Norbert P. Franz Hollywood – a Challenge for the Soviet Cinema Norbert P. Franz Hollywood – a Challenge for the Soviet Cinema Four Essays Universitätsverlag Potsdam Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. Universitätsverlag Potsdam 2020 http://verlag.ub.uni-potsdam.de/ Am Neuen Palais 10, 14469 Potsdam, Germany Phone: +49 (0)331 977 2533 / Fax: -2292 Email: [email protected] Layout and typesetting: text plus form, Dresden, Germany Print: Schaltungsdienst Lange oHG, Berlin, Germany | www.sdl-online.de Cover design: Kristin Schettler Cover illustrations: stock.adobe.com: happyvector071 | ChonnieArtwork. Film strip from left to right: Beloe solntse … | Shy People | Svoy sredi … | Runaway Train | Ninotchka | Split Cherry Tree | Stiliagi | Silk Stockings | Jet Pilot | Svoy sredi … | Beloe solntse … Photo on the rear flap: Thomas Roese/University of Potsdam This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License: Attribution 4.0 This does not apply to quoted content from other authors. To view a copy of this license visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ISBN 978-3-86956-490-6 Simultaneously published online on the publication server of the University of Potsdam: https://doi.org/10.25932/publishup-46939 https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-469398 Contents About this Book ..................................................................... 7 “Hollywood” and “Moscow” ...................................................... 9 The Path from Hollywood to Moscow and Back to Hollywood: Cinema’s History as a Relationship History in TSIRK, NINOtchKA, and Other Films ..................................................................... 31 Andrei Konchalovsky’s American Decade ...................................... 69 The Eastern ........................................................................... 159 Index ................................................................................... 195 About this Book Through joint courses at Potsdam University with Peter Drexler, beginning with “Concepts of Montage at Griffith and Eisenstein” many years ago, I was made at- tentively aware of similarities and differences between Russian/Soviet and Ameri- can cinema. This resulted in a research project on Russians who worked in the American film industry in the 20th century. In Los Angeles, I met some of them, but I mainly evaluated the materials that are archived in the Margaret Herrick Li- brary in Beverly Hills. Their staff was very helpful to me, and I am very grateful to them. I already published some results of my research in 2011 in German. The essay “Hollywood – Moscow – Hollywood: Cirk, Ninotchka und andere”1 has found its way back into the present volume, this time in English, translated by Dr. Bryan Herman (Albany). This volume consists of four independent essays, which are centered in univer- sity courses. The discussions with the German and Russian students made it seem advisable to pay particular attention to the cultural differences and the differing points of view. As a German, I am looking with a Western European outlook at two foreign cinema cultures, and I am especially interested in the question of how one references the other. In this sense the presentation is not particularly balanced. The American perspective on Soviet cinema, and of possible influences of Soviet cinematic style on American cinema, are missing. Films and literary works are referred to in the language of the original, with a translation added. Russian names and film titles are written in popular tran- scription for which the IMDb provided orientation, even if – as Oci ciornye shows – the use is not always consistent there. Since this spelling does not meet the 1 In: Kulturelle Mobilitätsforschung: Themen – Theorien – Tendenzen, hrsg. v. Norbert Franz und Rüdiger Kunow. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, 2011. (= Mobilisierte Kulturen, Bd. 1) Also: https:// doi.org/10.25932/publishup-5541. 7 About this Book philolo gical requirements in the notes, Russian titles were written there in Cyrillic letters. To be able to clearly identify them the official Russian names have also been added to the film titles in the Index, in Cyrillic letters, too. I would especially like to thank Austin Brown for proofreading my essays. 8 “Hollywood” and “Moscow” 1 A HISTORIcaL VIEW The advent of the cinema occurred in France, where the Lumiére brothers showed a movie on December 28, 1895 and the viewers paid for it. The technology spread worldwide within just a few years. In the more industrialized countries, film com- panies rapidly developed the technology further. American film pioneers, led by Thomas Edison, bundled their patents and founded the Motion Picture Patents Company in 1908 in New York. It was a company that demanded the respect of usage rights. Edison Trust viewed film making simply as a “business”, and so did the owners of the studios. The United States’ Supreme Court supported this view when, in 1915, it declared that film was not primarily an art form: “the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit […] not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded […] as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion.”1 This notion of film as a business meant that the products were not protected by the legally guaranteed freedom of the press. Local and regional authorities were able to raise objections to films that appeared morally questionable. It also established the dominance of the studio over the artists, directors and actors. Ambitious directors had to struggle with the producers if they wanted to make films according to their own aesthetic ideas. Those who wanted to produce films cheaper than in New York, and get away from the tight rein of the Patents Company, went to the sunny and hard-to-reach Southwestern USA, where land and labor were cheap. From 1912 onwards, compa- nies were founded that built large studios and produced movies. In order to main- tain the greatest possible independence, the Hollywood studios in 1922 joined 1 In the case Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 from 1915 (Wikipedia sub voce: Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio). 9 “Hollywood” and “Moscow” together to form a Motion Picture Producers Association (MPPA). The basic idea that the making of films was above all a business, remained unscathed when the focus of the American film industry moved to Hollywood. Economically speaking, “Hollywood” was a complex system of competing companies, whose bosses had the market in mind. The audiences were then the real masters, and it was these abstract spectators with whom the studio bosses argued. However, it would be a mistake to believe that the dominance of the econ- omy has damaged the aesthetic quality of the films. On the contrary, it promoted quality, but in a very special sense. Whether a work of literature, music, painting, or film is perceived as aesthet- ically pleasing, depends on the currently dominant cultural trend. There are no timeless aesthetic standards, but the number of key cultural ideas is limited. The most suitable model for describing this is based on the basic communicative situ- ation, for example, in the conjugation paradigm, “I’m talking to you about it (him, her).” Linguistics have made a triangle from it: “A transmitter communicates with a receiver objects/facts”. This corresponds to the three language functions “expres- sion”, “appeal” and “presentation.”2 It is important that all three functions must always be available – albeit with different intensities. Usually one function dom- inates, and the other two take a back seat. The history of aesthetics shows that in different epochs different things were perceived as aesthetically pleasing, depend- ing on which function (expression, appeal or presentation) dominated in con- gruence with the cultural trend. The art of the European Middle Ages for example was shaped by the idea of depicting the unearthly world to uplift the viewer. The expressive function with which the artist expresses his personality was so far in the background that in many cases, history has forgotten the names. In the Renaissance, on the other hand, a different understanding of the artist dominated. He is now a creator, who characteristically shows his figures naked often. Expression dominates. The appel- lative aspect takes a back seat. This dominated in the Mannerism and the Baroque periods, when the artist wanted to impress and astonish the recipient. In this, very simplified, model of varying dominance, appellative function has had the leading role in early American film. There is a concrete orientation to- wards the viewer. Anyone wishing to lure viewers into film projections, had to at- tract them, promising them entertainment at the highest possible level. The movies should not be boring either in content or in the way of storytelling, rather they had to be confirmed by the experience level and desires of the audience. Experience level as far as the audience has to recognize that the film affects them; desires then as dreams of untroubled happiness. The artist (director, actor) could only “express” himself as long as he did not question the motivations of achieving economic suc- 2 Cfr. Bühler, Karl. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion