Theoretical Concepts of Film Studies in the Cinema Art Journal in the First Decade (1931–1941) of Its Existence - PDF Flipbook
Based on the analysis of film studies concepts (in the context of the socio-cultural and political situation, etc.) of t
119 Views
115 Downloads
PDF 43,741,149 Bytes
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Copyright © 2022 by Cherkas Global University
Published in the USA
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie)
Has been issued since 2005
ISSN 1994-4160
E-ISSN 2729-8132
2022. 18(2): 169-220
DOI: 10.13187/me.2022.2.169
https://me.cherkasgu.press
Theoretical Concepts of Film Studies in the Cinema Art Journal
in the First Decade (1931–1941) of Its Existence
Alexander Fedorov a , *, Anastasia Levitskaya b
а Rostov State University of Economics, Russian Federation
b Taganrog Institute of Management and Economics, Russian Federation
Abstract
Based on the analysis of film studies concepts (in the context of the socio-cultural and
political situation, etc.) of the first decade of the existence of the journal Cinema Art (1931–1941),
the authors came to the conclusion that theoretical works on cinematographic topics during this
period can be divided into the following types:
- ideologized articles by Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers activists (1931–
1932), emphasizing the dominance of "truly revolutionary proletarian cinema" and an
uncompromising struggle with the views of any opponents;
- ideologically reoriented articles (1932–1934), written as a positive reaction to the
Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the
restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (1932), many provisions of which (in particular,
a clear indication that that the framework of the proletarian literary and artistic organizations)
have become a direct threat to the existence of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers;
in articles of this kind, activists of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers — until the
liquidation of this organization in early 1935 – tried to prove their necessity and loyalty to the
“general line of the Communist party”;
- Articles containing sharp criticism of "groupism" (including among the Association of
Revolutionary Cinematographers), "enemies of the people", etc. (1935–1938);
- theoretical articles attacking various types of formalistic phenomena (primarily in the field
of montage) in cinema and culture (1931–1941);
- theoretical articles opposing empiricism, "documentaryism", naturalism and physiology,
vulgar materialism, aestheticism, "emotionalism" on the basis of Marxist-Leninist ideological and
class approaches (1931–1941);
- theoretical articles defending the principles of socialist realism in cinema (1933–1941);
- theoretical articles criticizing bourgeois film theories and Western influence on Soviet
cinema (1931–1941);
- theoretical articles aimed primarily at professional problems of mastering sound in cinema
(in particular, the dramaturgy of sound, music), editing, image, film image, film language
(for example, the cinematic possibilities of the “zeit-loop” effect), cinema style, genre,
entertainment, construction script (plot, composition, conflict, typology of characters, typology of
comic devices, etc.), acting, etc. (1931–1941);
- theoretical articles balancing between ideology and professional approaches to the creation
of cinematic works of art (1931–1941).
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Fedorov), [email protected] (A. Levitskaya)
169
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Keywords: proletarian cinema journal, cinema art journal, 1931-1941, theoretical concepts,
film studies, USSR, movie.
1. Introduction
Actuality and scientific novelty. In most cases, topics related to the film studies concepts of the
Cinema Art journal were considered by researchers (Alakshin, 2014; Dmitrieva, 2020; Golovskoy,
1984; Hill, 1960; Kovalov, 2009; Shishkin, 2017; 2018; Vasiliev, 2006, etc.) fragmentarily, without any
attempt at a full-fledged theoretical content analysis. Consequently, the analysis of the transformation
of the theoretical concepts of film studies in the Cinema Art journal – from the year of its foundation
(1931) to the present day – is very relevant, both in film studies, cultural studies, and in historical,
science studies, philosophical, political science, sociological aspects.
Of course, in the Russian period, the print run of the paper version of the Cinema Art
declined sharply, however, its influence and audience, given that the demand for movies in the
modern world remains very high (of course, taking into account its distribution on various media
and platforms), have survived , thanks to the online version of this journal.
In recent years, attempts have been made in the scientific world to analyze individual time
periods of the Cinema Art: the period of perestroika (Dmitrieva, 2020; Shishkin, 2017; 2018),
the modern (Russian) stage (Alakshin, 2014; Vasiliev, 2006). This series also includes our articles
analyzing the two anniversary years of the Cinema Art, 1967 and 1977 (Fedorov, 2017).
However, none of the researchers (neither in Russia nor abroad) has yet set themselves the
task of analyzing the transformation of the theoretical aspects of film studies throughout the entire
time interval of the existence of the Cinema Art (from 1931 to the present).
We see the applied significance of our research in the fact that the results obtained can be
used in the scientific activities of film critics, culturologists, art historians, sociologists, historians,
science scholars, scientists studying media culture; find application in the field of film studies,
cultural studies, history, journalism, art history, film studies, sociological education (teachers,
graduate students, students, a wide range of audiences interested in this topic).
The scientific problem the project aims to solve arises from the contradiction between the
relatively detailed scientific development of film studies in general (Andrew, 1976; 1984; Aristarco,
1951; Aronson, 2003; 2007; Bazin, 1971; Bergan, 2006; Branigan, Buckland, 2015; Casetti, 1999;
Demin, 1966; Freilich, 2009; Gibson et al., 2000; Gledhill, Williams, 2000; Hill, Gibson, 1998;
Humm, 1997; Khrenov, 2006; 2011; Lipkov, 1990; Lotman, 1973; Lotman, 1992; Lotman, 1994;
Mast, Cohen, 1985; Metz, 1974; Razlogov, 1984; Sokolov, 2010; Stam, 2000; Weisfeld, 1983;
Weizman, 1978; Zhdan, 1982) analysis of the evolution of theoretical film studies concepts in the
leading Soviet and Russian film studies journal Cinema Art (1931–2021).
It should be noted that the works of scientists of the Soviet period devoted to the subject of
film studies (Lebedev, 1974; Weisfeld, 1983; Weizman, 1978; Zhdan, 1982, etc.) were often very
strongly influenced by communist ideology, which, in our opinion, interfered with an adequate
theoretical film process analysis.
Object of study. The object of our research study is one of the oldest in the world and the
most representative in its segment theoretical journals in the field of film studies, Cinema Art,
which (unlike other Soviet periodical film publications) managed to survive in the post-Soviet era.
Subject of study: the evolution of theoretical film studies concepts in the Cinema Art journal
– from the year of its foundation (1931) to the present day.
The purpose of the project: through a comprehensive content analysis and comparative
interdisciplinary analysis, for the first time in world science, to give a holistic description, reveal
features, determine the place, role, significance of the evolution of theoretical film studies concepts
in the Cinema Art journal (1931–2021), that is, to obtain a new scientific knowledge that reveals
patterns, processes, phenomena and dependencies between them in a given thematic field.
Research hypothesis: through a comprehensive content analysis and comparative
interdisciplinary analysis, revealing the features, place, role, significance of the evolution of
theoretical film studies concepts in the Cinema Art journal, it will be possible to synthesize and
graphically present the main theoretical models of film studies concepts and predict the future of
their development.
Research objectives:
- to study and analyze the scientific literature, to some extent related to the topic of the
declared project;
170
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
- to study film studies, historical, cultural studies, sociocultural, political, philosophical,
sociological contexts, the main stages of the evolution of theoretical film studies concepts in the
Cinema Art journal – from the year of its foundation (1931) to the present day.
At the same time, our tasks will include identifying the transformation of such important
scientific components as philosophical approaches (patterns and trends of scientific knowledge,
taken in their historical development and considered in a changing historical and sociocultural
context); historical stages of development; sociological approaches (study and analysis of the
relationship and interaction between film studies and society, changes in the social status of this
science), scientific ethics (study and analysis of moral problems associated with scientific activities
in the field of film studies); features, models of scientific film criticism creativity; aesthetics of
scientific activity (study and analysis of the relationship between film science and art, aesthetic
consciousness, the influence of art forms on film criticism scientific activity, etc.); economic
problems of scientific film studies, problems of scientific policy in the field of film studies;
- carry out a classification, quantitative and qualitative content analysis, a comparative
analysis of the content of film studies theoretical texts in the Cinema Art journal (taking into
account the tasks outlined above); establish and classify, analyze the main theoretical film studies
trends and concepts, the specifics inherent in each historical period of the development of the
journal in the contexts mentioned above.
2. Materials and methods
The research methodology consists of key philosophical provisions on the connection,
interdependence and integrity of the phenomena of reality, the unity of the historical and the social in
cognition; scientific, film studies, sociocultural, cultural, hermeneutical, semiotic approaches
proposed in the works of leading scientists (Aristarco, 1951; Aronson, 2003; 2007; Bakhtin, 1996;
Balázs, 1935; Bazin, 1971; Bessonov, 2012; Bibler, 1990; Buldakov, 2014; Casetti, 1999; Demin, 1966;
Eco, 1975; 1976; Eisenstein, 1939; 1940; 1964; Gledhill, Williams, 2000; Hess, 1997; Hill, Gibson,
1998; Khrenov, 2006; 2011; Kuleshov, 1987; Lotman, 1973; Lotman, 1992; Lotman, 1994; Mast,
Cohen, 1985; Metz, 1974; Razlogov, 1984; Sokolov, 2010; Stam, 2000; Villarejo, 2007 and others).
The project is based on a research content approach (identifying the content of the process
under study, taking into account the totality of its elements, the interaction between them, their
nature, appeal to facts, analysis and synthesis of theoretical conclusions, etc.), on the historical
approach – consideration of the specific historical development of the declared project topics.
Research methods: complex content analysis, comparative interdisciplinary analysis,
theoretical research methods: classification, comparison, analogy, induction and deduction,
abstraction and concretization, theoretical analysis and synthesis, generalization; methods of
empirical research: collection of information related to the subject of the project, comparative-
historical and hermeneutic methods.
3. Discussion
Many research of scientists (Andrew, 1976; Andrew, 1984; Aristarco, 1951; Aronson, 2003;
2007; Balázs, 1935; Bazin, 1971; Bergan, 2006; Branigan, Buckland, 2015; Casetti, 1999; Demin,
1966; Eisenstein, 1939; Eisenstein, 1940; Eisenstein, 1964; Freilich, 2009; Gibson et al., 2000;
Gledhill, Williams, 2000; Hill, Gibson, 1998; Humm, 1997; Khrenov, 2006; Khrenov, 2011;
Kuleshov, 1987; Lebedev, 1974; Lipkov, 1990; Lotman, 1973; Lotman, 1992; Lotman, 1994; Mast,
Cohen, 1985; Metz, 1974; Razlogov, 1984; Sokolov, 2010; Stam, 2000; Villarejo, 2007; Weisfeld,
1983; Weizman, 1978; Zhdan, 1982 and others) talking about cinematic concepts. However, so far in
world science, an interdisciplinary comparative analysis of the evolution of the theoretical aspects of
film studies has not been given in the entire time interval of the existence of the Cinema Art journal
(from 1931 to the present).
It is known that theoretical concepts in film studies are changeable and are often subject to
fluctuations in the course of political regimes. From this it is clear that in Soviet scientific film studies
literature (Lebedev, 1974; Weisfeld, 1983; Weizman, 1978; Zhdan, 1982, etc.), as a rule, communist-
oriented ideological approaches were manifested.
As for foreign scientists (Kenez, 1992; Lawton, 2004; Shaw, Youngblood, 2010; Shlapentokh,
1993; Strada, Troper, 1997, etc.), in their works on Soviet and Russian cinematography, they mainly
turned to political and artistic aspects of cinema, and quite rarely touched upon the subject of
theoretical film studies in the USSR and Russia (one of the few exceptions: Hill, 1960).
171
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
4. Results
In the course of the study and analysis, we have identified a working version (which will be
refined in the course of further research) of the main historical stages in the evolution of film
studies theoretical concepts in the Cinema Art journal from the moment it was founded (1931, the
jpurnal was then called Proletarian Cinema) to our days: 1931–1955 (during the generally
totalitarian period of the development of the USSR, chief editors: V. Sutyrin, K. Yukov,
N. Semenov, A. Mitlin, I. Pyriev, N. Lebedev, V. Grachev, D. Eremin, V. Zhdan), 1956–1968 (period
of the "thaw", chief editors: V. Zhdan, V. Grachev, L. Pogozheva), 1969–1985 (period of
"stagnation", chief editors: E. Surkov, A. Medvedev, Y. Cherepanov), 1986–1991 (perestroika
period, chief editors: Y. Cherepanov, K. Shcherbakov), post-Soviet period 1992–2022 (chief
editors: K. Shcherbakov, 1992; D. Dondurei, 1993–2017; A. Dolin, since 2017).
In this article, we will focus on the analysis of the theoretical concepts of film studies in the
Cinema Art journal in the first decade (1931–1941) of its existence, when its chief editors were:
Vladimir Sutyrin (1931–1933), Konstantin Yukov (1934–1937), Nikolai Semionov (1937) and Aron
Mitlin (1938–1941).
Based on the changing political and socio-cultural contexts (see main political and socio-
cultural developments in the Appendix), this ten-year period for the Cinema Art journal can be
divided into a period of relative creative freedom within the general commitment to "Marxism-
Leninism" (1931–1934) and the time of almost complete communist ideological socialistic realism
unification (1935–1941).
And although tendencies towards ideological unitarity emerged as early as 1932–1933
(the dissolution of the central council of the society "For Proletarian Cinema and Photo" (February
1932), the the Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party
(of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (Resolution..., 1932),
publication of an article sharply criticizing the Society "For Proletarian Cinema and Photo"
(Evgenov, 1932), Decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the liquidation of the
Society "For Proletarian Cinema and Photo" (1932); renaming the journal Proletarian Cinema in
Soviet Cinema), in the journal Proletarian Cinema/Soviet Cinema in 1931–1934, to some extent,
the debatable spirit of the 1920s was still preserved.
In the Table 1 presents statistical data reflecting changes (from 1931 to 1941) in the names of
the journal, organizations, whose organ was the journal, its circulation, periodicity. The names of
the chief editors are indicated, as well as the number of articles on film theory for each year of
publication of the journal.
Table 1. Journal Proletarian cinema/Soviet cinema/Cinema Art (1931–1941): statistical data
Year of Name The organization Circulati Periodicity Editor-in- Number
issue of of the whose organ was on (in of the chief of
the journal the journal thousand journal articles
journal copies) (numbers V. Sutyrin on film
Proletarian Association of per year) (1902–1985) theory
1931 Cinema Revolutionary
Proletarian Cinematographers 14-28 12 V. Sutyrin 13
1932 Cinema Association of (1902–1985)
1933 Soviet Revolutionary 6-15 22 24
Cinema Cinematographers V. Sutyrin
1934 Association of 2,7-5 12 (1902–1985) 23
Soviet Revolutionary 7
1935 Cinema Cinematographers 4-7 12 K. Yukov
Soviet (1902–1938) 3
Cinema Association of 5-6 12
Revolutionary 172 K. Yukov
Cinematographers (1902–1938)
Association of
Revolutionary K. Yukov
Cinematographers (1902–1938)
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
1936 Cinema Art (№1). 4,2-6 K. Yukov 11
1937 Cinema Art Central Committee 4,5-5 (1902–1938) 9
1938 Cinema Art of the Cinema 4,5-6 (№№ 1-5). 7
Union 12 N. Semionov
1939 Cinema Art 6 (1902–1982) 16
1940 Cinema Art Main Directorate of 5-5,2 (№ 6-11) 23
1941 Cinema Art the Film and Photo 7
Film Industry of 5 Editorial
the All-Union board (№12)
Committee for Arts
under the Council Editorial
of People's board
Commissars of the
USSR 12 (№ 1-9),
A. Mitlin
All-Union
Committee for Arts (1902–1941)
under the Council (№ 10-12)
of People's
Commissars of the 12 A. Mitlin
USSR (1902–1941)
All-Union 12 A. Mitlin
Committee for Arts (1902–1941)
under the Council
of People's 12 A. Mitlin
Commissars of the (1902–1941)
USSR
(№№ 1-2). 6 A. Mitlin
Committee for (1902–1941)
Cinematography
under the Council
of People's
Commissars of the
USSR
Committee for
Cinematography
under the Council
of People's
Commissars of the
USSR
Committee for
Cinematography
under the Council
of People's
Commissars of the
USSR
Committee for
Cinematography
under the Council
of People's
Commissars of the
USSR
The first issue of Proletarian Cinema for 1931 was, in fact, devoted to the political manifesto
of the journal, in full accordance with the directives of its body, the Association of Revolutionary
Cinematographers, attracting the audience to the slogans of the dominant communist-oriented
proletariat in cinema (let's not forget that at that time an active process of collectivization was still
going on in the USSR, causing resistance from the peasant masses). The very titles of the articles
speak eloquently about this: “What does “proletarian cinema” mean, “On the socialist
173
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
reconstruction of cinematography”, “For the cinema of the Bolshevik offensive”, “In the struggle for
proletarian cinema”.
In particular, one of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers’ ideologists,
K. Yukov (1902–1938), wrote that “the next most serious work of the proletarian public, Marxist
criticism, proletarian cadres and advanced revolutionary filmmakers is to reveal class hostile
attacks, their mistakes and shortcomings, on the basis of consolidation proletarian-revolutionary
forces, armed with the methods of dialectical materialism, to forge the right ideological weapon –
proletarian cinema" (Yukov, 1931: 29).
Already from the next issue, a theoretical attack began on formalistic phenomena in cinema
and culture, which in the USSR of the 1920s still felt quite free.
The editorial of Proletarian Cinema emphasized that “the main danger that quite realistically
confronts us is attempts, one way or another, to emasculate the political, philosophical meaning of
the discussion. These attempts, expressed either in the form of “practicality” (calls to “earthly”,
narrow production issues, refusal to discuss large or general problems of cinema), or in the form of
reducing the discussion to any one side of the issue (most often reducing it only to the creative
questions of one of the areas of cinematic art cinematography) have only one objective meaning –
the meaning of class hostility. They come either directly from elements of cinema that are class
hostile to us, or from people who capitulate to bourgeois experience in the field of cinematography.
The main form of manifestation of bourgeois theory in cinema is the so-called formalist
concept. Formalism is the most complete concept, which dominated the cinema almost completely
for a number of years, cultivating significant and, moreover, qualified production personnel. Very
often, formalism, merging with the businesslike intelligentsia, with the most up-to-date "theories"
that grow on this soil, dresses up in ultra-left garb. The fight against formalism, which began not so
long ago, proceeded without due activity. All this makes formalism the main danger on the
theoretical front in cinema. ... What is new in the tactics of the Formalists is the desire to extend
the concept of formalism to everything possible, and especially to the most outstanding phenomena
of cinematography, in order thereby to depersonalize the concept of formalism and deflect the blow
from it. What is new in the tactics of the formalists, given the declarative refusal of some of them to
defend the formalist theory, is also the spread of the version that formalism is only a theory, that it
cannot exist at all in the practice of creative work. In accordance with this tactic, the task of fighting
formalism should be to intensify the fight against formalist practice” (Main…, 1931: 2).
The theoretical article of the literary critic M. Grigoriev (1890–1980) “Literature and
Cinema” was largely devoted to the fight against formalism, where it was argued that “a weak script
inevitably pushes a talented director to formalistic exercises. Insufficient penetration of the
director into the script, into his creative method, viewing the script as a pretext for a purely formal
game of directorial and camera techniques inevitably leads to an ideological distortion of the
script" (Grigoryev, 1931: 15, 17).
In the third theoretical article of this issue of the journal, the formalistic views of
S. Eisenstein, L. Kuleshov and V. Pudovkin on the role of montage in filmmaking were sharply
criticized: “Eclecticism in film theory and film criticism is a widespread phenomenon. The mission
of the eclecticists is to smuggle idealistic, bourgeois theories under the outer cover of sociologism,
Marxism, dialectics. … It is known that just in the field of these general questions we have a
dominance of eclectic and formalist definitions. For example, the formula that montage as a
method of combining cinematographic material is the essence and basis of cinematography is
unusually common: from Kuleshov to Eisenstein and Pudovkin, everyone resorts to this formula.
But such a point of view is built on the denial of meaning, content in the film image, frame, and,
according to its supporters, the meaning and content depend solely on the nature of the
combination of montage pieces, i.e. from installation. There is no need to expand on the fact that
such a position is anti-Marxist, for it reduces art to a system of techniques, to a form, throwing out
the idea, the content. ... In the first place, Marxists put the content of a film work, and this content,
expressed in images, is, of course, not located between the frames, not in the methods of combining
them, but in the frames. Any attempt to replace this content with montage essentially means
formalism” (Mikhailov, 1931: 26).
In the next issue, the Proletarian Cinema dealt a theoretical blow to another prominent
formalist, this time the well-known literary critic and screenwriter V. Shklovsky (1893–1984) was
subjected to an ideological scolding. In a review of his book on screenwriting (Shklovsky, 1931),
it was noted that “Shklovsky very subtly pursues a certain tactic that characterizes the “obsolete” of
174
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
formalism in practice. Having hidden their theory, but not recognizing that it has been beaten by
Marxism, the formalists proclaim the absence of any theory as an indisputable fact that forces them
to engage in bare empiricism without methodology. But "where it is thin, it breaks there". There is
no empiricism without methodology, however inferior, however meager. So in this case, the ears of
formalism stretch out from Shklovsky's empiricism. ... It turns out that, going to "dirty work",
Shklovsky did not abandon the tools of formalism and, denying methodology in general, in the
name of pure empiricism, he impregnated the latter with formalism. Therefore, his manual for
novice screenwriters gives a harmful methodological and creative orientation and does not help to
educate the necessary screenwriting personnel” (Mikhailov, 1931: 52, 55).
The article of the film critic N. Lebedev (1897–1978) "For proletarian film journalism"
(Lebedev, 1931) was also oversaturated with ideological passages and the struggle against
formalism and "aestheticism". In it, he once again reminded readers that “the only correct theory,
such the only true scientific method, valid in any field of knowledge, ... [is] the method of Marx-
Engels-Lenin – the method of dialectical materialism. ... that proletarian newsreels cannot and
must not set themselves any other tasks than those set by the working class and its party at this
stage. ... that every newsreel film, every issue of a journal, every department within it should be
based on a certain idea, concretizing the line of the party on one or another sector of the class
struggle and the construction of socialism. A film of the unprincipled, a film that puts extraneous
tasks at the forefront (self-sufficient aestheticism, experimentation in the name of
experimentation, biological entertainment, etc.), proletarian newsreels cannot be produced”
(Lebedev, 1931: 20-21).
Politics also permeated the articles of the film critic N. Iezuitov (1899–1941) devoted to the
theory of educational cinema. First, N. Iezuitov ideologically sharply reminded that “Marxist film
studies are a young science. There are many obstacles in the way of its development. ... There are
many enemies. Nowhere, perhaps in any of the related fields of the science of art (literary criticism,
art history) do so shamelessly and so unveiledly eclecticism, formalism, metaphysics still dominate
in theory” (Iezuitov, 1931a: 5). And then he emphasized that “an educational film ... must be an
instrument of political education. There is no place for apolitical films in our education system. …
an educational film should be a class film. But not in the liberal-opportunist interpretation, but in
the Marxist-Leninist understanding of the class struggle. ... an educational film should be a party
film, because our philosophy of dialectical materialism is a party philosophy, and our science is
also essentially a party one. Educational films must educate communists, they must have a
politically effective character, they must be connected in this way with the tasks of the proletariat
and the party in the struggle for socialism and communism” (Iezuitov, 1931a: 7).
In his second article, N. Iezuitov again assured the readers of the journal that “the biggest
shortcomings of individual theories of educational cinema are: empiricism, physiology and
formalism. The Marxist methodology of educational cinematography will have to thoroughly work
out these theories in the near future, because further movement cannot develop without criticism
of everything that has been done so far” (Iezuitov, 1931b: 9).
Reflecting on the theory of educational cinema, L. Katsnelson (1895–1938), then a member
of the central bureau of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers, emphasized that
“educational and technical cinematography is not an art, but a field of science. ... entertainment is
in the content itself, and no additions, no flavors, no "entertainment" and "artistic" need to be
added here”(Katsnelson, 1932: 27-28).
In defiance of the formalists and aesthetes, the editor of Proletarian Cinema V. Sutyrin
(1902–1985) praised the work of the director-satirist A. Medvedkin (1900–1989): “Comrade
Medvedkin takes a different path. For him, the search for a genre is not a formalist experiment.
The very need for these searches arises for him not for formal reasons: he proceeds from certain
political tasks ... Thus, Comrade Medvedkin's work fundamentally resolutely contradicts formalist
practice. ... How much we, building socialism in the USSR, still need to overcome inertia,
conservatism, how much more needs to be used to end the struggle against capitalism! ... Before
the proletarian satirist – the world of capitalism, the world of colossal, complex exploitative
culture; the world is perishing, but still very strong; a world that plunges the working people into
hitherto unheard-of hardships, a world of obscurantism, a world that has stumbled into a hopeless
(within capitalism) dead end. Burning, furious hatred must boil up in the mind of a proletarian
artist at the sight of this world, which still holds hundreds of millions of working people in its paws
and strives to destroy socialist construction in the USSR. And, driven by this feeling,
175
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
the proletarian artist can raise his satire to such heights that the satire of previous eras has never
reached” (Sutyrin, 1931: 5, 7).
Inheriting the tradition of harsh, backhanded phrases from the press of the 1920s,
Proletarian Cinema did not spare the “temperature” for discussions.
It was in this spirit that a discussion about film genres took place on the pages of the journal
in 1931.
First, V. Grigoryev published an article “On the Methodology for Determining Film Genres”
(Grigoryev, 1931: 16-20), where he argued that “we are on the verge of creating a theory of cinema.
In essence, one has to start from the basics, because the currently existing (both here and abroad)
theories of style, genre, montage, rhythm, etc., etc., most often built on the basis of formalistic
methodology, do not withstand more or less serious criticism. Therefore, the immediate task of
film theorists is to work on the main problems of cinematography, to cleanse the theory of cinema
from all formalistic layers and to revise all methodological principles from the point of view of
Marxist art criticism” (Grigoryev, 1931: 16).
