Yuna
Han
Mr. Alexander Ganse
European
History
An Inside
Perspective:
Cinematic Representation
of the Soviet Society during the Thaw
I.
Objective of
the Paper
The purpose of the paper
is to examine the social atmosphere of the
The
However, examination of
certain tumultuous periods reveals a more complex picture. Soviet citizens¡¯
support for the State was at times nuanced and ambivalent. During periods when
censorship on the mass media was relaxed, various degrees of criticisms from
within the society were voiced through official channels.
The period beginning
from Stalin¡¯s death in 1953 to the termination of the reform era widely
associated with Khrushchev in 1968 is one example of such temporary relaxation.
Commonly known as the ¡®Thaw¡¯, unstable cultural politics of the party stimulated
an unprecedented extent of artistic freedom. However, the freedom was not
absolute as in the second ¡®thaw¡¯ under Gorbachev; it was rather a result of ad
hoc cultural policies and unofficial compromises between artists and the Party.
Also, while the social atmosphere of the time expected drastic reforms of the
political system, citizens were still largely loyal to the State¡¯s political
ideology. Thus, artistic creations produced during the ¡®Thaw¡¯ predominantly
displays subtle mix of criticisms of past political practices and support of
communism. Furthermore, instead of outwardly attacking the political process,
many works reflected the more liberal atmosphere by dealing subject matters once
considered insignificant or improper.
Soviet
cinema flourished under Khrushchev¡¯s cultural Thaw. The communist party early on
had realized the propagandistic potential of movies and had encouraged its
development. As a result the Soviet citizens could boast a rich cinematic
legacy, such as the works of Sergei Eisenstein.
However, stringent party censorship during the height of Stalin¡¯s power stunted
the artistic growth of Soviet cinema. Directors during the late ¡®50s and ¡®60s
quickly seized the more liberal atmosphere of the time to produce lasting works
which received acclaim from both inside and abroad: such as The Cranes are Flying and Two Comrades were Serving.
By examining the two works mentioned above, the paper hopes to portray
the complex mix of support for communism, criticism of political realities and
expectations for reform felt by Soviet citizens during the tumultuous times
following the death of Stalin.
II.
Historical
Background
The last years of Stalin
marked the nadir of intellectual and cultural life in the
Events following
Stalin¡¯s death shattered the stagnant society. In a closed session held after
the Party Congress, Khrushchev delivered his ¡®Secret Speech¡¯ criticizing
Stalin¡¯s ¡®cult of personality¡¯ and gave a detailed account of Stalin¡¯s crime
against loyal Party officials. Khrushchev¡¯s speech was the single most powerful
factor that liberated the social ambiance from its previous consternation. While
many older communists who had harbored an uncritical loyalty for Stalin became
quickly disillusioned, members of the younger generation interpreted the attack
on Stalin as a sign of impending social liberalization, raising their
expectations for significant reform.
Certain reforms were
implemented by Khrushchev as part of his efforts to disassociate himself from
Stalin¡¯s terror. The de-Stalinization program was, however, carefully limited to
specific aspects of the Soviet society and Stalin¡¯s politics. While the near
deification of Stalin and his frequent purges of loyal, experienced party
members were mercilessly derailed, Stalin¡¯s forced industrialization programs
and the horrors of collectivization were accepted as positive contributions
towards building Socialism. In short, Khrushchev¡¯s reforms were not an
indication that the society was experiencing an ideological turnover, as in the
case of Gorbachov¡¯s Perestroika, but a systematic
attempt to create a Party image independent of the politics of Stalin.
Therefore, Khrushchev¡¯s
reforms were highly selective and often seen as contradictory. Regarding
artistic activities, such as film making, Khrushchev resorted to a case-by-case
basis of censorship in his effort to find voices critical enough to contribute
to de-Stalinization, but at the same time curb artists from ¡®saying too much of
what they wanted to say.¡¯ Despite such confusion, Khrushchev¡¯s emphasis on
Socialist legality contributed to ¡®normalizing¡¯ socialism.
III.
Movie
Analysis
In late 1968, Khrushchev
was ousted by a more conservative faction among the Party cadres. During the
last years of Khrushchev¡¯s thaw, many conservative Party officials felt that the
centralized reforms initially intended as a de-Stalinization effort were going
out of hand, and the society was becoming liberal beyond expectation. The fears
of the conservatives were not unfounded; indeed, by 1968, the Soviet society had
traveled a long distance culturally from the Stalinist era.
