Screen 1964 (published in 1965, put a set in April 1965)
The first issue of the yearbook’ collection - Screen 1964 - was distinctly "thaw", although its materials, of course, influenced the guiding line of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee Resolutions: "On measures to improve the management of the art of cinematography development" (1962), "Immediate Tasks party's ideological work" (1963) and "On the "Mosfilm" (1964). The latter document, for example, said that filmmakers should "produce movies that reveal the Soviet way of thinking and acting, the Soviet way of life; recreate on screen the story of the struggle of the Communist Party and the Soviet people for the victory of socialism and communism in our country; produce films, exposing the bourgeois way of life, to help the party in its struggle for the triumph of communist ideology" (Resolution..., 1964).
However, Screen 1964 in general looked quite balanced despite all these Resolutions: the materials of the Soviet cinema combined with a large, saturated section of foreign films, festivals and stars, and even with the polemical articles.
For example, very noticeable at the time critics E. Surkov and M. Kuznetsov were the authors of reviews about the film Chairman by Y. Nagibin and A. Saltykov. Actor Mikhail Ulyanov very imressive played the role of Trubnikov - the chairman of one of the post-war collective farms. And E. Surkov (1915-1988) claimed that "those who conceders Trubnikov on the ideal of modern standards of the collective farm manager, is unlikely to do the right thing. ... In order to understand Trubnikov, we must not forget that he is a man, not some ideal personification of some abstractly formulated virtues" (Surkov, 1965, p.36).
M. Kuznetsov (1914-1980) to argue with positive view of E. Surkov: "It is very difficult to understand how such a talented writer as Y. Nagibin ... have lost all sense of proportion, and gave himself entirely to the power of the illustrative flow? And why is the young director Alexey Saltykov, whose work is very rough, but sometimes shows a clear talent, too, succumbed to this?" (Kuznetsov, 1965, p. 42).
Here I must say that untouchable Soviet "cinematic generals" with untouchable "state significant topics" have not been yet in the 1960s. Therefore, it was possible (of course, within the ruling ideology) relatively freely express their opinions. So E. Surkov, even positively assessed Chairman, noting that "the first part of the film is especially good, solid and perfected, but the second part, unfortunately, is not so equivalent. Especially towards the end of the film when the director and screenwriter, wanting to show the changes that have occurred on the farm, do it purely illustrative externally. ... I felt in the final episode of the film even some complacency, as if the authors would have us believe then that all the problems now resolved" (Surkov, 1965, pp. 38-39).
M. Semenov’s article about the film Space Alloy by the future “cinematic general of era of stagnation” T. Levchuk (1912-1998) was very caustic and (rightly so!) absolutely ruthless: "The appearance of the film was preceded by broadcast advertising. It was emphasized that it is not a simple cinematographic, it is a plan of how the hymn "glorious working class." But we can see instead the weak song, even with fake notes. ... No real life, not living people. Instead, we meet with mannequins” (Semenov, 1965, pp. 66-67, 71).
Probably, the title The Regional Secretary of Communist Party would be a strong anti-critical indulgence for any film, even the lowest professional level, in the 1970s - the first half of the 1980s. But at the beginning of the Brezhnev’s era, "the party-ideological" title and topic has not been saved opportunistic opus by V. Chebotarev (1921-2010) from the just verdict of V. Kardin (1921-2008). This critic accused this film in the absence of the real life’s traces (Kardin, 1965, pp. 69-72).
The yearbook scolded (and again - for good reason) and movies on the so-called historical-revolutionary topic. For example, K. Scherbakov ironically remarked that films Mandate and In the Name of Revolution exploit the “moves and situations, images and techniques of expression, which are now, repeating many times, become empty, jaded, commonplace. ... I am far from being able to accuse the authors of Mandate and In the Name of Revolution of plagiarism ... But the lack of their own vision of art sometimes brings such bitter fruit, which does not know and direct borrowing" (Shcherbakov, 1965, pp. 86-87).
It is curious that, thanks to the "thaw", the critic J. Warsawsky (1911-2000) was still able to tell the yearbook the readers even that film I am 20 years has undergone alterations and, therefore, did not immediately came out on the screen: "I've seen all the options this film, and the early and final. What is the essence of reshoots? ... Of course, as always with the alterations do not guard themselves against losses, more or less offensive. Perhaps the most annoying is too cut scene performances of poets at the Polytechnic Museum" (Warsawsky, 1965, p. 45).
Analyzing M. Khutsiev’s film, critic used fairly typical for the 1960s protective method: a reference to the faithfulness of goodies "light Leninist ideals" (Warsawsky, 1965, p. 50).
However, realizing that even this ideological link, perhaps, not at all will make an impression, J. Warsawsky completed his article one more polemical thesis: "You do not agree with me, dear reader? Let us not rush to conclusions, let's see it again, make sure what impact it on our young cinema, on the minds of a new generation of artists and audiences. This film has slow, but powerful steps" (Warsawsky, 1965, p. 52).
And J. Warsawsky, as time has shown, proved to be completely right: M. Khutsiev’s talented film, in fact, turned out to be "long-playing", designed for decades of thinking about the thaw era...
Bright and figuratively review was written by N. Zorkaya (1924-2006) about the satirical comedy by E. Klimov Welcome, or No Trespassing. N. Zorkaya reasonably argued that many of the "troubles come from dogmatism and lack of talent, who are always together and prop each other, although apparently not similar, although dogmatism important inflated, pretends to be a scientist... The film Welcome, or No Trespassing is talented, cheerful and mischievous work of like-minded artists. ... Professional hand, precise installation, master's sense of material: it's all there in Klimov's film" (Zorkaya, 1965, pp. 52-55).
M. Kvasnetskaya (1925-2008) wrote a good review about Competition: "This film is not only creative debut of young director B. Mansurov, and the approval of his peculiar talent - clever and poetic" (Kvasnetskaya, 1965, p. 63). And I. Levshina (1932-2009) was convinced that Competition is not only deserves accolades, but this film is so rich and complex, so difficult for the viewer's perception that the conversation about him should go to some fundamental questions. I saw in the Competition deeply national cinema" (Levshina, 1965, pp. 60-61).
M. Kuznetsov wrote very warm and shrewdly article about the directorial film debut of V. Shukshin This Guy Lives: "Not all perfect in this film, there is something to reproach not only actors, but above all the author, even reproach, but from all admiring heart. However, this uneven film has an amazing, rare integrity, and in addition, V. Shukshin achieved victory in such a difficult area as the problem of the hero. ... That's why this debut is not only successful itself, but promises even more in the future. I think not mistaken to predict that we will happy to meet V. Shukshin and on the pages of magazines and books, and in the cinema" (Kuznetsov, 1965, pp. 137, 142).
The next section of the book dealt with the creative portraits of filmmakers.
For example, I. Solovyova wrote that "Smoktunovsky’s play in Hamlet leaves a wonderful feeling: it seems that the role is changing from time to time, as it can not be changed in the movie, and as happens only in the theater" (Solovieva, 1965, p. 99).
Perhaps the only discordant note in a very successful book, was the boring article of D. Pisarevsky (1912-1990), the chief editor of Soviet Screen magazine, who wrote that Vasilyev brothers’ Chapaev "is one of pictures-titans, in which each new generation of viewers and artists draws spiritual riches and opens its consonant with time. He became part of the lives of the people, a true companion generations" (Pisarevsky, 1965, p. 219).
Alexander Fedorov, 2016