Russian Film studiesBy Jeremy Hicks, Queen Mary, University of London

1. Histories and Reference Works

Remarkably few works marking this year’s centenary of Russian cinema came out this year. J. Graffy, ‘a hundred years of Russian film: the forgotten and the underrated’, SRSC, 2: 327–54, commemorates it through short articles on neglected films by 22 scholars teaching Russian film in British and american universities. mark Zak, Фильмы в исторической проекции, mw, Federal noe agenstvo po kul tur i kinematografii RF nauchno-issledovatel´nyi institut kinoiskusstva, 383 pp., also claims to be a history of Russian cinema, but is in fact an interesting and useful collection of the author’s articles spanning from The Cranes are Flying (1957) to Repentance (1984/87). References to the original published sources are sadly lacking.

Hutchings, Others, norris, Insiders, and Kivelson, Picturing Russia are three collections which cover the theme of Russian depictions of the foreign and foreign depictions of Russians through the whole time-span of Russian cinema.

Веселые человечки is a significant collection of writings about Russian children’s film and literature. many of its essays trace the origins and incarnations of the characters throughout the history of soviet and Russian cinema and include: a. Prokhorov, ‘Три Буратино: эволюция советского киногероя’ (153–80); m. maiofis, ‘Милый, милый трикстер Карлсон и советская утопия о “настоящем детстве”’ (241–314); iu. leving, ‘“Кто-то там все-таки есть...” Винни-пух и новая анимационная эстетика’ (315–53).

Peter Rollberg, Historical Dictionary of Russian and Soviet Cinema, lanham, scarecrow Press, xxxvi + 793 pp., supplies a brief chronology of important dates, a 20-page historical overview, and a 24-page bibliography. However, its main focus is an extensive dictionary with entries mostly on directors and actors, but also on some composers, cameramen and other participants in the film-making process, as well as some articles about film studios and individual films of note. While it is generally well informed, particularly given the fact that this is the work of a single author, specialists will find the entries on their areas of expertise woefully inadequate: that on Vertov fails to take in recent

Russian Studies872

scholarship, e.g. on his name. this is frustrating, as such errors will be repeated ad infinitum by the wider public.

natal´ia miloserova and Vladimir martynov, Российское кино, 1986–2006. Биофильмографический справочник, Vol. 1: Сценаристы. Режиссеры. Актеры (А-К), mw, materik, 591 pp., is narrower in focus, and even less rigorous. this is an expansion of natal´ia miloserova, Кино России: новые имена (1986–1995). Справoчник: Сценаристы. Режиссеры. Актеры. Операторы. Художники. Композиторы. Продюссеры и дистрибьютеры, mw, Goskino Rossiiskoi Federatsii–nii kinoiskusstva, 1996, 217 pp.

2. theory

n. drubek-meyer and n. izvolov, ‘Critical editions of films in digital formats’, SRSC, 2:205–16, is an attempt to establish a case for scholarly editions of films on dVd, employing footnotes and using canonical restorations and optimally displayed versions. the authors illustrate the case with overwhelmingly Russian examples, notably Kuleshov’s Engi-neer Prite’s Project (1918) which has now been released commercially.

NLO, 92, has a section on 1920s medium specificity film theory, especially Formalism, and includes: ia. levchenko, ‘Контуры ненаписанной теории: кинмеатографический сюжет русских формалистов’ (24–41); iu. tsv´ian, ‘Жест революции, или Шкловский как путанник’ (10–23).

Viktor shklovsky, Literature and Cinematography, trans. irina masinovsky, introd. Richard sheldon, Champaign–london, dalkey archive, xvii +74 pp., makes available in english this little-considered text by the formalist critic, in which he attempts to define the specific nature of cinema as lying in its privileging of plot. the edition would have benefited from an academic apparatus glossing and identifying the films referred to and a better introduction. Vladimir sokolov, Киноведение как наука, mw, 326 pp., is a collection of essays by a trained philosopher analysing the theoretical bases for film studies, with particular attention to semiotics and phenomenology.

3. Periods in Film History

silent Film. amy sargeant, Storm Over Asia, london, tauris, 104 pp., is part of the KinOFiles series of short critical studies on key films. a. Pozdniakov, ‘Начало. Первая русская фильма и ее режиссер’, IK, 11:4–7, provides some contextual detail about the first Russian film.

