Antiheroes and Heroes in Soviet Films: What They Promoted and Why Did They Fall in Love with Them

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Cinematography in the USSR was one of the most widespread instruments of propaganda, which was supposed to convey clearly defined ideas to the viewer. For this, characters that would be as understandable as possible were ideally suited. There was no question of any semitones, the main character was utterly positive, and negative, one must assume, was negative in everything. Does this mean that the characters turned out to be flat and "plywood", as required by the state censorship, or, nevertheless, the creative staff managed to breathe character and their own value system into them?

Emphasis on comedy as the main genre

A very noticeable role was assigned to cinema, this is evidenced by the fact that Stalin personally actively participated in the creation of many films, and he did not just claim in fact “good - no good”. He was practically part of the team, reading the script, making edits to it, coming up with titles and much more. Specialists call a feature of Soviet cinema its focus on the text. The cinema was perceived as a screen version of the script and it was at it that all efforts were directed, including those of officials.

This attitude persisted until the 70s, and in the 30s it became the most widespread. Because of this bias, the scriptwriters got the most, but the directors turned out to be innocent. For example, Nikolai Erdman, screenwriter for Jolly Fellows, was arrested right on the set. The reason for the arrest was not a sufficiently ideologically consistent text. But the director was considered nothing to do with it, even Stalin believed that there was nothing to take from the director, because he simply translates the written text onto the screen.

At the same time, it is worth giving it its due, cinema was considered an entertainment genre, therefore it was nevertheless assigned an entertainment role. But it was then that the motto "Teach while entertaining" appeared, that is, the ideology had to be presented in an interesting and vivid form, then it was decided to focus on comedy. Since the situation with comedies in the Soviet Union was not particularly good, several directors were sent to America to learn from the experience. The visit turned out to be successful, and then the "Merry Guys" appeared.

The emphasis was on comedy, since the audience got used to it, until that time, when the overwhelming part of the distribution was occupied by foreign cinema, most often the Soviet audience gave preference to comedy. Despite the fact that other genres also existed. However, these were historical, military, documentaries.

After the first domestic comedy was a resounding success, it was decided to create their own Hollywood, even the appropriate place was chosen - in the Crimea. But the principle was completely different, the main emphasis was on a limited number of films, each of which had to be successful. Keeping track of the work of a huge number of screenwriters and directors would be too difficult. Therefore, the scripts were selected at the initial stage.

The usual plot scheme of Soviet comedy was based on mixing with melodrama, because a love story is always well received by the viewer. So, a chance meeting occurs, confusion arises, a quarrel occurs, a struggle for happiness, punishment of negative characters. Justice prevails, and the main characters can safely create a new unit of society.

How real were Soviet comedies and their heroes?

One of the secrets of the popularity of Soviet comedies is that they poured into a ready-made Soviet life and certain moments were clear and understandable to the viewer so much that they were ready to forgive a certain idealization. And, despite the fact that sometimes there were moments when the heroes worked in the fields in national costumes, the films of those times are much more adapted to reality than modern ones.

For example, the description of life in those films was much more believable than in modern films, the characters of which live in huge apartments, while the audience watches the ups and downs of their lives from the Khrushchevs. Or heroines who wake up immediately not just beautiful, but with a full war paint? There is no such thing in the old Soviet cinema.

Another touching feature of Soviet films was that the negative hero was revealed not only by some actions, but also by low labor productivity. In general, the love experiences of the heroes and labor productivity are extremely closely intertwined, and girls like not only beautiful and smart, but also hardworking. And in general, if he works well, his photograph adorns the board of honor, then he cannot be a bad person. Such a connection between work, shock work and love persisted until the 70s, just love, without connection with socially useful activities, could not appear.

It is only at first glance that everything is simple and understandable in films, in fact, everything is thought out to the smallest detail, pluralism of opinions could not arise, because the information that was transmitted to the audience in this way had to be chewed up and clearly understood.

