Emily Bostaph
Literature Review-The Cinefication Process
Since the development of the Cinématographe by the Lumière brothers in 1895, cinema
has become a key part of culture around the world. This was especially true of Soviet Russia.
Studying Soviet cinematic industry can help historians define cultural ideology, dependence, and
relationships as well as the state’s economy and international policies. During this literature
review I will examine seven different works that study Soviet cinematography and the
cinefication process. During my research no two historians have agreed on the same source as
initializing the cinefication process. This is a theme I have found in all historians’ works that I
have read on this topic. I will attempt to answer the question of whom or what the historians
believed started the process of cinefication in Soviet Russia and how this defines their
periodization on the topic.
Cinefication is a term that can be described as the expansion of the cinema industry from
urban Soviet Russia into rural Soviet Russia. This process takes place for multiple reasons, the
most common being the shift from privatized industry to that of government owned. Jamie
Miller, author of “Soviet Cinema, 1929-41: The Development of Industry and Infrastructure”
published in 2006, defined cinefication as, “The expansion of the cinema network and the
availability of viewing facilities in both rural and urban environments.”1 According to Russian
historian Vance Kepley Jr., the term “was coined to describe projected changes the Soviet system
promised to bring to Russia, changes which seemed so consequential as to require a new
Jamie Miller, “Soviet Cinema, 1929-41: The Development of Industry and Infrastructure,”
Europe-Asia Studies 58, no. 1 (2006): 109.
1
2
lexicon.”2 Kepley’s article “ 'Cinefication': Soviet Film Exhibition in the 1920s,” published in
1994, goes on to say, “The Soviets vowed to 'cinefy' the USSR in the course of developing film
as a tool of mass education and persuasion. The effort entailed building an infrastructure which
would allow films to reach a mass audience.”3 The seven works assessed in this literature review
all include different theories on why the cinefication process started, which also alters their
periodization on the topic.
Almost all of the historians I have researched agree on the ideology behind the Soviet
government’s support and funding of the cinefication process. This rationale included the Soviet
government wanting to use cinema as a propaganda tool; they realized how quickly and easily it
reached the masses. They wanted to use cinema as a means of demolishing illiteracy, boosting
the economy, as a tool of education. They especially wanted to use it to legitimize communist
ideology and actions revolving mostly around the revolution and its aftermath, to eliminate social
status, and to gain support of illiterate peasants. The concepts behind endorsing the cinefication
process are not debated, but the cause of the start of the process.
Historian Jamie Miller uses his article, “Soviet Cinema, 1929-41: The Development of
Industry and Infrastructure” to discuss how sound technology jumpstarted the cinefication
process in the Soviet Union. His article examines how the Bolsheviks quickly realized that
cinema was widely popular and easily accessible which made it a “potentially powerful
weapon.”4 Miller goes on to say how they wanted to use cinema in a variety of different ways
including “eliminating illiteracy”5 and “educating the masses”6 especially in a way that the
Vance Kepley Jr., “ ‘Cinefication’: Soviet Film Exhibition in the 1920s,” Film History 6, no. 2
(Summer, 1994): 262.
3
Ibid.
4
Jamie Miller, “Soviet Cinema, 1929-41: The Development of Industry and Infrastructure,”
Europe-Asia Studies 58, no. 1 (2006): 103.
5
Ibid.
