in which
182 SOVIET CINEMA
the power shifted away from the studios and their directors from relatively
significant administrative and economic power to a severe reduction in
autonomy by the end of the decade. It also compared the nature of the
film-making process in relation to this reduced independence and
increasing bureaucratisation. This comparison gave us an insight into
just how strongly the ingrained Bolshevik defensive mentality was, as well
as indicating that the film-maker elite did not entirely subscribe to the
dominant mode of political thought. At the close of the 1930s unexpected
reforms included the establishment of artistic councils in the studios, aimed
at giving the film-makers a significant say in the artistic and administrative
decision-making process. Although most film-makers had produced
politically ‘correct’ films in the 1930s, when they were given power in an
administrative sense, they often supported productions that were at odds
with political and ideological demands from above. Nonetheless, this
power also helped to cement their position as part of the film-making
elite. As already noted in relation to censorship, perceived weaknesses in
filtering ideologically weak films led to a series of institutional reactions
and, despite the promising signs of flexibility, the studios were no different.
In the 1940s the film-makers, who were not trusted politically, were edged
out of the councils in favour of Party representatives, thus a retreat had
taken place. The defensive mentality had, once again, undermined a
potentially fruitful direction.
The analysis looked at film education, with particular attention to the
State Film Institute. Part of the plan for the cinema industry as a means of
ideological defence was the creation of a politically and artistically trained
workforce that could ensure Soviet cinema would make the technical and
artistic leap into the future. I argued that, while the Bolsheviks knew how
important this was for the successful future of Soviet cinema, it failed to
adequately manage and provide even basic investment, leaving film
education in a parlous state. Consequently, the Institute lacked purpose,
as a very small minority of its graduates would manage to carve
meaningful careers in the film industry. Indeed, the young graduates’
struggle to break through was not helped by the fact that the privileged
group of largely older, established film-makers occupied the top positions
at most of the studios and were, perhaps, reluctant to give up their
comfortable lifestyles to facilitate career mobilisation. The State Institute’s
isolation from production realities can also be applied to its teaching.
Dominated by political and artistic outsiders, the Institute leaned towards
an open-minded and often avant-garde inspired teaching programme,
CONCLUSION 183
which was denied any real practical application in the new mass-orientated
cinema of the 1930s.
We also considered the role of the film-makers and the films
themselves. The final chapter looked at the broad range of films being
produced during the 1930s. It contended that the fruition of a successful
cinema for the millions agenda was compromised by a defensive mentality
which demanded the fulfilment of a communist civilising mission and
the heavy politicisation of popular film content. It was noted that there
were exceptions to the formulaic movies of the time, especially the work
of Alexander Medvedkin, who showed that satire and, sometimes, honest
self-criticism might be a more effective political tactic than defensiveness
and denial. Other film-makers, such as Yuli Raizman, committed
themselves to the thematic formalities of the industry, but offered a more
nuanced view of the revolutionary past. Nonetheless, while the 1930s
offers more variety than one might expect, towards the end of the decade
politicisation increases. It was contended that a significant proportion of
Soviet films produced in the 1930s sought to transfer a large amount of
political responsibility for the regime’s shortcomings on to the ordinary
person. This contributed to an excessive politicisation of Soviet cinema
which meant that the ‘cinema for the millions’ did not reach the level of
fruition that it could have done, even given the difficult structural
circumstances. The film-making elite were broadly complicit in this trend,
although this varied from case to case. Some had experienced difficult
early lives and the Soviet regime provided them with genuine
opportunities. Others had later witnessed the barriers in the film industry
and thus realised that creative independence had to be sacrificed to an
extent. In all cases, however, financial gain, personal security and prestige
were all undoubtedly central motivating factors.
In the end the Bolshevik obsession with defending and protecting the
regime and everything it stood for transformed Soviet cinema into a
bureaucratic monolith in the 1930s. All the aforementioned policies and
measures concerning the film industry and its films point to the fact that
the Bolsheviks elaborate attempts to protect their illegitimate regime
through cinema, paradoxically, undermined that industry and all their
hopes for it, including the ‘cinema for the millions’ agenda which promised
so much, but delivered so little.
NOTES
Introduction
1 See Dwight McDonald, ‘Soviet Cinema, 1930–1940, A History,’ in On Movies
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1969). This work, originally carried out in
the late 1930s, foresaw the development of later, more systematic ‘totalitarian’
accounts. The most influential of these is Peter Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society from
the Revolution to the Death of Stalin, 2nd edn (London: I.B.Tauris, 2001).
2 See Richard Taylor, The Politics of Soviet Cinema, 1917–1929 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1979).
3 See Richard Taylor, ‘Soviet Socialist Realism and the Cinema Avant-Garde’, Studies
in Comparative Communism, 3 & 4 (1984), 185–202. Richard Taylor, ‘Boris Shumiatsky
and the Soviet Cinema in the 1930s: ideology as mass entertainment’, Historical
Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 6 (1986), 43–64.
4 The Film Factory: Russia and Soviet cinema in documents, ed. by Richard Taylor and Ian
Christie (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1988).
5 Stalinism and Soviet Cinema, ed. by Richard Taylor, and Derek Spring (London:
Routledge, 1993).
6 For the earlier theory, see Denise Youngblood, Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, 1919–
1935 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991). The amended theory is outlined in
Denise Youngblood, Movies for the Masses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1993).
