“You confuse where the capitals are, you are so stuck in Moscow”

Anastasia Karkotskaya

Nikita Khrushchev made a promise to build communism by 1980. Neither he nor his successors succeeded – the formal completion of the Soviet project, that is, the disintegration of the USSR, was marked by numerous armed conflicts on the territory of the former Union republics. Stephen Kotkin’s book Averted Armageddon devoted to this process does not accidentally refer to the period from 1970 to 2000 and could be continued until our time. Cinematographers from the former Union republics shouted at the republican congresses of the Union of Cinematographers in perestroika years that it would not be possible to prevent Armageddon. In this article, I will demonstrate how during the period of reconstruction, filmmakers from Republican film studios moved from talking about oppression in distribution to discussing the center’s imperial policy and helping each other.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev took the post of the general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee: “a handsome man, speaks like a man, without a piece of paper, and at the same time speaks well, charming smile.”[1]

[1] Nina Mamardashvili, Raisa Gorbacheva’s roommate, recalled that for the first time such categories were used when discussing power

From February 25 to March 5, 1986, the XXVII Congress of the Central Committee of the CPSU was held in Moscow. During the congress, the party’s program was adjusted: the strategic line of building communism was shifted to the perfection of socialism, “won completely and finally”[2] – the recognition of the existence of the problems of the present, and as a consequence, its imperfection was preferred over «bright future».

During the Congress, the Soviets noted not the inevitability of communism, but the successful resolution of the national issue [3] – in this area, Soviet citizens had only to develop a “unified culture of the Soviet people on the basis of the best achievements and original progressive traditions of the peoples of the USSR”[4].

[2] Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. – M.: Politizdat, 1986. P. 126.

[3] Ibid, p. 156

[4] Ibid, p. 157

During this congress, the term “transparency” was also first used: the program of freedom of speech caused a number of turbulent public discussions about the recent past. On the one hand, transparency opened the public sphere; on the other, it became an important lever of the official cultural policy of the late USSR. For example, iconic films were rented under manual control due to connections and patronage. In other words, the widely proclaimed freedom of expression has in fact been subject to very, very arbitrary controls. An example is the story of the film by Tengiz Abuladze Repentance – the script of the film was not viewed by the censoring body of Goskino because the future Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR Eduard Shevardnadze negotiated this through his personal ties with higher authorities.

Public discussions soon demonstrated that the “national issue” remained one of the most painful and unresolved for the citizens of the Soviet Union[5]. And the thesis about freedom of speech is refuted at least when reading the diaries of the nearest assistant of M. Gorbachev – A. Chernyaev. For example, according to an entry dated 7 June 1986, the secretary-general “encourages “spin-up” of publicity but still regards it as a tool of the party for change, not as a “free speech” by his own logic.»[6]

[5] Moore D. Is the Post- in Postcolonial the Post- in Post-Soviet: Towards a Global Postcolonial Critique // Publications of the Modern Language Association. 2001. Vol. 116. 1. Pp. 111–128; Kuklin I. “Internal postcolonial”: the formation of post-colonial consciousness in Russian literature of the 1970s-2000s // There, inside: the practice of internal colonization in the cultural history of Russia: collection of articles / ed.: A. Etkind, D. Uffelman, I. Kuklin. – M.: New Literary Review, 2012. P. 846-909. Lipovetsky M. Soviet and post-Soviet transformations of the plot of internal colonization // There, inside: the practice of internal colonization in the cultural history of Russia. Pp. 809–845.

[6] Chernyaev, A. A project. Soviet Policy 1972-1991 – View from the inside. 1986 // Diaries of A. S. Chernyaev Soviet Policy 1972-1991 – View from the inside. URL

Despite these limitations, the following period became the second wave of de-Stalinization of the cultural sphere after the thaw, as well as a critical rethinking and “development of the past”[7] in the public discourse. This trend has made it possible to look critically not only at the recent past, but also at the problems of the present.

[7] Adorno, T. What does «development of the past» mean / Untouchable reserve, 2005, 2-3. Pp. 36–45.

The first artistic union to meet the challenges of perestroika was the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR. Its V Congress, held in May 1986, is often awarded the epithet “revolutionary” by Russian film critics – after it, many films, previously left by the censorship bodies «on the shelves», returned to wide distribution. However, if we refer to the protocols of the meetings of this congress, we will find that a significant part of it is devoted to an issue far removed from the interests of modern critics – the situation of the cinematography of the Union republics.

