Cinema In Russia Research Articles

Church, Tsar, Cinema. The religious censorship of films in Russia in pre-revolutionary period

The article is devoted to the topic of the relationship between orthodoxy church and cinema in Russia of the pre-revolutionary period. The author examines the main reasons of the hostility to films of the religious content on the side of priests, first of all Holy Synod is meant. A special attention in the text is paid a position of Russian Tzar. His hesitation and dualism of the personal attitude to the cinema was wrong for the deal of the improvement of mutual understanding between religious institutions and new art.

ОСОБЕННОСТИ КИНЕМАТОГРАФА РОССИЙСКИХ РЕГИОНОВ: КОНСТРУИРОВАНИЕ СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ СМЫСЛОВ

The article analyzes the phenomenon of regional cinema in Russia. It analyzes the main theoretical and methodological approaches in the study of film art, as well as interpretations of the concepts of “images”, “meanings” and “constructs” contained in contemporary regional films. It is noted that the positioning of the region in the sociocultural space is conditioned by the emergence of such a form of representation as cinema. It is shown that regional cinema represents a variety of local value constructs that are capable of self-reflection and active transformation of social reality. Symbolic constructs displayed in films can be perceived as unifying (images of historical events and figures, hard provincial life in the regions) and distinctive (customs, myths, rituals, church). The analysis of film content showed that modern regional cinema combines cultural and ethnic diversity, i.e. preservation of ethnic traditions and customs, Soviet values such as mutual aid and responsibility, and local specifics – the role of family, relationships and love for the small homeland.

Genre and Thematic Features of Displaying Military Culture in Russian Literature and Cinema of the Early 21st Century

The article is devoted to the analysis of the specifics of turning to the subject of military culture of the most influential types of art of the 21st century, namely literature and cinema. Military culture herein is defined as a set of socio-cultural values, social practices and works of art related to the implementation of the function of protecting the motherland and the existence of a person in the specific conditions of a military conflict. The purpose of the study is to trace the dynamics of the disclosure of the problems of military culture in the works of Russian military literature and military cinema in the 21st century. To achieve this goal, the following tasks were achieved: 1) to clarify the definition of military culture; 2) to substantiate the identification of artistic military culture as part of a broader definition; 3) to highlight the characteristic features of modern military literature and to show the problems associated with its genre-thematic originality and role in culture; 4) to determine the leading trends in the development of modern military cinema in Russia; 5) to identify common and different approaches to depicting military culture by means of literature and cinema. The novelty of the study lies in the approach to the consideration of military culture as a broad and multifaceted phenomenon, not limited to the intra-army environment and including artistic military culture. As a result, it is concluded and substantiated that there is a relatively more significant penetration into military cinema not only of genre and thematic techniques, but also of the values and meanings of mass culture. Military literature, as this study shows, is less influenced by them today, which allows us to speak not so much about the conservatism of this art form, but rather its greater resistance to the simplification trends. Perhaps, this is due to greater reliance on the original author's vision — as opposed to the set standards of filmmaking.

Trends in the methodology of media consumption study in the field of cinema in Russia

The relevance of the topic is conditioned by the need for scientific understanding of media analytics and a qualitative understanding of its methods as promotion tools, as well as for the introduction of the research stage of media consumption into the film production process to popularize and further promote domestic film products among the Russian audience. In the Russian film industry, this experience is especially necessary within modern economic conditions. The need to ensure the financial success of Russian film products, which are subsidized by the state, has led to the interest in finding new approaches promoting and increasing the loyalty of the cinema audience, which is especially important at a time when only 1 out of 10 domestic films pays for their film production during the distribution period.