7 See Alentina Rubailo, Partiinoe rukovodstvo razvitiem kinoiskusstva 1928–1937 (Moscow:
Moskovskii universitet, 1976). For examples of more recent Russian studies of the
1930s, See Kino: politika i liudi, ed. by Lidiia Mamatova (Moscow: Materik, 1995).
See the bibliography for examples of recent published archival sources
8 Natacha Laurent, L’Oeil du Kremlin: cinéma et censure en URSS sous Staline (Toulouse:
Privat, 2000).
9 Eberhard Nembach, Stalins Filmpolitik: Der Umbau der Sowjetischen Filmindustrie 1929
bis 1938 (St. Augustin: Gardez! Verlag, 2001).
10 See John Haynes, New Soviet Man (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003)
and Emma Widdis, Visions of a New Land (London: Yale University Press, 2003).
Evgeny Dobrenko, Stalinist Cinema and the Production of History: Museum of the Revolution
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008). The journal, Studies in Russian and
Soviet Cinema, is published by Intellect.
186 SOVIET CINEMA
11 Economic and technical matters are addressed in Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society, pp.
118–24. An important recent examination of industry development during the first
Five-Year Plan can be found in Vance Kepley Jr, ‘The First Perestroika: Soviet Cinema
under the First Five-Year Plan’, Cinema Journal, 35 (1996), 4, pp. 31–53. Kepley offers
an extremely detailed analysis, which focuses on the institutional changes in Soviet
cinema in the late 1920s and early 1930s. For a Soviet perspective on industry
development in the 1930s, see Dvadtsat' let sovetskoi kinematografii, ed. by N. Semenov
and L. Cherniabskii (Moscow: Goskinoizdat, 1940).
12 The main English language exception is Vance Kepley’s pioneering article ‘Building a
National Cinema: Soviet Film Education, 1918–1934’, Wide Angle, 9 (1987), 3, 4–20.
13 The first Soviet work on the purges of the cinema industry emerged at the end of
the 1980s: see Anatolii Latyshev, ‘Stalin i kino’, in Surovaia drama naroda, ed. by Iurii
Senokosov (Moscow: Izdanie politicheskoi literatury, 1989), pp. 489–511. In
subsequent years, the following two articles were published: Arkadii Bernshtein,
‘Sochli vragami naroda’, Iskusstvo kino, 3 (1993), pp. 92–99; Anatolii Latyshev,
‘Poimenno nazvat'’, in Kino: politika i liudi, pp. 157–60. Denise Youngblood offers a
rare Western account of the earlier purges between 1929 and the early 1930s in
her Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, pp. 189–204.
14 See for example, Fernand Braudel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in
the Age of Philip II, trans. Siân Reynolds, 2 vols (London: Fontana, 1975) and Lucien
Febvre, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1982).
15 For example, see Robert Tucker, Stalin in Power. The Revolution from Above, 1928–41
(London: Norton, 1990) and, more recently, Kevin McDermott, Stalin: Revolutionary
in an Era of War (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).
16 See Marc Ferro, The Russian Revolution of February 1917, trans. J. L. Richards (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972) and Geoffrey Hosking, Russia and the Russians: From
Earliest Times to 2001 (London: Allen Lane The penguin Press, 2001).
17 Peter R. Campbell, ‘The new History: the Annales school of history and modern
historiography’, in Historical Controversies and Historians, ed. by William Lamont
(London: UCL Press, 1998).
18 The summary of this approach is drawn from Colin Hay, ‘Structure and Agency’,
in Theory and Methods in Political Science, ed. by David Marsh and Gerry Stoker
(London: MacMillan, 1995), pp. 189–206.
19 Daryl Glaser, ‘Marxism and Democracy’, in Marxism and Social science, ed. by Andrew
Gamble, David Marsh and Tony Tant (London: MacMillan Press, 1999), pp. 239–258.
20 Crawford Brough MacPherson, The Real World of Democracy (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1972), pp. 12–22.
21 See for instance Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1990).
22 Richard Sakwa, Russian Politics and Society, 3rd edition (London: Routledge, 2002), p.
341. Communist Political Systems: An Introduction, ed. by Stephen White, John Gardner
and George Schöpflin (London: MacMillan, 1982), pp. 28–43.
Chapter 1
1 Youngblood, Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, pp. 157–60.
2 B. S. Ol'khovyi, ed., ‘Party Cinema Conference Resolution: The Results of Cinema
N OTES 187
Chapter 2
1 Tatiana Goriaeva, Politicheskaia tsenzura v SSSR (Moscow: Rosspen, 2002), pp. 184–
86, 195–96.
NOTES 191
Chapter 3
1 Research into the victims of Stalinism is a massive and ongoing project. This
chapter does not claim to offer a comprehensive account of the victims in the area
of cinema nor does it provide specific and accurate numbers of those who fell
victim. This would require further research beyond the scope of this work. Instead
the aim is to provide a much clearer picture and attempt to establish why and how
the cinema industry and those who worked in it were caught up in the purges. For
examples of existing research see the introduction endnotes. The sources used
here include archival documents, as well as recent publications of the remarkable
‘Memorial’ society. Many of these publications are now available on-line at
www.memo.ru. The most comprehensive Russian factual source on the purge victims
in cinema is Aleksandr Deriabin’s volume, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945 which
has been referred to here.
