A director through the eyes of directors

Leading Russian filmmakers discuss Protazanov’s role in film history and in their own careers. The opinions are polar: some directors consider Protazanov a great director of all times, whereas others call him a forgotten page of film history.

 

Viktor LISTOV. Screen projection of The Queen of Spades

The Queen of Spades (1916), one of the most famous Protazanov’s films, is compared with its literary original. According to the author, the plot difference between the film and the novella can be explained by Protazanov’s desire to preserve the spirit of the text, to find a cinematic equivalent of Pushkin’s language. For instance, both Pushkin and Protazanov  show St. Petersburg high society as «a branch of hell» (a quotation from Anna Akhmatova).

 

Peter ROLLBERG. Three Father Sergius

The author compares three screen adaptations of Leo Tolstoi’s novella Father Sergius: the 1917 version (directed by Protazanov), the 1978 version (directed by Igor’ Talankin) and the 1990 version (Il Sole anche di notte [Night sun], directed by Taviani Brothers). The role of cultural context in transferring literature narrative structures into the structures of cinema is in the focus of the author’s attention. Protazanov’s film which was created at the turn of the era is considered to be autobiographic, it is a deliberate «farewell» film created just before the director’s exile.

 

Marianna KIREEVA, Evgeny MARGOLIT. A Film that never existed (Tommy and the problems of early sound films in the USSR)

This is the first article devoted to Protazanov’s sound debut Tommy (1931) which is one of the earliest Soviet sound films also. According to the authors, this picture was a pure experiment for Protazanov. Diversity [raznoiazychie], a common technique for early talking films, becomes a plot constructing element. The authors consider Tommy an antithesis of the dominant genre of the early 30’s: the «agitprop film».

 

Tamara SERGEEVA. Yakov Protazanov’s Cinema: A world ruled by passions

After analyzing all of Protazanov’s surviving films and his screenplays the author identifies the dominant typical motifs of Protazanov’s works. According to the author, these motifs are: passion, temptation and ordeal. The place of God and the Devil in Protazanov’s films is also discussed as well as his perception of life as theater.

 

Yuri TSIVIAN. Gesture and montage: once again about Russian style in early cinema

Analyzing statements made by various actors and directors at the turn of 1910–1920’s (Michael Chekhov, Olga Gzovskaja, Lev Kuleshov and others) the author talks about the dichotomy of gesture and montage, the two different ways of representing movement in motion pictures. As a result two opposing tendencies are revealed: the struggle for «full scenes» which was typical of Protazanov’s films and the «American montage» aesthetics which characterize young directors’ works.

 

Viktor KOROTKIY. The Unknown Protazanov. On the possibility of rebuilding the visual appearance of his lost films using reviews and historiographical material

Is it possible to reconstruct lost films with the help of reviews and historiographical material? The discussion on that problem is based upon Protazanov’s fi lms Anfisa (1912), The Bought Husband (1913), Nikolai Stavrogin (1915), I’ll Hitch Up a Troika of Swift Dark Brown Horses (1916), The Man at the Railing (1918). Considering the situation with the study of Protazanov’s pre-emigration works, the author raises a question of the representativeness of sample for the surviving pre-revolutionary films. How objectively it reflects all the wealth (and poverty) of pre-revolutionary cinema?

 

Nataliya NUSINOVA. Protazanov in emigration

This article is a brief report on Protazanov’s work in emigrant (predominantly French) cinema in 1920–1923. The author talks about director’s cooperation with producers Joseph Ermolieff, Paul Thiemann and Erich Pommer. Little-known fi lm Justice d’abord (Justice Above All) which finally proved Ivan Mozzhukhin’s status in the emigrant cinema is analyzed in details. Thanks to recently found archival materials the author managed to add a new film Vers la lumière (To the Light) to Protazanov’s filmography: earlier it was considered to be directed by Alexander Uralsky alone.

 

«As You wish: Moscow or Berlin…». The correspondence between Ya.A. Protazanov and his wife F.V. Protazanova. 1920–1923. (Publication by Vyacheslav Rebrov, commentaries by Natalya Nusinova with the participation of Petr Bagrov and Aleksandr Deryabin)

This publication includes over 60 letters of the «emigrant» period. These letters describe Russian emigrants’ daily life, characterize a number of filmmakers of the early 1920’s. Protazanov’s private correspondence presents his return to Russia from a brand new point of view.

 

«Protazanov and avant-garde». A Round table talk at NIIK, led by Naum Kleyman. Participants: Petr Bagrov, Irina Graschenkova, Vladimir Zabrodin, Nikolay Izvolov, Sergey Kapterev, Marianna Kireeva, Yevgeny Margolit, Viktor Matizen, Tatyana Moskvina-Yaschenko, Natalya Nusinova, Nina Rostova, Vera Rumyantseva, Yury Tsivian

Analyzing Protazanov’s films participants of the round table bring up a number of questions on the pre-revolutionary and early Soviet cinema including the use of theatre techniques in cinema or dichotomy of traditionalists and innovators applied in Soviet film literature. A great variety of opinions was reflected in the discussion. Protazanov was called a representative of an old cultural tradition and vice versa an avant-garde film-maker who could sensitively catch the spirit of the times. At the same time Protazanov was defined as a postmodern director who virtuously manipulated ideas and techniques of the others. In fact, these characteristics, according to some of the speakers, do not contradict one another.

 

Irina GRASCHENKOVA. Is Yakov Protazanov an Orthodox film director!?..

The author analyzes Protazanov’s works in the context of spiritual and aesthetic tendencies of the Russian Silver age. Relationship between the official church and cinema is illustrated by the example of Protazanov’s fi lms (The Departure of a Great Old Man and Father Sergius in the first place). Reflecting Protazanov’s attitude to the three branches of Christianity the author comes to the conclusion that these films could be defined as Orthodox cinema. Protazanov’s attitude to Leo Tolstoy is another question brought up in the article.

