Cinema in the Cold War

Political Projections

Cyril Buffet

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138952348
• eBook ISBN: 9781317358787
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

The film industry was an important propaganda element during the Cold War. As with other conflicts, the Cold War was fought not just with weapons, but with words and images. Throughout the conflict, cinema was a reflection of the societies, the ideologies, and the political climates in which the films were produced. On both sides, great stars, major companies, famous scriptwriters, and filmmakers were enlisted to help the propaganda effort.

It was not only propaganda that was created by the cinema of the Cold War – it also articulated criticism, and the movie industries were centres of the fabrication of modern myths. The cinema was undoubtedly a place of Cold War confrontation and rivalry, and yet there were aesthetic, technical, narrative exchanges between West and East. All genres of film contributed to the Cold War: thrillers, westerns, comedies, musicals, espionage films, documentaries, cartoons, science fiction, historical dramas, war films, and many more. These films shaped popular culture and national identities, creating vivid characters like James Bond, Alec Leamas, Harry Palmer, and Rambo. While the United States and the Soviet Union were the two main protagonists in this on-screen duel, other countries, such as Britain, Germany, Poland, Italy, and Czechoslovakia, also played crucially important parts, and their prominent cinematographic contributions to the Cold War are all covered in this volume. This book was originally published as a special issue of Cold War History.

Meeting on the Elbe (Vstrecha na El’be): A visual representation of the incipient Cold War from a Soviet perspective

Isabelle de Keghel

University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

The article explores the most important Soviet film covering the incipient Cold War, Meeting on the Elbe. The production involved prominent Soviet filmmakers and actors. By juxtaposing the occupation policies of both superpowers in post-war Germany, the film makes crucial assumptions concerning the Soviet self and the US-American other. It attributes the full responsibility for the outbreak of the Cold War to the US-American political and military elites and argues the USSR has won the trust and support of the Germans due to its superior ‘soft power’.

‘Soft power’ (Joseph Nye) has always been a tool of politics and diplomacy, and nothing would be further from the truth than to think this is or was exclusively an American forte because of America’s widespread consumer culture and popular culture.¹ As a civilization priding itself on its progressiveness, the USSR was keen to harness new tools to its propaganda, especially in the incipient Cold War.² Successive Soviet regimes were well aware of the instrument of projecting soft power that the cinema represented.³ As for the arts in general, Soviet film since 1934 was ruled by the requirements of Socialist Realism,⁴ whether or not this would always be adhered to strictly in practice.⁵

The Soviet-produced film Meeting on the Elbe (Vstrecha na El’be)⁶ of 1949 reflects the official Soviet view of the origins of the Cold War and the competition of the systems. It shows how the USSR wanted to depict its policy towards Germany. The film was realised by one of the most distinguished film directors of the Stalin era, Grigorii Aleksandrov. He had worked as an assistant and scriptwriter alongside Sergei Eizenshtein,⁷ and in the 1930s accompanied him on a long journey to the USA, where he became acquainted with Hollywood, the dream factory. Since then, he has made films in which he has tried to beat the USA entertainment industry at its own game.⁸ In particular his musical comedy films, aimed at the masses, became legendary and still have a cult status today.⁹ Another long-term colleague of Eizenshtein was involved in the production of Meeting on the Elbe, namely Eduard Tissé, a prominent cameraman.¹⁰ The soundtrack to the film was written by no less than Dmitrii Shostakovich, who had suffered under the Soviet state’s cultural and educational policy in 1936, but who had remained loyal to the Soviet system and had since managed to re-establish himself in the official cultural scene.¹¹ The film achieved further prominence due to the fact that two female roles were awarded to stars of the Soviet cinema. Both Liubov’ Orlova, who had played leading roles in numerous other films by Aleksandrov, and the great tragicomic actress, Faina Ranevskaia, played leading parts.¹² The lead male role was performed by Vladlen Davydov, who, because of the film, became one of the few new stars of cinema in the 1940s. With his impressive figure, he was particularly well-suited physically to represent the superiority of Soviet power.¹³

Aleksandrov’s film is set at a fictional location, Altenstadt on the Elbe.¹⁴ At the beginning, he shows how Nazi Germany sinks into chaos in the final stages of the war, and how many Germans try to flee the Red Army in the final days. Moments later, the Red Army triumphantly marches across the screen accompanied by its tanks, whereupon the Nazis go into hiding, or try to destroy all evidence of their Party membership. However, in the film the Red Army is received with huge jubilation by the majority of the population. The negative side effects of the occupation, such as the mass rape of German women, are not depicted.