Film Studies 873

l. mcReynolds, ‘Visualising masculinity: the male sex that was not one in fin-de-siècle Russia’, Kivelson, Picturing Russia, 133–38, considers the sexual ambivalence of ivan mozzhukhin’s persona. V. Romashkov, ‘За кулисами’, IK, 11:8–11, is the publication of the autobiography of the director of the first Russian film. see also iu. tsivian, ‘the wise and wicked game: reediting, foreignness, and soviet film culture of the twenties’, norris, Insiders, 23–47. a. tuchinskaia, ‘Шаляпин и Мейерхольд в кино’, IK, 11:105–19, considers the importance of shaliapin for meierkhol’d, sh.’s performance in the role of Ivan the Terrible (1915), and m.’s influence upon the Russian cinema. Of similar interest are ‘“...Эту картину надо рассматривать, как картину молодняка...”. Стенограмма дискуссионного просмотра картины “Ее путь” (1929)’, KZ, 86:90–122, and ‘“Симпатичный юноша Сережа” и другие. Материалы Экспериментального киноколлектива Сергея Юткевича (ЭККЮ)’, KZ, 87:82–107.

iakov Butovskii, ‘О кинооператоре Святославе Беляеве’, KZ, 87:163–76, is one of a number of articles relating to the leningrad cameraman sviatoslav Beliaev, whose work spanned the late 1920s to the early 1940s.

stalin era. lilya Kaganovsky, How the Soviet Man Was Unmade: Cultural Fantasy and Male Subjectivity Under Stalin, Pittsburgh u.P., xi + 226 pp., is an ambitious and significant work which uses the Zižek-inflected vocabulary of lacanian psychoanalysis to argue that the stalinist hero’s virility and strength is a fantasy to compensate for anxieties over mutilation and disability. K. analyses both literary and filmic texts of the stalin era, but also looks at recent filmic and literary treatments of the stalin period by Pelevin and livnev.

evgeny dobrenko, Stalinism and the Production of History: Museum of the Revolution, trans. sarah Young, edinburgh u.P., ii + 263 pp., is less ground-breaking but still important, arguing that stalinist history film detraumatizes history. it is a translation of Музей революции. Советское кино и сталинский исторический нарратив, mw, novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 417 pp.; the english edition has a subject index, the Russian only a name index.

a. Bliumbaum, ‘Оживающая статуя и воплещенная музыка: контексты “Строгого юноши”’ NLO, 89:138–89. J. Hicks, ‘lost in translation? early soviet sound film abroad’, norris, Insiders, 113–29, challenges the view that soviet sound film of the 1930s was not seen and had no influence abroad. P. Kenez, ‘the picture of the enemy in stalinist films’, ib., 96–112, reworks a chapter of the author’s 1992 book Cinema and Soviet Society, 1917–1953. e. Widdis, ‘the cinematic pastoral

Russian Studies874

of the 1930s’, Kivelson, Picturing Russia, 175–80, discusses savchenko’s 1934 film Гармонь , the first soviet musical, as an example of ‘stalinist pastoral’. e. Widdis, ‘Clothing otherness in soviet cinema before 1953’, norris, Insiders, 48–67, highlights the use of clothing to mark characters ideologically, but shows how this becomes blurred in the stalin era. J. Woll, ‘under the Big top: american goes to the Circus’, ib., 68–80, looks at the representation of foreigners in aleksandrov’s Circus. s. shkol nikov, ‘Тяжкий путь кинохроникера’, IK, 5:97–105; 6:95–105: the first article is a frank account of the chaos of the first months after June 1941, and recounts how cameraman arkadii shafran was captured and then escaped from the Germans; the second article contains a memoir of a cameraman with the fleet on the Bering strait, and an account of the filming of the taking of the Reichstag. see also ‘“Главное у американцев — в скупости и уважении к зрителю”. Стенограммы семинара по освоению опыта американского кино, 1940–1941,’ KZ, 86:154–214, and Ol ga dombovskaia, ‘Неизвестная киноработа Дмитрия Шостаковича’, KZ, 87:77–81.

the thaw. sergei Kapterev, Post-Stalinist Cinema and the Russian Intelligentsia, 1953–1960: Strategies of Self-representation, De-Stalini-zation, and the National Cultural Tradition, saarbrücken, müller, 420 pp., is a reassessment of the period which stresses the thaw’s humanist recasting of a Russian cultural tradition with ‘universal appeal’, though it excludes cinema produced in non-Russian studios. sudha Rajagopalan, Leave ‘Disco Dancer’ Alone! Indian Cinema and Soviet Movie-Going After Stalin, new delhi, Yoda, xvi + 241 pp., examines the phenomenal popularity of indian films in the ussR from the 1950s to the later 1980s.

