CC BY
19Copyright © 2017 by Academic Publishing House Researcher s.r.o.
W TT
I
Published in the Slovak Republic
International Journal of Media and Information Literacy
Has been issued since 2016.
E-ISSN: 2500-106X
2017, 2(2): 79-89
DOI: 10.13187/ijmil.2017.2.79 www.ejournal46.com
Soviet Cinema in Cinema Art Journal (1967)
Alexander Fedorov a , *
a Rostov State University of Economics, Russian Federation
Abstract
The analysis of the articles of magazine Cinema Art - 1967 identified the following key film criticism trends:
- Despite the folding thaw effects, the magazine tried to keep the ideological position of the late 1950s - early 1960s;
- The authors of the magazine tried to analyze the most notable works of the Soviet cinema, even criticized certain shortcomings in the films of famous and influential at that time masters of the screen;
- Paying tribute to the inevitable Soviet propaganda rhetoric, the magazine could afford to publish informative theoretical and sociological discussion, and the texts of outstanding script;
- However, in some cases, the magazine could (perhaps by order "from above") cause painful a critical blow to the talented work screen.
In general, the Cinema Art (1967) was a kind of typical model of the Soviet humanities journals (with the entire obligatory bow to censorship) that try to stay in the position of "socialism with a human face".
Keywords: film critic, USSR, Soviet, film, social and cultural context, politics, film, journal, Cinema Art.
1. Introduction
1967 was a special year for the USSR: the 50th anniversary of the Soviet power. It is clear that the Soviet press was ideologically obliged to do everything possible to present this half-century period as the progressive succession way of victories and landmark achievements, including, of course, in the "most important of the arts" - a movie. The magazine Cinema Art, the influential publication among filmmakers, professionals and spectators' elite played here a special role.
Cinema Arts monthly output was very impressive by today's edition (from 30 to 35 thousand copies). Each issue published from 6 to 14 articles about the Soviet films. Plus scripts, filmographies, etc. Traditional for the magazine headings (New Movies, Problems of the theory, Discussion, Television, Among the actors, Abroad, Script, Filmography, Bibliography, etc.) have been added in 1967 to the special commemorative section: By October the 50th anniversary, Year after year, Films of the jubilee year, Soviet film for the world.
As is well known, the final blow to the Soviet "thaw" trends was caused by the Soviet leadership in response to the events of the "Prague Spring" - in 1968. But in 1967, the magazine is still headed by L. Pogozheva whose editorship (1956-1969) almost had a peak at the "thaw", and on its decline.
* Corresponding author
E-mail addresses: mediashkola@rambler.ru (A. Fedorov)
Recalling this time, A. Medvedev noted that "Pogozheva was a kind remarkable woman, rather well-known critic... I cannot say that she had some extraordinary professional qualities as a critic, even though she was the authoritative author, and her opinion was important" (Medvedev, 2011).
Film critic M. Sulkin says much warmer about deputy chief editor of Cinema Art magazine -Y. Warsawsky: "He was extraordinarily talented, accurate sense of art critic, researcher, analyst, writer endowed with the gift" (Sulkin, 2000).
In 1967, the editorial board of the magazine Cinema Art consisted of 18 people, however, they were mostly known directors (G. Kozintsev, L. Kulidzhanov, I. Pyryev, S. Yutkevich) and film functionaries. The numbers of film critics amongst them there were only four: L. Pogozheva (editor), J. Warsawsky (deputy editor), A. Karaganov, and R. Yurenev.
Of course, the range of authors of the magazine was much wider. In 1967, a venerable and relatively young at that time, film critics and film scholars there were published. Of course, Cinema Art published the articles by no all known Soviet critics of the 1960s. But in general, the author's list was quite representative: M. Bleyman (1904-1973), Y. Bogomolov (p. 1937), G. Bohemsky (1920-1995), V. Demin (1937-1993), S. Freilich (1920-2005), N. Ignatieva (p. 1923), G. Kapralov (1921-2010), A. Karaganov (1915-2007), Y. Khanyutin (1929-1978), T. Khloplyankina (1937-1993), V. Kisunko (1940-2010), N. Kleiman (p. 1937), L. Kozlov (1933-2006), G. Kremlev (1905-1975), M. Kushnirov (p. 1937), E. Levin (1935-1991), J. Markulan (1920-1978), V. Matusevich (19372009), K. Paramonova (1916-2005), L. Pogozheva (1913-1989), L. Roshal (1936-2010), L. Rybak (1923-1988), V. Shitova (1927-2002), K. Shcherbakov (p. 1938), I. Soloviova (p. 1927), A. Svobodin (1922-1999), M. Sulkin (p. 1928), E. Surkov (1915-1988), A. Vartanov (p. 1931), J. Warsawsky (1911-2000), I. Weissfeld (1909-2003), R. Yurenev (1912-2002), M. Zak (1929-2011) and others.
