Can you make a decent film in a Socialist Country?

[Kyle Broom]

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.

I think this is right on. But I also think the vast majority of work coming out of Hollywood is garbage, even most of the "serious" films that are nominated and win Academy Awards.

On the general direction of remarks in the rest of the posts, one important question that has not been raised in the equation of Soviet and eastern bloc countries as "socialist" is the degree to which all of these countries failed to instantiate the ideals of a Marxian economics and were, instead, sites of vast totalitarian control. That being said, some of the cinema of Poland and Russia of the past century represents some of the greatest achievement in cinema, ever. Also, of note, within this context, is Kurosawa's great film Dersu Uzala, which was funded by and made at the behest of the Soviet Ministry of Culture. After the box office failure of his masterpiece, Dodes'ka-Den, Kurosawa could not get funding to make a film in Japan - after he'd been Japan's greatest director for over 25 years. The Soviets, at least, had insight enough not to throw out one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, just because he'd made a film too challenging to answer to a profit motive.

 

[Joel Wilkieson]

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

Well said

 

[N_Villers]

Has the Christian fundamentalist right-wing in the USA ever produced a good film?

 

[Martin Weiss]

Thanks for keeping this thread civil.

 

[C. Miersch]

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 ....

I agree. Depth, and more than just entertainment, that nails it. Same goes for East Germany.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

What about mainland Chinese films like "Raise the Red Lantern"?

 

[hans de vries]

Do you have to use the Actors, Director, and a script approved by the State?
Are there any good films from a Socialist Regime?

Most people here are talking about the past, but I took your question as being about the present; in which case it would be easier if you said which country you mean, because I assume every country more or less has its own rules?

 

[Steve Wake]

...
Are there any good films from a Socialist Regime?

Strange way to phrase the question: do you mean government-produced films, or do you mean - as most responders in this thread seem to have interpreted the question - films produced in socialist countries (which, given the tone of your question probably refers to those countries that had/have a communist party at the helm).

Regardless of what you meant, here's one of my favorites: Soy (I Am) Cuba. By Mikhail Kalatozov, the film was never popular in the Soviet Union or Cuba, but it was inspiring to Coppola and Scorsese who helped re-introduce the 1964 film to the world 40 years later. Contains several of the most amazing long traveling shots I've ever seen - shot by cinemetographer Sergei Urusevsky.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Strange question coming from a guy who didn't like "Three Kings"

Just kidding - I couldn't let you live that down.

But in any case - go watch "I Am Cuba" not only was it made in a socialist country, it's fairly heavy handed socialist propaganda, and Damn, is it good.

 

[jake blackstone]

Most people here are talking about the past, but I took your question as being about the present; in which case it would be easier if you said which country you mean, because I assume every country more or less has its own rules?

It's interesting, that you're asking about the present day.
Earlier I had mentioned the old USSR. In today's Russia the mindset is not that different from the old days. Most filmmakers still expect the government help to produce movies. And the government does that, but the overwhelming majority of those movies are the usual fare of Great Patriotic War stories, as the WWII is called in Russia. For the other, so called indy fare, it's the usual mindless remakes and mafia movies, produced with private funding, but expecting the usual box office return. In other words, the censorship is long gone, but the result is pretty much the same as before... Or even worse...

 

[IAN SUN]

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...

I'm not sure what definition of socialism is being referenced here. The term Socialism has been misused and abused for so long in the US (and now World) media and political discourse that the general understanding within the US polity (and other) of what socialism actually means is completely warped.

An excerpt from Wikipedia.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of the State socialist form of socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism; while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, arguing that socialism will, and must, either arise spontaneously or be built from the bottom up utilizing the strategy of dual power. They promote direct worker-ownership of the means of production alternatively through independent syndicates, workplace democracies, or worker cooperatives.

Socialism as indicated above include a broad range Economic philosophies, that have the idea of shared ownership of the means of production and wealth as a guiding but not necessarily an absolute principle.

Socialism is not limited to one form of government. Socialist systems can be anything from Social Democracies like some Scandinavian countries or Canadian Provinces to Totalitarian Dictatorships like the former USSR. Socialism can even be Anarchic (libertarian even!) such as the nacent governing structures of the OWS and Arab Spring movements.

 

[Liam Hall]

I'm not sure what definition of socialism is being referenced here. The term Socialism has been misused and abused for so long in the US (and now World) media and political discourse that the general understanding within the US polity (and other) of what socialism actually means is completely warped.