2 RGALI, f. 2497, op. 1, d. 43, l. 36. RGALI, f. 2497, op. 1, d. 5, l. 4.
3 Mikhailov, ‘Stalinskaia model'’, pp. 9–25 (pp. 15–16). RGALI, f. 2497, op. 1, d. 1, l. 45.
4 Tsentral'nyi Arkhiv Federal'noi Sluzhby Bezopasnosti Rossiskii Federatsii (TsA FSB
Rossii), ‘Iz doklada sekretno-politicheskogo otdela OGPU “Ob antisovetskoi
deiatelnosti sredi intelligentsii za 1931 god”’, document 72 in Vlast' i khudozhestvennaia
intelligentsiia, p. 161. Bernshtein, ‘Sochli vragami’, pp. 92–93.
5 Arkhiv Prezidenta Rossiskoi Federatsii (APRF), ‘Pis'mo zamestitelia predsedatelia
OGPU Ia. S. Agranova I. V. Stalinu ob areste N. R. Erdmana, V. Z. Massa i E.
Germana’, document 45 in Vlast'i khudozhestvennaia intelligentsiia, p. 207. Vernite mne
svobodu: deiateli literatury i iskusstva Rossii i Germanii – zhertvy stalinskogo terrora, ed. by
Vladimir Koliazin and Vladimir Goncharov (Moscow: Medium, 1997), pp. 14–
20.
6 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 2, d. 15, l. 39. RGALI, f. 2496, op. 2, d. 15, l. 51.
7 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 2, d. 11, l. 7.
8 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 2, d. 15, l. 34.
9 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 2, d. 15, l. 51. Jay Leyda, Kino, A History of the Russian and Soviet
Film (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1960), p. 280.
10 Kino: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', ed. by Sergei Iutkevich (Moscow: Sovetskaia
entsiklopediia, 1987), p. 130.
11 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 2, d. 15, l. 58.
12 RGALI, f. 2497, op. 1, d. 43, l. 65. Stepan Keverkov, ‘V dni mira i voiny’, in Zhizn'
v kino, ed. by O. Nesterovich (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1979), p. 78.
13 RGALI, f. 2498, op. 1, d. 23, l. 96.
14 Natalia Nusinova and Iurii Tsivian, ‘Aleinikov, M. Zapiski kinematografista’, Iskusstvo
kino, 7 (1996), 104–06.
15 Aleksandr Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945 (Moscow: Materik, 2007),
pp. 106, 124, 126, 338.
16 Boris Martov, ‘Declaration of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematography’,
NOTES 193
39 Ereminaia and Roginskii, Rasstrel'nye spiski, pp. 61, 62, 179, 232, 363, 381, 386.
Deriabin, Letopis'Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 472, 505, 543, 559, 573.
40 Ereminaia and Roginskii, Rasstrel'nye spiski, pp. 365, 381, Latyshev, Poimenno pp.
157–60, Oksana Golovnia, ‘Iz detstva (Boris i Liubov' Babitskie)’, in Kino: politika i
liudi, pp. 186–92. Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 481, 485, 487,
493, 494, 507, 518, 547, 590.
41 ‘Piatiletka po kadram’, ed. by S. Ishevskaia, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 68 (2004), 200–
209 (p. 209). ‘Etim tovarishcham pridetsia vykhodit' na proizvodstvo’, ed. Iuliia
Zaitsevaia, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 68, 2004, 144–70, (p. 170). ‘Riadom s
Eizenshteinom’, ed. Anna Gereb, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 25, 1995, 229–43 (pp. 242).
Aleksander Yakovlev, A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2000), p. 125. Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 542, 580,
590.
42 Rebrov, ‘Za moe’, p. 208.
43 Latyshev, Poimenno, p. 158.
44 Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 481, 495, 497.
45 Arkadii Bernshtein, ‘Aleksandr Kurs’, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 52 (2001), 171–85 (p.
171). Rebrov, ‘Za moe’ , p. 207. Latyshev, Poimenno, p. 157. Koliazin and Goncharov,
Vernite mne svobodu, pp. 46–76. Ereminaia and Roginskii, Rasstrel'nye spiski, p. 157.
Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 479, 501, 506, 515–16, 522, 564,
590.
46 Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 416–17, 431, 461, 487, 488, 492,
495, 501, 516, 520, 540, 570.
47 Latyshev, Poimenno, pp. 158–159. Youngblood, Soviet Cinema, p. 134. Bernshtein,
‘Aleksandr Kurs’ p. 171. Ereminaia and Roginskii, Rasstrel'nye spiski, p. 157.
48 Akterskaia entsiklopediia, ed. by Lev Parfenov (Moscow: Materik, 2002), p. 143–144.
Latyshev, Poimenno, pp.158–160. Bernshtein, ‘Sochli vragami’, pp. 92–99. Deriabin,
Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, p. 564.
49 Latyshev, Poimenno, p. 159.
50 Günter Agde, ‘Iskusstvo v emigratsii i fil'm “Bortsy”’, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 59 (2002)
160–168 (p.164–65). Deriabin, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945, pp. 415, 476,
539, 590.
Chapter 4
1 Rubailo, Partiinoe rukovodstvo, pp. 147–158. Vance Kepley Jr, ‘The First Perestroika, pp.
45–46.
