scholarly journals The Best Films of Soviet Film Distribution: What Were They Like for Readers of Soviet Screen Magazine (1958-1991)?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
Servis plus ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-26
Author(s):  
Марина Косинова ◽  
Marina Kosinova ◽  
Артур Аракелян ◽  
Artur Arakelyan

In the period of “thaw” (mid 1950s – mid 1960s), there is a sharp qualitative and quantitative growth of Soviet cinema. If in 1951 in the USSR was filmed just nine films which didn’t represent a high artistic value in the creative attitude, already in 1956–57, Soviet cinema shocked the whole world. In 1958 they released 66 new Soviet film, but by 1960 our film industry overcame the milestone of 100 films and continued to steadily increase the production. The growth of the film industry contributed to the cinema spreading and film distribution. In the years of “thaw” in the USSR cinema attendance exceeded 3 billion, compared to 1.5 billion in 1953. The Gross fundraising from screenings at state cinema chains increased to 5.5 million rubles in 1957, and throughout the hole cinema chain – up to 7.5 million rubles. On the 1st January 1958, the chain consisted of 80 thousand cinemas, including more than 50 thousand in rural areas. By this time, they had mastered new technical possibilities of cinema (wide-screen, panoramic, wide angle, circular panorama). They fully mastered color film. However, in the field of cinema there were still a lot of unresolved issues. Revenues from films increased annually in largely through the construction and commissioning of new cinemas, and due to the tightening operation mode of already active cinemas, contrary to their real capabilities. But cinema rigidly centralized administrative-command system which had been formed in the 1930s continued to operate until the perestroika in the Soviet. They sold films to the distributors as a “product” based on the amount of the estimated cost of the film. The Studio was lcompletely disinterested in the outcome of the promotion of the film, its success with the audience. Thus, they did not have a major driver in the fight for the quality of films. Numerous attempts of the Filmmakers ‘ Union, established in 1957, to change the existing system didn’t have the results. The only application of far-reaching ideas of the Union became an Experimental creative Studio.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-45
Author(s):  
Mia Öhman

Andrei Tarkovski (1932–1986) oli Neuvostoliiton tunnetuimpia elokuvaohjaajia ja yksi maailman arvostetuimmista taiteilijoista jo elinaikanaan. Hänen elokuvansa saivat kotimaassa ristiriitaisen vastaanoton, mutta palkittiin monilla kansainvälisillä festivaaleilla ja päästettiin länsimaiseen levitykseen. Vuonna 1974 valmistui Tarkovskin kolmas pitkä elokuva, vahvasti omaelämäkerrallinen Peili (Zerkalo).Peili hämmensi aikalaisyleisöä. Neuvostoliitossa suuri osa elokuvayleisöstä näki etupäässä kotimaan massatuotantoa. Eurooppalaisesta elokuvasta kyllä kirjoitettiin, mutta esimerkiksi Fellinin elokuvat olivat todellisuudessa vain harvojen nähtävissä. Peili oli syntynyt Neuvostoliitossa, puolueen valvoman Goskinon huomassa. Sen olisi pitänyt edustaa neuvostoelokuvalle määriteltyjä arvoja, mutta se ei monenkaan mielestä tehnyt niin. Tämä oli ongelma niin kotimaan levityksen, kansainvälisten festivaalien kuin ulkomaille myynnin kannalta. Kun kyseessä oli Tarkovski, arvostettu tekijä, jonka elokuvista maksettiin lännessä hyvin, oli suotavaa että ideologiaongelma saatiin jotenkin ratkaistua ja elokuva levitykseen.Sodanjälkeistä eurooppalaista elokuvaa tunteneelle yleisölle Tarkovskin uudessa elokuvassa ei ollut sinänsä mitään uutta. Tarkastelen artikkelissani Peili-elokuvan vastaanottoa Suomessa ja taustoitan sitä Neuvostoliiton elokuvatuotantosysteemin Goskinon ja levitysmonopolin Sovexportfilmin toimilla liittyen elokuvalevitykseen ja Tarkovskin elokuvien myyntiin ulkomaille. Suomi näyttäytyy Tarkovskille ja taiteellisesti korkeatasoiselle neuvostoelokuvalle myötämielisenä maana, jonka valistuneella lehdistöllä ja yleisöllä on edellytykset tunnistaa laadukas elokuva.Reception of The Mirror in Finland: Andrei Tarkovsky as Figurehead of Soviet CinemaAndrei Tarkovsky (1932–1986) was one of the most famous film directors of the Soviet Union and a recognized artist all over the world. In his home country, his films gave rise to controversy. Tarkovsky’s work was acknowledged at many international festivals and his films were allowed to have international distribution. He completed his third full length feature film, The Mirror (Zerkalo) in 1974. It had a strong connection with his personal life.The Mirror was a confusing piece of work. In the Soviet Union, cinema audience mainly saw domestic mass productions. European cinema – like Fellini – was reported on the pages of cinema magazines, but it was quite seldom available for the average movie goer. The Mirror was a Soviet film, made in the arms of Goskino under surveillance of the Communist Party. It was supposed to represent the official values prescribed for Soviet cinema, but it was obvious the film actually represented something else. This was a problem with regard distribution of the film in the Soviet Union, sending it to international film festivals, and selling it to the West. Tarkovsky, on the other hand, was a famous and respected auteur, and his films were sold to West for a good price. The Western audience had seen the new European films after the WWII, so they could appreciate Tarkovsky’s style.The article discusses the reception of The Mirror in Finland, in the context of the centralized Soviet film industry Goskino and the monopoly that Sovexportfilm had over film distribution, including Tarkovsky’s films. Through contemporary sources, the 1970s Finland comes across as a country with a positive attitude towards Tarkovsky and Soviet art cinema.


Servis plus ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Марина Косинова ◽  
Marina Kosinova

The article discusses the recovery process of the destroyed film industry during one of the most difficult periods — the post-war years. During the years of the great Patriotic war The Soviet urban chain lost more than 500 cinemas, located in major cities and industrial centers. Rural cinema network lost almost half of the cinemas (about 7000). The construction of new urban cinemas was carried out very poorly in the early postwar years; for 5 years only 77 theaters had been built. The film distribution, as spreading of the cinema, developed very slowly in the postwar years. In addition to purely economic problems, in these years our film faced difficulties of a different nature. Films shown on the Soviet cinemas were forcibly shifted in the direction of ideological and political propaganda that led to a narrowing of the genre and thematic range of the Soviet cinema. The results of the work of the film industry itself were also affected with the consequences of policy "malokartinye» the authorship of which is attributed to Stalin. The essence of it was a controversial idea: to spend on movies less money, but earn more. As a result the movie industry was in a very difficult position. In 1947 it was decided to release in USSR a lot of foreign films, announced «trophy». These films caused a lot of criticism on the part of Agitprop, and in fact, saved the Soviet film distribution in the late 1940s — early 1950s. Fascination with foreign «innovations» was inevitable: the decline of the Soviet film industry didn´t allow satisfying the screen with new Soviet films, and nobody reduced plan profits from film distribution to the Ministry of cinematography. A great help in further raising the income of film distribution was the expansion of old Soviet films. In addition, cinema directors took a rather ingenious attempt of the extension of the films shown on cinemas at the expense of shooting on film theatrical productions.


Art Journal ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-294
Author(s):  
Alan C. Birnholz
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document