And then the following definition of film genre was proposed: “A film genre is a type of
cinematic structure: 1) being one of the sides of style, 2) reflecting through this style one or another
side of the class psyche at a certain stage of its historical development, 3) characterized by the
organic nature of all components that form a poetic unity, and purposefulness, conditioned by the
systems to which this genre is subordinate, 4) being typical of mass film production. Style and
genre are in constant dialectical unity with each other. Film style characterizes the main tone of
film production, taken in the historical and class context, and the genre is a specific and particular
form of style. The unity of style and genre is inseparable, because the genre is determined by the
style, and the style takes shape through the genre” (Grigoryev, 1931: 17).
In his article on the theory of film genres, the film critic G. Avenarius (1903-1958) first agreed
that “we still do not have a Marxist theory of cinema. The problem of creating this theory is
complicated, on the one hand, by the extreme youth of the science of cinema in general, and, on the
other hand, by the formalistic confusion that is full of numerous pamphlets and articles written on
the main issues of cinema theory (montage, genre, style, creative method)" (Avenarius, 1931: 27).
And then he accused V. Grigoriev of formalism, since he "denies the genre as a dialectical category
– developing – and comes to the recognition of the genre as" a side of this style". … Such a
“methodology” of genre differentiation is fundamentally mechanistic and anti-dialectical, since it
leads to the fragmentation of the general category into many separate existing particulars”
(Avenarius, 1931: 30), and therefore it is “just an arrangement of the formalist theory of the genre,
as a set of devices” (Avenarius, 1931: 30).
In fact, in 1931, only three theoretical articles in the journal Proletarian Cinema escaped the
stamps of communist ideology.
For example, in his article, the screenwriter and writer I. Popov (1886–1957) insisted that
“the introduction of the creative method, as a conscious method of regulating the internal creative
process, marks a new stage for art. ... it is not for nothing that in our time people started talking
about the creative method in art and, in particular, about the dialectical method, as a method of
artistic creativity; ... the reform of creative consciousness in its essence comes down to the artist's
awareness of the peculiarities and originality of his style, i.e. that, being individual, single, ... at the
same time, is called upon to express the social and general. … How is the method put into action?
In three directions: firstly, through the ultimate understanding of the idea, the creative goal;
secondly, through an exhaustive knowledge of the material, and, thirdly, through the
comprehension of formal means” (Popov, 1931: 26).
And the artist and director-animator M. Tsekhanovsky (1889–1965) in his articles “Cinema
and Painting” and “The Specifics of Ton Films” wrote that “knowledge of the laws of painting (and,
of course, not only futuristic painting) is necessary for filmmakers, but to the same extent as it is
necessary to know these laws for both the sculptor and the architect. Therefore, it will be equally
true to speak about the laws of sculpture and architecture in the problems of cinema”
(Tsechanovsky, 1931a: 7).
Reflecting further on sound cinema, M. Tsekhanovsky wrote in a polemical fervor that
“cinema is thoroughly saturated with technology, it contains 99 % technology and 1 % art. There is
still not even one percent of art in sound cinema ... by the material of sound film art one should
understand: visual and sound objects of filming and the result of filming – montage shots. But
these elements become the material of art only when they are organized by the artist into sound-
176
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
visual images expressing a certain content (idea). The idea gives impetus and direction to the whole
process of melting the material into an art form. ... The material overcome in the process of
"remelting" solidifies in a synthetically fused art form, which is, as it were, an "imprint" of an idea,
a materialized idea" (Tsechanovsky, 1931b: 12-13).
A few months later, these views of M. Tsekhanovsky were sharply criticized in the same
journal and were accused of formalism: “Based on certain facts, it must be assumed that those who
consider themselves besieged in some fortifications formalists. One of these facts should be
recognized as M. Tsekhanovsky's article "The Specifics of Tonfilms" (Plonsky, 1932: 4).
Further, catching on to M. Tsekhanovsky’s reckless assertion that “cinema is thoroughly
saturated with technology, it contains 99 % technology and 1 % art” (Tsechanovsky, 1931b: 12),
V. Plonsky wrote that “if his positions are true, then this means that all our sound films… are 100 %
technique, only technique. ... So, in fact, there is still no cinematography, Soviet cinematography,
there is only some one percent” (Plonsky, 1932: 4). On this basis, M. Tsekhanovsky was accused of
a "formalist sortie" and other anti-Marxist sins (Plonsky, 1932: 6).
The current discussion was continued by S. Skrytev, who rather pessimistically assessed the
state of sound cinema in the USSR in 1932: “By the time the technique of sounding from the screen
was mastered, silent cinematography had mastered a great culture ... it was the synthetic nature of
cinematography that determined the features of the further development of cinematography.
The exceptional attraction of synthetic education, which turned towards the greatest achievement
of technology – sound recording – unexpectedly placed the further development of
cinematography in front of incredible difficulties. … Sound turned out to be a direct negation of
silent cinematography. And it will be an irreparable mistake if, in future cinematographic practice,
the fetishization of sound from anti-cinematographic positions continues, if the understanding of
the place and role of sound in cinematography is not based on the principle that allows cinematic
art to rise to higher levels of development. Unfortunately, even the great masters of Soviet
cinematography in their latest works are engaged in cinematic disarmament. This determines the
current state of sound cinema, which to a certain extent resembles the state of silent "illusion"
at the moment of its inception” (Skrytev, 1932: 20).
The playwright and theater expert N. Volkov (1894–1965) clearly and quite reasonably
disagreed with the position of S. Skrytev: “The appearance of sound cinema for some reason
terribly worried filmmakers: would a tone film suddenly turn out to be a theater filmed on film?
For some reason, it seemed that if a human voice suddenly sounded from the screen, then this
voice would turn a cinematographic actor into a theater actor, and each frame almost into a stage
setting. It was also frightening that the sound, which in many cases required long montage pieces,
would provide an excuse to use this length to equip films with theatrical conversation of people
who feel the ramp in front of them. These fears are undoubtedly imaginary, because they stem from
a misunderstanding of the cinematic image. The film image is never only a filmed reality,
but represents the result of the interaction between the phenomenon that is in front of the lens and
the creative direction of the artist. The film image is optical, and this optical quality should be
taken not as a technical, but as a creative moment. This is why a sound tape can look like a filmed
theater only when the director reduces the role of the movie camera to a simple recorder of
phenomena, and does not see it as an instrument of his volitional impulse and creative intention”
(Volkov, 1933a: 65).
In fact, S. Srytev’s denial of the achievements of “talking cinema” sharply contradicted the
state policy on the intensive development of sound cinematography in the USSR, since sound
(among other things) could significantly help the propaganda and agitation functions of the Power.
But, in 1931–1933, the publication of such articles in the journal was still possible, as well as
controversy on this topic.
The main event of 1932 in the field of ideology and culture was the April Resolution of the
Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of
literary and artistic organizations” (Resolution..., 1932), many of the provisions of which became a
direct threat to the existence of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers.
This resolution, in particular, stated that “at the present time, when the cadres of proletarian
literature and art have already grown up, new writers and artists have come forward from factories,
factories, collective farms, the framework of the existing proletarian literary and artistic
organizations… are already narrow and hinder the serious scope of artistic creativity. This
circumstance creates the danger that these organizations will turn from the means of mobilizing
177
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Soviet writers and artists to the greatest possible extent around the tasks of socialist construction
into a means of cultivating circle closure, detachment from the political tasks of our time and from
significant groups of writers and artists who sympathize with socialist construction. Hence the
need for a corresponding restructuring of literary and artistic organizations and the expansion of
the base of their work. Proceeding from this, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist
Party of Bolsheviks decides: to liquidate the association of proletarian writers…; unite all writers
who support the platform of Soviet power and strive to participate in socialist construction into a
single union of Soviet writers with a communist faction in it: to carry out a similar change in the
line of other forms of art; instruct the Organizing Bureau to develop practical measures to
implement this decision” (Resolution…, 1932).
Thus, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks made it clear
that the time of the dominant “truly proletarian fighters of the cultural front” in the USSR was over,
and the time had come for the unification of all literary and artistic movements under the control of
the authorities.
In the same April 1932, an article was published sharply criticizing the Society "For Proletarian
Cinema and Photo" (Evgenov, 1932: 11-15), which, in the spirit of the recommendations of the
Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the
restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (Resolution..., 1932) was liquidated in July 1932.
It is clear that under these conditions, the main task of the Association of Revolutionary
Cinematographers and, consequently, the journal Proletarian Cinema was to survive by proving
their loyalty to the "communist party line".
In an editorial published even before the Resolution... (Resolution..., 1932), the leading
editorial article of the Proletarian Cinema (For..., 1932), emphasized the need to "strengthen the
attack on hostile theories, on formalism in the first place, as the main form of manifestation of
bourgeois theory in the field of cinematography ... to subject the theory of "montage as the basis of
cinema" to devastating criticism. ... to criticize the vulgar-materialistic, mechanistic theory of
"montage of Attractions" by Eisenstein, as well as his other statements alien to Marxism. The task
of the offensive on the theoretical front also consists in the fight against conciliation towards
bourgeois and petty-bourgeois theories, in the fight against "rotten liberalism" (For..., 1932: 2-3).
As we can see, the “theoretical” blow was dealt not only to S. Eisenstein, but also to L.
Kuleshov, D. Vertov, V. Shklovsky and many other “formalists”, whose work was generally
positively perceived in the 1920s.
Moreover, recognizing that “the release of the magazine once a month, despite the
unacceptable slowness of its publication. ... deprived the editors of the opportunity to respond in
any timely manner to current topics”(For..., 1932: 4), the editors of the Proletarian Cinema
(of course, after agreeing this with the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers) decided it
was necessary to switch to a two-week period, while simultaneously reducing the timing of
publishing work on the release numbers” (For…, 1932: 4), making the publication less academic
and more accessible in language to a wide audience.
In reality, in 1932, 22 issues of the magazine were published, of which seven were double.
At the same time, it was not possible to significantly expand the readership of the Proletarian
Cinema editors (circulation ranged from 6 to 15 thousand copies), so in 1933 the publication again
returned to the monthly issue (with a new drop in circulation – up to 2.7 – 5 thousand copies).
One of the most important theoretical articles in Proletarian Cinema in 1932 was “Time in
Close-up”, where the director V. Pudovkin (1893–1953) substantiated his theory of cinematic
slowing down and speeding up time, which he put into practice in the film A Simple Case (1932):
“Why not put forward for a moment any detail of the movement, slowing it down on the screen and
making it in this way especially prominent and unprecedentedly clear? … I am deeply convinced of
the necessity and validity of the new technique. It is extremely important to understand with all
depth the essence of filming the "zeit-loop" and use it not as a trick, but as an opportunity to
consciously, in the right places, to any extent, slow down or speed up the movement. One must be
able to use all possible speeds, from the largest, which gives extreme slowness of movement on the
screen, to the smallest, which gives incredible speed on the screen. … Shooting with a “zeit
magnifying glass” has been practiced for a long time. ... But all the directors who used slow motion
did not do one, from my point of view, the most important thing. They did not include slow motion
in the montage – in the overall rhythmic flow of the picture. ... I'm talking about the varying
degrees of slowing down the speed of movement included in the construction of the cut phrase.
178
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
A short piece shot with a "zeit-loop" can be placed between two long normal pieces, focusing the
viewer's attention at the right place for the moment. "Zeit-loop" in montage does not distort the
actual process. She shows it in depth and accurately, consciously directing the viewer's attention. ...
Long-term processes, shown on the screen by editing pieces shot at different speeds, get a kind of
rhythm, some kind of special breath. … The “time close-up” has a huge future. Especially in the
tone film, where the rhythm, refined and complicated by the combination with the sound,
is especially important” (Pudovkin, 1932: 31-32).
It is surprising that, as if not noticing the calls for experiments with form in this article by
V. Pudovkin, the Proletarian Cinema continued its active attack on film formalists.
This time the target was the book of the screenwriter and director A. Andrievsky (1899–1983)
"Construction of a Tone Film" (Andrievsky, 1931).
Literary critic L. Voytolovskaya (1908–1984), in her article entitled “The Program of Militant
Formalism” (Voytolovskaya, 1932: 5-9), argued that Andrievsky acted here “as a follower of ... the
most reactionary theories, as a faithful student and successor of Kuleshov. ... It is quite natural that
A. Andrievsky, proceeding from these formalistic provisions, cannot look for anything else in sound
cinema, except for the “montage of sound frames” (Voytolovskaya, 1932: 7).
Further, L. Voytolovskaya spoke out even more sharply, revealing a whole group of the most
active “film formalists”: “On the example of A. Andrievsky, his scripts and books, we see that
formalism is starting to become more active again. The "third stage" in the history of formalism has
now arrived. The first stage was characterized by open speeches by such militant formalists as
Kuleshov, Shklovsky, Piotrovsky, and others. This was a period of open speeches in the press,
declarations, a period of “flourishing” of formalism in cinema. Then came the period of
"renunciation" of their mistakes (with Shklovsky), leaving "into practice" (with Kuleshov). It was a
stage of "silence", waiting. Now the third period has come, the most dangerous, the most malicious
period of pushing through your formalistic worldview under the flag of working "only in the field of
film technology." A. Andrievsky's book is not the first to try to push through formalism under the
brand name of "innocent" technique. ... It is characteristic that he quotes exclusively formalists:
M. Levidov, Glazychev, Shklovsky, Kuleshov, and again Shklovsky, Kuleshov, M. Levidov. This kind
of "ring film" convincingly proves that A. Andrievsky appears in the book as a selfless follower,
successor and student of the "luminaries" of formalism. And precisely because now their “teaching”
has begun to become more active, precisely because formalism is crawling out of the holes of
practical affairs – this is precisely why it is necessary to treat with particular ruthlessness such
books as “Construction of a Tonfilm”, both clearly and smuggling formalist rubbish”
(Voytolovskaya, 1932: 9).
As part of the expression of various creative views in the discussion, which was still
permissible in 1932, and taking into account the extreme seriousness of the accusations from
L. Voytolovskaya, which in the future threaten to "take measures", A. Andrievsky (1899–1983)
soon sent a penitential a letter in which he acknowledged that his book “The Construction of a
Tonfilm” "not only contains a number of formalistic errors, but is also formalistic in its general
concept and in its main principles" (Andrievsky, 1932: 52).
Trying to distance himself from further accusations of formalism, A. Andrievsky wrote:
“At one time I entered cinematography under the strong influence of the works of Eisenstein and
Kuleshev, who, despite great differences in methods, had common formalistic errors. The writing
of my book coincides with the period when this influence still weighed heavily on me. This does not
mean that I was a supporter of formalism and did not wage a struggle against formalist
methodology as a whole, but this struggle was flawed and half-hearted, because at that time
I developed a special “theory”, which, unfortunately, still spontaneously arises in many film
practitioners. The essence of this "theory" is reduced to the division (and practically – to the
opposition) of the creative method and the "technology" of art. … Being taken in abstraction,
the “technology” of cinema turns from “technology” into methodology, and, moreover, inevitably
into a formalist methodology. This is the depravity of the theory, which considers the abstract
"technology" of art as a science auxiliary to Marxist-Leninist art history, and in this place there is a
"junction", but not with the frame, but with Trotsky's anti-Marxist and eclectic attitudes in matters
of art” (Andrievsky, 1932: 52-53).
The editorial leading article "A decisive change is needed" (A decisive... 1932: 1-4), published
in the April issue of Proletarian Cinema for 1932, was a reaction to a letter from I. Stalin to the
179
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
editors of the journal Proletarian Revolution (Stalin, 1931), in which he criticized Trotskyist and
other opposition "sally" in the Soviet press.
The Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers, struggling to prove their necessity and
loyalty to the authorities, of course, could not ignore this Stalinist article, which became “a signal
for a decisive offensive against hostile theories about cinema, for the struggle to strengthen the
positions of proletarian cinematography” (A decisive... 1932: 1).
Further, the journal Proletarian Cinema drew attention to the fact that “there is no
renunciation of their mistakes in the formalist camp, that Kuleshov’s statement in the Association
of Revolutionary Cinematographers, Shklovsky’s speech (at the scenario meeting) were only clever
maneuvers in order to hide the hostile Marxist-Leninist theory is the essence of formalism, to
disguise itself most subtly and cunningly in order to continue in practice to push through formalist
theories and thereby counteract the growth of proletarian cinematography, to oppose Marxist-
Leninist theory in cinema ... The communist and Komsomol part of the Association of
Revolutionary Cinematographers, having exposed all these tendencies of formalism, declared
formalism a theory, with which it is necessary not to discuss, but to brand from beginning to end,
as a theory hostile to the interests of proletarian cinematography. … On the basis of extensive self-
criticism, Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers can and must achieve a decisive turning
point in its work. For a real restructuring of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographer to
face production, its needs, its tasks! Comrade Stalin's instructions must permeate the entire theory,
the entire creative and artistic practice of Soviet cinema. For the Marxist-Leninist theory in
cinema! For Leninist cinematography!” (A decisive… 1932: 1, 4).
In the same issue of Proletarian Cinema, the cameraman V. Nielsen (1906–1938) (Nielsen,
1932: 18-24) joined in exposing the enemies of Marxism-Leninism in cinematographic theoretical
concepts, who spoke out categorically against L. Kuleshov’s “formalist” theory of montage:
“It should not be forgotten that it is precisely the feature film with its specificity, in the absence of a
developed Marxist methodology, that is the most fertile ground for the work of the formalist or
other bourgeois school. The theoretical struggle against class-alien trends in cinematography,
the ideological disarmament of formalist and mechanistic constructions – all this requires the
greatest consolidation ... The first definitions of the frame as an element of film are given to us by
L. Kuleshov, who can rightfully be called the father of theoretical vulgarization in cinematography”
(Nielsen, 1932: 19).
Rejecting the theory of montage by L. Kuleshov (1899–1970), V. Nielsen emphasized that
“the main force of cinematic influence, first of all, is the social content of films; her class
orientation. Depending on the extent to which the film reveals and displays this social content,
we can judge its expressive qualities. Editing is not a self-contained factor in cinematography.
Editing is one of the main means of cinematography, which enables the film director, with the help
of specific montage methods, to reveal and display the dialectics of reality. … The montage leads
the spectator to those final conclusions that are conditioned by the social task of the script”
(Nielsen, 1932: 23-24).
V. Sutyrin, the editor-in-chief of Proletarian Cinema, could not stay away from the fight
against the malicious film formalists – he chose “documentary filmmakers”, that is, director
D. Vertov (1896–1954) and his supporters, as the main target of his article. V. Sutyrin believed that
Vertov's "movie eyes" – for tactical reasons and for a certain period of time – were ready to allow a
small percentage of "feature films", although, in their opinion, "genuinely Soviet, i.e. proletarian
cinematography was to consist of "non-fiction", "documentary" films. ... [Now] they no longer talk
about the bourgeois nature of any "fiction" film. They are ready to legitimize a certain percentage of
this film production for a classless society as well. But, firstly, the percentage is small and possibly
smaller, and secondly, they put them in the background in terms of social significance, believing
that in the reconstruction period, the primacy should belong to a documentary, non-fiction film”
(Sutyrin, 1932: 15). However, “documentalism, like formalism, being an anti-Marxist system of
views, is just as hostile, although at this stage it is less dangerous for the young, just emerging
Leninist theory of Soviet cinema. It is necessary to wage a decisive struggle against him” (Sutyrin,
1932: 11).
Film director B. Altshuler (1904–1994) focused his theoretical attack on “cinema
aestheticism”, arguing that “aestheticism is equally alien to both proletarian artistic
cinematography and proletarian instructive cinematography. Is it a transfer of the creative method
of artistic cinematography? Yes, but someone else's, non-proletarian creative method. Therefore,
180
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
perhaps this method is bad, not because it is borrowed from artistic cinematography, but because it
is alien, not proletarian” (Altshuler, 1932: 38).
Since in 1932 a real and sharp discussion was still possible (within certain ideological limits,
of course) on the pages of the Soviet press, in the next issue the Proletarian Cinema gave the floor
to the director D. Vertov (1896–1954), who, in response to the attacks tried to justify the
accusations against him and, in turn, he himself accused one of the Association of Revolutionary
Cinematographers’ members, film critic N. Lebedev (1897–1978), of Trotskyism (Vertov, 1932: 14).
N. Lebedev did not feel sorry for another documentary filmmaker, V. Erofeev (1898–1940):
“So, the newsreel according to Lebedev in 1930 should only deal with “fixing events”, should turn
into a means of apolitical information, and “actual topics will be the property of "Publicist Film
Factory". What political illiteracy, what ignorance! ... N. Lebedev cannot understand that, despite
the difference in the degree of generalization of the material (resulting from the difference in the
nature of the newsreel publication, subject matter and footage), both periodical chronicle and non-
periodic newsreel films fulfill the same political tasks, are made on the same documentary material
with the help of the same means of production” (Erofeev, 1932: 20-21, 23).
Realizing that serious accusations were made against him (one “Trotskyism” was worth
something!) film critic N. Lebedev hastened to answer D. Vertov and V. Erofeev on the pages of the
same Proletarian Cinema, angrily attacking his “documentary” opponents: “Now "documentalism"
– as a creative trend – is no longer there – it has decomposed alive from ideological decay. It is a
corpse. But this corpse has not yet been thrown into the dustbin of history. And the "aroma" of his
reader had the opportunity to feel on the previous pages, in the articles of D. Vertov and V. Erofeev.
There is no one to discuss the former “documentaryism” with. But it still needs to be exposed. This
is necessary in order to fight for the purity of the Marxist-Leninist theory of cinema, it is necessary
to re-educate those rank-and-file members of this group who are beginning to understand where
the former theories of the former "documentary" were leading (Lebedev, 1932: 24).
At the same time, the Soviet film theorist N. Lebedev, not embarrassed by phrases far from
academicism, argued that V. Erofeev falsely concluded that he was “a supporter of newsreel,“ as a
means of apolitical information. Where did Erofeev get this nonsense from? What finger did he
suck it out of? (Lebedev, 1932: 28). As we can see, even in theoretical articles of that time it was
possible to use, in fact, “bazaar” vocabulary...
The most theoretically important article in Proletarian Cinema in 1932 was the work of
S. Eisenstein (1898–1948), who had returned from a long trip abroad. In an article titled "Lend"!"
S. Eisenstein wrote: “I am very upset by the talk about “entertainment” and “entertainment”...
something opposite, alien and hostile. ... To capture, not to entertain, to supply the audience with
exercise, and not to squander the energy brought by the viewer with them. ... As long as we had
exciting pictures, we didn't talk about entertaining. Didn't get bored. But then the "capture" was
lost somewhere. The ability to build exciting things was lost, and they started talking about
entertaining things. Meanwhile, one cannot realize the second without mastering the method of the
first. ... To build cinematography on the basis of the "idea of cinematography" and abstract
principles is wild and absurd. Only from a critical comparison with more staged early spectacular
forms will it be possible to critically master the methodological specifics of cinema" (Eisenstein,
1932: 19-29).
Thus, S. Eisenstein tried (largely contrary to the ideological dominance imposed "from
above") to pay attention to the spectacular nature of cinema and the need to "catch" the attention
of the masses.
Criticism of superficial sociological approaches to the study of the audience was at the center
of L. Skorodumov's article "The Spectator and Cinema" (Skorodumov, 1932: 49-61). Several
theoretical articles in Proletarian Cinema in 1932 were devoted to the professional aspects of the
work of screenwriters (Kapustin, 1932: 26-31), animators (Khodataev, 1932: 44-49) and film actors
(Mogendovich, 1932: 32-39).
In 1932, Proletarian Cinema attacked the theories of bourgeois cinematography, bringing in
for this film critic and writer B. Balázs (1884–1949), who at that time worked in Moscow, and film
critic E. Arnoldi (1898–1972).
B. Balázs in his article “The Ideology of Bourgeois Cinema” reminded readers that “capitalist
film production naturally requires maximum sales. It must go towards the ideology of the broadest
masses, while at the same time not abandoning its own. In pursuit of profitability, it is compelled to
address itself to the "lower" strata, but only to those whose intellectual and emotional needs it can
181
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
satisfy without harming the interests of the ruling class. Consequently, we can talk about the
masses, which are least aware of their own interests. First of all, philistinism is the widest market
for sales also because its thinking is not inherent in one social stratum. Petty-bourgeois psychology
is still alive in a section of the proletariat, in a very large section of the intelligentsia and the big
bourgeoisie. In cinema, they are all united by one feeling. And that is why European and American
cinematography is ideologically wholly oriented towards philistinism, and not only because the
philistine, the petty bourgeois, can afford cheap pleasure. The tradesman is deprived of a clear class
consciousness. He, therefore, will not reject everything that is contrary to his economic and social
interests” (Balázs, 1932: 32-33).
In a similar vein, he appeared on the pages of Proletarian Cinema and E. Arnoldi. In his
article “Sound Cinema in the Theories of Western Formalists,” he emphasized that “in America,
bourgeois cinematography relies on broad sections of the philistine audience. For the most part,
the film acts fairly straightforward. Theoretical and critical shots are guided by the same philistine
audience and are grouped around yellow magazines with frank sensational tabloid and advertising
installations. The attention of the moviegoer is directed towards unhealthy interests; the ruling
class lulls his critical thought, educates him in terms of a superficially sensational attitude towards
cinematography. Due to general conditions, revolutionary Marxist theory and criticism of art in
general, and cinematography in particular, are in the period of formation and initial deployment of
forces, in the conditions of a difficult struggle with the ideologists of the ruling class and
representatives of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie of various shades. As a result, the
cinematographic theoretical sector in America is distinguished by its quantitative insignificance
and low qualitative level. There is a distinct utilitarianism in the approach to cinema art, a desire
not to evade the problems of an applied technological order and a tendency to “entertainment” of
presentation in order to attract the top of the mass audience” (Arnoldi, 1932: 40-41).
