356 intelectualandemotionalvalues,andconsequentlyofallhu- mandignityandauthenticityinthingsspiritual. (E)Asforthemasses,aslongastheyremainmases(in thesenseIhaveindicated),thereisnopossibilityofculture. Tofeedthempartyslogans,togatherthemintoacircusof somekind,totalktothemthroughloudspeakers,meansto orderthemaround,nottocultivatethem. Ontheotherhand,thenewpopularcommunitieswhosuc- cedinextricatingthemselvesfromthemaseshaveseveral waysofcultivatingthemselves,howeverhazardous.Inthe past,thelaborunions,thecooperatives,certainreligioussects, theSocialistInternationalshavecontributedtothistask.But theroleofsmalerformations,likecertaingroupsoffriends amongtheFrenchworkers,shouldnotbeunderestimated. Whatthesespontaneoussocialformationsmostneedis,in ordertobeputonguardagainstculturalErsatzandhelped towithstandtheonslaughtofanti-culture,istheguidanceof peoplecapableofgivingthemadvice;and,inordertodefend theirmaterialexistenceagainstthepressureofanhostile milieu,akindofcooperativeorganisationsadaptedtothe peculiarcharacterofeachgroup. Toencouragetheformationofsuchgroups,toeducateas manyeducatorsaspossible,toprovidematerialsupportfor suchorganisations,shouldbeaveryimportantfunctionofany modernSocialistmovement.Andonemustconfessthatinthe fieldofactualeducationMarxistsocialismhasfailedinapar- ticularlylamentableway."Classconsciousness"wassupposed totakecareofeverything. EUROPEAN EISENSTEIN'S"IVAN" acriticismof a criticism IN THEJuneissueofSartre'smonthly, LesTempsMod- ernes, acriticwhosignshimself"L.-P."reviewsPartIof Eisenstein's IvantheTerrible, whichwasshowninBerlinand Parislastspring.Hisreviewisinterestingbothforitsacutenesssofarasthefilmitselfisconcernedandforitsshallwe say?—obtuseneswhenitcomestodrawinggeneralconclusoinsaboutStalinismfromtheseparticularperceptions. "IvantheTerrible," writesL.-P.,"leavesonecrushed, shocked,stunnedthatis, iftwohoursofcontinuousboredomandmediocrityleavethespectatorswithanystrongfeel- ingsatall."*Heunderstands,andapparentlysympathizes with,thefilm'spurpose:toshowtheRussianpeoplethatin the16thcenturytheirforebearswagedthesamekindof struggleastheythemselvesfoughtinWorldWarIIandthat thenasnow"nationalunitywasmaintainedandvictory crownedtheagony."But,hecomplains,"theresultisdiscon- certing,forthisSovietpropagandafilmjustifiesthecalumnies ofreactionaries.ItexplainsCommunismintermsofRussian history,thepoliciesoftheUSSRbythoseofMotherRussia, andStalinisconfusedwiththeCzar. "Theseworthyfolk,thesesimpleandcrudefaces itwas notsuchthattheSovietcinemausedtoshowus:goneisthat violencelongsmolderingunderakindofsoberpassionand *OtherParisiansreactedsimilarly. Time forApril1lastreportsthat audiences"booedandstompedandhissedattheallbutShakespeareanintensityofthegreatstaticclose-ups,thepoeticregistrationofemotion,the grandiose,dance-likegesturesoftheplayers. . .WhenIvan'senemies muggedfear,Frenchmencheerfulyshouted`Cowards!'