Into the People (v narod) - beginning in the 1870s, after which Russia began comparing the 'popular' (as part of populism) with the 'non-popular,' and the eras pass, but this too at some point shifts into pursuing 'modern' things, and later combines with 'Stalinism' to culminate in equality, producing the result of merging all classes into one to enjoy cultural life.
...
As Mikhail Bakhtin eloquently argued in his study of Rabelais, it is clear that the essence of the cultural force that produces existing works of art is expressed within a powerful and vibrant popular culture. Indeed, popular culture, whether or not the people were kept in mind, always remains a source of positive inspiration for many artists.
A nation's literature is a mirror in which the collective countenance of that nation's people - its myths, aspirations, national triumphs and traumas, present ideologies, historical understanding, and linguistic traditions - is meaningfully reflected. But literature is also more than that. That is, it is more than what is reflected in a mirror that holds what was once engraved in the field of vision, and what flits across the present field of vision the moment one glances in.
What prevails among Russians is the apocalyptic myth. Moreover, some of the best-known works in modern Russian literature possess the 'deep structure' of biblical/apocalyptic or utopian myth.
This book devoted as many as four chapters to explaining Sergei Eisenstein. The Sergei Eisenstein I knew was someone who, I only knew, drew a line in Russian film history through the very famous film 'October,' but through this book I realized at least a little about Sergei Eisenstein. His art was very highly calculated, subversive, and aggressive. And he was a film director who, even if not close to Stalin, was needed, and because of that he was subjected to sanctions many times, yet at the same time many of his films were screened. Through Ivan the Terrible, he shows that the protagonist is at once a king but also a tragic figure tormented by anguish, and in the end depicts that he can only be a 'solitary human being.' Although the film of Ivan the Terrible Part 3 was lost entirely, and Part 2 was barely found and screened, he is indeed worthy of the title of Russia's greatest 'film director.' At that time he considered film the 'supreme medium' and worked hard to express his ideas, and as one of those methods he used the montage technique. For him, 'pathos,' that is, the Greek word for 'emotion' (also translated as sensibility or as compassion), was an essential 'idea' for filmmaking, and I think he felt that how to express this 'pathos' through film was important.
It described the relationship between Moscow and St. Petersburg as if it were woman and man - that is, the organic and the artificial, a religious and organic city versus a Western and orderly city - explaining it as the most important axis of modern and contemporary Russia. This relationship between Moscow and St. Petersburg continues to be maintained until St. Petersburg's name changes to 'Leningrad,' which means that the characters of the two cities affected literature, film, music, and theater across the board. (Generally, the atmosphere of a city determines that city's 'art.') Tchaikovsky was the most 'androgynous' musician among the musicians of the modern and contemporary period. As a 'European Russian,' he appropriately blended the artificial Westernization of St. Petersburg (that is, the musical atmosphere leading from the Western European classical to the romantic schools) with the organic and religious quality of Moscow (populism), and began to make his music known while traveling around both cities. One of his greatest achievements is that he raised the genre of 'ballet' to a high position; he deepened the symbolic and conceptual aspects of Russian ballet so that it was not merely a kind of 'dramatic art,' and almost single-handedly elevated ballet to the level of opera or the symphony.
When I heard the country called 'Russia,' the thoughts that usually came to mind were that it was a country where great writers like 'Dostoevsky' and 'Tolstoy' existed, a country where a socialist revolution was the least likely to occur yet did occur, and a country that, unlike Western Europe, was late to revolution through some different history, and that, despite having vast land, lacked suitable ports and so struggled with trade (making mercantilism difficult). But through this reading, it seems Russia, rather than developing as a nation through revolution like 'some country in Europe' that I had previously known, changed bit by bit through the individual actions of specific figures (for example, Peter I, Ivan the Terrible, Eisenstein, Tchaikovsky, Catherine the Great, Tolstoy, Pushkin, etc.). The changes themselves were of course gradual, but in setting the direction of that flow they were very definite, and can't we see this through how Pushkin's foundation raised the Russian writers who came after, how Eisenstein's films showed how to counter Stalinism, and how Tchaikovsky's music elevated Russia's musical standing?
It was certainly a very enjoyable and good book.
Comments 0
No comments yet. Be the first.