CORRESPONDENCE
71
such as Capra, Vidor, De Mille, etc., would
have treated it, that is, as essentially a
photographed stage play. Eisenstein stepped
in, took control out of Ermler's fumbling
hands, and the result was a
film.
An inter–
esting, and possibly even significant, in–
cident, inasmuch as the same Ermler has
since become one of the celebrated expon–
ents of what is euphemistically called
'socialist realism'.
SEYMOUR STERN.
Dear Mr. Macdonald:
Enclosed is your article. I suppose I
should thank you for sending it to me, but
I can hardly thank you for writing it. With
its factual tenth untrue, and its nine-tenths
of illogical conclusions, it does not mate–
rially advance the knowledge on the subject
you have chosen. Even if you were sincere
in your wish to tell "a straight story" (your
phrase), I am afraid I would not be willing
to assist the article's absurdities byattempt–
ing to lend them the credibility that they
now lack. I did not realize before that
PARTISAN REVIEW depended so completely
on an uninformed reading public.
My only criticism that you may care to
hear is that your article exhibits its motives
too clearly. I would prefer to think that the
errors, in premise and detail, are uncon–
cious, but the distortions of fact and quot–
ation are too obviously channeled towards
some childishly destructive purpose.
Forgive me if I have been too general in
my comments, but I did not feel that you
either needed or wanted them.
JAY LEYDA.
Footnote
by
Dwight Macdonald:
On
receiving this extraordinary letter, I at once
called up Mr. Leyda to make it clear that
I both needed and wanted his specific com–
ments. As a result, we ate a most friendly
lunch together, in the course of which it
became clear that we disagreed profoundly
as to both the esthetic and political nature
of the recent Soviet cinema, and that this
disagreement was the basis for Mr. Leyda's
letter. I must also add that
Me.
Leyda de–
clined an invitation to point 'out to the
readers of PARTISAN REVIEW
his
specific
objections to the article, suggesting that his
f('(thcoming book on the subject would
indicate clearly enough his dissenting opin-
ions. We look forward to reviewing Mr.
Leyda's book in our columns.
Dear
Mr.
Macdonald:
Your article on the Soviet cinema-first
announced, you know, in the December
issue--was a long time in the coming; and
I want to tell you that I think the first
part
is
fine. But if I may, I should like to
make several points:- and the first one
is
a caution,
The PARTISAN REVIEW, on the whole,
has a tendency towards what might be called
"Stalin-baiting". Do not mistake my point:
not that I wish to defend Stalin or Stalin–
ism. But it seems to me quite clear that
persistent deprecatory references only serve
(on the one hand) to deepen slightly the
prejudices that anti-Stalinists of the P. R.
degree hold, but-more important-tend
greatly to vitiate your argument in the
eyes of those who are not quite willing (or
ready) to accept the full-bodied bitterness
of your opposition. This is not to ask you
to pull punches, nor to sacrifice principles.
It is, as our friends of the Party persuasion
always have it, just a change in tactics.
The method of the first part of your
article was largely narrational, which, I
think, was necessary and proper. Yet a
danger is inherent here--one that was not
quite skirted in the latter part of your piece.
That is to say, a demonstration of the
decline of the Soviet cinema must be a
critical demonstration-an ' analysis of the
deteriorating quality : in theme and in tech–
nique. Your early consideration of the
period of decline seemed rather to fall back
to the "Stalin-had-a-hand-in-it-thus-it-was–
bad" attitude,-just as you think (perhaps
justly from your position; but not from
another; and whom are you trying to con–
vince?) that the reference to the activity of
"a young bureaucrat" is a telling point in
your favor . . . Try to avoid cliches of
Stalinist - anti-Stalinist controversy in the
crucial criticisms of your analysis. For
greatest effectiveness use descriptions and
terminology that even the Stalinist must
grant. If the premises cannot be cha lIenged,
the conclusions must be considered. I fear
that your cnnclusions may not be considered
in the (irrevelant) wrangle over 'Stalinist'
(llsed contemptuously
?II
over the place),
'censorship', 'bureaucracy', etc....
I wonder how far you'll bring your