Both films were selected
based on its release date. The two movies were released in the very last year of
Khrushchev¡¯s reform era, and thus it can be assumed that both were able to take
full advantage of the cultural Thaw.
A.
The Cranes
are Flying
Mikhail Kalatozov¡¯s The
Cranes are Flying was released in 1968, the very last year of Khrushchev¡¯s
short lived perestroika. Kalatozov dealt with a common
topic in Soviet cinema, World War II or the Great Patriotic War, but portrayed
it in a very personal scale; through the perspective of a pair of young lovers.
Veronica and Boris are lovers just before the outbreak of the Great
Patriotic War. Their innocent world is torn apart as the war breaks out and
Boris volunteers to the front. Veronica moves in with Boris¡¯s family after her
own parents are killed during an air raid. Mark, Boris¡¯s scheming cousin, takes
advantage of Veronica and eventually marries her, as Boris fails to reach his
family from the front. While Boris faces the bloodiness of war, the home front
is mobilized for the war effort, and his family is deported to
Cranes is a prime example of
how directors reacted to the disregard for personal emotions during the last
years of Stalin. In the previous era, artistic production was closely censored
to reflect ¡®socialist realism¡¯. Works that did not deal with the Social ideal
were often denied widespread circulation. For instance, the works of prized
Soviet poet Anna Ahkmatova were not published during
Stalin¡¯s time, for it dealt with ¡®trivial human emotions¡¯ such as love. However,
during the Thaw, works once considered too trivial or maudlin were often
reconsidered for publication. Anna Ahkmatova¡¯s poems
were eventually published and circulated.
Thus, unlike works from the Stalinist era, Kalatozov¡¯s primary concern is to portray the war on the
most personal scale as possible. Veronica and Boris¡¯s love story has the
universality that reaches audience from any culture. Yet the movie does not
attempt to glorify or sacrifice their relationship for the sake of a greater
ideological goal. The following conversation indirectly expresses the intention
of the director:
Factory girls: On behalf
of the committee [¡¦]
Father: Yes, yes, all good. But tell me what you really
think.
Girls: Oh, that was just
what the committee wanted us to say, but we are so proud of you, and we will
miss you very much at the factory!
Boris: Thank
you.
The representatives of the factory are young women resembling the
prototypes of Soviet workers as portrayed by Socialist realism. However, the
women go beyond their assigned roles by expressing their personal views of
Boris.
Furthermore, Kalatozov sets his work apart from
previous war movies by voicing an unmistakably pacifistic opinion. The sheer
number of human losses had instilled the Khrushchev era society with a strong
opposition towards military conflict, as shown in the short lived détente prior
to the Hungarian uprising. As the name itself signifies, WWII or the Great
Patriotic War was commemorated as a grand victory of Socialism. Although Kalatozov does not specifically state his opposition to war,
in Cranes he illustrates poignantly
the brutality of the war. Through Cranes, the audience is able to sense
that the war had greatly troubled the Soviet society psychologically.
The theme of subtle and pacifism and the psychological terror faced by
both those at the front and the home front is chiefly represented through
Boris¡¯s eyes. Kalatozov does not glorify the battle
field; though not as brutal as in modern realist films, the battle field Boris
experiences is muddy, bloody and weary. The first scene of the battle front the
audience encounters is not a courageous battle, but a scene of a battle¡¯s
aftermath in which the wounded are being carried out unceremoniously. Boris and
his comrades have noticeably discarded their naïve patriotism.
Volodoya: It¡¯s stupid to get
surrounded like this!
This statement by a foot
solider, Volodoya, and the fight between him and
Boris, which ensues shortly after Volodoya¡¯s outburst,
belies the frustration faced by the soldiers. Low discipline is surfaced by a
fight over ¡®but a girl¡¯, and the captain¡¯s half hearted attempt to chastise the
quarreling comrades. The visibly weary captain claims that he ¡®must keep
discipline¡¯, but the scene is given a comical twist by the outburst of sarcastic
laughter from the soldiers: ¡°You hear that? Discipline!¡± The image of heroic soldiers is replaced with
the more humane portrait of fatigued young men yearning for home.
