SOVIET SOCIETY AND ITS CINEMA
81
poisoned it. The great period of production began in 1924, when the
first systematic effort was made to integrate ·the cinema into the po–
litical structure. But in recent years, every such extension of political
control has meant one more stifling, paralyzing influence. Thus, too,
with propaganda. The silent cinema reached its esthetic heights pre–
cisely when its social message began to be most emphasized; the great
directors found 'propaganda' a major source of inspiration. But since
1930, the less politics in a film, the better it is likely to be.
The Stalinists-excepting, of course, those simple-minded souls
who still insist the Soviet cinema
i'>
triumphantly advancing-offer
an explanation in social terms that seems, at first glance, to be more
plausible. The Russian masses are backward, and so, in the world's
premier democracy, .democratic art must be simple and even, by our
standards, a bit crude. But
this
explanation, too, overlooks the fact
that the masses were even more backward in 1925-1929, when the
Russian cinema was the most esthetically advanced in the world.
As
we shall see, Eisenstein and Pudovkin were well aware of this back–
wardness, and to some· extent based their approach on it. But today
this
same low level of culture becomes the justification for the banali–
ties which are produced in the name of socialist realism.
The key to these contradictory effects, in different periods, of the
same social factors cannot be found in abstract generalizations. It
is
necessary to examine these factors historically, and to inquire into
their relation to the profound political changes that have taken place
in the U.S.S.R.
I. THE CINEMA AND THE STATE
"Art Has Its Own Laws" vs. "Art Is a Class Weapon"
The great Bolsheviks had more understanding of avant-garde
politics than of avant-garde art. "I have the courage to appear a 'bar–
barian'," Lenin told Clara Zetkin. "I cannot appraise the works of
expressionism, futurism, cubism and other 'isms' as the highest mani–
festations of artistic genius. I do not understand them. I take no joy
in
them.m
0
'
But these politicians showed an intelligent tolerance to–
wards the 'advanced' poetry and painting and architecture that
surged up in the wake of their revolution-and in which they took
no joy. They recognized the boundary line between art and politics,
and they had no illusions about settling such issues by administrative
decree. (Lenin is said to have attended a big show of constructivist
art
during the civil war. He looked around in ironical bewilderment,
lhrugged his shoulders and remarked, "I don't understand, but it's
DO
business of mine. It's Lunacharsky's headache!") In their own
