ART AND
SOCIETY
ART READINGS 2022
София, 2015
Art Rеadings 2022
ИЗКУСТВО И
ОБЩЕСТВО
Изкуствоведски четения 2022
ИЗКУСТВОВЕДСКИ ЧЕТЕНИЯ
Тематичен рецензиран годишник за изкуствознание в два тома
2022.II. – Ново изкуство
ART READINGS
Thematic Peer-reviewed Art Studies Annual, Volumes I–II
2022.II. New Art
Отговорен редактор
Катерина Гаджева
Under the general editorship of
Katerina Gadjeva
Международна редакционна колегия
International Editorial Board
Adrian-Silvan Ionescu (Romania)
Elvira Popova (Mexico)
Fani Vavili-Tsinika (Greece)
Marina Frolova-Walker (UK)
Yana Hashamova (USA)
Редактори от ИИИзк
In-house Editorial Board
Ingeborg Bratoeva-Daraktchieva
Kamelia Nikolova
Katerina Gadjeva
Ventsislav Dimov
Institute of Art Studies
21 Krakra St.
1504 Sofia
Bulgaria
www.artstudies.bg
© Институт за изследване на изкуствата, Българска академия на науките, 2023
© Institute of Art Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2023
ИЗКУСТВОВЕДСКИ ЧЕТЕНИЯ
Тематичен рецензиран годишник за изкуствознание в два тома
2022.II. – Ново изкуство
ИЗКУСТВО И ОБЩЕСТВО
•
ART AND SOCIETY
ART READINGS
Thematic Peer-reviewed Art Studies Annual, Volumes I–II
2022.II. New Art
София 2023
Текстовете от този том са представени като доклади на международната конференция Изкуствоведски четения 2022, модул „Ново изкуство“, 18–20 април, 2022 г., София,
Институт за изследване на изкуствата – Българска академия на науките. Оценени са
чрез peer-review, като само преминалите успешно тази процедура и редакция се публикуват в изданието.
This volume`s texts are presented as papers at the International Conference Art Readings 2022,
New Art Module, 18–20 April, 2022, Sofia, Institute of Art Studies – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.
The articles are peer reviewed and only the successfully went through this procedure and editing
are published in the issue.
Изданието е реализирано с финансовата подкрепа на Фонд „Научни изследвания“, договор
№ КП-06-МНФ/20/15.12.2021. Фонд „Научни изследвания“ не носи отговорност за съдържанието на докладите, представени на научния форум, както и за съдържанието на рекламните и други материали за него.
The volume has been printed with financial support of the Bulgarian National Science Fund according
to contract No. КP-06-МNF/20/15.12.2021. The Bulgarian National Science Fund is not responsible
for the content of the papers presented at the scientific forum, as well as for the advertising and
other materials for the event.
СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ/ CONTENTS
Fine arts
Milena Georgieva. Ланчелото – Конско евангелие за народняците (1910) или за политическото
четене на „конско“ чрез карикатурната илюстрация/ Reading the Riot Act to the Populists (1910) by
Trifon Kunev or on the political dressing-down via satirical illustrations..................................................... 9
Stanislava Nikolova. Непроученото наследство на Пенчо Георгиев. Илюстрациите към
поредицата Художествена библиотека – Древна България/ The unexplored legacy of Pencho Georgiev.