Heroes and antiheroes are defined even without words

In almost any Soviet film, the main role is assigned to the girl, even if the center is a hard worker, a guy, all the same, the key points are spoken from a woman's face. Especially with regard to ideological attitudes, they simply flowed like a mouthpiece of propaganda from beautiful female lips. Perhaps this was considered a more effective method, perhaps this was how the heroine's personal growth was demonstrated, because a huge role was given to the emancipation of Soviet women in cinema.

In addition, it was thanks to the female image that one more trait of the negative hero was revealed. The positive hero is serious, wants to get married, a family, as a unit of society and the basis of the state. The negative one sticks to the girls, deceives them, puts them in a negative light.

The usual storyline unfolds around several heroes: the main characters of the film are a guy and a girl, hardworking, beautiful, honest, but at the same time simple and open. As a rule, both the guy and the girl have friends - spontaneous, funny, a little naive, there are always advisers nearby, people who will disinterestedly help and lend a helping hand. In addition, each hero was clearly identified by social belonging - worker, artist, collective farmer, official. This did not make the image convex; rather, on the contrary, it contributed to the fact that it was even more filled with stereotypes.

The positive hero, as a rule, looked in a certain way, or rather even had a certain external type, which they tried to adjust to the concept of “Soviet citizen”. Usually he was a man of the Slavic type of appearance, with an honest and direct look, regular facial features, tall, stately, well-built, full of health. Sometimes they were a little simple-minded, but a little sly was also welcomed, an image of a person who could not be fooled. Usually such people acted as advisers for the main characters - categorical, stubborn, very honest maximalists. Sergei Stolyarov and Evgeny Samoilov were ideal for these roles, since they made just such an impression.

If we talk about antiheroes, then their appearance was contrasted with the main positive hero. Often this depended on which country the USSR was in confrontation with. In the 30s, the image of the Asian-Eastern type was often exploited, after the Great Patriotic War, the negative characters had hard facial features in German, even the gestures were similar, harsh, categorical, the look was haughty and cold.

Another purely Soviet feature - the antiheroes were perfectly dressed. If the main character is a kind of shirt-guy in a pea jacket and in his hearts crumples the cap and throws it under his feet without regret, then the negative character is a real dandy. He is worried about everything earthly, mortal and material, because he is a greedy grabber who broadcasts exclusively his own interests into the world and is looking for profit in everything. The general picture of his scrupulousness was emphasized by his mannerism, for example, in many films only heroes with a negative characteristic eat with a knife and fork.

Dangerous roles for actors

All this division turned out to be very painful for the actors. Once having agreed to the role of a villain, he could no longer claim the main positive role, he still had to play villains until the end of his film career. However, everything would be fine, because such roles are usually the most exciting and interesting, if the cinematic image was not transferred into real life and the actor would not have to prove that he is a great guy in life.

It was especially difficult for those actors who were "lucky" to be elected to the role of the country's leader. To play Lenin, Stalin meant to become very limited in further roles (if any), because the one who embodied the image of the leader on the screen could not play some rogue even many years later. Therefore, although such roles were considered very tasty, the actors preferred to stay away from them.

But almost always the negative character turned out to be brighter, more charismatic than the main character, and was more memorable to the viewer. Perhaps because all the good heroes were the same, and the bad ones were always bad in different ways. This is the phenomenon of "17 Moments of Spring", the film was supposed to raise the patriotic spirit, but in fact the Nazis turned out to be very romantic and interesting characters.

Speaking of propaganda, it is worth noting that this is neither true, nor a lie, but a certain third parallel that cannot be proved or refuted. It simply exists and can only be fought with through other propaganda, which will sound louder and more confident. In the age of propaganda, Soviet slogans were by no means the worst, as were movies, along with their flat heroes and censored scripts.

Funny bloopers in Soviet films, which were noticed by attentive viewers only prove the fact that even in conditions of strict censorship, it was possible to create masterpieces of cinema.