The Tale of Two Turns: Khrustalev, My Car! and the

SRSC
ond Soviei Cinemo
Studies
in Russion
Volume
4 Number l
02010lntellecr Ltd Ariicle. English longucrge.
AI.EXANDER
University
4 (l) pp.45-63 lntelleci Limited 2Ol0
doi:
la
1386/srsc.4. 1 45_l
ETKIND
of Combridge
Ihe tqle
of fwo furns:
Khruslalev,
My Cor! qnd
cinemqfic memory of
fhe Soviet pqsf
the
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
Iu. German's film Khrustalev, My Carl
a memory eoent. Khrustalev, My Car is discussed together with
fwo other films about the Soaiet past, The Cold Summer of 1953 (Aleksandr
post-Soviet film
memory
mourning
Proshkin, 1987)
Stalinism
Aleksei Iu. German
The essny
(1998)
offers a reading of Aleksei
ns
and Island (Paael Lungin, 2006). Showing deep but reaersible
deaelops in troo
hms: first from citizen into oictim, then from aictim into citizen. Crucial to this
readmg of Khrustalev, My Car! is a narratological analysis that distinguishes
befiueen seoeral leaels of narrated realify: what the narrator claims has happened
in his t'ictional world; what he suggests could hazte happened; and zohat he could
not possibly know but dreams about. Starting with the narrator's rnet dream,
culminating in the imagined scene of the gang rape of the father and ending with
the wishful dream of the father's (and others') return from the camp, the film
deuelops as an articulated, analytically unfolding work of mourning.
transt'ormatbns
of the central characters, each of
these
films
narratology
1F
Alexonder Etkind
discrssion ol poerlic
ord cin-^rnolic s l-.gories
os lhr: m,-orrs of
rcpreseniing c:crlcrstroPhi.
expericnces, see
lowenstein (2005).
Joseph
Brisky
oltercd
Adomo's sloterncnl inlo
'How con one wtilc
po. lry uflor tf" Q rug?
ond or]ded, ond I .w
onc: con eot unch?'
(Brodsty 1995: 55)
l. at hr,a Onr rly\ 'S Ol
Agomben's thought, see
Fdkins (2003: 2ll
Ross {2O0BJ ond
of post-Soviet memory/
German, 1998),
(Aleksei
lur'ievich
mashinul
Khrustalea, My carllKhrustalezt,
his way to thc
raPed
on
and
then
is
arrested
Klenskii
surgeon
military
the
Gulag. suddenly, he is redressed, perfumed and taken to the ailing staiin. As
Klenskli regainli his military posture and clinical focus, Stalin dies in his hands,
producing a final expulsion of flatulencc. In one moment, Klenskii rL'verts
from the stinking, barc life of a pdsoner to the sublime duty of a citizen. Tn
thc samc mome;t, the dictator departs Irom his duty and, quickly passing the
stage of the stinking bare life, is annihilated forever. The central scene of the
film occurs when thc sovereign and thc abject mec.t and thet positions swap.
Thinking about this cinematically powerful but historica\ improbable scene,
I began to notice similar constructions in other Russian films about the soviet
past. Some of them, probably the most remarkable ones, also devebp in two
Lurns: the first from citizcn into victim, the second from victim into citizen. This
essay tests my findings within post-soviet cinematic memory against certain
philosophical concePts that were devised to understand the Holocaust'1
ln what is
For cinemoiic nrernory
ond moutning, see
Sontner { I 990),
Rosenstone { I 995J
ond Groinge (2003).
For on exc-o lonl
arg'uably the most important fi1m
l5l,
Mozowet {20OBl. fur o
roceni oitempi 1() opply
Agomben's theorizing tcr
nin-olcef lh-cenlury Russio,
sce Rutlenburg (2008).
For testing th-.so ldeos in
iir-o conlexl of th-. Gu og,
see Elkind {2008).