In 1967, the magazine wrote about such significant Soviet films like Aibolit- 66 by R. Bykov, The S. City by I. Kheifits, Journalist by S. Gerasimov, Prisoner of the Caucasus by L. Gaidai, Head of Chukotka by V. Melnikov, Adventures of a Dentist by E. Klimov, Republic of SHKID by G. Poloka and other. Cinema Art also published outstanding scripts: Pirosmani by E. Akhvlediani and G. Shangelaya, Holy Spirit (No Path Through Fire) by E. Gabrilovich and G. Panfilov, There Were Two Comrades by Y. Dunsky and V. Frid, Three Days of Victor Chernyshov by E. Grigoriev. The pearls of the magazine became the articles of famous directors G. Kozintsev (Deep Screen) and Andrei Tarkovsky (Telling Time).
2. Materials and methods
The main material for the study was 12 issues of the magazine Cinema Art (1967). At the same time, I analyzed only as a film critics' articles reflected the Soviet feature film (though, of course, the magazine wrote about documentary, popular science, animation, and foreign cinema, published articles of prominent directors, writers, operators, actors, the full texts of scenarios, filmographies). I used the method of hermeneutic analysis of the texts.
3. Discussion and Results
Ideology
So, the jubilee year obliged Cinema Art to carry out "an ideological mandate to the party": basically in the category By October, the 50th anniversary, Year after year (footage from the Soviet films with short inscriptions designed illustrate the consistently high ideological and artistic level of the cinema in the USSR in the 50 years of its existence), etc. Especially a lot of articles of this kind in the jubilee, that is, the November issue of the magazine.
As a rule, the most "ideologically" article is not signed by the author: "Happy New Year, comrades! With the onset of the first month of the anniversary year - the year of the Great October Revolution!... The direct participants in the revolution, comrades of Lenin still paced in our ranks... And ... the life is strongly linked with the ideas of socialism and communism" (Year 1967: 1).
But some film critics, who did not want to succumb to the temptation of anonymity wrote their articles also with the strong communist pathos:
"The history of the Soviet cinema, militant art of socialist realism, is a shining example of active influence on the cinema of other countries" (Abramov, 1967: 17).
"October has brought world cinema a new character, the ideas, the very spirit of creative innovation. ... Screen, freed from the yoke of dictatorship and oppression of commercial reactionary ideas, has become one of the most important forms of artistic people awareness of their past, present and future" (Weissfeld, 1967: 29).
"High ideology, an inextricable link with the life of people, the revolutionary spirit - all this has created a tradition of innovation and prepared the victory of socialist realism. ... So now we are proud to recognize that our Soviet cinema and there is free art, serving millions and tens of millions of working people dreamed of Lenin" (Yurenev, 1967: 5, 8).
The praise of socialist realism and its impact on the world cinematography was in the essays of history of the Soviet cinema (Freilich, 1967: 35-45) and the review of the international symposium (Karaganov, 1967).
However the "thaw" articles of L. Pogozheva and Y. Warsawsky were out this fanfare background.
For example, J. Warsawsky recalled with pleasure thaw peak - 1957 year, when the "cinema, developing the best traditions of the past years, becoming smarter, braver, more honest - and therefore more optimistic"(Warsawsky, 1967: 4).
L. Pogozheva, sincerely supporting thaw trends, introduced readers to a very friendly overview of the development of Soviet cinema from 1957 to 1967 (Pogozheva, 1967: 39-53). Remembering such landmark films of the second half of 1950 - the first half of 1960, as Spring on Zarechnaya Street by F. Mironer and M. Khutsiev, It was in Penkovo by S. Rostotsky, Someone else's children by T. Abuladze , The House I live in by J. Segel and L. Kulidzhanov, Forty First, Ballad of a soldier by G. Chuhraj, Destiny of Man, War and Peace by S. Bondarchuk, Pavel Korchagin, The Peace for Inbound by A. Alov and V. Naumov, Communist, And if this is love?, Your Contemporary by Y. Raisman, Lenin, Lenin in Poland by S. Yutkevich, The cranes Are Flying by M. Kalatozov, The Living and the Dead by A. Stolper, Ivan's Childhood by A. Tarkovsky, Nine days in one year, Ordinary fascism by M. Romm, Serioja by I. Talankin and G. Danelia, Chairman by A. Saltykov, The first Teacher by A. Konchalovsky, Two by M. Bogin, Wedding by M. Kobakhidze, A Guy lives here by V. Shukshin, Journalist by S. Gerasimov, Shadows of forgotten ancestors by S. Parajanov, Nobody wanted to die by V. Zalakevicius, Hamlet by G. Kozintsev, Wings by L. Shepitko, I'm twenty years by M. Khutsiev and others films, L. Pogozheva find the exact characteristics of their artistic and audience success. In particular, she wrote about the thaw movies on the modern theme (of the second half of 1950s): "These films were very kind. They are downright shone with love for people, delight in front of our boys and girls. This enthusiasm sometimes reached sentimentality" (Pogozheva, 1967: 41).
Film Reviews
For obvious reasons, critics of the Cinema Art were a priori careful approach to the analysis of films as a member of the editorial board (G. Kozintsev, L. Kulidzhanov, I. Pyrev, S. Yutkevich) and other Soviet classics or equivalent masters of the screen.
At the same time, it should be noted that the magazine was not afraid to notice significant shortcomings even in the works of the masters. I think S. Gerasimov was unhappy to read such lines about his film Journalist: "Where the declaration overrides the dramatic action there slips edification.... If not everything in the film came out, the "blame" in this not Gerasimov as director, but Gerasimov as screenwriter"(Klado, 1967: 75). And even Iron Stream by E. Dzigan, which was made a special rate of film ideological jubilee year, received such accusations illustrative, psychological imperfection of characters, negligent actor makeup, etc. (Lvov, 1967: 68).