The illustrations for the Artistic Library – Ancient Bulgaria series........................................................................ 27
Bogdalina Bratanova. Илюстрациите на Борис Денев по епическата поема Чеда на Балкана на
Кирил Христов (1928–1930)/ Boris Denev’s illustrations of the poem Children of the Balkans by Kiril
Hristov (1928–1930)................................................................................................................................... 46
Katerina Gadjeva. Илюстрацията – важна част от политическото и естетическото
възпитание на социалистическото дете. Фокус върху 50-те и 60-те години на XX век/
Illustration – an important part of the political and aesthetic education of the socialist child. Focus
on the1950s and 1960s.............................................................................................................................. 59
Irina Genova. Picasso, Dali, Chagall, and Picabia in the Salon of the rejected – a 1968 audience survey,
analyzed on the pages of the press/ Пикасо, Дали, Шагал и Пикабиа в Салона на отхвърлените –
проучване на публиката от 1968 г., анализирано на страниците на печата ............................. 77
Maria Miteva. За повече красота в живота! В подстъпите на Юбилейна изложба на приложните изкуства в
София през 1960/1961/ For more beauty in life! In the approaches to Jubilee Exhibition of Applied Arts in Sofia
in 1960/1961................................................................................................................................................87
Filip Pręgowski. From the ivory tower to the expanded workshop: notes on the idea of the artist’s studio
in American art at the turn of 1970s and 1980s/ От кулата от слонова кост до разширената
работилница – бележки върху идеята за художественото студио в американското изкуство
в началото на 1970-те и 1980-те..........................................................................................................97
Zuzana Bartošová. Questioning the status of the artist: Czechoslovakia after 1968/ Статутът на
художника под въпрос: Чехословакия след 1968 година....................................................................105
Johannis Tsoumas. AIDS art and activism in the 1980s: the very cases of Keith Haring and Gran Fury/
Изкуството, посветено на СПИН и активизма през 1980-те – случаите Кийт Харинг и
Гран Фюри................................................................................................................................................... 116
Eva-Maria Ivanova. Карол Рама и Луиз Буржоа – художествен опит и визуална поетика/ Carol
Rama and Louise Bourgeois: artistic experience and visual poetics......................................................128
Galina Lardeva. Истинската драматургия се съдържа в живописта. Опит върху експлицитна поетика
на Андрей Даниел/ True dramaturgy is contained in painting. The experience on an explicit poetics of
Andrey Daniel............................................................................................................................................145
Krasimir Andonov. Изследване на фотоархива на Студия за игрални филми Бояна в контекста
на връзката „кинематографично произведение – филмова фотография“/ A study of the
photography collections of Boyana Film Studios in the context of “film work – on-set photography”
relation........................................................................................................................................................153
Roumena Kalcheva. Българското изкуство от края на ХХ и началото на ХХI век в публична
среда и контактът му с публиката/ Bulgarian art from the end of 20th and the beginning of 21st
century in public space and its interaction with the public...................................................................... 171
Theatre arts
Kamelia Nikolova. The political transition and the alternative independent theatre in Bulgaria after 1989/
Политическият преход и алтернативният независим театър в България
след 1989...................................................................................................................................................182
Petr Christov. Can I see your avant-garde? Early Czechoslovak theatre avant-gardes on the pages of
French journals (et vice versa?) on the threshold of the 1920s/ Мога ли да видя вашия авангард?
Ранни чехословашки театрални авангардни прояви на страниците на френски списания
(и обратно?) на прага на 1920-те.......................................................................................................194
Karol Mišovic. 1968 August occupation from the perspective of Slovak theatre makers/ Августовската
окупация през 1968 година от гледната точка на словашките театрали................................ 209
Joanna Spassova-Dikova. Theatre and young audiences in Bulgaria. The beginning/ Театърът и
младите публики в България. Началото..............................................................................................218
Michaela Mojžišová. The call for freedom in Slovak opera in the 1960s and 1970s/ Зовът за свобода
в словашката опера през 60-те и 70-те години на ХХ век .......................................................... 227
Nikolay Iordanov. Национално срещу универсално в българската драматургия/ National versus Universal
in Bulgarian dramaturgy........................................................................................................................... 234
Albena Tagareva. Сценографът Светослав Генев като обществено-политическа фигура в
развитието на Пловдивския драматичен театър/ Scenographer Svetoslav Genev and his key
role for the development of the Plovdiv Drama Theatre..........................................................................241
Petar Denchev. Миметично и антимиметично в театралния спектакъл от периода на
социализма в България/ Mimetic and antimimetic in the theatrical performance from the period of
socialism in Bulgaria................................................................................................................................. 249
Ilko Ganev. Проектният театър в България – развитие и перспективи/ Project theatre in
Bulgaria – development and perspectives............................................................................................... 258
Ani Yaneva. Архивите като хранилище на колективната и културната памет/ Archives as
repository of the collective and cultural memory....................................................................................... 266
Screen arts
Alfonso J. García-Osuna. Designing National Identities: United States Filmic Narratives and Their
Influence on Latin American Identitary Typecasting/ Конструиране на национални идентичности:
американските филмови наративи и тяхното влияние върху латиноамериканските
трансформации на типовете идентичност ................................................................................... 274
Elitza Gotzeva. The praise of antiheroes in complex TV dramas: a modern pathology or a sign of
a society in despair?/ Възхвалата на антигероите в комплексните телевизионни драми:
патология или признак на отчаянието в съвременното общество?.......................................... 283
Kosuke Fujiki. Adapting Shakespeare in Okinawa: Nakae Yūji’s A Midsummer’s Okinawan Dream and the
aftermath of the Okinawa boom/ Адаптация на Шекспир в Окинава: Окинавски сън в лятна нощ на
Юджи Накае и последиците от бума на Окинава............................................................................ 294
Iosif Astrukov. Дигитални симулации или „Kак е създадено?“/ Digital simulation or “How was it
created?”................................................................................................................................................... 301
Alexander Donev. Slatan Dudow: from Yuchbunar district to Metropolis/ Златан Дудов – от Ючбунар
до Метрополис ...........................................................................................................................................312
Petia Alexandrova. Съпротива чрез смях: филмови комедии за бежанци (Никога повече няма да вали
сняг и Страх)/ Resistance through laughter: film comedies about refugees (Never Gonna Snow Again and
Fear)............................................................................................................................................................ 321
Lachezar Velinov. Анимацията и детето. Формиране на идентичност/ Animation and child.
