Toeplitz – Cinema in Eastern Europe

Society for Cinema & Media Studies Cinema in Eastern Europe Author(s): Jerzy Toeplitz Source: Cinema Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Autumn, 1968), pp. 2-11 Published by: University of Texas Press on behalf of the Society for Cinema & Media Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1225222 . Accessed: 05/03/2014 04:31 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of Texas Press and Society for Cinema & Media Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cinema Journal. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 193.49.37.77 on Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:31:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Cinemain EasternEurope Jerzy Toeplits The cinema world of 1938-39 was a very small world. There were really only six centers of production which were known-France, Italy, Germany, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union. In most of the countries of the world even those six centers were reduced to four. There were very few sound Soviet films being shown outside the Soviet Union in the period 1934 till the beginning of the war; for political reasons, nobody wanted to show them. There were very few German films being shown for different political reasons. And so the average spectator in the United States, Poland, Hungary, Great Britain, or France would see mostly American films and sometimes French or Italian films. We knew that there were far-away centers of film production in Japan and India but they were totally unknown. Japanese films were shown to people of Japanese origin but not to the general public. That was the situation in 1939. The film world of today is a very large world. There are not six but several dozen centers of production and the average spectator is able to see films from many countries including eastern Europe. There were two instruments working toward popularization of exotic or unknown national cinemas. First, there was the development of the institution of the film festival. Before the war there was only one international film festival, in Venice, and this festival was very largely, especially at the end of the 1930's, a political festival, serving the cause of the axis powers, of Germany and Italy. Today we have around the world more than a hundred festivals and at least twenty important ones. The four most important in Europe are at Venice, Cannes, Berlin, and Moscow alternating with Karlovy-Vary. Among the twenty are those which do not give awards, as in London, New York, and Acapulco. Then there are the specialized film festivals: documentaries in Oberhausen and Mannheim, animation films in Annecy and Mamaia and so on. These festivals, which are very often criticized as being commercial enter- prises, are in fact extremely useful because they popularize the unknown cinema. Every year in many places the films of all nations are shown despite political differences. Even in the cold war days these festivals were in a certain sense This content downloaded from 193.49.37.77 on Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:31:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions CINEMAJOURNAL / 3 neutralist because in those years at the Karlovy-Vary festival there were films from the west and at Cannes and Venice there were films from the Soviet Union and eastern European countries. There is another instrument which plays a very important role, especially in the United States of America-the art theaters. They existed before 1939, but if one is to believe the statistics (and I think in this case the statistics tell the truth) the number of art theaters before 1939 varied from 30 to 40, whereas today there are well over 1000 theaters in the United States showing foreign films. So we see that the notion of a large film world is not a theoretical proposition but a reality. It varies from place to place. In larger centers it is most evident. But also in smaller places, thanks to the institution of the film society or film club, foreign films are being seen. This is especially true in universities. For these reasons, eastern European cinema is no longer exotic or unknown. BASICTRADITIONS What do I mean by east European cinema? First there is the political distinc- tion-we are thinking of the countries belonging to the socialist, or if you prefer, the communist group of nations. These countries have similar, though not identi- cal, political systems, and this is felt also in the field of motion picture production. Historical factors, too, are similar. All these countries were liberated by the red army with the help of the local partisans. In Yugoslavia certainly the partisans played a much greater role than the red army itself but very definitely in all these countries at the end of the war the arrival of the Russian army changed very greatly the political situation. Then, in all these countries the leading role in political life is played by the communist party, although the communist parties are different nowadays and we cannot speak about any uniform model of the communist party all over the world. A third historical factor is the development of cinema in the Soviet Union. The Russian experience was well known and served as an example and model. The films themselves, however, were known more from hearsay or from film periodicals than from projection until 1945. With the exception of Czechoslovakia, the censors in east European countries did not allow Soviet films to be shown in cinemas. After 1945, the situation changed radically; old and new Soviet films were widely shown. There are three elements which seem to me characteristic and really decisive for the character of east European cinema in all the countries I am speaking of- the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Yugo- slavia. First, they are all state owned cinemas. The state takes on the task of financing film production, running the theaters, and also controlling distribu- tion of films in foreign counties and the importation of foreign films into these countries. The change from private to national ownership did not come at the same time in all these countries. In 1945, only three countries had a nationalized cinema: Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. In Bulgaria, Rumania, and Hungary the nationalization came three years later. I should mention here as a This content downloaded from 193.49.37.77 on Wed, 5 Mar 2014 04:31:09 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 / CINEMAJOURNAL curiosity that in Hungary in 1946 cinema production was divided among four political parties-each one had its own producing company, cinemas, and distri- bution office. Nowadays in each of these countries nationalization is fully accepted; there are no exceptions. The second thing common to all these countries is that the rank of the cinema in the hierarchy of the arts is much higher than in the western states. There is a feeling that it is the duty of the state to take care of cinema, that the cinema is an important part of art-not entertainment, not industry, but art. The reason is quite clear. All the Marxists in all these countries have read the famous statement by Lenin that "of all the arts the cinema is the most important for us." He recognized the enormous propaganda value of the film, its influence on the masses. I must add that his statement is of enormous use in our countries. If we have any kind of financial difficulties with our authorities it is always very helpful to remind them of what Lenin said about the cinema, and then they must deal with us seriously. We do not allow them to forget what Lenin said. Still, it is a fact that the artists of the cinema in these countries are treated the same as any other artists-writers, musicians, painters. They belong to the same group of people; they have the same rights, the same privileges, and they are considered important. The third common denominator in all these countries is the idea of the film school as nursery for future film makers. I think this is of the greatest im- portance because there is a natural influx of new people with fresh ideas coming out of the schools into film production. Production could hardly exist without the schools. Producers do not have to search for people who might be useful to them. There is a regular channel for young people interested in film and seeing film as a career leading them from school into the profession. These elements are common in all those cinemas. Let me now speak about the differences. The first difference is that all these cinemas have their own national and artistic heritage-in literature, painting, theater, all the arts which collaborate with the cinema. Going back again to 1939, all the cinemas had different paths and different starting points. The strongest cinema existed in Czechoslovakia. It is very old, starting almost at the same time as cinema in other countries. In 1934 Czechoslovakia got the first prize for the best national selection at the Venice film festival.

Load more