2 RGALI, f. 2498, op. 1, d. 26, l. 12. RGALI, f. 2496, op. 1, d. 30, ll. 1–3.
3 G. Khol'mskii, ‘K voprosu o templane’, Sovetskoe kino, 6 (1932), 10–13 (p. 10).
4 V. Sutyrin, ‘K soveshchaniiu po templanu’, Sovetskoe kino, 8 (1933), 1.
5 RGALI, f.2498, op.1, d. 28, ll. 3–12. Postanovlenie Politbiuro TsK VKP(b) ‘O
tematicheskom plane proizvodstva polnometrazhnykh khudozhestvennykh
kinokartin na 1939 god’, document 23 in Vlast' i khudozhestvennaia intelligentsiia, pp.
425–426.
6 Rubailo, Partiinoe rukovodstvo, pp. 153–154.
7 Ekaterina Khokhlova, ‘Neosushchestvlennye zamysly’, in Kino: politika i liudi, p. 2.
8 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 1, d. 31, l. 3.
9 RGALI, f. 2496, op. 1, d. 30, ll. 1–9.
N OTES 195
Chapter 5
1 Lebedev, Ocherk istorii, pp.150–52.
2 Youngblood, Soviet Cinema, pp. 39–40
3 Boris Martov, ‘Declaration of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematography’,
document 35 in The Film Factory, p. 103.
4 Richard Taylor, ‘Introduction’, in The Film Factory, pp. 247–49. ‘RAPP Resolution
on Cinema’, document 110 in The Film Factory, pp. 275–80.
5 ‘An ARK Member’, ‘ARRK Must Be Reorganised’, document 112 in The Film
Factory, pp. 286–87.
6 RGALI, ‘Ustav’, in The Association of Workers, microfilm reel 8, f. 2494, op. 1, d. 201,
ll. 2–10.
7 RGALI, ‘V pravlenie ARRK’, in The Association of Workers, microfilm reel 8, f. 2494,
op. 1, d. 200, l. 31. RGALI, ‘Protokol No 9’, in The Association of Workers, microfilm
reel 8, f. 2494, op. 1, d. 200, ll. 27–29.
8 Mikhail Grinberg, ‘Blizhe k massam, blizhe k proizvodstvu’, Kino, 16 September
1934, p. 1. Mikhail Grinberg, ‘Soiuz kinorabotnikov organizovan!’, Kino, 10 October,
1934, p. 2.
9 RGALI, ‘Iz protokola obshchego sobraniia akterskoi sektsii ARRK’, in The Association
of Workers, microfilm reel 8, f. 2494, op. 1, d. 202, ll. 5–6.
10 RGALI, ‘Protokol No. 8 zasedaniia tekhnicheskoi sektsii ARRK’, in The Association
of Workers, microfilm reel 8, f. 2494, op. 1, d. 210, ll. 10–11.
11 RGALI, ‘Stenogramma ARRK po obsuzhdeniu doklada G.A. Arustanova o
finansovom polozhenii organizatsii i perevyborakh pravleniia’, in The Association of
Workers, microfilm reel 9, f. 2494, op. 1, d. 223, ll. 1–6.
12 Vsevolod Pudovkin, ‘Sovetskaia kinematografiia i zadachi RosARRK’, Sovetskoe
kino, 7 (1933), 1–7.
13 Vsevolod Pudovkin, ‘O likvidatsii RosARRK’, Kino, 17 Jan 1935, p. 4.
14 Youngblood, Soviet Cinema, pp. 48–49.
15 Grigorii Boltianskii, ‘Cinema and the Soviet Public’, document 50, translated in
The Film Factory, pp. 134–35.
16 M. Nikanorov, ‘ODSK v rabochem klube’, Kino i zhizn', 4 (1930), pp. 4–5.
17 L.Z., ‘Golos rabochego zritelia’, Sovetskii ekran, 20, 21 May 1929, p. 8.
196 SOVIET CINEMA
Chapter 6
1 Comintern, f. 538, op. 2, d. 52, ll. 76–77.
2 Comintern, f. 538, op. 3, d. 104, l. 205. oborot. Comintern, f. 538, op. 3, d.104, l. 05.
NOTES 197
28 RGALI, ‘Prikaz No. 302’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm reel 2, f. 2453, op. 1,
d. 1, ll. 26–30. Mosfil'm, ‘Prikaz No. 37’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm reel 2,
f. 2453, op. 1, d. 3, l. 15.
29 Anninskii, ‘Iz zhizni prodiusera’, p. 58–91.
30 RGALI, ‘Prikaz No. 17’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm reel 5, f. 2453, op. 1,
d. 3, ll. 15–16.
31 Comintern, f. 538, op. 3, d. 104. ll. 78–79.
32 RGALI, ‘Postanovlenie’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm reel 9, f. 2453, op. 2,
d. 505, ll. 4–5.
33 RGALI, ‘Kratkaia stenogramma po prosmotru otsniatykh materialov kinokartiny
“Svinarkha i pastukh” rezhissera I. Pyr'eva’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm
reel 7, f. 2453, op. 2, d. 142, ll. 1–20.
34 RGALI, ‘Stenogramma zasedaniia khudozhestvennogo soveta po obsuzhdeniiu
rezhisserskogo stsenariia K. K. Iudina “Serdtsa chetyrekh” (avtory literaturnogo
stsenariia Granberg, A. i M. Faiko)’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm reel 7, f.
