Surprisingly, there has never been an English-language history of cinema, a major within Soviet cinema best known for Oleksandr Dovzhenko's interwar masterpieces and the school of the 1960s, but which m fact includes a far greater number of significant and controversial films. In showcasing recent research on cinema, tins special issue prepares the ground for such surveys. Much like the 2009 special issue of KinoKultura on cinema, edited by Vitaly Chemetsky,2 our collection documents growing Western interest in cinema, as well as the field's move beyond its two best-studied periods, the 1920s and the 1960s.There are several books in English on the most famous film director, Dovzhenko, including George O. Liber's recent biography and Bohdan Y. Nebesio's series of articles on tire film industry of the 1920s, which help put Dovzhenko's oeuvre in a larger context.3 The sixties in Ukraine are finally receiving a comprehensive treatment in English, in Joshua First's monograph.4 What the articles in tins special issue demonstrate, however, is the enduring continuity of cultural hopes and major themes in cinema. In addition to Dovzhenko's poetic tradition, they include an engagement with the past and workmg with (or subverting) ethnographic cultural models.What should be included in cinema, and why, is a complex issue. In Soviet times the two major Ukraine-based film studios produced, on average, something like a quarter of all motion pictures made in the Soviet Union, but many of these had nothing to do with Ukraine and did not involve ethnic directors and actors. At the same time, some ethnic Ukrainians became major film directors in Russia (Grigorii Chukhrai, Sergei Bondarchuk, Larisa Shepitko), while non-Ukrainian directors often became inseparably associated with cinema (Sergei Paradzhanov, Kira Muratova, Roman Balaian). Dovzhenko, the greatest name in cinema, also worked in Moscow late in his career. Given the constant circulation of directors and actors among Soviet film studios and the often random mechanism of film script selection, which Soviet-era films, then, should be included in cinema?The answer has to be both inclusive and specific: all films made in Ukraine constitute part of the cinematic tradition, but the Soviet authorities also supported the development of a national school as an important attribute of nation building in the republic.'' Originally defined by topics or settings (historical and contemporary) and some connection to peasant culture, the quickly developed common aesthetic halts in the form of a romantic, or poetic, vision first articulated in the 1920s and reaffirmed in the 1960s. The school can thus include the work of non-Ukrainian dnectors contributing to this tradition, as well as those who went on to directorial careers elsewhere, while still demonstrating their formative Ukrainian influence. In contrast, other films made in Ukraine can be discussed as part of tire all-Soviet context m which cinema developed.It is also hue that the poetic school's canonization as a cinema tradition could have a stifling effect on the cinema of independent Ukraine, developing as it has in the age of cultural globalization.* * * * * 6 However, tire nearcollapse of the film industry in the period of funding drought from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s represented a far greater challenge. During the last decade, when cinema has shown hopeful signs of revival, younger filmmakers have often challenged the stereotypes traditionally defining the school and attempted to undermine or redefine it from within.Just as cinema is increasingly trying to address universal issues in modern cinematic language, research on film history is developing as a legitimate and even popular subfield in Western academia. …
Read full abstract