According to the report of the V Plenum of the Union of Cinematographers entitled «Democratization of society and national cinema under conditions of perestroika», unification of art was consistently pursued by Stalin’s policy in the field of culture: “the 1932 resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (B), the emergence of the theory of socialist realism which soon acquired a protective character, and, finally, the dogma of Stalin aesthetics: national in form, socialist in content. This Stalinist formula purported to standardize content. National became the prerogative of form forcibly removed from the content and acquired a purely external, ornamental character. In cinema with its photographic fixing nature, “national” should have been understood as the specificity of physiological type, costume, exteriors, and interiors, forms of everyday life and labor.”[8]

[8] Fifth Plenum of the Board of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR. Democratization of society and national cinema under conditions of perestroika. November 15-16, 1988. Verbatim report. From the speeches of the participants of the plenum. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1988. P. 11.

Sheila Fitzpatrick in Everyday Stalinism says that “Stalinism as a special environment” was formed in the 1930s, and in its main features existed up to Gorbachev perestroika.[9] The Soviet state acted as a guardian of the “national spirit” and an “educator of patriotism”, and “its programs of nation-building and strengthening of the national spirit could seem attractive even to those citizens who complained about the deficit…”[10]

Moreover, “the regime has succeeded in associating it with progress in the minds of many citizens. Was the Soviet regime legitimized to the general population or was not; its modernizing (civilizing) mission was obvious.”[11]

[9] Fitzpatrick, S. Everyday Stalinism. Social History of Soviet Russia in the 1930s: City. – M.: ROSSPEN, 2008. Pp. 9–10.

[10, 11] Ibid, p. 269.

Cultural policy as one of the mechanisms of centralization of power in the “Union Republics – Moscow” had a direct influence on regional film studios and films produced there. This mechanism became the subject of fierce criticism from republican filmmakers after open discussions, calling for “restructuring” and trying to comprehend the past.

For example, here is an extract from the speech of the film director Eldar Shengelai from the Georgian SSR at the V Congress of the USSR SK, “Today, when the republics regularly create films that become the heritage of Soviet culture, when the artistic level in the entire Soviet cinema is basically the same, this system of interference in the creative processes of “injections from the center” has outlived itself. Moreover, it has become an obstacle to development.”[12]

[12] E. Shengelai // Transcript of the V Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR “About the ideological and creative tasks of the Soviet cinema in the light of the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU” May 13, 1986. The First Day. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1986. P. 89.

However, despite the general “democratization”, the USSR State Committee on Cinematography (Goskino of the USSR) in 1986 did not release republican studios out of control. According to the order, “to include a movie in the annual thematic and production plans, the state cinema of the Union republics or studios of the Union subordination present a movie script in the state cinema of the USSR (in Russian, 7 copies) developed by the film studio on the basis of its approved literary script, together with the main production and economic indicators of the production of the film,”[13] as well as “the detailed conclusion of the scenario editorial board and the art council of the film studio (association) for the signature of the chief editor; the minutes of the art council of the film studio (association) on the basis of the discussion of the script” was to be presented in Goskino. “Individual cases” were considered too:

“In some cases, when deciding on the inclusion of the film in the thematic and production plans, the Main Scenery Editorial Board of Goskino USSR has the right to request the film director’s commentary on the future film, revealing the uniqueness of its design and the basis of conceptual and creative solution.”[14]

[13] USSR State Committee for Cinematography (USSR State Cinema), Order 279 of July 14, 1986. On some measures to regulate the organization of film production, Moscow // TSGALI SPB, Foundation 257, Inventory 37, Case 2// Order and Decision of Goskino of the USSR (started January 10, 1986 – December 10)

[14] Ibid.

And in response to the reasoned proposals of the SK members on the dissolution of Goskino, another intermediate link was added, and now the republican head of the cinematography department was subordinated not only to Goskino but also to the Ministry of Culture of the Republic.

Davlatanazar Khudonazarov, a film director, the first secretary of the Board of the Association of Cinematographers of Tajikistan, during the V Congress of the Union of Cinematographers expressed concern for the “national portrait” because the representation of the established model was not able to attract the viewer to the problems and life of a certain republic, as well as could distort the perception of the region, “Cinema is the most important factor of rapprochement between the peoples of our multi-ethnic country. But if the film is made to average standards, if it is ethically and aesthetically unsound, then the reaction of the viewer will be appropriate – and not only to the artistic solution, but also to our national portrait… We have no right to forget that cinema precedes and often replaces the real acquaintance of the majority of viewers with the culture, lifestyle, and moral values of our peoples.”[15] He also warned that those filmmakers who do not want the “poisonous snakes of nationalism”[16] to raise their heads should take responsibility for the perception of their region by the audience.

[15] Transcript of the V Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR “About the ideological and creative tasks of the Soviet cinema in the light of the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU”, May 13, 1986. The First Day. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1986. Pp. 95-96.