2453, op. 2, d. 150, ll. 1–15. RGALI, ‘Protokoly zasedanii khudozhestvennogo
soveta po rasmotreniiu otsniatykh materialov k fil'mu “Serdtsa chetyrekh” rezhissera
K. K. Iudina’, in Mosfilm (1938–1945), microfilm reel 7, f. 2453, op. 2, d. 151, ll.
1–8.
35 ‘Postanovlenie Sekretariata TsK VKP(b) o zapreshchenii k vypusku na ekran
kinofil'ma “Serdtsa chetyrekh”’, document 66 in Vlast' i khudozhestvennaia intelligentsiia,
p. 473.
36 RGALI, ‘Stenogrammy zasedanii khudozhestvennogo soveta kinostudii “Mosfil'm”
po obsuzhdeniiu podgotovki stsenariev i operatorskikh kadrov’, in Mosfilm (1938–
1945), microfilm reel 9, f. 2453, op. 2, d. 506, ll. 1–39.
37 Iumasheva and Lepikhov, ‘Fenomen’, p. 133.
38 See endnote number five, in Kremlevskii kinoteatr, 1928–1953, p. 610.
39 ‘Pis'mo M.I. Romma I.V. Stalinu o neterpimom otnoshenii rukovodstva Komiteta
po delam kinematografii pri SNK SSSR k izvestnym rezhisseram kino’, document
229 in Kremlevskii kinoteatr, 1928–1953, pp. 647–650.
Chapter 7
1 Iutkevich, Kino: Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', p. 193.
2 Kepley, ‘Building’, pp. 5–16.
3 For examples of this see K istorii VGIKa, ed. by Marat Vlasov (Moscow: VGIK,
2000), pp. 15–20, 202–204.
4 Michael David-Fox, ‘The Assault on the Universities and the Dynamics of Stalin’s
“Great Break”’ in Michael David-Fox and György Péteri (eds.), Academia in Upheaval
(London: Bergin and Garvey, 2000), pp. 73–105. John Connelly, Captive University,
(Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), pp. 22–31.
5 Postanovlenie TsK VKP(b), ‘O rukovodiashchikh kadrakh rabotnikov kinematografii’,
document 44 in Sovetskoe kino, p. 82.
6 Anon., ‘Itogi priema’, in K istorii VGIKa, pp. 138–39.
7 Kepley, ‘Building’, p. 16. ‘Piatiletka’, Ishevskaia, p. 202.
8 E. Vilenskii, ‘Goremychnyi VUZ’, K istorii VGIKa, pp. 173–75.
9 Herbert Marshall, Masters of the Soviet Cinema, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1983), 193–194. ‘Dokladnaia zapiska sekretaria TsK VLKSM D.D. Luk'ianova
NOTES 199
4 Vols, (London: BFI Publishing 1988–1995), 1, pp. 1–24. Indeed, Taylor argues
here that Eizenshtein was consistently concerned with the ideological purpose of
cinema throughout his career.
32 ‘Riadom s Eizenshteinom’, Gereb, pp. 234–38.
33 Koliazin and Goncharov, Vernite mne svobodu, pp. 70–76.
34 Vladimir Nil'sen, The Cinema as a Graphic Art, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1959), pp.
125, 215–27.
35 Nil'sen, The Cinema, pp. 153–73.
36 Sergei Eisenstein, ‘GTK-GIK-VGIK Past-Present-Future’, in Film Essays with a
Lecture by Sergei Eisenstein, ed. by Jay Leyda (London: Dobson , 1968), p. 72.
37 Vladimir Nil'sen, ‘Programma kursa operatorskogo iskusstva’, Iskusstvo kino, 10
(1936), pp. 59–60. In this article Nil'sen provides a programmatic summary of his
course which is also a summary of his textbook. For a student’s reaction and
description of the course see N. Lisitsyn, ‘Studenty-operatory’, Kino, 10 June 1935,
p. 3.
38 Marshall, Soviet Cinema, pp. 16, 25.
Chapter 8
1 Beth Holmgren, ‘The Blue Angel and Blackface: Redeeming Entertainment in
Aleksandrov’s Circus’, Russian Review, 66 (2007), 5–22.
2 Rimgaila Salys, ‘Art Deco Aesthetics in Grigorii Aleksandrov’s The Circus’, Russian
Review, 66 (2007), 23–35.
3 Aleksandrov, Epokha i kino, pp. 196–97. Although The Circus has received more
academic attention than other films of the 1930s, the music is rarely discussed.
One notable exception is Richard Taylor’s article ‘Toward a Topography of Utopia
in the Stalinist Musical’ in The Landscape of Stalinism: the Art and Ideology of Soviet
Space, ed. by Evgenii Dobrenko and Eric Naiman (Washington: University of
Washington Press, 2003), pp. 201–218.
4 Aleksandrov, Epokha i kino, pp. 192, 200.
5 D. Zaslavskii, ‘Khoroshii smekh’, Viktor Shklovskii, ‘Volga-Volga’, and Bratia Tur,
‘Volga-Volga’, Izvestiia, all reprinted in Istoriia sovetskogo kinoiskusstva zvukovogo perioda
po vyskazyvaniiam masterov kino i otzyvam kritikov chast' 1 (1930–1941), ed. by Ippolit V.