2
3
population could better understand “the revolution, the new socialist reality, and their part in that
reality.”7 Miller, as well as some of the other historians, examines the Party Conference on
Cinema, which was held in March 1928.8 During this meeting, the conference members decided
it was crucial for the cinema to “reach the masses,”9 to become less dependent on Western Films,
and that the need to eliminate social status revolving around the industry was vital. They thought
the most efficient way of achieving these goals was to make their political message more
entertaining. According to Miller, the government already knew that movies projected with
sound were more popular, but the lack of sound equipment and developers in the Soviet Union
forced them to look outside the country for that technology.10 It took the Soviet Union until 1935
to start developing their own sound technology, which led to the start of the cinefication process
in the late 1930s. Miller states, “The issue of sound was of central importance in persuading the
peasantry throughout the USSR that the Soviet political system was working for their
interests.”11 Not only did the installation of sound in the cinema industry pull in more
moviegoers out of interest but also allowed the government to project their propaganda and
ideologies to a wider rage of viewers. Miller believes this piece of technology was crucial in
triggering the start cinefication process, now that the government knew they would be able to
reach a wider variety of people. Miller uses both secondary and archival sources, including
sources from the Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (RGALI). He also references
Vance Kepley Jr.’s article published in 1996, “The First Perestroika: Soviet Cinema Under the
Jamie Miller, “Soviet Cinema, 1929-41: The Development of Industry and Infrastructure,”
Europe-Asia Studies 58, no. 1 (2006): 103.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid., 105.
9
Ibid., 105.
10
Ibid., 107.
11
Ibid., 111.
6
4
First Five Year Plan,” contradicts Miller’s argument, saying the cinefication process occurred
almost a decade before Miller claims it happened.
Kepley bases his article around the idea that Stalin’s First Five Year Plan was the reason
the cinefication process was started. Under Stalin’s First Five Year Plan, “the state restructured
agriculture and industry and installed the command economy that would reshape the whole
Soviet system.”12 The First Five-Year Plan occurred at the same time that the Cultural
Revolution was happening, which led to “tight controls”13 being implemented on all cultural
aspects. The cinema industry quickly became engulfed in governmental restrictions and
guidance. Kepley discusses that in Stalin’s Plan he wanted to make movies a “genuine mass
art”14 which led to it quickly becoming “nationalized and more directly subordinate to state
planning and control.”15 Kepley believes that the cinefication process “came about through the
reorganization of cinemas infrastructure.”16 Similar to Miller, Kepley also discusses the March
1928 Party Conference but only to emphasize that this was yet another point in Soviet cinematic
history where the government announced that the cinematic industry was going to be put under
heavy state control.17 Kepley also briefly mentions sound technology, and how it positively
impacted the industry but he does not credit it to the start of the industry. Because Kepley
attributes the start of the cinefication process to the First Five Year Plan, he bases his studies
around 1928 to 1932; way before Miller claims the process began. In this article, Kepley uses all
secondary sources, which means he bases all of his research around other historians works,
meaning he does not develop an opinion for himself using his own archival research.
Vance Kepley Jr., “The First ‘Perestroika’: Soviet Cinema under the First Five-Year Plan,”
Cinema Journal 35, no. 4 (Summer, 1996): 31.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., 32.
15
Ibid., 32.
16
Ibid., 32.
17
Ibid., 32.
12
5
Following around the same time frame as Kepley, Jamie Miller wrote another work on
Soviet cinema and the cinefication process. Unlike his article, his book Soviet Cinema: Politics
and Persuasion Under Stalin, published in 2010, attributes the start of the cinefication process
not to sound but to the Soiuzkino and their established decrees.18 Unlike his article that states the
process started solely because of the development of sound technology, in his book he claims the
Soviet administrative body called the Soiuzkino was responsible for stimulating the spread of the
industry. In his book, Miller starts by writing how the Soviet government wanted to develop
Soviet cinema to use as a tool of education and mainly “gain the support among the
overwhelmingly illiterate peasant masses in the civil war that followed the October 1917
Revolution.”19 The Soviet government wanted to create a centralized industry that could be
easily accessed by the masses and provide “ideologically sound”20 material. Miller contradicts
Kepley’s claim that the Five Year Plan triggered the start of the cinefication process, and that
Stalin’s Five Year Plan, the Bolsheviks, and their micromanaging actually held back the
development.21 Miller states that they were “stunting the growth and success of Soviet
cinema.”22 He thinks that they were so concerned with micromanaging that they hindered the
industries progress. Miller also mentions the March 1928 Party Conference on Cinema but states
that this again just slowed down the growth process, because the conference led to centralized
government of control over cinema.23 Miller claims that only when the Soiuzkino was developed
did the cinefication process start to take place. The Soiuzkino was the new cinema administration
18
Jamie Miller, Soviet Cinema: Politics and Persuasion Under Stalin (London: I.B. Tauris,
2010), 19.