[16] Ibid, p. 96.

Mikhail Belikov represented the Ukrainian delegation, thanked for the help in preventing the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, but, asking the question, «Are we united only by a disaster?», he couldn’t help but recall the parable: ““It was as it was, and it will be as it was.” Paying tribute to humor, in these words you see great national wisdom and hope. Hope and faith, based on duty, morality, and the civil conscience of us all.[17]

[17] Transcript of the V Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR “About the ideological and creative tasks of the Soviet cinema in the light of the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU”, May 13, 1986. First Day. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1986. P. 87.

According to Khojakuli Narliev (the first secretary of the Union of Turkmen Cinematographers), the distribution of films had never been evenly distributed, “The most obvious of all are the costs of distribution in relation to the films of the Republican studios. Among Turkmen films, there are bad, average ones, but there are also real works of art. But for the rent, they are all twins and stepsons: the label “non-cass” cinema has become the genetic code of the brand “Turkmenfilm”.”[18] For example, the film Men’s Education was enlisted as out-of-box but after recognition at international festivals received the state prize of the USSR[19].

Khojakuli Narliyev proposed to correct this, to conduct a retrospective of Turkmen cinema in Moscow, “This honor has never been awarded. In response – polite words, at the same time they confuse Ashgabat, Dushanbe, and other cities of Central Asia. But the point of our proposal is that Ashgabat, Dushanbe, and other cities should not be confused on a social scale, comrades. When such a proposal does not find a practical solution for the same financial reasons, it is not the box office, but our culture and ideology that is threatened.”[20]

[18] Transcript of the V Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR “About the ideological and creative tasks of the Soviet cinema in the light of the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU”, May 13, 1986. First Day. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1986. Pp. 176–177.

[19, 20] Ibid, p. 178.

And Jānis Streičs addressed the secretary of the board of the Union of Cinematographers directly, “I am the representative of Latvia. The capital of Latvia, comrade Kulijanov, is Riga, not Kaunas, not Vilnius, not Druskininkai, but Riga. And in Riga, there are directors Frank and Seletskis, Latvian directors, not Lithuanian, as you said in your report. This is not a slip of the tongue but a symptomatic phenomenon. Yesterday, a comrade from Central Asia talked about this. That you confuse where the capitals are, you are so stuck in Moscow.»[21]

[21] Transcript of the V Congress of Cinematographers of the USSR “About the ideological and creative tasks of the Soviet cinema in the light of the decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU”, May 13, 1986. The Second Day. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1986. P. 79

Lev Kulijanov, addressed by Jan Straych, was the head of the main department of artistic cinematography of Goskino of the USSR from 1963 to 1964, and from 1965 to 1986 served as the first secretary of the board of the Union of Cinematographers. In the article, opening the annual collection Screen for 1972-1973 years, he wrote that all republican film studios were equipped with everything necessary for work, and their new films were “deeply realistic, party passionate, talented, showing the past and present of our peoples, focusing special attention on really important problems of communist construction and education”.[22]

[22] Kulijanov, L. The Year of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the USSR // Screen. 1972-1973. – M. Art, 1974. P 5.

However, for example, throughout the Soviet period, directors of the Armenian SSR could not make a film about the genocide and relations with Turkey. So, Mikael Stambolkian recalled the imperial model of relations between the central authorities and the film studio “Armenfilm”, “If there is anything that the Armenian people have, it is their history. Only three historical films have been made in the 65 years of existence. One is dedicated to the taking of the fortress of Yerevan by the troops of general Paskevich and the annexation of Eastern Armenia to Russia. In the second film where the action takes place 100 years earlier, in the very end, suddenly, a Russian detachment comes to the aid of the commander Mkhitar. This tail sewn with white threads to the novel of Sero Khansadyan who is very well known in Armenia was needed as a screen pass. Neither those who thought it up nor those who accepted it were interested in the fact that in the early 17th century, there was no helicopter landing, and in no other way Russian troops could appear in a given geographical point at that time. It was simply believed that the only way to save the people and save the film is if it was contrary to history, geography, and even common sense.”[23]

The sudden criticism of the system from the regions led to the meeting of the fifth plenum of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR in 1988 entitled “Democratization of society and national cinematography under conditions of perestroika”, during which the “cinematographic brotherhood” will be called “to be free, but united, united, but free”.[24]

Prospects of perestroika here were questioned by the first secretary of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR A. S. Smirnov (it was impossible to present such a thing under L. Kulijanov as the head of the USSR SK), “…the enormous resistance of the administrative system which in words supports the ideas of perestroika is still fiercely resisting their implementation in practice.”[25] Or, “it seems that the notorious Administrative-Command System has secretly decided and successfully carried out a severe massacre of the audacious filmmakers who were among the first in the country to try to weaken its oppressive power.”[26]

