Page 254 - Inside the Film Factory New Approaches to Russian and Soviet Cinema

NOTES 235
36 P.Rotha, The Film Till Now (London: 1930; reprinted 1967), p. 228. For Soviet
reactions, see especially ‘N. L.’ [probably Nikolai Lebedev], ‘Aelita’, Kinogazeta, no.
39 (1924), p. 2, and ‘Poputchiki ili prosoedinish’sya’ [Fellow-Travellers or Ralliés],
ibid., no. 43, p. 1. These sentiments did not, however, constrain Kino-gazeta from
running advertisements for Aelita (money talked in the early days); see: no. 43, p. 7.
The term ‘ralliés’ was introduced into Soviet cultural politics by Trotsky: ‘ralliés’ were
‘the pacified Philistines of art’, lesser creatures than fellow-travellers; L.Trotsky,
Literature and Revolution (Ann Arbor, Mich.: 1960), p. 37.
37 A.V.Goldobin, ‘Blizhaishie zadachi kino’ [The Immediate Tasks of Cinema],
Proletarskoe kino [Proletarian Cinema], no. 1 (1925), pp. 4—5; G.Lelevich,
‘Proletarskaya literatura i kino’ [Proletarian Literature and Cinema], Kinonedelya,
no. 3 (1925), p. 5; A.Syrkin, ‘Mezhdu tekhnikoi i ideologii (O kinopoputchikakh i
partiinom rukovodstve)’ [Between Technique and Ideology (On Cinema’s Fellow-
Travellers and the Party Leadership)], Kinonedelya, no. 37 (1924). (This
Proletarskoe kino should not be confused with the journal of the same name
published during the Cultural Revolution.)
38 These viewers were assuredly carefully selected, although Kinonedelya implied that
they were ‘typical’: ‘Chto govoryat ob Aelite’ [What They Say about Aelita],
Kinonedelya, no. 37 (1924), p. 6.
39 For Kuleshov’s remarks see ‘Ob Aelite’ [On Aelita], Kinonedelya, no. 47 (1924), p. 3.
For Sokolov’s see: I. Sokolov, Kinostsenarii: Teoriya i tekhnika [The Film Scenario:
Theory and Technique] (Moscow: 1926), p. 64; idem, ‘Material i forma’ [Material and
Form], Kinozhurnal ARK [ARK Film Journal], no. 9—10 (1926), p. 15; idem, ‘Kuda
idet sovetskoe kino’ [Where Is Soviet Cinema Heading], Sovetskii ekran [Soviet
Screen], no. 37 (1926, p. 3.
40 Aelita is listed among films scathingly labelled ‘first class Russian cigarettes’
[papirosy vysshego sorta] in Novyi Lef [New LEF], no. 2 (1928), p. 28.
41 E.Kuznetsov, ‘Kak vy zhivete?’ [How Are You?), Kino [Cinema], no. 45 (1932).
Others cited as living well were Vsevolod Pudovkin, Oleg Leonidov, Osip Brik and
Natan Zarkhi–an odd assemblage.
42 ‘Nasha kino-anketa’ [Our Cinema Questionnaire], Na literaturnom postu [On
Literary Guard], no. 1 (1928), pp. 71—6, and no. 2 (1928), pp. 50—4. Protazanov’s
response, bringing up the rear, appears on p. 54. Ilyinsky’s anecdote can be found in
I.V.Il’inskii, ‘Bogatoe nasledstvo’ [A Rich Legacy], YaP, p. 203.
43 A.Dubrovskii, ‘Opyt izucheniya zritelya (Anketa ARK)’ [An Attempt to Study the
Audience (An ARK Questionnaire)], Kinozhurnal ARK no. 8 (1925), p.8.
44 See: A.Kurs, ‘O kino-obshchestvennosti, o zritele i nekotorykh nepriyatnykh
veshchakh’ [On the Cinema Public, the Audience and Some Unpleasant Things],
Kinozhurnal ARK, no. 3 (1925), pp. 3—4; Sokolov, ‘Material i forma’, p. 17; B.Mal’kin,
‘Mezhrabpom-Rus”, Sovetskoe kino [Soviet Cinema], no. 8 (1926), p. 9; and
G.Boltyanskii, ‘Kino v derevne’ [Cinema in the Countryside], in: I.N. Bursak (ed.),
Kino [Cinema] (Moscow: 1925), p. 41. Khrisanf Khersonskii complained somewhat
half-heartedly that His Call lacked detail about workers’ lives and the mass movement
in ‘Ego prizyv’ [His Call], Klnozhurnal ARK, no. 3 (1925), pp. 31—2.
45 A.V.Troyanovskii and R.I.Eliazarov, Izuchenie kinozritelya (Po materialam
issledovatel’skoi teatral’noi masterskoi [The Study of the Cinema Audience (From
Materials of the Theatre Research Workshop)] (Moscow: 1928), p. 31.