The Birth of Cinema in the Russian Empire and Film Censorship

The article analyses two closely interrelated research topics: the nature of pre-revolutionary film censorship and the question of the beginnings of cinema in Russia. Early film censorship cannot be studied without considering the arrival of cinema, and, vice versa, since the birth of cinema in the Russian Empire is related to the first cases of censorship. The author argues that the widely accepted date of 1907/8 as the starting point needs to be revised. Even before large-scale commercial production and distribution of feature films such as Stenka Razin, in different parts of the Russian Empire ample evidence of growing enthusiasm for the recording of movement can be found. Engineers, inventors, photographers, and showmen became fledgling filmmakers. The author bases her argumentation on the birth of cinema in Russia mainly on examples dating back to the 19th century. During the festivities of Nicholas II coronation in May 1896 the French cinema apparatus clashed with the Imperial Police in Moscow. After Russian screenings of Lumires films containing a selection of moving images of the Emperor, the Russian court took matters in their hands and started producing their own Royal films - both private home movies and those chosen for public screenings. This is the moment when a relatively stable, yet not public form of film production was established inside Russia continuing for two decades: the Tsar and his family being filmed by the court photographers Matuszewski, and later Jagielski. Some of these court film chronicles were also shown in cinema-theatres. The article also treats the reasons for the later suppression of these early Royal film production in Soviet historiography. While establishing a tight bond between Lenin and the film medium, Soviet film historians had to bury the pivotal role the Imperial court played in cinemas beginning in Russia. After having been the first object of foreign actualities in Russia, Nicholas II became not only a patron of Imperial film productions; moreover, the interference of Court censorship, overseen by the Ministry of the Interior, made clear that films shown and produced in Russia would have to deal with several censorship institutions protecting the representation of the sacred and regulating the free flow of information. The earliest example is the police confiscating a camera with film material shot by Lumires film reporters in Khodynka in May 1896. At this very early stage a procedure is set for the rise to a development of practices of film censorship.

Механизмы государственной поддержки услуг киноиндустрии в Российской Федерации на основе международного опыта

In the conditions of globalization of the world economy intensive development was gained by the industry of services, in particular, film industry. Film industry is one of the most important sectors of the modern world market of services. At the same time, development of this industry in Russia is accompanied with influence of many negative factors connected with weak competitiveness of domestic movie products. The article presents the possibilities of the state support of the Russian cinema on the basis of the leading foreign countries' experience. A subject of this article is tendencies of state regulation of domestic film industry based on the leading developed countries in this sphere. The article purpose is the analysis and generalization of competitiveness increase problems of cinema in Russia on the basis of implementation of special, unique state support mechanisms. As a result there are revealed many problems of the domestic film industry development, in particular, imperfection of protection mechanisms of intellectual property rights, lack of promotion systems of Russian movies on the foreign markets, differentiation of regions on the development level of the cinema infrastructure. The solution of these problems is limited with weak involvement of foreign investors into development of the film industry, and also poor development of special mechanisms of subsidizing of moviemakers.

Destiny of Indian Cinema in Russia

The relationship of domestic moviegoers to the works of Indian cinema has a complex and heterogeneous development history. The Soviet audience watched the first Indian movie back in the 1950s, which gave a powerful impetus to the formation of multifaceted contacts between Indian and Soviet film industry. As a result such films were shot as Journey Beyond Three Seas, Black Prince Adjouba, The Adventures of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, the famous My name is clown by Raj Kapoor, and others. However, a sympathy to the Indian cinema of the 1970-80s led to the formation of the stereotypes (frivolous story, improbable fights, numerous songs and dances, etc.), which have been preserved by this day, in spite of the changes that occurred in the Indian film industry. In the 1990s, there was a revision of values on the part of the domestic audience and interest for Indian cinema began to wane. Development of various types of video media has allowed fans to buy movies for personal viewing. At the turn of the century a number of television companies obtained broadcasting rights for the classic Indian films. Broadcasting of the channels India TV and Zee-TV, completely dedicated to the Indian culture, marked a new stage in distribution of Indian cinema in this country. In addition, the Internet technology gave way for development of various kinds of specialized resources. These facts, as well as resumed festivals of Indian cinema in the last decade in this country, speak in favor of the revival of the audience interest to it. Despite the virtual absence of the joint Russian-Indian films in the last decades and a small amount of Indian films, audience sympathy gives rise to the assumption of the prospects for this kind of cooperation, as well as accentuation of resuming heavy study of Indian cinema by Russian researchers.

