Rising above the ideology in Soviet Estonia
The Russian-Estonian intellectual director Kromanov serves valuable lessons with his legacy. A case study of his film „Diamonds for the Proletariat Dictatorship“ (1975) shows that ideology does not always corrupt the times and people within it.
Essay by Greta Varts
Grigori Kromanov is a Russian-Estonian theatre and film director, making his films in the Soviet Republic of Estonia in the 1960s and 1970s. His subject matters were drawn from history and present day alike, his genre choices range from comedy to drama, epic history to philosophical science fiction and yet he only made 6 full feature films in his career. At the time when in Europe and in US directors like Spielberg, Allen, Tarkovsky, Forman and Fassbinder were making their mark on the new cinema in postmodern fashion, the Soviet Union (with the exception of Tarkovsky and a few others) and its satellites was following a relatively safe path of conforming to the ideological requirements. The soviet ideological pressure left no stone unturned, but to varying degrees. The borders within which the authors had to work was not always inhibiting. Instead of blatant counterpointing and rebellion against ideological pressures, directors turned towards the latent, the hidden truths available through committed viewing only. Such was also Kromanov. The truth that Kromanov offers in his films is a rather personal one, different from most of his contemporaries in the Soviet Estonian film industry. Although he made several compromises to his films as a result of the studio’s faithfully communist requirements, Kromanov was not the best friend of communism as such. Even though on the surface he seems to comply with the topics in some of his films, his ideological views are not prevalent as departing points for the content of his films. The value of his works is in his power as a director to rise above the ideology, to the realm of truths that speak to all people in all eras and through all ideologies.
Alienation in Kromanov’s oeuvre
Kromanov’s background in theatre in an eastern-european culture of typically true Stanislavski followers, has no doubt contributed to his ability to delve into the human psychology. It is interesting to note that at the same time his films are very cinematic, unusual for directors originating from the stage. His feature films carry a strong authorial perspective, also very unusual for the time and cultural context in question. Kromanov was not and is not always received with understanding. Partly due to his Russian-Estonian origin and partly because of his unlikely subject matters. As for his origins and the affect of being a Russian-Estonian on his works, we can see a prevalence of alienation themes. His ambivalent belonging to two nations and cultures, not feeling at home in either is an inspiration to his topics of roots and uprootedness of the modern man. This sounds very much a modernist approach, an era already over and giving way to the postmodern discourses in the context of the rest of Europe, but a relatively fresh and inexhausted perspective in Soviet Estonia. His creative canon can be subject to many interpretations, but one remains – his main goal was to tell stories about people. In this way he was the most capable translator of what it means to be human in eras with their unique multifaceted essences.
„Diamonds for the Proletariat Diactorship“ (1975) : a spiritual longing for the lost old Russia
„Diamonds for the Proletariat Dictatorship“ is not only one of Kromanov’s best films, but also an important piece in the 1970.s Soviet cinema. It is a reflection of Kromanov’s own inner spiritual world and an exhaustive expression of his world views on the screen, opening up many sides of discussion and interpretation possibilites. The plot centers around the events and problematics of the aftermath of communist revolution in Russia, around the year 1921. Estonia, behind the barricades, thought of as the fascist enemy by the Russian revolutionaries, serves as the playing field and a complicated web of secret agents, counterrevolutionaries and intelligent double crossings begins. Tha diamonds referred to are the diamonds and valuables kept in the vaults in Moscow from the czarist times, an asset worth more than enough to feed the country. There is a question mark hidden in the title. Does it say that diamonds are directed towards the proletariat or that they belong to them by default? Do we want the diamonds to go to the proletariat dictatorship for saving the situation of the people or are we arguing about who people’s assets belong to? Diamonds or bread? Asking this kind of questions whilst interpreting this film is the key that opens up the varied discussions about its message.
All of the characters in the film belong to some sort of a duality, power vs heart, idea vs action, consciousness vs ideology etc. The film brings these characters to the viewer by their destiny which serves them as they ’deserve’ and in general these ’deserving’ fates or people would fit well into the Soviet ideology. However, the journeys of Kromanov’s characters have a lot of detours from the stereotype of the Soviet hero. Facilitated by Kromanov’s skillful directing towards the actors, his characters become more than signs, they become clear and wholesome images of people. Interestingly enough this is the dominating aspect of the film that comes across from the screen and reaches the viewers first, awaking a sense of empathy. Throughout the film, the viewer is able to respond emotionally to the anti-heroes as well as the ideologically suitable characters and Kromanov does so by positioning all of his characters into the same conflict, unable to connect to one side or the other – the claustrophobic void between the personal and political, human and ideological.