Further, E. Arnoldi extended the ideological thread from Western film studies to Soviet
formalism: “We do not know Western cinema well. Even worse we know his theories. Meanwhile,
they are of considerable interest. Of course, they are in no way suitable for transplanting onto
Soviet soil. But a critical study of them, an acquaintance with the enormous material collected by
bourgeois theoreticians, problems that were incorrectly resolved but curiously posed, could be of
some use. But the most significant interest of these works is that there, to them, beyond the Soviet
border, the roots of the theoretical constructions of our Formalists and other theorists, who are
trying to smuggle bourgeois smuggling into Soviet film criticism, go. Knowing enemy positions is
the best weapon to fight. Unfortunately, given our current conditions of acquaintance with Western
cinema and the established attitude towards it, such arming of our theoretical thought is rather
difficult” (Arnoldi, 1932: 41).
Taking into account the trends identified by the Resolution of the Central Committee of the
All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic
organizations” (Resolution ..., 1932), already in the first issue of 1933, the journal Proletarian
Cinema changed its name to a more generalized and “nationwide” one: Soviet cinema, having
regained its monthly periodicity. At the same time, it remained for the time being an organ of the
Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers. The responsible editor V. Sutyrin (1902–1985)
also kept his post (also for the time being).
In 1933, the journal continued its line of harsh criticism of formalist approaches in cinema.
Director S. Yutkevich (1904–1985) chose as his target the work of the "malicious formalist"
L. Kuleshov (1899–1970), emphasizing that montage was once called the "philosopher's stone" of
cinema, and it was fiercely defended both in theory and and in practice as a dominant moment in
the specifics of the new art. At first it was a healthy and progressive phenomenon, but in the later
stages of the growth of Soviet cinema, this theory of the "dominant montage" turned into a ballast
that dragged cinematography into a quagmire of bourgeois theories. … Indeed, was it worth
making a “revolution” in order to return in practice to the imitation of American detective stories
(Ray of Death), borrowing everything from this genre except for its most important and obligatory
feature — entertaining” (Yutkevich, 1933: 8).
Further, S. Yutkevich, from the standpoint of the the Resolution of the Central Committee of
the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic
organizations” (Resolution ..., 1932) and socialist realism, very negatively assessed the so-called
“poetic cinema”, the supporter of which, as you know, was director A. Dovzhenko (1894–1956):
“Soviet cinema lost its audience for a while. The notorious "language of cinema", for the purity of
182
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
which zealous innovators fought so hard, was defined as the language of poetry, painting, etc.
Frames were turned into rhymes, chanted like poems, defined as easel movies, the rhythm of
montage was defined as the only "free" possibility of their purely compositional cohesion.
The "abstruse" cinematography was created. The “self-made” frame, like the “self-made” word in
its time, is what the last of formalism tried to defend themselves with. Mistakes, slips of the tongue
by great masters, inevitable in any genuine creative work, in any search for new ways of expressing
socialist art, were immediately introduced into a dogma, a rule, a recipe. Materialism, non-
objectivity, the denial of man, the reduction of the actor's role to a "typical" puppet or "sitter" –
everything was woven into a crazy tangle, which with barbed wire "specificity" protected from the
onset of reality" (Yutkevich, 1933: 12).
No less menacingly accused L. Kuleshov of formalism and Americanism by screenwriter and
film critic M. Bleiman (Bleiman, 1933: 48-57; 51-60).
The theater expert N. Volkov (1894–1965) criticized L. Kuleshov on two theoretical positions
at once: “on the functions of editing and work with the actor: the head could be borrowed from one
actor, the hand from another, and the figure from a third, and all this, thanks to the dexterity of
editing, could create the impression of one and the same person, that is, the viewer was not aware
of this arithmetic of the parts of the human body. Kuleshov came to erroneous conclusions.
However, while remaining on healthy creative ground, it is quite correct to interpret the actor's film
image as a combination of a game actually taking place in front of a movie camera with those
imaging techniques that the director and cameraman apply to the actor not only to document him,
but in order to elevate the image of the actor to a new, more important artistic height” (Volkov,
1933b: 59-60).
A voluminous theoretical article by the film critic N. Lebedev (1897–1978) “On the specifics
of cinema” (Lebedev, 1933: 71-80; 67-73; 48-62) was also devoted to the irreconcilable struggle
against formalism: “It is precisely in the identification of ideological production with material
production that one must seek an explanation for the fact that for many years we have tried to
direct the production of film according to the principles used in the production of matches,
furniture and dishes. And this led the "film factories" to "incomprehensible" (for their leadership)
breakthroughs and production defeats. It is here that one of the main reasons for the vitality of
formalist theories in our cinematography, identifying the screenplay with "raw materials" and
"semi-finished products", and the film actor with scenery, accessories and other "materials"
"recycled by the factory." For if films are produced in factories, then there must be "raw materials",
there must be "semi-finished products", there must be "material", and so on. ... So, the question of
what kind of social phenomena – ideological or material should cinema be attributed to, can only
have one answer – ideological" (Lebedev, 1933: 74, 76).
Film critic N. Iezuitov (1899–1941) was quite in solidarity with such an ideological and class
approach to cinematography: “What are the general conclusions reached by Soviet art science in the
doctrine of style? First of all, style is the unity of content and form of art. In contrast to bourgeois art
history, which defined style formally, either as the sum of artistic techniques or as the sum of formal
features, Soviet science sees class content as formalized in style. Not the content is simple, but
precisely the content is formalized, not the content is indifferent and abstract, but the content that
has become the product of artistic creativity. Style, therefore, is not what artists and poets want to say
about themselves in the language of broadcast declarations, but what is obtained objectively,
in practice. ... The complete identification of style with the worldview or creative method of the artist,
which is often found among us, obscures the real connections between art and philosophy. Style is a
product of a worldview, it is the ideological and artistic result of applying a creative method to the
material of reality, the content of style is determined by a class worldview, but the worldview itself is
not style. … style content is class content. This means that the method of cognizing reality in a given
stylistic system expresses the ideology of a certain class” (Iezuitov, 1933: 40-41).
Being under strong pressure of criticism accusing him of formalism, S. Eisenstein in his
article also emphasized that “the basis of the director’s activity is to reveal, reveal and build images
and phenomena of class reflected reality in contradiction. It defines the entire method. And in the
method of teaching, we kind of reproduce the evolution of the very method of consideration in
contradictions, which at the first stages arises from contradictions in consideration” (Eisenstein,
1933: 60).
In his article “The New Quality of Dramaturgy”, director A. Medvedkin (1900–1989),
contrary to the film theorists who were fond of form, argued that “the art of socialist realism is the
183
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
art of the greatest truthfulness. It does not tolerate random, unreasonable positions, unmotivated
actions, unlawfully developing characters. Only subject art can satisfy all these aesthetic needs.
The plot of cinema also contains a creative solution to the problem of entertainment. The film,
captivating the viewer with sharp and exciting plot situations, will enjoy success and love from our
viewers. However, the requirement of a plot in itself does not yet determine the new quality of
Soviet dramaturgy into which it must develop. The demand for the veracity of Soviet art sets before
the Soviet screenwriter the task of a detailed and deep knowledge of the issue that he solves by
means of art. This knowledge cannot be limited only to the knowledge of the terminology of certain
production processes. It should be based on a comprehensive study of human behavior in the most
diverse conditions of reality" (Medvedkin, 1933: 15).
The main theoretical work published in the Soviet Cinema in 1933 was, in our opinion,
the article by B. Balázs "Sound Cinema" (Balázs, 1933: 62-74).
Reflecting on the nature of sound cinematography, B. Balázs dwelled in some detail on such
aspects of it as “auditory performance”, sound space, silence, noise, sound angle, close-up, influx,
montage, etc., and eventually suggested (and, as it turned out just a few years later, he assumed
incorrectly) some further parallel coexistence of silent and sound cinema: “Will sound cinema
completely supplant silent cinema? Will color-sound cinematography be and remain the last and
final achievement? … One thing seems to me, in any case, logically necessary: silent cinema, as long
as it is possible, will be relegated to its original, purely visual realm. Displaced from the field of
human relationships, dramatic conversational plots and actions to subjective-associative, to absolute
cinema. Only when the silent film differentiates itself into an essentially distinct art form can it again
be resurrected next to the sound film. There is no turning back to silent cinema, but I believe in a
forward direction, to a new, even more developed silent cinema” (Balázs, 1933: 74).
In November 1933, the Soviet Cinema changed its editor: instead of V. Sutyrin (1902–1985),
a former party functionary came to this post: K. Yukov (1902–1938). He was the Secretary of the
Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers, editor of the magazine Cinema Front, head of the
scenario workshop Sovkino, deputy chairman of the board of the Society of Friends of Soviet
Cinematography, member of the bureau of the film section of the Russian Association of
Proletarian Writers, executive editor of the newspaper Cinema. Contrary to the editorial policy of
his predecessor, K. Yukov took a course towards simpler language and understandable to the
general readership of film reviews, communist party propaganda materials (including those
actively citing I. Stalin) and sharply reduced the share of theoretical articles about cinema.
The most theoretically significant article of the Soviet Cinema in 1934 was the work of
S. Eisenstein “E! On the Purity of Cinematic Language” (Eisenstein, 1934: 25-31), where he
attempted to give a conclusive answer to many “proletarian” critics of his theory of montage:
“For many, montage and the left-wing bend of formalism are still synonymous. … Montage is not
like that at all. For those who know how, editing is the strongest compositional tool for embodying
a plot. For those who do not know about composition, montage is the syntax for the correct
construction of each particular fragment of the picture. Finally, montage is simply the elementary
rules of film orthography for those who mistakenly compose pieces of a picture ... In films, there
are separate good shots, but under these conditions, the independent pictorial qualities and dignity
of the shot become their own opposite. Uncoordinated by montage thought and composition, they
become an aesthetic toy and an end in itself. … We are by no means for the “hegemony” of
montage. The time has passed when, for pedagogical and educational purposes, it was necessary to
make some tactical and polemical excesses, in order to widely master montage as an expressive
means of cinema. But we must and must raise the question of the literacy of film writing.
To demand not only that the quality of montage, cinematographic syntax and cinematic speech
should not be inferior to the quality of previous works, but that it should exceed and surpass them
– this is what the cause of struggle for the high quality of film culture requires of us. … It s time to
raise the problem of the culture of film language again in all its sharpness. It is important that all
film workers speak out about this. And above all, the language of editing and shots of his films”
(Eisenstein, 1934: 26, 31).
The second most important theoretical article of the Soviet Cinema magazine in 1934 was the
work of B. Balázs "The Dramaturgy of Sound" (Balázs, 1934: 15-24). In it, B. Balázs came to the
conclusion that “sound became an organic element of the film only when it received a dramatic
function. ... At first, sound received a dramatic function as a material for films in general. Then he
received a dramatic function in the plot, in the plot of films. After some time, they understood and
184
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
began to apply the dramatic function of sound in a separate scene. And finally, the significance of
which has not yet been sufficiently appreciated – in a separate frame. True, these four forms merge
in montage into one organic whole of form, but still they are different forms with different laws of
construction, with completely different principles of composition. And just because of the
appearance of a new element – sound – the special character of each form became completely
clear” (Balázs, 1934: 16).
The rest of the theoretical articles of the Soviet Cinema in 1934 were no longer so significant.
For example, the fight against formalism, now in film studies, was continued by N. Lebedev
(1897–1978) in his program article “On Research Work in Cinema” (Lebedev, 1934: 43-49): “What
are the most relevant scientific research problems today? First of all, the problems of film
dramaturgy, the problem of the specifics of the script and its texture, the problem of the plot and
composition of films in general, the problem of film genres, the problem of staging literary works.
... There is a lot of work to be done here to clean up the film-theoretical stables from the Left Front
of Art' formalist manure, on the one hand, and from the husks of Russian Association of
Proletarian Writers's bends, on the other. Serious work is to be done here to expose the mistakes
of plotless intellectuals, supporters of "montage of attractions", and so on. ... The leadership of
cinematography must resolutely turn its face to scientific work and help it materially and
organizationally” (Lebedev, 1934: 49).
Literary critic S. Dinamov (1901–1939), in the spirit of a simplified interpretation of the
foundations of socialist realism, argued that “showing a happy life of cheerfulness and confidence
of the builders of socialism is a necessary condition for a good and strong plot on the topics of our
reality. This raises the question of the ending. We do not need the false and false "happy ending" of
contemporary bourgeois writings. Of course, there are catastrophes, failures, difficulties, personal
hardships, but the future belongs only to the working class. ... We need plot art, in which the depth
of ideas, the perfection of form, the relevance of the subject, the artistry of the language would
merge into one with a clear and intense development of the action” (Dinamov, 1934: 8).
And the film critic N. Iezuitov (1899–1941) wrote that “external brilliance, cinematic
pyrotechnics, witty writing will never be able to breathe true entertainment into the film. The true
entertainment of a film can be found only in the dramatic integrity of the work, in the high artistic
unity of the elements that make up the dramaturgy, in ideological tension” (Iezuitov, 1934: 120).
The last issue of Soviet Cinema in 1934 opened with a photo portrait of I. Stalin, and ended
with a portrait of S. Kirov (1886–1934), who was killed on December 1, symbolically marking the
end of another stage in the history of the USSR and the beginning of the era of "great terror".
The first issue of the Soviet Cinema for 1935 was the last in which it was designated as the
organ of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers. Apparently still hoping to maintain
the status quo, K. Yukov once again assured the "party and government" of devotion to the new
course outlined by the Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party
(of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (Resolution ..., 1932),
drawing attention to the fact that “the Soviet film critic must be first and foremost a theoretician of
cinematography. A theoretician not in the sense of the ability to build complex logical formulas, but
a theoretician in the sense of a deep knowledge of the entire practice of cinematic art, the ability to
generalize experience, the ability to disassemble a work of cinematic art in its specific images,
technological manifestations. The Soviet film critic is a type of art theorist who, knowing his job
deeply, must be ahead of the creative processes that are emerging in Soviet cinema art. The Soviet
film critic must be able to foresee hostile tendencies in the development of art and mobilize the
attention of creative forces to eliminate these tendencies” (Yukov, 1935: 13-14).
But it was already too late: it was decided to put an end to the too “left” Association of
Revolutionary Cinematographers (albeit with some delay): in January 1935, at the First All-Union
Conference of Creative Workers of Soviet Cinematography, it was decided to dissolve the
Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers, and already in the second issue of the Soviet
Cinema it was indicated that he became the organ of the Central Committee of the section of
Creative Workers of the Central Committee of the Cinema Union (later – the Central Committee of
the Cinema Union).
In the third issue of Soviet Cinema for 1935, a theoretical article by E. Zilber and I. Krinkin
"Overcoming Empiricism" (Zilber, Krinkin, 1935: 6-10) was published, in which they tried to prove
the need for an ideological struggle not only against formalism, but also naturalism in
cinematography: “The irreconcilable position of socialist realism in relation to naturalism is one of
185
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
its fundamental differences from bourgeois realism, within which naturalism had its firm and
legalized place. The path to the style of socialist realism lies through overcoming the remnants of
capitalism in the minds of people, through overcoming empiricist-naturalistic ideas about reality,
about people s destinies. … The deadly one-sidedness of empiricism is in its straight forwardness
and unambiguity, in the fact that the development of the vicissitudes of individual destiny appears
as a continuous “necessity”, as an exact and only possible replica of the objective course of things.
The result is not a unity of the general and the individual, but an identity, a complete coincidence,
impoverishing both reality and the individual. As a result, not a typical character rich in content is
born ... but an outwardly characterized type (jealous, ambitious), which degrades to a stamp. This
is how the types (and clichés) of the wrecker, the enthusiast, the elderly conscientious worker, etc.,
were born in our time, to which we can now oppose typical individuals: Chapaev, Maxim” (Zilber,
Krinkin, 1935: 7-8).
In his next article, I. Krinkin continued this topic, but in combination with sharp criticism of
“groupism”, “leftism” and “agitprop”, recalling that “at one time, as a reaction to formalism, our
cinematography appeared theory of the so-called agitpropfilm. This theory actually abolished or,
in any case, reduced the role of cinema as an art to a minimum. Representatives of this theory saw
the main task of cinema in popularizing various campaigns by cinema, in filming the political
slogans of the day. Along with this theory, the ideas of the Left Front of Art were inculcated in the
cinema, who preached an immediate response to any events of the day, requiring a one-day work.
... In the practice of artistic cinematography, these theories were expressed in a deliberate
disregard for form, in a frontal display of any life phenomena, in a schematic opposition of
“positive” and “negative”. This is how the images of "100 %" virtues and "100 %" villains were born.
... The resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist party of April 23, 1932 put an end to
both the theory and practice of "propaganda". But echoes of it are heard in many movies. …
The main trouble with this kind of movies is that they contain extremely few observations of life
and even fewer thoughts about what is being observed. They skim the surface of phenomena”
(Krinkin, 1936: 17).
But, of course, the journal did not forget the criticism of formalism in cinema and film
studies. So A. Mikhailov argued that “the few works on general issues of cinematography that
appeared in previous years were largely created under the sign of formalism. Whether we take the
collection of Leningrad art historians “The Poetics of Cinema” (1927) and Kuleshov s book “The Art
of Cinema”, or turn to Western publications, we can equally establish their dependence on the
formalist school of art theory. A characteristic feature of these works was the desire to consider
cinema only from the point of view of its formal methods, ignoring its ideological and cognitive
significance. The doctrine of montage as the essence of cinema and the subordination of content to
montage, the doctrine of “estrangement”, of a special perspective on the presentation of material as
the main task of the director, the consideration of cinema as a new formal artistic language of
gestures and the absolutization of the laws of silent cinema (hence the struggle of formalists against
sound cinema and in particular against the word in the film), the denial of the role of the plot,
the plot in the film – all this was unusually characteristic of the Formalists” (Mikhailov, 1935: 34-35).
A. Mikhailov also criticized the theoretical concepts of B. Balázs (Balázs, 1935), emphasizing
that his “philosophical basis lies, first of all, in the fact that he considers art not as a reflection of
the real world, processed by the creative consciousness of the artist, but as an organization really
unorganized by the categories of art form. In other words, he stands on this issue not on the
positions of Marxism, but on the positions of the formal sociological school and the subjective
"organizational theory". ... The theory of cinema ... must rise to the level of a new stage of practice
and get rid of the tendencies of formalism” (Mikhailov, 1935: 46-50).
At the same time, A. Mikhailov generally assessed the work of B. Balázs, rather positively:
“Bela Balázs is undoubtedly one of the most interesting theorists and critics of cinema. Saturated
with great material, replete with sharp characteristics of films, inquisitively seeking knowledge of
the essence and methods of cinema, his works, for all their mistakes, were a significant and positive
contribution to the creation of the science of cinematography. Let's hope that in the future this
contribution from the point of view of Marxist aesthetics and the history of cinema will turn out to
be even more significant and indisputable” (Mikhailov, 1935: 50).
In one of the following issues of the journal, B. Balázs published a theoretical article entitled
"An answer to my critics" (Balázs, 1936: 39-45), where, admitting his mistakes, he resolutely
dissociated himself from the reproaches of formalism that were very dangerous for him: “My the
186
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
point of view is directed against the formalism of the Avangard, against the subjectivism of the
surrealists, against the bourgeois realism of trifles, and entirely for the socialist realism of Soviet
arts. If it seemed to some of my critics that they found unconscious elements of formalism or
subjectivism in some of the formulations of the book, then one could still argue with them. But if it
is coolly asserted that the whole book is a polemical (hence conscious) program and declaration of
the former Formalist group and therefore not needed, then this is more than a mistake. …
The main mistake of my book [“The Spirit of Film”] is its too aphoristic style. It gives rise to
misunderstood formulations, insufficiently clear-cut conclusions, which therefore seem
unconvincing and unsystematic. … Having lost the scientific style, my work has lost scientific
precision, the power of persuasiveness” (Balázs, 1936: 40-42).
At the same time, B. Balázs wrote that “on the whole, a detailed and conscientious article by
Comrade Mikhailov (Mikhailov, 1935) put me at ease. I realized that the essential errors of the
book did not stem from thoughts, but from imprecise formulations and partly from a wrong
perspective, the result of my preoccupation with the problem of form. But I think that because of
this I should not be enrolled as a formalist. We must not forget that form and style remain
important elements in socialist realism as well. To reveal their real function is the task of my next
theoretical work. But they should not only have meaning for the theorist, they should also give
impetus to the artist. They stem from my practice of my art. At a higher level, they must again
become art. … I continue to work and will always be grateful to those comrades who, really working
in the Marxist-Leninist way, will help me with their criticism” (Balázs, 1936: 45).
The film critic I. Weisfeld (1909–2003) (Weisfeld, 1936: 46-51) summed up the discussion on
the theoretical concepts of B. Balázs in the journal, noting that from his statements “the conclusion
naturally arises that socialist realism is a symbolic-abstract art , valuable not by the ideological and
cognitive significance expressed in images, but by the semantic-metaphorical, propaganda-poster
load of each individual frame. … While arguing with the Symbolists and citing a number of
indisputable thoughts about socialist realism, Balazs nevertheless ultimately asserts principles that
are far from socialist realism” (Weisfeld, 1936: 50).
Further, I. Weisfeld recalled that “formalism saw in art only a hieroglyph, a symbol, a sign,
“an attitude to the method of expression”, and not a living knowledge of reality in vivid images.
Here are the roots of the theory of type and expressive material, and the negation of the actor
associated with this; hence the exaltation of montage as the alpha and omega of cinema; definition
of the plot as motivation for the reception; the fetishization of technological-handicraft techniques
as the root cause of the style and figurative structure of cinema; the canonization of silent cinema
and the rejection of sound, color, stereoscopic. All these foundations of “shaping” turned out to be
wrong and harmful. But the traditions of formalism still live on among creative workers. They find
their reflection, as we see, in cinema theory. The overcoming of these traditions, the further
development of the Marxist theory of film art remains an urgent task” (Weisfeld, 1936: 50).
However, in the end, I. Weisfeld, on the whole, positively assessed the work of B. Balázs:
“In an article about criticizing “The Spirit of Film”, Balázs clarifies his true positions and admits a
number of erroneous provisions in his book (for example, an uncritical attitude towards intellectual
cinema). The reason why we once again stopped at an analysis of a number of errors in The Spirit
of Film is that Balázs does not criticize his errors decisively and consistently enough and strives to
explain too much by the "aphoristic" style of literary presentation. The point is not at all to create
some new scheme of interaction between form and content in art, as Balázs is trying to do.
No wonder his scheme strongly smacks of scholasticism. It is much more important to establish the
true errors arising from the underestimation of the figurative-cognitive essence of art in order to
get rid of them more quickly. All criticism unanimously noted the significance and interest of
“The Spirit of Film”, the sharp powers of observation of its author, and Balázs’s noticeable desire to
free himself from the traditions and errors of the formalist persuasion. But Balázs is characterized by
another feature, which is important for a researcher, for a Marxist. Balázs knows and, most
importantly, loves the art of cinema, seeks to strengthen its authority, to promote the development of
the style of socialist realism. This distinguishes Balázs from many Formalist theorists who treat
cinema in an artisanal way, with false objectivism and skepticism. This is once again encouraging
that Balázs will create the work that Marxist-Leninist theory expects from him” (Weisfeld, 1936: 51).
In January 1936, the Soviet Cinema journal, unexpectedly for many, was renamed Cinema
Art. O. Kovalov believes that this renaming was due to the fact that “the authorities gradually took
a course towards“ sovereignty ”and nationalism, which at first camouflaged under“ people ”and
187
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
loyalty to traditions – the Soviet “avant-garde” with its spiritual cosmos, the cult of individualism
and internationalism was she has nothing to do. The convulsive change of names seems to reflect
the instability of the time in which the magazine began to live – the transition from the relative
freedom of the 1920s to the stronghold of the totalitarian system” (Kovalov, 2009).
Let's not forget that in the same January 1936, in the editorial of the Pravda newspaper
entitled "Muddle instead of music" (Confusion ..., 1936), D. Shostakovich's opera Lady Macbeth of
the Mtsensk District was sharply criticized, in which a course was clearly set on classical examples
of art, and not on artistic experiments.
In 1936, the Cinema Art became an organ of the Main Directorate of the Film and Photo Film
Industry of the All-Union Committee for Arts under the Council of People's Commissars of the
USSR and, therefore, for many years acquired not an “association-public”, but directly state status.
In this regard, the editor of Cinema Art K. Yukov (1902–1938) published an article in which
he “shot” at several targets at once (on the Left Front, formalism and naturalism in art and
cinema): “In the struggle for the place of cinema among the arts, the first theoreticians of cinema
tried in every possible way to flaunt all the advantages of cinema, stroke it, lubricate it, keep silent
about its weaknesses. In different voices, they sang the incomparable possibilities and advantages
of cinema. Formalism in cinema saw a mechanical means of fabricating art. Left Front saw cinema
as a means of factography of reality. Naturalists and artisans of art saw in cinema the means of the
easiest and outwardly complete reflection of reality. The imaginary lightness and simplicity of
"work" in cinematography turned many heads. As a result, statements harmful to art have arisen
that cinema does not need dramaturgy. The principle of shooting a picture without a script was
proclaimed as a virtue and feature of the new revolutionary art. The theory of making films without
an actor was asserted. The type replaced the actor, the actor turned into a type” (Yukov, 1936: 32).
However, further K. Yukov undoubtedly made a significant, from the point of view of
canonical socialist realism, ideological mistake, recklessly approving the publication on the pages
of the Cinema Art of an article (Zilver, 1936: 12-15), positively evaluating the script by
A. Rzheshevsky (1903–1967) Bezhin Meadow. According to this scenario, in 1935 S. Eisenstein
staged a film of the same name, which on November 25 of the same year was sharply criticized by
the Main Directorate of the Film and Photo Industry. But officially in 1936, Bezhin Meadow was
not yet banned (it happened in 1937), so a sharp blow to this film and an article about it was dealt
the following year, when screenwriter and film critic N. Otten (1907–1983) reacted very negatively
to the position of E. Zilver, “glorifying the script by A. Rzheshevsky Bezhin Meadow and trying to
reinforce the “theory” of the “emotional scenario” on a new basis and with new terminology (Otten:
1937: 30).
