The Wager of a Militant Surrealist
On Jan Svankmajer's The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia
Wakagi AKATSUKA
Copyright
(c) 1998 by
the Slavic Research Center( English
/ Japanese ) All rights reserved.
-Summary-
In 1990, the year after the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia,
Jan Svankmajer made The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia and subtitled it
"A work of Agitprop." As these titles plainly demonstrate, it is the
most political of all his films, attempting an overview of his
country's history after the Second World War. It is commonly believed
that overt political comment within a work can badly affect its
artistic value. The complexity and sophistication of artistic language
is too often weakened when faced with the simplicity of political
vocabulary. Accordingly, from the standpoint of the work of art, the
relationship between art and politics is extremely delicate. Despite
this, Svankmajer made an explicitly political film. Did he sacrifice
the artistic value? If so, to what end? And what significance does the
film have to its creator?
The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia begins with the scene of
an exploding building, and then deals with such precisely epoch-making
political events as the "Liberation from Fascism" in 1945, the
"February affair" in 1948, the "thaw" after the mid-1950s, the "Prague
Spring" in 1968, the "normalization" after 1969 and the "Velvet
Revolution" in 1989. The last event thus represents the "death" of
Stalinism in the film. Stalinism imported from the Soviet Union became
the state's political system in 1948, when the Communist Party came to
power under the leadership of Klement Gottwald. In the film this event
is depicted in an exceedingly impressive manner: a stone bust of Stalin
is laid on an operating table, and a surgeon cuts open its face to
reveal innards from which is plucked a second smaller bust of Gottwald,
covered in blood. Gottwald's bust is slapped and the first cry of a
newborn baby resounds. This "birth" of Gottwald is accompanied by the
implantation of Stalinism. In the film the bust of the Czech Communist
Party leader is seen actually making a Stalinist speech, during which
historic documentary footage of cheering crowds is intercut. The images
in this sequence imply that both Gottwald and, apparently, his
countrymen enthusiastically embraced the adoption of Soviet Stalinism
for the Czech nation, a political change that determined the course of
Czech history for the next forty years: the four decades covered in
episodes that follow in the film.
One of its most criminal deeds of Czech Stalinism was the purge of
the dissidents, and this is described directly as well as figuratively
in the film. The photograph of Rudolf Slansky, who was unjustly sent to
the gallows, is presented on the screen, overtly alluding to this
atrocity. Workers with fingerless black gloves mold the clay into body
parts from which replicas of a heroic worker are produced on an
assembly line. This industrial system can be considered a criticism of
the standardization of individuals during the Stalinist era. At the end
of the conveyer the figures plummet onto a table, then right themselves
and walk towards a gallows. They are promptly hanged, their bodies
falling back into a bucket of clay. The bucket is carried to the
workers making body parts, which suggests that the process may continue
eternally.
The film also depicts the other historic events mentioned above in
the same sort of symbolic manner. Symbolic as they are, the episodes
have direct references to historical realities in Stalinist
Czechoslovakia: the film makes use of certain figures who were closely
connected with this era and events that took place there. Consequently,
the understanding of The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia depends heavily
on a viewer's knowledge of the Czech history. In other words, the
longevity of the film will rely upon the freshness of the viewer's
memory of recent history, especially the revolution of 1989. Naturally
enough, Svankmajer understands this. He remarks that the film might be
totally incomprehensible in one hundred years. For what did he then
have to make such a film as might age more quickly than any of the
others?
Svankmajer considers the film to be a kind of "catharsis," stating
that he wanted to rid himself of the tension accumulated during the
past forty years of his life spent under Stalinism. In this way, the
motive for making the film can be regarded as the matter of inner
choice, resulting from personal experience under the political system
in question. It is noteworthy from this point of view that he devotes
himself to surrealist activities. He joined the Prague Surrealist Group
in 1970 after meeting its leading theoretician, Vratislav Effenberger,
and since then he has been one of the most active members. Surrealism,
for him, is not only aesthetics but also philosophy, ideology,
psychology and so forth: it is, in a phrase, a particular attitude
towards the world. What kind of attitude does he take then?
Citing Effenberger as a major influence, Svankmajer recalls that
Effenberger was a man of unwavering morals in a world of Stalinist
servitude, hated by all those whose attitude he confronted. Svankmajer
insists that Effenberger's consistent views were rejected as dogmatism
by eclectics of all kinds. Needless to say, Svankmajer shares
Effenberger's views and takes the same attitude towards Stalinism. In
his opinion what matters in artistic creation is the internal strength
of the Ôreserves' that the artist carries within himself; the
means of self-expression are interchangeable. With this perspective,
therefore, it can be said that Svankmajer's surrealist attitude has
much to do with "catharsis," and that in a sense, The Death of
Stalinism in Bohemia is a natural consequence of this attitude.
As has just been suggested, the film-director regards the means of
expression as secondary, but from the viewpoint of art, the expression
represents everything. Of all the means of expression that he uses in
filmmaking, animation is the most important. In The Death of Stalinism
in Bohemia animation is utilized very effectively, particularly in
various memorable scenes: when the statue of Stalin moves his eyes;
when the clay figures walks towards the gallows; when the rolling pins
symbolizing the Russian tanks of 1968 roll down a hill, crushing cans
and scattering stones. With animation the film actually assumes magic
aspects. Magic, because the moving of inanimate objects turns the world
into a mysterious and uncertain place. Significantly, for Svankmajer,
animation is, in fact, a modern form of magic.
Interestingly enough, Svankmajer states that surrealism is an
attempt to put the magic dimension back into art, and remarks that art
without magic is of no use. This means for Svankmajer's view of art,
animation is closely tied with surrealism. Viewed in this light, it can
be said that in The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia, surrealism thus
plays an essential role. What has been discussed above makes it clear
that the surrealist traits are evident in both the aesthetic and the
thematic aspects of The Death of Stalinism in Bohemia. Therefore, it is
a film that reveals the characteristics of Jan Svankmajer the Militant
Surrealist. Svankmajer recognizes that Stalinism in its many guises is
just one symptom of contemporary civilization, a civilization he
believes that art must attack at its roots. It seems that Svankmajer
intends to continue the fight against the absurdities of the human
beings by means of his surrealist art.