... BUT NOT SACRIFICED
The provocative statement by Theodor Adomo that writing poehy after Auschwitz
and barely sulviving on t
Everyone ca11s him by his
irrelevant. Still alive, he is
silent. But when a gang o
to the chaotic amnesty of
Lusga heroically saves thr
to discipline the helpless l
himself in a Hobbesian st
bandits, Lusga occupies a
the viliage. The'soon to-l
morally wrong to accept t
perpetrators. It also leads t
subiective livcs under the
their survival. The heroic cr
He was judged as a dyng
his ov,n life. This somersal
is barbaric, has 1ed to a prohibitive dictum that representing the horror of the
Holocaust is impossible.2 Inspired by the literary l€rpresentations of Auschwitz
by its survivor Primo Levi and seeking a philosophical means of representing
its honor, the Italian philosopher Giorgo Agamben developed the concept of
homo sacer, defhed as'life that may be kil1ed but not sacrificed'. Not protected
fiom murder and not eligible for sacrifice, the bare Life of the victim is exempted
from any legal or religious order. Oscillating between social and biologrcal deaths,
bare life is Jeprived of any political meaning oI value. Esscntially, it is a surwival
on the brink of death, whictu due to humiliatiorU hunger and disease is hardly
self-conscious and barely remembered. In his analysis, Agamben focuses on
those prisoners of the Nazl camps who wele exhausted and desperate to such an
extcnlthat they did not express their pain, did not communicate with their pcers,
and did not tell them their stodes. In Auschwitz thesc people werc, curiously,
calTed Muselmann (Agamben 1995, 1999). kr the Soviet camps, they were called
dokhodiagt (,the soon-to-be-dead') and ftili ('wicks'). Their bare life and death in
the camps had no value or meaning. These victims were killed but they wele not
low becomes, even thougf
sacriliced.
Howc.ver, Agamben s notion of sacrifice is challenging. It relies on the religious
concepts of thc ancient Greeics and Romans for whom the idea of human sacrifice
was aicessible; for modems, this is a very ambigu,rus concept. kr secglar tenns one
could speculate that sacrifice requires acknowledgmcnt from the pubLic sphere. In
other words, sacrifice is public and meaningftrl to the public; killing is not. When
American spy films,
the soon-b,be-dead were killed, murders were routincly executed by E;uardsmen
or fel1ow prisoners. More oftery victims died of disease or starvation.
his strugg1e. Lusga's frienr
With no public participation, life in the camps could be only killed, not
sacrificed. In Agamben's words, 'the atrocious ncws that the surwivors carry
from the camp to the land of human beings is precisely that it is possible to
krse dignity and decency beyond imaginatiory that there is sti1l life in the most
extreme degradation' (Agamben 1999 69). The former is definitcly true; as
we will see, the Russian film-makers do their best to show what goes beyond
imagination. However, if the latter is also true, if there was 'sti1l life' at this
level of decay, a bare life can rebel.3
46
In Aleksandr Proshkin'
(1987), the central charact
the enemy, finds himself ir
captain lives in administr
In the course of the ac
knornn as Kopalych" perisl
brief object of infatuatiory
and soon-to-be-rehabfitat
them about the death of
Kopalych's wife moums h
struck by the idea that his
idea would result in an urt
Moscow, strolling the boul
bitter but complacent. His
ascend into anything remi
hatred towards peryetrator
into the camp in the first p
but with the bandits, enen
ful leaders of the local sovi
Tfte C
demonstrates perfect integ
unlike James Bond, Lusga I
ers and the bandits. Their c
We can say with so
Agamben on two accoun
course. They were lost in
'He was lost in action,'Lu:
of sacrifice barely survive
effort in the discussion of
eign, who both live in tht
cuss the possible transfon
between thelr respective
I
betr,veen the soon-to-beregime in the village. But i
The tole of two lurns
In Aleksandr Proshkin's hlnt The CoId Summer oJ l9\3lKholodnoe leto 53-ego
the ccntral character is an army captain who, after many battlcs with
the enemy, finds l.rimself in the Gulag. Tn 1953, after Stalin's death, the former
captain lives in administrative exile in a northern vi11agc, refusing to work
and barciy sulviving on thc lcftovers that some locals give him out of pity.
Everyonc. calls him by his nickname, Lusga; his actual name and his past are
irrelevant. Still allve, he is a tlpical soon-to-be-dead, cxhausted, apathctic and
silent. Bui when a gang of bandits (former prisoners who left the camps duc
to the chaotic amncsLy of 1953) enter the village to rob and rape the 1oca1s,
Lusga herolcally saves the vi1lage.a The armed officials who were appointcd
to discipline the helpless Lusga and his peers submit to the bandits. Finding
himself in a Hobbesian state of nature produced by thc random violence of
bandits, Lusga occupies a position of sovereignty and rcstores cM1 ordc-.r in
the village. The 'soon-to-bc-dead' is defined from the outside; however, it is
morallv wrong to accept this c.xtemal definition bccause it is imposcd by the
peryetrators. It also leads to misjudgement. Thc victims' abiliqr to conceal their
subjective livt-.s under the pathetic mask of the soon-to-be-dead is crucial for
their survival. The heroic captain shows that the external dcl'initions are wrong.