The most significant theoretical article in the Cinema Art in 1936 was the work of
screenwriter and film critic N. Turkin (1887–1958) "Fabula and Characters" (Turkin, 1936: 37-52).
It was practically out of ideology and did not contain an iota of "exposure" that was fashionable at
that time. N. Turkin argued that “the driving force behind the events that make up the plot is a
contradiction, a discrepancy between some interests, feelings, outlook on life, political ideals, etc.
other interests, feelings, dominant morality, way of life, social order, political system, etc. – at the
same time, a contradiction, reaching a conflict (collision), that is, a collision of contradictory acting
forces. The development of such a contradiction or conflict in a dramatic struggle, in a progressive
series of events, constitutes the event content of a dramatic work, its plot, its single action. Thus,
the plot of a dramatic work (hence, a film play) is a single and complete action, representing the
development of a conflict about a dramatic struggle – in a series of successive events – from an
event that starts this struggle to an event that ends it in a happy or tragic way” (Turkin, 1936: 37).
Further, he reasonably argued that “the images of people (characters, characters of the play)
are called characters in dramaturgy. Without a full-fledged, vivid depiction of characters, there can
be no significant dramatic work. ... Thus, when creating a character, it is always important to
determine: 1) what a person does (what he wants, what decisions he makes, what he implements);
2) how he does it (deliberately or impulsively, hesitantly or resolutely, enthusiastically or
indifferently, cheerfully or grumblingly, etc., etc.); 3) how he differs from other characters in the
play – in what he does and how he does it (a matter of clearly distinguishing characters, opposing
them to each other)”(Turkin, 1936: 44).
From the typology of character characters, N. Turkin extended a thread to the genre system
of a work of art, since “a particular method of characterization is usually associated with certain
genres, is their feature. Ready-made simple images, sometimes very schematic, built on one line,
188
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
are characteristic of comedy ..., for melodrama (“drama of positions”), for adventurous drama.
Complex images characterize realistic drama and realistic comedy of manners. Of course,
the boundaries between genres are very often extremely conditional, therefore it is not only
conceivable, but also happens in practice, that the images, for example, of an adventurous drama
are psychologically complex (let us recall the complex images of Dostoevsky's "detective" novels);
or melodrama (“drama of positions”), enriching its images with vivid realistic details, perhaps only
with a brighter and more spectacular event fabric will differ from strict realistic drama” (Turkin,
1936: 52).
However, the film critic and screenwriter N. Klado (1909–1990), in his theoretical article
“Around the Plot” (Klado, 1936: 40-46), reminded readers that the basis of “every film work is the
script. Errors in his design often determine the failure of the picture. The call to build a plot on the
principle of theatrical dramaturgy is wrong. Cinematography has its own means of expression.
The basic principles of the composition of movie differ sharply from theatrical dramaturgy,
the possibilities of which are determined in many respects by the stage, etc.” (Klado, 1936: 40).
In August 1936, the trial of the “Anti-Soviet United Trotskyist-Zinoviev Center” took place in
Moscow, the main defendants in which were former rivals and frequent opponents of I. Stalin –
G. Zinoviev (1883–1936) and L. Kamenev (1883–1936), sentenced on August 24 to an exceptional
measure of punishment and literally a few hours after that they were shot.
On January 23-30, 1937, the process of the “Parallel Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center” took place
in Moscow, at which the former prominent Soviet Communist party and government figures were
convicted by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR: N. Muralov (1877–1937),
G. Pyatakov (1890–1937), K. Radek (1885–1939), L. Serebryakov (1888–1937), G. Sokolnikov
(1888–1939) and others. On February 27, 1937, other prominent party and government figures
were arrested: N. Bukharin (1888–1938) and A. Rykov (1881–1938). The former People's
Commissar of Internal Affairs G. Yagoda (1891–1938) was also arrested.
As it turned out a little later, I. Stalin decided not to limit himself to the destruction of the
civilian communist elite, which to one degree or another interfered with his sole unlimited power.
On June 11, 1937, a trial took place on the "Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Military
Organization" against former prominent military leaders of the Red Army: A. Kork (1887–1937),
V. Primakov (1897–1937), V. Putna (1893–1937), M. Tukhachevsky (1893–1937), B. Feldman
(1890-1937), I. Uborevich (1896-1937), R. Eideman (1895–1937), I. Yakir (1896–1937). All of them
were shot on the night of June 12.
If in the late 1920s – early 1930s the victims of the authorities were mainly peasants who
rebelled against collectivization, then in the second half of the 1930s the most resonant blow of
repression fell on the Soviet (and not only the opposition) ruling elite, accompanied by much less
well-known, but much more massive repressions against hundreds of thousands of citizens of the
USSR who occupied less prominent positions.
Among them were many filmmakers. For example, in 1937-1940, many leaders of Mosfilm
and Lenfilm, screenwriters, directors, cameramen, film actors became victims of the Power
(see Appendix).
On October 29, 1937, the newspaper Soviet Art published a devastating article entitled “Clean
up the Mosfilm studio” (Zverina, 1937: 6), the text of which gives an idea of the atmosphere that
prevailed in the era of the “Great Terror”: “Quite recently, the main reason was revealed that the
largest film factory of the Union is not fulfilling its production and artistic plan. It turns out that
the now exposed enemies of the people, including the former director of the studio, were operating
in the studio for a long time, systematically preparing the collapse of this largest film enterprise of
ours. As a result of the ongoing system of wrecking actions, the Mosfilm studio came to the
anniversary year of 1937 in a state close to complete collapse. The pests "planned" the production
of 15 movies a year and stated that this was the limit of the factory's capabilities. But even this
wreckingly low plan has been fulfilled this year by less than half. The leading directors of the
factory were doomed to idleness all this year. … Studio executives screamed heart-rendingly about
script hunger. By this, apparently, they hoped to justify the gigantic "scenario expenses", which
amounted to 744 thousand rubles for 10 months of this year. … 11 million rubles were spent on the
technical reconstruction of the studio. It is easy to imagine the quality of this "reconstruction" if it
was led by the vile wrecker Slivkin. … The activity of Sokolovskaya [she was the director of Mosfilm
in 1937] was frankly aimed at slandering and slandering Soviet reality in films. Sokolovskaya did
not act alone. She relied in her practice on people like Darevsky – a swindler and a clever
189
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
filmmaker. Ignoring the camera staff, Sokolovskaya chose her vile enemy Nielsen as her adviser. …
Such is the sad picture of the current state of the Mosfilm studios. We must resolutely, in a
Bolshevik way, take up clearing and rehabilitating this largest of our film production bases”
(Zverina, 1937: 6).
From this it is quite clear that K. Yukov (1902–1938), editor of the Cinema Art, struggled to
prove (as it turned out soon – unsuccessfully) his devotion to the authorities.
In the second issue of the Cinema Art for 1937, K. Yukov wrote: “Renegades against
Marxism-Leninism, against the heroic Soviet people who have defeated the capitalist system in
their country, against victorious socialism flourishing in the Soviet country, against Lenin's party,
against Lenin's best disciple, best friend and leader of all peoples, Comrade Stalin and his faithful
comrades-in-arms. ... An eclectic mishmash instead of philosophy, empty phraseology instead of
revolutionary theory, a deceitful "spectacular" pose instead of revolutionary actions – this is what
always characterized the enemy of the people – Trotsky at all stages. These features of their
"teacher" were fully accepted by Trotsky's henchmen, the organizers and participants of the anti-
Soviet Trotskyist parallel center Pyatakov, Serebryakov, Sokolnikov, Radek ... – people whose
malicious intent was directed against everything that the socialist country lives and will live in its
historical development. They have lost their humanity. These are vile and poisonous reptiles.
The human is just a mask for them. … They stabbed in the back a country that was successfully
building socialism. But, despite the cunning and deceit, the enemy is caught red-handed, convicted,
exposed. The trial of the counter-revolutionary Trotskyist gang, as well as the fair verdict of the
court that followed, were a call to quickly eliminate the consequences of sabotage and the
misfortunes caused by the enemies of the people. ... The process of the anti-Soviet Trotskyist center
obliges the creative workers of Soviet cinematography to take a closer look at the people around
them. Greater vigilance is needed. Bolshevik vigilance must be imbued with organizational,
creative and scientific work in the cinema. The theme of Bolshevik vigilance should resound in
every image of every work of cinematographic art. ... The creative workers of Soviet
cinematography with even greater perseverance, even greater energy, will create canvases worthy
of a great people, its great party, beloved teacher, leader and friend of Comrade Stalin” (Yukov,
1937: 5-6).
K. Yukov emphasized his complete and unconditional loyalty to the authorities in his
“theoretical” article “The Historical Decision”, published in the fifth issue of the journal Art of
Cinema: “Five years have passed since the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of
Bolsheviks made a historic decision to restructure the literary and artistic organizations. Five years
is not only an anniversary date, but such a historical period in the development of Soviet art, when
you need to think again about the meaning and significance of the historical decision of the Party,
test yourself, people and those areas of work that this decision concerns, fully reveal and expose
criminal mistakes and perversions of the party line in the field of art, committed by the Russian
Association of Proletarian Writers and its leaders. The victory of socialism in our country,
the Stalinist Constitution, the growth of socialist culture during the frenzied struggle against
socialism by the Trotskyist-fascist gang of murderers, the German-Japanese mercenaries, reveal in
a new way the meaning and significance of the decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations. The past
five years have shown that in the leadership of the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers there
were not only people who were mistaken, who made frequent mistakes on certain issues in the
development of Soviet literature and art, but also people who were hostile to the party and Soviet
power with all their behavior. ... Instead of fighting for an active study of reality, for showing the
truth of life and concrete reality, the “creative method of dialectical materialism” was put forward,
leading away from these tasks. All this led to the fact that the artistic image, as the main property of
every art, was ignored, reduced by Russian Association of Proletarian Writers's "theoreticians" to
an empty abstract art criticism category. This eclecticism and "theoretical" hodgepodge confused
many artists, knocked them off the right creative path, prevented the creation of bright, sincere,
exciting canvases. Instead of rallying the creative forces around the tasks put forward by the party,
gang action took root. All this led to the historic decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party of Bolsheviks to liquidate the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers.
The influence of the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers and its "theory" also affected
cinematography” (Yukov, 1937: 20).
190
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Further, K. Yukov stressed how harmful “the course to unite in the Russian Association of
Proletarian Writers only representatives of the so-called proletarian cinematography and the so-
called “allies” approaching it turned out to be. ... Instead of expanding its membership, instead of
deepening its political and educational tasks, instead of uniting all the creative forces that stand on
the platform of Soviet power, the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers embarked on the path
of group and circle movement” (Yukov, 1937: 23).
K. Yukov also got it from his predecessor as the editor of the journal: “Sutyrin, being a kind of
“plenipotentiary representative” of the Russian Association of Proletarian Writers in the cinema,
asserted the most harmful theory of political enlightenment film. This "theory", on the one hand,
and formalism, on the other, hindered the creative development of Soviet cinema. Under the
patronage of Sutyrin and under his direct influence, the “theory” of the political enlightenment of
the film not only led to a genre impoverishment of cinema art, but to some extent determined the
working methods of some directors, screenwriters and critics. Often the script was created not
according to the laws of the figurative development of the plot, not on the basis of the creation of
typical characters in typical circumstances, not on the basis of a deep creative study of reality,
but according to given schemes and theses. This characterizes the artistic direction of Sutyrin in the
cinema. Being an opponent of clear organizational forms of work, Sutyrin opposed the director to
the director, declaring the director the leading figure in film production. Sutyrin divided the single
creative process of filmmaking into two processes: creative and technical. The organizational
coherence and unity of the creative team were broken by the gap between the creative and technical
process. Creativity, as the main and leading principle of the entire production process in cinema,
was ignored by Sutyrin. Russian Association of Proletarian Writers did not discern in this whole
line a tendency harmful to cinematography as an art, and was unable to offer decisive resistance to
this whole line” (Yukov, 1937: 23).
It would seem that after such a defeat and taking into account the general situation in the
country, V. Sutyrin was waiting for an inevitable arrest, but in reality it turned out differently.
V. Sutyrin – with all the vicissitudes of his fate – lived until 1985. But K. Yukov was arrested on
February 3, 1938 on charges of participating in a counter-revolutionary organization and sentenced
to death, which took place on November 7 of the same year. The authorities at that time did not spare
the "waste material": a similar "execution" fate, as you know, befell, for example, the former People's
Commissars of Internal Affairs of the USSR G. Yagoda (1891–1938) and N. Yezhov (1895–1940), for
the time being until the time they ruthlessly performed the repressive functions of the state.
In 1937, in connection with the prohibition of the film Bezhin Meadow, a serious threat hung
over its authors: screenwriter A. Rzheshevsky (1903–1967) and director S. Eisenstein (1898–1948).
And here the editors of the journal Cinema Art (still under the leadership of K. Yukov)
showed a complete understanding of the position of the authorities.
In the fifth issue of the journal Art of Cinema, an article was published by screenwriter and
film critic N. Otten (1907–1983), where he lamented with ostentatious regret: “We have to return
once again to the “theory” and practice of the “emotional script.” It seemed that the dead end into
which this "theory" led became obvious to everyone. The loud words, the hype raised by the leaders
of this “direction”, were consistently accompanied by the conservation of the works of the
screenwriters of this group or the failure on the screen and the prohibition of films staged
according to their scripts (Ocean, Storm, The Way of Enthusiasts, Very Good Life, Five Dawns,
By the Blue Sea and, finally, Bezhin Meadow). There is an exactly repeating pattern in the fate of
these scenarios, and the history of the two most loud-sounding scenarios by A. Rzheshevsky –
Ocean and Bezhin Meadow, as we will see below, is almost identical. This fate of all the works of
the "emotionalists" without any additional analysis gave the right to the practical conclusion that
the "emotionalists" are creatively fruitless. But along with this, from time to time there were
serious, theoretically substantiated speeches, each of which was a complete defeat of both the
general provisions and the practice of the “emotionalists”. ... the "emotionalists" themselves limited
their functions to the obligation, in the terminology of A. Rzheshevsky, to "emotionally infect" the
director to work on the material. At the same time, the script ceased to exist as a fact of social
significance beyond the indication of the material and the emotion evoked by the material in the
screenwriter. The script became a personal affair of the author and director, understood only by the
two of them, and therefore not subject to anyone's control" (Otten, 1937: 30, 33).
Further, N. Otten emphasized that “the decision to ban the film Bezhin Meadow is very
significant for cinematography. It mobilizes for the elimination of the remnants of the "theory" and
191
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
practice of the "emotional script". Organizationally, this means: firstly, putting into production
only those scenarios that are finished works of art; secondly, the need for an urgent organization of
works on the history and theory of cinema, comprehending the past and thereby eliminating the
possibility of endless “repetitions of the past”; and thirdly, the organization of the public to raise
the quality of the script and to discuss it widely before putting it into production” (Otten, 1937: 35).
If N. Otten sharply criticized screenwriter A. Rzheshevsky, then film critic I. Weisfeld (1909–
2003) in his voluminous theoretical article attacked a much larger figure in Soviet cinema –
S. Eisenstein: “Bezhin Meadow was created in an atmosphere of praise, a responsible film about
the great battles for the socialist remake of the countryside, a film that, in the opinion of its
apologists, was supposed to embody the pinnacle of socialist realism. The cinematic environment,
criticism and film leadership showed in relation to S.M. Eisenstein and A. Rzheshevsky a rare
indifference and superficiality that lulled the vigilant, critical approach to the artist's creative work.
It turned out that S.M. Eisenstein told lies about our collective-farm reality, about the movement of
millions towards socialism under the leadership of the Communist Party. The film does not contain
passionate hatred for the class enemy and genuine love for the hero of collective farm construction,
which inspire the creation of great images. S.M. Eisenstein showed in his film an abstract clash of
good and evil, endowed the class enemy with such features that make him an objectively noble
bearer of his wrong but consistent philosophy, portrayed the goodies in terms of sacrifice. All this
turned the film Bezhin Meadow into someone else's, cold, obviously politically untenable work.
In addition, Eisenstein, who at one time was a standard-bearer in the struggle for Soviet art, whose
films not only overthrew the traditions of Khanzhonkov's cinematography, but also affirmed the
principles of the new art born of the October Revolution, in Bezhin Meadow demonstrated a
regression in relation to the means of artistic influence by which he operates, and in combination
with the ideological content of things and anti-artism" (Weisfeld, 1937: 25).
Having thus demonstrated his complete adherence to the point of view of the Power,
I. Weisfeld further reminded the readers of the journal Cinema Art that “Eisenstein, as a director,
is distinguished by the fact that he always theoretically comprehends his actions, that in his work
he acts as an art historian, critic, who not only stages the film, but also checks the great art history
positions that arise in the course of his theoretical work. Eisenstein the director and Eisenstein the
theoretician are inseparable. We know that Eisenstein created October and Old and New on the
basis of an outdated incorrect theory of intellectual cinema. And having become convinced of the
failures of these films, Eisenstein was also convinced of the fallacy of his theory, which he now
condemns with the stern verdict of a theoretician who has realized the falsity of his initial positions.
Now the question arises, did Eisenstein accidentally break away from reality, from the living life of
socialist society, or did he, as a theoretician, create for himself some kind of illusion, some kind of
philosophical mirage that determined his wrong approach to making a film? (Weisfeld, 1937: 26).
Arguing with S. Eisenstein, who was disgraced at that time, I. Weisfeld emphasized that “the
theory of intellectual cinema was based on the denial of figurativeness and imagery, on ignoring the
sphere of living human experiences, which were replaced by a productive set of editing
combinations that arose after shooting on the editing table, outside and regardless of the scenario.
This theory inevitably entailed not only a denial of the emotionality of artistic creativity and a work
of art, but also devalued their ideological content, political tendentiousness, and a clear semantic
orientation. Now Eisenstein, apparently, realized this, although he recognized intellectual cinema
as a “one-sided theory”, which, with one side of its own, can continue to positively influence the
creative process, just like, say, in his opinion, poetics that arose from detective stories works of
Fenimore Cooper, influenced writers such as Balzac, Hugo and Eugène Sue. Despite these
unsuccessful attempts to justify to some extent the vitality of the theory of intellectual cinema in
our day, it remains a theory that is incorrect, erroneous, and in its decisive points rejected by its
author” (Weisfeld, 1937: 26).
At the end of his article, I. Weisfeld gave a kind of communist recommendations/instructions
to the famous director: “The work of socialist realism arises not on the basis of a contemplative
acquaintance with the facts of reality, but as a result of the active participation of the artist in
building a socialist society. This combat function of the artist in the Soviet country contains the
source of the great wisdom of his works, artistic expressiveness and that emotional strength that
rests on hatred for the enemy, on love for his homeland, for his party. Eisenstein's theoretical
scheme, which ignores reality, contradicts the true nature of artistic creativity. ... If Eisenstein
wants to honestly and completely draw lessons from the failure of Bezhin Meadow, he must first of
192
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
all reconsider his theoretical views, understand the viciousness of these views set forth in the
program of the directing department, where an extremely insignificant place is occupied by the
problem of the image is the decisive and central problem of art. … The prohibition of Bezhin
Meadow, just like Bogatyrs, politically untenable and anti-artistic works, poses the problem of
completely destroying and uprooting all remnants of formalism in artistic practice and theory. ...
And since Eisenstein's "theory" is one of the sources of the failure of the production of Bezhin
Meadow, Soviet art criticism and criticism, Eisenstein himself is obliged to expose it to the end in a
combative way. ... Eisenstein will only then be able to truly reorganize if, in his next work, he shows
the victories of the Bolshevik Party, its Leninist-Stalinist cadres over all the forces of the old
society, and if this work is not carried out on the basis of "his" philosophical concept, excluding the
figurative expression of a living reality, but on the basis of a truly partisan understanding of art,
its combat role in the struggle for communism" (Weisfeld, 1937: 27-28).
One of the most active authors of the journal Cinema Art, S. Eisenstein, undoubtedly read
this article, and, perhaps quite logically, suggested that this was not just criticism, but a signal for
“taking the most stringent measures”, with which 1937 was so rich ... But, most likely, the
legendary Battleship Potemkin, which by that time had become the banner of revolutionary
cinema, became the director’s “protective certificate” in this case ...
However, the attack on S. Eisenstein continued further: in the seventh issue of the journal
Cinema Art, the film critic G. Avenarius (1903–1958) took up arms against S. Eisenstein’s
theoretical views, arguing that “Eisenstein developed his theory, however, not on the basis of study
of concrete reality, but in complete isolation from it. Therefore, all the formulations and provisions
that he came up with could not give him the power of orientation and understanding of the internal
connection of the surrounding events. Theorizing, Eisenstein did not at all seek to know the
objective regularity of creative processes, moreover, very often he needed methodological
calculations to explain, approve and motivate his own formalistic creative practice, in order, as he
himself said, to “give clarity to the formal arbitrariness of the ideological formulation”.
(In addition, both in his articles and in the program of his course read at Institute of
Cinematography, Eisenstein extremely uncritically used a number of modern “fashionable”
theories and theories (Freudianism, Husserlianism, the philosophy of Bergson, etc.). As a result,
contradictory theoretical positions and fragments of “fashionable” border of theories
predetermined the political failure of his last film. Eisenstein the theoretician carried away the
master Eisenstein. This is the great tragedy of the creative path of this undoubtedly very talented
artist” (Avenarius, 1937: 40).
According to G. Avenarius, “Eisenstein understood the image not as a result of a complex
process of cognition and reproduction of reality, but as a result of subjective selection, as a result of
influencing frames and their comparison of some kind of “cinematic” conditions. ... Eisenstein s
contradictory statements on various issues of the theory of the frame, arising on the basis of a
confused, eclectic philosophical concept of it – statements that evolve from recognizing the frame
as a "montage cell" to the assertion that "the frame as such does not exist at all", do not lead him to
the correct one, dialectical understanding of the film frame, which, of course, cannot but affect his
own theory of framing (i.e., montage proper)” (Avenarius, 1937: 42-43).
Further, following N. Otten and I. Weisfeld, G. Avenarius sharply criticized the banned
Bezhin Meadow, while supporting the “correct” socialist realist films: “From the point of view of
Eisenstein, the best episodes of Chapaev and The Baltic Deputy should be considered primitive,
and the episode of "gods" in October, the episode of "wedding" in Old and New, the episode of
"destruction of the church" in Bezhin Meadow – edited "truly associative combinations" ... All this
abstruse philosophy of editing, built by Eisenstein , is an eclectic mixture of various terry idealistic
theories. Eisenstein's montage theory is undeniably politically harmful and fallacious. This theory
was the basis of his work on the script of Rzheshevsky's Bezhin Meadow. Guided by this theory,
Eisenstein distorted the images of the people of our homeland, drawing colors for their image not
from modern reality, but from mythology (Pan, Baba Yaga) and the Bible (Samson, a youth). Soviet
cinematography now faces a serious and urgent task — to create a truly scientific theory of montage
on the basis of an analysis of the best Soviet realistic films” (Avenarius, 1937: 47).
Against this background, criticism of the theoretical views of the writer and screenwriter
V. Volkenstein (1883–1974) and his book “Dramaturgy of Cinema” (Volkenstein, 1937) in an article
by film critic S. Ginzburg (1907–1974) seems to be quite moderate: “The desire to create a new
cinematic terminology based on theatrical terminology is a very big drawback of V. Volkenstein.
193
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
By comparing the dramaturgy of the theater with the dramaturgy of the cinema, one cannot
establish all the richness and all the specific visual possibilities of each of these arts. V. Volkenstein
completely discards the basic cinematographic concepts. As we have already pointed out,
he refused to consider the frame as an element of dramaturgy. Later in his book, when speaking
about the composition and elements of the composition of a cinematographic work, about the
construction of a plot, Wolkenstein in every possible way bypasses another, no less important
concept of cinematic theory – he does not say a single word about montage. And after all, montage
is a specific form of constructing the plot of a cinematographic work unfamiliar to the theater”
(Ginzburg, 1937: 59).
The most distanced article from the ideological conjuncture in the Cinema Art in 1937 was
the work of the film critic and writer B. Balázs “On the problem of cinema style” (Balázs, 1937:
33-36). B. Balázs first gave an original definition of the key term of his article, arguing that “style is
that special character of works of art, which reflects the individuality of the artist, class, nation and
historical era. And all these features are reflected synthetically as a single style in each individual
work of art, i.e. every work of art simultaneously expresses the style of the artist, the style of his
class, the style of his nation and his era. At the same time, it is important to note that each work of
art (if it only deserves this name) has its own style, in which its content is formally expressed. There
is no such work of art in which the character of the artist, the ideology of his class, the peculiarities
of his nation and era would not receive a more or less distinct (if not even immediate) formal
expression. It is important to note that this style may not arise on the basis of preliminary
theoretical considerations and even in most cases arises independently from them and is often
investigated theoretically only “in hindsight”, as a fact” (Balázs, 1937: 33). And then he made a
relevant conclusion to this day that “1) style and stylization are different principles of figurative
transmission, but they can pass into each other; 2) stylization and realism in art are not mutually
exclusive. An artist can stylize very strongly and still be a realist; 3) "natural" is not the same as
"naturalistic". Consequently, this is not an almost unformed copy of reality, but only a certain
similarity in the image; 4) naturalness and stylization are two different artistic principles that can
be combined in the same work of art. But the more stylized the work of art, the less natural it is”
(Balázs, 1937: 34).
The first issue of the Cinema Art was ready for the print at January 1938. However, the real
publication of this journal was delayed until 3 March, 1938.
During this time, the following events took place: on January 9, the Pravda newspaper
published an article entitled “What hinders the development of Soviet cinema” (Ermolaev, 1938:
4), on January 18, Boris Shumyatsky (1886–1938), head of the Main Directorate of
Cinematography, was arrested (he was shot five months later – 29.07.1938), on February 3,
K. Yukov (1902–1938), the former editor-in-chief of the Soviet Cinema and Cinema Art were
arrested (a number of filmmakers were also shot a little later) (see Appendix).
