Responses to Revolution: the Soviet Union Portrayed in the British Theatre, 1917–29

1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (29) ◽  
pp. 62-69
Author(s):  
Steve Nicholson

In theatrical parlance, ‘political’ is often taken to be synonymous with ‘left-wing’, and research into political theatre movements of the first half of this century has perpetuated the assumption that the right has generally avoided taking politics as subject matter. This article, the first of two about British political theatre in the 1920s, concentrates on plays about Communism and the Soviet Union during the decade following the Russian Revolution, and offers some contrasting conclusions. Steve Nicholson, Lecturer in Drama at the Workshop Theatre of the University of Leeds, argues that, whether such plays shaped or merely reflected conventional views, they were used by the establishment for the most blatant and explicit propaganda, at a time when it felt itself under threat from the Left. The article has been researched largely through unpublished manuscripts in the Lord Chamberlain's collection of plays, housed in the British Library, and derives from a broader study of the portrayal of Communism in the British theatre from 1917 to 1945.

1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (32) ◽  
pp. 305-312
Author(s):  
Steve Nicholson

In two earlier articles, Steve Nicholson has explored ways in which the the right-wing theatre of the 1920s both shaped and reflected the prevailing opinions of the establishment – in NTQ29 (February 1992) looking at how the Russian Revolution was portrayed on the stage, and in NTQ30 (May 1992) at the ways in which domestic industrial conflicts were presented. He concludes the series with three case studies of the role of the Lord Chamberlain, on whose collection of unpublished manuscripts now housed in the British Library his researches have been based, in preventing more sympathetic – or even more objective – views of Soviet and related subjects from reaching the stage. His analysis is based on a study of the correspondence over the banning of Geo A. DeGray's The Russian Monk, Hubert Griffith's Red Sunday, and a play in translation by a Soviet dramatist, Sergei Tretiakov's Roar China. Steve Nicholson is currently Lecturer in Drama at the Workshop Theatre of the University of Leeds.


1992 ◽  
Vol 8 (30) ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
Steve Nicholson

In an article in NTQ 29 (February 1992), Steve Nicholson looked at how the Russian Revolution was portrayed in the 1920s by the Conservative theatre establishment. Usually it is the Left that is accused of simplistic theatrical agitation: but in this, the second of two articles about the right-wing political theatre of the 1920s, the author shows how plays about industrial conflict and strikes within Britain demonstrated a level of crude Conservative propaganda that has tended to go unremarked. This article has been researched largely through unpublished manuscripts in the Lord Chamberlain's collection of plays in the British Library, and derives from the author's broader study of the portrayal of Communism in the British theatre between 1917 and 1945. Steve Nicholson is currently Lecturer in Drama at the Workshop Theatre of the University of Leeds.


Red Britain ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 60-111
Author(s):  
Matthew Taunton

The Bolshevik Revolution induced British writers to rethink the politics of number, and this chapter considers the significance of the marked preponderance of numbers, equations, and arithmetic in discussions of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet State. It explores the obsessive use of statistics by the Soviet Union and its British defenders, as a utilitarian form of socialism came to dominate left-wing discussions of politics. The chapter theorizes a ‘Romantic anti-Communism’ that opposed itself to such calculations, and often to the principle of quantitative equality. The chapter also explores—partly via the equation ‘two and two make five’ (featured Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, but also in other texts that mediate the relationship between Russian and British socialism)—how the seemingly timeless propositions of mathematics were up for grabs in the debates around Marxist science and dialectical materialism. Writers covered include Orwell, Arthur Koestler, and Bertrand Russell.


Author(s):  
Michael Kort

The Russian Revolution has not permitted Western historians the comfort of neutrality. It led to the establishment of a regime, the Soviet Union, that on the basis of Marxist ideology claimed to be building the world’s first nonexploitative and egalitarian society. As such, the Soviet regime further claimed to represent humanity’s future and therefore the right to spread its communist revolution worldwide. These pretentions, however dubiously realized in practice, won the Soviet Union millions of loyalists over the world. At the same time, because these pretentions also threatened any society organized according to different principles, including those of liberal democracy and free enterprise, they made the Soviet regime the object of intense fear and opposition. This reaction was reinforced as the Soviet Union quickly became a brutal dictatorship and, after World War II, emerged as one of the world’s two nuclear superpowers. For these reasons Western scholarship on the Russian Revolution has had an element of contentiousness not often seen in other fields. That, in turn, is why any serious student of the Russian Revolution must be familiar with its historiography, and why this article not only contains a major section on historiography but also includes historiographic commentary in many of the individual entries. The term Russian Revolution itself refers to two upheavals that took place in 1917: the February Revolution and the October, or Bolshevik, Revolution. The former was a spontaneous uprising that began in Russia’s capital in late February 1917 and led to the collapse of the tsarist monarchy and the establishment of the Provisional Government, a regime based on the premise that Russia should have a parliamentary government and free-enterprise economic system. The latter took place in late October and was the seizure of power by a militant Marxist political party determined to rule alone, turn Russia into a communist society, and spark a worldwide revolution. (These dates are according to the outdated Julian calendar in use in Russia at the time, which trailed the Gregorian calendar used in the West by thirteen days. According to the Gregorian calendar, the two revolutions took place in March and November, respectively.) Because the Bolsheviks did not consolidate their power until their victory in a three-year civil war, many histories ostensibly about the “Russian Revolution” include not only the events of 1917 but also their immediate aftermath in early 1918, and then the civil war, which began in mid-1918 and lasted until 1921. That framework has been adopted for this article as well. Matters of evidence and documentation have additionally complicated this subject. In this case the key date is 1991, as that is when the collapse of the Soviet Union finally made many important Russian archives available to scholars for the first time. This significant development is covered in the Published Documentary Collections section of this article.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 826-841
Author(s):  
Alexander S. Puchenkov ◽  