Identity formation...................................................................................................................................... 329
Teodora Doncheva. Българското документално кино на границата между тоталитаризма
и демокрацията/ Bulgarian documentary cinema on the border between totalitarianism and
democracy................................................................................................................................................ 336
Deyan Statulov. „За някои проблеми“ на репертоарната и фестивална политика в българското
социалистическо кино като средство за пропаганда/ “On some problems” of the repertory and
festival policy in Bulgarian socialist cinema as a tool for propaganda................................................... 348
Marian Țuțui. The influence of the Bulgarian National Television on the Romanian public in 1980s/
Влиянието на Българската национална телевизия върху румънската общественост през
80-те години на XX век..........................................................................................................................357
Music arts
Lozanka Peycheva. Народният певец и съживеното наследство/ The folk singer and the revived
heritage..................................................................................................................................................... 364
Rossitza Draganova. За едно писмо до Кирил Христов от 1935 г./ About a letter to Kiril Hristov from
1935........................................................................................................................................................... 374
Alexandra Fol. Consequences of forced originality of (institutionalized) music commissioning/
Последици от насилствена оригиналност на (институционализирано) поръчване
на музика .................................................................................................................................................381
Zornitsa Dimitrova. Музикалният стил в пресечната точка между субективното и обективното/
Musical style at the intersection point of subjective and objective........................................................... 386
Aliya Hanse. Пътят към познанието чрез изкуство и възприемане на изкуството чрез
познание/ The path to cognition through art and the perception of art through cognition ................. 394
Diana Danova-Damyanova. Софийски музикални седмици в контекста на столичната фестивална
среда в началото на новото хилядолетие/ Sofia Music Weeks in the context of the capital’s festival
environment at the beginning of the new millennium.............................................................................. 402
Olha Lihus. Valentin Silvestrov’s choral cycle Maidan.2014 as a musical chronicle of the Revolution of
dignity/ Хоровият цикъл на Валентин Силвестров Майдан.2014 като музикална хроника на
Революцията на достойнството..................................................................................................................410
Tsvetanka Kolovska. Специфика на компетентностния подход в професионалната подготовка
и квалификация на музиканти – педагози/ Specifics of the competence approach in the
professional training and qualification of music pedagogues..................................................................418
Zhana Popova. Музиката в българските телевизионни сериали след 1990 г. (от Дунав мост до
Съни бийч и Порталът)/ The music in the Bulgarian TV series after 1990 (from Danube bridge to Sunny
beach and The Portal) .................................................................................................................................. 425
Dzana Ivanova. The success of the Italian urlatori: symbol of youth emancipation and economic
prosperity in the late 50s and early 60s of the 20th century/ Успехът на италианските urlatori –
символ на младежката еманципация и на икономическия разцвет в края на 50-те – началото
на 60-те години на XX век................................................................................................................... 433
Miglena Tzenova. Представления на китайска традиционна опера в България през петдесетте
години на XX век и тяхната рецепция/ Traditional Chinese opera performances in the 1950s in
Bulgaria and their reception..................................................................................................................... 439
Emiliya Zhunich. Идеологически промени в българския оперен театър от втората половина
на XX век/ Ideological changes in the Bulgarian opera theater from the second half of the 20th
century...................................................................................................................................................... 446