He was judgt-.d as a dying object of powcr; actua11y, he is thc l.reroic subject of
his own life. This somersault is as in-rplausible as it is moving. The lowest of the
low becomes, even though for only a moment, thc cmbodiment of power.
In the course of the acliory Lusga's fellow exi1e, a $,pica1 Srwiet intclligent
known as Kopalych, perishes in a fight with the bandits. They also kill Lusga's
brief object of infahratiory Shura. At thc r-.nd of the film, thc surviving, releascd
and soon-to-bi:-rchabilitated Lusga visits Kopalych's family in Moscow to tell
thcm about the death of their husband and father. Lusga learns that while
Kopalych's wife moums him, his son had betrayed his father. Now the son is
shuck by thc idea that his father had not been 'gui1q/ bccause accepling this
idea would result in an unbearable gui1t. The last shots of the film show Lusga in
Moscow, strolLing thc boulevards and meeling his peers, the refumces. Lusga is
bitter but complacent. His fcelings about his brokcn life and krst fricnds do not
asccnd jnto anything reminisccnt of Aleksandr Solzhcnitslm's or Primo Levi's
hatrc.d towards perpetrators. Evcn though it is clear that the regime threw Lusga
into thc camp in the first p1ace, in thc film he actually fights not with the regime
but with the bandits, cncnries of the regime who enjoy the support of the piti
fr"rl leaders of the local sovict. Reiying on the popular conventions of llritish and
American spy films, The Cold Summer of 1953 prcsents a central character who
dcmonstrates perfect integritv and is c.sscntiailv foreign to his cnvironment. But
unlike Jamcs llond, Lusga bekrngs to thc same political community as the vi11agc.rs and the bandits. Their differenccs are presented as moral, not political.
(1987),
For on il rminoling
or:counl of ihe hislorico
clni--xl, see Dobson
12006).
We can say with some confidence that Lusga wouid disagrce with
Agamben on two accounts. First, Lusga did make sacdfices for the sake of
his struggle. Lusga's friend and his love were such sacrifices, unintentional of
course. They wc-.rr: lost in a battle that he r:ould mourn but also be proud of.
'He was lost in actlon,' Lusga said about Kopalych. However, thc very concept
of sacrificc barely surwives these examplcs. Second, Ag;amben invests much
effort in the discussion of thr-. 's).mmetry' between huno sacer and the sovcrergn, whc' both lirt' in tht'state ol exceplion lrom law. Bul he doe: not di:
cuss the possible transformation of the former into thr: latter or an exchange
between thr:ir respective positions. In Proshkin's film, there is no synmetry
bctwr-'cn the soon-to be dead Lusga and those who personifl/ the Soviet
regime ln thc village. But in the state of emergcncy that is depicted in the fllm,
47
Alexonder Etkind
5.
n on of{icio1 pro s-'
for lhr: filnr, Aloksii ll
sold: 'People ore tlrcd
of ihose films thci spi
bood ond prodrc-'
propoqond,r I 'r hot'"d
uslur Jlle
lFi
r:bout posillve ihinos
in life. J'Potriorkh ...'
I
I
20091
nrl'l
it is Lusga who stops random violence and lestol€ls iegal order. In the micropolitics of this story, the homo sacer becomes the sovereign of the domain that
hc pacifics by killing his enemies and sacrificing his frlends.
