Stalin and Cultural Management at the Cinema

Introduction: The beginning of the 20th century coincided with the emergence of deep-rooted crises in social, political, and economic life in Russia. The scope of these crises was so wide that it led to the overthrow of the Tsarist government in 1917 after fundamental changes. The Provisional Government also lacked the necessary efficiency, and finally, after the overthrow of the Provisional Government in October 1917, the government fell to the Bolsheviks and a new history page was turned. In the early years of the revolution, Lenin in his speeches paid close attention to the cinema and after Lenin's death, Stalin also paid close attention to this branch of art. Stalin's cultural management had components and features that required a special kind of media management.
Research Question: In this study, we seek to answer the question of how was Stalin's cultural management in Soviet political cinema. Then, using the descriptive-analytical approach and library method, we will answer this question. In this article, it is assumed that Stalin's management of Soviet cinema showed that even under conditions of control and censorship, directors were able to create different and glorious works. The various cultural policies and decisions adopted by the Communist Party influenced cinema. It can be said that approaches such as national Bolshevism and socialist realism had noticeable effects in cinema. The reason for the influence of cinema was, firstly, as a very powerful and important cultural tool, and secondly, its increasing acceptance by the people and citizens of the Soviet Union. These factors made cinema the center of attention and cultural policies had a direct and undeniable impact on it. In this study, we are trying to answer this question: How Stalin's cultural management was in Soviet political cinema? By using a descriptive-analytical approach and the library method, we will answer this question.
Research Hypothesis: The general conclusion of the article is that control and censorship necessarily do not reduce the quality of art in cinema, and the artist can turn custom work into a magnificent work in cinema in a process of artistic exaltation.
Methodology (and Theoretical Framework if available): Research on Soviet cinema in Iran and the world cannot be considered new and innovative, because it has been discussed for years by cultural scholars, filmmakers, media managers, and even researchers in the field of history and politics. But when this is accompanied by time constraints and issues such as Stalin's management, new parties can be expected. Various researches on Soviet cinema have been done in Iran and the world, but looking at these researches, none of them covers the subject of the present study, because most of these researches are in the level of journalistic articles. The small number of scientific articles and treatises have not addressed the issue of political cinema in the period 1924-1945 despite its importance.
Results and discussion: Cinema were more influenced by Stalinist views and ideas because Lenin had a short time to implement his ideas, but Stalin's leadership was long. Under Stalin, cultural approaches and policies were adopted that influenced cinema. These approaches include socialist realism, national Bolshevism, and the cult of personality of Stalin. Zhdanov, an influential figure in Soviet culture, also applied his doctrine to art as Stalin's agent. Apart from negative moral features, Stalin had a significant impact on the development of cinema. He paid special attention to this field. For this purpose, he formulated instructions and policies, and the directors had no choice but to follow them. In this study, Stalin's management model is not defended and the ultimate goal is not to confirm Stalin's management style, but this article confirms that even in conditions of censorship, directors can create excellent works. The Soviet look at the cinema was more than just a hobby. In general, cinema enters as entertainment coverage and then exerts its ideological and educational influences. Joseph Stalin, the first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, like Lenin, saw cinema as an important propaganda tool. In general, art has had great importance to the Soviet Communist Party from its earliest years, and this aroused Stalin's interest in cinema. During his leadership, Stalin adopted and implemented policies that had a profound effect on the body of Soviet cinema. These effects were both positive and negative, but in any case, the important managerial role of Stalin in the Soviet cinema cannot be ignored. In the Soviet Union, under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, art became the greatest factor in socialist culture. Art was a powerful tool for educating the mass. Lenin and Stalin paid great attention to the art of cinema. "Of all the arts, cinema is the most important to us," says Lenin. "Cinema is the greatest tool of mass propaganda," Stalin said. Elsewhere: "Cinema in the hands of the Soviet government is a very large and valuable power." These sentences determined the way for the development of Soviet cinema.
In Stalin's management model in cinema, the ideological interests of the party prevailed over the rights of the creator and the audience, and the power determined the path of the artists. This management style with all its negative aspects has points. Directors can create excellent works with supervision and control following the culture of the society and supervision and control do not necessarily reduce the quality of cinematic works, and it can be considered in this article. This article can be an introduction to future research on the autopsy of Eisenstein's political-revolutionary works. With the method of discourse analysis, it is possible to examine cinematic works such as Potemkin, October, and the Strike, and from that, the exact model of Stalin's management of Eisenstein's works can be extracted.
Conclusion: To strengthen the legitimacy of the communist system, Stalin formulated detailed policies and programs for artists. These policies involved many branches of art, one of which was cinema. Using Russian national heroes in the politics of national Bolshevism was also one of these strategies, which gave the necessary tool for the legitimacy of the communist system.
As we mentioned above, the general conclusion of the article is that control and censorship do not necessarily reduce the quality of works of art in cinema, and the artist can turn custom work into a magnificent work in cinema in a process of artistic excellence.