Talk:Cinema of the Soviet Union/Archive 1

Archive 1

The 1930s

While the material contained in the section "1930s" is articulate and well informed, I am concerned that it makes a number of factual statements (i.e., regarding the declining rate of film production throughout the decade) which are not supported by any documentary evidence or reference links. It would be a shame to "cut" this material on the basis of this absense; who knows where this section originates from? If we knew this, it would be possible to reconstruct the section so that it conforms properly with Wikipedia formatting standards. In truth, this section reads like an essay or micro-essay that has been dropped in from another source.

Dune Sherban (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Old talk

Russian Ark is not truly the first unedited film, there are a lot of others who've done that before, f.e. Andy Warhol. It is, however, the first long feature film that has truly been shot in one take - because everything was filmed on a mega-harddisk. Hitchcock's The Rope is another example, but since that was filmed on 35mm, they had to change reels after 20 minutes. But, since English is not my mothertongue, I feel uncertain to change this little nuance in the text.

Comment

I agree with the above. It might be better to say that it is the first feature film made in a single shot. On the other hand, I'm no native speaker either...

Factchecking

Can someone please give me a reliable source for these two "oddities" mentioned in the Censorship section? I don't know about the first, but the second certainly sounds like the equivalent of an urban legend. -- Simonides 00:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• The delay of the release of the film Solaris by two years, causing it to appear on the heels of Kubrick's 2001 (and thus was dubbed in the West an answer to 2001), although it was made before.

• The release of Andrey Rublev in black and white (it was originally in color) because the film was deemed too bloody.

I realise the age of this query, yet the point is valid: Andrei Rublev was intended to be shot in black and white, which in the film gradually shifts into colour in the closing scenes. Tarkovsky explicitely intended this effect as a stylistic and meaningful device; it was not 'imposed' on the film (though other conditions were). In Robert Bird's study of Tarkovsky's film, the director is quoted as saying that the black/white-colour shift;

"will create the unusual effect of a blow, the very step which, perhaps, somewhere conventionally divides life and art" (in Andrei Tarkovsky: elements of cinema, p. 43)

As such, it is certainly justifiable to remove the second 'oddity' from the Wiki.

Dune Sherban (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What Is This Page About?

Heading is "Cinema of Russia and Soviet Union". Then, second paragraph of introduction begins (correctly) "Soviet Cinema" should not be used as a synonym for "Russian Cinema". Then entire following material deals exclusively with Soviet Cinema up to last small part, which briefly 'stubs' the Cinema of the Russian Republic, and where is the Russian Empire. This article needs to be retitled Cinema of the Soviet Union, and a new Cinema of Russia needs to be created to address the nation of Russia (Empire and Republic). Have much to add re Soviet Union but won't until I see stability and consistency: I'd change the article title, but don't know how... --Sergei, 5/10/05.

Well, this article certainly has misleading title. But I see this not very important, let me explain,why. Both Cinema of Russia and Cinema of the USSR are extremely underdeveloped topics in Wikipedia. For example, while the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/) has information about 6,000 Soviet movies, in Wikipedia even if we add number of articles about Russian movies to number of articles about Soviet movies, we'll hardly get more than 20. Therefore, if I had enough time to start a project "Cinema of the Soviet Union", I should start from creating new articles at least about the most notable movies. But if you want to split this article into several ones, making each of them look even more poor than now, then you should start from Help:Starting a new page and Help:Renaming (moving) a page. Cmapm 01:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. I've pulled the two apart: Russia is now at Film in Russia, and I've put in a text start; see how it looks. I hope to also add more to this separate Soviet Union page and will probably re-rename it Film in the Soviet Union at some point. Issue here is that Film has been co-opted as the term-of-choice for motion pictures/moving pictures/cinema/etc. and I'm going to try and round up all relevant sub-articles this week to next and put them in one place. If we can get more detail in, neither page should look badly in the near future - my only problem there is my knowledge base only goes up through the Stalin years, and either others will have to chip in for the later decades & the "new Russia", or I will have to dig up some literature and learn something new... Rich Wannen, aka Sergei, aka (tho Heaven knows why; I'm logged in) 12.73.194.65 17:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many POV issues introduced recently

This looks like a large campaign against the Soviet cinema by anon user. Just few examples:

Notable films from Stalin era include Aleksandr Nevsky and Ivan Grozny. These films were made during the Patriotic war when censorship was slightly loosened.

After the end of Khrushchev Thaw, and a new encroachment on free expression, Soviet cinema began to rely heavily on use of subtle hints and themes to say with images what could not be said with words, to circumvent the government censorship.

Vysota (Height) is considered to be defining film of the Thaw era (it also became the foundation of the Bard movement).

The Cold War resumed with a vengeance, and all the strictures on film content were revived by the war-worn Stalinists, and moreso, much in parallel to what occurred in the USA. Only, the government was making the films.

