Socialist Senses: Film and the Creation of Soviet Subjectivity by Emma Widdis from the Slavic Review established by the association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian studies considers how Soviet cinema perpetuated socialism, and the universal measure of political superintendence of our sensory faculty. The article draws on three types of evidence to inform the thesis; psychological debates on cinema 's role in Soviet reformation, the socialist psychological premises for such debates, and three films showcasing efforts made in molding soviet subjectivity. Emma Widdis states that the debates in the Soviet film press intended to “create prototypes of Soviet Subjectivity in offering new models of sensory and emotional experience” (Widdis, …show more content…
This second type of evidence was informative to understanding how global conflict and human behavior could be wielded theoretically, technically, and metaphysically to satisfy political agendas, specifically that of the Marxist Soviet Union. By considering the ideological habitat for Socialism between 1928 and 1933, the interdependence between cinema and political superintendence of sensory faculty can be clearly shown. The last piece of evidence Widdis presents is a reflection of three films. Two of which were made in 1928, while the other was made in 1931. The first film is Sergei Iutkevich 's “Kruzheva” or “Lace” released on the first of June. Iutkevich 's film is an effort to humanize and soften machinery with the artful juxtaposition of Lace. Widdis discusses how this film set in a lace factory worked to reconstruct human sensorium. The second film is Abram Room 's “Ukhaby” or “Potholes” released on the tenth of …show more content…
In my opinion, Soviet Senses: Film and the Creation of Soviet Subjectivity is a highly fascinating and informative article which recognizes the intimate, and yet universal, cinema for its political, social, and emotional significance. A favorite filmmaker of mine, Werner Herzog, once described film as “Collective dreams of human consciousness.” Pertinent to Soviet Subjectivity, efforts to reshape the sensorium bears testimony to the collective dreams of a new Marxist world of socialism, industry, and an “emancipation of the senses.” This is not to say that the article is without its daunting aspects. A singularly compelling and daunting concept was the unique understanding of “feelings” versus “emotion” in Soviet Marxist psychology. 1928 began a transitioning period from a cinema of “socialist emotions/feelings,” replacing the cinema of “concepts/abstractions that dominated the previous decade. There is a unique distinction between “feelings” and “emotion” in this psychology. Socialist cinema, according to Emma Widdis, worked to eradicate emotions using sensibility. Emotion was seen as a bourgeois antiquity which threatened the new order. This prospect was a cataclysm for the political superintendence of the sensory faculty. I also feel that the article could have benefitted from further background information regarding the civilian perspective. It seems an easy assumption to make that when considering the effectiveness of these attempts at sensory reconstruction, it
“The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can convey emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle.” The written word and the moving image have always had their entwining roots deeply entrenched in similar narrative codes, both functioning at the level of implication, connotation and referentiality. But ever since the advent of cinema, they have been pitted against each other over formal and cultural peculiarities – hence engaging in a relationship deemed “overtly compatible, secretly hostile” (Bluestone 2).
In Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, the hysteria of the Cold War is turned into an overblown and dark satirical piece that spurs many different reactions and opinions. In the wake of the terrifyingly tense Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 that saw the world at its closest point to nuclear war, Dr. Strangelove is a very unwelcome form of comic relief for many movie-goers. 2 years later, the tension between our country and the USSR remains high, and the release of this kind of movie feels unwarranted and insensitive to the public’s current distress. Director Stanley Kubrick did not simply create this film for shock value and controversy, though. Despite his hyperbolic vision of nuclear chaos, Kubrick’s underlying criticism of cold war politics and ideologies proves to be brilliant for those who can take his dark humor in stride.
Therefore, despite the horrors of Stalin’s regime, one could argue that the socialist realism paintings could ‘mould the consciousness of the people’ into believing that Stalin was a great and wise leader, a kind and humble man, and the father of all Soviet people, thus reinforcing his cult of personality that tries to portray him in that light. However, while art might have the power to do this, one must not forget about other visual representations of life such as photographs and posters. Their relative power and influence will be discussed later in the
Similarly, ideas surrounding the value of nationalism are abundant in Francis Ford Coppola’s film ‘Apocalypse Now,’ while Cold War concerns; namely the fear of an inherently meaningless universe and its personal ramifications, are apparent in Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play ‘Waiting For
‘How it Feels to Be Run Over’ and The Cinema of Attractions Cinema on the whole has had a long and varied history. From the single shot films of old to those that modern audiences are more familiar with, the world of the cinema has evolved over the last century to become a medium very different from the cinema of yore. The “cinema of attractions” was an aesthetic movement that came about in the early days of the film movement. Born out of a post-Industrial Revolution world, the “cinema of attractions” (as coined in the writings of Tom Gunning) was a cinema style that focussed more on the sheer existence of moving pictures and filmographic features, rather than any sort of narrative basis.