Even Lenin's film series by M. Donskoy (Mother's Heart, Mother's Fidelity) received low-key, but still subjected criticism (Kisunko, 1967: 33).
The member of the editorial board - a famous Soviet film director I. Pyryev also not escaped critical shots: his film The Light of a Distant Star was named too wordy (Kara, 1967: 59-67).
In this regard, I would suggest that when L. Pogozheva was dismissed from the post of chief editor (1969), authorities charged her not only in too obvious "thaw", but also in the fact that the magazine criticized of the classics of the Soviet screen...
As usual, Cinema Art devoted much attention to adaptations. T. Shah-Azizova caustically criticized adaptation of A. Chekhov's Darling (directed by S. Kolosov): "Breaking the fragile fabric of'Darling', shifting accents, director separates the synthesis of poetry and comedy, brings up the
first melodrama, the second - to the farce. The story deliberately modest and everyday style, intricate turns and spectacular" (Shah-Azizova, 1967: 53).
Acute critical arrows pierced the adaptation of Lermontov's Hero of Our Time directed by S. Rostotsky because "the screen just illustrated the individual episodes of the novel, is simplified, the cinematic embellished. We have not seen the drama of strong character in negligible time"(Bleyman, 1967: 51).
Even harder magazine praised the Uncle's Dream (based on F. Dostoevsky's story) by K.Voinov: "This discrepancy cinematographic product of literary significantly absolutely everything. ... Here it's all about the inability to penetrate into the essence: in the spirit, in the style of Dostoevsky"(Pitlyar, 1967: 44).
But the full support of the critic N. Kovarsky received a play adaptation of A. Sukhov-Kobylin Death of Tarelkin - Merry Days of Razpluev by E. Garin and H. Lokshina: "Garin and Lokshina so precise in the formulation of the film, in spite of significant bills. It seems complete, nothing is lost on the playback screen comedy. But it is marked not only fidelity to the letter and the spirit of comedy. He is faithful and the spirit of the time" (Kovarsky, 1967: 21).
Cinema Art responded positively on the adaptation of Chekhov's stories, taken by I. Heifetz (In the S. city): "Other film adaptation set to a feuilleton way, but here is all a matter of respect, cause you more sympathy than an ironic smile. This is a serious, careful, I would even say, diligent work" (Papernyi, 1967: 62).
As always deep in thought and an interesting shape the review came from the pen of Y. Khanutin. Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the film adaptation of the novel A. Green's Running on Waves (directed by P. Lubimov), the critic did a reasonable conclusion: "The tragedy has already unfulfilled in the film has turned out sharper than the happiness of searches that can still happen. Perhaps, for the authors of'Running on Waves' is also to some extent their unfulfilled that beckons imperiously calls, but not always and not all awards comprehension" (Khanutin, 1967: 62).
Several articles in the magazine were devoted to experimental musical Aibolit-66 by R. Bykov (based on K. Chukovsky's fairy tale). B. Sarnov very aptly that "Rolan Bykov decided to do (and succeeded) a film about the impotence of Evil. Quite deliberately he personified all the forces of Evil in the world the image of a puny, pathetic, quite insignificant (in all senses of the word) person. He seems to have decided to remove Evil from the pedestal on which it was unwittingly built bitter experience of mankind" (Sarnov, 1967: 22). He was echoed by L. Zakrzhewska: "This is a very well - to make sure that, in general, it is possible to cope with the Evils... This is very useful - be realistic. In this and the wisdom and the present of the tale, which we told Rolan Bykov" (Zakrzhewska, 1967: 28).
Became cinema event of 1960s Chairman by A. Saltykov caused many heated discussions in the Soviet press. By entering into a polemic with the famous writer B. Balter (1919-1974), who told the negative things about this psychological drama of post-war rural life, E. Surkov wrote that "if we do the third year arguing about Trubnikov as a living person, this indicate a bright talent of the director, screenwriter, actor, managed in one nature to express so many important and significant for all of us" (Surkov, 1973: 73).
Sad comedy SHKID Republic by G. Poloka was very favorably disposed to the magazine: "The authors, deliberately trying to make the interesting and spectacular film, immediately take the bull by the horns and seize the attention of the audience. G. Poloka uses threads and unusual and romantic atmosphere. He openly, defiantly attract expressive means of silent cinema, in other places was a stylized this film under the old movie" (Koval, 1967: 53).
Equally warm Cinema Art was met and ironic comedy Head of Chukotka by V. Melnikov: "Smile of sympathy and compassion to the hero is transferred to us, the viewers, we are found in the funny lad living features of the Revolution: it is not on duty signs and concrete embodiment of its energy, romance, justice" (Ignatieva, 1967: 33). Of course reference to Revolution is the soft mat under the watchful censorship, but overall review was very friendly.
Another movie about Russian Revolution times reviewed in a more sober style. For example, Elusive Avengers by E. Keosayan. Dry praised this popular Eastern, K. Shcherbakov noticed readers that "the action ... lost happily found a combination of irony and seriousness, games and reality. There are scenes of heavy and dull" (Shcherbakov, 1967: 60).