Anelia Yaneva. Червената Жизел и Нижински, клоунът на бога – или от сцената до психиатричната
клиника/ Red Giselle and Nijinsky, Clown of God: or from the stage to a psychiatric hospital ..................... 454
Zahari Nankov. Танцът в кръг като свещенодействие и като сценичен танц/ The dance in a
circle as liturgy and as a stage dance......................................................................................................461
Ventsislav Dimov. Грамофонната плоча и колективната памет в България/ The phonograph
record and the collective memory in Bulgaria......................................................................................... 468
Изкуствоведски четения 2022.II
ИЗКУСТВО И ОБЩЕСТВО
Институт за изследване на изкуствата, БАН
София, 2023
Отговорен редактор:
Катерина Гаджева
Съставителство и научна редакция:
проф. д-р Ингеборг Братоева-Даракчиева
проф. д. н. Камелия Николова
доц. д-р Катерина Гаджева
проф. д. н. Венцислав Димов
Редактор:
Даниела Статулова
Английски коректор:
Минка Парашкевова
Графичен дизайн и предпечат:
Любомир Маринчевски
Корица:
Даниел Нечев
Любомир Маринчевски
Печат:
Дайрект Сървисиз
формат 70/100/16
Art Readings 2022.II
ART AND SOCIETY
Institute of Art Studies, BAS
Sofia, 2023
Under the general editorship of
Katerina Gadjeva
Edited by
Ingeborg Bratoeva-Daraktchieva
Kamelia Nikolova
Katerina Gadjeva
Ventsislav Dimov
Copy editor:
Daniela Statulova
English proofreader:
Minka Parashkevova
Graphic design and content management:
Lyubomir Marinchevsky
Cover design:
Daniel Netchev
Lyubomir Marinchevsky
Printery
Direct Services
Format 70/100/16
ISSN: 1313-2342
ISBN: 978-619-7619-22-5
Изкуствоведски четения 2022. Изкуство и общество
Slatan Dudow: from Yuchbunar district to Metropolis
Златан Дудов – от Ючбунар до Метрополис
Alexander Donev1
Institute of Art Studies,
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Александър Донев
Институт за изследване на изкуствата,
Българска академия на науките
Abstract: The paper studies the early period of the social and ideological growth of the important
German director of Bulgarian origin, Slatan Dudow. He is the author of Kuhle Wampe (1932), a pioneering example of proletarian cinema in Western Europe, and one of the founders of DEFA. Based
on a study of archival documents and early articles by Slatan Dudow, published in the Bulgarian
magazine Nasheto Kino (Our Cinema), the paper questions the cliché of socialist historiography about
the future filmmaker’s acceptance of communist ideas since his early teens.
Keywords: biographical, ideological transformation, 1920s, Nasheto kino, art as a catalyst for social
change
Ключови думи: биографично изследване, идейна трансформация, 1920-те, списание Нашето
кино, изкуството като катализатор на социални промени
The biographical image of any artist intended for public perception is always
a deliberate construction in one sense or another. These characteristics are particularly acute when we consider the biographies of public figures and artists who
lived in a totalitarian era. In it, as in the hereditary aristocracy, there is a special
sensitivity to ancestry, to the early “embrace” of a certain type of values, to the
“adamant following of the primordial chosen path”. The same kind of ideological
clichés characterize the biography of Slatan Dudow. Born in Tsaribrod in 1903
and graduated from high school in Sofia in 1922, he was the first theater director of three strikingly communist Bertolt Brecht’s plays: The Measures Taken (Berlin,
1930), Señora Carrar’s Rifles (Paris, 1937), The 99% (abridged version of Fear and Misery
of the Third Reich, Paris, 1938). He created the pioneering example of proletarian cinema in Western Europe, Kuhle Wampe (1932), and was one of the founders of the
GDR film studio, DEFA. Three major biographical studies have been written so far
about Slatan Dudow – by the East German researcher and film critic Hermann
1
Alexander Donev, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Screen Arts department at the Institute of Art Studies, Bulgarian
Academy of Sciences. Research fields: film studies, film industry studies, film history, audience studies. Author of the
books: ‘Pomosht ot publikata: Balgarskite igralni filmi v nachaloto na XXI vek’ (Ask the Audience: Bulgarian feature films
in the beginning of 21st century, 2018); ‘Nezavisimite v kinoto: ot Edisson do Netflix’ (Film Independents: from Edisson to
Netflix, 2019); ‘Kartografirane na filmovata neopitomenost’ (Mapping the film untamedness, 2021). Visiting lecturer in film
studies at National Academy for Theatre and Film Arts (Sofia).