An immense role in the collapse of the USSR was played by a whole array of factors: the public being tired of the Communist project; the massive shortages of consumer goods, which made people hate the government; the growing opposition within the Communist party to Gorbachev’s reforms; the hesitation of the General Secretary who tried to rely in turn either on the right or on the left wing; the drastic fall in the living standards. The crucial role, however, was played by “the parade of sovereignties” and the Centre being too late in its attempts to address the national question. By the autumn of 1990, the President’s close associates started to sense that power was slipping from Gorbachev’s hands; with the fellow countrymen staying remarkably indifferent, the Soviet Union was heading towards dissolution as the ambitions of local party leaders in the constituent republics generated and cannily magnified nationalist and separatist trends. Gorbachev kept up his maneuver strategy, which put him on the verge of resignation in the spring of 1991 when his support was minimal. He seemed, though, to have managed to pull out of this dive thanks to the Soviet Union referendum held on March 17, in which the voters were asked if they considered the preservation of the USSR necessary. Eventually, however, the issue of preserving or not preserving a unified state depended directly on the position of Russia as the backbone of the Soviet Union. The study draws on the author’s personal archive of original testimonies and interviews of the political figures directly involved in the events in question.


Author(s):  
Victoria Smolkin

When the Bolsheviks set out to build a new world in the wake of the Russian Revolution, they expected religion to die off. Soviet power used a variety of tools—from education to propaganda to terror—to turn its vision of a Communist world without religion into reality. Yet even with its monopoly on ideology and power, the Soviet Communist Party never succeeded in overcoming religion and creating an atheist society. This book presents the first history of Soviet atheism from the 1917 revolution to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. The book argues that to understand the Soviet experiment, we must make sense of Soviet atheism. It shows how atheism was reimagined as an alternative cosmology with its own set of positive beliefs, practices, and spiritual commitments. Through its engagements with religion, the Soviet leadership realized that removing religion from the “sacred spaces” of Soviet life was not enough. Then, in the final years of the Soviet experiment, Mikhail Gorbachev—in a stunning and unexpected reversal—abandoned atheism and reintroduced religion into Soviet public life. The book explores the meaning of atheism for religious life, for Communist ideology, and for Soviet politics.