M. Zak is very true rated film Vale by G. Pozhenyan: "The rift between poetry and cinema runs through the entire film. What did he cause? The answer, which is closer and easier: poet
G. Pozhenyan has failed in the role of director.... But there is something less obvious and easy.... 'Vale" only ornamented signs of poetry" (Zak, 1967: 27-28).
The judgment of Y. Bogomolov about Four pages of a young life by R. Esadze was no less hard, but reasonable: "Moral is interesting. Morality is boring" (Bogomolov, 1967: 70).
But, unfortunately, magazine took, I think, purely "commanding" position in relation to the excellent ironic satire Adventures of a Dentist by E. Klimov. I do not remember that any other Soviet film received a resume, so devastatingly unfair to the talented directing: "The script was a deep, easy and good. The film turned out flat, strained and evil" (Svobodin, 1967: 41).
But the famous comedy Prisoner of the Caucasus by L. Gaidai has caused log approval: "Thefilm was lucky (and justice) of the audience and critics. Other reviews were like toast, exclamation marks, faced as the glasses ... The sense of humor must protect authors from excessive praise" (Zak, 1967: 85). M. Kushnirov's article also was devoted to reflections on the comic and satirical stories on the screen - in newsreel Wick. Here critic identified both advantages and disadvantages (Kushnirov, 1967: 15-16).
Curiously, but T. Khoplyankina made a strong and brave (for those times) the output from viewing student films. This conclusion was about the Soviet cinema in general: "Well shoot - yes, this is the dream of all film directors. Good idea? What for? Perhaps the absence of thought is the main problem of our cinema?" (Khloplyankina, 1967: 51).
Alas, but this conclusion remains relevant and today. However, now many Russian filmmakers greater dream is not to shoot well, but make good money on the "kickbacks" and other tricks in the process of filming themselves...
As in other years, Cinema Art did not forget to review and cinematography of Soviet republics.
Thus, S. Mikhailova said a lot of good words about the Belarusian cinema. However, there are quite a few out there and criticisms, oddly enough, to the address of one of the best films of V. Turov: "The failure befell V. Turov in his latest work. His film 'I come from childhood', he conceived as the first part of the triptych of the military youth generation as an autobiographical confession. But the scenario of G. Shpalikov written as a series of sketches led to Turov compositional looseness of the film, to the meaningful emptiness" (Mikhailova, 1967: 101).
However, the authors of the magazine did not hasten to extol and other films of directors from the Soviet republics. M. Sulkin noted that in the "Aimanov-director not all managed" in Land of the Fathers (Sulkin, 1967: 78). A. Vartanov wrote about the film Sky of our childhood by T. Okeev: "When I see the poetic perception of the world in this film, I am especially disappointed when meet with edifying episodes, straight, caused by the desire of authors to put all the dots on "i" (Vartanov, 1967: 43).
Sometimes the "protective" historical and revolutionary themes and acute problems of the films became for Cinema Art an occasion is almost complete withdrawal from the evaluation of the artistic level. Article about the films Bitter grain and Stairway to Heaven were written in a similar vein (Gurov, 1967: 62).
The peak of such isolation from the critical function in favor of the ideological category was in a review of, I think, deservedly forgotten film "26 Baku Commissars" (1965): "I do not want to follow the traditional review way to list the shortcomings of the film, pick slips author. In this case, in my opinion, it is more important to say that succeeded in the development of historical and revolutionary topics" (Seyidbeyli, 1967: 82).
Film theory
An amazing event was in the theoretical section of the Cinema Art-1967, I think that had no counterparts either before or after. The debut book of a young film critic V. Demin Film without intrigue (Demin, 1966) became the basis for two solid theoretical articles speculating about the features of film-plots structure.
The first line of article of the venerable film critic I. Weissfeld were as follows: "Let's start with the literary style. Do we frequently have to read theoretical books written with a primer, painted charm of youth, spontaneity? I recently read a book: 'Film without intrigue' by Victor Demin. The stylistic feature of this book is the freedom of the narrative, the ease of "installation" passages, sometimes quite unexpected. Reading the book, you will gradually get used to it. You is not surprising that after the paragraph on the artistic perception is a story about how the first time year-old son of the author watches TV, and what thoughts these things prompted a young
father and as a young writer. Do not surprise you, and "joint", say parodic descriptions of the chess scene, scene detection and evaluation Fellini's interview.... Demin writes as thinks. Literary style matches the mood of the book. Victor Demin simultaneously captured his plan, as if surprised that he himself made discoveries, the reader wants to inspire his passion and a little ironic to himself (Weissfeld, 1967: 30).
And then I. Weissfeld began the debate about drama and directing the search, breaking the aesthetic canons in the film (Weissfeld, 1967: 31-33). The conclusion of I. Weissfeld was buoyant and perceptive: "An interesting and largely controversial book 'Film without intrigue' announced to us about the appearance of one more temperamental, promising researcher" (Weissfeld, 1967: 33).
E. Levin, in his theoretical article virtually echoed I. Weissfeld, arguing that "film-plots theory today is perhaps the most dramatic area of film studies.... Much of this is determined, not yet having had time to install, and is changing, undefined."(Levine, 1967: 33).
Then critic moved on to Demin's article Riot details (Demin, 1965), which, in fact, then went into the book Film without intrigue.