W. Beilenhoff and s. Hänsgen, ‘speaking about images: the voice of the author in Ordinary Fascism’, SRSC, 2:141–53, considers a number of aspects of the famous documentary’s style, including its voice-over commentary and its use of stills. this article’s formal emphasis is complemented by a memoir published alongside it examining the film’s negotiation of the censorship system: maya turovskaya, ‘some documents from the life of a documentary film’, SRSC, 2:155–65. the same film is also the subject of J. Woll, ‘mikhail Romm’s Ordinary Fascism’, in Kivelson, Picturing Russia, 224–29.

V. Chernetsky, ‘Visual language and identity performance in leonid Osyka’s A Stone Cross: the roots and the uprooting’, SRSC, 2:269–80, examines this neglected 1968 example of ukrainian ‘poetic’ cinema. J. Graffy, ‘scant sign of the thaw: fear and anxiety in the representation of foreigners in the soviet films of the Khrushchev years’, Hutchings,

Film Studies 875

Others, 27–46, shows that stalin-era clichés and fear of foreigners persisted in the thaw. O. Kovalov, ‘“Четвертый смысл” “Застава Ильича”: гипотеза прочтения кинотекста’, IK, 10:73–72; 11:95–103, sees Застав Ильича as having been banned for stressing the cynicism of its characters, and the banality of their world, especially in its treatment of space.

stagnation era. a. deBlasio, ‘the new-Year film as a genre of post-war Russian cinema’, SRSC, 2:43–61, sees the stagnation-era roots of enduring aspects of contemporary Russian cinema, and argues that Riazanov’s 1975 Ирония судьбы, или с легким паром initiated a genre that has outlived the soviet union. J. First, ‘making soviet melodrama contemporary: conveying “emotional information” in the era of stagnation’, SRSC, 1:21–42, adds considerably to the recent consideration of melodrama in soviet and post-soviet culture by examining how the mode was adapted to the exigencies of the stagnation era. d. Gillespie, ‘“the italians are coming!” italy and the “other” in soviet cinema’, Hutchings, Others, 47–61, looks at representations of italy and italians as the most important Western european image of ‘otherness’ in the films of tarkovskii, mikhalkov and Riazanov.

lipovetskii, Веселые человечки, contains a number of essays relating to the animated films of the 1970s, most notably K. Kliuchkin, ‘Заветный мультфильм: причины популярности Чебурашки’ (360–77), and l. Kaganovsky, ‘Гонка вооружений, трансгендер, и застой: Волк и Заяц в кон/подтексте холодной войны’ (378–92).

Glasnost’, 1990s and to the Present. Kinokultura (online), 21, consists of articles generated by the Pittsburgh Russian Film symposium of 2008, under the title ‘the ideological Occult: Russian Cinema under Putin’, which attempt to identify emerging trends in contemporary Russian cinema through the analysis of a wide range of recent films. the articles are: s. Graham, ‘two decades of post-soviet cinema: taking stock of our stocktaking’; s. norris, ‘Packaging the past: cinema and nationhood in the Putin era’; m. drozdova, ‘tremors: various types of unrest’; a. Kiselev, ‘“no power can force us to live badly”’; G. dolgopolov, ‘liquidating the happy end of the Putin-era’.

B. Beumers, ‘Killers and gangsters: the heroes of Russian blockbusters of the Putin era’, pp. 204–55 of Media, Culture and Society in Putin’s Russia, ed. stephen White, Basingstoke, Palgrave macmillan, xiii+ 248 pp., surveys the regeneration of the Russian cinema market and recent Russian popular films’ transition from heroism in a virtual environment, to one encoded as real. P. Posefsky, ‘Russian gangster films as popular history: genre, ideology and memory in Pavel lungin’s