Sokolov (Moscow: Goskinoizdat, 1946), pp. 171–176.
6 Vladimir Shneiderov, Moi kinoputeshestviia (Moscow: Biuro propagandy sovetskogo
kinoiskusstva, 1973), pp. 62–63.
7 Kenez, Cinema and Soviet Society, pp. 108–09. Maya Turovskaia, ‘Fil'my i liudi’,
Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 57 (2002), 251–259 (p. 254).
8 Ivan Pyr'ev, ‘Pomnit o nashem zritele’, Iskusstvo kino, 5 (1936), 7–11 (p. 7).
9 O. Litovskii, ‘Fil'm o bditel'nosti’, Kino, 30 March 1936, p. 3.
10 Aleksandr Macheret, ‘Fil'm o bditel'nosti’, Iskusstvo kino, 5 (1936), 3–6 (pp. 3–4).
11 Fridrikh Ermler, Dokumenty, stat'i, vospominaniia (Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1974), pp. 127–28.
12 Anon., ‘Utverzhdenie politicheskogo zhanra. Beseda s avtorami stsenariia “Velikii
grazhdanin” M. Bleimanom i M. Bol'shintsovym’, in Kino totalitarnoi epokhi 1933–
1945, ed. by Artem Demenok and Ekaterina Khokhlova (Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyi
kinofestival' v Moskve, 1989), pp. 43–44.
13 One recent analysis of this film focuses on the wordy aspect of the movie. See Julie
A. Cassiday, ‘Kirov and Death in “The Great Citizen”: The Fatal Consequences
N OTES 201
Ereminaia, L.S., and Arsenii Roginskii, Rasstrel'nye spiski: Moskva 1937–1941, Kniga pamiati
zhertv politicheskikh repressii (Moscow: Zvenia, 2000).
Tikhanova, V., ed., Rasstrel'nye spiski, vypusk 2, Vagankovskoe kladbishche, 1926–1936
(Moscow: Memorial, 1995).
October 1934, p. 1.
Anon., ‘Kino v zelenom teatre’, Vecherniaia Moskva, 20 February 1935, p. 3.
Anon., ‘V TsK soiuza’, Kino, 4 April 1935, p. 2.
Anon., ‘Sovetskie kinematografisty vyekhali za granitsu’, Kino, 22 May 1935, p. 2.
Anon.,‘V GUK’, Kino, 17 August 1936, p. 4.
Anon., ‘V GUK’, Kino, 28 August 1936, p. 4.
Anon., ‘Vypolnenie kinostudiiami plana 3-go kvartala 1936 g’, Kino, 11 October 1936, p. 2.
Anon., ‘Protsess byvshikh rabotnikov Vostokfil'm’, Kino, 28 October 1936, p. 2.
Anon., ‘S prokatom plokho’, Kino, 22 December 1936, p. 4.
Anon., ‘Kino na severe’, Kino, 17 February 1939, p. 4.
Anon., ‘Skorostnoe stroitel'stvo VGIK’, Kino, 5 March 1939, p. 4.
Anon., ‘Na sobranii aktiva’, Kino, 18 August 1939, pp. 3–4.
Anon., ‘V komitete po delam kinematografii’, Kino, 3 November 1939, p. 4.
Anon., ‘570 kopii’, Kino, 1 December 1939, p. 4.
Anon., ‘Sovetskoe kino v tsifrakh’, Iskusstvo kino, 1–2 (1940), 82–83.
Anon., Vneshniaia torgovlia SSSR za 1918–1940: statisticheskii obzor (Moscow:
Vneshtorgizdat, 1960).
Anoshchenko, Nikolai, Obshchii kurs kinematografii (Moscow: Teakinopechat', 1930).
Anoshchenko, Nikolai, ‘Tekhnicheskaia pomoshch' zagranitsy nashemu kino’, Kino i
zhizn', 9 (1930), 14.
Anoshchenko, Nikolai, ‘Kak my rosli’, Kino, 10 February 1935, p. 2.
Arakelov, A., ‘Nepravil'noe planirovanie’, Kino, 5 December 1939, p. 4.
Arlazorov, Mikhail, Protazanov (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973).
Azarin, A., ‘Prenebrezhenie k tvorcheskim kadram’, Kino, 17 September 1936, p. 3.
Babitskii, Paul and John Rimberg, The Soviet Film Industry (New York: Praeger, 1955).
Bagrin, B., ‘Bol'nye voprosy kinofikatsii derevni’, Kino, 16 Feb 1936, p. 4.
Balandin, V., ‘Upravlenie kinoset'iu nado perestroit'’, Kino, 17 May 1939, p. 3.
Bernshtein, Arkadii, ‘Sochli vragami naroda’, Iskusstvo kino, 3 (1993), p. 92–99.
Bernshtein, Arkadii, ‘Aleksandr Kurs’, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 52 (2001), 171–85 (p. 171).
Bernshtein, Arkadii, ‘Gollivud bez kheppi-enda’, Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 60 (2002), 213–
59 (p. 238).
Bluvshtein, V., ‘V poiskakh za utrachennym vremenem’, Proletarskoe kino, 21–22 (1932), 62.