Thus we see the KGB agent Issajev, the protagonist of the film, a young man with solid communist principals and a supporter of the revolution in all of its forms. His father Vladimirov, a typical Russian intellectual, is torn between the general idea of communism being a value and the results of the revolution by which intelligence, education and culture have become dying values. For Issajev, the conflict is thus between his fiery support for the revolution and its goals, his duties and the understanding he has for his father’s world – the centuries old cultural values of the czarist Russia, protecting which would be considered to be a crime against ideology. Meeting a writer Nikandrov in a Tallinn prison, a place considered fascist at the time by the revolutionaries of Russia, he resolves his conflict in a bitter understanding of a paradox remaining unsolved. It is a sadness in understanding that by saving his mission, uncovering the counterrevolution antiheroes and breaking safe from nationalist Estonia, he does not receive any personal joy or peace of mind. His father has meanwhile been killed by Russian counterrevolution. Rather, Issajev remains nostalgic to the times he could go to the woods with his father, setting the world right whilst picking mushrooms and studying ants’ nests. This scene is a beautiful end to the film, echoing visually in the viewers’ minds and establishing Issajev as the line running through all the characters by his bitter resolution of inner conflicts.
The anti-hero is also opened by the duality principle. Vorontsov is a true bastard in the eyes of the Soviet ideology, not only the leader of the counterrevolution, but also a former nobleman. The ambivalence of his portrayal is mainly down to the acting and situations he is positioned into. As a human being, Vorontsov evokes empathy, but by his actions, he is portrayed as an enemy. His cruelty is balanced by his spiritual suffering. Interestingly, Vorontsov’s character is the only anti-hero remained unpunished. In the end of the film, he receives a ’deserving’ punishment by verdict, but he has vanished and the sentence is not carried out. In the role of Vorontsov the actor Alexandr Kaydanovskiy made his first role, a very nuanced and incredible one at that and was after that cast in Tarkovsky’s „Stalker“ (1979).
The story is told and framed by the character Nikandrov. A writer who flees Russia, because of his art not being valued by the new powers. He moves to Tallinn and wishes to emigrate to Europe, but the nationalistic powers of Tallinn suspect him of being an agent and lock him up. Nikandrov is then faced with a conflict of his own, whether to turn to the powers he escaped from or deny his Russian heritage entirely. He also remains unresolved, a pure, even though cowardly a heart, missing the Russia that he had and that will never come back again. Safe from prison and wandering the streets of Tallinn he escapes from the street and encounters a kind Estonian stranger who offers him shelter and food. He then says the golden words: „I don’t have a home.“ Nikandrov’s character is the key to understanding Kromanov himself, a Russian minded and spirited in its old-fashioned meaning, in the context of 19th century St.Petersburg intellectual circles, a supporter of the Russian soul and cultural abilities, not the blind follower of the nation’s new ideological pursuit. In Kromanov’s works, this longing for the lost old Russia is not a political one, but a spiritual one and it echoes through all of his works.
Innovative cinematography
The cinematography of „Diamonds for the Proletariat Dictatorship“ is also innovative for its time and context. The generation starting in the end of the 1960s brought new ideas and fresh perspectives to the film studios of Soviet Estonia. The cinematographer, often working with Kromanov and on this film as well, is one of these people. Jüri Sillart, famous for experimenting with light and often compared to the best cinematographers of Soviet Russia, has created an expressive visual world in „Diamonds“. His use of colour and light is innovative and support the plot by thinking alongside and adding to the visual. The compositions and camera movement are also clever in the way they portray the space, juxtaposing wide landscapes and spaciousness to tight and claustrophobic spaces, creating a connotation with the duality conflicts within the charaters. The use of mirrors and glass surfaces is also a noteworthy aspect of his style that reflect the topics of man having to look at himself. This is where the modernist approach comes together both in cinematography and directing. This film is about man and man having a thorough look at himself.