Russian Studies876

Tycoon’, SRSC 2:299–325, also focuses on the gangster theme, but the emphasis here is more on the representation of history. K. Bogoslovskaia and s. solntseva, ‘Конструирование “сериальных реальностей,”’IK, 7:137–49, through the use of focus-group research, attempts to find out what female viewers see in contemporary Russian tV series. n. Condee, ‘From emigration to e-migration: contemporaneity and the former second World’, pp. 235–49 of Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity, ed. terry smith, Okwui enwezor and nancy Condee, durham–london, duke u.P., xviii +437 pp., finds evidence in a number of recent Russian films of a crisis of soviet-Russian modernity marked by ‘deterritorialization’. s. Graham, ‘the new american other in post-soviet Russian cinema’, Hutchings, Others, 95–110, traces post-soviet Russian cinema’s attempts to define identity through an engagement on the one hand with images of america, americans and Western values more broadly, and on the other with the naturalism of chernukha. Y. Furman, ‘Shamara: writing and screening the female body’, SRSC, 2:167–81, looks at natal´ia andreichenko’s 1994 adaptation of svetlana Vasilenko’s novel in the wider context of representations of the female body in post-soviet culture, arguing that it represents a departure. m. lipovetsky, ‘in the cuckoo’s nest: from a postcolonial wondertale to a post-authoritarian parable’, Hutchings, Others, 62–76, sees Rogozhkin’s The Cuckoo as paradoxically strengthening the patriarchal paradigm of power despite its apparent postcolonial tendencies, and thus expressing post-soviet society’s fear of change. s. m. norris, ‘Fools and cuckoos: the outsider as insider in post-soviet war films’, norris, Insiders, 143–62, looks at Rogozhkin’s The Cuckoo and Konchalovskii’s House of Fools as challenges to the traditions of the Russian war film by focusing on outsiders; id., ‘the old ladies of postcommunism: Gennadii sidorov’s Starukhi and the fate of Russia’, RusR, 67:580–96, argues that the film contests dominant images of the Russian rural world by showing old women, not men, revitalizing the nation. there is a curious link between this interpretation and that of R. salys, ‘Gleaning meaning: Harvest Time’, RusR, 67:484–97, which looks at marina Razbezhkina’s 2004 debut feature Vremia zhatvy as a rewriting of the collective farm theme, polemicizing with the musical comedies on this theme from the 1930s and 1940s, and argues that it is the only cinematic engagement with the stalin era which focuses upon the female peasant. K. sarsenov, ‘Russian marital migrants in contemporary film’, Hutchings, Others, 184–98, surveys a number of films treating Russian women who leave Russia to marry foreigners, seeing todorovskii’s Interdevochka (1989) as pivotal. O. sulkin, ‘identifying the enemy in contemporary Russian

Film Studies 877

film’, norris, Insiders, 113–26, surveys three trends in representations of enemies in contemporary Russian film, seeing these trends as having political analogues in Russian society, and constituting proof of a fragile pluralism.

there are a number of studies looking at images of Russians in the western media, which do not properly belong to this survey of Russian film. the most noteworthy is probably the issue of SRev (67:1–87) with eight articles discussing sacha Baron-Cohen’s Borat.

On humour and satire in post-soviet film, see a. Prokhorov, ‘debunking myths old and new: iurii mamin’s satires in soviet and post-soviet cinema’, pp. 101–15 of Uncensored? Reinventing Humor and Satire in Post-Soviet Russia, ed. Olga mesropova and seth Graham, Bloomington, slavica, viii + 246 pp., and Birgit Beumers, ‘the peculiarities of Russian national cinema in the Rogozhkin period’, ib., 117–32.

Collections of screenplays now appear with increasing frequency, and whilst not entirely scholarly, are a very useful resource for the scholar of contemporary Russian cinema. a particularly useful example, which includes interviews relating to each of the director’s films, is Konstantin lopushanskii, Русская симфония. Киноповести, киносценарии, интервью, sPb, aleteia, 349 pp. also of note is Pavel lungin, Такси блюз и другие киносценарии, sPb, seans–amfora, 445 pp.