I've got the main pushed idea: "All Soviet filmmakers were dissidents and the TRUE FREE GREATEST cinema came into life only after the liberation in 1991". If one watched just Vysota and didn't watch, say, "Smelye lyudi" (1950), "Kortik" (1954), "Soldat Ivan Brovkin" (1955), "Karnavalnaya noch" (1956), or "Dobrovoltsy" (1958), then could you at least not name Vysota the "defining film"? Films were made by studios, may be sometimes by a request or under certain control from the government, but by studios.

A lot of time and work is required now to remove the most extreme POV and make an article look more or less neutral. If no one does, I'll try to do this when I get some free time, certainly, in case new tons of POV will not be pushed here. Cmapm 12:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent history?

The "Recent history" section gives me pause. First of all, there is no recent history of the Cinema of the Soviet Union, since there is no recent history of the Soviet Union, since the Soviet Union no longer exists. Secondly, the section at times is extremely POV against modern Russian cinema, a topic which should have its own article, but doesn't seem to. (Clearly the Cinema of Russia article is not what it should be.) If recent Russian cinema is so bad, as is claimed in the first and fourth paragraphs, then why are several examples of acclaimed films provided? I'm not expert enough to make good changes, but I suggest killing the redirect currently at Cinema of Russia, and seeding a "new" article there with a fixed up version of this content. Staecker 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, why aren't Russian film and Soviet film under the same article? Soviet film should reasonably be a segment under Russian film(though huge as most films(important nonetheless) still are from the Soviet era). They've done that on Russian music, and should do here aswell.90.224.42.184 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Staecker, that there is a lot of POV concerning post-Soviet Russia's cinema there. I should delete the "Recent history" at all or incorporate it into the article on the cinema of Russia. But I don't agree with you, that Soviet films should be a segment under Russian films. Because as stated in the lead, Soviet films were produced not only in the Russian SFSR, but also in other Soviet republics. And hence those films are a part of culture of corresponding now independent states. Cmapm 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunate Redirect

How come this must not be confused with Russian Cinema, yet russian cinema redirects here? Pluke 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The redirect now points to Cinema of Russia, which is better. Staecker 20:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Spelling/Translation

I changed "Diamond Hand" to "Diamond Arm" for consistency both within this article and with other sources (e.g. IMDB, RUSCICO DVD). While either is an accurate translation of the Russian, in the context of the film "Arm" is clearly the correct choice as the jewels are concealed in a cast on the arm, not the hand.

I also corrected "Gentlemens" to "Gentlemen", probably the result of editing by a non-native English speaker. While "gentlemen" is the singular in Russian, in English the singular is "gentleman" and the plural "gentlemen", and "gentlemens" is ungrammatical. Gr8white (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1980s?

I removed Pokrovsky Gates from 1960s-70s as it came out in 1982. I intended to move it to the 1980's section until I found there wasn't one! Was there no notable activity during that decade? Gr8white (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a bare-bones section on "Later years". It really is applicable to the latter part of the 80s so if anyone wants to expand on it please do so. Gr8white (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grunya Kornakova poster.jpg

Image:Grunya Kornakova poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ballada2.jpg

Image:Ballada2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Batalov.jpg

The image Image:Batalov.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Rzhevsky.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

expert-subject-Films

This article for the most part talks about the political history of Soviet union, not the significance of the early Soviet filmmakers in the world cinema context. I mean Kuleshov is not even mentioned in the article and the significance of Eisenstein is completely missed and buried under political history. This article should be very much rewritten from the History of film POV, it's a lot of work and I'm going to intend to help as time permits. for starters anybody editing this article, please buy any book on a history of World cinema. thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Socialist Realism

According to whom was Soviet-era cinema guided by socialist realism? For example, one of the most popular films from the era "Solyaris" has NOTHING to do with socialist ideology. Even many of the most successful films from the 1930s such as Petrov's "Peter the First", Eisentein's "Alexander Nevsky", and Pudovkin's "Minin & Pozharsky" are not even remotely related to Marxist ideology. Kupredu (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Add Служебный роман to Soviet films, 1970s'

I'm no authority on the subject, but as someone who has lived in Russia for an extended amount of time, I can't believe Служебный роман does not make the list under Cinema of the Soviet Union. I understand it's a lighthearted film, but its incredible popularity still exists today. To many Russians, past and present, this film brings out the same nostalgia and sentiment as It's a Wonderful life to Americans. The current list of films is too highbrow and distant from the real film culture of the Soviet film era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.162.185.114 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability of use of colour in 1930's and 3D and colour in 1940's

The page doesn't mention any films from 1930's that used colour instead of black and white, such as "Груня Корнакова" from 1936 or first film with use of colour made in Ukraine ("Сорочинcкaя яpмaркa", made in 1939). Would this be notable for mentioning?

Another thing that might be notable, especially with recent craze with 3D in the world, is that the first 3D sound feature film with colour sequencies was made in Soviet Union in 1946 ("Робинзон Крузо"). It is also "the first glasses-free stereoscopic feature film" (as stated on the films Wikipedia page). I think this is definitely notably. Other thoughts? HeadlessMaster (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinema of the Soviet Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926213351/http://www.cornerstonemag.com/imaginarium/features/soviet2.html to http://www.cornerstonemag.com/imaginarium/features/soviet2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)