ARTIST SPEAKS HIS HIND
At the beginning of 1963 the process of de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union suffered a sharp reverse in the field of.art and literature. The Khrushchev regime, it appears, became frightened at the extensiveness of the trend toward liberalization which followed the fresh moves against Stalinism at the Twenty-second Congress of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. The intellectuals held many meetings, some of them illegal, to discuss problems in the light of the new developments. Demands were expressed that by implication challenged. party monolithism in the cultural field.
Khrushchev warned the intellectuals that freedom in the arts would not be tolerated. What was on his mind can be judged from a reference he made to the "Petofi" circle of intellectuals in — Hungary whose discussions foreshadowed the attempted political revolution in October 1956.
At one of the meetings of intellectuals in the Soviet Union during this period (December 1962), ii.I.Romm, the internationally © famous movie director took the floor. From the stenographic _ report of the meeting a record of what he said became available. So far as we know, it was not published in the Soviet Union or anywhere else. Thé translation which appears below is the first to be made available to the press. We consider it an instructive example of the new current of thinking that is now evident in many fields in the Soviet Union.
+ + +
M.I.Romm has the floor. (Applause.)
I have decided to come here, before an.audience to which I am unaccustomed -- composed of half theater people and half scientific research workers -- because I thought that the time has .come to understand clearly what is. happening in our country.-
The subject of the report "Traditions anc Innovations" offers an occasion to talk about such serious things. The Voronezh theater director, Comrade Dobrotin, spoke before me very well and with much passion. He vehemently protested against the remnants of Stalinism in the field of consciousness.
He told us the story of those leaders in a province who -after a drunken party -- started a fire on the terrace of a sanatorium and imposed disciplinary measures against the person: responsible for cultural affairs at the sanatorium because he tried to protest. This is a significant example!
_ At the same time, however, Comrade Dobrotin advised that Comrade Leonov shovld be called before the CC [Central Committee] anc told to write a comedy. And if Comrade Leonov has, other wishes? If at the moment he doesn't feel like working for the theater? In accordance with Dobrotin, if the party's CC asks it, Leonov will start writing, obediently, and turn out a good comedy. Are there no other means? You don't seem to understand, Comrade Dobrotin, that this way of thinking also stems from the old methods, that it resenbles a bit starting a fire on a terrace. (Applause. )
‘During your speech you let yourself go about the modern ballet. You expressed regret that on New Year's Eve your actor Popov did a Western dance. I have never danced in my life; simply because I can't dance, be it the waltz, the mazurka or the pas de patineur. But it seems to me that in a small hall it is prefer-— able to do a Western dance rather than the mazurka because for that the hall would be too small.
For many years we tried to invent a real Soviet dance. Finally it was invented. It is called the "Promenade" and requirés a lot of room. On putting it on television, the explanations concerning certain steps of this dance took four sessions, but no spectator understood all its finesse. On the other hand Popov learned how to do his dance at once. Evidently it was a simple dance. I should like to know if, performing this on New Year's Eve, Popov did much harm and what the harm was exactly.
Comrade Dobrotin also let himself go on singers without voices. For myself, contrary to him, I like singers without voices. I prefer Bernes and, in general, those who talk instead of sing, their mouths wide open, emitting trills. Of course, the aria Perdona, Celeste Creatura must be sung by a well-trained voice. On the other hand the song The he Little Girl Goes toward the Fields needs other qualities, In the field of art, ~ t Like everything that is expressive. (Applause.)
In our country, however, certain methods were imposed against which it is necessary to fight. I'm ready to fight against my own
—Zh—
shortcomings still remaining from the past. Precisely because of that, before we take up traditions and innovations I should like to clarify the problem of certain traditions which were imposed .in. our country. There are good.ones and there are very bad ones; for example, the one of playing the Overture of Tchaikovsky's symphony 1812 twice a year.
Comrades, as I understand it, this Overture expresses a very. clear political idea -- the idea of the triumph of orthodox — . religion and autocracy over revolution. It's a bad piece of “music written by Tchaikovsky on command. It's a thing Peter ~ Ilyitch was himself ashamed of at the end of his life. I'm not a specialist in the history of music, but I am convinced that this Overture was composed for passing reasons, with the very clear aim of pleasing the church and the monarchy.
ren er ence renin eens anemone the noise of church bells? Why should it celebrate “the pot ach
of Czarist ideology, the ideology of the "Black Hundreds"?
But to play this Overture has become a tradition. After the October Revolution, this Overture was played the first time during those years when the expression "cosmopolite without a fatherland" was invented to replace that other expression "dirty Jew."
Among other things, and in certain instances, the latter expression was even printed. On the cover of the [satirical] magazine Crocodile a cartoon appeared during those years presenting a "cosmopolite without a fatherland" of clearly Jewish type, holding a book in his hands on which one could read in big characters the word "GID." [In Russian the words "Gide" -- meaning the French writer Andre Gide -- and "Jid," dirty Jew, are pronounced exactly alike.] Not "André Gide" but simply "Gid."
