FIND MOVIES
Movie List
Loading ...
or
Find Theaters and Movie Times
or
Search Movies

Kino pravda

‘Envisioning Russia’ at the MFA
By MICHAEL ATKINSON  |  August 26, 2008

080828_russia_main
THE MIRROR: Tarkovsky’s film is a unique autobiographical testament.

Because Mosfilm, the subject of the Museum of Fine Arts’ “Envisioning Russia” retrospective, was the Soviet state production studio, any cross-section of its history lays out the entirety of Soviet film history — not only in its mainstream, but on its catapulting visionary fringes. Of course, Soviet filmmaking always resounded with the electric tension between state propaganda and individualistic artistry, often within a given film. Sure, the famous dialectic montage experiments from the 1920s salad days of Eisenstein and Pudovkin were motivated by pure Marxist guile, but it’s more difficult to see the extraordinary development of the long traveling shot as being anything but cinema rising to its own expressive level in spite of Politburo politics. Mosfilm was still the empire’s Hollywood, churning out populist fodder for the masses while sometimes conscientiously undercutting the government’s simplistic anti-Westernism to degrees that can make our own industry’s McCarthyite years seem outright pathetic.

The retro serves as a crash lesson in Russian film, starting obligatorily with Eisenstein’s BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925; September 11 at 5:15 pm). For too long now, this one has been reflexive university viewing to such a suffocating extent, American students may be surprised to find that early Soviet filmmaking was not all hammer-to-the-head editing and Marxist cant. In fact, Eisenstein’s position as one of the medium’s looming giants has silently deteriorated; the more time passes, the more mechanical and manipulative his work seems. The limitations were built-in: his entire æsthetic was predicated on his being the omniscient god and the audience his easily controlled minions. (Spielberg and Lucas, it could be said, have demonstrated similar sensibilities.) Free of historical intents or contexts, propaganda art is usually beguiling in its naïveté, but Battleship Potemkin feels bitter, as if revolutionary discontent unconsciously expressed Eisenstein’s outrage that of all the nations in all the eras for this artist to be born into, it had to be this one.

Propaganda itself poses a sticky dilemma for retrospective viewing — how do we take it now? As the dreaminess of idealistic kitsch, or as the chilling residue of totalitarian evil? These options imply that the Soviet state left filmmakers few other choices, but that’s not quite true, as you can see in Alexander Medvedkin’s silent HAPPINESS (1934; September 11 at 6:45 pm), an early absurdist fairy-tale parable about human foibles as bizarrely funny as it is lacerating about both tsar-era economic inequity and the futility of collective life. Kolkhoz or no kolkhoz, Medvedkin’s lampooning fantasy sees weakness and mercenary greed everywhere, to the extent of summoning, in the film’s outrageous compositions, anti-clerical zeal, and moments of startling satire (tithe-collecting nuns in transparent blouses, a platoon of soldiers wearing identical cartoon-face masks), the very inappropriate influence of the Surrealists. There’s no record of when Un chien andalou might’ve made its way to Muscovite screening rooms, but its footprint is all over Happiness, and Buñuel’s L’âge d’or serves, with Duck Soup, as a kind of unofficial template for Grigori Alexandrov’s JOLLY FELLOWS (1934; September 17 at 6 pm), the Soviet Union’s first musical comedy, and a scattershot roast of aristocratic indulgence that peaks with the manor house’s being invaded by rampaging farm animals. (Yes, a cow does climb into a bed.) None of this could’ve pleased the censor board. (Medvedkin’s film was loathed by Stalin, but Jolly Fellows, bearing a far simpler socio-political scheme, was a smash hit despite its borrowed irrationalities.) But none of it qualifies as pure propaganda, any more than Buñuel’s excoriations of the bourgeoisie could be construed as Marxist.

1  |  2  |  3  |   next >
  Topics: Features , Entertainment, Movies, Communism,  More more >
| More


Most Popular
ARTICLES BY MICHAEL ATKINSON
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   REVIEW: FAR FROM AFGHANISTAN  |  March 06, 2013
    A contemporary mirror of 1967's multidirector lefty-agitprop masterpiece Far from Vietnam , this omnibus epic plumbs the American quagmire in Central Asia from the aesthetic viewpoints of five western filmmakers assembled by John Gianvito (who also contributes a segment), plus a cadre of Afghan locals called Afghan Voices.
  •   OVERDRIVE: THE FILMS OF LEOS CARAX  |  February 11, 2013
    Every Carax shot is a new way to feel about something...
  •   AUTEUR LIMITS: THE FILMS OF STANLEY KUBRICK  |  January 30, 2013
    There will never be another Stanley — cinema's greatest loner-demigod, the hermit CEO of hip public culture for decades running, the filmmaker-artiste everyone could obsess about even if they didn't know any other working director by name.
  •   REVIEW: NOTHING BUT A MAN (1964)  |  January 08, 2013
    Michael Roemer's modest, eloquent, New Wave-y micro-movie — made independently in 1964 — is essential viewing for its matter-of-fact look at an average black man's struggle for dignity in the Deep South in the early '60s.
  •   REVIEW: THE DEEP BLUE SEA  |  March 29, 2012
    Like a bad dream trapped in amber, Terence Davies's studied film adaptation of Terence Rattigan's famous 1952 play is both spectrally beautiful and frozen in self-regard.

 See all articles by: MICHAEL ATKINSON