Screen 1967-1968 (1968, put in a set in March 1968)
The Resolution of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee "On measures for further development of the social sciences and enhance their role in the building of communism" (Resolution..., 1967) full of standard phrases about the need to "increase" and "strengthen"... But pathetic celebration of the 50th anniversary of the 1917 revolution was the most important political event in the USSR preceding the release of Screen 1967-1968.
Yearbook Screen 1967-1968 was put in a set in March 1968, i.e. a few months before the August invasion of Soviet troops in Czechoslovakia. But the "Prague Spring" is already in full flourish democratic hopes... And these hopes, I think, were the key to change the structure of the yearbook. Rigid administrative arm discarded any film critics’ ratings, but gave way for ideologized materials.
For example, D. Pisarevsky stacked enthusiastic ode to the restored version of the film October (1927): "No, this film is not old, not lost the explosive power of this revolutionary art fiery epic! ... October sings the glory of victorious working class people and Leninist party" (Pisarevsky, 1968, pp.19-20). And then D. Pisarevsky snobbish glorified "panorama of national heroism" in the "historical and revolutionary" film Iron Stream by E. Dzigan (1998-1981) (Pisarevsky, 1968, p. 23).
Jubilee Yearbook, of course, could not pass films about Lenin. V. Baskakov highlighted the "talent embodied the image of the genius of the revolution" (Baskakov, 1968, p.72) in the film Lenin in Poland by S. Yutkevich (1904-1985).
But in general, the compilers of the Yearbook still managed to keep film studies level and published, for example, of two wonderful articles of L. Anninsky.
In his review of the film G. Poloka (1930-2014) The Republic of SHKID L. Anninsky accurately wrote that "the theme of the film is Chekhov's character, a man of the XIX century, an intellectual and humanist, caught in a situation of Sodom and Gomorrah. ... Old-fashioned competition, defenseless Culture with a young and ingenuous naiveté takes ruthless nature of mutual mystification" (Anninsky, 1968, p. 55).
L. Anninsky wrote a significant article about M. Khutsiev’s masterpiece July Rain. The critic asked a very sharp at the time the question: "Khutsiev listen to the rhythm of the modern soul at the decisive moment of choice. The artist talks about spiritual culture, trust, humanity. … In essence, Khutsiev continues the meditation, which was first performed in the movie I am 20 years old. But now with a little more alert. Why?" (Anninsky, 1968, p. 34).
L. Anninsky, of course, could not to answer this question directly, indicating director’s feeling of ‘thaw’s collapse, for censorship reasons. Therefore, instead of a direct answer last sentence of Anninsky’s review was truly a model of allegory (Anninsky, 1968, p. 34)...
S. Freilich (1920-2005) published a positive review about Your Contemporary by Y. Raisman (1903-1994): "This film it is a real battle, opponents do not play in the giveaway, there are broken destinies of people" (Freilich, 1968, p. 14).
Yearbook continued support of poetic cinema. I. Lishchinsky wrote about Umbrella by M. Kobakhidze that "the Georgian cinema is rich in young talent. In this ensemble M. Kobakhidze has original voice and its own melody: mocking, ironic, a little sad, but it is clearly distinguishable, and it is necessary to listen" (Lishchinsky, 1968, p. 63). N. Lordkipanidze generally supported the poetic debut of E. Ishmuhamedov - Tenderness: "The picture is made with obvious, undisguised focus on people susceptible - and mentally, and artistically. If this susceptibility is not, you probably will be bored" (Lordkipanidze, 1968, p. 61).
M. Bleyman’s article about an eccentric in a movie (Beware of the Car, Operation ‘Y’," Prisoner of the Caucasus, 33) (Bleyman 1967, p. 80-82) looks boring and banal today. But the article by Revich (1929-1997) on the fantasy genre (Revich, 1967, pp. 82-86), in my opinion, has not lost a polemical fervor.
Box office champion and audience favorite, Amphibian Man by G. Kazansky (1910-1983) and V. Chebotarev (1921-2010) was the first critic’s object for attack: "What about a A. Belyaev’s novel? This is about tragedy of disillusionment in the society of businessmen and shopkeepers. What are the ideas of the film? Political kept to a depressing straightness, and the art became a melodramatic love triangle and tasteless Ichthyander-Tarzan walks on the roofs" (Revich, 1968, p.83).
Here it is the typical anti-genre approach of ideologically socialist orientated critics, when Soviet criticism demanded a class-political conclusions from exotic folk and fairy tales, mixed with the bright melodramatic stories. As D. Gorelov correctly noted that Amphibian Man became "the first post-Stalin era super-blockbuster. ... A competent producer could see that ocean of gold ... But Chebotarev & Kazansky were in the wild, ugly, ruthless world of freedom, equality and fraternity, where financial profit meant nothing... Critics scolded them for their lightness and attraction... Soviet Screen Journal for the first time blatantly falsified the results of the annual reader's opinions, giving primacy gray and long since dead drama ..." (Gorelov, 2001).
V. Revich addressed all the same working class and political reproach to Hyperboloid of Engineer Garin by A. Ginzburg: "the novels’ most powerful scientific, and social aspect is the mechanics of bourgeois relations, speculation, capitalist economy and morality. But the social side completely dropped out of the detective movie" (Revich, 1968, p. 83).
V. Revich buckled the theme of the ideological confrontation with the West and in the article about the film Mysterious Wall because "the faith in the possibility of contact between all sentient beings is opposed to the concept of fashion in the West disunity people and spiritual isolation of man" (Revich, 1968, p. 84).
Film critic A. Svobodin (1922-1999) positive appreciated the adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's novel Anna Karenina directed by A. Zarkhi (1908-1997) (Svobodin, 1968, p. 40).
The remaining number of pages of the yearbook, as always, took portraits of filmmakers: N. Mikhalkov (Zinoviev, Markov, 1968, pp. 64-66) O. Iosseliani (Dolinsky, Chertok, 1968, pp. 41-45), S. Ursky, A. Batalov, P. Aleynikov, D. Banionis, T. Doronina, R. Bykov (Levshina 1968, pp. 76-79).
Alexander Fedorov, 2016