Kromanov’s legacy
The courage to make a film about the history of KGB in 1970s is not a less important aspect of this film. Kromanov risked being titled as ’white’ (supporter of the csarist Russia) or monarchist in many ways. However, choosing not to portray times closer to his present day, but to concentrate on the beginning, the complicated and confusing times of the year 1921, the direct aftermath of the communist revolution, gave him an opportunity to tell a story by opening up many faces of the event and its affect on the people within it. This is why in his films the main expressed themes focus on the humane. Man in crisis, the sense of a man through his inner values and surrounding situations, the juxtaposition of the personal to the collective values -such as love, mercy, forgiveness, the possibility of a cultural heritage and the wellbeing of people. These are the themes that interest people in all eras and contexts, always carrying both subjective and generalist truths.
To conclude, I would like to finally propose the contours of the legacy from which we can learn and remind ourselves about in the present day. There is a saying: ’Let’s call the things what they are’. Semantically this sentence is of the worst kind, there is no such thing as right names for right things in the world where language is but an abstract concept with constructed meaning. To pull up an equation mark between for example murderer and communist, murderer and nationalist, murderer and estonian, murderer and russian – to assume that any claim would be naming the right thing with the right name is a closed paradox. This is also the prevailing mentality of new generations towards communism, an idea that Marxism already suggests communist terror and tyranny. However, it is likely that Karl Marx would never have stepped into the communist party himself. Twisted words and straight forward generalising is thus a dangerous business and in the case of Soviet cinema can lead to a mindless dismissal of excellent films. Kromanov is a faithful Russian soul, a member of the Estonian nation, but first and foremost a person stuck in his time with no proper home or roots. His main goal is an apolitical stance, commenting on the human values through the ideological topics of his time, but without ever conforming to it. He unveils the crisis within these frames and within the souls of the people inolved. Kromanov gives a valuable view about both Estonian Russian culture from the position of an outside observer. He should stand as an example and reminder that a cultural integration between two nations is possible and that this integration can lead to rich artistic expression.
Filmography:
- "Põrgupõhja uus Vanapagan" (1964, co-directed with Jüri Müür) (The new devil of the bottom of hell)
- "Mis juhtus Andres Lapeteusega?" (1966) (What happened to Andres Lapeteus?)
- "Meie Artur" (1968, co-directed with Mati Põldre) (Our Arthur)
- "Viimne reliikvia" (1969) (The Last Relic)
- "Briljandid proletariaadi diktatuurile" (1975) (Diamonds for the proletariat dictatorship)
- ""Hukkunud Alpinisti" hotell" (1979) (The hotel of the “Perished Alpinist”)
Grigori Kromanov is a Russian-Estonian theatre and film director, making his films in the Soviet Republic of Estonia in the 1960s and 1970s. His subject matters were drawn from history and present day alike, his genre choices range from comedy to drama, epic history to philosophical science fiction and yet he only made 6 full feature films in his career. At the time when in Europe and in US directors like Spielberg, Allen, Tarkovsky, Forman and Fassbinder were making their mark on the new cinema in postmodern fashion, the Soviet Union (with the exception of Tarkovsky and a few others) and its satellites was following a relatively safe path of conforming to the ideological requirements. The soviet ideological pressure left no stone unturned, but to varying degrees. The borders within which the authors had to work was not always inhibiting. Instead of blatant counterpointing and rebellion against ideological pressures, directors turned towards the latent, the hidden truths available through committed viewing only. Such was also Kromanov. The truth that Kromanov offers in his films is a rather personal one, different from most of his contemporaries in the Soviet Estonian film industry. Although he made several compromises to his films as a result of the studio’s faithfully communist requirements, Kromanov was not the best friend of communism as such. Even though on the surface he seems to comply with the topics in some of his films, his ideological views are not prevalent as departing points for the content of his films. The value of his works is in his power as a director to rise above the ideology, to the realm of truths that speak to all people in all eras and through all ideologies.
Alienation in Kromanov’s oeuvre
Kromanov’s background in theatre in an eastern-european culture of typically true Stanislavski followers, has no doubt contributed to his ability to delve into the human psychology. It is interesting to note that at the same time his films are very cinematic, unusual for directors originating from the stage. His feature films carry a strong authorial perspective, also very unusual for the time and cultural context in question. Kromanov was not and is not always received with understanding. Partly due to his Russian-Estonian origin and partly because of his unlikely subject matters. As for his origins and the affect of being a Russian-Estonian on his works, we can see a prevalence of alienation themes. His ambivalent belonging to two nations and cultures, not feeling at home in either is an inspiration to his topics of roots and uprootedness of the modern man. This sounds very much a modernist approach, an era already over and giving way to the postmodern discourses in the context of the rest of Europe, but a relatively fresh and inexhausted perspective in Soviet Estonia. His creative canon can be subject to many interpretations, but one remains – his main goal was to tell stories about people. In this way he was the most capable translator of what it means to be human in eras with their unique multifaceted essences.