Pacifism in Cranes reaches its
vertex in the death scene of Boris. This scene is a cinematic spectacle, with
Kalatozov clearly paying tribute to Eisenstein¡¯s
techniques. Boris is killed during a reconnaissance mission he was sent on with
Volodoya as a punishment for their skirmish over ¡®a
girl¡¯. Although Boris¡¯s kind nature is made prominent by his attempts to save
Volodoya, the death scene does not portray a martyr.
The camera follows Boris¡¯s eyes as it whizzes around in circles, and then it
takes a long-take, showing Boris¡¯s small corpse amidst a great clearing at the
end of a wood. In total, the cinematography of the scene heightens the sense of
irrelevance and unfairness of life and death, rather than glorifying Boris¡¯s
deeds. The vastness open silence that surrounds Boris whispers ¡®Veronica¡¯s lover
was killed¡¯, not ¡®a Soviet hero had died.¡¯
The irony of Boris¡¯s death is strengthened by the overlapping scenes of
the home front. As Veronica anxiously listens to the death toll and
simultaneously waits for a letter from Boris, Boris¡¯s father comforts her by
remarking that ¡®no news is good news¡¯. However, as this is said, Boris is slowly
sinking into the mud. Such juxtaposition strikes an unmistakably similar tone
with the pacifist classic, All Quiet on the Western Front.
Khrushchev¡¯s reform was, as mentioned before, carefully targeted and
centrally controlled. While de-Stalinization was pursued extensively, Khrushchev
was specific in protecting certain brutalities of Stalin¡¯s politics that helped
stabilize the power of the Communist party and further Socialism. Yet, once the
Pandora¡¯s Box is open, it is difficult to limit its influence. Regardless of the
Party¡¯s intentions, foreign contact during the war, brutalities faced during
battle both at home and at the front, the trickle of prisoners released from the
gulags, and both the real and expected liberalization following Stalin¡¯s death
made it inevitable for social criticism to surface. The impact of such social
¡®thaw¡¯ is felt in Kalatozov¡¯s portrayal of the home
front in Cranes.
As Boris encounters adversities as a soldier, Veronica and the rest of
the family is also faced with hostile conditions. Veronica and Boris¡¯s family is
deported to
Father: I cannot take any
more! There is no room in the hospital. [¡¦]
Fine, only 70, but none
more.
Soldier: They turned us
down again [¡¦] all the hospitals are full [¡¦] where will we go now?
Kalatozov does not express blatant criticism of
the Party¡¯s policies during the war. In fact, it is not made clear whether the
director approves or disapproves of the measures taken as part of the war
effort. However, Cranes exploits the
liberal atmosphere and expectations of the audience of the time to emphasize
that the individual Soviet citizen, as a human being with emotions and other
frivolities, had to make great personal sacrifices to support the country.
Finally, despite such subtle departures from Stalinist norms, The Cranes are Flying remains in the
embrace of party-approved socialism. The muted criticisms made by Kalatozov never attacks socialism in itself; in fact, the
entire movie is void of any conscious discussion on political ideology. Cranes was made to be a love story, and
the movie remains loyal to its personal, romantic roots throughout.
The most remarkable
reflection of the era¡¯s social atmosphere in Cranes is the widespread naïve loyalty
to the State. Boris and his youthful comrades are shown to voluntarily sign up
for the military, filled with unquestionable patriotism. Boris¡¯s pure intentions
are not mocked by the director; Boris remains a fundamentally moral and decent
character till his death, while Marc, who eschewed military service through
questionable means, is condemned. This limitation is where Cranes divorces from the extreme
pacifism such as in All Quiet on Western Front. As the society embraces the
State and its ideology in their purest form, Cranes also shows appreciation for the
unpretentious loyalty of the citizens.
B.
Two Comrades
Were Serving
Two Comrades were
Serving by Yevgeni Karelov was released in
1968 to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the October Revolution.
Unlike Cranes, production of Two Comrades was initiated by the
request of the Party. Thus, Karelov is cautious in his
depiction of Soviet society. Also, the setting of Two Comrades allowed Karelov to glorify various aspects of society without
upsetting the expectations of the increasingly diversified audience.
The main plot of Two Comrades revolves around Andrei
Nekarsov and his comrade-in-arms Ivan Karyakin. Nekarsov¡¯s skill as a
photographer catches the attention of the officers in his regiment as they
search for someone to carry out a dangerous reconnaissance mission to film the
enemy ground at the
The two comrades, Nekarsov and Karyakin are shown as inseparable and both soldiers of
equally noble hearts. However, they derive from vastly different backgrounds,
and consequently show disparities in their personalities. The very difference
between two friends reveals a nuanced support of Socialism prevalent in society
of the time.