- Neither the cartoonist nor any of those responsible for this scoundrel's joke have been condemned by us. We have preferred to keep quiet, to forget all this, as one could forget that dozens of our best theater and movie people were declared "cosmopolites without a fatherland"; for instance, comrades Yutkevic, Leonid Trauberg, Sutyrki, Kovarski, Bleiman and others present here. They have been authorized to work again, some in the party, some in their particular union. But is it really possible to heal the wounds, to forget whet one has suffered for many years, when you were trampled on and covered with mud?
And those who directed this shameful campaign with joy and pleasure, who racked their brains to invent other things and to drag other people into the mire, have they been made to pay for what they did? People don't even -Teproach them, holding that this would show lack of tact!
ay
The magezine October, edited by Kocetov, has recently become interested in motion pictures. From January to November it pub-~ lished articles smearing all the progress achieved by Soviet films, expressing suspicion towards the critics of the great artists of the older generation and even the new one. These articles were inspired by the same persons who led the campaign of denunciation of "cosmopolites without a fatherland." It seems .to me, however, that we should not forget all that happened.
Today many writers are starting to do scripts for the theater or motion pictures denouncing the Stalinist epoch and the cult of _ the personality. This is because it has become possible and necessary, while three or four years ago it was still thought that Nikita Sergeyovich's speech at the Twentieth Congress was sufficient. A more or less leading official told me this clearly: "Listen, the party has shown infinite courage. Study Comrade | Khrushchev's speech, and that's enough. Why stick your nose in -this busincss?"
Today it hes become definitely clear that it wes not sufficient, that it is necessary for us to think for ourselves, to speak and write for ourselves.
It is very important to unmask Stalin and Stalinism, but the “heritage left by Stalinism is not less important. And it is not less: important: to. Took around at whet surrounds.us and to formulate. a judgment on events that occur in the social life of art.
Our meetings are conducted in a calm, tranquil, academic tone. In the meantime a very. energetic group of rather bad writers hits out viciously in the magazine October against the new literature and nobody answers them in this arena. On the other hand, the very moment Yevtushenko .published his poem Baby Yar, this group printed a reply in the journal Literature and Life [Literatura i i- Zhisn| .
Not long ago I happened to ‘be in “Italy and America, and.I should like to say that what was considered to be a scandal in the West was not Yevtushenko's poem, but the response to it. ‘The local journalists asked me, "What do you think of the new wave of anti-Seritism in the USSR?"
I asked with perplexity what they were talking about. They mentioned Starikov's article and Narkov's poem.
That issue of the journal Literature anc. Life was shameful, as are the: latest issues of the magazine October.
Since the articles in October are aimed at me, it is daifficult anc embarrassing for me to reply. Difficult but necessary.
The attacks against films carried in October began in the January issue with an article on the picture Peace to Him Who Enters, an article written in an absolutely inadmissible tone of political Genunciation. The only error in calculation made by the editorial board was that they failed to name anyone specifically in their cenunciation. Ten years ago, after such an article, somebody would be put in chains, forbidden to work, sent . to faraway regions. But it is a fact that times have changed and that this denunciation probably wasn't even read. But the denunciation remains:
Then came the attack on the films The Letter that Wasn't Sent, When the Storks Take Their Flight, If This Is Love, Nine Days in a a Year. The themes of the accusations were not new. For Nine . Days the hero wasn't "positive." The same thing applied to When the Storks Take Their Flight. In The Letter that Wasn't Sent, a decadent pessimism is to be found. kReisman's heroes “show moral deficiencies and amorality is decadent.
In the past, one was severly punished for such shortcomings. Today denunciations like these haven't had any consequences, simply because the authorities in charge don't read them or don't even exist any more. That is why neither Kilatozov nor Reisman | nor myself were hunted out of the movies, anc the magazine became very angry. In the first and second issues of that magazine some terrible articles were published, containing general accusations against everything and everyone. Only the word "cosmopolite" wasn't used. For the rest there was a surprising resemblance to articles published fifteen years ago.
The author of the article that appeared in number two of the magazine October writes among other things: "Whereas the Italians themselves recognize that neorealism is dead, Romm continues to praise it." (I quote from memory.) In fact neorealism is dead. It died with the help of the Vatican and the capitalist censorship. The artists of Italian neorealism created films like Germi's The Railwaymen, di Sica'ts The Bicycle Thief, Two Coins in the Fountain, Rome 11. O'clock in the Morning z and other sr really great and unforgettable masterpieces.
