Film as historical source: the case of communism

Darbo temos pasirinkimą inspiravo naujų tyrimo krypčių bei metodų politikos moksluose paieška. Kinas kaip istorijos šaltinis neužpildyta tyrimų erdvė ne tik užsienyje, bet ir ypatingai Lietuvoje. Tyrimo tikslas – išsiaiškinti vaidybinio filmo kaip informacijos šaltinio galimybes. Filmas – tai destruktyvi jėga, gebanti užfiksuoti mažiausias akimirkas, silpnybes, nusivylimus, laimės proveržius. Kamera iškelia tai, ko visuomenė gali ir nepamatyti, įrodydama, jog ne kiekvienas individas ar sistema gali visiškai kontroliuoti savo kartais abejotiną įvaizdį. Kiekvienas iš pasirinktų vaidybinių filmų fiksavo ne tik viešąjį diskursą, bet ir tikrovės elementus. Darbe buvo siekiama atsekti vaidybinio filmo kaip istorijos šaltinio formavimosi aspektus, nuosekliai ir išsamiai įvertinant tris kino tradicijas: sovietinio, neorealizmo ir Šiaurės šalių, kurias atstovavo lietuvių, rusų, italų ir norvegų ekranizacijos, pateikusios tris skirtingas socializmo adaptacijos formas. Į visa tai žvelgiama per komunizmo prizmę kaip pasirinkto atvejo analizę. Atvejai buvo pasirenkami pagal tikslą ir vadovaujantis P. Sorlin apibrėžimu. Buvo išskirti ir šie papildomi kriterijai: periodas, politinė potekstė, ypatingai svarbi buvo ir jų meninė vertė. V. Žalakevičius, A. Grikevičius, R. Vabalas, E. Riazanovas, L. Visconti, B. Bertolucci ir H.P. Mollandas. Visi apžvelgiami režisierių darbai (“Niekas nenorėjo mirti”, “Vienos dienos kronika”, „Jausmai“, „Laiptai į dangų“, “Saugokis automobilio”, „Rokas ir jo broliai“, „1900“, “Svajotojai” ir “Draugas Pedersonas”) susiję su tuo pačiu laikmečiu - XX a. 7-8 dešimtmečiu. Šiame darbe atliktas kokybinis tyrimas: apžvelgiamos teorinės su istorinio filmo samprata susijusios problematikos, nustatoma kinematografijos reikšmė medijų kultūros studijų skalėje, ieškoma vizualinio pranešimo vietos filosofiniame diskurse bei interpretuojami pasirinkto laikotarpio filmai. Istorinio filmo sąvoka kaip pagrindinė kino juostos žanro ir jos bruožų įvardintoja analizėje vaidina pagrindinį vaidmenį. Ji diferencijuoja, užduoda pagrindinius tyrimo vienetus ir netgi brėžia tam tikrą schemą, kuria vadovaujantis reikėtų traktuoti politinį filmą sociologinių tyrimų terpėje. Būtent paskutinis teiginys ir sąlygoja analizės specifiškumą – kino filmas kaip istorinis šaltinis. Remiantis pateiktu vaidybinio filmo analizės modeliu, šiuolaikinės filosofijos tyrinėjimais galima ne tik geriau suprasti laikmečio visuomenę ar ideologijos formavimosi aspektus, bet ir identifikuoti kino reikšmę šioje tyrimų terpėje. Kita vertus, tai dar gana naujas būdas pažvelgti į politinius reiškinius per vizualinį pranešimą, o ypatingai vaidybinį filmą, siekiant įvertinti tam tikrus istorinius aspektus.The choice of the topic of this paper was inspired by the search of new directions of research and methods in political sciences. Film as the source of history still has no acknowledgment in many countries and especially in Lithuania: there are no scientific texts (of political studies) here, but references to political context of film can be found in individual works of Lithuanian scholars (mostly in discussions on Soviet film). New method of interpretation was chosen for the analysis of the forms of communism – one of the most researched issues in the world. The difficulties that were faced during the search for literature in Lithuanian as well as other countries were mostly determined by the novelty of the topic itself. Not many authors have seen the possibilities of film as a source of information. This work discusses all major texts of these theorists: John E. O‘Connor, Pierre Sorlin and Marc Ferro. Their insights have provided a robust foundation for further analysis. Meanwhile, the philosophical reflections of Slavoj Žižek, that have revived the traditional philosophy by incorporating it into the popular culture, i.e. reality, allowed not only to penetrate the nature of complexity of the film position among the scholars, which was influenced by the tight narrative of medial culture studies, but also provided reasons and solutions of this problem. The goal of the study is to determine the possibilities of film as the source of information. Two hypotheses are formulated as the base for the analysis: Film can be justly incorporated in the sphere of academic studies as a tool/source of research. The nature of historical-political film may be either neorealistic, or as a form of aesthetisation. This paper includes a qualitative study. The concept of an historical film as the main carrier of the film genre and its features shall play the key role in this analysis. It differentiates, provides the key units for the study and even draws a certain scheme for the treatment of political film in social research. The last statement predetermines the peculiarity of the analysis – film as an historical source. The first, theoretical, part shall identify two issues related to the film theory – lack of organised methodology and the tendency of the definition of the historical film itself towards ambivalence. The following article describes possible methods of film analysis that are important for the interpretation of selected movies. Discussing of the definition of an historical-political film is not enough to validate the first hypothesis – in such case, the position of cinematography in the scale of the new methods of research as well as political sciences (in terms of search for new directions) would still be uncertain. One of the parts of the paper includes a philosophical study and looks at the film as the philosophy and new directions. The process of search is based on nonprobability sampling of filmography. Samples were chosen in accordance with the goal and according to the Sorlin’s definition. The following additional criteria were defined: period, political implication and artistic value. Vytautas Žalakevičius, Almantas Grikevičius, Raimondas Vabalas, Eldar Ryazanov, Luchino Visconti, Bernardo Bertolucci and Hans Peter Molland were the filmmakers with a delicate creative sense that enriched their works with originality in terms of political implication as well as artistic style. All works of the directors reviewed here (“Nobody Wanted to Die”, “One Day Chronicle”, “Feelings”, “Ladder to the Sky”, “Watch out for the Automobile”, “Rocco and His Brothers”, “1900”, “The Dreamers” and “Comrade Pedersen”) are related to the same period of time – 1960s and 1970s – and have been ‘marked’ by it. The filmmakers who associated this period with the appearance of new ideas, artistic uplift and the coming of historical changes represent the period in question with a detachment or through direct contact. Some of the works (“Nobody Wanted to Die”, “One Day Chronicle”, “Feelings”, “Ladder to the Sky”, “Watch out for the Automobile”, “Rocco and His Brothers”) reflect and interpret the present (of the past), while the others (“1900”, “The Dreamers” and “Comrade Pedersen”) reconstruct the past. The choice between these two narrative lines was predetermined by the pretension to the historical reality and the aim to introduce adequate analysis of the past. Therefore, both the subsistence (the reality of the present moment, perception, which has a tendency to change in time) and the ability of the author to reproduce historical events with ‘detachment’, after a period of time, during which unknown details of the past could have been revealed.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta