1 “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say”: Political Dissent in Grigory Kozintsev's Shakespeare A dissertation presented by Tiffany Ann Conroy to the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of English Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts November 2009 2 © Copyright by Tiffany Ann Conroy All Rights Reserved 3 “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say”: Political Dissent in Kozintsev's Shakespeare Tiffany Ann Conroy Abstract of Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of English Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts November 2009 4 This project is a study of Shakespeare in Russia and the Soviet Union that pays special attention to the works of scholar, filmmaker and theater practitioner Grigory Kozintsev. The central purpose of this investigation is to present a narrative of the role of Shakespeare in Russian and Soviet arts and letters from the 18 th to 20 th centuries, which emphasizes the ways in which artists, translators and critics have used Shakespeare’s plays as a means of responding to their cultural and political situations, often in a critical or subversive manner. Kozintsev’s theatrical and film versions of Hamlet and King Lear , as well as his books on Shakespeare, use the plays’ themes and imagery to comment upon the negative effects of Stalinist tyranny and other pressing problems in Soviet life, which could not be spoken about explicitly in a public forum for risk of censure, imprisonment, exile and even death. Shakespeare’s works provided a “screen” from Tsarist or Party censorship, enabling artists to allude covertly to contemporary troubles that would have otherwise been forbidden topics. 5 Dedication and Acknowledgments Dedicated in fond memory of Kathy Howlett With special thanks to Harlow Robinson, Marina Leslie and Inez Hedges the Northeastern University Department of English The Office of the Vice-Provost and Luis Falcon Northeastern University Libraries I must also acknowledge the support of my friends and fellowships; the parish of St Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, especially Father Antony Hughes and Sub deacon Steve Walker; the Monks and Nuns of New Skete, especially Brother David; Lee Rosenbaum and Eric Liebowitz; BPYI, especially Maryellen Murphy and Karuna O’Donnell; Randy Jones; Jeff Wasilko Marilyn Conroy, Eugene Conroy and Kelly Jancski. Thanks also for the furry companionship of Cyril, Ziggy, Crow, Zeus, Merton, Maxiumus, Shady, Zuna and Panda. 6 Table of Contents Abstract 4 Dedication and Acknowledgements 5 Table of Contents 6 Introduction 7 Chapter One Hamlet in Russia from the 18 th Century to Stalin’s Death 36 Chapter Two Hamlet in the “Thaw” and Grigory Kozintsev’s 1964 Film Adaptation 95 Chapter Three Russian and Soviet King Lears from the 19 th Century through World War II 158 Chapter Four King Lear Revisited in the Brezhnev Era: Kozintsev’s 1970 Film Adaptation 202 References 274 7 Introduction The purpose of this dissertation is to give a fully contextualized political, historical and biographical reading of Grigory Kozintsev’s films Gamlet (Hamlet 1964) and Korol Lir (King Lear 1970). This project presents the relevant history of political adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays and Shakespearean themes in the Russian and Soviet traditions, giving special attention to Hamlet and King Lear , and offers new perspectives on the ways in which Kozintsev’s criticism of the Soviet regime is revealed through his Shakespeare films. Kozintsev’s Shakespeare films date from the end of the “Thaw” period under Khrushchev (1953-1964), into the more repressive Brezhnev years (1964-1982; this discussion ends around 1970, since Kozintsev died in 1973). Although it is asserted by some historians that the Thaw period saw a greater license for artistic expression, especially if that expression critiqued Stalin, it should by no means be forgotten that censorship, imprisonment, exile and even execution were still real fears for intellectuals and artists who pushed too hard against Soviet power structure and ideology. By the end of the Khrushchev era and throughout the Brezhnev years, increased censorship and punishment of artists was the norm. Indeed, unlike Stalin, and Lenin before him, these leaders were not terribly interested in the arts and were more ready to simply crack down, whereas Stalin actually played a more delicate game and was clearly very much interested in, if not obsessed with, the arts, especially film. In addition to Kozintsev’s own artistic biography and writings, the involvement of Boris Pasternak as translator and Dmitri Shostakovich as composer is brought into the 8 discussion. I consider their respective experiences adapting and writing on Shakespeare, and their artistic biographies, which are inevitably and tragically intertwined with the political life of artists in the Soviet period. The substantial body of articles on these two films by Shakespeare and film scholars, while it effectively covers the more formal and aesthetic aspects