And here V. Levin entered to more acute dispute: "V. Demin wrong, considering the exposure of drama static and inactive... Exposure is also a kind of an event of its composition, its plot and storyline. ... Demin understand the effectiveness of the event too poor, narrowly event treats unilaterally" (Levine, 1967: 38, 40).
This debate on the pages of the magazine was a clear refutation of E. Weizmann's opinion that in the Soviet film studies of the 1960s there were few "such articles about the movie that would become an event, which would be discussed, debated, which would soon read" (Weitzman,
1967: 55).
However, when further E. Weitzman argued that "the core of Marxist criticism with all its variety of genres and with a high ability to open all aspects and features of the product should be a sociological approach, that is, the establishment of causal links artistic discoveries with life, the rational cognition through the work of art of the dialectic of the individual and society" (Weitzman, 1967: 56), it became clear that his proposed ideological templates to create articles, events virtually impossible.
Against the background of such Weitzman's instruction even the arguments of one of the main ideologists of the Soviet film criticism - V. Baskakov seem quite reasonable: "Fortunately, goes into oblivion, this approach to film studies, when it is viewed as designed to serve the flmmakers. Serve and ask at the same time: Do not disturb is this customer? And if you are concerned, then the customer will be dissatisfied and say: "Bad art, I did not understand this, who wrote not appreciated as it should be." And "Who dares to criticize me? Who but the artist can evaluate the phenomenon of art? Is it the film critic knows how to put movies like?". Yes, these cries, which we often hear in the past, now it is less common" (Baskakov, 1967: 30). Actually, is not it? True, as amended: today is not the directors and screenwriters, but producers are forced (using, of course, not ideological, but financial arguments / subsidies) other Russian critics "serve" them. But the crowd (including Internet) still hear the same phrases...
Film Discussions
On the decline of the "thaw" Cinema Art was still possible to publish polemical column, and even through "the communist party" film Conscience (1965), telling of a good party secretary, could write that there are "people turned into shadows standards" (Pajitnov, Shragin, 1967: 73). The film critics ironically show in a dispute with the author of On Love book V. Chertkov how many sexual taboos loaded Soviet cinema (Pajitnov, Shragin, 1967: 73).
I think, the readers must have been difficult to agree with the opinion of V. Chertkov, who tried answer to his opponents by the communist rules: "In my book, I interpret love in terms of contradictory unity of biological and social, personal and public, universal and class, in terms of conflicting mind-feelings, chance and necessity. Critics did not even notice it, and so will inevitably interpret love only in terms of sex.... These authors deny the debt, without which never was morality, and there can be no communist morality"(Chertkov, 1967: 99).
Polemically pearl of Cinema Art-1967, in my opinion, was V. Demin's article Around the mediocre film. There he convincingly argued that "the mediocre film ineradicable. And it should not be eradicated. On the contrary, it is necessary grooming, undead the mediocre film. ... It turns out that we do not know the concept of good mediocre film. But mediocre film can imitate (with modern cinematic technology) the underfulflled masterpiece: a little bit of philosophy from
scratch, a little moral and ethical abstractions but more tricks from the arsenal of "modern cinema": still images, flashbacks, "ragged" story ... This sort of mediocre film gives the many problems for box-office"(Demin, 1967: 80-81).
God, how relevant these lines for the Russian cinema today!
Film sociology
In the 1970s the numbers of Soviet films' box-office moved in the neck "for official use only." But in 1967 it was still possible to publish box office data. Here is a table with the number of viewers for the first year of showing Soviet films in cinemas, published in the first issue of Cinema Art, 1967 (For success!, 1967: 1)
Table 1. Box office of Soviet feature films mid 1960s
№ Movie Title Number of viewers (in millions)
1 Believe Me, People 40,3
2 State Criminal 39,5
.3 Chairman (series 1 and 2) 33,0 - 32,2
4 Don Story 31,8
5 To Me, Mukhtar! 29,6
6 That Guy Lives 27,0
7 Daughter of Stration 26,7
8 People do not Know All 21,1
9 Hamlet (series 1 and 2) 21,1 - 20,7
10 Army 'Wagtail' 18,7
11 Letters to Live 18,2
12 Unexpected Love 17,7
13 They Walked to East (series 1 and 2) 17,1 - 16,5
14 Moscow - Genoa 16,3
15 The Secretary of the Regional Committee 15,4
16 Where is Ahmed? 14,6
17 Wait for Us at Daybreak 14,3
18 Mandate 14,2
19 Charity Train 14,2
20 Welcome, or No Trespassing 13,4
21 Young from the Schooner "Columbus" 13,2
22 Eternal Flame (series 1 and 2) 12,1 - 12,0
23 Square Foot of Land 11,9
24 Large Ore 11,8
25 General and Daisies 11,8
26 Green House 11,3
27 Russian Forest (Series 1 and 2) 11,0 - 10,6
28 Three Sisters 9,8
29 Blue Notebook 9,1
30 I'm Twenty Years Old (Series 1 and 2) 8,8
31 Ask your heart 8,6
32 Above the Desert Sky 8,3
33 Now, Let Him Out 7,7
34 Our Honest Bread 7,2
35 Story about Ptashkin 7,1
36 Who Saddle Horse 6,6
37 Match 5,7
38 Little Knights 5,4
39 I am Cuba (1 and 2 series) 5,4 - 5,3
40 House in the Dunes 3,5
What surprises in this list today?