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9852-1626; E-mail: alexanderdonev@gmail.com
312
Herlinghaus (Herlinghaus 1965), by the French author Yves Aubry (Aubry 1970)
and by the Bulgarian film historian Alexander Grozev (Grozev 1972). In these
books, which appeared in the first decade after his death, he is portrayed as a
Marxist starting from the time he was a 16-year-old high school student. This onedimensional, ideological straightforwardness in describing a human life fits the
communist cliché but has little to do with reality. The facts show that he became
a member of the East German Communist Party only after he joined the artistic
leadership of DEFA. At the time, this was a must for an artist of his stature and
because of the administrative positions he held at the film studio. His first ideas
about society and the role of cinema in it can be found in his earliest publications in the magazine Nasheto Kino in 1924/25. They are democratic, imbued with
sympathy and solidarity towards working people and without a trace of communist
phraseology.
For a man of his background the path to Marxism and the embodiment of
its principles in film was actually not nearly as direct and inevitable as his previous biographers claim it. Slatan Dudow’s family has played an important role in
the shaping of the Tsaribrod community since the early 19th century. The family
name comes from the fruit of the elm tree, called “dudi” in a local dialect. The
Dudows were a relatively prosperous farming family – owners of orchards, vineyards, and herds of cattle, and known as prominent wine producers (Vatsev 2003:
21). In the electoral rolls for 1903, the father, Todor, was listed as a ‘bootmaker’.
Later, he was employed on the railway line, which opened in 1888 and connected
Sofia with Belgrade and Western Europe. That gives further grounds to attribute
to him the leftist ideas inherent in that profession. However, his name is not mentioned in the existing archival sources about the socialist organizations in Tsaribrod
(Gotsev 1969). According to Dudow’s socialist-era biographers, his whole family
moved to Sofia in 1917 (Herlinghaus 1965: 5, Grozev 1972: 21). According to documents preserved in the archives, he completed the first two years of high school
in Tsaribrod2. It was not until the third year of high school, i.e., September 1st,
1919, when he was 16 years old, that he enrolled in the newest male gymnasium
in Yuchbunar, Sofia’s poorest district.
Slatan Dudow’s high school environment was an important factor in his social
upbringing. The humble background of the students seems to be in contrast with
the elite composition of the teachers who were prominent Bulgarian intellectuals.
Two of them deserve special attention: Tsvetan Radoslavov (1863–1931) and Ivan
St. Andreichin (1872–1934). Both are avid theatre-goers, but also regular cinemagoers, and Andreichin is the author of the first Bulgarian theoretical essay, considering film as an art (Andreichin 1910: 63-69). Radoslavov, in turn, exerted a more
active influence in shaping students’ social thinking. None of the teachers at the
high school, however, advocated communism or leftist views at all. On the contrary,
the schools during the peasant party government of Alexander Stamboliyski were
subject to a consistent policy of strictly persecuting any expression of sympathy
or involvement with the organisations on the left spectrum. According to his East
2
SA Sofia – 13, f. 43К, inv. no. 1, a. u. 168, p. 109.
313
German biographer, Dudow participated in student strikes and rallies in support of
the Russian Revolution and the 1919/20 railway workers’ strike, and was a member of an underground Marxist circle (Herlinghaus 1965: 6). His classmate Stoyan
Arshinkov, author of a biographical book on Tsvetan Radoslavov, points, however,
to other names of politically active young people from their class, without mentioning Dudow (Arshinkov 1985: 150).
Slatan Dudow arrived in Berlin at the end of October 1922 and the first
years of his stay had a strong impact on him. He witnessed the hyperinflation
in Germany, which reached fantastic proportions at the end of 1923, devastating the German middle class and the poorest strata. The news of the brutal suppression of an uprising in Bulgaria, which was sparked in September 1923 by the
Comintern, certainly reached him. None of this, however, automatically leads to
the communist indoctrination of twenty-year-old Slatan. His surviving notes, written immediately after his arrival in Berlin, are proof of his dream of becoming a
film artist. He appeared as an extra in silent films, and photographs of him applying/auditioning for roles in film productions exist in his archive. His contributions
to the magazine Nasheto kino, with which he established contact after his return to
Bulgaria between May and September 1924, are also revealing. In nine pieces of
various types, some of them translations, which appeared between September
1924 and April 1925, and a few other articles that remained unpublished, not only
his film interests are clearly evident, but also his ideological attitudes.