„Diamonds for the Proletariat Diactorship“ (1975) : a spiritual longing for the lost old Russia
„Diamonds for the Proletariat Dictatorship“ is not only one of Kromanov’s best films, but also an important piece in the 1970.s Soviet cinema. It is a reflection of Kromanov’s own inner spiritual world and an exhaustive expression of his world views on the screen, opening up many sides of discussion and interpretation possibilites. The plot centers around the events and problematics of the aftermath of communist revolution in Russia, around the year 1921. Estonia, behind the barricades, thought of as the fascist enemy by the Russian revolutionaries, serves as the playing field and a complicated web of secret agents, counterrevolutionaries and intelligent double crossings begins. Tha diamonds referred to are the diamonds and valuables kept in the vaults in Moscow from the czarist times, an asset worth more than enough to feed the country. There is a question mark hidden in the title. Does it say that diamonds are directed towards the proletariat or that they belong to them by default? Do we want the diamonds to go to the proletariat dictatorship for saving the situation of the people or are we arguing about who people’s assets belong to? Diamonds or bread? Asking this kind of questions whilst interpreting this film is the key that opens up the varied discussions about its message.
All of the characters in the film belong to some sort of a duality, power vs heart, idea vs action, consciousness vs ideology etc. The film brings these characters to the viewer by their destiny which serves them as they ’deserve’ and in general these ’deserving’ fates or people would fit well into the Soviet ideology. However, the journeys of Kromanov’s characters have a lot of detours from the stereotype of the Soviet hero. Facilitated by Kromanov’s skillful directing towards the actors, his characters become more than signs, they become clear and wholesome images of people. Interestingly enough this is the dominating aspect of the film that comes across from the screen and reaches the viewers first, awaking a sense of empathy. Throughout the film, the viewer is able to respond emotionally to the anti-heroes as well as the ideologically suitable characters and Kromanov does so by positioning all of his characters into the same conflict, unable to connect to one side or the other – the claustrophobic void between the personal and political, human and ideological.
Thus we see the KGB agent Issajev, the protagonist of the film, a young man with solid communist principals and a supporter of the revolution in all of its forms. His father Vladimirov, a typical Russian intellectual, is torn between the general idea of communism being a value and the results of the revolution by which intelligence, education and culture have become dying values. For Issajev, the conflict is thus between his fiery support for the revolution and its goals, his duties and the understanding he has for his father’s world – the centuries old cultural values of the czarist Russia, protecting which would be considered to be a crime against ideology. Meeting a writer Nikandrov in a Tallinn prison, a place considered fascist at the time by the revolutionaries of Russia, he resolves his conflict in a bitter understanding of a paradox remaining unsolved. It is a sadness in understanding that by saving his mission, uncovering the counterrevolution antiheroes and breaking safe from nationalist Estonia, he does not receive any personal joy or peace of mind. His father has meanwhile been killed by Russian counterrevolution. Rather, Issajev remains nostalgic to the times he could go to the woods with his father, setting the world right whilst picking mushrooms and studying ants’ nests. This scene is a beautiful end to the film, echoing visually in the viewers’ minds and establishing Issajev as the line running through all the characters by his bitter resolution of inner conflicts.
The anti-hero is also opened by the duality principle. Vorontsov is a true bastard in the eyes of the Soviet ideology, not only the leader of the counterrevolution, but also a former nobleman. The ambivalence of his portrayal is mainly down to the acting and situations he is positioned into. As a human being, Vorontsov evokes empathy, but by his actions, he is portrayed as an enemy. His cruelty is balanced by his spiritual suffering. Interestingly, Vorontsov’s character is the only anti-hero remained unpunished. In the end of the film, he receives a ’deserving’ punishment by verdict, but he has vanished and the sentence is not carried out. In the role of Vorontsov the actor Alexandr Kaydanovskiy made his first role, a very nuanced and incredible one at that and was after that cast in Tarkovsky’s „Stalker“ (1979).
