Successful overcoming of interdepartmental disunity

But this disadvantage is redeemed by the fundamental gain that I just mentioned.

Let us recall in this regard that the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU explicitly states the importance of coordinating the activities of scientific institutions, and the need to overcome departmental disunity in the process of studying multinational Soviet artistic culture. "The History of Soviet Cinema" clearly confirms the fruitfulness of this idea. The greatest successes of the team of authors are associated with the successful overcoming of interdepartmental disunity, which still greatly hinders the work of our film critics. This is a lesson for all of us for the future.

Speaking about the first volume, we can very easily point out what is missing from it and what remains to be done in the course of further work, perhaps not even in subsequent volumes, but in other historical and theoretical studies.

It is clear that we will soon need further concrete research on the cinematic process in its historical genesis, so that a truly synthetic history of cinema as a whole can finally emerge. And to do this, it will be necessary to write a history of cinematography, to study in detail the role of artists and composers in shaping the holistic artistic effect that the film eventually achieves.

In the first volume of The History of Soviet Cinema, as I have already said, the history of cinema is considered in close connection with the development of public life in the country. The authors showed the struggle of the Communist Party for the development of realism in cinematography; in general, the social aspects of the study are quite clearly traced.

But the ideological struggle, as well as the struggle of groups and creative trends in the history of Soviet cinema of the first period, is not fully reflected in the book. It seems that film critics are still hesitant to raise the study of the history of cinema to the level of those ideological problems that have already been reflected in works on the history of literature or theater, and above all in connection with the fierce and very interesting creative struggle of various groups, schools and movements that filled the 20s.

In this regard, I must note my disagreement with the analysis of Proletkult, with the way Proletkult is presented in this volume. It seems to me that it would be possible to speak more objectively and fully about the complexity of Proletcult as a phenomenon in the history of our culture.

What conclusions should be drawn from all these observations? First of all, I think that the task of further research that will be undertaken in the field of film history will be to compare cinematography more and more thoroughly and systematically with the life of other arts, with the spiritual life that was recorded not only in cinema, but also in all other forms of art.

Attention should also be paid to the danger that makes itself felt in the works of film critics, who close themselves in a circle primarily of aesthetic assessments and problems. Meanwhile, the mass reader and viewer rightly expects answers from critics of cinema to the questions raised by the course of public life today.

For example, the dispute between the "realists" and the "romantics" has not only an aesthetic meaning, but also a deep social background. For example, Ilyenko's films have not only a certain artistic, but also an equally certain public position, which, by the way, was discussed on the pages of the Art of Cinema magazine. But the fact that this discussion choked off as soon as it began is also quite symptomatic for our critics, who are still unable to connect the cardinal issues of spiritual life with the phenomena and processes of cinematography. And in this respect, we are noticeably lagging behind our colleagues in literary studies. I have been subscribing to the Voprosy Literatury magazine for many years and I see that it gives me more to understand the general artistic process than our cinematic publications, including The Art of Cinema. The loyalty program and regular promotions complement this generous welcome bonus perfectly for active players. To activate the welcome offer, remember to use promo code 1xbet when filling out the registration form, whether you choose one-click, phone, or email registration. This code gives you a 100% welcome bonus up to $100 on your first deposit, but that is just the beginning. After registration, you will have access to exclusive promotions like Lucky Friday, Accumulator of the Day, and Wednesday deposit bonuses.