 

Alexey GUSEV. Protazanov is the pioneer of tabloid cinema

Early cinema is genetically tabloid. Bauer, Chardynin, Gardin and other directors never renounced the tabloid roots of their profession but they brought in exterior impacts and tendencies. On the contrary Protazanov enforced the cinematographic nature of the material by strengthening its «core component» — the «tabloid» one — and thus standing the cleanness of style. In author’s opinion this approach is the basis of successes and failures in Protazanov’s film career.

 

Darya KURAKINA-MUSTAFINA. Protazanov’s Diaboliad

According to the author religious theme in Protazanov’s films is the key to his oeuvre. It reveals in different themes: mysticism, anticlericalism, satire. Protazanov’s Satan Triumphant — the most famous film of Russian «satanic cycle» is interpreted as an ironic piece full of easily recognizable quotations from classical paintings. The satanic motives can be also recognized in Protazanov’s films of the Soviet period due to Anatoly Ktorov’s mask. The author draws a parallel between the Protazanov’s comedy The Three Million Trial and Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel Master and Margarita.

 

Aleksandr DERYABIN. Vera Erie. And yet she did exist

Vera Erie, the scriptwriter for Protazanov’s film His call, is one of the most mysterious, «phantom» figures in Soviet film history. It is assumed that such a person never existed: it was only a pseudonym of the famous screenwriter Grigoriy Grebner. The author managed to get on the trail of the real Vera Erie, a forgotten actress and writer of the 1920s.

 

Yekaterina KHOKHLOVA. Protazanov and Kuleshov: opponents or allies?

The «traditionalist» Protazanov and the «innovator» Lev Kuleshov belonged, may seem to belong to the two «hostile camps» of Soviet cinema. Kuleshov’s unfavourable comments on Protazanov’s films are well-known. Yet these artists have much in common. Both are representatives of the old, prerevolutionary culture, since the late 20’s their interests were quite kindred, both worked on Mezhrabpomfilm, both were persecuted for «philistinism», etc.

 

Petr BAGROV. Protazanov and the development of the high comedy in Russian cinema

In pre-revolutionary Russian cinema as well as in the early 1920’s comedy was considered to be a «low» genre. Only by the end of the 1920’s it came to be regarded as a «fully legitimate» genre. First of all it was due to the efforts of Protazanov and his disciples (direct and indirect ones). Protazanov set the standards of many Russian comedy types including film-parody, tragicomedy and in particular lyrical comedy. His first experience in the latter refers to as early as 1918.

 

Viktor BATALIN, Galina MALYSHEVA. The reconstruction of Ya. Protazanov’s film Christmas in the Trenches

The story of attribution and reconstruction of Protazanov’s recently found short Christmas in the Trenches (1914) reveals the research methods of RGAKFD. Using these methods a number of «irretrievably lost» early Russian feature films and documentaries were found and restored.

 

Oliver Twist. The Protasanov’s unshot film. Screenplay and documents

Oliver Twist was one of Protazanov’s last big projects. In this screenplay he explicated his favourite «from rags to riches» theme. Shortly after the shooting started (1938) it was abandoned by the personal order of Semyon Dukel’sky, the head of the Cinema Affairs Commitee. The screenplay is published along with the documents tracing the history of this production.

 

Aleksey LOPATIN. Ya.A. Protazanov and the genre of «kinoromance»

Protazanov directed several song-based films or «kinoromances» (The Convict’s Song, 1911 — his debut as a director, The Seagull, 1915, I’ll Hitch Up a Troika of Swift Dark Brown Horses, 1916, Give Her Something, For the Sake of Christ!, 1916). Melodramatic town romance and folk songs set the aesthetic standards for the first Russian filmmakers, including Protazanov.

 

Nina ROSTOVA. Protazanov and the traditions of Russian theatre

The author discusses the problem of reflecting theater in cinema. Theatrical motifs and techniques are easily revealed in Protazanov’s films — even if they do not directly concern theatre. A comparative analysis of two films is given as an example. Little Ellie and Jenny the Maid were shot almost at the same time (1918), but the former had films stars Ivan Mozzhukhin and Natalya Lisenko playing the main characters whereas on the latter Protazanov collaborated with Olga Gzovskaya and Vladimir Gaidarov of the Moscow Art Theatre.

 

Liudmila SHAGALOVA. «I was shot in the Protazanov’s fi lm» (Recorded by Tamara Sergeeva)

One of the last Protazanov’s actresses who are still with us reminisces the making of Seventh-graders (1938), her debut in film. These memoirs are the only existing text about Protazanov’s forgotten, «compromise» film.

 

A Member of Parliament. The intertitles. (Preface by Aleksandr Deryabin with the assistance of Petr Bagrov, commented by Aleksandr Deryabin)

Protazanov’s recently found melodrama A Member of Parliament (1919) has been premiered in Russia only this year. Very little is known about this film. The intertitles found in RGALI as well as excerpts from the memoirs of the scriptwriter Aleksandr Litvinov and easily accessible (as it turns out) data from the World Wide Web help to enlighten the history of this forgotten picture.

 

Ya.A. PROTAZANOV. Filmography. (Compiled by P.A. Bagrov, N.I. Nusinova and S.V. Skovorodnikova with participation of T.V. Sergeeva)

As of today, this version of Protazanov’s filmography is the most complete one. Relying on memoirs, periodicals, archival materials and previous filmographies (including those that were never published), compilers managed not only to add new data on most of Protazanov’s films, but also to include several new films in his filmography. Some controversial cases as well as reliability of different sources are discussed in the foreword.