In an article entitled Cinema – Theatre of the Masses, Slatan Dudow refers to some
Peter Grossman3, only to actually expound his own ideas. He tries to explain the
strong attraction to cinema of the lower social strata, especially the working class:
“The environment in which the working man lives, his dwellings, workplace,
etc., are in most cases so conditioned that the working man desires to get out of
them as soon as possible and seeks a little artificial spiritual enjoyment or at least
some oblivion after the poisonous daily reality. His protesting mind is sufficiently
tormented by daily questions, while the spirit is condemned to constant hunger.
And behold, the impoverished man rushes to the cinema, because for him the
theatres of drama and opera are too expansive” (Dudow 1924a: 1).
In some ways, though in an incomparably simpler and more limited form, this
short text seems to foreshadow Brecht’s study of his trial for the screen adaptation of The Threepenny Opera (Brecht 1966: 151-257). But if with Brecht the opposition is bourgeois – anti-bourgeois, with Dudow in 1924 it is generally humanist:
between the moral and the immoral. He believes that the popularity of cinema
is not a problem of the new art, but an incentive to take more responsibility, “to
grow in commitment”. The cinema’s equal existence alongside theatre means that
it too must become “a moral institution that ennobles the heart and mind, and
so the cinema is obliged to do its moral duty as theatre for the masses” (Dudow
1924a: 1). For Dudow at this point, the way to achieve that goal is to simply call
out the filmmakers: “give to the working man a clipping of the life of his people,
show him the activity of all professions, that he may understand and appreciate
3
A journalist or film critic, whom, despite numerous attempts, I could not identify – AN.
314
the situation in which he lives and labours”. He does not claim that the solution
lies in the revolutionary transformation of society, as Brecht, and himself, will state
5-6 years later. His “ideology” at that moment was an abstract existential call:
“Make it so that those who have come before the screen to look for their lost self
among the daily inundation – really find it, and find it wiser, better, purer!” (Dudow
1924a: 2).
To understand the ideological development of the young Dudow one must look
at his short text in honor of the half-year “jubilee” of the first issue of Nasheto kino.
The fact that he is the only author, apart from the editor Panteley Karasimeonov,
to publish something on this occasion, is indicative of his status as a contributor.
Especially noteworthy is his call for the need to unite all those in Bulgaria who
want to work for a national film culture and national film production. He is particularly adamant that “it will be difficult to achieve these goals where there is
hatred, discord, and a desire for domination, and where politics interfere with culture” (Dudow 1924b: 3). His appeal “for mutual fraternal work towards a spiritual
uplift” (Dudow 1924b: 3) is an expression of a purely intellectual, non-partisan
position, which in no way corresponds to the established biographical plot of the
young communist Dudow. He wrote these lines in October 1924, a year after the
September Uprising. They are more in line with the position of the government,
calling for reconciliation, than with the slogans of the clandestine Communist Party,
which include demands for a new uprising. Certainly, Dudow talks about the relations between film enthusiasts, but in the tense Bulgarian social atmosphere,
everything could be interpreted politically. With his words about the priority of collectivity in contemporary artistic production, Dudow undoubtedly sends a clear
message that long before his relationship with Brecht and before the production
of Kuhle Wampe, he had personally realized the importance of that principle. It is
symptomatic of Dudow’s political neutrality at the time that he derived this idea,
albeit generally, not from Soviet cinema but from the practice of leading figures in
the capitalist film industry: Erich Pommer, Fritz Lang, Ernst Lubitsch – “the people
who are at the forefront of German film art” (Dudow 1924b: 3). Naturally, Dudow’s
views will undergo an evolution, but it will again be dominated not so much by politically assumed theses and directives, but by artistic reasoning. Very soon, for
Slatan Dudow, the Soviet communist cinema became the most adequate reference
points for understanding reality and creating contemporary art.
