Menu

September 2015

Cinema as a Weapon of Revolution

/ / 6 Comments

In 1923 Leon Trotsky wrote an article for Pravda in which he explored the relationship of the church to the revolution, espoused the virtues of Cinema as a tool for re educating the masses, and went about describing how cinema could be used as a weapon by the Bolsheviks to destroy alcoholism and religion within the budding USSR. Unsaid in Trotsky’s article, but equally important is the reason that the Bolsheviks were such ruthless, cunning and productive propagandists, the need for political capital to keep the revolution alive and ensure they retained their hard won strongly motivated the hard push for propaganda films, and the modernization and streamlining of the Communist propaganda machine.

In his article, Trotsky details the ways in which the peasant classes had been indoctrinated by the church, and also describes briefly the issue with alcoholism in Russia in the early 20th century, throughout the course of his writing, Trotsky lays out in detail the reasons that cinema can supplant religion and drinking in Russian culture. The first, and arguably most important reason that cinema was a vital method of distributing propaganda was that it could reach the illiterate, in 1920, only 2 out of five Russian adults could read (Kenez Pg 30) and this meant that leaflets, newspapers and magazines could not reach the target audience, they had succeeded in indoctrinating the liberal intellectuals, but a different method would be required to reach the masses. Cinema provided the perfect vehicle, it was interesting, straightforward, an advanced new technology that generated vast interest in all, young, old, rich and poor. In his article, Trotsky details how similar it is to the church, in that it stimulates the sense, brings people together, and provides theatrical entertainment, the key difference being that the cinema provides a multitude of different stories, while the church played out the same story, over and over again. Because of its newness, and because of its variation, Trotsky argues that the cinema can replace the church in the lives of the masses, and at the same time be used to control and direct them through propaganda. In the long term, history did not bear out Trotsky’s prediction, it would seem that he underestimated how entrenched in rural culture religion was, and despite initial short term success, in the end Eastern Orthodoxy made a comeback as soon as the communist propaganda machine collapsed with the rest of the USSR.

The reason that Trotsky and the Bolsheviks pushed cinema so hard as a mode of propaganda is primarily the need for political capital so that they could continue to reshape Russia, the position of the communists in 1923 was precarious, they had defeated the White/Green/Black armies arrayed against them, but they still stood at the precipice of political catastrophe. In order to retain power, they needed everyone on board with the new program as fast as possible, and leaflets and magazines which wouldn’t reach 3/5th’s of the population simply would not cut it. In keeping with the Bolshevik theme of cleaving to urban workers and new technology, the cinema was utilized as an antithesis for the backwardness and superstition of religion, with party leaders believing that the factors i described above would bring them the political might to rebuild Russia in to a communist utopia. In the short term, this was successful, and Russia rapidly underwent a cultural revolution, resulting in the USSR as we know it.

In conclusion, the cinema was a vital part of Bolshevik propaganda, and its effective usage is in a large way responsible for the creation and sustainment of the USSR,  however, in the long run it was not quite enough, and the failure of communism to bridge the gap between urban intellectuals and the rural masses eventually brought it down.

 

Sources: https://books.google.com/books?id=VGE4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=the+use+of+cinema+for+propaganda+in+soviet+russia&source=bl&ots=9CJ2FhZQ-w&sig=n3EuU0HzxhnUI20TXrr0sFsNck4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCGoVChMItOO0xKOGyAIVS5iACh3pIQt-#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.academia.edu/6387163/A_Study_of_Soviet_Propaganda

the-city-rises-1911

The City Rises: Russian Futurism as a Driving Force for Revolution

/ / 4 Comments

Russian Futurism was a style of art originating in Russian in the early 20th century, initially, it was poetry and literature, a group of young artists seeking to change the status quo as artists so often do. The first futurist painting, “The City Rises” by Umberto Boccioni, shows the hustle and bustle of modern urban life in the wake of the industrial revolution, and demonstrates plainly the futurist fascination with modern machines and the urban life. In a large part, the painting is driven by the chaos of the city, and in contrast to previous forms of Russian art, is much more dynamic, and less focused on detail, with a higher emphasis on the themes of modernization and change. These themes in Futurism can be seen as a window in to the collective cultural conscience of a nation that was gearing up for change, which eventually culminated in the revolution of 1917.

 

Futurist artists in the early 20th century found themselves in a world with no shortage of inspiration, with the coming of the industrial revolution, class lines began to blur more than ever before, and the lower classes set their eyes upon the high living standards of the upper classes. As they labored in the cities, they became more educated, and ever more discontent with their continual exploitation by the rich. The Futurists latched on to this discontent, portraying it in works of art and poetry, continually challenging the traditional way of things and further pushing the masses towards change. The factors which drove the revolution can clearly be seen in their art, the modernization of Russian industry, the chaos and danger of life within a city, and, to a lesser degree, the plight of the working classes can be seen clearly in almost all forms of futurist art, while at the same time Russian Futurists constantly spit in the face of convention and the establishment, ridiculing them and refusing to accept the system that was currently in use.

 

In this, the first ever futurist painting, we can clearly see the standard Futurist trademarks. The bright color of the painting works in concert with the fuzzy, chaotic lines to convey a scene of confusion and hustle. We can also see that the workers in the painting are almost blended in with the beasts of burden and the machines being used, similar lines and colors almost seeming to equate the urban workers to nothing more than animals or expendable machines. Another example of this is the anonymity of the faceless workers, in direct opposition to detailed conventional art, the workers in this piece do not have faces, and are thereby further de-humanized, reducing them further to the level of tools of industry. The overall grand scale of the painting completes the scene, with the massive city eclipsing all others, driving at the cultural theme that, individually the workers are nothing, but when united they can perform feats far beyond any single man.

 

In conclusion, this painting is a fine example of the overall attitude of the working class in Russia just prior to the revolution, and demonstrates many of the themes and tenets that eventually caused the revolution, and allowed it to succeed.

 

image source: http://distortedarts.com/icons-umberto-boccioni-city-rises/