Summary:

    Eisenstein’s short article addresses the issue of subject matter in the movie Alexander Nevsky. As the title suggests, Eisenstein vehemently argues that throughout the entire production of the movie, the slogan “patriotism” was “constantly before me and before our entire group, during the shots, during the sound recordings and during the cutting” (398). He also asserts that Communism, or the Communist Party is the guardian of national identity, national independence and true patriotism throughout the world. He links the Teutonic and Livonian knights that invaded Russia in the 13th century to contemporary fascists in the Germany and draws metaphors between the specific historic epoch depicted in Alexander Nevsky and the perils of Hitler’s rising aggression in the late 1930s, only to triumphantly affirm that Communism will prevail against all enemies, since the struggle for the ideal of fairness, freedom and national rights derives its moral from the Soviet Union.

Evaluation & Analysis:

    From an artistic perspective, this article is totally irrelevant because it doesn’t elaborate on any cinematic theories nor does it scrutinize film’s form or content, and even if it does interpret its content in some fashion, it is obvious from the beginning that we are dealing with the communist propaganda of Socialist Realism, which automatically renders any artistic reading of this article invalid. Nor does the document offer any details on the collaboration activities between Eisenstein and Prokofiev. However, this article is a showcase of the Communist Party’s absolute control over the realm of art and from a historical perspective, it is serves as a practical demonstration how the Party extolled the doctrine of Socialist Realism as the prescribed art form for Soviet writers, artists and film-makers, starting in the early 1930s. Despite the fact that Eisenstein used his first sound film to illustrate his theories on the use of sound and the cooperation with Prokofiev led to production of a magnificent score, by publishing a political propaganda article of this kind, Eisenstein himself undermines the aesthetic value of his own film. Since the Socialist Realism was the only accepted form of art in the Soviet Union, this article also rises an important question – does Prokofiev’s and (especially) Eisenstein’s political subservience to Stalin deny these artists their positions as one of the great artists of the 20th century? And how does the doctrinaire nature of Alexander Nevsky affect the artistic values of the film and its musical score?

Technology and "Reel Patriotism" in American Film Advertising of the World War I Era

Staumann, Barbara. "Rewriting American Foundational Myths in Alfred Hitchcock's North by Northwest." American Foundational Myths. Ed. Martin Heusser and Gudrun Grabher. Narr: Tubingin, 2002. 201-214.

Call#: Van Pelt Library BL304 .A44 2002

    In this article Barbara Straumann describes what she considers to be an Oedipal journey: escaping from an overbearing mother and two ex-wives and fleeing into the countryside. For her argument, she considers the crop-dusting scene to be of incredible significance. While waiting for clandestine meeting with Kaplan in Northern Indiana, we see Thornhill as somewhat of a lone soldier thrown into the field of battle. This is certainly observed as a crop-duster with a gun barrels down upon him. She also mentions how he is recognizable as somewhat of a cowboy, trapped alone in a dusty field. Extrapolating the belief that he represents a soldier and a cowboy, two traditionally manly jobs, our hero can be understood as a masculine element, single-handedly fighting against the two groups who are fighting against each other.  She sees Thornhill as a character that undergoes great personal growth due to the dangerous situations he is forced into.

    Another argument that she alludes to but does not expand upon in depth is the patriotic undertones embodied by the film. Many elements of the film, from the cowboy imagery in a Midwest corn field, the lone journey into the unknown, to the climactic fight literally on the faces of the U.S. founding fathers convey a sense of independence from oppressing forces and the American way. Hitchcock brought in many different pro-American elements in order to emphasize the ‘Rough Rider' nature of the protagonist, from the Frank Lloyd Wright lookalike house to the daring fight scene on Teddy Roosevelt. The imagery Hitchcock employs serves to heighten the audience's concern for Thornhill, a man who is fighting against foreign spies by embodying the American spirit.

In the same issue of The New York Times as the Macgowan letter in defense of Lifeboat, Bosley Crowther responds with a strong critique of Macgowan and the film.

Crowther's article is a strong reflection of the American view of films during the height of censorship. His article is not one of strongly synthesized arguments about why Lifeboat is bad for the war effort. Instead he frequently employs the use of rhetorical questions, asking questions like "What's going on out there[Hollywood]?" as if any film whose portrayal of America's strength is questionable is an outrage in itself and needs no further explanation.

One of Crowther's criticisms that does not feature a question mark is that of all the abilities given to the German. He is the only one with the mental, physical, and emotional ability to amputize Gus's leg, navigate the ship through the storm, and row it towards its destination. He credits all of his abilities as being well-explained, but critizes Hitchcock (and unfairly Steinbeck) for giving them to him in the first place.  His argument can be summarized as no matter how well you explain Superman's ability to fly, his super strength, or his heat vision, they still make him look like Superman.

He closes his critique claiming that anything that casts doubt on America is inherently bad to morale and for our image overseas, giving credence to the idea of film as Will Hays's silient salesman.  Censorship in the 1940s is often attributed only to organizations like the PCA and OWI. However, the critical reaction to Lifeboat shows that if they weren't strictly enforcing unquestionable pro-American ideals in film that their would be outcry from other outlets.