Further evidence that in the mid-1920s Dudow was not advocating any Marxist,
much less revolutionary, class principles is his translation of an article by Ernst
Lubitsch. The translation is overall accurate, but there are significant discrepancies in places. Dudow “translates” something that is not present in Lubitsch: “The
artist – director and filmmaker – must beware of any tendentious or political influence that can kill any artistry of his work” (Dudow 1925: 6). At the time, “tendentious and political” meant primarily communist and generally class-engaged art, so
such a distinction is quite indicative of a bourgeois-liberal position. Let us try to understand how Slatan Dudow actually came to a change of his views in the second
half of the 1920s. At the end of the decade he visited Soviet Russia to study contemporary Soviet theatre, and later became one of Brecht’s closest collaborators
315
in the writing and directing of his communist in spirit didactic plays. The Bulgarian
political reality also had a significant influence on him. For a few months in the
summer of 1924 Dudow seemingly experienced events revealing the tense political situation in Bulgaria which was standing on the brink of civil war. He describes
the following incident in an unpublished text called Notes of the Film Director4. It refers
to the funeral of the leader of the left wing of the peasant party Petko D. Petkov.
Dudow was very impressed by the crowded procession, which passed under a
complete ban on raising slogans, singing songs, and making speeches. Numerous
police were patrolling the funeral rally, ready with batons and bayonets to intervene
if the order is violated. However, the crowd began to sing the communist anthem
You fell victim very quietly, without opening their mouths. At the cemetery, before the
coffin was to be laid in the dug grave, a voice rung out for all to pay their respects
by falling to their knees and vowing to avenge the death of the peasant leader.
Dudow notes that, instead of intervening, some of the police also took a knee.
Only after his return to Berlin did Dudow begin to consistently study Marxism
and to follow the practical implementation of its ideas in Soviet Russia. Thanks
to his journalistic accreditation, in the autumn of 1925 he was admitted to the set
of the biggest German production of the time, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, and not long
afterwards he was accepted as a trainee. For the future director, this step has a
double meaning: to study closely the work of one of the greatest directors of his
era, but also to get a first-hand impression of how the ambitious subject matter of
the film attempts to provide a solution to the most acute social conflicts of the time
– between capital and labour, between exploiters and exploited. Surely he senses
the discrepancy between the film’s ideas of class reconciliation and the facts of
reality. One can assume that he was significantly influenced by the news of the
intensified repression in Bulgaria following the terrorist attack on St Nedelya Church
in Sofia on April 16th, 1925. In Berlin, at the end of 1925 and in 1926, a series of
actions (including a large exhibition organized by the German League for Human
Rights) took place to make the public aware of the political violence in Bulgaria.
For that occasion, the Bulgarian embassy in Berlin prepared lists of Bulgarian citizens with communist convictions living in Germany. Nowhere in these lists do we
find Slatan Dudow’s name5. Another proof that no such information exists about
him is the fact that in 1933, when he was arrested and threatened to be sent to a
Nazi concentration camp, it was the embassy’s advocacy for him as a Bulgarian
citizen that saved him from persecution.
Perhaps it was the brutal violence in Bulgaria, with which the military in alliance with the bourgeois parties defended their positions, that allowed Slatan
Dudow to see all the more clearly the inability of even the largest contemporary
film production (Metropolis by Fritz Lang) to offer a thorough understanding and a
real solution to the social contradictions of this turbulent era. He also felt his own
unpreparedness both for the ideological struggle in the contemporary world and
4
Slatan Dudov’s personal archive, stored in the Cinémathèque Française (Référence:
SADOUL182-B13).
5
CSA – 12, f. 316К, inv. no. 1, a. u. 33 & 34.
316
for a professional career as a film director. We can assume that it was for these
reasons that Dudow devoted himself to theatre studies, a new discipline that was
making its first steps at that time. He probably saw theatre as a laboratory for his
training as film director and for developing methods of artistic exploration and
transformation of reality. A goal he achieved in remarkable manner with his first
feature film Kuhle Wampe.
This paper was written as part of a research project with ref. КП-06 ПН60/9
entitled “FILM CULTURE, ARTS AND NATIONAL IMAGES IN BULGARIA (KINO.BG).
Formation of the social significance of film culture in the interwar period”, selected
for funding on the basis of the “Competition for Funding of Fundamental Scientific
Research – 2021” held by the Bulgarian National Science Fund (BNSF).