As the film unfolds, the principles according to which the Soviet Union and the USA are ruling their respective occupation zones become obvious. In this context, Meeting on the Elbe shows the relationship between the Americans and Soviets gradually changing in the early years following the war, not least due to their different value systems.

In world politics, the film is set against the background of steadily deteriorating East–West relations. At the beginning of Meeting on the Elbe there is a highly emotional encounter between American and Soviet soldiers, who meet and hug each other on the banks of the Elbe. Already at this early point, a US General voices his displeasure at this affectionate, friendly contact of the allies, likewise at the popularity of the Red Army with his GIs. In his opinion, such fraternization is in general the worst consequence of the war. Further on in the film, the tensions between the allies increase. Responsibility for this is attributed exclusively to the American side. Time and time again, it is made clear in the film that the elite of the US army in particular disapproves of the ‘soft power’ of the Soviet Union and sees it as a threat. The USSR obtains high popularity and authority in its occupied zone in Meeting on the Elbe, through its respect for the German population and its sensitivity to German culture – even among the bourgeoisie. In the film, the Soviet occupying power accomplishes what it had set out do: to win the hearts and minds of the Germans. It does not build on naked military power and violence, but on the appeal of its value system and the Socialist lifestyle.¹⁵ In doing so, the Soviets, in contrast to the US, abstain from imposing the Soviet system upon Germany. Introducing this seems premature anyhow. This leads Commander Kuz’min to observe: ‘One must first earn Soviet power’. He asserts that the USSR is above all interested in a democratic Germany.

The American turnaround from cooperation to confrontation with the Soviets is highlighted in several key scenes and motives. At the beginning of the film American and Soviet units build a temporary bridge over the Elbe. This equally signifies cooperation, as do the two huge US and Soviet flags which the US army has hung up on the bridge, in order to indicate the Americans are holding their allies in high regard.¹⁶ However, shortly after that, the Americans are no longer prepared to respect the arrangements¹⁷ decided upon at the 1945 Potsdam conference with the Soviet ally, while the Soviets continue to adhere to them unfailingly. The breach of the deal is depicted vividly in the film, when the US General assigned to the Elbe, MacDermott, rips into pieces the contract that was concluded with the Soviets. We are shown the scraps of paper as well as the friendship-proclaiming flags carried off by the waters of the Elbe.

The basic statements contained in the film Meeting on the Elbe comply with the ‘Two-Camp-Theory’, which was proclaimed by chief Soviet ideologist Andrei Zhdanov in 1947 at the famous founding meeting of the Cominform at Sklarska Poreba.¹⁸ It asserts that, in the world, two irreconcilable protagonists oppose each other: the Capitalist Camp, according to which, oppression, profit seeking and the pursuit of war prevail, and the Socialist Camp, which represents freedom, democracy and the struggle for peace.

This opposition runs throughout various levels and aspects of the film because both great powers are introducing their own ‘worlds’ into their respective zones. In doing so, they are confronted with a highly heterogeneous German population: we meet the bourgeois professor of engineering, Dietrich; his communist son Kurt Dietrich; a Nazi in the person of Otto Dietrich’s son-in-law Ernst Schmetau; and Otto Dietrich’s under-age son Walter, completely indoctrinated by National Socialist ideology. Then there is also the ruthless war criminal, Schrank.

Both sides deal with the German population very differently in their respective occupation zones. Embodied by their Commander Kuz’min, the Soviets appear to be an exemplary and generous occupation power, selflessly and sympathetically supporting the former opponents in their reconstruction efforts – in spite of the vast pain, grief and devastation that the Germans have inflicted upon the Soviet Union. The fact that Kuz’min occasionally wears a white tunic at ceremonial events evokes both Stalin’s dress uniform, and the moral purity of the officer and of the Soviet Union that he represents.

Kuz’min calls upon the Germans not to think of the past, which is so full of ‘ruins, blood and shame’, but of the future. In this context, the Soviet military administration even supports social groups which have no connection with the Soviet power, e.g. religious groups. Two nuns who have complained that the oil lamps around their holy pictures are empty are given machine gun oil by the Soviets, even though the Red Army has shortages in this area. The Germans presenting their grievances and registering their needs with the Soviet administration are answered in a friendly tone; all requests will be fulfilled as far as possible.