The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union. 24 Frames by Birgit Beumers (review)

750 SEER, 87, 4, OCTOBER 200g In laterchapters Levi drawshisreaders'attention to directors and films oftendiscussedin the contextof culturalpoliticsin the 1990s (e.g. Emir Kusturica's Underground and Srdan Dragojevic's Pretty Village, Pretty Flame).He also includesotherfilms whichare sometimes overlooked in studiesabout recentcinema.These examplesvaryin theirartistic merit, but suchmerit is notthereasonfortheirinclusion in thisvolume.The films castlighton different reactionsto the conflicts, offer different understandings of their causesand consequences, and are drawnfromdifferent partsoftheformer Yugoslavia(e.g. Oleg Novkovic'sSay Why YouLeft Me, AndrejKosak's The Outsider and Vinko Bresan's How theWarStarted onMy Island).The long section on Sarajevo'sNew Primitivism, in particular the comic TheTopListofthe Surrealists, provides a welcomediscussion ofpopularculture which,although notfrom cinema,was influential initsportrayal ofaspectsofYugoslavlifeas experienced in theyearsleadingup to thewarin Bosnia. These careful and measuredstudies throw thelesswellarguedsections of thebook intosharprelief. Almostthewholeof ChapterThree containsa discussion ofKusturica's film aesthetic, strangely omitting mention ofprevious long studiesof the director's oeuvre by Goran Gocic and Dina Iordanova. Kusturica's filmUnderground is markedin thebookforitscontribution to the myth ofYugoslaviaas an anti-Serb conspiracy. Partoftheevidenceforthis viewis givenin thefight scenethatis stagedcinopenlyethnophobic terms' (p.99),withBlackyand Markoteaching a Croatand a Muslima lessonfor stealing Partyfunds. Whereas,thetwomaincharacters actually facea third opponentwho is an ekavic-speaking Serb.The Muslimis calledMustafato whomBlackymakesa deliberate comment aboutMoscow.Thiswouldseem to indicatean allusionto MustafaGolubovic,an NKVD agentkilledbythe Gestapoin Belgrade.Levi also pointsto a 'correspondence' (p. 104)between Underground and thefunction performed byMira Marko vie's YugoslavUnited Left(JUL).However,theargument lacksa clearexplanation fora possible parallelgiventhataudiencesin cinemasand the public at politicalrallies entertain different relationships withthetexts presented tothem.The production and circulationof meaningsin these two contextsrequirefurther elaboration in orderto sustain suchclaims. Thesedrawbacks aside,Levifulfils hisintention toinvestigate 'thecomplex relationship betweenaestheticsand ideologyin the Yugoslav and postYugoslavcinema '(p.3). His bookis a useful additionto thisfieldofenquiry inwhichhe opensmanyquestions, clarifies someimportant issuesand points outavenuesforfuture research. Department ofRussian andSlavonic Studies D. A. Norris University ofNottingham Beumers,Birgit(ed). The Cinema ofRussiaand theFormer Soviet Union.24 Frames.Wallflower Press,Londonand New York,2007.xvi+ 283 pp. Illustrations. Notes.Filmography. Bibliography. Index.¿50.00; £18.99. The premiseof the '24 frames'seriesis thatthe artistic, industrial and technological history ofa region'scinemacan be conveyed through analysis REVIEWS 75I oftwenty-four ofits'seminal'films. As everwithsuchprojects, itisalltooeasy forreadersto objectto inclusions or omissions, so I shallnotenterintothat gamehere.The bookworks wellas an introduction to thecinemaofRussia and theformer SovietUnioningeneral, and itschronological organization is useful from thatpointofview,butitalso worksas a wayin to specific films and directors, and each chaptercan be readdiscretely. Some authors concentrate on providing historical, socialand political contexttotheworkdiscussed and approachthefilm mainly interms ofnarrative content. Othercontributors areprimarily concerned withcinematic technique and providea moreformal analysis. In theopeningchapteron A LifeForA Life, Rachel Morleypaysparticular attention to Bauer'scinematic language, whichreliesheavilyon mise-en-scène as a means of expression. Yet content is also thoroughly analysed,and thefilmis clearlyshownto be morethan merely a pre-Revolutionary socialmelodrama, as lessperceptive critics have 00 kjix-pni^n liui^iiiiiga aiayj 1^ vocilo nidi Kjivuywou manythink;his keyinterest is in thewaysin which1 'ideological template' (p.70)from whichitappears,atfin 1 • • 1 ".1. ,T-I 1 1 A 1 . . • 11CIO 111W1 K^ LKJ 11 UlClll thefilmsubverts the >tglance,tobe made, discussing nowitrelatesto rurmanov s novel.Adaptation is an issuetreatea by otherauthors, suchas David Gillespie'schapteron RedGuelderbush, and Anthony Anemone'son My Friend IvanLapshin. ThroughAnemone'ssubtle and informed analysis, thereaderis shownexactly whythisfilm'represents one of the highestachievements of Russian art of the twentieth century' (•n qtt'ì T/ikewise rearlincr David TVfarFaHven's niere the reader ran nnrlerstandwhyNorshtein 's TaleofTaleswasjudgedtobe 'The Greatest Animated FilmofAllTime' (p. 183). Otherchapters shedlight onfilms whichhavebeenmisrepresented oroverlookedin variousways,at different times.Ian Christie explainshow itwas that although TheExtraordinary Adventures ofMr Westin theLand oftheBolsheviks was a box office and criticalsuccessin theUSSR, it was not seen abroad untilthelate1960s.He discusses thisworkand itscontext indetail,including Kuleshov'suse of American(thriller) and German (Expressionist) devices forSovietpurposes, and he linksthefilmto EuropeanModernist literature of thetime,as well as revealing itscontinuing relevanceto studiesoffilm narrative. Elsewhere, MikeO'Mahoney informs thereaderofthefascinating promotional campaignforAelita, and revealshowmisinterpreted thefilm has been (including by thosewho have not actuallyseen it),simply because of Aleksandra Ekster's stunning Constructivist costumes. PhilCavendishlinksDovzhenko'sEarth to experimental 'New Wave' films of the 1960s.He looksat movement and stasisin thefilm, and linksit to photography. Othercontributors who are also particularly interested in the film...