It is not quite plausible that an exhausted, chronically underfed man could
defcat a gang of profcssional bandits with his bare hands. Howevcr, the
senseless suffering of Lusga, an officer of world war Il who was rewarded
for his hcroism on thL. battlcfield with many yeals in the camp, also tran-
scends the limits of plausibility. His situation is incomprehensible, but we
know that it occurred on a mass scale. Along with a dynamic plot and the
cxcellent work of Valerii Priemykhov who plays Lusga, thc succcss of this
film was secured by this clash betwcen thc fundamental improbability of the
Gulag and the public knowledge of its historical reality. We do not see thc'
first turn, of a brave officer into thc Gulag's soon-to-bc-dead, but we know
that it happened to Lusga. In contrast, his sccond turn, from a victim into a
hero, is dcvelopcd in great dctail. This transformation is the Gulag vcrsion
of old tales about Aladdin, Brer Rabbit, Ivan the Fool, the Prince and the
Irauper, which show the magical ascendance of the lowest of the low to thc
highest of the high. Anthropologists and histodans interpret such folk storit:s
as mental 'wcapons of the weak', hidden transcripts that the oppressed compose to disavow their dependencies and to produce mental drafts for future
iebellions (Scott 1985; Levine 1993). Howc'ver, wc are not dealing hert: with
camp folkiore but with a commercially successful product that reflects and
defines popular ways of understanding and mourning the Soviet era, the past
ds opposed to the future.
... NO SAIVATION WITHOUT REPENTANCE
Twenty years later and in a dramatically changed political contcxt,
Pavel
Lungin's IslandlOstroa (2006) deals with the Soviet memory in a very diffcrent way. Island was shot in Kem, which is mainly knorn'r'r as the coilecting
hub for the nearby Solovetsk camp, but one finds in this film surprisingly
few refcrences to thc Gulag, Staiinism or other recognizable fcatures of the
soviet period. The action starts with a war-time scene in 1,942 and ends in an
Orthodox monastery in 1974. Unusual connoisseurs such as Patriarch Aleksii
II applauded the fi1m.5 llut critics also attackcd Island for suppressing historical truth. Mark Lipovetsky (2007) noted that there were no monasteries in
northcm Russia in the 1970s and that the characters and conflicts in this historical fi1m are conspicuously relevant to religious debates in contemporary
Russia. This is all true, but a decper thcme of the film has escaped the critics of both flanks. This theme is the radical transformation of characters who
chang;e, in the course of the fi1m, from one polar end of the human spectrum
to the other.
In 1942, the protagonist, Anatolii, appears as a pathetic coward, a sailor
who, under torture, betrays his captain to a Nazi and then kills the captain in
exchange for his or,rm life. Since the film begins in the familiar black-and-whlte
idiom of Soviet military movics, this betrayal provokes a well-conditioned disgust. Jumping to 1974, we gadually recognize the same Anatoiii as an ascetic,
plous and funny elder who works miracles, speaks truth to power and gains
iespcct and awe from his feliow monks and the larger community. Although in
this film we watch a number of smaller wonders such as miraculous escaPes,
fortune-tel1ing, healing by praycr and exorcism, this character transfonnation
is the most rcmarkable of the miracles. Both the script and the director heavily
4B
emphasize this transfiguraiit
Anatolii and shows only the
his triumph and death. The
because Anatolii talks and tl
of his captain.
The central scene of the I
1942, encountering each othr
delivers his hysterical daught
ful exorcism, the lwo men, A
neither in the least resemble
old men are deliberateiy cho
same men in their youth. As
pra cLically unknov,n Timof ei
the charismatic, ironical anr
actor who underwent an um
recluse). Tikhon, the captair
Aleksei Zelenskii; the oider
enced actor who specializes
Soviet soap operas. Two life
traitor turns into a sainf a h
evolves into a suffering fathe
Anatolii to Tikhon.
Thus Anatolii learns th
tcd no mortal sln, he is re
narrative capitalizes on twc
expect to find combined in
post-Soviet public, glows c
loyalty that made betrayal
molil comes lrom the Russi
tal sins can be effectively r
repentance; that there is n
it is the worst sinners who
Father Anatolii wot ks mira
sin was so grave and he re1
critics have compared Fatf
Russian Middlc Ages (Lip,
ever, Grlgorii l{asputin whc
that was based on sin and
But in one respect, Father 1
magical practlce, Father An
ur5ies an adolescent girl ag
her love for her husband; ar
no sexual sins. Unlike the d
Russian society would not
grave to the contemporary
film grows out of the milit
'dissident' rcpresentations
of perestroika and depicted
revolutionary debauchery
Soviet empire and were de
released 1981), a story of w
ised sufficient empathy am,
The tole
this transfiguration. Tl.re script skips the formative ycars of Father
only the moment ol his betrayal and then, 32 years later,
his triumph and death. The viewer rc.cognizes the traitor in the monk only
because Anatolii talks and thinks recurrr-.ntly about his grr-.at siry the murdcr
enphasize
Anakrlii and shows
oi his captain.