4. individual directors

Balabanov. a. anenome, ‘about killers, freaks, and real men: the vigilante hero of aleksei Balabanov’s films’, norris, Insiders, 127–41, examines the development of B.’s male hero figures in Brother, Brother 2 and War, contrasting them with those in Of Freaks and Men. a. suk hoverkhov, ‘Пространство подростка. Киноязык Алексея Балабанова’, IK, 1:65–74, argues that, despite differing from one another visually, B.’s films are consistent and distinct especially in their creation of a rhythm in which dialogue and editing are interdependent. F. White: ‘Of Freaks and Men: aleksei Balabanov’s critique of degenerate post-soviet society’, SRSC 2:281–97, argues that the film offers a postmodern commentary on contemporary Russia, finding corruption in the very pre-revolutionary past so often heralded as a corrective to the soviet period .

eisenstein. mike O’mahony, Sergei Eisenstein, london, Reaktion, 218 pp., is a life and works aimed at the broadest of readerships, which consequently tends to follow well-worn paths, using no archival research and almost no Russian language sources. nevertheless, it contains sensitive readings of the films, asks interesting questions and

Russian Studies878

explores a number of the whys in a much more productive manner than previous biographies which have brought new material to light.

J. neuberger, ‘Visual dialectics: murderous laughter in eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible’, Kivelson, Picturing Russia, 201–06, examines laughter in the Fiery Furnace scene from Part ii. J. neuberger, ‘eisenstein’s cosmopolitan Kremlin: drag queens, circus clowns, slugs, and foreigners in Ivan the Terrible’, norris, Insiders, 81–95, argues that e.’s presentation of foreigners in the film defies stalinist xenophobia and subtly celebrates cosmopolitan plurality. also on the film see d. Gillespie, ‘sergei eisenstein and the articulation of masculinity’, NZSJ, 42:1–53. see also V. Zabrodin, ‘К истории постановки Бежина луга. Монтаж документов’, KZ, 86:242–82; d. Biltereyst, ‘“Will we ever see Potemkin?”: the historical reception and censorship of eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin in Belgium (1926–32)’, SRSC, 2:5–19.

this year has seen a number of significant publications of unpub-lished original works by e.: ‘Catch up and overtake’, ed., introd. and trans. R. taylor, SRSC 2:217–38, makes available for the first time a 1932 article by eisenstein about Hollywood and his visit to the usa; “Американская диафрагма открывается”. Режиссерские этюды Сергея Эйзенштейна’, KZ, 86:227–41; ‘spain’, KZ, 87:12–29; ‘Эйзенштейн—Уилсон: диалог на полях книги, KZ, 87:30–53.

muratova. Kira Muratova : iskusstvo kino, ed. Zara K. abdullaeva, mw, novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 417 pp., is a substantial if diffuse collection of essays by the author with interpolated memoirs, and essays by others. ‘Люди и положения’ (13–41), conducts a chronological survey of m.’s career with many quotations from interviews. there then follow a number of other essays by the author tracing particular themes or ‘leitmotifs’ (announced by the titles of the chapters) in m.’s work: ‘Смерть’ (67–89); ‘Дети’ (95–105); ‘Животные’ (106–20). the book also includes two essays on specific films: ‘Мистерия-Буфф. (Астенический синдром)’ (121–46); ‘Общество зрелищ. (Чеховские мотивы)’ (277–92); ‘№ 18 (Два в одном)’ (299–320). a. then examines aspects of m.’s filmic style in similarly impressionistic essays: ‘Люди и актеры’ (155–77); ‘Монолог’ (184–202); ‘Среда’ (203–19); ‘Рефрены’ (227–39); ‘Композиции’ (240–68). the volume also includes various reflections upon muratova and her style by prominent film critics and those who have worked with her: n. Riazantseva, ‘К сожалению короткие встречи’ (42–66); m. turovskaia, ‘Низзя’ (90–105); H.-J. schlegel, ‘Ритм’, (147–52); V. Gvozditskii, ‘Особь не актерская’ (180–83); n. dziubenko, ‘Интонация’ (220–39); a. Vasil ev, ‘Правила игры (269–76); G. Kariuk, ‘Кира видит насквозь’ (293–98).

Film Studies 879

mikhail iampolskii, Muratova. Opyt kinoantropologiia, sPb, seans, 308 pp., is more insightful, but lacking contextual colour. this claims to be the first book about muratova in Russian, which is true in the sense that it is the first singly authored book about the director. it is certainly a very important attempt to define m’s filmic world [kinomir], which the author praises for standing outside the ‘bankrupt Russian cinematic tradition’ and creating a sustained philosophically informed reflection upon humanity, an ‘anthropology’ embedded in a film style described as an ‘antisymbolism’ or ‘descriptive phenomenology.’

i. sandomirskaia, ‘a glossolalic Glasnost and the re-tuning of the soviet subject: sound performance in Kira muratova’s Asthenic Syndrome’, SRSC, 2:63–83, sees the film’s use of sound as the key to appreciating it as the most insightful analysis of the Perestroika period. see also J. taubman, ‘Kira muratova’s eccentric cinema’, pp. 133–44 of Uncensored?, Reinventing Humor and Satire in Post-Soviet Russia, ed. Olga mesropova and seth Graham, Bloomington, slavica, viii + 246 pp. i. shilova, ‘Renata litvinova: actress and persona’, Kinokultura, 19, considers the creation of l.’s acting persona and m.’s use of it.

