In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Soviet Cinema: Politics and Persuasion under Stalin by Jamie Miller
  • Denise J. Youngblood
Jamie Miller , Soviet Cinema: Politics and Persuasion under Stalin. London: I. B. Tauris, 2010. xv + 224 pp.

The subtitle of this excellent book is misleading. Soviet Cinema: Politics and Persuasion under Stalin does not cover the entire political history of the Stalinist cinema, but only through 1940. The history of Soviet cinema in the 1930s has, however, been one of considerable obfuscation, especially by adherents of the totalitarian model. Jamie Miller offers a fresh approach, showing that although the state exerted considerable control over cinema, its efforts were often chaotic, contradictory, and counterproductive. He argues that because of the Bolsheviks' defensive mentality, which sought to "protect the communist ideal and Soviet power from being exposed as fraudulent" (p. 14), the intricate nature of the cinema could hardly have been otherwise. In eight [End Page 161] thematic chapters, which can be read out of order or separately without sacrificing meaning, Miller shows that Soviet cinema was a complex organism that defies a simplistic totalitarian interpretation.

The first chapter provides an overview of the development of the film industry. Boris Shumiatskii, head of the Soyuzkino state film trust and of the State Directorate for the Film and Photographic Industry, had grand plans for creating an entertainment "cinema for the millions" (p. 48), complete with a cine-city constructed in the region of the Black Sea. Some of these plans came to fruition: the sparkling musical comedies of Grigorii Aleksandrov were produced on Shumyatskii's watch, for example. Others, like the Soviet "Hollywood," did not. Shumyatskii strove to make cinema economically independent, which was a state goal, but in so doing he forgot to pay sufficient attention to political content, and he was arrested and executed in 1938. Political micromanagers took over, and it became ever more difficult to complete a film.

Because of stringent censorship, the possibility of creating a mass-entertainment cinema was remote, Shumyatskii's labors notwithstanding. The censorship organs formed a complex web, with layer upon layer added during the 1930s. Of course, the ultimate censor was Iosif Stalin himself. Stalin took an extraordinary interest in the movies, which Miller illustrates through the example of Aleksandr Dovzhenko's film Shchors (1939), a Civil War commander whom Dovzhenko was supposed to glorify. Stalin found the Shchors in the first cut of the film to be "crude and uncultivated" (p. 65), and Dovzhenko had to return to filming. The most interesting part of the censorship, however, was its inconsistency, as numerous agencies competed with each other to show which was more politically correct.

The purges of the Great Terror (1936-1938) also had their effect on filmmaking, hastening its decline under Stalin. Although the earlier purges of 1929-1936 had limited impact on cinema, cinematic administrators and scenarists were swept away during the Great Purges and Great Terror, some to be executed, others imprisoned in the gulag. Miller argues that although film workers were arrested on the usual bogus charges, the connections that many of them had to Western colleagues aroused the usual Stalinist defensive thinking.

The annual thematic plans, which were closely tied to the state's various political campaigns, also served to undermine cinema. Thematic plans sound like a good way for the state to maintain political control, but scriptwriters and directors did not always cooperate. The failure of the plans in the early 1930s led to an increased emphasis on organization, to no practical result. The obsession of officials with "correct" political messages only slowed down the filmmaking process, and many films were put "on the shelf" in varying degrees of completion. The waste of resources was considerable.

Filmmakers had few outlets to express their frustrations. The various cinematic unions and societies were more concerned about ideological conformity than about protecting the interests of workers. Some elite filmmakers, however, bought into the system and enjoyed not only a privileged lifestyle but also more control in decisions affecting their films. Nevertheless, the increasing centralization of the industry meant that the standard of living declined for the majority of film workers and that creative opportunities were stifled for most. [End Page 162]

A partial exception...

pdf

Share