Rikhard Peaks, Studio Director and General Director of “Latviaskino” in 1988 compares the system of film studios with the administrative structure of the state, “A few words about the danger that we have. We have developed a model: pluralism, autonomy, and the sovereignty of different films. But here, the opposite tendencies are felt. The same is happening now with the republics in general and with the project for amendments to the Constitution of the USSR. We discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that there can be no independence of separate links in the framework of all-Union relations without the sovereignty of these links, whether it be cinema or a republic. In this context, the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the USSR seem to us to come from the consciousness that has been nurtured in us for years, and from the consciousness of centralism, they do not imply this sovereignty. It seems to us that first, it would be necessary to work out the constitutions of the republics, and then, the general Soviet Constitution. No one should ever be afraid that if someone is given more conscious freedom, someone will run away. We all know that the dog that is on the chain is angrier than the one that walks freely, it knows its owner.”[27]

[23] The Fifth Plenum of the Board of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR / Democratization of society and national cinema under conditions of perestroika / November 15-16, 1988 / Verbatim report. From the speeches of the participants. – M. Union of Cinematographers. P. 59-60.

[24] Ibid, p. 30.

[25] Ibid, p. 2.

[26] Ibid, p. 16.

[27] Ibid, p. 54.

In 1989, at the plenum of the Union of Cinematographers devoted to “renewal of artistic consciousness”, secretary of the board of the SK of the Lithuanian SSR Algimantas Majolis returned to misunderstanding the center of national politics, “Only two weeks have passed since “Cinema and National Policy” was held in Vilnius on the initiative of the USSR Union of Cinematographers. A representative delegation from the center came to teach us how to deal with national issues in cinema. We’ve been told: why do you want to leave the Soviet Union, you don’t do it, because even by falling apart, the empire won’t let you do it peacefully. So do not tease the beast with a stick.”[28]

[28] Cinema: Renewal of artistic consciousness. Eighth Plenum of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR. May 15-17, 1989. From the performances of participants of the plenum. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1989. P. 51.

The resolution of the Eighth Plenum of the Union of Cinematographers decided: “to abandon the imperial model of “the unity of cultures” of the peoples of the country which leads to the erasure of the historical identity of national cultures. A federal model of cultural unity based on recognition of the cultural sovereignty of each people must be adopted. At present, the national cinema exists only within the administrative and territorial framework of the Union Republics. Peoples deprived of republican status do not have the opportunity to participate in the domestic and world film process. But the presence of the republican cinema does not lead to the revelation of its national value, if its development is focused only on political and ideological principles.”[29]

In 1990, Eldar Shengelaya noted that “in connection with the organization of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation, the USSR SK has already become essentially the Union of National Cinematography.” At the same time, Shengelaia felt gratitude and spoke for the fact that “Our partnership does not end. We especially felt the importance of this – Georgian filmmakers, Georgian people. When the State machinery worked after the events of 9 April to conceal the true nature of the events of 9 April, the Union of Cinematographers almost changed the situation. The Union of Cinematographers essentially defended the honor of the Georgian people then.”[30]

[29] Cinema: Renewal of artistic consciousness. Eighth Plenum of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR. May 15-17, 1989. From the performances of participants of the plenum. – M.: Union of Cinematographers of the USSR, 1989. Pp. 173–174.

[30] Ibid, p. 141.

On May 27, 1991, the “Treaty on the Creation of a Confederation of Unions of Cinematographers” was signed, opening with the following preamble: “Gathered at a difficult moment for the life of their peoples. Aware of the fullness of their responsibility. Confirming the right of every artist to free creativity. Understanding the need for a profound change in relations between our film unions. Taking into account historical realities and sharing common concerns about the fate of national cinema.”[31]

[31] A new reality. How we live in it. A shortened transcript of the III Plenum of the Federation Council of the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR (May 28-29, 1991). – Moscow: Union of Soviet Cinematographers, 1991.

Transparency was conceived as a managed democratization of the cultural policy of the USSR. However, public discussions about “national cinema” quickly showed that no “single culture of the Soviet people” existed, and the “Soviet” itself became associated with “Russian” due to the imperial policy of the center. The problems of the Union republics which had long seemed to be solved from the center remained on the agenda. Those concerned in the first place not only stated it loudly, but also invited Moscow to a dialogue.

In fact, the first to separate from the Union of Cinematographers of the USSR was the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation. It exists today, its chairman is Mikhalkov Nikita Sergeyevich.

Other essays

Anastasia Chebotaryova

Artificial juxtaposition: Holodomor and Holocaust

Anastasia Karkotskaya