Protazanov. KZ, 88, is entirely devoted to the films of P. its contents are as follows: V. listov, ‘Экранная проекция Пиковой дамы’ (25–31); P. Rollberg, ‘Три Отца Сергия’ (32–43); m. Kireeva and e. margolit, ‘Фильма, которой не было. Томми и проблемы раннего звукового кино в СССР’ (44–52); t. sergeeva, ‘Кинематограф Якова Протазанова: миром правят страсти’ (53–64); iu. tsivian, ‘Жест и монтаж: еще раз о русском стиле в раннем кино’ (65–78); V. Korotkii, ‘Малоизвестный Протазанов. О возможности воссоздания визуального облика несохранившихся фильмов режиссера на основе рецензионного и историографического материала’ (79–86); n. nusinova, ‘Протазанов в эмиграции’ (87–103); ‘“Твое желание — Москва или Берлин”. Переписка Я.А. Протазанова с Ф.В. Протазановой. 1920–1923’ (104–55); i. Grashchekova, ‘Яков Протазанов — режиссер православного кино!?..’ (178–86); a. Gusev, ‘Протазанов — пионер бульварного кинематографа’ (187–92); d. Kurakina-mustafina, ‘Дьяволиада Протазанова’ (193–203); a. deriabin, ‘Вера Эри. И все-таки она существовала’ (204–06); Е. Khokhlova, ‘Протазанов и Кулешов: противники или союзники?’ (207–14); P. Bagrov, ‘Протазанов и становление высокой комедии в русском кино’ (215–32); V. Batalin and G. malysheva, ‘Реконструкция фильма Я. Протазанова Рождество в окопах’ (233–39); ‘Оливер Твист. Неснятый фильм Протазанова. Сценарий. Документы’ (240–314); a. lopatin, ‘Яков Протазанов и жанр кинороманса’

Russian Studies880

(315–27); n. Rostova, Протазанов и традиции отечественного театра’ (328–32); l. shagalova, ‘”Я снималась у Протазанова...”’ (333–34); Член парламента. Титры фильма’ (335–45); Я.А. Протазанов. Фильмография, (346–409).

see also J. Graffy, ‘the foreigner’s journey into consciousness in early soviet cinema: the case of Protazanov’s Tommi’, norris, Insiders, 1–22.

sokurov. J. alaniz, ‘“nature”, illusion and excess in sokurov’s Mother and Son’, SRSC, 2:183–204, argues that instead of presenting a view of nature free from human intervention, sokurov in fact carefully manipulates his images of nature, and draws on a range of intertexts, especially Romantic traditions of landscape painting. see also i. deKeghel, ‘sokurov’s “Russian ark”: reflections on the Russia/europe theme,’ Hutchings, Others, 77–94. thorsten Botz-Bornstein, Films and Dreams: Tarkovsky, Bergman, Sokurov, Kubrick, and Wong Kar-wai , lanham, md, Rowman and littlefield, xi + 161 pp., reflects superficially upon the painterly, and the ‘image ideology’ of sokurov, and is similarly weak on tarkovskii (31–35).

tarkovskii. andrei tarkovskii, Мартиролог. Дневники 1970–86, Florence, istituto internazionale andrej tarkovskij, 623 pp., the Russian edition of the diaries, is an important event for the study of t. While it proclaims itself the first complete edition in Russian of the diaries, and is conceived of as the first part of a complete edition of t.’s writings, the text differs from other publications, lacks a proper scholarly apparatus and is likely to have been compiled according to non-scholarly principles.