Bol'shakov, Ivan, ‘O prieme del novym rukovodstvom komiteta i o zadachakh vtorovo
polugodiia’, Kino, 18 August, 1939, p. 3.
Borisov, Efim, ‘Za proizvodstvennuiu kul'turu i planovost'’, Kino, 11 July 1936, p. 2.
Cassiday, Julie A., ‘Kirov and Death in “The Great Citizen”: The Fatal Consequences
of Linguistic Mediation’, Slavic Review, 64 (2005), pp. 799–822.
Deriabin, Aleksandr, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1863–1929 (Moscow: Materik, 2004).
Deriabin, Aleksandr, Letopis' Rossiiskogo kino 1930–1945 (Moscow: Materik, 2007).
Diakonov, I., ‘Ogromnye zadachi’, Kino, 11 February, 1939, p. 2.
Dobrenko, Evgeny, Stalinist Cinema and the Production of History: Museum of the Revolution
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008).
Dukel'skii, Semen, ‘Novaia sistema oplaty truda tvorcheskikh rabotnikov kinematografii’,
Kino, 5 January 1939, p. 3.
Dukel'skii, Semen, ‘Za vysokie tempy, kachestvo i proizvoditel'nost' truda’, Kino, 5
January, 1939, p. 3.
Dukel'skii, Semen, ‘Prikaz po komitetu po delam kinematografii pri SNK SSSR No.
206 SOVIET CINEMA
Yakovlev, Aleksander, A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2000).
Youngblood, Denise, Soviet Cinema in the Silent Era, 1919–1935 (Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1991).
Youngblood, Denise, Movies for the Masses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Z. L., ‘Golos rabochego zritelia’, Sovetskii ekran, 20, 21 May 1929, p. 8.
Zaitsevaia, Iuliia, ed., ‘Etim tovarishcham pridetsia vykhodit' na proizvodstvo’,
Kinovedcheskie zapiski, 68, (2004), 144–70, (p.169).
Zak, Mark, Iulii Raizman (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1962).
Websites
http://www.library.cjes.ru
http://www.memo.ru
http://www.memorial.kiev.ua
211
FILMOGRAPHY
Aerograd. Dir. Aleksandr Dovzhenko. Mosfil'm and Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1935.
Alexander Nevsky (Aleksandr Nevskii). Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. Mosfil'm. 1938.
Arsenal. Dir. Aleksandr Dovzhenko. VUKFU. 1928.
Battleship Potemkin, The (Bronenosets Potemkin). Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. Goskino. 1925.
Bear, The (Medved' ). Dir. Isidor Annenskii. Belgoskino. 1938.
Bear’s Wedding, The (Medvez'hia svad'ba). Dir. Konstantin Eggert. Mezhrabpom-Rus'. 1926.
Bezhin Meadow (Bezhin lug). Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. Mosfil'm. 1937.
Chapaev. Dir. Sergei and Georgii Vasil'ev. Lenfil'm. 1934.
Circus, The (Tsirk). Dir. Grigorii Aleksandrov. Mosfil'm. 1936.
Dubrovskii. Dir. Aleksandr Ivanovskii. Lenfil'm. 1935.
Dzhulbars. Dir. Vladimir Shneiderov. Mezhrabpomfil'm. 1935.
Earth (Zemlia). Dir. Aleksandr Dovzhenko. VUKFU. 1930.
End of Saint Petersburg, The (Konets Sankt-Peterburga). Dir. Vsevolod Pudovkin. Mezhrabpom-
Rus'. 1927.
Extraordinary Adventures of Mister West in the Land of the Bolsheviks, The (Neobychainye
prikliucheniia Mistera Vesta v strane Bol'shevikov). Dir. Lev Kuleshov. Goskino. 1924.
Feast of Saint Jorgen, T he (Prazdnik Sviatogo Iorgena). Dir. Iakov Protazanov.
Mezhrabpomfil'm. 1930.
Fed'ka. Dir. Nikolai Lebedev. Lenfil'm. 1937.
Fifth Ocean, The (Piatyi okean). Dir. Isidor Annenskii. Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1940.
First Cavalry, The (Pervaia konnaia). Dir. Efim Dzigan. Mosfil'm. 1941.
Flyers (Letchiki). Dir. Iulii Raizman. Mosfil'm. 1935.
Fragment of an Empire (Oblomok imperii). Dir. Fridrikh Ermler. Sovkino. 1929.
Friends (Podrugi). Dir. Leo Arnshtam. Lenfil'm. 1935.
Girl in a Hurry, A (Devushka speshit na svidanie). Dir. Mikhail Verner. Belgoskino. 1936.
Girl with Character, A (Devushka s kharakterom). Dir. Konstantin Iudin. Mosfil'm. 1939.
Girl Without a Dowry (Bespridannitsa). Dir. Iakov Protazanov. Mosfil'm. 1936.
Golden Years of Lenfil'm (Zvezdnye gody Lenfil'ma). Dir. Natalia Urvacheva. RTR Planeta,
20 January 2005.
Great Citizen, The (Velikii grazhdanin). 2 parts. Dir. Fridrikh Ermler. Lenfil'm. 1937–39.
Great Consoler, The (Velikii uteshitel'). Dir. Lev Kuleshov. Mezhrabpomfil'm. 1933.
Great Glow, The (Velikoe zarevo-orginal US release title : They Wanted Peace). Dir. Mikhail
Chiaureli. Tbilisskaia kinostudiia. 1938.
