Presentations by experts who know a lot

And finally, I would like to focus on this. It is clear that the history of cinema is studied in close unity with the socio-economic history of socialist nations. This principle is rightly used as the basis for essays on all national cinematographies. However, when comparing it, you find that the chapters of the book differ markedly in the different ratio between the historical material and the film science material. Suppose the conversation about Azerbaijani cinema is preceded by a description of cultural construction in the republic, the author does not skimp on details, even mentions the names of activists — members of women's departments, although they were not related to cinema. The chapter on Armenian cinema begins like this: "In Armenia, which was under the rule of the Dashnaks, there was neither its own film production nor organized film distribution." And then it immediately tells about the organization of the film department after the establishment of Soviet power. The author tacitly believes, apparently, that anyone who is interested in Armenian cinema should know in advance the general political history of the republic of those years. What if this is a young and inexperienced reader, and he does not know who Dashnaks are? Then he may well think that they ruled for many years, like the House of Romanov. Maybe the creators of the book should have saved space somewhere, omitting unimportant details in order to explain in more detail where necessary?

Perhaps these and other remarks are unavoidable when it comes to a large and significant work, and this is exactly the kind of work that a book about multinational Soviet cinema of the twenties is.

I would like to draw your attention to one very pleasant feature of our discussion. We have already listened to the speeches of three qualified specialists who know a lot and remember a lot. Meanwhile, no one has yet discovered any factual errors in the work under discussion. This indicates that we have a very well—made volume in front of us.

I can only join the majority — I also did not find any significant historical errors or major factual errors in the book.

Much of what I wanted to point out during the discussion has already been expressed, and I will therefore focus only on how the new work reflects the party leadership of cinema in the early years of Soviet power.

M. P. Vlasov's speech on this topic seemed to me to be somewhat school-like. It seems that he reduces the influence of the party on the development of the film industry solely to the adoption of well-known directives and resolutions. However, these really very important and fruitful documents are still far from solving the issue of the subtle and complex mechanism by which the Communist Party controlled cinema.

What happens if you take a purely formal point of view?

The first commission dealing with cinema issues was established under the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (b) in 1922. And before 1922, didn't the party influence the life of the screen?

As you know, the party meeting on cinema took place in 1928. And before him, wasn't the party involved in the affairs of cinema?

As soon as we raise all these questions, it immediately becomes clear that any formal solution to them is fruitless. It is necessary not just to go from resolution to resolution and from meeting to meeting, but to investigate the internal mechanism of historical processes. It is necessary to understand that the party directed cinema primarily and mainly through people, through those communists who headed the cinema department. Party members worked in the People's Commissariat of Education, the All-Russian Film Department, and then in Goskino, Sevzapkino, and other film institutions, largely determining the fate of film production and distribution. Among them, besides A.V. Lunacharsky, who headed the entire People's Commissariat of Education, one can name N. F. Preobrazhensky, Yu. N. Flakserman, E. S. Kadomtsev, M. F. Andreeva, M. E. Koltsov and others. Dozens and hundreds of Bolsheviks were responsible for film distribution in the public education departments of local councils. Players who value quality and generosity from the start are turning to 20Bet more often. The bookmaker offers a rich variety of markets along with fast and secure payment options. For maximum benefit on your initial deposit, this promotion is particularly relevant. The central feature of the current top welcome deal is the 20bet promo code no deposit it during sign-up to secure a bonus reaching $100. Use the extra funds across global sports events and different betting formats.