Nekarsov is a son of
a priest, and grew up in a relatively privileged atmosphere. While many of the
soldiers in the Red Army are illiterate, Nekarsov
received schooling in photography; a technology not widely known to the peasant
population. Even his looks are unusual for a Red soldier; as the commissar of a
different regiment remarks, Nekarsov looks are close
to that of a White Guard¡¯s. His educated background allows him to be better
aware of the nature of people and the incidents that surround him. This forces
Nekarsov to be outwardly a less enthusiastic
Communist, and renders an image of a melancholy man that ¡®spits into every
saucer pan¡¯.
Karyakin is the
antithesis of Nekarsov. A blunt peasant who proclaims
to be the ¡®son of my parents¡¯, Karyakin lacks the
sophistication and deliberation of Nekarsov. As
prisoners, while Nekarsov skillfully manipulates the
enemy¡¯s weaknesses, Karyakin creates even more
animosity by ¡®talking too much¡¯. What he lacks in knowledge and discretion,
Karyakin makes up for by his zeal and loyalty to the
Red Army. Karyakin, like many of the more ignorant
soldiers, believes that Socialism is the panacea for all social ills that had
oppressed him; such as jealousy, spite and hunger. For him, the Red Army is
absolute, and success among its ranks is his first priority. While Nekarsov values more fundamental, timeless values such as
honesty, friendship and valor, Karyakin in the
beginning is obsessed with recognition from his superiors.
The difference between
Nekarsov and Karyakin
illustrates the changing attitude towards Socialism. Karyakin¡¯s enthusiastic support for his superiors and
boundless faith in Socialism as a cure for all difficulties in life seem to
illustrate the ideal Soviet citizen in the previous era. Nekarsov¡¯s relatively realistic and cautious approach
depicts the new-founded faith in a ¡®purer¡¯ form of Socialism under Khrushchev.
Karyakin: In ten years there will
be no hungry people. Believe me, only those who've overeaten will be put on a
diet. And since there will be no hungry people, there will be no spite, stealing
and other ugly things. All the prisons we will close, of course.
[¡¦]
Nekarsov : There will always be
someone [to put in jail]
Karyakin: So you doubt
it
Nekarsov : Yes. Sure we can give
people food, but to fix their brains right, it will take ten, even more then
twenty years.
Nekarsov, as seen in
this dialogue, never doubts the efficacy of Socialism. However, his experience
and education prevent him from expressing the unquestioned belief of Karyakin. Nekarsov is cognizant of
the realistic challenges the society must face to make the Socialist ideal
possible. This expresses the nuanced belief of the Soviet public in the years
following the death of Stalin; the horrors of Stalinist politics and the
personal sacrifices citizens had to make had jaded the ideological zeal of the
earlier times, yet the society remained loyal to its Communist
roots.
Also, the portrayal of
the two characters allows the audience to surmise the values of the director.
Although the title is Two Comrades were Serving, Karelov expressively basks Nekarsov in a more favorable light. Karyakin himself in the movie understands that Nekarsov is a superior character; as he is reporting the
death of his friend, Karyakin remarks that the death
was ¡®wrong¡¯ because he ¡®should have been the comrade hit by the bullet whizzing
by, as in the song Two Comrades were Serving.¡¯ Thus,
Karelov reflects the public support for the renovated
social ambiance by Khrushchev¡¯s de-Stalinization reforms.