First of all this is unexplained in terms of contemporary logic high places (7, 8, 14-17), completely neglected the mediocre movies Daughter of Stration, People do not Know All, Moscow-Genoa, The Secretary of the Regional Committee, Where is Ahmed?, Wait for Us at Daybreak, Mandate, Charity Train. These films outstripped not only recognized movie I'm Twenty Years by M. Khutsiev and I am Cuba by M. Kalatozov, but wonderful a satirical comedy Welcome, or No Trespassing, which still show almost all TV Russian channels.
Boring, ideological backhand The Secretary... The Secretary received 15,4 million viewers and funny comedy Welcome, or No Trespassing - only 13.4 millions. I can only suggest that the deft film distributors have attributed The Secretary desired by the authorities millions from boxoffice of foreign hits. But it is very difficult to explain the fact that 14.6 millions were attributed to primitive comedy Where is Ahmed... Surely God works have mysterious ways...
Sociological theme was continued in the article of H. Khersonsky on the Film Club and film education (Khersonsky, 1967: 72-80). After describing the turbulent film club's discussions, the patriarch of Soviet film criticism cited the results of a the survey of film club's audience (people median age was 26 years), (Khersonsky, 1967: 79) (Table 2).
Table 2. Results of a survey of participants of the Moscow Film Club (1967)
1. What are you most attracted to the cinema? Number of responses (in%)
1.1. The desire to get aesthetic pleasure 45,5
1.2. The desire to learn more about the life 44,4
1.3. The desire to watch the favorite actors 41,0
1.4. The desire to relax 34,4
1.5. To develop the aesthetic taste 33,7
1.6. Find out how other people live 21,5
1.7. Escape from everyday worries 19,8
1.8. Have fun 19,4
1.9. To see and experience something that is not seen or experienced in his own life 19,0
1.10 Spend the leisure time 14,4
1.11 Learning how to behave in life 6,6
2. What movie genre do you prefer to watch?
2.1. Psychological drama 72,5
2.2 Comedy 61,5
2.3 Animation 44,4
2.4 Musical 38,9
2.5 Adventure 29,0
2.6 Tragedy 25,0
2.7 Documentaries 21,0
2.8 Sci-fi 19,7
2.9. Historical-revolutionary 17,2
2.10 Epic of national life 17,0
2.11 Movies-tale 16,5
2.12 Popular science 15,5
2.13 Cinema-play 6,4
Unfortunately, the article of H. Khersonsky were not given very important for any sociological survey data: the total number of respondents and their gender identity.
For Table 2, you can also make claims for terms of language correctness. For example, very similar within the meaning of answers 1.4. (The desire to relax), 1.7. (Escape from everyday worries) and 1.8. (Have fun). Rather, it is better to be combined into a single paragraph.
The answer to the second question are mixed in a bunch of genres, themes and even the types of film (cartoons, as well as plays, there are in fact can to be in many different genres)...
But in general, the data in Table 2 may be the basis for certain conclusions about the Moscow film club audience in 1967.
One of these findings (and quite bold at the time) made himself H. Khersonsky: "What caused relatively little interest in the historical-revolutionary films? I am deeply convinced that the blame for this the authors of a series of recent movies, who did not like the audience because of the stamps, clichés, the absence of a truly in-depth and, most importantly, a careful study of the life, forgetting the laws of art" (Khersonsky, 1967: 80).
The film club specific (because film club audience is, certainly, not a mass audience) to indicate, for example, that, according to Table 2, the psychological drama (72.5%) had the first line had while, the mass audience 1960s, preferred comedy (Prisoner of the Caucasus and others.), science fiction (Amphibian Man and others.), adventures (Elusive Avengers and others.). On the basis of the same specificity (film club audience usually seriously interested in film as art), aesthetic factor (45.5 %) had the first place in attraction causes, but not entertaining, dominant in the mass audience.
It is worth noting that the sociology of the cinema was important in the 1960s. This is evidenced by the proposal N. Kiyashchenko: to create a sociological department in planning the building Cinema Center (Kiyashchenko, 1967: 49). Moreover, N. Kiyashchenko in their arguments on the problem of film and media education, believing that the future "Cinema Center must first be engaged in preparation of an elementary textbook on film, designed for school, create film education courses for teacher training" (Kiyashchenko, 1967: 49).
Film critics N. Kleiman and L. Kozlov agreed with him, and believed that the Cinema Center must include the museum of cinema, film lecture hall, film history, sociological and publishing departments and Higher film criticism and film history courses (Kleiman, Kozlov, 1967: 102-112). Other panelists were more cautious in their proposals and worried more about the safety of the existing structures of film studies (Jakubowicz, 1967: 45-46; Markulan, 1967: 46-47; Nazarian, 1967: 48).
The only pity that Cinema Center that built during the second half of the 1980s, turned into a regular multiplex in the XXI century, and the Museum of Cinema was driven out...