. . . Inthelong scenewhereIvanalmostdies,thetheatrerustledwithsmotheredlaughter andonestridentvoicespearedupfromthedark: 'Mors, mon vieux, kick BteetâdGftlidt 139àfit6 politics thenbreakingouttotransformitselfalmostatonceintojoy. Al thatPudovkin's TheEndofSt.Petersburg orEisenstein's ownearlyfilmsexpresedallthisiscurdled,frozen.Nowwe aretoldthatthisremarkablepeoplerejoicedinaremarkable chief,anenlighteneddespot;forthepeopleandtheCzarhad asoulincommon,theSlavsoul,andtogethertheyfought againstthe`unRussian'scoundrelsandboyars.TheRussian revolutionnolongerappearsasaviolentbreakwithadiseased world,butisrathertheend,thecrownofcenturiesofeffort; ifwearetobelieveEisenstein,therealancestoroftheUSSR isIvantheTerribleandthe'littlepeople'whosupportedhim .. .AsimilaratemptwasmadeinsuchearlierfilmsasPeter theGreat, butatleastthatCzar,atapinch,mightbesaid torepresenttheRussianpeopleinhisstruggleforliberation. ButIvanisavisionary,amysticalleader,aninfallibleNo.1 ('TheCzarisalwaysright,'wearetold)cutofffromthe masesandworshippedbythem. . . "ThisstrangechoiceofaherocausesEisensteintofallinto thetrapthatgapesforthehistoricalfilm:hischaractersact asthoughmovedbythemostgrandioseandleastrealfeelings .. .Eisenstein,weshalbetold,neverpretendedtorealism thoughwhatisinvolvedhereisnotrealismbutsimplytruth butratherwishedto transcend it.Operaiscitedrecitative, choralpassages,etc. ItisclearthatEisensteinwaslessinter- estedintheindividualityofhischaractersthanintheirpicturesqueness,lessintheirrealitythanintheirsymbolicvalue. Theiractingisreducedtogesturesricherinsolemnitythanin meaning,andtheirspeechesareincantations. . . "WemayalsohazardthatEisensteinwasnotmuchcon- cernedwithpropaganda,tojudgebytheemphasisheputson photographyforitsownsake,onresearchesinformandhar- mony,onthespecialrelationsofobjects—onthe mise-en-scene, inaword.Noristhisall.Nolongerabletoexpressarevolu- tionarydrive,heabandonsman,thesailorof Potemkin, and loseshimselfinobjects—arealysurprisinginstanceofaliena- tion.Gold,richcostumes,greatshadoweddoorways,empty ceremonialsthesearewhatfascinatehim.Theartistwho oncesuperblydescribedfetishism seemshimselfnowtohave fallenvictimtothemosthumanlyalienatingkindofmyths. Thecultoftheinfalibleleader,thetasteforsymbolism,for thegrandstyle,forstaticharmony,fortheworkofartclosed inonitself isthisthemesageofEisensteintoday?" Theaboveparagraphsseemtomeasdiscerningpolitico- estheticcriticismasIhaveread.Theimplicationaboutthe natureofSovietsocietyfairly"leapstotheeye,"astheFrench say.Itis,therefore,curioustofindL.-P.blamingitallon.. . Eisenstein:"TheconfidenceIhavealwayshadintheSoviet cinemapreventsmefromseeingin Ivan anythingmorethan amelodramaplayedbyaprovincialoperacompanyunderthe patronageofapompousMycaenas.Butthissameconfidence leadsmetobelievethatsuchafailureistheresultofadevia- tionfromtherealforcesofSovietart. . ."Thatthepompous MycaenaslivesintheKremlinandexercisesthemostminute controlofthearthefinancesthisrudimentaryfactissomehowexcludedfromL.-P.'salertconsciousness.Heisappaled byEisenstein'schoiceofIvanasafolk-herofortheSovietpeople,andisperplexedbythefalsificationofhistorythisin- volves:"Idon'tunderstandthenaiveatemptmadebythe Sovietcinematorehabilitatethepast."Yetsuchrehabilita- tionhasbeengoingoninSovietcultureforalmosttwenty yearsnow,andquiteopenly,too.AsforthechoiceofIvanas ahero,theoficialcondemnationofthefilmwhichpresumablyrepresentsL.-P.'s"realforcesofSovietart"makesno objectiontothis.Onthecontrary,itcriticisesEisensteinpreciselybecausehehasnot"rehabilitated"history enough: "Con- trarytohistorictruth,IvantheTerriblehasnotbeenshown asaprogressivestatesman,butasamaniacandscoundrel."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==