One of the worst ways that control was exercised by Stalin was that of the Purges, a system of ‘mass terror’29, whereby Stalin removed, by means of murder or imprisonment, anyone thought to be any enemy of either himself or the USSR, to the point where ‘it is said that every family in the USSR lost someone in the Purges’30, and many Russians died31.This source has a purpose of creating opposition to Stalin, and showing the results of the Purges to their full extent, and although it has reason for exaggeration, especially as it was produced by Russian exiles, there is truth to it, as it can be corroborated with the fact that ’10 million died’32 during the Purges. However, opposition in the Tsar’s era was still quelled brutally, with the use of the Okhrana33, the secret police, and the army, specifically the Cossack regiment34, who crushed any semblance of revolt by means of violence, so that ‘soldier are employed and equipped with live ammunition to be sent against out against the people’35. Propaganda was a key element of Stalin’s era, especially with the results of Socialist Realism, where art and culture were ‘used as propaganda to get across a political message’. This propaganda only showed the good side of life, speaking nothing of the downsides, and was used to uphold in the eyes of the people the ideals of Communism, as well as Stalin, with
n this article, Carnicke first explains how Stanislavski’s early life influenced his adulthood career path, as a result of him being born into a wealthy family with a love of the arts, including theatre. However, she also describes how this was a disadvantage to him, as due to the idea in society that acting was a profession for the lower class, Stanislavski was forced to write under a fake name. Carnicke also focuses on many of the other challenges Stanislavski faced during his career, such as conflict with his colleagues on the correct acting method, as well as more drastically, political revolution which financially challenged the Moscow Arts Theatre, and forced Stanislavski to abandon his more experimental projects, outside of the realms of realism, due to pressure from the government.
Instead, Dostoyevsky wanted his audience to know that his intelligence comes from his Western beliefs and for them to realize that the narrator is, in reality, ignorant. This form of irony exposes the author’s dislike for the movement to Westernize
During the 30th anniversary of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), writer Eric Lefcowitz theorized that the movie had a substantial effect on culture in the United States. Lefcowitz stated, “Three decades after the film debuted, Dr. Strangelove has entered the pop vernacular, a metaphor for the deadly consequences of science—and government—gone awry. ”1 It is true that Dr. Strangelove made an impact upon our culture and society; however, those words do not explain the feelings felt throughout society in the United States after the release of the movie. Stanley Kubrick’s picture created a massive debate over policies during the Cold War that had put the world on the brink of an inevitable
“One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and “Zhivago's Children: The Last Russian Intelligentsia” by Valdislav Zubok, meet each other at the perfect level of realism and fiction to effectively explain the multiple layers of powers in a post-Stalinist society. With “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” set in a Stalinist-era labor camp, it quite literally and figuratively gives us an efficient introduction into the layers of power which might have been introduced to the post-Stalinist world. Zubok’s work follows up with an actual, gripping account of how the layers of power really did work in a post-Stalinist society, especially among the intelligentsia, and between the intelligentsia and the state. Together, these two works explore their own multifaceted dimensions of power, including state, social power, and personal power, giving
Above all Tarkovsky is interested in the Russian earth. However, no excessive imagery or fetishisation of the earth as a material substance can be observed in his films. On the contrary, the earth’s presence is always omniscient and suggestive, only reflecting people’s attitude towards it. It is through his characters that the earth becomes spiritualised. One thing is clear, as represented, for instance in the Stalker’s monologue in Stalker, as he buries his hands in the earth and nestles his face into the grass of the ‘zone’.
Georg Wilhelm Pabst (born August 27, 1885, Raudnice, Bohemia, Austria-Hungary [now Roudnice, Czech Republic]—died May 29, 1967, Vienna, Austria), German film director whose films were among the most artistically successful of the 1920s. Pabst’s films are marked by social and political concerns, deep psychological insight, memorable female protagonists, and human conflicts with culture and society. He is also noted for his mastery of film editing. Pabst was educated in Vienna and at age 20 began a career as a stage actor in Zürich.
Baz Luhrmann is widely acknowledged for his Red Curtain Trilogy which are films aimed at heightening an artificial nature and for engaging the audience. Through an examination of the films Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby, the evolution and adaptation of his techniques become evident. Luhrmann’s belief in a ‘theatrical cinema’ can be observed to varying degrees through the three films and his choice to employ cinematic techniques such as self-reflexivity, pastiche and hyperbolic hyperbole. The cinematic technique of self-reflexivity allows a film to draw attention to itself as ‘not about naturalism’ and asks the audience to suspend their disbelief and believe in the fictional construct of the film.
It is important to note that the facts presented in the film are based on the archival footage. In addition, today’s experts made their speeches that followed the screening. Thus, the information was supplemented with the resources that are undeniably reliable. Various shots represented different time: 1940 and 2000. Moreover,
Finally, I will explain why the term “socialist realism” is incongruent with the ideology that it represents and offer an alternative term. In terms of content – the subjects in the literary work – socialist realism is a continuation of nineteenth century Russian realism; however, in terms of form – the themes in the literary work – and function, it is a cessation of the latter. Socialist realism was a continuation of the traditions of realism in the nineteenth century Russian literature as it also depicted the social life of common people or the struggle of the nobility and the bourgeoisie towards a common life. The nineteenth century Russian literary realism masterpieces such as Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Rodion Raskolnikov, a poor formal law student) and many short stories by Anton Chekhov have common people as their protagonists.