THE SOVIET CINEMA
55
garment workers are making 5,000 absolutely authentic eigtheenth century
military uniforms-all for the grand climax of his film, the battle of Poltava.
This is to be reenacted by countless hordes of extras in what the
News
proud–
ly refers to as
"the Cecil
B.
De Mille
manner."83 That in
1937
Soviet ship–
yards should
be
occupied with making such toys, by the way, is an ironic
note on the economic as well as the esthetic tendencies of the present regime.
Lenin in October
(Director: V. Romm; associate director: D. Vassi–
liev). This is
the
Kremlin's official version of
the
October revolution and is
reported to have been personally supervised by Stalin. 8'* Cinematically,
there is little to say about it that has not been said already about
Paris Com–
mune.
The sound track faithfully reproduces the speeches of
the
actors,
the
camera trots after ' them like a well-trained dog.
It
is all 100 per cent
socialist-realist, and it has nothing to do with cinema. Those who think of
Chapayev
as a major film will
be
disturbed by the connection of Vassiliev
with so mediocre a production.
Politically,
the
film is more interesting.
It
presents Stalin as.-.1.enin's
closest
collaborator in making the October revolution against
the
traitorous
opposition of Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev.
It
would
be
tedious to go into
the numerous falsifications of history which this thesis involves. To mention
a few: the meeting of
the
Central
Committee
at which
the
'auxiliary
center' was created
[see
Trotsky's article, p. 6 of this
issue,
for
the
pecu–
liar importance of this 'center' to the Stalin myth} and
the
meeting at
which it was definitely
decided
to begin the insurrection are presented here
as a single meeting;** the insurrection is Stalin's idea, not Lenin's, who
begins his speech: "I agree with comrade Stalin that an immediate uprising
is necessary . . ."; Lenin denounces the Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamenev bloc
(actually, of course, Trotsky stood with Lenin and Stalin in favor of in–
surrection) as "traitors" and "strikebreakers"-these men to whom a short
time
later he will entrust the Red Army and the Communist International.
The
New Masses
has described
Lenin in October
as "history catching up
with romance in the Russian revolution."
But more important than such falsifications of detail is the caricature
of Lenin, who is pictured as a funny little man, full of endearing 'human'
mannerisms, bustling happily about the business of revolution, a Foxy Grand–
pa of the class struggle.
In
short, as Robert Forsythe enthusiastically put it
in the
New Masses,
"a man who might easily have played third base for
the Brooklyn Dodgers." Always in the background is Stalin-solid, silent,
• Those connected with the film seem to have been acutely conscious of its great political
significance.
Mouow News
quotes Romm as saying he "felt awed by the tremendous
responsibility" and continues, "Romm was hardly able to give any directions to the
actors. He was trembling with excitement."S5 As for the unfortunate actor who' had
to impersonate Stalin-in the film, he seems hardly to breathe. Stiff in his military
tunic, he ventures no mannerisms, no stage business beyond a noncommittal puffing
on his big pipe. The other actors become noticeably constrained in their scenes with
this human torpedo, charged with destruction. Even the ebullient Lenin quiets down
when Stalin glides silently into the scene.
**
Accordini! to Trotsky, the 'auxi liary center' was composed of Stalin, Sverdlov, Uritsky,
Dzerzhinsky and Bubnov. In this film, however, Bubnov is omitted, undoubtedly
because last year he fell into disfavor and was removed from his post as Commissar
of Education. The pettiness of the Stalin School of Falsification is as remarkable
as its large scope.