It is clear that the January article in Pravda, which mercilessly accused the leadership of the
cinematography of crimes, could not have appeared without the knowledge of the authorities. Here
are just the main excerpts from its text: “...the work of the film industry continues to be extremely
unsatisfactory and causes fair sharp criticism from our public. The plan for the release of films
from year to year is not fulfilled. ... The leadership of the cinematography management is not
waging any struggle against the corruption that has taken on unprecedented proportions. ... It is
absolutely shameful that the leadership of the cinematography management in the person of
Comrade Shumyatsky brought cinematography to such a state that there are almost no feature
films on the Soviet screen on such important topics vital to the country as the modern Red Army,
the Stakhanov movement, socialist construction in the national republics, the Soviet woman,
youth. ... A situation has arisen when there are ready-made scripts, unloaded studios, inactive
directors, and the plan is not being fulfilled, and the viewer does not receive new films in the
required quantity and on relevant topics. … These results clearly show that B. Shumyatsky, head of
the State cinematography management, was captured by the wreckers who made their way to the
leadership of cinematography. … Soviet cinematography can work better and produce many more
pictures than it can now. We need a radical restructuring of the entire system of work,
the immediate elimination of all the consequences of sabotage, which has taken deep roots in film
organizations” (Ermolaev, 1938: 4).
The new management of the journal Cinema Art responded to these events with an editorial
article, “Tasks of the Journal” (Tasks..., 1938: 12), in which they accused both the top of Soviet
194
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
cinematography and the editorial course of the publication under the direction of N. Yukov (1902–
1938) of wrecking activities.
The article “The Tasks of the Journal” informed readers that “the exposed wrecking
leadership of the State cinematography management did a lot to slow down the development of
Soviet cinema. Along with the fraudulent projects of "Soviet Hollywood", it propagated the theory
of "the limits of the capacity of the existing production base, artificially lowered production plans
and put the masters of Soviet cinema in such conditions that even this underestimated program
was not carried out; it fought in every possible way against the creation of a healthy creative
environment and in every possible way planted unprincipled groupism, sycophancy and
protectionism; it wiped out young creative cadres; it destroyed screenwriting to such an extent that
a screenwriting "hunger" was artificially created, and our best screenwriters were forced to move to
work in other areas of artistic creativity; it suppressed any healthy criticism, opposing it with its
group assessments of the creativity of individual masters and specific works. In theory, it cultivated
bourgeois restorationism.
How did our cinematographic press, and in particular the Cinema Art, fight these hostile
influences? I must answer honestly and directly: The journal didn’t fight enough, fought badly.
The film press, and in particular the Cinema Art, cannot boast that it helped to expose sabotage in
Soviet cinema, that it exposed bourgeois theories openly and brazenly promoted by B. Shumyatsky
and his associates, that it helped to improve the creative environment, that she fought for the
Bolshevik organization of film production. The Cinema Art preferred to keep silent than to evaluate
the numerous books of B. Shumyatsky, in which he openly preached his bourgeois theories. ...
The journal has moved away from these immediate political tasks and preferred to them the often
toothless and belated review of individual films. The journal struggled insufficiently and badly for
the improvement of film production – and this is another and very significant shortcoming of the
journal. Cinematography is not only an art, but also a complex and highly specialized production.
It is unthinkable to solve a single creative task of Soviet cinema in isolation from production tasks.
And the system of a sharp separation of the creative and production process, the system of a kind of
“functionality”, carried out by B. Shumyatsky both in his “theoretical” speeches, and in practice,
was actually promoted by the journal, which almost abandoned the setting of production tasks.
These were the log errors. Poor "academicism", detachment from the urgent tasks of Soviet
cinematography and fear of sensitive issues led to the fact that the journal was deprived of
Bolshevik passion, became apolitical, toothless, passed by the most acute political tasks and
naturally broke away from the cinematographic community and did not have sufficient authority”
(Tasks …, 1938: 12).
After such sharp criticism and self-criticism, the editors emphasized that “this year the
journal faces the most important task of resolutely restructuring all its work. Of course, the Cinema
Art should by no means renounce the deep development of theoretical and creative problems. But
precisely this deep development is possible only if they are studied in their entirety in connection
with the solution of production problems. The journal must ruthlessly combat bourgeois
restorationism in cinematic theory, resolutely expose the attempts to propagate bourgeois and
bourgeois-nationalist views that took place in individual films and scripts. Relying in its work on
the active workers of cinema, the journal must fight for the Bolshevik order in film production, for
the final defeat of the limiters, for a sharp increase in the release of new films, for the complete
mastery of cinematographic technology. The journal should fight for the Stakhanovist movement in
cinematography, widely popularizing the successes we have of individual film crews (for example,
work on the film Lenin in October). The journal must fight for the improvement of the creative
environment and the wide promotion of new young cadres, both for creative work and for
production, technical and organizational work. The journal should rally all workers of Soviet
cinematography around the task set before it by Comrade Stalin of creating new films that “glorify,
like Chapaev, the greatness of the historical deeds of the struggle for power of the workers and
peasants of the Soviet Union, mobilize them to fulfill new tasks and remind both of achievements
and of difficulties of socialist construction”(Stalin)” (Tasks…, 1938: 12).
This editorial article was supplemented by the article "On the 'limits' and possibilities of
Soviet cinematography", which noted that "from year to year, Soviet cinematography has not
fulfilled its production plans for the release of films, despite the fact that these plans, undoubtedly,
were underestimated by the State cinematography management and far from did not exhaust the
production capacity of the studios. But even the understated plans still turned out to be
195
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
"overwhelming" for the State cinematography management. ... The disclosure of sabotage in
cinematography really suggests that the main goal of the saboteurs who made their way into Soviet
film organizations and in particular into the central apparatus of the State cinematography
management was precisely to reduce the number of Soviet films and thereby undermine the role
and significance of our cinema both at home and abroad” (Dubrovsky, 1938: 23).
Cinema Art published and the Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR
"On improving the organization of the production of motion pictures" dated March 23, 1938
(Resolution..., 1938: 7-8), which stated that “in the organization of the production of feature films,
there are major shortcomings leading to systematic non-fulfillment of the film release program,
mismanagement, squandering of public funds, the production of a large number of defects, the rise
in cost and delay in the production of films” (Resolution..., 1938: 7), and therefore it is necessary
“to limit the functions of directors according to scripts mainly to the development of directorial
scripts . Film studios should start releasing directors from their unusual functions as screenwriters
and switching them to work in their specialty. ... to compact the working day in film studios, with
the loading of pavilions in three shifts, using the 3rd shift to install the scenery” (Resolution...,
1938: 8).
But the main event in the USSR in the first quarter of 1938, of course, was the trial of the
anti-Soviet "bloc of Rights and Trotskyism" held on March 2-13, conducted by the Military
Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR. The main defendants in this case were former
prominent party and government figures: N. Bukharin (1888–1938), A. Rykov (1881–1938),
N. Krestinsky (1883–1938), H. Rakovsky (1873–1941), former People's Commissar Internal Affairs
G. Yagoda (1891–1938) and others. Almost all of them were shot.
The editors of the Cinema Art journal, like practically the rest of the Soviet press, responded
to this process with an angry editorial titled “The Fascist Reptile Destroyed”: “With a feeling of
immeasurable anger, the peoples of the Soviet country and the working people of the whole world
learned about the monstrous and disgusting crimes of the eternally damned, a bloodthirsty gang of
conspirators, fascist dogs – Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, Yagoda and their henchmen, plotting to turn
back the history of mankind, take away from the 170 million Soviet people all their conquests,
a happy, prosperous and joyful life and give it to be torn to pieces by capitalists and fascist bandits.
Having absolutely no grounds for counter-revolutionary anti-Soviet activities in our country, these
bastards from the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”, who are in the service of foreign intelligence
services – the Gestapo, Intelligence Service, etc., carried out the will of the latter, prepared
sabotage, espionage, wrecking and by terrorist acts, the overthrow of the Soviet system and the
dismemberment of the great and mighty Soviet Union, setting itself the goal of wresting Ukraine,
Primorye, Belarus, the Central Asian republics, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan from the USSR in
favor of the fascist states, and restoring capitalism in our country. Their atrocities are monstrous
and unheard of. The heart beats faster, the fists clench when you read the indictment and the
testimony of the bandits at the trial.
It was they – the chief bandits from the fascist gang – Trotsky, Bukharin and their company
back in the spring of 1918, together with the "left" and right Socialist revolutionaries, organized a
secret conspiracy to overthrow the Soviet government, arrest and kill V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin and
J.M. Sverdlov – the closest, dearest and most beloved leaders of our people and all working people.
On August 30, 1918, they organized the villainous attempt on the life of V.I. Lenin. ... It was they –
these fascist spies, bandits and murderers Trotsky, Bukharin, Rykov, Yagoda and other participants
in the anti-Soviet conspiracy – who killed the favorites of the people S.M. Kirov, V.R. Menzhinsky,
V.V. Kuibyshev and A.M. Gorky. They killed the beloved son of A.M. Gorky M.A. Peshkov. It was
they, these vile vile dogs from the “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites”, beasts in which there is nothing
human, who organized and prepared the murder of our wise, great and beloved I.V. Stalin and his
best associates V.M. Molotov, K.E. Voroshilov, L.M. Kaganovich, N.I. Yezhov and others. A shiver
runs through the body when you learn about the insidious, terrible and gravest crimes that these
bandits committed together with the tsarist guards, provocateurs, "Left" and Right Socialist-
Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and bourgeois nationalists. ... But their insidious plans failed, they
failed to enslave the free Soviet people. Our glorious intelligence, led by the faithful son of the
people, the best Stalinist – N.I. Yezhov, uncovered this conspiratorial gang in a timely manner and
presented it to Soviet people's justice in all their bestial guise. The Supreme Court fulfilled the will
of the 170 million people – the fascist gang was wiped off the face of a happy, joyful Soviet land.
The same fate will befall all those who will still try to sharpen their swords against our mighty
196
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
socialist motherland. The defeat of the Trotsky-Bukharin-Rykov fascist gang is the greatest victory
of our people, of our great party of Lenin and Stalin. It mobilizes us again and again to increase
Bolshevik vigilance, to master Bolshevism, to the final uprooting and extermination of all enemies
of socialism, under whatever guise they hide. Having wiped out a gang of fascist reptiles from the
face of the earth, the Soviet people, rallied around the great, invincible party of Lenin-Stalin,
around their beloved leader and teacher Comrade Stalin, confidently and firmly continue their
glorious path of struggle and victories – forward and forward to communism!(Fascist…, 1938: 5-6).
At the same time, in 1938, the Cinema Art published articles more familiar to its specialized
status.
S. Yutkevich (1904–1985) once again spoke out in support of social realism, emphasizing that
“if directorial cinematography created only individual works, then the task of cinematography at a
new stage is to create such a base for a broad realistic style that would allow pictures to be counted
not by units, but dozens, which would create a school of Soviet cinema, a school of art of socialist
realism. This requires both creative disputes, and the reorganization of production, and much
greater attention to theoretical issues, and, finally, an obligatory critical study of the historical
heritage. Disregard for theory has affected us in a kind of nihilism with which we approach
everything that has been done in the history of world cinematography. ... The real creativity of the
director, from my point of view, is not in inventing staged effects, it can be realized and tested only
at a live meeting with the actors. The most difficult thing is here, in this room, without scenery or
any other effects, just to set up a stage” (Yutkevich, 1938: 50, 56).
S. Yutkevich was echoed by S. Gerasimov (1906–1985): “Now the director’s task is to find
ways to create a large acting team in the cinema, such a team that could fully satisfy the lawfully
grown demands of our art, help our Soviet film actor take a leading place in world cinema.
The Soviet film actor must concentrate in himself, with the nobility and clarity of the task, such a
wealth of performing qualities, such a versatility of the pictorial scale, that any actor of the West,
who to this day captivates us with the ease of acting and the elegance of the drawing, would recede
into second place. … the education of an actor not from the outside, but from the inside has become
the main principle of all our work. The theory of photogenicity has logically fallen away, the theory
that held back, deadened, entangled cinematography. The actor becomes freer, and there is no
need to be limited by what has been achieved, because realism is unlimited from our point of view,
it provides unlimited possibilities”(Gerasimov, 1938: 47, 52).
Film expert N. Klado (1909–1990) wrote approvingly that “The Government Resolution puts
creative workers of cinematography in the places characteristic of their profession. Long dispute
resolved. The film director will direct the films, and the film writers will write the scripts. There is
no diminution of the director's rights in this. This does not mean that all directors have written bad
scripts. On the contrary, many beautiful films were created according to scripts written by
directors. It only means that people who consider directing their calling, who have chosen this
particular path of life, should receive opportunities for maximum creative disclosure in this
particular profession. This means that the director must be so busy with work in his main specialty
that he will have no time to write a script, just as a screenwriter should have no time to stage films.
The ruling does not deny the authorial participation of the director in the creation of the film, but
this participation is limited to the directing work itself” (Klado, 1938: 53).
However, the most significant theoretical work published in the journal Cinema Art in 1938
was an article by screenwriter and film critic V. Turkin (1887-1958), practically devoid of
ideologization, entitled “On the Film Plot and Screenplay” (Turkin, 1938: 28-31).
In it, V. Turkin, in our opinion, reasonably emphasized that “the plot for cinema in terms of
its volume and structure is closest to a dramatic short story and a theatrical play. It should be based
on a dramatic conflict that is serious enough in its content and tense enough in terms of the degree
of its expression. This conflict should be revealed primarily in the behavior, in the actions of the
actors. But there is a rather significant difference between stage action and cinematographic action.
In cinema, thanks to its technique of close-up photography, the possibilities of action are richer
and more varied. Small gestures, the smallest movements of the face, a barely perceptible sigh,
a quietly thrown word, which from the stage would hardly have made an impression, would have
gone unnoticed” (Turkin, 1938: 28).
As a result, V. Turkin gave a reasonable definition of the main elements of the film's plot:
“In its simplest form, the scheme for unfolding a dramatic plot is as follows: the outbreak of a
conflict – a catastrophe – a denouement. In a more expanded form: exposition (introduction into
197
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
action, initial display, setting, actions, first acquaintance with the characters and their preliminary
characterization, preparation of the plot) – the setting of the action (i.e. conflict relationships
between the characters) – the ascending growing action of the culmination, if it is in the script, –
the culmination (i.e. the moment of the highest tension of the action in the middle of the action,
the decisive turning point in the action) – the subsequent increasing movement of the action
towards the catastrophe (i.e. the last decisive clash of the acting forces at the end of the action) and,
finally, the denouement (in which the results of the dramatic struggle that took place are briefly
shown, their dramatic relationship is “unleashed”)” (Turkin, 1938: 30).
From January to September 1938, the journal Cinema Art was published without indicating
the name of the editor; only the editorial board appears in the imprint of this period (without
listing any names). In October, the journalist A. Mitlin (1902–1941) was appointed editor-in-chief
of the journal.
At the end of 1938, another important state event took place, which significantly influenced a
new round of ideologization of the press. The Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On the organization of party propaganda in connection with the
release of the Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks” of
November 14, 1938 noted that “in the propaganda of Marxism-Leninism, the main, decisive
weapon should be the press – magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, and oral propaganda should
occupy a secondary, auxiliary place. The press makes it possible to immediately make this or that
truth the property of all; therefore, it is stronger than oral propaganda. The splitting of the
leadership of propaganda between the two departments led to a belittling of the role of the press in
the propaganda of Marxism-Leninism and, thereby, to a narrowing of the scope of Bolshevik
propaganda, to amateurism and disorganization. ... To note the isolation of our theoretical journals
from the pressing issues of life and the struggle of our party, their self-closure and tendencies
towards academicism. Oblige editorial boards of theoretical journals to restructure their work”
(Resolution…, 1938: 9, 11). Propaganda work was considered in a similar vein during the
XVIII Congress of the Communist Party held on March 10-21, 1939.
The editors of the Cinema Art duly responded to the “communist party call” to intensify the
ideologization of the press with the editorial “The Tasks of Soviet Film Criticism” (Tasks…, 1939:
5-6): “The main drawback of our criticism is that it did not become the leader of Soviet cinema
artists that it does not help them well (and sometimes does not help at all) to comprehend their
own experience, to understand achievements and shortcomings. Criticism often passively registers
(“this is bad, but this is good”), and does not generalize. She views films as isolated phenomena at
best in connection with the general development of this or that artist, but she almost never sees
behind them the expression of those deep processes that determine the path of all Soviet socialist
art. Therefore, the significance of such criticism turns out to be unimportant for the artist.
A playwright, director, actor can still find in critical articles correct assessments of individual
elements of their work, but they will not find an analysis of the ideological and thematic task they
have set for themselves, they will not find out to what extent the style of the work corresponds to
this task. ... The second drawback of criticism – not all, of course, but part of it, and, moreover,
the least – is timidity, fear of direct and clear assessments, a tendency to reasoning built according
to the scheme “on the one hand, one cannot help but confess, on the other hand, one must admit".
Such, so to speak, "creative method" of criticism "leads to the fact that other critical articles are
perceived by the reader as a kind of rebus. The reader can never find out how the author relates to
this or that work, whether he likes it or not. The fear of direct and clear assessments is essentially a
consequence of the inability to analyze the work, its theme, the consequence of ignorance of the
material of the work. ... Unfortunately, our criticism is characterized by excessive good nature.
It sometimes justifies the ideological and artistic weakness of a work by the importance of the
(sometimes purely external, formal) theme posed in it, the novelty of the genre, the youth of the
artist, etc.” (Tasks…, 1939: 5).
The editors of the Cinema Art were convinced that the Soviet “critic should be the leader of
the artist. He must have more knowledge than the artist, his logical thinking must not be lower
than the emotional thinking of the artist, he must see farther and wider. Therefore, the struggle to
raise the ideological and theoretical level of Soviet film criticism, which will allow it to overcome its
shortcomings and rise to the level of the best achievements of our art, is of such importance”
(Tasks…, 1939: 5-6).
198
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
But the communist party ideological peak of the 1939 in the Cinema Art journal was a
“theoretical” article by the film critic N. Lebedev (1897–1978) entitled “Stalin and Cinema”
(Lebedev, 1939: 18-21). N. Lebedev, who did not get tired of fighting the "film opposition"
reminded that "everyone remembers the theories of the formalists who denied the importance of
an entertaining plot in the cinema, neglected to work with the actor, called for the construction of
films according to the method of "installation of attractions", for the replacement of the actor
"typical" and "sitter". Comrade Stalin gave instructions on the need to create highly ideological
films with a strong entertaining plot and talented acting. Only under these conditions will the
viewer be captured by what is happening on the screen, only then will the ideological essence of the
work reach him” (Lebedev, 1939: 20).
But the main thing is that in his article N. Lebedev proclaimed that "Stalin's definitions of the
high role of masters of art as "engineers of human souls", the style of our era as "the style of
socialist realism", which includes elements of revolutionary romance, the need for a dialectical
combination in our art national forms with a socialist content are not only a huge contribution to
the aesthetic theory of Marxism-Leninism, but also practical instructions to artists for the most
correct movement forward. ... The greatest thinker and brilliant strategist of progressive mankind,
Comrade Stalin, is at the same time the best friend of art, the best teacher and educator of film
masters” (Lebedev, 1939: 18, 21).
The scale of mass repressions began to gradually subside after N. Yezhov (1895–1940),
the former People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the USSR, was arrested on April 10, 1939.
In the same year, the most important events of the decade took place on the international
arena: on August 23, 1939, the “Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union” was
concluded, and on September 1, the Second World War began with the German invasion of Poland.
The first issue of the journal Cinema Art for 1939 opened with a fundamental theoretical
article by S. Eisenstein (1898–1948) "Montage 1938" (Eisenstein, 1939: 37-49). Her appearance
was due to the fact that the director completely rehabilitated himself in the eyes of the authorities
by staging the military-patriotic film Alexander Nevsky, the successful premiere of which took
place on December 1, 1938.
As fate would have it, Alexander Nevsky became the only film by Sergei Eisenstein to be
released in theaters in the 1930s. The reliance on the actor's type, "vertical montage" and "montage
of attractions", characteristic of Eisenstein's silent cinema, gave way here to a frank film opera, in
which, however, there were no arias, but Sergei Prokofiev's music sounded powerfully.
At the same time, N. Cherkasov, who played the role of Prince Alexander Nevsky, believed
that Eisenstein wanted to stage a picture “military-defense in content, heroic in spirit, party in
direction and epic in style” (Cherkasov, 1953: 124). It is no coincidence that the film was perceived
in those years as a hint of an impending military clash with Germany, which was to give a fitting
rebuff...
However, neither the costume theatricality, nor the conventionality of texture (due to
production necessity, many winter scenes of the picture had to be shot in the summer) did not
prevent Sergei Eisenstein from deploying impressive battle scenes on the screen. The famous
massacre on Lake Peipsi was filmed especially effectively, which carried heavy-weight dog knights
under the treacherous ice ... And Nevsky's famous phrase: "Whoever comes to us with a sword, he
will die by the sword" in the 1940s turned into a battle slogan…
In the article “Montage 1938”, S. Eisenstein clearly and conclusively responded to the sharp
criticism that had been leveled at him in previous years: “There was a period in our wine when
montage was proclaimed “everyone”. Now the period when editing is considered "nothing" is
coming to an end. And, not considering montage to be neither "nothing" nor "everything",
we consider it necessary now to remember that montage is just as much a necessary component of
a film work as are all other elements of cinematographic impact. After the pro-montage storm and
the anti-montage onslaught, we need to revisit and revisit his problems. This is all the more
necessary because the period of "denial" of montage destroyed even its most indisputable side,
the one that could never and never be attacked. The fact is that the authors of a number of films of
recent years have so completely “dealt” with montage that they even forgot its main goal and task,
which is inseparable from the cognitive role that every work of art sets itself – the task of a
coherently consistent presentation of a theme, plot, action, actions, movements within the film
episode and within the film drama as a whole. Not to mention the excited story, even a logically
coherent, simply coherent story in many cases is lost in the works of even very outstanding
199
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
filmmakers and across the most diverse film genres. This requires, of course, not so much criticism
of these masters as, above all, a struggle for the culture of montage, which has been lost by many.
Moreover, our films are faced with the task of not only logically coherent, but precisely the most
excited emotional story. Installation is a powerful help in solving this problem. ... One extreme was
the fascination with the questions of the technique of combining (montage methods), the other –
the elements to be combined (the content of the frame). More attention should be paid to the very
nature of this unifying principle. That very beginning, which for each thing will equally give birth to
both the content of the frame, and the content that is revealed through this or that comparison of
these frames”(Eisenstein, 1939a: 37-38).
In the same year, the Cinema Art published another important theoretical article by
S. Eisenstein – "On the Structure of Things", where he again defended his creative principles and
argued that “composition in the sense that we understand it here is a construction that primarily
serves to embody the attitude of the author to the content and at the same time make the viewer
relate to this content in the same way. ... the connection of my eccentric theater with my pathetic
cinema is deeply consistent and organic, no matter how unexpected it may look at first glance!”
(Eisenstein, 1939: 14, 16).
Against this background, the theoretical article of another famous director – V. Pudovkin –
looked like a kind of "work on the mistakes." V. Pudovkin (1893–1953) wrote that “the leading and
basic style of our Soviet art is socialist realism. The best weapon in the fight against alien
formalistic and naturalistic tendencies in art is the living practice of realism. This living practice is
just the Stanislavsky system” (Pudovkin, 1939: 35).
An attempt to combine the experimental Soviet cinema of the 1920s with the socialist realist
cinema of the 1930s was contained in the article “Dramaturgy of the Historical Revolutionary Film”
(Nesterovich, 1939: 22-25): “The skill of the screenwriter is mainly expressed in the following:
1) the idea; 2) the plot organically develops from the main idea of the work: nothing should be
introduced from outside in the form of journalistic annotations; 3) the idea of the work is visually
concretized in images; 4) the idea of the work should be revealed not in words, but in situations,
and the dialogue should become their organic manifestation; 5) clear, precise, impactful dialogue
develops the action and moves it; 6) each image is developed to the extent required by the
development of the main idea of the work. No matter how interesting an individual image may be
in itself, a screenwriter who wants to create an integral, complete work must subordinate it to the
main idea, otherwise he risks creating a portrait gallery, and not a work of art. The form of a work
in all its minor details must be determined by the idea of the work. Philosophically speaking, the
form must be adequate to the content. … Soviet cinematography has in its arsenal two types of
original Soviet dramaturgy. The first completed type is the Battleship Potemkin and We are from
Kronstadt with the development of a collective mass psychology, which is revealed against the
backdrop of major historical events. The second type of Soviet dramaturgy, initiated by Chapaev,
either approaches the historical chronicle or constitutes a complete historical genre, like Lenin in
1918, with its inherent development of images of individuals and their worldview against the
backdrop of major social phenomena” (Nesterovich, 1939: 22, 25).
Quite recently, the film critic I. Weisfeld, who spoke sharply about the work of S. Eisenstein,
in 1939 appeared on the pages of the Cinema Art with a theoretical article devoid of polemics, in
which it was argued that “a detail in its dramatic function is one of the strong expressive means
that leaves deep impression on the viewer. But not only this function is limited by its value.
The ability to master the detail is the ability to see the world at close range, in all its unique
concreteness. The more vigilant, the sharper the eye of the artist, the more observant he is,
the brighter the image he created, capable of impressing the viewer (reader). … The development of
a culture of detail is the problem of overcoming schematism, because schematism is, first of all, the
absence of nuances and details that make up an integral artistic image” (Weisfeld, 1939: 37, 45).
The articles, modest in their theoretical contribution, were not oversaturated with ideology:
“Construction of an Episode and a Scene” (Sokolov, 1939: 50-55), “Hyperbole in the Cinema”
(Luchansky, 1939: 26-30), “Film Music and Its Theorists” (Volkov-Lanit, 1939: 39-43).