1. Tsaribrod 1919 (https://far.rs/bg – FAR multimedia portal in
Bulgarian and Serbian)
2. Slatan Dudov with his parents,
Tsaribrod 1910 (Akademie der
Künste Archiv, Berlin)
317
3. Excerpt about Slatan Dudow in
the Main student list of Third male
gymnasium (DA Sofia – 13, f. 43К, inv.
no. 1, a. u. 168, p. 109)
5. Slatan Dudov, photo from matriculation
certificate, 1922 (DA Sofia – 13, f. 43К,
inv. no. 1, a. u. 169, p. 118)
318
4. Matriculation certificate of Slatan Dudow,
October 1922 (DA Sofia – 13, f. 43К, inv.
no. 1, a. u. 169, p. 118)
6. Cover page, Nasheto kino, № 24,
31.10.1922 (Bulgarian Film Archive)
Bibliography
Resources
CSA, f. 316К: Централен държавен архив, фонд 316К – Българска легация в Берлин [Central
State Archives, fond 316К – Balgarska legatsia v Berlin]
SA Sofia – 13, f. 43: Държавен архив София, фонд 43К – [Treta sofijska mazhka obraztsova
gimnaziya “William Gladstone” (1906–1944) [State Archives Sofia, fond 43К – Balgarska legatsia
v Berlin]
Slatan Dudov’s personal archive, stored in the Cinémathèque Française (Référence: SADOUL182-B13)
Literature
Andreichin (1910): Andreichin, Ivan. Синема[Cinema]. – In: Книга за театъра [Kniga za teatara].
Sofia.
Arshinkov (1985): Arshinkov, Stoyan. Мила родино. Цветан Радославов Хаджиденков [Mila
rodino. Tsvetan Radoslavov Hadžidenkov]. Sofia.
Aubry (1970): Aubry, Yves. Slatan Dudow 1903–1963 (Anthologie du cinéma 58, Supplément to
L’Avant-Scène Cinéma Magazine, No. 107 /Oktober/). Paris.
Brecht (1966): Brecht, Bertolt. Der Dreigroschenprozeß. Ein soziologisches Experiment. – In:
Schriften zur Literatur und Kunst. Band I. Berlin, Weimar.
Dudow (1924a): Dudow, Slatan. Киното – театър на масите [Kinoto – teatar na masite].
– Нашето кино [Nasheto kino], 1924, № 22 (17.10).
Dudow (1924b): Dudow, Slatan. Нещо за „Нашето кино“ и другите [Neshto za “Nasheto kino” i
drugite]. – Нашето кино [Nasheto kino], № 24, 1924, (31.10).
Dudow (1925): Dudow, Slatan. Филмова интернационалност [Filmova internatsionalnost].
– Нашето кино [Nasheto kino], 1925, № 36 (25.02)/Original publication: Lubitsch (1924): Lubitsch,
Ernst. Film-Internationalität. – In: Heinrich Pfeiffer, ed., Das deutsche Lichtbild-Buch: Filmprobleme
von gestern und heute. Berlin, 13-14/.
Grozev (1972): Grozev, Aleksandar. Златан Дудов. Творчески портрет [Slatan Dudow. Tvorcheski
portret]. Sofia.
Herlinghaus (1965): Herlinghaus, Hermann. Slatan Dudow. Henschelverlag (Theater und Film 9).
Berlin.
Vatsev (2003): Vatsev, Vlastimir. Брод към Цариброд. Разкази за миналото [Brod kamTsaribrod.
Razkazi za minaloto]. Sofia.
Online sources
Gotsev (1969): Gotsev, Konstantin. История на революционното движение в Царибродска околия и борбите в ЮКП (1888–1944) [Istoria na revolyutsionnoto dvizhenie v Tsaribrodska okoliya
i borbite v YuKP]. Available at: http://staricaribrod.org/sr/2017/05/01/history-revolution-movmentcaribrod-sr/ [Accessed 26.03.2022]
Резюме
Статията разглежда ранен период от социалното и идейно формиране
на големия германски режисьор от български произход. Той е автор на
основополагащия образец на пролетарското кино в Западна Европа Куле
Вампе (1931) и един от основателите на ДЕФА, киностудията на ГДР. Въз
основа на архивни документи и ранните статии (1924–1925) на Златан
Дудов в списание Нашето кино статията опровергава клишето на социалистическата историография за приемането на комунистическите идеи от
319
бъдещия режисьор още в ранна юношеска възраст. Пътят до марксизма
за човек с неговия дребнобуржоазен произход всъщност е дълъг и лъкатушещ. Важни фактори са средата в Трета мъжка гимназия, разположена в
най-бедния квартал на София – Ючбунар, както и престоят му в Берлин
по време на голямата инфлация през 1923г. В същото време той е повлиян
от политическите и обществени събития в България, Септемврийското
въстание и атентата в църквата Света Неделя, докато участва като стажант в снимките на Метрополис.
320