Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Can you make a decent film in a Socialist Country?

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

George Butterfield

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
875
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Do you have to use the Actors, Director, and a script approved by the State?
Are there any good films from a Socialist Regime?
 
Look at China and you can probably find the answers you seek. Venezuela has something similar going on.
 
Don't confuse socialism with tyranny or a dictatorship. Virtual all developed countries are partly "socialistic" and many horrible dictatorships are as far from socialism as it gets.
 
Yes absolutely, and don't ever doubt how good they are at it. Its worth remembering the centre of film making is now Bollywood in terms of volume and I still think the best film I've ever seen was made in New Zealand. Terry is quite right about not confusing values. I have seen first hand how professional and and skilled crews in former communist countries are, and one shouldnt confuse socialist with communist either, some times what is lacking in absolute state of the art equipment is by far made up in ingenuity and skill. Im not sure what this has to do with cameras though.
 
you mean like the United States, where all of our major banks required corporate welfare to survive their own mistakes?

I KID, I KID!

go watch Windhorse - not only can films get made in socialist countries, they can also survive dictatorships, tyranny, and oppression.
 
How about the hundreds of brilliant Soviet films? One of the best films of all time Come and See.

Nick
 
Dave Blackham said:
Yes absolutely, and don't ever doubt how god they are at it. Its worth remembering the centre of film making is now Bollywood and I still think the best film I've ever seen was made in New Zealand, both who have high social values. And Terry is quite right about not confusing values. Im not sure what this has to do with cameras though.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, both India and New Zealand had Parliamentary democracies...

To answer the OP, great art has been created under many dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, often at great cost to those producing it. Just google Spanish cinema under Franco or the Avant Garde movement under Hitler.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/jan/15/spainuncensoredbfi
 
Tarkovsky made 2 of my top 10 favorite films of all time. I'm also leaning towards "Yes".

It's actually easier to make films in some very socialist countries if you're an indie. Lots of countries actually finance their arts and culture.
 
Speaking about eastern germany: Since political messages indeed were censored movie makers naturally moved to topics where they where free in their expression. One main topic (beside fairy tales, where eastern germany was also great) turned out the inner reality of people dealing with themselfes and their daily life, thus also inherently showing the reality of the socialist system. These where awesome films, and this formed a school. So, the censorship, the limitation, actually turned into a big strenght and progression for moviemaking.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Isn't Sweden a pretty socialist leaning place? :-)
Click to expand...

Sweden is a representative democracy, it has a King. By definition that makes it less socialist than the US, which like all socialist countries is a republic:-)

The OP asked about "Socialist Regimes" - assuming he means countries that today have Lenin and Marx at the heart of their constitution, that's only China, Cuba, Lao and the Republics of Korea and Vietnam. I've shot documentaries in all those countries except Lao and to be fair, I've had no more trouble than in London. Well maybe not Korea...
 
A lot of great films came out of the USSR. Tarkovsky struggled a lot with censorship and ultimately fled the country, but he made 3 of my favorite films while in the USSR (Solaris, The Mirror and Stalker). Another powerful film made near the end of Soviet times was Little Vera. It's certainly not a beautifully shot film, but it's really a must see in my opinion. Here is a review from IMDB:

A profound social document, 11 March 2005

Author: fred3f from United States
It is difficult, today and in the US, to understand this movie. We have nothing, really, to compare it with. Here is an attempt at comparison: It is as if during the last years of Saddam's rule, a filmmaker in Iraq were somehow able to make a film, which, for the first time ever, showed life as it really was lived in that country. The life of ordinary young girl, with all the terror and the repression full blown. Then the film was exhibited freely in Iraq. If you could imagine that unlikely event, then you might have an idea of what went on with this film in the last few years of the Soviet Union. Prior to this film, Soviet cinema was highly censored. Soviet movies would only show an ideal life in the worker's paradise. Then suddenly this. The alcoholism, the random sex, the ugly wasteland that was the Soviet city, the choking pollution, the proletariat victimizing each other and themselves, the utter hopelessness - it is all there. People were stunned. Soviet women would often weep during the showings. Many would say that this is the story of their lives. It was a cultural earthquake the like of which filmmakers only dream of accomplishing. It undoubtedly hastened the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Reading the reviews here, I can see that few understand this film. One says it was groundbreaking because it contained real sex. To the Soviet viewers at the time, the sex was a minor event compared to fact that it portrayed reality for the first time in Soviet cinema.