With the appointment in the summer of 1939 of the former party functionary I. Bolshakov
(1902–1980) to the post of chairman of the Committee for Cinematography under the Council of
People's Commissars of the USSR, a tendency was outlined in the Soviet cinema to increase the
number of feature films produced (57 in 1939 against 44 in 1938). At the same time, the film
200
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
directorate, in accordance with government directives, once again turned to filmmakers with a
demand to create “correct films”.
An editorial article by the Cinema Art titled "Let's improve the quality of Soviet films!"
(Let's..., 1940: 3-4) proclaimed: “Our cinematographic community, our film critics, who are
indebted to the art of cinema, should have pointed out to these artists the true cause of their
mistakes. Analyze these errors. When evaluating films, proceed from the only criterion of criticism
– reality, from a comparison of the content of the films with the life of our country. But this only
true criterion has been largely lost by criticism, it has been replaced by narrowly professional
assessments. Critics often judged films only by how cleverly they built the plot or portrayed
characters that were unusual in character. Of course, the skill of building an intrigue, the ability to
present the characters in all their individual characteristics is extremely important. But it decides,
determines the value of a work of art, first of all, the political purposefulness and significance of the
ideas invested in the work, the fidelity of the artist's eye, his observation, the ability to see and
reflect reality in its development. Each of our films must have a precise political focus. He must
mercilessly smash the enemy and passionately propagate the new that is growing, winning and has
already won in our country. This must be understood by those unfortunate "critics" who are trying
to push our artists onto the path of superficial originality, imitation of false and meaningless
bourgeois films. Such aesthetic critics must be given a resolute rebuff” (Let s…, 1940: 3).
The points contained in this editorial were developed in full in an article titled "Let's Raise
Film Criticism to the Heights of Cinematography" (Nesterovich, 1940: 44-46).
This article began polemically pointed: "A critic is a more qualified spectator". This view of
the role of the critic is so ingrained in cinematography that not only creatives, but critics
themselves are beginning to view their profession in this way. There is nothing more false, more
harmful both to the growth of criticism and to the cause of cinematography than such a view. In the
critic, it generates a sense of irresponsibility. Indeed, if the critic is only a spectator, although he is
“more qualified” (this does not change the essence of the matter), then what demands can be made
of him and what can he give? After all, critical work for him is not a profession, not a serious
occupation that requires great knowledge and relevant skills, but “inspirational”, free digressions
and the field of cinema. But, apparently, a critic-spectator with the same sense of responsibility can
make his critical excursions into other areas of art. What a serious person, accustomed to
respecting his judgments, would talk about color, color, light, and so on in movie, if he does not feel
competent in these matters? In order not to be ridiculous, this person will not call himself a critic
and will not judge the pictorial merits of the work, but at best will express judgments about the
general idea of the work, leaving the rest to be judged by a specialist. But the complexity of critical
activity lies not only in understanding specific expressive means and evaluating their use by the
artist. The main task of the critic is to analyze the idea of the work, to parse it, in a kind of
verification of the correctness of the picture that the artist has created. The analysis of a
cinematographic work is therefore even more difficult than the analysis of works of other arts,
because of the synthetic character of cinematography. But when it comes to cinema, it turns out
that everyone can consider themselves competent, ready to sign up for criticism and
“authoritatively” evaluate the work on the film. There is nothing surprising in the fact that such
tastefulness, which characterizes a number of articles about films, is often covered up by the
surprising and strange “scientific” nature of their construction, juggling with scientific terminology,
giving the appearance of analysis to the most superficial and hasty assessments. This lightweight,
incorrect point of view on the tasks of film criticism, unfortunately, was also reflected in the works
of the critics themselves. This point of view determined the taste in many articles devoted to
cinema, substitutions for serious analysis, ideological analysis of the work, i.e. the most important
decisive task of criticism is peremptory and by no means conclusive assessments” (Nesterovich,
1940: 44).
As a result, the conclusion followed that “the main task of criticism is to educate the artist
ideologically, to awaken his theoretical thought, helping him to understand the people and events
depicted by him. We have pointed to one side of the activity of criticism, which is directed to the
needs of the artist. The other side should face the viewer. The ideas of the film need to be conveyed
to the viewer, you need to help him understand the work of art in a deeper and more versatile way.
This is an important cultural and educational task of criticism. … The critic must penetrate the
figurative structure of the work and analyze the idea in its complex cinematic form. … Critical
articles are a responsible political matter. They must creatively help the artist and educate the taste
201
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
of the mass audience. We need to raise film criticism to the level of the heights of our cinematic art”
(Nesterovich, 1940: 46).
In this context, the theater critic B. Reich (1894-1972) emphasized that “I know only one
unconditional law in the art: truthfully depicted reality must be rich in inner dynamic life. If this
indisputable condition is met, then the work has a certain artistry, and even without strict
observance of all the laws of dramaturgy or cinematography, it makes an impression on the reader
or viewer. … The form of dramatic art is obvious. In the drama, people are given who act directly;
therefore, the character of a dramatic representation can be imagined as if the events, thoughts,
inner motives, actions – with their consequences – of all the actors (and not just one person) were
instantly sketched in the process of their development. ... in Chapaev, Great Citizen, Deputy of the
Baltic. Why did the creators of these films manage to create such images? One of the reasons is the
understanding that participation in the great conflicts of our age leads to the identification and
formation of characters, that where strong characters are at work, conflicts reach greater intensity”
(Reich, 1940: 5, 8).
In connection with the state directive to shoot for the audience not only ideologically verified
films, but also tapes of entertainment genres, four theoretical articles on the comedy genre were
published in the Cinema Art in 1940.
Director S. Yutkevich (1904–1985) drew the attention of readers that “the comic film is
fraught with a huge variety of creative techniques, is, as it were, a laboratory of inventiveness,
expressiveness and cinematic skill. We have every opportunity to create this laboratory. We have
splendid comic actors, inventive directors, inventors of funny tricks who will help at first the
collective of comic actors, and, finally, we will also find poets of the funny, who later, having
become infected with the charm of these comic images, will create for them a worthy support,
thereby pushing the boundaries of the genre, and will create that high comedy, the appearance of
which we so long for. And, most importantly, we have many millions of cheerful and happy Soviet
people who have created their own heroes and insistently demand that the folk cinema reflect their
aspirations in the great art of the funny. What are we missing? What is missing is continuous
practice, which is the only way a comic film can grow. We lack confidence in the masters of the
funny, who not only need to be allowed, but need to be pushed, helped, directed their talent,
invention, will and mind to uninterrupted experimental work” (Yutkevich, 1940: 18).
Film expert I. Sokolov (1902–1974) recalled that “in a comedy, characters can be positive or
negative. They should evoke sympathy and antipathy in the viewer. It is impossible to say
dogmatically that only positive characters should be shown in Soviet comedy. Both the layman and
the real hero can equally be characters in the Soviet comedy. The good character in comedy is an
extremely important and difficult problem. Showing a negative character is easier than showing a
positive character. A positive character in a comedy must be a real and charming person” (Sokolov,
1940: 24).
Further, I. Sokolov presented a typology of comic techniques for constructing an episode, a scene
and a detail, which is absolutely not outdated today: “the discrepancy between reality and illusion
violates our ideas about real things; the discrepancy between the object and its purpose shifts and
breaks the usual relationships of things and causes laughter; the discrepancy between reason and effect
will create ridiculous exaggerations and distortions; the discrepancy between cause and effect breaks
and turns upside down the real relations of things; the discrepancy between the goal and the means will
create unjustification, alogism and even idiocy in the behavior of the characters; the discrepancy
between the figure of a person and his act creates the most unexpected characteristics of the character;
mixing big and small is one of the most common comic devices; the combination of the incompatible
creates the possibility of playing with concepts” (Sokolov, 1940: 21-23).
Film critic I. Weisfeld (1909–2003) in his article focused on the construction of a comedic
intrigue, denoting that “under intrigue is generally understood to mean the mainspring of the
action, such a way of organizing it, which is expressed in the struggle of one character or group of
characters against another character or groups of actors. Moreover, the intrigue gives the action
continuity and dynamism, which arouse the viewer's interest in it throughout the film. …
The comedic intrigue will be the more interesting and vital, the deeper and brighter the conflict
between the characters is planned. By working out the expressive means of film comedy, the artists
of the Soviet cinema will be able to discover, first of all, the breadth of outlook, the brightness of
philosophical generalizations, observation, accuracy and fidelity of intonation – the intonation with
202
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
which they talk about the remarkable properties of a person of the era of socialism” (Weisfeld,
1940: 38, 40).
Literary critic and film critic E. Dobin (1901–1977) devoted his article to the problems of
eccentricity, believing that “it would seem that an eccentric has the ability to sharply and strongly
reveal deviation from the norm, the comic or tragicomic nature of this deviation. The extraordinary
strength of Chaplin's eccentricity lies in the fact that the artist, with bitter laughter, stigmatizes the
abnormality of the norm of the capitalist world order. An eccentric can have both philosophical
vigilance and psychological depth and generalizing thought – this is what Chaplin teaches” (Dobin,
1940: 51).
It would seem that in his theoretical article “Typical and Exceptional,” F. Karen completely
insured himself against any attacks, arguing that “the most typical characters that can most deeply
and comprehensively reveal the most typical features of our time, our people, our spirit, are images
of such exceptional and extraordinary people like Lenin and Stalin. In the same way, the images of
Kirov, Chapaev, Shchors, Sverdlov, Dzerzhinsky created in our art are typical to a high degree”
(Karen, 1940: 34).
However, the philosopher I. Astakhov (1906–1970) in his article “On typical characters and
speculative theories” accused F. Karen of “operating with a speculative method: he takes as a
starting point not real life, the artistic reflection of which is a typical image, but something exactly
the opposite. The starting point for him is the "type", constructed by him "logically and
speculatively". Further, he suggests that the artists of the word and cinematography “clothe this
type in the flesh and blood of a specific image ... endow it with features”, etc. In other words,
F. Karen first takes a clean, i.e. speculative abstraction, and then offers to fill this abstraction with
life. This is the method of speculative idealistic philosophy, which takes "pure nothing" as its
starting point, i.e. speculative representation, and then fills it with known content. “Pure nothing”
as a result of “becoming” turns into a speculative “something”, in turn, “something” becomes
“being”. ... F. Karen does not understand that the creative process can proceed from the individual
to the general and vice versa, and denies both. He does not understand that a typical character is an
artistic generalization of the essential phenomena of life, and not a logically speculative category.
He adjusts the most diverse epochs under the same standard of "extraordinary and exceptional",
he does not understand that the great theory of Marxism-Leninism teaches us to approach the
phenomena of life and art not abstractly, scholastically, not speculatively, but concretely
historically" (Astakhov, 1940: 31 , 33).
Another theoretical article by I. Astakhov was devoted to the aesthetic subject and feeling.
Here, in full accordance with the then ideological guidelines, it was stated that “capitalism, which
has reached the present level of development, poses the most terrible threat not only to the
material, but also to the spiritual impoverishment of the masses. Having become a gigantic brake
on the spiritual development of the masses, capitalism turns its side deeply hostile to the
development of the artistic demands and aesthetic abilities of the masses. Only the proletarian
revolution is capable of destroying the gloomy prison of the people's spiritual vegetation, only it
can bring the titanic possibilities of human rebirth out of captivity, only its victory ensures the
unlimited improvement of aesthetic tastes, needs and the objects corresponding to them”
(Astakhov, 1940: 14).
In 1940, a discussion about the theory of the educational film also passed in the Cinema Art
journal: about the characteristic and indispensable for the artistic image, and just the opposite of
this – with the most complete elimination of everything that distinguishes a given specimen of the
studied species from other specimens, all those random individual strokes and dashes, without
which the artistic image is unthinkable (Toll, 1940: 62) .
These views of B. Toll were sharply criticized by N. Zhinkin (1893–1979), who also
specialized in popular science and educational cinema: “B. Toll not only explains why scientific
cinema is not an art, but also explains where the harmful, in his opinion, idea that scientific cinema
is an art came from. She finds, according to Toll, ground in the hidden traditions of our directors,
who, like wolves – no matter how you feed them, all look into the forest – into artistic
cinematography. … A popular educational film sets itself not only educational tasks. He achieves
their resolution through the use of plastic expressive means of cinema, i.e. means of art, giving a
single fusion of thoughts and feelings. The situation is not that, comrade directors, if you like, use
the means of art, but if you want, do not use them in scientific cinema. No. We quite consciously
put forward the task of using these means: only their use allows you to create a film that leaves a
203
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
complete impression. … And what does B. Toll offer us? Prohibit the directors of a scientific film
from using the means of art. This, they say, is none of their business – every cricket know your
hearth. With the slogan “Down with the art from the educational film”, B. Toll is trying to reverse
the educational cinematography, to force it to abandon the correct paths it has outlined. You have
to be yourself either very cold, a person who understands nothing about art, or very far from
scientific cinematography, in order to put forward such an at least inhibiting thesis – away from
art. … By this we emphasize that we also do not believe that every film should be a work of art or be
created by means of art. The fact is that a film, including a scientific one, can be art. It depends on
the task set before the film” (Zhinkin, 1940: 52-53).
Literally in the next issue of the Cinema Art, B. Toll no less sharply replied to N. Zhinkin that
he “misleads the reader, saying that Toll proposes to “prohibit the directors of a scientific film from
using the means of art.” Equally wrong is the attempt to attribute to me the slogan "Down with the
art from the educational film" (Toll, 1940: 63).
In this dispute, the editors of the Cinema Art took a conciliatory position, emphasizing in the
final article that “for the true masters of scientific cinematography, who work in this field in
principle and with love, it is not the name that is important, but the essence of the work and the
struggle for quality. And when the pedagogical quality of educational films reaches the level of the
best works of artistic cinematography, then the dispute about the term will lose all expediency”
(To…, 1940: 59).
The most significant theoretical works in the journal Cinema Art in 1940–1941 were again
articles by S. Eisenstein (1898-1948).
In his article “Once again about the structure of things”, it was emphasized how important
“it is exactly how the general dialectical position about the unity of opposites finds its application in
the field of composition. It finds its expression in the circumstance that, under any given
compositional conditions, both the direct solution and its direct opposite are equally true and
impressive. This phenomenon takes place in the very treasury of human expressive manifestations
– in nature itself. So, for example, in a moment of horror, a person not only retreats from what
inspires him with horror, but just as often, as if spellbound, reaches out and approaches the one
who instilled this horror. So "pulls" to itself the edge of the cliff. So "pulls" the criminal to the scene
of the crime, instead of rushing away from him, etc. In a composition that draws its experience
from the material of reality, these circumstances can be immediately detected even in the most
trivial examples. If, for example, it is decided that a certain moment of the role should be spent on
a frenzied scream, then it can be said with confidence that a barely audible whisper will act just as
strongly in this place. If fury is resolved at maximum movement, then complete “petrified”
immobility will be no less impressive” (Eisenstein, 1940: 27).
And in the article “Vertical Montage”, which is significant in volume, S. Eisenstein reminded
readers that he wrote “in the article “Montage 1938”, giving the final wording about montage:
“Piece A, taken from the elements of the theme being developed, and piece B, taken from there
However, in comparison, they give rise to an image in which the content of the topic is most clearly
embodied ..., i.e. “Image A and image B must be chosen from all the possible features within the
theme being developed, they must be so sought out that their comparison – precisely them,
and “from other elements – evokes in the perception and feelings of the viewer the most exhaustive
image of the theme itself...". In this formulation, we did not at all limit ourselves to determining to
which qualitative series A or B belonged, and whether they belonged to the same category of
measurements or to different ones” (Eisenstein, 1940: 16).
And then S. Eisenstein compared cinematographic montage with an orchestral score:
“So many lines of a musical scale, and each is given to the part of a certain instrument. Each partita
develops by progressive movement along the horizontal. But no less important and decisive factor
here is the vertical: the musical interconnection of the elements of the orchestra with each other in
each given unit of time. Thus, by the progressive movement of the vertical, penetrating the entire
orchestra and moving horizontally, the complex, harmonic musical movement of the orchestra as a
whole is carried out. Passing from the image of such a page of a musical score to a sound-visual
score, one would have to say that at this new stage one more line is added to the musical score.
This is a line of visual frames successively passing into each other, which correspond plastically in
their own way to the movement of music and vice versa” (Eisenstein, 1940: 17).
Among the few theoretical articles that the Cinema Art published in 1941, one can single out
the work of film critic I. Sokolov (1902–1974), where it was proved that “dramatic conflict (internal
204
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
contradiction) does not consist in the fact that one opposite is mechanically passes into the other,
not in the fact that, for example, victory (happiness) is on one side, and defeat (unhappiness) on
the other, and that defeat (unhappiness) will be mechanically replaced by victory (happiness), but that
one and the same moment is both a positive and a negative moment (for example, both victory and the
possibility of defeat...), that opposites arise from within and pass into their opposite (for example,
happiness arises from misfortune, victory is born from defeat, or vice versa). … Dramatic conflict is a
contradiction of opposites. Dramatic conflict is not an external contradiction, but an internal one.
The bifurcation of the one (the divergence of two close principles) or the transition to the opposite
(the convergence of two opposite principles) creates a dramatic conflict. A dramatic conflict (plot) is an
internal contradiction of opposites, an internal emergence of opposites; the source of the dramatic
conflict lies within the action, within itself” (Sokolov, 1941: 44, 48).
A certain surprise for the readers of the Cinema Art was the appearance in the March issue of
an article by the recently persecuted and sharply criticized "formalist" L. Kuleshov (1899–1970)
entitled "Culture of Director's Creativity". In it, the famous director and cinema theorist rightly
drew attention to the fact that “the form of directorial scripts adopted at the studios is very
outdated. The sound part of the picture is developed extremely approximately and primitively, no
sketches of frames are made. The footage for all frames is usually set underestimated. There are no
serious, thoughtful explications on the thing and its individual components. ... Most directors
consider the use of new, more advanced scenario forms of directorial development and explication
to be shameful, almost degrading to creative dignity, permissible only for students of the Institute
of Cinematography. Attempts to use them are considered formalistic inventions or nonsense of dry,
uncreative people. At best, a carefully crafted director's script and explications are welcome, but...
for others, but for me, my creative individuality, this is not the case" (Kuleshov, 1941: 11).
In 1941, instead of the planned 12, only six issues of Cinema Art were published. The sixth
issue was signed for printing on June 11, 1941, and on June 22 the Great Patriotic War began,
interrupting the publication of this journal for four years...
5. Conclusion
Our analysis of film studies concepts (in the context of the sociocultural and political
situation, etc.) of the first decade of the existence of the journal Cinema Art (1931–1941) showed
that theoretical works on cinematographic topics during this period can be divided into the
following types:
- ideologized articles by Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers’ activists (1931–
1932), emphasizing the dominant of "truly revolutionary proletarian cinema" and an
uncompromising struggle against the views of any opponents (at that time, an active process of
collectivization was still underway, causing resistance from the peasant masses) (V. Sutyrin,
K. Yukov, N. Lebedev and others);
- ideologically reoriented articles (1932–1934), written as a positive reaction to the
Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the
restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (Resolution ..., 1932), many provisions of which
(in particular, a clear indication that that the framework of the proletarian literary and artistic
organizations… – narrow and hinder artistic creativity) have become a direct threat to the existence
of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers; in their articles, the activists of the
Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers V. Sutyrin, K. Yukov, and others) – right up to the
liquidation of this organization in early 1935 – tried to prove their necessity and loyalty to the
“general line of the Communist party”;
- articles containing sharp criticism of "groupism" (including among the Association of
Revolutionary Cinematographers), "leftism" and "agitprop", "enemies of the people" (1935–1938)
(K. Yukov, A. Dubrovsky, I. Krinkin and others), although many prominent writers and
cinematographers, including S. Eisenstein, joined the call to severely punish the "enemies of the
people" in 1937–1938 outside the Cinema Art – on the pages of central newspapers);
- theoretical articles attacking various types of formalistic phenomena (primarily in the field
of montage) in cinema and culture (1931–1941) (G. Avenarius, E. Arnoldi, M. Bleiman,
M. Grigoriev, N. Iezuitov, N. Lebedev, A. Mikhailov, V. Nielsen, V. Plonsky, V. Sutyrin, I. Weisfeld,
L. Voitolovskaya, N. Volkov, K. Yukov, S. Yutkevich and others); these attacks were not accidental,
since as a kind of “islands” of creative freedom, experiments with form were alien and even
205
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
dangerous for the spread of the ideology of social realism by the Power in the USSR, as a unified
method that leveled the individuality of artists;
- theoretical articles opposing empiricism, "documentaryism", naturalism and physiology,
vulgar materialism, aestheticism, "emotionalism", defending Marxist-Leninist ideological and class
approaches (1931–1941) (B. Altshuler, N. Iezuitov, I. Krinkin, N. Lebedev, N. Otten, V. Sutyrin,
K. Yukov, and others);
- theoretical articles defending the principles of socialist realism in cinema (1933–1941)
(G. Avenarius, S. Gerasimov, N. Lebedev, V. Pudovkin, I. Weisfeld, S. Yutkevich and others);
- theoretical articles criticizing bourgeois film theories and Western influence on Soviet
cinema (1931–1941) (E. Arnoldi, G. Avenarius, B. Balázs, and others); to a large extent, they were
close to the fight against the above "...isms";
- theoretical articles aimed primarily at professional problems of mastering sound in cinema
(in particular, the dramaturgy of sound, music), editing, image, film image, film language (for
example, the cinematic possibilities of the “zeit-loop” effect), cinema style, genre, entertainment,
construction script (plot, plot, composition, conflict, typology of characters, typology of comic
devices, etc.), acting, etc. (1931–1941) (B. Balázs, S. Eisenstein, N. Turkin, V. Pudovkin, N. Volkov,
I. Popov, S. Skrytev, I. Sokolov, M. Tsekhanovsky and others);
- theoretical articles balancing between ideology and professional approaches to the creation
of cinematographic works of art (1931–1941) (B. Balázs, S. Gerasimov, V. Pudovkin, S. Yutkevich
and others).
6. Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the grant of the Russian Science Foundation (RSF, project
No. 22-28-00317) at Rostov State University of Economics. Project theme: “Evolution of
theoretical film studies concepts in the Cinema Art journal (1931–2021)”. Head of the project is
Professor A.V. Fedorov.
References
A decisive… 1932 – Nuzhen reshitel'nyj perelom [A decisive change is necessary].
Proletarskoe kino – Proletarian Cinema. 1932. 4: 1-4. [in Russian]
Abul-Kasimova et al., 1969-1978 – Abul-Kasimova, H., Ginzburg, S., Dolinsky, I. et al.
(1969–1978). Istoriya sovetskogo kino [History of Soviet cinema]. Vol. 1-4. Moscow. [in Russian]
Alakshin, 2014 – Alakshin, A. (2014). Osobennosti redakcionnoj politiki v zhurnalah o kino:
sravnitel nyj analiz (na primere zhurnalov ‘Seans’ i ‘Iskusstvo kino’ [Features of editorial policy in
cinema journals: a comparative analysis (on the example of journals Seance and Cinema Art)].
Znak: problemnoe pole mediaobrazovaniya. 2(14): 33-35. [in Russian]
Altshuler, 1932 – Altshuler, B. (1932). Pochti deklaraciya [Almost a declaration].
Proletarskoe kino. 6: 35-42. [in Russian]
Andrew, 1976 – Andrew, J.D. (1976). The Major Film Theories: An Introduction. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Andrew, 1984 – Andrew, J.D. (1984). Concepts in Film Theory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Andrievsky, 1931 – Andrievsky, A. (1931). Postroenie tonfil'ma [Construction of tonfilm].
Moscow-Leningrad. [in Russian]
Andrievsky, 1932 – Andrievsky, A. (1932). Pis mo v redakciyu (o moej knige “Postroenie
tonfil my”) [Letter to the editors (about my book The Construction of Tonfilm)]. Proletarskoe kino.
9-10: 52-56. [in Russian]
Aristarco, 1951 – Aristarco, G. (1951). Storia delle teoriche del film. Torino: Einaudi.
Arnoldi, 1932 – Arnoldi, E. (1932). Zvukovoe kino v teoriyah zapadnyh formalistov [Sound
cinema in the theories of Western formalists]. Proletarskoe kino. 19-20: 40-48. [in Russian]
Aronson, 2003 – Aronson, O. (2003). Metakino [MetaCinema]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Aronson, 2007 – Aronson, O. (2007). Kommunikativnyj obraz. Kino. Literatura. Filosofiya
[Communicative Image. Cinema. Literature. Philosophy]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Astakhov, 1940 – Astakhov, I. (1940). Esteticheskij predmet i chuvstvo [Aesthetic subject
and sense]. Iskusstvo Kino. 10: 9-14. [in Russian]
206
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Astakhov, 1940 – Astakhov, I. (1940). O tipicheskih harakterah i umozritel'nyh teoriyah.
Po povodu stat i F. Karena “Tipicheskoe i isklyuchitel noe” [On typical characters and speculative
theories. Re: F. Karen's Typical and Exceptional]. Iskusstvo Kino. 9: 30-33. [in Russian]
Astakhov, 1941 – Astakhov, I. (1941). Predmet estetiki [The Subject of aesthetics]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 3: 36-41. [in Russian]
Avenarius, 1931 – Avenarius, G. (1931). K metodologii opredeleniya kinozhanrov (po povodu
odnoimennoj stat'i t. V. Grigor'eva) [On the methodology of determining cinematic genres
(regarding the article of the same name by Grigoriev)]. Proletarskoe kino. 10-11: 27-33.
[in Russian]
Avenarius, 1937 – Avenarius, G. (1937). Teoriya montazha S.M. Ejzenshtejna [Eisenstein's
montage theory]. Iskusstvo Kino. 7: 40-47. [in Russian]
Bakhtin, 1996 – Bakhtin, M. (1996). Sobranie sochinenij [Collected Works]. Moscow.