Book Reviews
Reviews of film critics' book, alas, almost forgotten genre in modern Russia. But Cinema Art of 1960s tried not to miss any significant works of film criticism. For example, the review about the book Yes and No by M. Turoskaya (Turovskaya, 1966) noted with delight that the text preserved "the unique atmosphere of the Turovskaya's articles, that rich intellectual atmosphere, which can easily be discharged and continuously discharged bursts of mind and style. ... M. Turovskaya's articles about cinema destined to live long. They have ice and fire, intelligence and passion, style and popularity. In them there is beauty and truth" (Sanin, 1967: 87-88).
But the book Film of a lifetime (Martynenko, 1966) came under sharp blow of Y. Bogomolov: "Y. Martynenko sees in each subject only two sides: the art of any person or it degrades. Addressing the complex and multifaceted phenomenon of art, the author argues, as if not in this world flatter and elementary things" (Bogomolov, 1967: 95).
Early deceased film critic Yuri Martynenko was my university professor, and I remember him well informative lectures, straightness has never been characterized by... However, it is no secret that reviewers often try to exaggerate its conclusions for the sparkling effect...
Other Categories
Other journal's heading about Soviet cinema (On set, Among the actors, etc.), as a rule, was not in polemical style (Rybak, 1967; Freilich, 1967; Shiryaev, 1967). For example, L. Rybak published a long article, written with great respect for the creative filmmaking process, produced a true and accurate approach to the "portrayed" film director: "Work of the artist, the principles and techniques of his artistic activities often appear in a fantastic independence from his personality. When I was watching the day-to-day job of film director Y. Raisman, I imbued with the conviction: it is necessary to talk about the complex skill of the master" (Rybak, 1967: 55).
4. Conclusion
Thus, the analysis of the articles of magazine Cinema Art - 1967 identified the following key film criticism trends:
- Despite the folding thaw effects, the magazine tried to keep the ideological position of the late 1950s - early 1960s;
- The authors of the magazine tried to analyze the most notable works of the Soviet cinema, even criticized certain shortcomings in the films of famous and influential at that time masters of the screen;
- Paying tribute to the inevitable Soviet propaganda rhetoric, the magazine could afford to publish informative theoretical and sociological discussion, and the texts of outstanding script;
- However, in some cases, the magazine could (perhaps by order "from above") cause painful a critical blow to the talented work screen.
In general, the Cinema Art (1967) was a kind of typical model of the Soviet humanities journals (with the entire obligatory bow to censorship) that try to stay in the position of "socialism with a human face."
5. Acknowledgements
Article was written as part of research with the financial support of the grant of the Russian Scientific Foundation. Project № 14-18-00014 «Synthesis of media education and media criticism in the process of preparing future teachers," performed at the Taganrog Institute of Management and Economics.
References
Abramov, 1967 - Abramov, N. (1967). Genuine innovation Source. Cinema Art. № 7, 17-27. Alenina, 1967 - Alenina, N. (1967). ... Not without good people. Cinema Art. № 10, 48-49. Baskakov, 1967 - Baskakov, V.E. (1967). Polemic notes. Cinema Art № 9, 30-38. Bleyman, 1967 - Bleyman, M.Y. (1967). About the Hero of Our Time. Cinema Art. № 5, 46-52. Bogomolov, 1967 - Bogomolov, Y.A. (1967). The book is 208 pages in length and 65 illustrations. Cinema Art . № 6, 91-95.
Bogomolov, 1967 - Bogomolov, YA. (1967). What comes first? Cinema Art. № 8, 67-70. Bremener, 1967 - Bremener, M. (1967). Reasonable, good, eternal ... Cinema Art. № 3, 29-30. Chertkov, 1965 - Chertkov, V.P. (1965). About love. Moscow: Moscow Worker. Chertkov, 1967 - Chertkov, V.P. (1967). When ignoring the social question. Cinema Art. № 9, 98-100.
Gurov, 1967 - Gurov, L. (1967). Through time. Cinema Art. № 8, 62-66.
Demin, 1966 - Demin, V.P. (1966). The film without intrigue. Moscow: Art.
Demin, 1965 - Demin, V.P. (1965). Riot details. Questions of drama. № 5.
Demin, 1967 - Demin, V.P. (1967). Around the mediocre film. Cinema Art. № 12, 80-84.
For success!, 1967 - For success! (1967). Cinema Art. № 2, 1-2.
Freilich, 1967 - Freilich, S.I. (1967). Little big role of the actor. Cinema Art. № 8, 85-89. Freilich, 1967 - Freilich, S.I. (1967). Way pioneers. Cinema Art. № 11, 35-45. Ignatieva, 1967 - Ignatieva, NA. (1967). Pushing the boundaries of the genre. Cinema Art. № 3, 31-34.
Kara, 1967 - Kara, S. (1967). Simple truths and questionable judgments. Cinema Art. № 4,
59-67.
Karaganov, 1967 - Karaganov, A.V. (1967). October and world cinema. Cinema Art. № 11,
31-34. № 12, 23-38.
Khanutin, 1967 - Khanutin, Y.M. (1967). For Failed. Cinema Art. № 8, 59-62. Khersonsky, 1967 - Khersonsky, H.N. (1967). Aesthetics in action. Cinema Art. № 9, 72-80. Khloplyankina, 1967 - Khloplyankina, T.M. (1967).Well shoot - so think good // Art of Cinema. № 4, 47-51.