Author(s):  
Yu.P. Shchukina

Background. Today, analyzing the Ukrainian theatrical movement of the first half of XX century, we can’t bypass V. Morskoy’s critical legacy. Volodimir Saveliyovich Morskoy (the real name – Vulf Mordkovich) is one of the providing Ukrainian theatrical and film critics of the first half of the XX century. He left us his always argumentative, but sometimes contradictious evaluations of dramatic art masters: the directors of Kharkiv Ukrainian drama theatre “Berezil” (from 1935 it named after T. Shevchenko) L. Kurbas, B. Tyagno, L. Dubovik, Yu. Bortnik, V. Inkizhinov, M. Krushelnitsky, M. Osherovsky; the producers of Kharkiv Russian drama theatre named after A. Pushkin – O. Kramov, V. Aristov, V. Nelli-Vlad and many others. Due to the critic’s persecution by the repressive machine of USSR, his evaluations of theatrical process were not quoted in soviet time researches. They still were not entered to the professional usage, were not published and commented in the whole capacity. Methods and novelty of the research. The research methodology joints the historical, typological, comparative, textual, biographical methods. The first researcher, who made up incomplete description of the bibliography of dramatic criticism by V. Morskoy, became Kharkiv’s bibliographer Tetyana Bakhmet. She gave maximally full list of critic articles (more than eighty positions) for the 1924, 1926–1929, 1937, 1948–1949 years. Kharkiv’s theater scientist Ya. Partola [16] in the first encyclopedic edition, that contains the article about V. Morskiy, gave the description of the only publication by critic known for today, in Moscow newspaper “Izvestiya”. Forty six critical articles, half of which didn’t note in bibliographies of both scientists, were collected and analyzed in periodical funds of Kharkiv V. Korolenko Central Scientific Library by the author of this article. Objectives. V. Morskoy was writing the reviews about the new films; the programs of popular and philharmonic performers; was researching the musical theater. This article has the purpose to characterize the features of V. Morskoy’ critical reviews on the dramatic theater performances. Results. It was managed to find out the articles by V. Morskoy hidden for the cryptonym “Vl. M.”, which dedicated to the performances of the “Berezil” theater of the second half of 1920th: “Jacquery”, “Yoot”, “Sedi“. The critic wrote about the setting “Jacquery ” by director V. Tyahno : “Berezil in setting of ‘Jacquery’ emphases it’s ideology, approaching ‘Jacquery’ to nowadays viewer” [2]. Perceiving critically some objective features of avant-garde stylistic, such as cinema techniques, V. Morskoy remarks: “The pictures are discrete, too short, some of them are lasting for 2–3 minutes, they made cinematographically” [2]. In the same time, the young critic already demonstrates the feeling and flair to the understanding of acting art. So, he accurately pointed out the first magnitude actors from the “Berezil” ensemble: A. Buchma, Yo. Ghirnyak, M. Krushelnitsky, B. Balaban [2]. V. Morskoy connected his view to “Jacquery” with the tendency of the second half of the 1920th: “For recently the left theaters became notably more right, and the right one – more left”[2], that reveals his theatrical experience. His contemporaries due to the author’s sense of humor easily recognized the style of V. Morsky’s reviews. Critical irony passes through the his essay about the setting by director V. Sukhodolskiy “Ustim Karmelyuk” in the Working Youth Theatre: “Focusing attention to Karmelyuk, V. Sukhodolskiy left the peoples in shade. Often they keep silence – and not in the Pushkin sense “[14]. Despite on the “alive” style, one of the features of V. Morskoy journalism was adherence to principles. His human courage deserves a high evaluation. In 1940, after the three years after the exile of Les Kurbas, the leader director of “Berezil” Theater, to Solovki, the critic published in the professional magazine the creative portrait of this disgraced director’s wife – the actress Valentina Chistyakova [15]. V. Morskoy arguments on the relationship between the modern works and the tradition of prominent predecessors has always been ably dissolved in an analysis of a performance. Each time V. Morskoy was paying attention to the distinctions of principals of playwriting, stage direction and even creative schools, in the second half of 1930th – 1940th, when the words “stage direction”, “currents”, in condition of predomination the so-called “social realism” method, in the soviet newspapers practically were not mentioning. For example, the critic saw of realistically-psychological directions in the O. Kramov’s performance “Year 1919”[9]. In 1940, V. Morskoy made a review of the performance of the then Zaporizhhya theater named after M. Zankovetska “In the steppes of Ukraine”, insisting on the continuity of the comedies of O. Korniychuk in relation to the works of Gogol and others of playwrights-coryphaeuses: “The play of O. Korniychuk is characterized by profound national form...” [7]. However, in the fact that in the Soviet Union at that time reigned as the doctrine the methodology of the “socialist realism”, the tragedy of honest criticism comprised. In controversy with the critic O. Harkivianin, V. Morskoy expressed the credo about the ethics and fighting qualities of the reviewer: “Apparently, Ol. Kharkivianin belongs to the category of peoples, who see the task of critic in order to give only the positive assessments. The vulgar sociological approach to the phenomena of art could be remaining the personal mistake of Ol. Kharkivianin. But when he presents him as the most important argument, everyone becomes uncomfortable”[8]. In 1949, the political regime fabricated the case of a “bourgeois cosmopolitan” against the honest theatrical critic and accused him in betraying of public interests adjudged V. Morskoy to untimed death at a concentration camp (Ivdellag, 1952). However, the time arbitrated this long discussion in favor of V. Morskoy. Conclusions. For the objective analysis of theater life of the city and the country as a whole, it is imperative to draw from the historical facts contained in the reviews of V. Morskoy, and the methodology of the review while investigating studies of theatrical art and theatrical thought of 1920–1940th. Thus, the gathering of the full kit of the critical observations of the famous Kharkov theater expert of the first half of the XX century is the important task for further researchers.


Author(s):  
Ivan Gololobov

This chapter discusses the evolution of punk in Russia since its inception at the end of the 1970s. It pays particular attention to the changing perception of class belonging and the political engagement of the punk scene in Russia. Whereas in the West punk was a political movement closely associated with its working-class background, in the Soviet Union it emerged as a protest of middle-class intellectuals fighting for the right to be different and to stand out from the uniformed workers’ and peasants’ collective. This defined the particular stand of early Russian punk toward the genre’s social engagement and political appeal. Working-classness and political commitment—initial conditions of punk identity in the West—became something early Russian punk was positioned against. The dramatic transformation of Russian society over the following decades inevitably affected the cultural ideology of Russian punk, and from the 1990s onward it had to find its place and defend its significant difference amid the realities of “wild” neoliberal capitalism. The chapter shows how in Russia punk evolved from being a highly individualistic and apolitical practice to one of the most radical and politically committed scenes, closely affiliated with other struggles on the Left.


Author(s):  
Kyle Burke

The Iran-Contra scandal halted much of these paramilitary campaigns in the late 1980s. That was because it required many of the most important actors, John Singlaub among them, to spend much of their time testifying in Congress and preparing legal defenses, rather than working overseas. Within a few years, the collapse of the Soviet Union made the anticommunist international obsolete. Still, the ideas and impulses that had animated it lived on. Those legacies were most evident in the rise of the private military firms abroad and the radicalization of the right-wing paramilitaries at home.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document