[in Russian]
Balázs, 1932 – Balázs, B. (1932). Ideologiya burzhuaznogo kino [Ideology of bourgeois
cinema]. Proletarskoe kino. 11-12: 32-38. [in Russian]
Balázs, 1933 – Balázs, B. (1933). Zvukovoe kino [Sound cinema]. Sovetskoe kino. 12: 62-74.
[in Russian]
Balázs, 1934 – Balázs, B. (1934). Dramaturgiya zvuka [The Dramaturgy of sound]. Sovetskoe
kino. 8-9: 15-24. [in Russian]
Balázs, 1935 – Balázs, B. (1935). Duh fil'my [The spirit of film]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Balázs, 1936 – Balázs, B. (1936). Otvet moim kritikam [Answer to my critics]. Iskusstvo Kino.
6: 39-45. [in Russian]
Balázs, 1937 – Balázs, B. (1937). K probleme kinostilya [To the problem of film style].
Iskusstvo Kino. 1: 33-36. [in Russian]
Bazin, 1971 – Bazin, A. (1971). What is Cinema? Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bergan, 2006 – Bergan, R. (2006). Film. New York: DK Pub.
Bessonov, 2012 – Bessonov, B. (2012). Istoriya i filosofiya nauki [History and philosophy of
science]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Bibler, 1990 – Bibler, V. (1990). Ot naukoucheniya – k logike kul'tury: dva filosofskih
vvedeniya v dvadcat' pervyj vek [From science-teaching to the logic of culture: two philosophical
Introductions to the twenty-first century]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Bleiman, 1933 – Bleiman, M. (1933). Chelovek v sovetskoj fil'me. Istoriya odnoj oshibki [Man
in the Soviet film. The history of one mistake]. Sovetskoe kino. 5-6: 48-57. 7: 51-60. [in Russian]
Branigan, Buckland, 2015 – Branigan, E., Buckland, W. (eds.) (2015). The Routledge
Encyclopedia of Film Theory. Routledge.
Buldakov, 2014 – Buldakov, S. (2014). Istoriya i filosofiya nauki [History and philosophy of
science]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Casetti, 1999 – Casetti, F. (1999). Theories of Cinema, 1945–1990, Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Cheremukhin, 1936 – Cheremukhin, M. (1936). Na podstupah k muzykal'noj
kinodramaturgii [On the approaches to musical film dramaturgy]. Iskusstvo Kino. 11: 51-53.
[in Russian]
Cherkasov, 1953 – Cherkasov, N. (1953). Zapiski sovetskogo aktera [Notes of a Soviet actor].
Мoscow. [in Russian]
Chirkov, 1937 – Chirkov, A. (1937). Dialog v kinofil'me [Dialogue in the film]. Iskusstvo Kino.
11: 29-33. [in Russian]
Confusion…, 1936 – Sumbur vmesto muzyki [Confusion instead of music]. Pravda.
28.01.1936. [in Russian]
Decree…, 1938 – Postanovlenie Sovnarkoma Soyuza SSR “Ob obrazovanii Komiteta po delam
kinematografii pri Sovete Narodnyh Komissarov Soyuza SSR” ot 23 marta 1938 goda [Decree of the
Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union “On the establishment of the Committee for
Cinematography under the Council of People s Commissars of the USSR” of March 23, 1938.
Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 6-7. [in Russian]
Demin, 1966 – Demin,V. (1966). Fil'm bez intrigi [Film without intrigue]. Мoscow.
[in Russian]
Dinamov, 1934 – Dinamov, S. (1934). Za syuzhetnoe iskusstvo [For plot art]. Sovetskoe kino.
5: 5-8. [in Russian]
207
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Dmitrieva, 2020 – Dmitrieva, A. (2020). Kinozhurnalistika i kinokritika SSSR v period
perestrojki na primere zhurnala Iskusstvo kino’ [Film journalism and film criticism of the USSR
during the years of Perestroika on the example of the magazine Cinema Art]. Vek informacii. 13(4).
[in Russian]
Dobin, 1940 – Dobin, E. (1940). Ekscentrizm i ekscentrika [Eccentrism and eccentricity].
Iskusstvo Kino. 9: 38-51. 10: 34-38. [in Russian]
Dubrovsky, 1938 – Dubrovsky, A. (1938). O “predelah” i vozmozhnostyah sovetskoj
kinematografii [On the “limits” and possibilities of Soviet cinematography]. Iskusstvo. 1: 23-27.
[in Russian]
Eco, 1975 – Eco, U. (1975). Trattato di semiotica generale. Milano: Bompiani.
Eco, 1976 – Eco, U. (1976). A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eisenstein, 1932 – Eisenstein, S. (1932). “Odolzhajtes ”! [“Borrow!”]. Proletarskoe kino.
17-18: 19-29. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1933 – Eisenstein, S. (1933). Granit kinonauki. O metode prepodavaniya
predmeta rezhissury [The Granite of film science. About the method of teaching the subject of
directing]. Sovetskoe kino. 5-6: 58-67. 7: 66-74. 9: 61-66. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1934 – Eisenstein, S. (1934). “E!”. O chistote kinoyazyka [“E!”. On the purity of
cinematographic language]. Sovetskoe kino. 5: 25-31. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1939 – Eisenstein, S. (1939). Montazh 1938 [Montage 1938]. Iskusstvo Kino. 1:
37-49. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1939 – Eisenstein, S. (1939). O stroenii veshchej [On the structure of things].
Iskusstvo Kino. 6: 7-20. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1940 – Eisenstein, S. (1940). Eshche raz o stroenii veshchej [Once again about the
structure of things]. Iskusstvo Kino. 6: 27-32. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1940 – Eisenstein, S. (1940). Gordost' [Pride]. Iskusstvo Kino. 1-2: 17-25.
[in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1940-1941 – Eisenstein, S. (1940-1941). Vertikal'nyj montazh [Vertical Montage].
Iskusstvo Kino. 1940. 9: 16-25. 12: 27-35. 1941. 1: 29-38. [in Russian]
Eisenstein, 1964 – Eisenstein, S.M. (1964). Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected works].
Moscow. [in Russian]
Ermolaev, 1938 – Ermolaev, G. (1938). Chto tormozit razvitie sovetskogo kino [What slows
down the development of Soviet sinema]. Pravda. 9.01.1938. 9(7334): 4. [in Russian]
Erofeev, 1932 – Erofeev, V. (1932). Beskhrebetnaya publicistika [Spineless publicism].
Proletarskoe kino. 5: 19-23. [in Russian]
Evgenov, 1932 – Evgenov, S. (1932). Vyvesti OZPFK iz tupika, perestroit' rabotu sverhu
donizu [Bringing the Society for Proletarian Cinema and Photography out of stalemate,
restructuring the work from top to bottom]. Proletarskoe foto. 4: 11-15. [in Russian]
Fascist…, 1938 – Fashistskaya gadina unichtozhena [Fascist Bastard Destroyed]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 1938. 2: 5-6. [in Russian]
Fedorov, 2017 – Fedorov, A. (2017). Cinema Art’ as part of a typical model of the Soviet
humanitarian journals in the Cold War times. Propaganda in the World and Local Conflicts. 4(1):
52-61.
Fedorov, 2017 – Fedorov, A. (2017). Sovetskij kinematograf v zerkale zhurnala 'Iskusstvo
kino’ (na primere nomerov yubilejnogo 1967 goda) [Soviet cinematography in the mirror of the
journal Cinema Art (on the example of the anniversary issues of 1967)]. Media Education. 3:
143-159. [in Russian]
For…, 1932 – Za razvernutoe socialisticheskoe nastuplenie na kinofronte [For a socialist
offensive on the cinema front] (1932). Proletarskoe kino – Proletarian Cinema. 1: 1-4. [in Russian]
Freilich, 2009 – Freilich, S. (2009). Teoriya kino. Ot Ejzenshtejna do Tarkovskogo [Movie
Theory. From Eisenstein to Tarkovsky]. Мoscow. [in Russian]
Gerasimov, 1938 – Gerasimov, S. (1938). Vospitanie kinoaktera [Upbringing of the cinema
actor]. Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema Art. 4-5: 47-52. [in Russian]
Gibson et al., 2000 – Gibson, P.C., Dyer, R., Kaplan, E.A., Willemen, P. (eds.) (2000). Film
Studies: Critical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginzburg, 1937 – Ginzburg, S. (1937). Voprosy dramaturgii kino [Dramaturgy issues in
cinema]. Iskusstvo Kino. 7: 58-61. [in Russian]
208
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Gledhill, Williams, 2000 – Gledhill, C., Williams, L. (eds.) (2000). Reinventing Film Studies.
Oxford: Arnold & Oxford University Press.
Golovnya, 1939 – Golovnya, A. (1939). Statika i dinamika kompozicii kinokadra [Statics and
dynamics of composition of a film picture]. Iskusstvo Kino. 2: 41-43. [in Russian]
Golovskoy, 1984 – Golovskoy, V. (1984). Cinema Art: portrait of a journal. Studies in
comparative communism. 17(3): 219-226.
Grigoryev, 1931 – Grigoryev, M. (1931). Literatura i kino [Literature and cinema].
Proletarskoe kino. 2-3: 14-17. [in Russian]
Grigoryev, 1931 – Grigoryev, V. (1931). K metodologii opredeleniya kinozhanrov [To the
methodology of determining cinematographic genres]. Proletarskoe kino. 7: 16-20. [in Russian]
Groshev et al., 1969 – Groshev, A., Ginzburg, S., Dolinsky, I. Kratkaya istoriya sovetskogo
kino [A brief history of Soviet cinema]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Gryzlov, 1938 – Gryzlov, A. (1938). Monografiya o Pudovkine [Monograph about Pudovkin].
Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 88-92. [in Russian]
Gutin, 1939 – Gutin, L. (1939). Tipicheskoe v iskusstve [Typical in Art]. Iskusstvo Kino. 5:
46-49. [in Russian]
Hess, 1997 – Hess, D.J. (1997). Science Studies. New York: New York University Press.
Hill, 1960 – Hill, S.P. (1960). Sovetskaya kinokritika [Soviet Film Criticism]. Film Quarterly.
14(1): 31-40.
Hill, Gibson, 1998 – Hill, J, Gibson, P.C. (eds.) (1998). The Oxford Guide to Film Studies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Humm, 1997 – Humm, M. (1997). Feminism and Film. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Iezuitov, 1931a – Iezuitov, N. (1931). “Filosofiya” uchebnoj fil my (beglye zametki ob odnoj
reakcionnoj teorii) [“Philosophy” of educational films (quick notes on one reactionary theory)].
Proletarskoe kino. 7: 5-11. [in Russian]
Iezuitov, 1931b – Iezuitov, N. (1931). Nekotorye problemy metodologii uchebnoj fil'my [Some
problems of training film methodology]. Proletarskoe kino. 12: 4-11. [in Russian]
Iezuitov, 1933 – Iezuitov, N. (1933). O stilyah sovetskogo kino (Koncepciya razvitiya
sovetskogo kinoiskusstva) [On the styles of Soviet cinema (the concept of development of Soviet
cinema art)]. Sovetskoe kino. 3-4: 35-55. 5-6: 31-47. [in Russian]
Iezuitov, 1934 – Iezuitov, N. (1934). Problema zanimatel'nosti [The Problem of
entertainment]. Sovetskoe kino. 1-2: 113-124. [in Russian]
Iezuitov, 1937 – Iezuitov, N. (1937). V.I. Pudovkin. Moscow-Leningrad. [in Russian]
Kaplan, 1940 – Kaplan, M. (1940). Kul'tura operatora [The operator's culture]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 1-2: 63-67. [in Russian]
Kapustin, 1932 – Kapustin, A. (1932). Eshche o professional'noj gordosti scenarista [More
about professional pride of a script writer]. Proletarskoe kino. 19-20: 26-31. [in Russian]
Karen, 1940 – Karen, F. (1940). Tipicheskoe i isklyuchitel'noe [Typical and exceptional].
Iskusstvo Kino. 6: 33-35. [in Russian]
Katsnelson, 1932 – Katsnelson, L. (1932). Problemy metodologii i metodiki uchebno-
tekhnicheskoj fil'my [Problems of methodology and methodology of educational and technical
film]. Proletarskoe kino. 4: 25-34. [in Russian]
Kenez, 1992 – Kenez, P. (1992). Cinema and Soviet Society, 1917-1953. Cambridge, N.Y.:
Cambridge University Press.
Khodataev, 1932 – Khodataev, N. (1932). O hudozhestvennoj mul'tiplikacii [About art
animation]. Proletarskoe kino. 11-12: 44-49. [in Russian]
Khrenov, 2006 – Khrenov, N. (2006). Kino: reabilitaciya arhetipicheskoj real'nosti. [Cinema:
rehabilitation of archetypal reality]. Мoscow. [in Russian]
Khrenov, 2006 – Khrenov, N. (2006). Zrelishcha v epohu vosstaniya mass [Spectacles in the
age of revolt of the masses]. Мoscow. [in Russian]
Khrenov, 2011 – Khrenov, N. (2011). Civilizacionnaya identichnost' v perekhodnuyu epohu:
kul'turologicheskij, sociologicheskij i iskusstvovedcheskij aspekty [Civic Identity in a transitional
epoch: culturological, sociological and art history aspects]. Мoscow. [in Russian]
Klado, 1938 – Klado, N. (1938). Akter i scenarij [The Actor and the script]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3:
35-41. [in Russian]
209
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Klado, 1938 – Klado, N. (1938). O professii kinorezhissera [About a profession of the film
director]. Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema Art. 3: 53-56. [in Russian]
Klado, 1938 – Klado, N. (1938). Vokrug syuzheta [Around the plot]. Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema
Art. 5: 40-46. [in Russian]
Kovalov, 2009 – Kovalov, O. (2009). Istoriya zhurnala “Iskusstvo kino” [History of the
Cinema Art journal]. Seance. 13.08.2009. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://seance.ru/
articles/zhivoy-zhurnal/
Krinkin, 1936 – Krinkin, I. (1936). Realizm i naturalizm v tvorchestve hudozhnikov kino
[Realism and naturalism in the work of artists of cinematography]. Iskusstvo Kino. 1: 15-20.
[in Russian]
Krzyżanowski, 1936 – Krzyżanowski, G. (1936). Za chistotu realisticheskogo iskusstva [For
the purity of realistic art]. Iskusstvo Kino. 2: 3-7. [in Russian]
Kuleshov, 1941 – Kuleshov, L. (1941). Kul'tura rezhisserskogo tvorchestva [The Culture of the
director's art]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 11-12. [in Russian]
Kuleshov, 1987 – Kuleshov, L. (1987). Sobranie sochinenij [Collected works], Vol. 1. Moscow.
[in Russian]
Lawton, 2004 – Lawton, A. (2004). Imaging Russia 2000. Films and Facts. Washington, DC:
New Academia Publishing.
Lebedev, 1931 – Lebedev, N. (1931). Za proletarskuyu kinopublicistiku (k voprosu o
metodologii kinohroniki) [For proletarian cinema publicism (On the methodology of newsreel).
Proletarskoe kino. 12: 20-29. [in Russian]
Lebedev, 1931 – Lebedev, N. (1931). Za proletarskuyu kinopublicistiku [For proletarian
cinema publicity]. Literatura i iskusstvo. 9-10. [in Russian]
Lebedev, 1932 – Lebedev, N. (1932). Dva “dokumenta” (po povodu statej Vertova i Erofeeva)
[Two “documents” (on the articles of Vertov and Erofeev)]. Proletarskoe kino. 5: 24-29.
[in Russian]
Lebedev, 1933 – Lebedev, N. (1933). O specifike kino [About the specificity of cinema].
Sovetskoe kino. 8: 71-80. 9: 67-73. 10: 48-62. [in Russian]
Lebedev, 1934 – Lebedev, N. (1934). O nauchno-issledovatel'skoj rabote v kino [About
research work in cinema]. Sovetskoe kino. 10: 43-49. [in Russian]
Lebedev, 1939 – Lebedev, N. (1939). Stalin i kino [Stalin and cinema]. Iskusstvo Kino. 12:
18-21. [in Russian]
Lebedev, 1974 – Lebedev, N. (1974). Vnimanie: kinematograf! O kino i kinovedenii.
[Attention: Film! About the cinema and film criticism]. Мoscow. [in Russian]
Leonidov, 1933 – Leonidov, O. (1933). Kinodramaturg i proizvodstvo [Screenwriter and
production]. Sovetskoe kino. 10: 26-30. [in Russian]
Let s…, 1940 – Povysim kachestvo sovetskih fil'mov! [Let's raise the quality of Soviet films!]
(1940). Iskusstvo Kino. 7-8: 3-4. [in Russian]
Lipkov, 1990 – Lipkov, A. (1990). Problemy hudozhestvennogo vozdejstviya: princip
attrakciona [The Problems of artistic influence: the attraction principle]. [in Russian]
Lotman, 1973 – Lotman, Y. (1973). Semiotika kino i problemy kinoestetiki [Semiotics of
cinema and the problems of film aesthetic. Tallin. [in Russian]
Lotman, 1992 – Lotman, Y. (1992). Stat'i po semiotike i topologii kul'tury [Articles on
semiotics and topology of culture]. Vol.1. In: Izbrannye stat'i [Selected articles]. Tallin. [in Russian]
Lotman, Tsivjan, 1994 – Lotman, Y., Tsivjan, J. (1994). Dialog s ekranom [Dialog with the
Screen]. Tallin. [in Russian]
Luchansky, 1939 – Luchansky, M. (1939). Giperbola v kino [Hyperbole in cinema]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 7: 26-30. [in Russian]
Main…, 1931 – Osnovnye zadachi tvorcheskoj diskussii [Main tasks of creative discussion
(Resolution of the First All-Union meeting of scriptwriters)] (1931). Proletarskoe kino. 2-3: 1-3.
[in Russian]
Manevich, 1940 – Manevich, I. (1940). Voprosy ekranizacii [Screen adaptations’ questions].
Iskusstvo Kino. 7-8: 58-63. [in Russian]
Mast, Cohen, 1985 – Mast, G., Cohen, M. (eds.) (1985). Film Theory and Criticism:
Introductory Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Medvedkin, 1933 – Medvedkin, A. (1933). Novoe kachestvo dramaturgii [The New quality of
dramaturgy]. Sovetskoe kino. 11: 15-18. [in Russian]
210
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Metz, 1974 – Metz, C. (1974). Language and cinema. The Hague: Mouton.
Mikhailov, 1931 – Mikhailov, A. (1931). “Chernaya” rabota Viktora Shklovskogo [“Black”
work of Victor Shklovsky]. Proletarskoe kino. 4: 52-55. [in Russian]
Mikhailov, 1931 – Mikhailov, A. (1931). Protiv eklektizma v kinoteorii i kinokritike [Against
eclecticism in film theory and criticism]. Proletarskoe kino. 2-3: 26-33. [in Russian]
Mikhailov, 1935 – Mikhailov, A. (1935). K voprosam teorii kino [To questions of the theory of
cinematography]. Sovetskoe kino. 9: 34-50. [in Russian]
Mogendovich, 1932 – Mogendovich, M. (1932). Obraz i rol' (k teorii akterskogo tvorchestva)
[Image and role (to the theory of actor's creativity)]. Proletarskoe kino. 19-20: 23-32. [in Russian]
Mogendovich, 1932 – Mogendovich, M. (1932). Obraz i rol' (k teorii akterskogo tvorchestva)
[Screen actor (to the theory of actor creativity)]. Proletarskoe kino. 19-20: 32-39. [in Russian]
Nesterovich, 1939 – Nesterovich, O. (1939). Dramaturgiya istoriko-revolyucionnogo fil'ma
[Dramaturgy of historical-revolutionary film]. Iskusstvo Kino. 7: 22-25. [in Russian]
Nesterovich, 1940 – Nesterovich, O. (1940). Podnimem kinokritiku do vershin
kinematografii [Let's raise film criticism to the heights of cinematography]. Iskusstvo Kino. 7-8:
44-46. [in Russian]
Nielsen, 1932 – Nielsen, V. (1932). O formalistskoj teorii montazha [On the formalist theory
of montage]. Proletarskoe kino. 4: 18-24. [in Russian]
Otten, 1937 – Otten, N. (1937). Snova ob “emocional nom scenario” [Again on the “emotional
scenario”]. Iskusstvo Kino. 5. С. 30-35. [in Russian]
Plonsky, 1932 – Plonsky, V. (1932). O vylazkah, drozhzhah i specifike tonfil'my [On sorties,
yeast and specificity of tonfilm]. Proletarskoe kino – Proletarian Cinema. 3: 4-6. [in Russian]
Popov, 1931 – Popov, I. (1931). Predislovie k nenapisannoj stat'e (o tvorcheskom metode)
[Preface to an unwritten article (on the creative method)]. Proletarskoe kino – Proletarian
Cinema. 7: 21-31. [in Russian]
Pudalov, 1941 – Pudalov, F. (1941). Literatura sredstvami kino [Literature through film].
Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 42-45. [in Russian]
Pudovkin, 1932 – Pudovkin, V. (1932). Vremya krupnym planom [Time in close-up].
Proletarskoe kino. 1: 30-32. [in Russian]
Pudovkin, 1938 – Pudovkin, V. (1938). O vnutrennim i vneshnim v razvitiya aktora [About
the internal and external in the upbringing of an actor]. Iskusstvo Kino. 7: 28-31. [in Russian]
Pudovkin, 1939 – Pudovkin, V. (1939). Realizm, naturalizm i sistema Stanislavskogo
[Realism, Naturalism and Stanislavsky's System]. Iskusstvo Kino. 2: 30-35. [in Russian]
Razlogov, 1984 – Razlogov, K. (1984). Stroenie fil'ma. Nekotorye problemy analiza
proizvedenij ekrana [Structure of the film. Some problems of analyzing the screen works. Мoscow.
[in Russian]
Reich, 1940 – Reich, B. (1940). Obrazy klassicheskoj i sovremennoj dramy [Images of
classical and modern drama]. Iskusstvo Kino. 10: 5-8. [in Russian]
Resolution…, 1932 – Postanovlenie Politbyuro CK VKP(b) “O perestrojke literaturno-
hudozhestvennyh organizacij” [Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist
Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations”. 23.04.1932.
Partijnoe stroitel'stvo. 9: 62. [in Russian]
Resolution…, 1938 – O postanovke partijnoj propagandy v svyazi s vypuskom “Kratnogo
kursa istorii VKP(b)” ot 14.11.1938 [Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party of Bolsheviks “On setting party propaganda in connection with the release of the
“Short Course of the History of the All-Union Communist Party(b)”. 14.11.1938. Iskusstvo Kino. 12:
6-12. [in Russian]
Resolution…, 1938 – Postanovlenie Sovnarkoma Soyuza SSR «Ob uluchshenii organizacii
proizvodstva kinokartin» ot 23 marta 1938 goda [Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars
of the USSR "On the improvement of organization of the production of cinema films" of March 23,
1938]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 7-8. [in Russian]
Shaw, Youngblood, 2010 – Shaw, T., Youngblood, D.J. (2010). Cinematic Cold War:
The American and Soviet Struggle for Heart and Minds. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Shishkin, 2017 – Shishkin, N. (2017). Reabilitaciya burzhuaznogo kinematografa na stranicah
zhurnala “Iskusstvo kino” (1986–1991gg.) [Rehabilitation of bourgeois cinematography on the
pages of the magazine Cinema Art (1986-1991)]. Sovremennaya nauka: aktual'nye problemy
teorii i praktiki. Seriya: Poznanie. 11-12: 18-23. [in Russian]
211
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Shishkin, 2018 – Shishkin, N. (2018). Zhurnal “Iskusstvo kino” (1986–1991 gg.):
reideologizaciya skvoz' prizmu zarubezhnogo kinematografa [Journal Cinema Art (1986-1991):
reideologization through the prism of foreign Cinematography]. Sovremennaya nauka: aktual'nye
problemy teorii i praktiki. Seriya: Poznanie. 3: 44-49. [in Russian]
Shklovsky, 1931 – Shklovsky, V. (1931). Kak pisat' scenario [How to write scripts]. Moscow.
[in Russian]
Shlapentokh, 1993 – Shlapentokh, D. and V. (1993). Soviet Cinematography 1918–1991:
Ideological Conflict and Social Reality. N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.
Shneider, 1941 – Shneider, M. (1941). Avtorskij scenarij [Author's scenario]. Iskusstvo Kino.
3: 30-34. [in Russian]
Skorodumov, 1932 – Skorodumov, L. (1932). Zritel' i kino [Spectator and cinema].
Proletarskoe kino. 19-20: 49-61. [in Russian]
Skorodumov, 1933 – Skorodumov, L. (1933). Nauchnaya fil'ma [Scientific film]. Sovetskoe
kino. 9: 74-80. 10: 76-78. [in Russian]
Skrytev, 1932 – Skrytev, S. (1932). Proletarskoe kino. 1932. № 21-22: 20-22. [in Russian]
Sokolov, 1932 – Sokolov, I. (1932). Razoruzhenie kino [Disarmament of Cinema].
Proletarskoe kino. 21-22: 20-22. [in Russian]
Sokolov, 1939 – Sokolov, I. (1939). Postroenie epizoda i sceny [Construction of an episode
and scene]. Iskusstvo Kino. 10: 50-55. [in Russian]
Sokolov, 1940 – Sokolov, I. (1940). Syuzhet i harakter kinokomedii [Plot and character of a
film comedy]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 19-24. [in Russian]
Sokolov, 1941 – Sokolov, I. (1941). Postroenie dramaticheskogo konflikta [Construction of
dramatic conflict]. Iskusstvo Kino. 2: 44-48. [in Russian]
Sokolov, 2010 – Sokolov, V. (2010). Kinovedenie kak nauka [Cinematography as a science].
Мoscow. [in Russian]
Stalin, 1931 – Stalin, I. (1931). O nekotoryh voprosah istorii bol'shevizma [On some questions
of the history of Bolshevism]. Proletarskaya Revolyuciya. 6(113). [in Russian]
Stam, 2000 – Stam, R. (2000). Film Theory: an Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Strada, Troper, 1997 – Strada, M.J., Troper, H.R. (1997). Friend or Foe?: Russian in
American Film and Foreign Policy. Lanham, Md., London: The Scarecrow Press.
