Russian and Soviet Film Adaptations of Literature, 1900-2001: Screening the Word by S. Hutchings A. Vernitski (review)

Abstract

320 SEER, 84, 2, 2006 the depths' (p. I2). Frequently the decisions of the censors were so petty, absurdand counterproductivethat one is almost inclined to wonder whether there were vrediteli (wreckers)at work. Certainly,written and oral attackson 'unacceptable'productsmade many Soviet citizens try much harder to read, see or listen to them. However, with the police at their disposal,the political authoritiesseemed not to mind. 'It is evident that the determiningfeature of totalitariancensorshipis that for it thefactitselfofbanning is more important thanthe contents of theworkbanned' (p. 17). The study of censorship in Russia and the USSR is now something of a growth industry,but an enormous amount of work still needs to be done e.g., on Glavlit'sBulletins (and see also, concerning gaps in research on prerevolutionaryRussiancensorship ,N. G. Patrusheva'sarticlein Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 30, I998). This well-translatedbooklet will, I hope, stimulate more Western scholars to work in this fascinating field. Several of Bliurn's other works,plus much more researchon the subject,are now also available on-line at an excellent new site mastermindedin Nizhnii Novgorod: . Blium is stillhard at work, and it is good to know that the number and qualityof his admirersand disciplesaroundthe world are on the rise. Department ofSlavonic Studies MARTIN DEWHIRST University of Glasgow Hutchings, S. and Vernitski,A. (eds).Russian andSoviet FilmAdaptations ofLiterature ,I900-200I: Screening theWord.BASEES/RoutledgeCurzon Series on Russian and East European Studies, i8. RoutledgeCurzon, London and New York, 2005. Xi + 228 pp. Illustrations.Notes. Bibliography.Index. ?6o.oo. IN 2002 the University of Surrey hosted an internationalconference on tlhe relationship between Russian literature and cinema. This volume contains twelve of the papers, revisedby their competent and knowledgeableauthors; most of them expand or modify our perception of that complex relationship. Under the broad canopy of nation and myth, four categories structurethe book: three essays deal with 'manufacturingthe myth' in pre-revolutionary Russian cinema through I953; four explore 'the myth in retreat' during the Thaw; three investigatethe mythology of nation in specificfilm contexts;two 'reinterpretthe myth' via post-Soviet films. EditorsStephen Hutchingsand Anat Vernitskiintroducethe genre of adaptation . They make a few careless errors:Iulii Raizman was a director, not a critic (p. ii), Petrov's I937 film PetertheGreat is not an example of the 'later Stalin period' (p. I5), whilst indulging in some irritatinglyopaque language: 'avoidingformalistessentialismat the cost of skirtingcontent-ledreductionism (assimilatingboth adaptationsand their sources to a diffuse,Marxist-inspired concept of culturesof consumption)'(p. 4). These detract from an otherwise appropriateand useful theoretical frameworkand a credible explanation of adaptation'scentralitywithin Russian cinema. REVIEWS 32I Given that centrality, most of the editors' choices make good sense: the films discussed fuelled either the creation or the unraveling of national myth. Thus, Rachel Morley devotes her essay to Evgenii Bauer, whose prerevolutionaryadaptationsstandhead and shouldersabove their (mostlypedestrian )peers. Morley persuasivelyargues for Bauer's'reworking'(herword) of nineteenth-centurytexts, especially Gogol' and Dostoevskii, in his masterful ChildoftheBig Cil e (I9I4). Jeremy Hicks tracesthe curiousevolution of Chapaev from fact, during the Civil War, to quasi-documentary,in Furmanov's 1923 narrative, to outright myth, in the Vasil'ev Brothers' 1934 film. Stephen Hutchings examines the major genre of children's films, paying particular attention to the screen versions of TimurandHis Gang(I94I) and Sonof the Regiment (1946), both essentialbuilding blocks in the Soviet child's ideological education. Apart from a few peculiarlyinappropriatereferencesto Balladofa Soldier, Hutchings, like Hicks, adroitly links the movies with the ideological imperativesof the period. The volume then leaps to the Thaw. The omission of late Stalin-eraadaptationsis unfortunate:an analysisof them or of theirabsencewould have been relevant. Of the four 'thaw' essays, two on Kozintsev's Shakespearefilms and on Askoldov's Commissar, based on Vasilii Grossman'sI934 story 'In the Town of Berdichev' examine familiarif worthy subjects.David Gillespie could have done more with Kozintsev's 'coded' commentary on the Soviet political scene, and Graham Roberts both overstates Grossman'ssubversive intent in the story and forces on Commissar a mother/whore dichotomy (the Jewish Maria versusthe Red commissarVavilova)that I, for one, do not find in the film. (A not-so-trivialerror, given the film'sJewish theme: Grossman was of courseJewish, Askoldovis not.) Julian Graffycomparesthe filmversionsof Aksenov'searlynovels, Colleagues and My...