Paradoxes of Soviet Film Directing (By the Example of R.A. Bykov’s and K.G. Muratova’s Films)

The article aims to analyze the film directing experience of R.A. Bykov and K.G. Muratova, who embody the principles of alternative Soviet cinema. As our research shows, they are united not only by the epoch, but also by archetypal representativeness and personal marginality. This is embodied in the paradoxes of film directing, which are the subject of this research. Both R.A. Bykov and K.G. Muratova were somehow disavowed by the totalitarian regime, and their works were censored. In R.A. Bykov’s case, we also mean his acting work, not just directing. This research is relevant because of the problems of analyzing the narrative content of Russian cinema, and the characteristics of the complex and ambiguous Soviet and post-Soviet period of Russian culture.

The article deals with a psychoanalytic discourse of the creators, reveals the common and specific in their lives and works. Its use is justified due to the paradoxes of the creative personality. According to the author, R.A. Bykov’s inferiority complex is associated with his desire to be the best and to realize his potential in all participation areas: not only as a director and actor but also as an organizer and public figure. K.G. Muratova was forced to constantly prove her existence in film directing due to the specifics of this “non- feminine” kind of activity, and therefore she was creating films that did not correspond to gender stereotypes.

The article substantiates that the determining factor of creativity is, first, the psychological characteristics of the creator’s personality, and secondly, the social context. The author’s task is to test the psychoanalytic discursive method adapted to the main purpose of cultural analysis.

This is explained by the fact that for both the authors, a grotesque theatricalization was a way to comprehend reality and figuratively express their ideas about it, an opportunity to preserve viability in socially and morally intolerant conditions. Archetypal images are the basis for building the drama of a cinematic work. In this article, in the context of R.A. Bykov’s works, the archetypal approach is applied to the film “Aybolit-66” (1967), in the context of K.G. Muratova’s works — to the film “Three Stories” (1997). This allows us to present an in-depth analysis of the main elements of their works, since a single frame or episode is typical for representation of great artists’ works. The author analyzes the male and female archetype, as well as the prototypes of the Child and the Elder implemented in the films. The directors’ appeal to them is dictated by logic, since, according to C. Jung, patterns, being part of the collective unconscious, are universal at the same time when creating and reading a work.

1. Mikhailichenko A.Yu. The Philosophical Analysis of Social Cultural Continuum of Totalitarian Society, Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University], 2000, issue 7 (23), Series: Humanities, pp. 24—29. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/filosofskiy-analiz-sotsialno-kulturnogo-kontinuuma-totalitarnogo-obschestva (accessed 03.06.2020) (in Russ.).

2. Kichin V. Rolan Bykov: I Like to Live, but It Is Very Difficult... On the Birthday of the Great Actor and Director, his Muse Elena Sanaeva to “Russian Gazette”, Rossiiskaya gazeta [Russian Gazette], 2004, no. 3628, November 12. Available at: https://rg.ru/2004/11/12/bykov.html (accessed 03.06.2020) (in Russ.).

3. Bykov R.A. Ya pobit — nachnu snachala!: dnevniki [I’m Beaten — I’ll Start Over!: Diaries]. Moscow, AST Publ., Astrel’ Publ., 2010, 749 p. Available at: https://www.litmir.me/br/?b=208677 (accessed 03.06.2020).

4. Vishnyakov V. To the Memory of Rolan Bykov. The Executioners Are Circling, and Each of Them Is your Fierce Friend, Parlamentskaya gazeta [Parliamentary Newspaper], 2005, no. 176, October 7 (in Russ.).

5. Park R.E. Human Migration and the Marginal Man, Sotsial’nye i gumanitarnye nauki. Seriya 11: Sotsiologiya [Social and Human Sciences. Series 11: Sociology], 1998, no. 3, pp. 167—176 (in Russ.).