Furthermore, Karelov implicitly represents the widespread disgust of the
political ¡®purges¡¯ during the Stalinist era through the character Karyakin. This is an inevitable content of the movie, for
Karelov produced Two Comrades with the urgings of the
Party—which had been actively pursuing reforms to distance itself from the past
purges. Karyakin is shown to be a man of vehement
Communist rhetoric. However, he is also shown to have no moral qualms against
manipulating the rhetoric for his own benefit. When Nekarsov returns from his perilous journey, he earns the
disappointment and suspicion of his superiors, due to his failure to produce a
viable film of the Crimean fortress. Faced with the danger of being accused of
counter-espionage, Karyakin turns against his friend
and accuses Nekarsov of being a
¡®counter-revolutionary¡¯. Such reporting of ¡®counter-revolutionary¡¯ acts, even
among the closest of personal relationships, was a standard procedure encouraged
by the Party as a healthy code of conduct while Stalin was alive. Testimonies
made by friends against friends, siblings against siblings and even children
against parents were used as a basis for Stalin¡¯s mass purges and investigations
of the KGB. Karyakin¡¯s actions, thus, would have been
politically justified in the previous era. However, with the emphasis on
personal emotions, ¡®standard Socialist legality¡¯ and practices during the
¡®Thaw¡¯, Karyakin is portrayed as a coward. Karyakin¡¯s accusations are made irrelevant by Nekarsov¡¯s phenomenal memory that produces an accurate map
of the
Karyakin: Nekarsov is a non party man of alien origin. He spoke
against the revolution and intentionally ruined the film! How are we going to
take the offensive? You let the whole division down. My heart had always been
against you. Why don't you say something, priest breed?
[¡¦]
Andrei, are you pissed? [¡¦] It was a mistake.
Nekarsov: A mistake? No, not a mistake. It is called betrayal.
The parallel plot of the White Guard officer Brusentov also shares characteristics of the conscious
effort of artists of the Thaw era to give the opposition an identifiable human
face. Voices supporting the traditional enemies, of course, were suppressed
through various censorship measures. However, the ¡®other¡¯, or enemies, of the
Thaw culture quickly shed the vermin-like physical markings and bestial morality
that were inseparable from the representation of the ¡®other¡¯ in the Stalinist
culture. The opposition during the Thaw was given a personal story and human
face. Brusentov can be seen as a exemplar figure of this movement.
Brusentov is shown to have striking
similarities with the protagonist, Nekarsov. Like his
Red Army counterpart, Brusentov is a shrewd reader of
his surroundings. He is a firm supporter of the cause he serves, yet he does not
possess the naivety of his fellow soldiers who believe the Crimean bastion is
invincible. Rather, he is the only officer who realizes the danger of a surprise
attack from a less fortified area, and tries in vain to alarm his superiors of
the alternative attack. Also, while Brusentov shows
strong disapproval of the Communist ideology, he is aware that the decadence and
lethargy of the White Guards can be easily shattered by the zeal and desperation
of the Red Army. Thus, although the Soviet audience cannot support nor identify
with the ideology the White Guards represent, they are able to sympathize with
Brusentov as an individual. Brusentov is unmistakably part of the ¡®other¡¯, yet he can
still be recognized as a heroic and acute soldier nonetheless.
Thus, as a film produced
to celebrate a revolutionary history, Two
Comrades were Serving succeeds in capturing the complex propaganda goals of
the Party during the ¡®Thaw¡¯. The characters Nekarsov
and Karyakin illustrates the dual objective of
Khrushchev¡¯s reforms; criticizing both blind support of Socialism and the terror
infused by Stalin¡¯s ¡®anomalous¡¯ politics, while still anchoring the society
firmly to its revolutionary roots.
IV.
Conclusion
The two films, The Cranes are Flying and Two Comrades were Serving, were produced
during the very last year of Khrushchev¡¯s reform, and thus immersed in the new
atmosphere. Cranes represents the
diversified voices of the society, drawing attention to the more personal aspect
of life long neglected under Stalin, while simultaneously striving to paint a
realistic portrait of the bleak war times. Two Comrades emphasizes the new-found
support of Socialism of the general public—the appreciation of Socialism apart
from the brutalities of Stalinist politics.
Despite the common
perception of a monolithic society, the
Bibliography
Hosking,
Geoffrey. The First Socialist Society: A History of
Read,
Christopher. The Making and Breaking of the Soviet
System.
2001.
Wren,
Melvin C. The Course of Russian History.
Ziegler,
Charles E. The History of
The
Cranes are Flying.
Dir. Mikhial Kalatozov. Perf. Vasily Merkuryev, Tatiana Samoilova et
al.
Mosfilm,
1968.
Two
Comrades were Serving.
Dir. Yevgeny Karelov. Perf. Rolan Bykov. Alla Demidova et
al.
Mosfilm, 1968.
Cornwell, Neil. Soviet Literature: the Thaw
(1956-1968).
Literary Encyclopedia, Literary Encyclopedia Company,INC. <http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1580.>
Pittsburgh University.