Page 73 - Inside the Film Factory New Approaches to Russian and Soviet Cinema

54 INSIDE THE FILM FACTORY
completely altered by Soviet censors. The Soviet Union was entering the most
eclectic years in all Russian intellectual history. Soviet artists were borrowing from
numerous cultures and political systems, and as yet there was no Stalin or
Zhdanov to enforce rigid conformity. 18
More important, the Soviets employed a method of dealing with the ideological
shortcomings of Intolerance that was far more ingenious and exciting than
censorship. Intolerance was selected for presentation at the Congress of the
Comintern in Petrograd in the summer of 1921. The Petrograd Cinema Committee
undoubtedly hoped to impress the delegates with the potential of agitational
cinema, but they were painfully aware of the film’s ideological deficiencies. They
decided the occasion required them to ‘sharpen the class theme’ of the film while at
19
the same time respecting the author’s original intentions. Their method was not
to censor or cut parts of the film but rather to add to it. Nikolai Glebov-Putilovsky of
the Petrograd Cinema Committee prepared a live, dramatised prologue which would
‘amplify the anti-exploitation theme of the film’. The practice of adding Soviet
propaganda to pre-Revolutionary works of art was common in the young socialist
country. Soviet writer Demyan Bedny’s satirical poem at the base of a tsarist
20
monument is another example of this method of ‘finishing’ a work of art. This
operation transcends censorship. It respects the integrity of the original work while
at the same time allowing the Soviets to make ideological improvements. Indeed, it
rather resembles Meyerhold’s theatrical practice of staging classic and pre-
Revolutionary plays in modern, Constructivist styles which were rich with
propaganda.
It speaks well for Griffith that five years after Intolerance was made and almost
two years after the nationalisation of the Soviet industry, the Soviets singled out
this American film of dubious service to the Revolution for presentation at the
Comintern Congress. Despite the shortage of celluloid, the Soviets did manage to
prepare for the congress a series of documentary films on the work of the socialist
21
government throughout the Soviet Union. But these apparently were rather
pedestrian educational films. For an impressive example of agitfil’m, Intolerance
may still have seemed the most palatable choice available. Also, the American epic
undoubtedly had a more cosmopolitan appeal to the international audience than a
22
strict diet of Soviet films would have had. In any event, the Cinema Committee
was willing to sacrifice ideological purity to entertain and edify the socialist
audience. The prologue would give the evening the proper dose of revolutionary
spirit, and the movie would take care of itself.
The prologue allowed the Soviets to comment on the film and to add their own
interpretations to certain scenes. The most glaring problem for the Soviets was the
film’s insistent theme that history is cyclical. Intolerance advances the argument
that the same cycles of intolerance and injustice simply recur in different historical
dress. Basic impulses and human emotions, the fundamental forces in all human
endeavours, are as consistent as the hand that rocks the cradle. Not surprisingly,
the same dilemmas appear in epoch after epoch. This is hardly compatible with a