Book Review: Russian Studies The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union. Edited by Birgit Beumers, preface by Sergei Bodrov. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Pp. x + 283. Pbk. £18.99. Hbk. £50.00

Book Review: Russian Studies The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union. Edited by Birgit Beumers, preface by Sergei Bodrov. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Pp. x + 283. Pbk. £18.99. Hbk. £50.00

Film Archives: A Decaying Visual History

The 20th Century saw a movement from the Industrial Revolution to what we could call the Communication Revolution, and perhaps a newer revolution in the past 20 years, which we could characterise as the Information Revolution.The Communication Revolution began with the discovery of photography (and shortly thereafter, cinema) at the end of the 19th Century. The Lumiere brothers in France, Edward Muybridge in England, and Thomas Edison in America explored the possibilities of moving and still images. Rapid expansion of technology and opportunity saw the rise of revolutionary cinema in Russia, and the emergence of Hollywood - the beginnings of an industry that today engulfs our world with images.

Birgit Beumers, ed., The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union

Attachee au Departement de russe de l’universite de Bristol, directrice du Centre for Russian and East European Cultural Studies, Birgit Beumers est specialiste de la culture russe contemporaine au sens large. Apres une these consacree a Jurij Ljubimov au theâtre de la Taganka, Beumers s’est ensuite tournee vers le cinema et federe actuellement autour d’elle un courant de recherche anglo-saxon qui se place dans l’optique des « cultural studies » et de la semiologie, et participe tres largemen...

The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union

The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union

The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union. Ed. Birgit Beumers. 24 Frames. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. xvi, 283 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Filmography. Illustrations. Photographs. $29.50, paper.

The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union. Ed. Birgit Beumers. 24 Frames. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. xvi, 283 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Filmography. Illustrations. Photographs. $29.50, paper. - Volume 67 Issue 3