Kisunko, 1967 - Kisunko, V.G. (1967). Life Devoted to the Revolution. Cinema Art № 4, 27-34. Kiyashchenko, 1967 - Kiyashchenko, N.I. (1967). Learn the spectator. Cinema Art. № 8, 49. Klado, 1967 - Klado, N.N. (1967). Morality and declarations. Cinema Art. № 12, 69-76. Kleiman, Kozlov, 1967 - Kleiman, N.I., Kozlov, L.K. (1967). Our project. Cinema Art. № 7, 102-112.
Koval, 1967 - Koval, Y. (1967). From the old arsenal. Cinema Art. № 5, 53-55. Kovarsky, 1967 - Kovarsky, NA. (1967). Happy days of Rasplyuev. Cinema Art. № 2, 20-23. Kushnirov, 1967 - Kushnirov, M.A. (1967). Battle Movie Collection ... Cinema Art. № 2, 15-17. Levin, 1967 - Levin, E.S. (1967). The plot revolves around the protection. Cinema Art. № 5,
33-42.
Lvov, 1967 - Lvov, B. (1967). "At the far, the civil ...". Cinema Art. № 12, 64-69. Markulan, 1967 - Markulan, J.K. (1967). Of course, we are for ... Cinema Art. № 8, 46-47. Martynenko, 1966 - Martynenko, Y.Y. (1966). Film of a lifetime. Moscow: Young Guard. Medvedev, 2011 - Medvedev, A.N. (2011). This magazine gave not the Soviet cinema relax. Cinema Art. № 4.
Mikhailova, 1967 - Mikhailova, S. (1967). And there union. Cinema Art. № 7, 97-101. Nazarian, 1967 - Nazarian, N. (1967). Success business people decide. Cinema Art. № 8, 48-49. Pajitnov, Shragin, 1967 - Pajitnov, L., Shragin, B. (1967). Whom to love? Cinema Art. № 3,
70-83.
Paperny, 1967 - Paperny, Z.S. (1967). Arrow Arts. Cinema Art. № 6, 61-64. Pitlyar, 1967 - Pitlyar, I. (1967). Dostoevsky Entertainment. Cinema Art. № 5, 43-45. Pogozheva, 1967 - Pogozheva, L.P. (1967). Through the years. Cinema Art. № 12, 39-53. Rybak, 1967 - Rybak, LA. (1967). 500 hours with July Raizman. Cinema Art. № 1, 55-66. № 2, 38-50. № 5, 72-83. № 10, 59-67. № 11, 77-85.
Sanin, 1967 - Sanin, M. (1967). Beauty and truth. Cinema Art. № 3, 86-88. Sarnov, 1967 - Sarnov, B.M. (1967). The Good Person of Szechwan, and the good doctor Aibolit. Cinema Art. № 3, 18-22.
Seyidbeyli, 1967 - Seyidbeyli, G. (1967). Immortality meet. Cinema Art. № 7, 79-82. Shakh-Azizova, 1967 - Shakh-Azizova, T.K. (1967). Variations based on ... Cinema Art. № 2,
53-56.
Shcherbakov, 1967 - Shcherbakov, KA. (1967). Return genre. Cinema Art. № 6, 59-61. Shiryaev, 1967 - Shiryaev, Y. (1967). Actor, which we "passed". Cinema Art. № 10, 77-81. Svobodin, 1967 - Svobodin, A.P. (1967). The benchmark. Cinema Art. № 3, 34-41. Sulkin, 2000 - Sulkin, M.S. (2000). About Warsawsky. Cinema Art. № 7. Sulkin, 1967 - Sulkin, M.S. (1967). The path to the homeland. Cinema Art. № 7, 77-79. Surkov, 1967 - Surkov, E.D. (1967). Replica for Boris Balter. Cinema Art. № 6, 73-76. Turovskaya, 1966 - Turovskaya, M.I. (1966). Yes and No. Moscow: Art. Vartanov, 1967 - Vartanov, A.S. (1967). Circle of Life. Cinema Art. № 9, 41-44. Warsawsky, 1967 - Warsawsky, Y.L. (1967). Old issue of the magazine. Cinema Art. № 1, 4-6. Weissfeld, 1967 - Weissfeld, I.V. (1967). National and international cinema art. Cinema Art.
№ 9, 19-29.
Weissfeld, 1967 - Weissfeld, I.V. (1967). Without repeating traveled. Cinema Art. № 5, 30-33. Weizmann, 1967 - Weizmann, E.M. (1967). On the sociological side of criticism. Cinema Art. № 12, 54-62.
Yakubovich, 1967 - Yakubovich, O.V. (1967). This is our long-cherished dream. Cinema Art. № 8, 45-46.
Year 1967 - Year 1967. Cinema Art. № 1, 1-3.
Yurenev, 1967 - Yurenev, R.N. (1967). The Great October Revolution and the revolutionary innovation of Soviet cinema. Cinema Art. № 10, 1-8.
Zak, 1967 - Zak, M.E. (1967). Prose notes on a poetic film. Cinema Art. № 1, 25-28. Zak, 1967 - Zak, M.E. (1967). We can do without Toastmasters. Cinema Art № 7, 82-85. Zakrzewska, 1967 - Zakrzewska, L.F. (1967). Wisdom tales. Cinema Art. № 3, 27-28.
