The paper is focused on cinema career of famous Silver Age theatre actor Boris Glagolin.
This article is dedicated to the first Russian film journal, Sine-Fono, which was published from 1907 to 1918. Sine-Fono was a leading periodical for more than ten years and it played a crucial role in the pre-Revolutionary cinematic process. The journal Sine-Fono is interesting not only as a key fact of the history of early Russian cinema, but also as an extremely important source for its study: since the overwhelming majority of pre-Revolutionary Russian films have not been preserved, historians must judge this period in Russian film history primarily by means of the film press. The article also describes the fate, both before and after the Revolution, of the founder and constant editor of the journal, Samuil Lur’e.
Review of: Olesha Iu. K. Zavist'. Zagovor chuvstv. Strogii iunosha. [Yurii Olesha. Envy. The Conspiracy of Feelings. A Strict Young Man]. Edited by A.V. Kokorin; introduction and commentary by A.V. Kokorin, N.A. Gus'kov. St. Petersburg: Vita Nova, 2017 (“Rukopisi” [Manuscripts])
The paper is focused on Vsevolod Meyerhold’s film “Picture of Dorian Gray”, a screen version of Oscar Wilde’s novel released in 1915. This famous film is considered to be lost, yet one can learn of it using various sources: a film script, a list of intertitres and other documents held in RGALI, a libretto, stills published in the press, film reviews and memoirs. These sources can help to reconstruct film structure. Historical context of the film will also be discussed. Meyerhold seems to have used many translations of Oscar Wilde’s novel and some theatrical adaptations of Oscar Wilde in Russia before 1915. It is argued that Basil Hallward for Meyerhold was an autobiographical character as well as Lord Henry played by Meyerhold himself. Thus Meyerhold’s approach to the novel is similar to that of Oscar Wilde’s: the writer called himself a prototype of all three main characters. “Picture of Dorian Gray” (1915) may be considered to be the portrait of its author, theatre and film director Vsevolod Meyerhold.
This paper is devoted to the issue of so–called ‘trophy films’ in the context of Soviet foreign policy. The aim of this research is to reveal how the cultural competition between the USSR and the USA during the early Cold War caused the emergence of the famous credit title «This film was captured as a trophy after the Soviet Army defeated Nazi troops near Berlin in 1945», and, as a consequence, resulted in the establishing of ‘Trophy Film’ concept in public discourse.
For many Soviet cultural figures, the Second World War was a time of relative artistic freedom from Stalin’s regime. Yet for the youth film studio, Soiuzdetfilm, the war was a time of deprivation and disconnection from the creative world. Soiuzdetfilm and other studios went to Central Asia. Unlike Mosfilm and Lenfilm, united in Alma-Ata (Almaty), Kazakhstan, Soiuzdetfilm went to Stalinabad (Dushanbe), Tajikistan from late 1941 through 1943. Separated from the filmmaking world, Soiuzdetfilm experienced evacuation as a period of rancorous disputes and all too few achievements. Regional party leaders’ insistence that the studio collaborate with local artists on Tajik themed films, far from easing isolation, further divided the studio from its leadership. Although the wartime reconfiguration of the Soviet cultural world spurred collaboration in some areas of the Soviet cultural world, at Soiuzdetfilm evacuation caused only disruption and tension.
Pre-Revolutionary Russian cinema has traditionally been divided into two periods: pre-1914 and after. The first period has been perceived as one of inception and learning, while the second as an era of maturity and genuine establishment of early Russian cinema. World War I, which abruptly restricted the import of foreign films into Russia, has usually been treated as a positive factor in the history of Russian cinema and the most important reason for its blossoming in 1914–18. Yet it may also be argued that the war created turmoil in the Russian film industry. The new, forced production rates negatively impacted on the quality of films and did not help the natural development of a national cinema tradition. Masterpieces made during the war were evidently created not because of, but despite the war. The influence of World War I on Russian cinema thus must be considered sharply negative.