The Soviets are sincerely interested in the welfare of the Germans and, in accordance with the official ideology, distinguish clearly between fascism on the one hand, which was (and is) to be fought against, and the German population on the other, whom they treat amiably as long they are not unreconstructed Nazis. The Red Army initially releases all anti-fascists from prison,¹⁹ who exuberantly express their gratitude and immediately resume their political activity. Furthermore, the Soviet occupying power declares itself in favour of an alliance of left-wing parties and draws even the middle classes into the administration of their zone. This is visually represented by the image of a handshake, repeated variously in the film, signifying peaceful, friendly and equal cooperation. As a poster or image, we see it on the walls of buildings, symbolising both the allegedly voluntary merger which took place in 1946 between the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party to form the SED, and, the unity of all classes in the occupied Soviet zone.²⁰ The film uses the example of the German engineer Otto Dietrich to show how the middle classes are wooed successfully. At first, Dietrich completely opposes the Soviets. He initially tries to flee, and upon failing refuses to surrender his patents for optical appliances as he sees them as German property. He explains this by harshly criticising the reparations payments imposed by the Soviet Union, which include the dismantling of production facilities. Commander Kuz’min justifies these measures as only modest compensation for the immense damage and huge suffering that fascism has inflicted on his home. Moreover, the commander emphasises that the Soviet Union is by no means destroying the armaments factories in their occupied zone only in order to obtain reparations, but with the overall goal of securing peace. Despite these differences in opinion, Kuz’min supports Dietrich’s bid to become mayor of Altenstadt. The commander does not take the patents away from the engineer, but takes his word of honour that he will not allow them to get into the wrong hands.

After his patents are stolen from his safe, a Social Democrat who works with the US Army persuades Dietrich to escape to the US zone. There he only sees frightened, oppressed, exploited Germans, who exchange valuable art objects for money or packets of cigarettes, and he observes the immoral goings on of the US army in their clubs. He is himself courted as an attractive cooperative partner, and the Americans offer him a job as an engineer in an armaments factory. Following these experiences, Dietrich leaves the American zone and asks Kuz’min for permission to return to the Soviet zone – he has brought three more engineers with him who could not bear life under the US administration. The commander grants permission for them to come, Dietrich is reinstated as mayor. The Soviets thus succeed, without any kind of coercion, solely because of their moral authority and powers of persuasion, as well as due to their superior social order in the competition between the systems, as this ‘voting with the feet’ illustrates. Shortly after his return, Dietrich receives the patents (which were found and secured in the meantime) from Kuz’min, but now voluntarily makes them available to the Soviets. He explains that the Germans cannot remain neutral between the two worlds which now clash at the Elbe, and that he has chosen the Soviet side.

Alongside local self-administration, the Soviets are dedicated to re-educating the Germans, portrayed as rebuilding the education system in order to secure the future of Germany, embodied by its youth. In a newly-opened school, Commander Kuz’min holds a passionate speech against a Nazi leaflet circulated by one of the pupils, Walter Schmetau, and challenges the pupils, teachers and military officers present to tear up their copies. However, he deals with the boy Walter tolerantly and sympathetically because he assumes that he has been ‘poisoned’ by the National Socialistic ideology and has previously had no chance to become acquaint...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Preface: Visual reflection of the Cold War
• 1. Meeting on the Elbe (Vstrecha na El’be): A visual representation of the incipient Cold War from a Soviet perspective
• 2. ‘Declaration of Love on Celluloid’: The depiction of the Berlin Wall in a GDR film, 1961–62
• 3. ‘The Maltz Affair’ revisited: How the American Communist Party relinquished its cultural influence at the dawn of the Cold War
• 4. ‘Don’t Mention the Soviets!’ An overview of the short films produced by the NATO Information Service between 1949 and 1969
• 5. The destruction of New York City: A recurrent nightmare of American Cold War cinema
• 6. Hollywood’s insidious charms: the impact of American cinema and television on the Soviet Union during the Cold War
• 7. The Cold War’s cultural ecosystem: angry young men in British and Soviet cinema, 1953–1968
• 8. The Search for Legitimacy in Post-Martial Law Poland: The Case of Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah
• Index