Page 255 - Inside the Film Factory New Approaches to Russian and Soviet Cinema

236 INSIDE THE FILM FACTORY
46 See: O.Beskin, ‘Neigrovaya fil’ma’ [Non-Played Film], Sovetskoe kino, no. 7 (1927), p.
10, for a somewhat back-handed compliment. In Kino for 1927 see: ‘Na temu
Grazhdanskoi voiny (O Sorok pervom)’ [On the Civil War Theme (On The Forty-
First)], no. 11, p. 4; and Khersonskii, ‘Sorok pervyi’ [The Forty-First], no. 12, p. 3.
47 Arsen, ‘Sorok pervyi’ [The Forty-First], Kino-Front, no. 6 (1927), pp. 15—19. I have not
been able to learn Arsen’s real name.
48 According to legend anyway; I have yet to find this piece in Pravda. See: L.V., ‘O
sovetskoi komedii: Disput v Dome pechati’ [On Soviet Comedy: A Debate in the
House of the Press], Kino, no. 19 (1928), p. 6.
49 On the problems of comedy as a genre, see: Youngblood, especially pp. 137 and 177—
80; R. Taylor, ‘A “Cinema for the Millions”: Soviet Socialist Realism and the Problem
of Film Comedy’, Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 18, no. 3 (July 1983), pp.
439—61. For reviews of Don Diego see: ‘Rezolyutsiya po kartine Don Diego i
Pelageya’ [A Resolution on the Film Don Diego and Pelageya], Kino-front, no. 2
(1928), p. 6; A.Aravskii, ‘Don Diego i Pelageya’, ibid., pp. 20—1; as well as L.V., op.
cit.; B.Gusman, ‘Po teatram i kino’ [Round the Theatres and Cinemas], Revolyutsiya
i kul’tura [Revolution and Culture], no. 3/4 (1928), pp. 13—14; and M.Bystritskii, ‘Shag
vpered (Don Diego i Pelageya)’ [A Step Forward (Don Diego and Pelageya)], Kino,
no. 3 (1928), p. 3.
There is an interesting discussion of the film preserved in TsGALI, Moscow, in the
ARK files, 2494/1/99: ‘Stenogramma sobraniya chlenov ARK po obsuzhdeniyu
kino-fil’my Don Diego i Pelageya Demina’ [Minutes of a Meeting of ARK Members to
Discuss the Film Don Diego and Pelageya Demina], dated 1 December 1927. In
addition to the fear cited above that the film might be misused by enemies of the
Soviet Union, there was a heated debate about the recent ‘excesses’ and abuses of
film critics.
50 I.Sokolov, ‘NOT v kino-proizvodstve’ [The Scientific Organisation of Labour in Film
Production], Kino-Front, no. 7—8 (1926), p. 11. S.Gekht, ‘Kino-parad’ [Film Parade],
Sovetskii ekran, no. 30 (1926), p. 3, says that viewers liked it because it was well
shot, had good actors, and a plot with romantic interest.
51 Kh.Khersonskii, ‘Komicheskaya i komedii’ [The Comic and Comedies], Kinozhurnal
ARK, no. 11—12 (1925), pp. 27—8.
52 On the Fairbanks/Pickford visit, see: ‘Ferbenks i Pikford v SSSR!’ [Fairbanks and
Pickford in the USSR!], Kino, no. 30 (1926), pp. 1 and 3.
53 Troyanovksii and Eliazarov, p. 32; and TsGALI in the Glaviskusstvo files, 645/1/
389, ‘Svodki anketnogo materiala po izucheniyu vpechatlenii zritelei kinokartin’ [The
Results of Surveys of Audience Reaction to Films], pp. 3—4.
54 E.Arnoldi, Avantyurnyi zhanr v kino [The Adventure Genre in Cinema] (Leningrad:
1926), p. 68; A.Kurs, Samoe mogushchestvennoe [The Most Powerful] (Moscow:
1927), p. 59; and M.Zagorskii, ‘Tapioka–Il’inskii–teatr–kino’ [Tapioca, Ilyinsky,
Theatre, Cinema], Sovetskii ekran, no. 38 (1926), p. 5. Kurs noted resignedly:

The Three Millions Trial is a successful picture. I do not want to argue with
the viewer. The viewer is always right.
In general one should not argue with the viewer. One needs to study him.