19
Ibid., vii.
Ibid., 15.
21
Ibid., 15.
22
Ibid., 15.
23 Ibid., 19.
20
6
body, “responsible for the broad leadership, planning, and regulation of the cinema industry.”24
The Soiuzkino was in charge of overseeing the newly established governmental decrees
concerning “economic development of cinema.”25 The decrees included, “establishing funds for
the expansion and growth of the industry,”26 this took place between 1929 and 1930. Concerning
Miller’s article, “Soviet Cinema, 1929-41: The Development of Industry and Infrastructure,”
claiming that sound began the expansion of the industry, this led to confusion, seeing as he
claims in his book that something vastly different led to the cinefication process. In his book, he
later clarifies this confusion when stating that indeed the Soiuzkino and the government decrees
started the expansion of the industry, commencing the cinefication process, but it was sound that
made the industry widely popular. Because of his article and book having two very different
theses, it makes it hard to understand which one he is clearly supporting or if they really do
intertwine. Going off of his theory in his book, he categorizes the process as taking place around
the same time frame as Kepley does. He believes the expansion of the industry started in 1929 to
1930, much like Kepley theorizes. As for Miller’s sources, he uses an abundance of direct and
published archival sources from Russian State Archive for Literature and the Arts. From this
archive he uses microfilm, newspaper articles, and secret police archives to help research his
book. He also uses published collections, as well as websites.
In Neya Zorkaya’s book The Illustrated History of the Soviet Cinema, published in 1989,
she moves the time line back a bit when categorizing the start of the expansion of the cinema
industry. Unlike Miller and Kepley, she believes through her research that the cinefication
24
Jamie Miller, Soviet Cinema: Politics and Persuasion Under Stalin (London: I.B. Tauris,
2010), 19.
25
26
Ibid.
Ibid.
7
process began in 1925 with the start of the cinema exporting industry.27 Zorkaya discusses how
Soviet film companies quickly realized that the “uneducated masses”28 were flooding into their
theaters and that to increase revenue they needed to transform the types of movies they were
showing to “cater”29 to their audiences, so they began “importing productions.”30 Around 1919,
Zorkaya writes that all privately owned cinematic industries became nationalized.31 Once
nationalized, the government wanted to cease the importing process of films, until they realized
in 1920, after the civil war “ravaged their studios”32 that they needed to import “essential film
equipment.”33 According to Zorkaya, because the industry was able to quickly recover, in 1925
the Soviet Union began exporting films.34 Zorkaya claims that other countries “were eager
consumers of films put out by the young Soviet film industries, for they were profitable.”35 This
process led to progress in the import-export industry, which allowed the Soviet film market to
become predominant. Because she attributes the expansion process to the exporting industry, her
time frame revolves around the early to mid 1920s, especially focusing on 1925. Compared to
Miller and Kepley, this time frame is earlier than they would categorize it. She uses both primary
and secondary sources, but to me has a very disorganized bibliography. She organizes it by
Chapter instead of by source, which makes it hard to efficiently evaluate the types of sources she
used.
27
Neya Zorkaya, The Illustrated History of the Soviet Cinema (Moscow: Novosti Press Agency
Publishing House, 1989), 106.
28
Ibid., 31.
29
Ibid., 31
30
Ibid., 32.
31
Ibid., 37.
32
Ibid., 47.
33
Ibid., 47.
34
Ibid., 106.
35
Ibid., 106.
8
In Louis Harris Cohen’s book published in 1974, The Cultural-Political Traditions and
Developments of the Soviet Cinema, 1917-1972 he sets the time frame at the earliest out of all the
historians we have looked at so far. He believes the process of cinefication started in August
1919, when Lenin signed the decree of “The Transfer of Photographic and Cinematographic
Trade and Industry to the Jurisdiction of the People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment.”36 Lenin
believed cinema could fight and destroy the class system, educate a variety of people, and could
“foster a new socialist morality,”37 which was why he promoted the government take over of
cinema from private owners in 1919. According to Cohen, Lenin believed the cinema as “the
answer to the appointed hopes of the Communist Party.”38 Cohen believes that this decree was
the start of the expansion of the cinema industry and that the start far predated those theories of
our other historians we have looked at.