Sutyrin, 1931 – Sutyrin, V. (1931). O sovetskoj satire [On Soviet Satire]. Proletarskoe kino.
10-11: 4-15. [in Russian]
Sutyrin, 1932 – Sutyrin, V. (1932). Vol ili lyagushka? [Bullock or Frog?]. Proletarskoe kino.
4: 13-17. 5: 3-11. [in Russian]
Tarkovsky, 1967 – Tarkovsky, A. (1967). Zapechatlennoe vremya [Eyewitnessed Time]. Kino
Iskusstvo. 4: 69-79. [in Russian]
To…, 1940 – K diskussii ob uchebnom kino [To the discussion about educational cinema]
(1940). Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema Art. 11: 59. [in Russian]
Toll, 1940 – Toll, B. (1940). Uchebnoe kino i iskusstvo [Teaching Film and Art]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 10: 63-64. [in Russian]
Toll, 1940 – Toll, B. (1940). Voprosy teorii uchebnogo fil'ma [Questions of the theory of
educational film]. Iskusstvo Kino. 6: 60-63. [in Russian]
Tsechanovsky, 1931a – Tsehanovsky, M. (1931). Kino i zhivopis' [Cinema and Painting].
Proletarskoe kino. 4: 5-7. [in Russian]
Tsechanovsky, 1931b – Tsehanovsky, M. (1931). Specifika tonfil'my [The specificity of
tonfilm]. Proletarskoe kino – Proletarian Cinema. 12: 12-19. [in Russian]
Tsechanovsky, 1934 – Tsechanovsky, M. (1934). Ot “Murzilki” k bol shomu iskusstvu [From
Murzilka to great art]. Sovetskoe kino. 10: 20-27. [in Russian]
Tsechanovsky, 1940 – Tsehanovsky, M. (1940). Cvet v kino [Color in cinema]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 7-8: 64-65. [in Russian]
Turkin, 1936 – Turkin, V. (1936). Fabula i haraktery [Plot and characters]. Iskusstvo Kino.
10: 37-52. [in Russian]
Turkin, 1938 – Turkin, V. (1938). O kinosyuzhete i kinoscenarii [About the plot and script in
movies ]. Iskusstvo Kino. 8: 28-31. [in Russian]
Vasiliev, 2006 – Vasiliev, D. (2006). Sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya
zhurnalov o kino (na primere zhurnala ‘Iskusstvo kino’ [Modern state and prospects for the
212
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
development of journals about cinema (by the example of the journal Cinema Art)]. Ph.D. Dis.
Moscow [in Russian]
Vertov, 1932 – Vertov, D. (1932). Polnaya kapitulyaciya Nikolaya Lebedeva [Complete
Surrender of Nikolay Lebedev]. Proletarskoe kino. 5: 12-18. [in Russian]
Villarejo, 2007 – Villarejo, A. (2007). Film Studies: the Basics. London: Routledge.
Volkenstein, 1937 – Volkenstein, V. (1937). Dramaturgiya kino [Dramaturgy of Cinema].
Moscow. [in Russian]
Volkov, 1933a – Volkov, N. (1933). Na zvukovye temy [On sound themes]. Sovetskoe kino –
Soviet Cinema. 8: 61-70. 11: 56-66. [in Russian]
Volkov, 1933b – Volkov, N. (1933). O teatral'noj i kinematograficheskoj igre aktera [On the
theatrical and cinematographic actor's interpretations]. Sovetskoe kino. 12: 56-61. [in Russian]
Volkov, 1934 – Volkov, N. (1934). O ”amostoyatel nosti” aktera [On the “independence” of
the actor]. Sovetskoe kino. 1-2: 102-109. [in Russian]
Volkov-Lanit, 1939 – Volkov-Lanit, L. (1939). Muzyka fil'ma i ee teoretiki [Film music and its
theorists]. Iskusstvo Kino. 8: 39-43. [in Russian]
Voloshchenko, 1933 – Voloshchenko, V. (1933). Kinematografiya i zhizn' [Cinematography
and life]. Sovetskoe kino – Soviet Cinema. 10: 17-25. [in Russian]
Voytolovskaya, 1932 – Voytolovskaya, L. (1932). Programma voinstvuyushchego formalizma
[Program of militant formalism]. Proletarskoe kino. 2: 5-9. [in Russian]
Weisfeld, 1936 – Weisfeld, I. (1936). Itogi diskussii o “Duhe fil my” [The results of the
discussion about The Spirit of Film]. Iskusstvo Kino. 6: 46-51. [in Russian]
Weisfeld, 1937 – Weisfeld, I. (1937). Teoriya i praktika S.M. Ejzenshtejna [Theory and
practice of S.M. Eisenstein]. Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema Art. 5. С. 25-28. [in Russian]
Weisfeld, 1939 – Weisfeld, I. (1939). Kul'tura detali v kino [The Culture of detail in cinema].
Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema Art. 5: 37-45. [in Russian]
Weisfeld, 1940 – Weisfeld, I. (1940). Postroenie komedijnoj intrigi [Construction of comedy
intrigue]. Iskusstvo Kino – Cinema Art. 7-8: 38-41. [in Russian]
Weisfeld, 1983 – Weisfeld, I. (1983). Kino kak vid iskusstva [Cinema as a kind of art].
Мoscow. [in Russian]
Weisman, 1939 – Weisman, E. (1939). Istoricheskaya nauka i kinoiskusstvo [Historical
science and cinema art]. Iskusstvo Kino. 9: 55-60. [in Russian]
Weizman, 1978 – Weizman, E. (1978). Ocherki filosofii kino [Essays on the philosophy of
cinema]. Мoscow. [in Russian]
Woll, 2000 – Woll, J. (2000). Real Images. Soviet Cinema and the Thaw. London. New York:
I.B. Tauris.
Yukov, 1931 – Yukov, K. (1931). V bor'be za proletarskoe kino [In the struggle for proletarian
cinema]. Proletarskoe kino. 1: 24-29. [in Russian]
Yukov, 1935 – Yukov, K. (1935). Aktivno organizuyushchaya rol' kritiki [The actively
organizing role of critics]. Sovetskoe kino. 1: 13-15. [in Russian]
Yukov, 1936 – Yukov, K. (1936). K probleme scenarnogo obraza [To the problem of the script
image]. Iskusstvo Kino. 5: 32-39. [in Russian]
Yukov, 1936 – Yukov, K. (1936). Ob odnoj osobennosti obraza v kinoiskusstve [About one
peculiarity of an image in cinema art]. Iskusstvo Kino. 12: 21-22. [in Russian]
Yukov, 1937 – Yukov, K. (1937). Imenem naroda [In the name of the people]. Iskusstvo Kino.
2: 5-6. [in Russian]
Yukov, 1937 – Yukov, K. (1937). Istoricheskoe reshenie [Historical decision]. Iskusstvo Kino.
5: 20-24. [in Russian]
Yurenev, 1997 – Yurenev, R. (1997). Kratkaya istoriya kinoiskusstva [Short history of cinema
art]. Moscow. [in Russian]
Yutkevich, 1933 – Yutkevich, S. (1933). Rech', kotoraya ne proiznesena [Speech, which is not
pronounced]. Sovetskoe kino. 10: 5-16. [in Russian]
Yutkevich, 1938 – Yutkevich, S. (1938). Besedy o rezhisserskom masterstve [Conversations
about directors' craft]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 50-59. [in Russian]
Yutkevich, 1939 – Yutkevich, S. (1939). Rezhisser i hudozhnik v kino [The director and the
artist in cinema]. Iskusstvo Kino. 7: 14-21. [in Russian]
Yutkevich, 1940 – Yutkevich, S. (1940). Velikoe iskusstvo smeshnogo [The Great art of
ridiculousness]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 10-18. [in Russian]
213
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
Zadachi…, 1938 – Zadachi zhurnala [Tasks of the journal]. Iskusstvo Kino. 1938. 1: 12.
[in Russian]
Zadachi…, 1939 – Zadachi sovetskoj kinokritiki [Tasks of Soviet film criticism]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 1939. 5: 5-6. [in Russian]
Żelabuzhski, 1937 – Żelabuzhski, Y. (1937). Chto takoe plan [What is a plan]. Iskusstvo Kino.
11: 34-43. [in Russian]
Zeldovich, 1936 – Zeldovich, G. (1936). Tvorchestvo kinoaktera [The creativity of the film
actor]. Iskusstvo Kino. 3: 35-38. [in Russian]
Zhdan, 1982 – Zhdan, V. (1982). Estetika fil'ma [The aesthetics of the film]. Мoscow.
[in Russian]
Zhemchuzhny, 1933 – Zhemchuzhny, V. (1933). “Zheleznyj scenarij” [“Iron script”].
Sovetskoe kino. 7: 31-40. [in Russian]
Zhinkin, 1940 – Zhinkin, N. (1940). O kinoiskusstve i nauchnom kino [About cinema art and
scientific cinema]. Iskusstvo Kino. 9: 52-53. [in Russian]
Zilber, Krinkin, 1935 – Zilber, E., Krinkin, I. (1935). Preodolenie empirizma [Overcoming
Empiricism]. Sovetskoe kino. 3: 6-10. [in Russian]
Zilver, 1936 – Zilver, E. (1936). K probleme syuzheta [To the problem of plot]. Iskusstvo
Kino. 3: 12-15. [in Russian]
Zverina, 1937 – Zverina, R. (1937). Navesti poryadok v studii Mosfil'm [To put in order in
Mosfilm studio]. Sovetskoe iskusstvo. 29.10.1937. 50(396): 6. [in Russian]
Appendix
The main dates and events related to the historical, political, economic, ideological, socio-
cultural and cinematic context in which the publication of the journal Cinema Art was carried out
in 1931–1941.
1931
The continuation of collectivization and the fight against the so-called "kulaks" (the active
phase of which began as early as 1929), accompanied by a severe summer drought, which led to a
significant decrease in the gross grain harvest (694.8 million centners in 1931 against 835.4 million
centners in 1930).
January: as a result of the merger of the journals Cinema and Life (editor: J. Rudoy) and
Cinema and Culture (editor: P. Blyakhin), the former political worker, journalist and organizer of
film production V. Sutyrin (1902–1985) was appointed the editor of the journal Proletarian
Cinema. Since the release of the first issue of this journal, the Cinema Art has been counting its
history.
June 1: Premiere of the first sound film – Start in Life (directed by N. Ekk), which enjoyed
great success with the audience.
S. Orelovich (1902–1937), a former Chekist and later organizer of film production, was
appointed director of Sovkino/Mosfilm.
September: The Society of Friends of Soviet Cinema and Photography (until June 1930 it
was called the Society of Friends of Soviet Cinema) was reorganized into the Society for
Proletarian Cinema and Photo, the number of members of which reached 110 thousand.
Publication of an anti-Trotskyist article by I. Stalin in the journal Proletarian Revolution:
Stalin I. (1931). On some questions of the history of Bolshevism. Proletarian Revolution. 6(113).
1932
February: dissolution of the central council of the society For Proletarian Cinema and Photo.
April 23: Resolution of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist
Party of Bolsheviks "On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations", 23.04.1932.
April: publication of an article sharply criticizing the Society For Proletarian Cinema and
Photo (S. Evgenov. (1932). Get the Society For Proletarian Cinema and Photo out of the impasse,
rebuild work from top to bottom. Proletarskoe photo. 4: 11-15).
July 14: Resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on the liquidation of the
Society For Proletarian Cinema and Photo.
214
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
October: one of the former political leaders of the USSR – L. Kamenev (1883–1936) –
was expelled from the party for non-information in connection with the case of the "Union of
Marxist-Leninists" and sent into exile in Minusinsk.
December: Beginning of mass famine in the USSR caused by collectivization and crop
failures.
1933
January 12: The joint plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission
of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decided to purge the party and stop admission to
it in 1933 and on the "anti-party group" of the former People's Commissar for Supply of the RSFSR
N. Eismont (1991–1935), former People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR
V. Tolmacheva (1887–1937) and others. At the Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central
Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks I. Stalin announced the
liquidation of the “kulaks” and the victory of socialist relations in the countryside.
January-March: continuation of mass famine in the USSR caused by collectivization and crop
failures.
January: Proletarian Cinema journal is renamed into Soviet Cinema (this renaming was
most likely due to the fact that the authorities headed for the unity of "the entire Soviet people",
without the former ideological emphasis on the dictatorship of the proletariat).
February 11: Resulition of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the
organization of the Main Directorate of the Film and Photo Industry under the Council of People's
Commissars of the USSR". B. Shumyatsky (1886–1938) was appointed head of the Main
Directorate of the Film and Photo Industry.
November: former party functionary, responsible Secretary of the Board of the Association of
Revolutionary Cinematographers, editor of the journal Cinema Front, head of the scenario
workshop Sovkino, deputy chairman of the board of the Society of Friends of Soviet
Cinematography, member of the bureau of the film section of the Russian Association of
Proletarian Writers, deputy executive editor of the newspaper Cinema K. Yukov (1902–1938) was
appointed editor of the journal Soviet Cinema.
December: L. Kamenev (1883–1936) was again reinstated in the Communist party and
appointed director of the scientific publishing house Academia.
December 26: theater and film director L. Kurbas (1887–1937) was arrested in the case of the
"Ukrainian military organization".
1934
January 26 — February 10: XVII Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
July 10: Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the Formation of the
All-Union People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs of the USSR".
July 10: G. Yagoda (1891–1938) was appointed People's Commissar of Internal Affairs of the
USSR.
August 17 — September 1: First All-Union Congress of Soviet Writers.
October 9: Establishment of a trade union of film and photo workers.
December 1: First Secretary of the Leningrad Regional Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party of Bolsheviks, member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-
Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union
Communist Party of Bolsheviks S. Kirov (1886–1934) was shot dead by a former Komsomol and
party functionary L. Nikolaev (1904–1934).
December 1: Resolution of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR
"On Amendments to the Current Criminal Procedure Codes of the Union Republics", which gave
the right "to the investigating authorities to conduct cases accused of preparing or committing
terrorist acts in an expedited manner. The judiciary should not delay the execution of sentences”.
December: former political leaders of the USSR G. Zinoviev (1883–1936) and L. Kamenev
(1883–1936) were arrested, expelled from the Communist Party and convicted in the Moscow
Center case.
December: B. Babitsky (1901–1938) was appointed director of Mosfilm, where he worked
until his arrest and execution in 1937.
1935
January 8-13: First All-Union Conference of Creative Workers of Soviet Cinematography,
where a decision was made to dissolve the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers.
215
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
February 21 — March 1: International Film Festival in Moscow.
May-July: B. Shumyatsky (1886–1938), head of the Main Directorate of the Film and Photo
Industry, and a group of filmmakers accompanying him make a foreign business trip to Europe and
the USA in order to adopt the best practices of Western sound film industry.
December 16: The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
established the All-Union Committee for the Arts.
1936
January 1936: the journal Soviet Cinema was renamed Cinema Art (there is a version that
this renaming was due to the fact that the authorities wanted to emphasize that from now on
cinema should not become entertainment, not even a means of political agitation and propaganda,
but the Art of socialist realism in the service of the entire Soviet people).
January 28: An editorial in the newspaper Pravda (titled "Muddle Instead of Music") sharply
criticized D. Shostakovich's (1906–1975) opera Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District.
June: liquidation of the Mezhrabpomfilm studio (Soyuzdetfilm was founded on its basis).
July 4: Resulution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
"On pedological perversions in the system of the People's Commissariat of Education".
August 19-24: Trial of the "Anti-Soviet United Trotskyist-Zinoviev Center". The main
defendants: August 24: G. Zinoviev (1883–1936) and L. Kamenev (1883–1936), sentenced on
August 24 to an exceptional measure of punishment.
August 25: G. Zinoviev (1883–1936) and L. Kamenev (1883–1936) were shot.
September 26: Party functionary N. Yezhov (1895–1940) is appointed People's Commissar of
Internal Affairs of the USSR.
November 25 — December 5: The Congress of Soviets of the USSR, at which (December 5) a
new Constitution of the USSR was adopted, according to which the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
became the supreme body of state power in the USSR.
Former Chairman of the All-Union Committee for Radio and Broadcasting P. Kerzhentsev
(1881-1940) was appointed head of the All-Union Committee for the Arts, where he worked until
1938.
1937
January 23-30: Trial of the “Parallel Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Center”, where the Military
Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR convicted former prominent party and government
figures: N. Muralov (1877–1937), G. Pyatakov (1890–1937), K. Radek (1885–1939), L. Serebryakov
(1888–1937), G. Sokolnikov (1888–1939) and others.
February 27: arrest of prominent party and government figures: N. Bukharin (1888–1938)
and A. Rykov (1881–1938).
March 28: arrest of the former People's Commissar of Internal Affairs G. Yagoda (1891–
1938).
April 8: L. Katsnelson (1895–1938), former first deputy director of Lenfilm for production
and technical issues, was arrested on charges of counter-revolutionary activities.
May 27: B. Babitsky (1901–1938) dismissed from the post of director of Mosfilm.
June: former party functionary S. Sokolovskaya (1894-1938) was appointed director of the
Mosfilm film studio.
June: N. Semenov (1902–1982), who worked in this position until December 1937, was
appointed editor of the journal Cinema Art.
June 11: Trial in the "Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyist Military Organization" against former
prominent military leaders of the Red Army. Defendants: A. Kork (1887–1937), V. Primakov
(1897–1937), V. Putna (1893–1937), M. Tukhachevsky (1893–1937), B. Feldman (1890-1937),
I. Uborevich (1896–1937), R. Eideman (1895–1937), I. Yakir (1896–1937). All of them were shot on
the night of June 12.
July 10: arrest on charges of espionage and sabotage of the former director of the Lenfilm
A. Piotrovsky (1898–1937).
July 17: S. Orelovich (1902–1937), former director of the Mosfilm studio, was shot.
July 18: the execution of the theater and film actor N. Canan (1892–1937), who played in the
films Khaz-Push, Two Nights, etc.
July 30: Order "On the operation to repress former kulaks, criminals and other anti-Soviet
elements" was issued.
August 3: A. Slivkin (1886–1938), deputy director of Mosfilm, was arrested.
216
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
September 3: the execution of the writer and screenwriter N. Borisov (1989–1937), the
author of the scripts for the films Ukraine, Hero of the Match and others.
September 10: the execution of the screenwriter, playwright and poet S. Tretyakov (1892–
1937), the author of the scripts for the films Eliso, The Salt of Svanetia, etc.
September 19: the execution of film actress Y. Mirato (1898–1937), who played in the films
Mysterious World, Moon Beauty, Princess Larisa, Shut up, sadness ... be quiet..., Not born for
money, etc.
September 23: the execution of the director and cameraman of documentary cinema
I. Valentey (1895–1937).
September 27: the execution of the theater and film actor N. Nademsky (1892-1937), who
played roles in the films Benya Krik, Berries of Love, Zvenigora, Arsenal, Earth, Ivan, Deputy of
the Baltic , Prometheus, etc.
September 28: the execution of screenwriter V. Zazubrin (1895–1937) (Red Gas, Cabin on
Baikal).
October 8: Arrested and further convicted by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of
the USSR for "espionage" the operator of the films Merry Fellows (1934) and Circus (1936)
V. Nielsen (1906–1938).
October 9: theater and film director L. Kurbas (1887–1937) (director of the films Vendetta,
Arsenals, etc.) was sentenced to exectution.
October 12: arrest (on charges of espionage and participation in a counter-revolutionary
organization) of the director of the Mosfilm studio S. Sokolovskaya (1894–1938).
October 15: the execution of the theater and film actress P. Tanailidi (1891–1937), who
starred in the films Ismet and Almas.
October 29: The newspaper Soviet Art publishes a devastating article entitled “Clean up the
Mosfilm studio” (Soviet Art. 1937. 50(396): 6).
October 29: the execution of the writer and screenwriter A. Volny (1902–1937), the author of
the scripts for the films Sunny Campaign, New Motherland, etc.
October 31: the execution of the film director F. Lopatinsky (1899–1937), who directed the
films Duel, Karmelyuk, etc.
November 3: the execution of the theater and film director L. Kurbas (1887–1937).
November 14: the execution of the writer and screenwriter D. Buzko (1890–1937), the author
of the scripts for the films The Forest Beast (1925), Taras Shevchenko (1926) and others.
November 15: The former director of the Sovkino factory (since 1934 — Lenfilm)
A. Piotrovsky (1898–1937) was sentenced to death, the sentence was carried out on November 21,
1937.
December 16: actor D. Konsovsky (1907–1938), who starred in the films House of the Dead,
Deserter, Traitor to the Motherland, and others, was arrested.
December 22: arrest (on charges of participation in a terrorist counter-revolutionary
Trotskyist organization at Mosfilm) of the former director of Mosfilm B. Babitsky (1901–1938).
November 24: the execution of the writer and screenwriter N. Oleinikov (1898–1937) (author
of the scripts for the comedies Wake Lenochka, Lenochka and Grapes, etc.); poet and screenwriter
V. Erlich (1902–1937) (co-author of the script for the film Volochaev Days).
November 29: Director and screenwriter D. Maryan (1892–1937), who directed the films Life
in the Hands, Dreamers and In the Far East, was shot.
December 2: shooting of cameraman N. Yudin (1895–1937), who made the films Dreamers,
State of Siege, and others.
December 3: the shooting of cameraman N. Efremov (1973–1937), who made the films
Whims of Love, The Devil, Swedish Match, Dangerous Age, Secret of the Tall Lady and many
others.
December 8: the execution of screenwriter G. Shkrupiy (1903–1937), the author of the scripts
for the films Blue Packet and Spartacus.
December 15: the execution of screenwriter, writer and journalist A. Zorich (1899-1937),
the author of the scripts for the films Don Diego and Pelageya, Love, The girl is in a hurry to meet.
December 20: shooting of film director N. Dirin (1891–1937), director of the films My Son,
Why Is It So?, Merry War, andcameraman P. Chupyatov (1883–1937), who made the films On the
Far Shore, Forest Side, etc.
December 23: arrested and further convicted Z. Darevsky (1901–1938) from Mosfilm Studio.
217
Media Education (Mediaobrazovanie). 2022. 18(2)
December 30: Execution of screenwriter, journalist, editor-in-chief of the magazines
Journalist and Screen A. Kurs (1892–1937), scriptwriter of the films Your Friend, Great
Comforter, etc.
(1937): film actor P. Pirogov (1904–1937), who starred in the films Peasants, For the Soviet
Motherland, and others, was shot; director and screenwriter P. Svorkov (1891–1937), who staged
the films Gold Bottom, End of the Cranes, etc.; director and actor S. Khodzhaev (1892–1937) (film
Before Dawn).
1938
January-September: Cinema Art journal is published without the name of the responsible
editor. Only the editorial board appears in the imprint of this period (without listing any names).
January 5: actor D. Konsovsky (1907–1938) sentenced to death.
January 7: B. Shumyatsky (1886–1938) was removed from the post of head of the Main
Directorate of Cinematography by decision of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-
Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
January 7: S. Dukelsky (1892–1960) was appointed head of the Main Directorate of
Cinematography of the Committee for the Arts.
January 9: Pravda newspaper publishes an article entitled “What hinders the development of
Soviet cinema” (G. Ermolaev (1938). What hinders the development of Soviet cinema. Pravda.
9.01.1938. 9(7334): 4).
January 12: the execution of the actor S. Shagaid (1896–1938), who played in the films
Aerocity, Rich Bride, etc.
January 18: arrest (on charges of counter-revolutionary activities and espionage) of the
former head of the Main Directorate of Cinematography B. Shumyatsky (1886–1938).
January 20: the execution of the cameraman of the films Merry Fellows (1934) and Circus
(1936) V. Nielsen (1906–1938).
January 29: the execution of the cameraman K. Bauer (1880–1938), who made the films
Idols, Song of Triumphant Love, etc.
February 3: former editor of the Soviet Cinema and Cinema Art K. Yukov (1902–1938) and
Deputy Chairman of the All-Union Committee for Arts under the Council of People's Commissars
of the USSR J. Chuzhin (1898–1938) were arrested on charges of participating in a counter-
revolutionary organization and sentenced to death.
February 15: actor D. Konsovsky (1907–1938) died shortly before the appointed date of
execution.
February 19: screenwriter and journalist I. Chubar (1897–1938) was shot.
February 28: the execution of film actor B. Schmidtsdorf (1908–1938), who played in the
films Royal Sailors, Ai-Gul, Wrestlers.
March 4: the execution of cameraman D. Kalyuzhny (1899–1938), who made the films
Downpour, Karmelyuk, and others.
March 2-13: Trial of the anti-Soviet "bloc of Rights and Trotskyists" in the Military Collegium
of the Supreme Court of the USSR. The main defendants: former prominent party and government
figures: N. Bukharin (1888–1938), A. Rykov (1881–1938), N. Krestinsky (1883–1938), H. Rakovsky
(1873–1941), former People's Commissar of Internal Affairs G. Yagoda (1891–1938) and others.
March 10: The former director of Mosfilm, B. Babitsky (1901–1938), was sentenced by the
Military Collegium of the Supreme Court on charges of participating in a counter-revolutionary
terrorist organization to "the death penalty" and shot on the same day. One of the former leaders of
Mezhrabpomfilm, Y. Zaitsev, was also shot.
March 10: Z. Darevsky (1901–1938), former director of Mosfilm's feature film studio No. 2,
was shot.
March 15: execution of the former deputy director of Mosfilm A. Slivkin (1886–1938).
March 15: execution of former prominent Soviet party and government figures: N. Bukharin
(1888–1938), A. Rykov (1881–1938), N. Krestinsky (1883–1938), G. Yagoda (1891–1938) and
others.
March 23: Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On improving the
organization of the production of motion pictures".
March 23: Resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR "On the Formation
of the Committee for Cinematography under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR".
218
Data Loading...