The conference, fifth from the series Place and Location, concentrates on the
cinema of the former Eastern Bloc in the era between the end of the World War II
and the collapse of the Soviet Union. In film studies, a great part of Eastern
European cinematic heritage has been somehow lost. Although the Communist ideology
as one of the major grand narratives of the 20th century has inevitably influenced
the film industry and therefore the creation of concrete cinematic pieces in
Eastern European countries, the collapse of the Communist system has caused a
certain ‘vacuum of reception’ in current academic research on film – because who
really cares about the lost (film) history of the spatiotemporal order sculpted
by the political ideology of Communism at a time when the ideology has become a
loser on the world map?
By ‘lost’ cinema we mean everything that has been often excluded from the
writings on the cinema of Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union: e.g., mainstream films
(as opposed to the works of so-called great masters), the productions of small
republican studios, especially those in the Baltic States. Whilst reading the
surveys on film history, it seems to us that often the most valued part of the
post-World War II Soviet and Eastern European cinema is the oeuvre of particular
key directors and a body of works that was denied circulation, the so-called
shelved films. At the same time the background against which to evaluate these
‘masterpieces’ is fragmentary and scarce. Among other things, the seminar aims
to problematise the existing habitual scale of evaluations.
Where else did the filmmakers in the Eastern Block look for guidance and
inspiration, receiving by and large the technical base as well as ideological
instructions from Moscow? Were Paris, Rome and/or Hollywood just a distant mirage
behind the Iron Curtain? Or did the cinema in Eastern Bloc inevitably take the
same paths of exploration? Here stems an important (sub)topic – the question of
dissidence, namely the possibility of dissidence in the films at a time when the
cinematic endeavours were normally under strict control of state agencies. Closely
connected to this is the aspect of reception, the politicisation of certain artistic
and not always political choices. Shelving films was only one, and perhaps even one
of the softest manifestations of this. Another side of this problem is the (politically
defined) reception of Eastern European and Soviet cinema in the West.
Art Museum of Estonia
Institute of Art History
, Estonian Academy of Arts
The Research Group of Cultural and Literary Theory
, Estonian Literary Museum
Coordinators of the Conference:
Eva Näripea (The Research Group of Cultural and Literary Theory)
Maria-Kristiina Soomre (KUMU)
Andreas Trossek (Estonian Academy of Arts, Institute of Art History)
VIA TRANSVERSA was supported by:
Cultural Endowment of Estonia
Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Estonia
Estonian Film Foundation
Embassy of the United States in Estonia
Embassy of the Czech Republic in Estonia
Press coverage (in Estonian):
Sirje Helme, Eva Näripea, Konverentside buum.
– Sirp 14.09.2007
Kumus tulekul konverentsid kunstist ja filmist.
– Eesti Ekspress 20.09.2007
Sirje Helme, Vaielgem selgeks sõjajärgne kunstilugu.
– Postimees 24.09.2007
Kumus räägitakse endise idabloki filmikunstist.
– Eesti Päevaleht Online 04.10.2007
Andreas Trossek, Filmikaadrid, enamasti mälust.
– Sirp 12.10.2007
Anu Allas, Mõtteline Ida-Euroopa [näitusesarjast „Arhiivid tõlkes” ja Kumu sügiskonverentsidest „Erinevad modernismid, erinevad avangardid” ning „Via Transversa”] - pdf-fail.
– Agent. Eesti Kunstimuuseumi ajaleht, nr. 12, oktoober 2007, lk. 5