In her essay “Government Policies and Practical Necessitates in the Soviet Cinema of the
1920s,” Kristin Thompson attempts to disprove the theory that Cohen uses as his thesis that
Lenin and his transfer decrees led to cinefication in 1919. Thompson places the start of
cinefication in May of 1924, when taxes were placed on cinemas, which helped the industry
recover after the New Economic Policy was implemented.39 Thompson says that when studying
economic aspects, it is easily discovered that “the government gave direct subsidies to the film
industry only on a limited and inadequate basis.”40 This forced the cinema industry to be self-
36
Louis Harris Cohen, The Cultural-Political Traditions and Developments of the Soviet Cinema,
1917-1972 (New York: Arno Press, 1974), 33.
37
Ibid., 30.
38
Ibid., 33.
39
Kristin Thompson, “Government Policies and Practical Necessities in the Soviet Cinema of the
1920s,” The Red Screen: Politics, Society, Art in Soviet Cinema, edited by Anna Lawton (London:
Routledge, 1992): 25.
40
Ibid., 19.
9
sustaining and was expected to do so by “importing and distributing foreign films.”41 This
caused revenue to skyrocket, but quickly failed when the government tried to implement policies
for the industry to become less dependent on the West. The goal of the NEP was to eventually
become fully self-sustaining, but never worked because the government failed to subsidize.42 In
1921, the NEP backed off their policies and allowed the industry to continue with foreign trade,
but at this point no other country was interested in trading with Soviet Russia. The way they
recovered from all these failures was by raising taxes on state cinema. “When the Council of
People’s Commissars set the ceiling on state cinema taxes at ten percent and on local taxes at
five percent, this move no doubt bolstered the recovery of the industry.”43 Thompson remains
around the same time frame as Zorkaya and Miller but has opposing ideas as to what started the
cinefication process.
Unlike all of these historians, Kristin Roth-Ey jumps way out of the time frame we have
been looking at, as she is studying the post-Stalin era cinematic industry in her book Moscow
Prime Time: How the Soviet Union Built the Media Empire That Lost the Cultural Cold War,44
published in 2011. Because of the time frame of her book, this makes it very difficult to decipher
whether this is what she believes to be the “start” of the cinematic industry or if this is just the
time frame in which she is choosing to study, regardless of whether that was the beginning. She
bases her cinefication thesis into the 1960s and revolves it around the idea that because of the
massive expansion and construction of the industry this is what she considers to be the start of
Kristin Thompson, “Government Policies and Practical Necessities in the Soviet Cinema of the
1920s,” The Red Screen: Politics, Society, Art in Soviet Cinema, edited by Anna Lawton (London:
Routledge, 1992): 19.
42
Ibid., 23.
43
Ibid., 25.
44
Kristin Roth-Ey, Moscow Prime Time: How the Soviet Union Built the Media Empire that Lost
the Cultural Cold War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011).
41
10
cinefication, even though she never specifically uses that word. As stated before, it is hard to tell
whether she is studying cinefication or just the popularization of the cinema. She does not really
fit into the pattern of the other historians I am researching, but does provide a valid argument
with an abundance of research to convince the reader that this was the start of the industry.
Through looking at these seven sources it is easy to see that not all historians agree on
when, what, or who was involved in the aspect of starting the cinefication process. As important
as this process is, there is no clear way of knowing which historian is correct in naming the time
frame revolved around this aspect or even who is correct in naming what started the process. No
two historians agree on the matter, which makes researching the topic difficult but writing on the
historiography easy. All authors but one used reputable sources so it is difficult to say that they
all have differentiating answers because of lack of resources, seeing as they almost all used
archival and primary sources, including many of the same archives.