of the films, often omits or too quickly glosses over key background figures, collaborators and historical or political contexts. To complete the picture into which these films fit, I consider the tradition of Shakespearean adaptation, translation and appropriation in Russian art and scholarship, which extends back to the time of Catherine the Great, through Pushkin and Dostoevsky, and survived both the Bolshevik Revolution and the fall of the USSR. This tradition is politically varied: in service of the dominant tsarist or dictatorial regimes; or radically at odds with them, usually in subtle allegorical or coded ways; or sometimes seemingly apolitical. Influential Russian and Soviet adaptations, especially theatrical ones from the 20 th century, are examined as precursors to and influences upon the films under study here. In the case of “foreign” Shakespeares, an investigation of the academic, performance and artistic Shakespearean heritage of the country in question is essential for a full understanding of any particular adaptation. The Russian tradition of Shakespearean translation, performance, adaptation and criticism is lengthy and varied, and extends as far back as the 18 th century. This project also engages the Russian Shakespearean tradition in terms of Soviet Shakespeare criticism, including key works from Soviet and Russian scholars as they are available in English, considering the ways in which these scholars varyingly assess 9 Shakespeare’s plays, in their own milieu as well as in later adaptations and appropriations, for their politically conformist, subversive or avoidant meanings. For the purposes of this project, Soviet Shakespeare criticism that subtly proposes politically resistant readings is especially useful in illuminating those themes which I believe Kozintsev and other adaptors highlighted to speak to the flaws and crimes of the Soviet regime. An understanding of the cultural politics of the era as they pertain to Shakespeare criticism, translation and adaptation and to the arts in general helps to contextualize any Shakespeare adaptations, such as Kozintsev’s, and illustrates how they could serve politically resistant ends. Shakespeare was much admired by Russian writers and artists. He was adopted as something of an honorary Russian, influencing Pushkin, among other major literary figures, and was canonized in Russian letters. Soviet academics and leaders, from the mid- 19 th century onward, were eager to appropriate Shakespeare to the Socialist cause, having been inspired by the statements of Marx and Engels (later also Lenin) on the political importance of some of the plays. They saw in Shakespeare’s works evidence of the emerging evils of capitalism and class struggle in the time of the English Renaissance. For example, Laertes was often read by Soviet critics as a champion of the people, a Bolshevik hero; his entrance to avenge his father’s murder was depicted on the Soviet stage with the presence of the “people” rushing in behind him to illustrate his popular revolutionary mandate. This episode, however, was also re-presented by other critics and in performance in a manner less reflective of the Party line. The image of Laertes’ return could be seen as 10 either foolishly rebellious, in the sense of a critique of the rashness of revolutionary zeal, or it could be read as a call-to-arms for Soviet citizens to rise up against their own oppressive regime. As an example of this double-voicing, Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible, Part 1 (1944) shows a scene in which the people come to laud their new ruler that was certainly intended to be read on these two levels. One level indicated the interpretation of events that followed Stalin’s wishes for the film, acting as a screen for the other, more resistant level’s interpretation to slip by. Stalin instructed Eisenstein personally in the making of his Ivan films. Stalin wanted the films to allegorize his own rise to power with that of the 16 th century Tsar. The final scene in which the people march to the tower in which Ivan hid was, for Stalin, a simile for his own, supposedly popular mandate to take power after Lenin’s death. Yet, in the final analysis, the ambivalent characterization of Ivan in the film makes his assumption of power feel more frightening than liberating, and the people seem more misled or coerced than jubilant. Eisenstein’s Ivan films, like Kozintsev’s Shakespeare films, used an officially-sanctioned story to convey an unofficial, un- sanctioned message. Kozintsev’s Shakespearean adaptations and books similarly used old stories of temporally or geographically distant persons and places, much loved and respected by the Party and the people, to analyze the problems of power in the USSR. The lives and works of Kozintsev, Pasternak and Shostakovich illumine the particular difficulties of living and creating art after the 1917 Revolution. In the course of this discussion, relevant cultural and political events in the USSR provide the necessary 11 context for readers unfamiliar with Soviet history.