6. Sazonov A. A Person Has All the Reasons not Outside, but Inside, Snob, 2013, no. 02 (55). Available at: https://snob.ru/magazine/entry/57223/ (accessed 03.06.2020) (in Russ.).

7. Bober Zh. Cultural Marginality and its Place in the Development of Culture, Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. A.S. Pushkina [Bulletin of the A.S. Pushkin Leningrad State University], 2010, no. 4, pp. 136—143 (in Russ.).

8. Allen R.C., Gomery D. Film History: Theory and Practice. New York, San Francisco, McGraw-Hill Publ., 1985, p. 276.

9. Khrenov N.A. Film Studies as a Humanities, Articult, 2015, no. 19 (3), pp. 6—17. Available at: http://articult.rsuh.ru/upload/articult/journal_content/019/ARTICULT-19_(3-2015,P.6-17)-Khrenov.pdf (accessed 03.06.2020) (in Russ.).

10. Elkan O.B., Putra V.A. The Influence of Psychoanalysis on the Cinema of the Twentieth Century, Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Kul’turologiya i iskusstvovedenie [Tomsk State University Journal of Cultural Studies and Art History], 2019, no. 34, pp. 100—109. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/vliyanie-psihoanaliza-na-kinoiskusstvo-hh-veka (accessed 03.06.2020) (in Russ.).

11. Jung C.G. Arkhetip i simvol [Archetype and Symbol]. Moscow, Renessans Publ., 1991, 297 p. Available at: http://www.pseudology.org/Psyhology/Jung/Arhetip_and_simbol.pdf (accessed 03.06.2020).

12. Jung C.G. Problemy dushi nashego vremeni [Modern Man in Search of a Soul]. St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2019, 336 p.

13. Jung C.G. Dusha i mif. Shest’ arkhetipov [Soul and Myth. Six Archetypes]. Kiev, Gosudarstvennaya Biblioteka Ukrainy dlya Yunoshestva Publ., 1996, 384 p. Available at: https://cpp-p.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/f-8XT1NhfwdLIxdTJ0M_XLnBkZg.pdf (accessed 03.06.2020).

14. Zlotnikova T.S. Chelovek. Khronotop. Kul’tura. Vvedenie v kul’turologiyu: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie [Human. Chronotope. Culture. Introduction to Cultural Studies: educational and methodological guide]. Yaroslavl, YaGPU Publ., 2011, 331 p.

15. Zlotnikova T.S. Filosofiya tvorcheskoi lichnosti [Creative Person’s Philosophy]. Moscow, Soglasie Publ., 2017, 915 p.

16. Khrenov N.A. Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung and Interpretation of Texts of Screen Culture, Fundamental’nye problemy kul’turologii: v 4 t. T. 2: Istoricheskaya kul’turologiya [Fundamental Issues of Cultural Studies: in 4 volumes. Volume 2: Historical Cultural Studies]. St. Petersburg, Aleteiya Publ., 2008, pp. 198—208. Available at: http://ec-dejavu.ru/c-2/Cinematography.html (accessed 03.06.2020) (in Russ.).

17. Kuimova V.M. Abyss on the Edge: Bykov’s Circus (Sense Bearing Facets of the Cinema “Aibolit-66”), Yaroslavskii pedagogicheskii vestnik [Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin], 2018, no. 3, pp. 306—310 (in Russ.).

18. Aronson O. Metakino [Meta Cinema]. Moscow, Ad Marginem Publ., 2003, 262 p. Available at: https://iphras.ru/uplfile/aesthet/books/aronsonmetakino.pdf (accessed 03.06.2020).

19. Yampolsky M.B. Muratova. Opyt kinoantropologii [Muratova. An Experience in Film Anthropology]. St. Petersburg, Seans Publ., 2015, 528 p.

20. Jung C.G Psikhologiya arkhetipa rebenka [Psychology of the Child Archetype]. Available at: https://bookap.info/book/yung_psihologiya_arhetipa_rebenka/gl1.shtm#1 (accessed 03.06.2020).