The OP mentions "socialist regimes" I take that to mean countries that define themselves as socialist either in their name or constitution. As I mentioned before, today that is only China, Cuba, Lao, Vietnam and North Korea. In the 70s and 80s that list would have been much, much longer.

I agree the term is misused which is why I used the narrowest definition. Certainly, there's a big difference shooting in Sweden or North Korea...

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Oh boy, here we go...

 

[Michael Thornton]

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.

India is the world largest democracy base on population.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the answer to the original question is "yes" at least if history is an example -- we've all listed some classic movies made by the USSR, China, etc.

 

[Erik Franzén]

Socialism is not communism. Communism is not a dictatorship. A pie is not a pizza.

Yeah. So, no problems!

 

[Michael Lindsay]

A few years ago I spent some time studying 3 propaganda films provinding the same basic function for 3 different states. They where nuclear weapons propaganda films for the USSR, USA and the UK.

The soviet film was a fantastic - wondefully crafted and inspiring (even a little subversive). The US film was good fun and well made (nearly as good as the Soviet film)... and ,most disapionting for me, the UK film was absolutely crap. It was incompetent both from a craft pov and also as a proaganda tool.

I shouldn't extrapolate from this but it resonates with me and my broader experience with film.

Michael L

 

[Dave Blackham]

India is the world largest democracy base on population.

I believe your right. The point I hoped to make and didnt articulate very well is Hollywood and Pinewood make great films but great films are also made in other countries too. What I do know first hand is that the trade skills in which the west may call former eastern block countries can be very high and absolutely as good as the west. Some times where equipment hasnt been available that is completely state of the art ingenuity and skill have made up for that.

 

[Andrew McCarrick]

As I mentioned before, today that is only China, Cuba, Lao, Vietnam and North Korea. In the 70s and 80s that list would have been much, much longer.

Umm... China and North Korea are communist countries.

The People's Republic of China is a single-party state governed by the Communist Party of China (CPC).

North Korea is a single-party state under a united front led by the Korean Workers' Party (KWP).

The Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) is the ruling Communist party of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as North Korea.

 

[Eric Lange]

Do you have to use the Actors, Director, and a script approved by the State?
Are there any good films from a Socialist Regime?

My father did work as production designer and art director on several NBC fictionalized documentaries mini-series types of productions in the mid 1980’s “Count Staffenburg..plot to assassinate Hitler”, and also fictionalized doco mini-series on Mussolini, (title role played by George C Scott).

These were made in Yogoslavia, spent a lot of time in split and Zagreb studios too... and a lot of US productions were also made in partnership in Budapest (Hungary) as well in the 1980's.

Great and usefull locations, inexpensive facilities. The big problem was ordering in effect a whole production’s worth of materials a year in advance as was required under communist works/organization, so occasionally extra materials would have to almost be smuggled in across various borders and various officials wined dined and bribed.

My father also was art director/production designer for Kelly’s Heros (famous war movie) and at least 95% of that movie was shot in Yugoslavia also.

Father worked on first three Start Wars movies in the UK (EMI). In the early seventies the UK was under a Labor government (that was the closest the UK ever came to truly socialist organization (culminating in the “winter of Discontent”)) which did make for very difficult constraints on the normal flow and process of big budget studio film making. Beyond that a lot of the major block busters of the 1970 and 1980”s were made in the UK primarily to save money as there were really good tax breaks at the time for foreign film makers. [Indiana Jones, the first three Star Wars (original) then the others, Superman I and II and many others besides; Jim Henson moved his base of operations to the UK too and of course did many projects and movies from the late seventies through to the eighties.] Many large US based productions moved all over the world to make “movies” more cost effectively. In the case of the UK there is a long tradition of excellent and top notch technical film people and craftsman. Unfortunately new tax laws and increasing demands from the unions etc. in the UK unfortunately made things prohibitively expensive and almost completely killed the British film industry overnight. In some sense the UK has not quite recaptured the level of foreign investment for big budget film making as compared to the mid seventies to mid eighties.

Working in communist organized countries does test your ability to get things done to the absolute limit, but professional film people are good at what they do as they are able to solve seemingly insurmountable problems in very clever and resourceful ways; and in the end things still look beautiful on camera even if it nearly kills everybody to bridge the gap under very limiting and challenging circumstances.

To answer your question... of course you can..., but you will encounter very unique challenges and ultimately depends if you have a willing crew and local contacts that are willing to bridge the gaps and overcome the various obstacles. A lot of things can be done in successful partnership with a local regime.

Hope that helps,

Eric

P.s. Where are you planning or fixing to make a movie?