Page 252 - Inside the Film Factory New Approaches to Russian and Soviet Cinema

NOTES 233
3 N.M.Zorkaya, ‘Protazanov’, in: Kino. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ [Cinema. An
Encyclopaedic Dictionary] (Moscow: 1986), p. 337. Zorkaya has also written an
insightful analysis of the director, ‘Ya. Protazanov’, in her collection of essays
Portrety [Portraits] (Moscow: 1965), pp. 140—75, in which she persuasively stakes a
claim for Protazanov as one of the key figures in Soviet cinema. It should be added
that some latter-day support for Protazanov may arise from aesthetic conservatism,
in that it is ‘anti-montage’ rather than pro-Protazanov.
4 Of course, some of the younger directors, like Eisenstein and Vertov, courted
controversy at first and were only troubled by it later.
5 Given that Protazanov’s pre-Revolutionary estate [soslovie] was merchant
[kupechestvo] and that he was a native of Moscow, it is almost certainly not
coincidental that an editorial in Kino-Front [Cine-Front], denouncing the state of
cinema affairs, referred in several places to an unnamed ‘little Moscow merchant’: ‘Za
ratsionalizatsiyu proizvodstva’ [For the Rationalisation of Production], Kino-Front,
no. 7/8 (July/August 1926), pp. 9—13.
6 Protazanov’s long-time friend and colleague Aleinikov confirms this and reports that
Protazanov was fond of saying ‘My pictures speak for me’–as of course were other
directors who had no taste for aesthetic controversies, like Boris Barnet, Ivan
Perestiani and Fridrikh Ermler; Aleinikov, ‘Zasluzhennyi master’, YaP, p. 27.
7 Vladimir Gardin and Alexander Ivanovsky were in the same position.
8 Unless otherwise noted, biographical details are drawn from Arlazorov, pp. 5—30, and
from ‘Protazanov o sebe’ [Protazanov on Himself], YaP, pp. 287—309. Arlazorov’s
book, the most comprehensive account of Protazanov’s life and work, is
unfortunately somewhat ‘novelised’ and completely undocumented. Arlazorov did,
however, have extensive conversations with Protazanov’s youngest sister,
N.A.Andzhanaridze, and details in this early section of the book ring true.
‘Protazanov o sebe’, pieced together by Aleinikov from various jottings by the
director, is a disjointed account that ends with the Revolution.
9 ’Protazanovo sebe’, YaP, p. 287. Aleinikov, in ‘Zasluzhennyi master’, YaP, p. 6, says
Protazanov mainly attended the Moscow Art and Maly theatres, noted for their
realism.
10 ‘Protazanov o sebe’, YaP, p. 288.
11 This is the image of Protazanov that emerged from his biographers, but it is based on
inference, rather than on any statement that he made.
12 Arlazorov, pp. 22—3; O.L.Leonidov, ‘Yakov Aleksandrovich Protazanov’, YaP, p. 345,
says Protazanov’s family was ‘horrified’. On money matters, see ‘Protazanov o
sebe’, YaP, p. 297.
13 Arlazorov, p. 29, implicitly contradicts Protazanov’s account by saying that Gloria
was purchased by Thiemann & Reinhardt. The studio’s name was actually ‘Gloria’,
spelled with Roman letters, and not its Russian equivalent, slava.
14 ‘Protazanov o sebe’, YaP, p. 297.
15 Protazanov attributed his success with actors to the high regard he felt for them; see:
‘Protazanov o sebe’, YaP, pp. 307—8.
16 Preobrazhenskaya went on to become Russia’s first woman director and an
important director in the Soviet period, too.
17 Aleinikov, ‘Zasluzhennyi master’, YaP, p. 20.
18 See Leyda’s description of the reception of this film, p. 63; unfortunately Leyda does
not credit his source but it was probably: B.S.Likhachev, Kino v Rossii (1896—1926)