Burnt by the Sun by Birgit s> Beumers (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 337 centuries, and not only Russian: Holbein's I52I painting TheBodyoftheDead Christ intheTomb shows the original inspirationbehind Ivan's troublesome (to Stalin'shenchmen) beard, and a particularlypertinentpoint is made on p. 42 on the relevance of Botticelli's I490 paintingLamentation over theDeadChrist with theSaints _Jerome, PaulandPeter to Ivan's'death'scene in PartOne. Throughout, Tsivian makesexcellent use of stillsto show Eizenshtein'smasteryof light and shadow, foregroundand backgrounddetail, and facial close-ups. He does not shy, either, from the abundant sexual and homoerotic motifs in Eizenshtein's film, and his reading of the role and persona of Maliuta Skuratov, and the section on 'BisexualImagery',are especiallyrewarding. Richard Taylor's book does not indulge quite so much in empirical interpretation, and sets its store out early with the sheer weight of factual information,dealingwith Evreinov's I920 outdoor spectacle TheStorming ofthe WVinter Palace, an inspirationfor Eizenshtein'sfilm.The authorsparesno detail in his account of the filming, editing and reception of the film, for which students of this film will be extremely appreciative. Indeed, of particular interest for film students is Taylor's close attention to Eizenshtein's visual metaphors, reproduced photographically and subjected to rigorous explication. These studies of Ivanthe Terrible and October will undoubtedly be on the booklists of most student film courses, and should also be read by all those with an interestin twentieth centuryRussianculture. University ofBath DAVID GILLESPIE Beumers, Birgit.BurntbytheSun.KINOfiles Film Companion, 3. I. B. Tauris, London, 2000. Xii +I 34 pp. Illustrations.Tables. Figures.Notes. Further Reading. fI2.99 (paperback). BURNT BY THE SUN is one of the first wave of publications in the warmly anticipated I. B. Tauris KINOfiles series devoted to key works of Russian cinema. The choice of Nikita Mikhalkov'sfilm (the Russian title is Utomlennye solntsem) as part of this series is an enterprising,albeit perhaps controversial, one. While no one would deny his importance as an actor and director over the lastthirtyyears, thereare respectedcriticsin Russiawho are stillhostile to his work, who criticize him for lack of artistic integrity, and who tend to dismiss his recent films as opportunistic and commercial vehicles intended mainly for easily impressed and gullible foreign audiences. It is symptomatic of this enduring hostility that, despite its garnering several international awards(thePalme d'Or in Cannes and an Oscar forBestForeignFilm),praise for the film in Russia has not been unequivocal. On the other side of the criticalbarricadeare those who maintain that, whateverthe uneven qualityof his work generally, Mikhalkovis an interestingand provocative directorwho has set himself the unenviable task of making intelligent and commercially successful films during difficult times for the film industry as a whole. According to such a view, Utomlennye solntsemrepays study both as a quintessentially Mikhalkov product and as a thought-provoking polemic directedtowardstheperestroika-period deconstructionsof the I930s. 338 SEER, 8i, 2, 2003 Dr Beumers'svolume in generalfollowsthepatternestablishedby the other monographsin the series:an introductorychapter(inwhich shecontextualizes Mikhalkov's film in terms of the Russian cinema of the I99os); a chapter consistingof aplot synopsis;a chapterwhich analysesvariousthematicstrands in the film (its treatment of historical background, the relationshipsbetween the characters, the use of certain visual motifs, and the use of music); and a chapter which assesses the film in the light of perestroika and post-perestroika treatments of the Stalin period (Tengiz Abuladze's Pokaianie, I984, released I985, Aleksei German's Moi drugIvanLapshin,I979-83, released I985, Ivan Dykhovichnyi's Prorva,I992, and Sergei Livnev's Serpi molot,I993). She deviatesfrom thispatternin an extensive 'The Film in Frames'section, which supplies a detailed breakdown of the film's individual sequences and offers brief commentaries on key moments; and in the final section where, in the place of the usual discussion or paraphrasing of contemporary critical responses,she opts for translatedexcerptswith briefintroductions. A majordisappointmentwith thisvolume is its lackof intellectualambition and seeming reluctance to engage with Mikhalkov as an auteur.Part of the problem stems from Beumers's confusion as to the meaning of the term herself. On page seven, for example, she confuses avtorskoe kino(the Russian equivalent of cinema d'auteur) with 'art-house'or 'intellectualcinema', and thus setsup a falseopposition one certainlynot entertainedby the Frenchcritics who first coined the expression in Cahiers du cinema between...