212 SOVIET CINEMA
Great Life, A (Bol'shaia zhizn'). Dir. Leonid Lukov. Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1940.
Happy Guys, The (Veselye rebiata). Dir. Grigorii Aleksandrov. Moskinokombinat. 1934.
Happiness (Schast'e). Dir. Aleksandr Medvedkin. Moskinokombinat. 1934.
Hearts of Four (Serdtsa chetyrekh). Dir. Konstantin Iudin. Mosfil'm. 1940.
House of the Dead, The. (Mertvyi dom). Dir. Vasilii Fedorov. Mezhrabpomfil'm. 1932.
Iakov Sverdlov. Dir. Sergei Iutkevich. Soiuzdetfil'm. 1941.
If War Comes Tomorrow (Esli zavtra voina). Dir. Efim Dzigan. Mosfil'm. 1938.
Komsomol'sk. Dir. Sergei Gerasimov. Lenfil'm. 1937.
Lad from the Taiga, The (Paren' iz Taigi). Dir. Ivan Pravov and Olga Preobrazhenskaia.
Mosfil'm. 1941.
Last Night, The (Posledniaia noch' ). Dir. Iulii Raizman. Mosfil'm. 1937.
Law of Life, The (Zakon zhizni). Dir. Aleksandr Stolper and Boris Ivanov. Mosfil'm. 1940.
Lenin in October (Lenin v oktiabre). Dir. Mikhail Romm. Mosfil'm. 1937.
Lenin in 1918 (Lenin v 1918). Dir. Mikhail Romm. Mosfil'm. 1939.
Magic Pearl, The (Volshebnoe zerno). Dir. Valentin Kadochnikov and Fedor Filipov. Mosfil'm.
1941.
Man with a Gun, The (Chelovek s ruzh'em). Dir. Sergei Iutkevich. Lenfil'm. 1938.
Mashenka (Mashen'ka). Dir. Iulii Raizman. Mosfil'm. 1941.
Miners (Shakhtery). Dir. Sergei Iutkevich. Lenfil'm. 1937.
Mother (Mat' ). Dir. Vsevolod Pudovkin. Mezhrabpom-Rus'. 1926.
My Grandmother (Moia babushka). Dir. Kote Mikaberidze. Goskinoprom Gruzii. 1929.
October, (Oktiabr'). Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. Sovkino. 1927.
Old and the New, The (Staroe i novoe). Dir. Sergei Eisenstein. Sovkino. 1929.
Old Jockey, The (Staryi naezdnik). Dir. Boris Barnet. Mosfil'm. 1940.
Party Card, The (Partiinyi bilet). Dir. Ivan Pyr'ev. Mosfil'm. 1936.
Peter the Great (Petr pervyi, 1938). 2 parts. Dir. Vladimir Petrov. Lenfil'm. 1937–38.
Prometheus (Prometei). Dir. Ivan Kavalaridze. Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1935.
Pugachev. Dir. Pavel Petrov-Bytov. Lenfil'm. 1937.
Return of Maksim, The (Vozvrashchenie Maksima). Dir. Grigorii Kozintsev and Leonid
Trauberg. Lenfil'm. 1937.
Radiant Path, The (Svetlyi put' ), Dir, Grigorii Aleksandrov, Mosfil'm. 1940.
Revolt of the Fishermen (Vosstanie rybakov). Dir. Erwin Piscator. Mezhrabpomfil'm. 1934.
Rich Bride, The (Bogataia nevesta). Dir. Ivan Pyr'ev. Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1937.
Sailors (Moriaki). Dir. Vladimir Braun. Ukrainfil'm (Odessa). 1939.
Shchors. Dir. Aleksandr Dovzhenko. Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1939.
Stepan Razin, Dir. Ivan Pravov and Olga Preobrazhenskaia. Mosfil'm. 1939.
Storm, The (Groza). Dir. Vladimir Petrov. Soiuzfil'm (Leningrad). 1934.
Strict Youth, A (Strogii iunosha). Dir. Abram Room. Ukrainfil'm (Kiev). 1936.
Suvorov. Dir. Vsevolod Pudovkin and Mikhail Doller. Mosfil'm. 1941.
Swineherdess and the Shepherd, The (Svinarka i pastukh). Dir. Ivan Pyr'ev. Mosfil'm. 1941.
Three Comrades (Tri tovarishcha). Dir. Semen Timoshenko. Lenfil'm. 1935.
Tractor Drivers, The (Traktoristy). Dir Ivan Pyr'ev. Mosfil'm. 1939.
Turksib. Dir. Viktor Turin. Vostokfil'm. 1929.
Virgin Soil Upturned (Podniatoi tseliny). Dir. Iulii Raizman. Mosfil'm. 1939.
Volga Volga. Dir. Grigorii Aleksandrov. Mosfil'm. 1938.
Vyborg Side, The (Vyborgskaia storona). Dir. Grigorii Kozintsev and Leonid Trauberg.
Lenfil'm. 1938.
FILMOGRAPHY 213
We are from Kronstadt (My iz Kronshtadta). Dir. Efim Dzigan. Mosfil'm. 1936.
Youth of Maksim (Iunost' Maksima). Dir. Grigorii Kozintsev and Leonid Trauberg. Lenfil'm.
1934.