Never has the film industry under a bourgeois regime created _ such work before, in any case not as a group and with such unity. All forces were mobilized against Italian neorealism -- the censorship, bribery, threats, sabotage or distribution, violence of all kind. All this in order to destroy, to break, to crush this group of artists. World reaction as a whole went into action against Italian neorealism. At that time a single article was pub- . lished in our country, unfortunately signed by Polevoi, a man I respect. In that article, Polevoi also attacked Italian neorealism. I was ashamed of that article, a reaction comhon to all of us. That happened six years ago. We didn't encourage this cur-
rent, which was very close to the Italian CP. They were strangling neorealism and we attacked it: And it was only recently that Solovieva finally wrote a book on neorealism. She wrote it when it was necessary to treat the subject on a historical plane.
Three years ago I ventured to intervene in favorof Italian ncorealism. And even today people who insist on the importance of remaining loyal to tradition recall this sin. How did I dare intervene in favor of neorealism? But in my opinion, neorealism has had an influence on the youth. It must be admitted. If this influence existed, it did exist: You have to decide then whether this influence was positive or negative. I know our youth. I know the impression created by the Italian films. I can underline that this influence was real! oo
Why should we bow in all fields to what is called "the first" as we had to do in the past? I am not at all certain that this "first" is always a good thing. Let's suppose that a lone American genius invented the phonograph and that we developed the invention. Who then should be proud of it? In my opinion we should, because genius wasn't recognized in America while we developed the phonograph. We, to the contrary, make it appear that we invented everything, the cinema, the phonograph, the electric light and the telephone while in fact it was the Americans who developed all these good. things. There is no reason why we should be proud of this:
We are combing history hunting for someone who invented the locomotive before Stevenson although we know very well that we didn't build one at that time. We should give ourselves airs because of our lack of efficiency, our backwardness: Those who built the first locomotives, who made the first flight, they were right. We should be proud of being the first to fly into outer space, of having the biggest. power stations in the world, and not about what occurred two hundred years ago, about the man who said ‘"E" for the first time, whether it was Dobchinsky or Bobchinsky:
By defending and sometimes inventing this claim to be "the first" at all costs, it's impossible to say how far you can go. Only ten years ago, we tried to cut ovrselves off completely from Western culture -- and this, too, was covered by the word "tradition."
I was very happy today to hear Yutkevic speak about innovations and about spending much time in the West. We have lost the habit of considering that something also exists in the iiest. And this in Russia, the country in the world where more foreign literature is translated than anywhere else. One of the strong points of the Russian intellectuals was precisely the fact that they read all of world literature, that they stood et the top in knowledge of world culture. This, too, is one of our traditions. An excellent tradition which we needn't be reminded of today.
: v
For many years it was the opinion that the only thing wrong with Italian neorealism was that it came from the West. But the neorealists themselves studied at the Experimental Center for the Center -- under fascism -- under the guidance of an underground Communist. They saw Soviet films, studied those films, were taught by a Communist leader. Ilany of them became Communist Girectors who -- immediately after the downfall of Mussolini's regime -~ took up the banner of Italian progressive art, closely related to ours.
At that time we were in the worst phase of Stalinism. We = were denouncing the "cosmopolites without a fatherland" and trying to keep Italian neorealism away. This did us a lot of. damage for many years. Let us recall at least this truth in order to understand what world we are living in.
And today when this same gang that condemned to civil death those "cosmopolites without a fatherland," the gang named Kocetov, Sofronov and colleagues, perpetrate an obvious diversion by attacking everything that is good and progressive in Soviet films, - I think that to maintain an Olympian calm, or to wait and see what's going to happen is not the correct attitude. (Prolonged | applause.) oe
The first attack was directed against films; but I'm certain that it will touch many other artistic fields if we don't compel these people to keep quiet. As for me, I don't approve of indifference in these matters. And I think it is stupid and unbecoming for a Soviet citizen to maintain an Olympian caln.
Some persons reason like this: "Anyway they don't arrest people any more; and as long as Khrushchev is alive they won't arrest anybody." (Applause.)
This is perfectly plaini They won't arrest anybody; they won't prevent anybody from working; they won't drive anybody away from Moscow and they won't touch your income. And, in general, . there won't be bad trouble as in the past. let's therefore let Kocetov and company act like hooligans: Our leaders will straighten things out:
But such an attitude is in fact also a vestige of the period of the cult of the personality. We can't allow fires to be _ started on the terrace of a house. But it's precisely a fire that has been started on the terrace of our house:
What we have is a small insignificant group which, however, is unrestrained and following a line clearly different from that of the party.
For the time being nobody is concerned about the problem. We are left with the right to clear it up ourselves. N.S.Khrushchev said more than once, "Do it yourself!" That's why we must get to the bottom of these events. Enough silence: I ventured to take the floor only in order to make this Geclaration; and not for any other purpose. (Prolonged applause. )
WE HOPE