Paola Pedicone and aleksandr lavrin, Тарковские. Отец и сын в зеркале судьбы, mw, enas, 408 pp., is a highly variegated collection of memoir accounts, interviews, and reflections on the lives of arsenii and andrei tarkovskii, tied together by l.’s own recollections. Феномен Андрея Тарковского в интеллектуальной и художественной культуре, ed. evgenii tsymbal and Viacheslav Okeanskii, ivanovo, talka, 224 pp., tends overwhelmingly to concentrate on religious, philosophical and literary contexts and parallels in t.’s work. essays that stand out and do not follow this pattern include n. savchenkova, ‘Эдипов конфликт в творчестве Андрея Тарковского’ (90–98), and e. tsymbal, ‘Рождение Сталкера: первый выбор натуры’ (119–29).

Андрей Тарковкий. Ностальгия., ed. Paola Volkova, mw, ast — Khranitel -Zebra e, 495 pp., contains various memoirs about t. together with the Russian book publication of his lectures, known in english as Sculpting in Time. a significant work, chiefly for its highly attentive readings of the films, is Robert Bird, Andrei Tarkovsky: Elements of

Film Studies 881

Cinema, london, Reaktion, 248 pp. Tarkovsky, ed. nathan dunne, london, Black dog, 463 pp., is an ambitious but very uneven collection of essays ranging from the insightful and informative to the self-indulgent. notable amongst its achievements are the first publication in english of the influential essay by J.-P. sartre, ‘letter on the critique of ivan’s childhood’ (34–45). the other essays are: a. Rogatchevski, ‘Zoya in the mirror: leo arnshtam’s influence on andrei tarkovsky’ (46–57); V. strukov, ‘Virtualisation of self and space in tarkovsky’s Solaris’ (58–79); G. loughlin, ‘tarkovsky’s trees’ (81–95); a. Renfrew, ‘Before learning to speak: genre in tarkovsky’s early features’ (96–121); s. sandler, ‘the absent father, the stillness of film: tarkovsky , sokurov, and loss’ (126–47); V. Johnson and G. Petrie, ‘Painting and film: Andrei Rublev and Solaris’ (149–59); J. macgillivray, ‘andrei tarkovsky’s madonna del parto’ (161–75); V. Golstein, ‘the energy of anxiety’ (177–205); R. Bird, ‘the imprinted image’ (207–29); B. sarkar, ‘threnody for modernity’ (234–57); J. Quandt, ‘tarkovsky and Bresson: music, suicide, apocalypse’ (258–81); n. dunne, ‘tarkovsky and Flaubert: The Sacrifice and Saint Anthony’ (282–301); n. synessios, ‘From wood to marble: tarkovsky’s journey to ithaca’ (302–19); d. miall, ‘Resisting interpretation’ (320–33); e. tsymbal, ‘sculpting the stalker: towards a new language of cinema’ (338–51); i. Brown, ‘tarkovsky in london: the production of Boris Godunov’ (352–69); B. menzel, ‘tarkovsky in Berlin’ (370–85); m. Forster, ‘What would tarkovsky do?’ (394–405).

also of interest are l. Kaganovsky, ‘Solaris and the white, white screen’, Kivelson, Picturing Russia, 230–32, and a. skalandis, ‘Машина желаний’, IK, 2:104–27. using excerpts from diaries, correspondence and some memoirs, this latter article documents, but also examines, the relationship between tarkovskii and the strugatskii brothers, with particular attention to the making of Сталкер, underlining the point of view of the strugatskii brothers. a. and B. strugatskii, ‘Ведьма’, IK, 2:129–46, is the first publication of an early treatment for tarkovskii’s last film, Жертвоприношение.

Vertov. dziga Vertov, Из наследия. Vol. 2. Статьи и выступления, mw, eisenstein tsentr, 648 pp., is a much fuller collection of V.’s writings and more reliable than the previous 1966 collection. unlike Vol. 1 of this edition, however, it does not contain the excellent commentaries of Russia’s leading V. specialist, a. deriabin.

m. iampol skii, ‘Смысл приходит в мир. Заметки о семантике Дзиги Вертова’, KZ, 87:54–65; O. Kovalov, ‘Наш ответ Джойсу’, IK, 3:70–80; 4:52–61, attempts to see Vertov’s modernism in a new light by comparing Man with a Movie Camera to Ulysses and discussing

Russian Studies882

images of women in the same film and Lullaby. l. m. mjolsness, ‘dziga Vertov’s Soviet Toys: commerce, commercialization and cartoons’, SRSC, 2:247–67, is the first significant attempt in english to consider Vertov’s animated films. see also t. tode, ‘Дзига Вертов и Ла Сарраз’, KZ, 87:108–17.

V. uKRainian studiesPOstPOned