In the subheading “Cinema for the Millions,” we are provided the quote “every film must be useful, intelligible, and familiar to the millions” (215). This is stated in contrasted to a crisis the industry was facing due to genre/craft to focusing on the many. Additionally, we are provided context on how Soviet film was different (or needed to be different) than Hollywood. One of the most notable differences that I thought Kaganovsky was trying to draw out was the pro-Stalin/Soviet messaging that had to be present. While there were pro-USA musicals, the propaganda machines of each country seem to be much different. How do you think Soviet Realism is adapted to film? How is it differing from Hollywood? Are there elements you like?
I think film is similar to literature in this discussion. As we discussed last class, a lot of American literature isn’t solely pro-American, and I feel like film is the same way. While it is easier to name more pro-American movies than literature, I think there is still a strong tone of criticism within them. The most pro-American films I can think of are military movies; they glorify America’s influence in other countries and definitely set a patriotic tone, but many still discuss the ramifications such as death and PTSD. With Soviet films, these are just the byproducts of communism and aren’t at all referenced significantly.
There seems to be the creation of the Soviet socialist realist films based on the quote, “What do we have to offer the peasant woman, thinking with her ponderous and sluggish brain about her husband who has gone to make a living in the town… ‘What have you done for me?’.” (215). They make the case that the films need to be available to the masses in a way that doesn’t mesh with the avant-garde type films that had to be created. That led to the tractor musicals and the other fun light-hearted musicals that painted soviet life in a positive light. It was something that was widely understandable and relatable and viewing it would lift the audience’s spirit.