The story is told and framed by the character Nikandrov. A writer who flees Russia, because of his art not being valued by the new powers. He moves to Tallinn and wishes to emigrate to Europe, but the nationalistic powers of Tallinn suspect him of being an agent and lock him up. Nikandrov is then faced with a conflict of his own, whether to turn to the powers he escaped from or deny his Russian heritage entirely. He also remains unresolved, a pure, even though cowardly a heart, missing the Russia that he had and that will never come back again. Safe from prison and wandering the streets of Tallinn he escapes from the street and encounters a kind Estonian stranger who offers him shelter and food. He then says the golden words: „I don’t have a home.“ Nikandrov’s character is the key to understanding Kromanov himself, a Russian minded and spirited in its old-fashioned meaning, in the context of 19th century St.Petersburg intellectual circles, a supporter of the Russian soul and cultural abilities, not the blind follower of the nation’s new ideological pursuit. In Kromanov’s works, this longing for the lost old Russia is not a political one, but a spiritual one and it echoes through all of his works.
Innovative cinematography
The cinematography of „Diamonds for the Proletariat Dictatorship“ is also innovative for its time and context. The generation starting in the end of the 1960s brought new ideas and fresh perspectives to the film studios of Soviet Estonia. The cinematographer, often working with Kromanov and on this film as well, is one of these people. Jüri Sillart, famous for experimenting with light and often compared to the best cinematographers of Soviet Russia, has created an expressive visual world in „Diamonds“. His use of colour and light is innovative and support the plot by thinking alongside and adding to the visual. The compositions and camera movement are also clever in the way they portray the space, juxtaposing wide landscapes and spaciousness to tight and claustrophobic spaces, creating a connotation with the duality conflicts within the charaters. The use of mirrors and glass surfaces is also a noteworthy aspect of his style that reflect the topics of man having to look at himself. This is where the modernist approach comes together both in cinematography and directing. This film is about man and man having a thorough look at himself.
Kromanov’s legacy
The courage to make a film about the history of KGB in 1970s is not a less important aspect of this film. Kromanov risked being titled as ’white’ (supporter of the csarist Russia) or monarchist in many ways. However, choosing not to portray times closer to his present day, but to concentrate on the beginning, the complicated and confusing times of the year 1921, the direct aftermath of the communist revolution, gave him an opportunity to tell a story by opening up many faces of the event and its affect on the people within it. This is why in his films the main expressed themes focus on the humane. Man in crisis, the sense of a man through his inner values and surrounding situations, the juxtaposition of the personal to the collective values -such as love, mercy, forgiveness, the possibility of a cultural heritage and the wellbeing of people. These are the themes that interest people in all eras and contexts, always carrying both subjective and generalist truths.
To conclude, I would like to finally propose the contours of the legacy from which we can learn and remind ourselves about in the present day. There is a saying: ’Let’s call the things what they are’. Semantically this sentence is of the worst kind, there is no such thing as right names for right things in the world where language is but an abstract concept with constructed meaning. To pull up an equation mark between for example murderer and communist, murderer and nationalist, murderer and estonian, murderer and russian – to assume that any claim would be naming the right thing with the right name is a closed paradox. This is also the prevailing mentality of new generations towards communism, an idea that Marxism already suggests communist terror and tyranny. However, it is likely that Karl Marx would never have stepped into the communist party himself. Twisted words and straight forward generalising is thus a dangerous business and in the case of Soviet cinema can lead to a mindless dismissal of excellent films. Kromanov is a faithful Russian soul, a member of the Estonian nation, but first and foremost a person stuck in his time with no proper home or roots. His main goal is an apolitical stance, commenting on the human values through the ideological topics of his time, but without ever conforming to it. He unveils the crisis within these frames and within the souls of the people inolved. Kromanov gives a valuable view about both Estonian Russian culture from the position of an outside observer. He should stand as an example and reminder that a cultural integration between two nations is possible and that this integration can lead to rich artistic expression.
Filmography:
- "Põrgupõhja uus Vanapagan" (1964, co-directed with Jüri Müür) (The new devil of the bottom of hell)
- "Mis juhtus Andres Lapeteusega?" (1966) (What happened to Andres Lapeteus?)
- "Meie Artur" (1968, co-directed with Mati Põldre) (Our Arthur)
- "Viimne reliikvia" (1969) (The Last Relic)
- "Briljandid proletariaadi diktatuurile" (1975) (Diamonds for the proletariat dictatorship)
- ""Hukkunud Alpinisti" hotell" (1979) (The hotel of the “Perished Alpinist”)
No comments:
Post a Comment