The Cinema of Russia and the Former Soviet Union by Birgit Beumers

MLR, I03.2,2008 617 onMatthew Cullerne Bown's problematic Socialist Realist Painting (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, I998). While visual artefacts are quite rightly taken seriously as primary documents, the analysis is sometimes ratherone-dimensional. A case inpoint isAleksandr Deineka's Future Pilots. O'Mahony's conclusion that thepainting, set inSevastopol' and painted in I938, is about defence isunsurprising, for it ishardly passenger aircraft that the young boys in the foreground eagerlywatch and dream of flying.But is this the full story?An alternative reading is suggested by the parallels between Deineka's paint ing and Sir JohnEverett Millais's The Boyhood ofRaleigh (i 870, Tate Gallery). Did Deineka know the Millais? Budleigh Salterton may be a farcry fromSevastopol', but the similarities in the narrative and composition at least raise a question: does the distant blue horizon only represent a source of threat, or is itnot also aspirational? Deineka's boys stare out across theBlack Sea towards theBosporus, beyond which theDardanelles, long the symbol and coveted prize ofRussia's imperialist expansion, open theway into theMediterranean. Are they not, likeMillais's youthfulWalter Raleigh, also dreaming of unlimited expanses and empire? The book interestinglyproposes comparisons between practices of looking inboth spectator sport and in theproduction and consumption of visual culture. The power operations and exercise of desire invested in the gaze, and especially in gazing at near-nude bodies, is a key concern of art history and visual studies, and there is a rich theoretical and analytical literaturewhich O'Mahony could have brought tobear. In Chapter 3 on participants and spectators, and elsewhere in the book, he begins to address such issues as voyeurism and the relation between looking and doing, for example in regard to Deineka's Dinamo: Sevastopol' (1934). This is a fascinating painting that seems to be all about looking.We findourselves as viewers positioned within a whole sequence of spectators, all ofwhom echo the direction of our gaze, thusmapping the recession into thepainting in a seemingly infiniteregress:we look at the foreground figures looking at others, who in turn look at still others further embedded within thepictorial space. Frustratingly,O'Mahony stops short inhis ana lysisand fails todraw together differentparts of his argument toprovide some larger conclusions thatmight advance our understanding either of Soviet physical culture or of visual culture, or both. Most disappointing of all is that gender issues, which the theme of bodies and looking cries out for,receive only limited analysis. Sport in theUSSR points to theneed for furtherstudy in this area, as ameeting point for the study of officialpolicy and popular culture with thatof visual represen tation,but it falls short of thepotential of its theme and disappoints the expectations it raises.As a readable, accessibly written book it is a useful addition to the literature available to set for students, but it is harder to see how it edifies a more specialist readership. UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD SUSANE. REID The Cinema ofRussia and theFormer Soviet Union. Ed. By BIRGIT BEUMERS. (24 Frames) London: Wallflower Press. 2007. xvi+283 PP. CI8.99. ISBN 978-I 904764-98-4. Until recently, there has been a lack of up-to-date English-language literature de voted to the analysis ofRussian and Soviet films.Over the last ten years, important new research has added to and enriched our understanding of the films themselves. Such research includes the I. B. Tauris Film Companions, various journal articles devoted to individual films,and David Gillespie's book Russian Cinema (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2003). While Gillespie's work covers similar ground to thisbook, 6i8 Reviews its chapters provide more of a topical overview of Russian and Soviet cinema, and his book does not examine individual films ingreat detail. As most academic courses on Russian and Soviet cinema tend to focus on classic films from each era, the book under review is, therefore,an important addition to existing scholarship. The editor, Birgit Beumers, who also provides a good introduction and later exa mines two films,has been careful to ensure that the contributions do not deal with films thathave already been well covered, such as The Battleship Potemkin, October, Ivan the Terrible, The Cranes are Flying, or Little Vera. The...

The Cinema of Russia and the former Soviet Union

The Cinema of Russia and the former Soviet Union

Early Cinema in Russia and Its Cultural Reception. By Yuri Tsivian. Edited by, Richard Taylor. Translated by, Alan Bodger. Foreword by, Tom Gunning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pp. xxii+273. $19.00.

<i>Early Cinema in Russia and Its Cultural Reception</i>. By Yuri Tsivian. Edited by, Richard Taylor. Translated by, Alan Bodger. Foreword by, Tom Gunning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pp. xxii+273. $19.00.

Book Review: Cinema, Stage, and Spectatorship, Theatre to Cinema: Stage Pictorialism and the Early Feature Film, for the Love of Pleasure: Women, Movies, and Culture in Turn-of-the-Century Chicago, Early Cinema in Russia and its Cultural Reception

Book Review: Cinema, Stage, and Spectatorship, Theatre to Cinema: Stage Pictorialism and the Early Feature Film, for the Love of Pleasure: Women, Movies, and Culture in Turn-of-the-Century Chicago, Early Cinema in Russia and its Cultural Reception

Early cinema in Russia and America

Early cinema in Russia and America

Early cinema in Russia and its cultural reception

Early cinema in Russia and its cultural reception

Early Cinema in Russia and Its Cultural Reception. By Yuri Tsivian. Trans. Alan Bodger. New York: Routledge, 1994. xxii, 273 pp. Index. Plates. $74.95, hard bound.

Early Cinema in Russia and Its Cultural Reception. By Yuri Tsivian. Trans. Alan Bodger. New York: Routledge, 1994. xxii, 273 pp. Index. Plates. $74.95, hard bound.