Others compare it to current films such as "As Good as it Gets" Might as well compare Homer's Illiad to the latest John Grissam novel. They simply do not compare. This is not just a film, this is was a social document, and a transforming social force. It needs to be viewed that way or you will not understand the film.

Other reviewers see it as a film about a dysfunctional Russian family. One even says that it is difficult to feel sorry for Vera because she keeps coming back to her family. The point is that Vera and her family are symbols for all of Soviet life. There was nowhere else to go, because the family down the block and in the next town were the same. This was life in the Soviet Union for most people.

This is a film that can be viewed on many levels: as a drama it traces the landscape of despair, as a social document it shows the living conditions of the time, as a political document it shows the attitude of the people and many of the reasons for the break-up of the Soviet Union, and as a moral document it shows the evils of a dictatorship that is out of control, and the cruelties that victims will practice on each other.

Little Vera clearly shows the human toll that Socialism eventually takes on its victims, despite any good intentions that system may have. In doing so it helped end the Soviet regime thus contributing to one of the major changes in modern history. This film achieves what only a few films have ever accomplished. It is not only an stunning representation of history but it also become a force in that shaped history.
Click to expand...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095574/reviews

And a little snip from Wikipedia:

The film was the leader in ticket sales in the Soviet Union in 1988 with 54.9 million viewers,[3] and was the most successful Soviet film in the US since Moscow Does not Believe in Tears.[1] Part of its popularity was due to being one of the first Soviet movies with explicit sexual scenes.
Click to expand...

54.9 million viewers means 1 in every 5 people in the USSR saw the movie in cinemas. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that the political nature of a nation's government has any specific limitation on the nature of the films made there other than the way the filmmakers deal with (or don't deal with) whatever the censorship mechanism is. The Soviets, like the Iranians, came up with all kinds of metaphorical storytelling to try to achieve honesty in their work within a highly controlled system and they often succeeded. And others often sold out.

One could argue that the tyranny of the marketplace causes American films to censor themselves into commercial shallowness no less than the ministry of information of some dictatorial state forces propaganda out of their film industry.
 
Cuban cinema was one of the best in the Latin American region. Was very prolific till the 90's. After the soviet collapse was almost nule, but in the late years a new generation of very talented filmmakers are arising, and making noise, like with the film "Juan of the dead", a comedy about zombies in Havana. Yes, you had to have permissions for filming, actually you could only film there if co-producing with one of the official institutes, like ICAIC or ICRT, or having then involve in any way. And yes, you can make a very "decent" film there.
 
George Butterfield said:
Do you have to use the Actors, Director, and a script approved by the State?
Are there any good films from a Socialist Regime?
Click to expand...

Tarkovsky... Solaris? Sergei Eisenstein? What about Roman Polanski? Kieslowski (whose movie "a short movie about killing" singlehandedly propelled Poland to stop the death penalty)? They both made great movies in Poland. The list goes on.

Socialist countries have often made some of the best respected movies as the directors have had to cleverly and creatively wrangle with the state censorship. Right now in Iran a similar scenario is occurring - amazing directors, actors and talent, yet an oppressive reigeme. Happens everywhere. Repression often bring out the greatest works of art.

Hope that helps

Ivan
 
You might go so far as to say that films have less depth in the 'free world' simply because of a very different kind of control. Kieslowski often commented on the fact that film in Poland was always far more than just entertainment, until the early nineties when the film landscape of Poland changed dramatically. It became far more of a business and changed stylistically and thematically.

Agree with Nick: Come and See...still the best film ever made about war and violence from one man to another. Ivan's Childhood is a superb film also.
 
Political Friday?

Political Friday?

Hmm. Perhaps the question is: can a decent film be made in a truly capitalist country (and at what point does capitalism become facism? Oh, wait- that becomes a different discussion.)

Probably yes... it's certainly happened... The US Studio films from the 70s are pretty great... but what will happen to all the great British cinema now that the lottery isn't funding the production pipeline? Is there enough capitalist money to keep going? [I've long suspected that there's a some crappy British cinema, the same way there's crappy French cinema. Here in the US cinephiles LOVE French and British Cinema- but my contention is that we only get to see the good stuff.]

Seems like film as ART will rise to the top regardless of the economic conditions - 'art finds a way.' Perhaps, in a repressive society, great art is MORE important - but I don't think the original question necesarily implied socialism was repressive. That's a capitalist point of view, no?

TUI. Typing under the influence. Friday, clearly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top