sccnc of the film prr.sc.nts both of thc characters that wc met in
encountering c.ach other once again. The former captain, now an admiral,
delivers his hysierical daughtcr to the famous elder for healing. After a successfirl exorcism, the two men, Anatolii and Tikhon, recognize onc. another, though
neither in the least resembles his former sclf." The actors who play these two
old men are delibcrately chosen to look the oppositu to those who played the
sane men in their youtl.r. As a young sailor, Anatolii was played by the bovish,
practically unknown Timofei Tribuntsov; as the revered monk, he is playcd bv
thc charismatic, ironical and, sometimes, very powerful Peir Manronov (an
actor who undcrwcnt an unusual transfiguration fronr a rock star to a religious
rccluse). Tikhon, the captain, was played by thc handsome, hypc.r-masculine
Aleksei Zelenskii; thc. oldcr admiral is played by Iurii Kuznctsov, an expc.riencec.l actor who speciallzes in the haplcss, hear,y drinking officials of postSoraet soap operas. Two life tra.jectories have crossed and all but swapped. A
traitor turns into a sainf a hero who met his death with a cigarette in his lips
g,olves into a suffcring fatl-rer and nelvolrs bureaucrat. 'L)o not be afraid,' says
Anatolii to Tikhon.
Thus Anatolii learns that he c1it1 not kill hls captain. Having commitThe central
'1942,
ol two
turns
Thr: r:lossico
anoenorisis, tho p ol of
r-^cogf iliof , r-oopp--ors in
thls post-Sovi-^t trooedy;
ftrr lhis concepi,
66y_- {1988}
sr:r.:
Th-- iterolur-^ ond cinomo
ol socio isl rcxrlisrr
promol--d the ideo o[
hcroisnr os the obiliry
b wlhslonr:l lorlure ond
rJir: oyo to oulhorily.
Clossicol exomp r:s
ore lhc chidr-on's to e
by Arkrrrlli Goldcr
'SkozkoooMochishc
Kibc'chishc ' (1933)
onc] ils scr-^en v-^rs or
(1 964); ond A
--ksondr
Fod,-ev's rovel Molcrlo kt
gvodiic 11945) ond irs
scrocn vcrsior 11948)
For brrxrder corlcrls,
see Llr:vors l2aa4) and
Kooonovsky l2OO8).
For on onolysis ol
Rosprlir's sbri-^s,
see Er[ind (1998:
58s 630)
mortal sin, he is rcady to die and he dies fearless. Curlousll', thc
ted no
narrative capitalizes on two motifs of uncqual stature which one does not
expect
to find combined in a film. The first motif, vcry well known to the
post Soviet publii:, grows out of thc old Soviet valucs of military duty and
krvalty that made bctrayal under torture a major moral issue.T Another
nrotif comi-.s from the Russian Orthodox Church. lt suggests that c.ven mortal sins can be effectively rcdcemed; that gcnuine virtue comcs only from
repentancc; that there is no sarlvation without rcpcntance; and therefore,
it is the worst sinnc-.rs who might become the most blcssed and virtuous.
Father Anatolii works miracles and clics like a saint prr:cisely becausc his
sin was so lirave ancl hc repented of it so profoundly. With some grouncls,
to the holy fools (.iurodiaye) of the
Nliddle Ages (Lipovr-.tsky 2007). He rescmbles much morr-., how
i:ver, Grigorii Jlasputin who prcached and practiscd a theology of salvation
that was based on sin and repentancc and not on abstincnce and virtuc..s
But in one respect, Farthcr Anatolii is diffcrcnt from Rasputin. Though in his
magical practice, Father Anatolii deals with female sexuality constantly (he
urges an adolcscent girl against abortion; helps an aged woman to realize
her love for hr-.r l.rusband; and heals a classical case of hysteria), he commlts
no sexual sins. Unlike the decadc.nt society of Rasputin's era, contemporary
Tlussian society would not be shocked by such slns. The sin tl.rat feels so
fave to the contemporary viewer that it justifies the twisted moral of the
film grows out of thc military ethos of uncondltlonal loyalty. Rather than
'dissident' rcprcscntations of the Gulag that were popular during; the ycars
of pcrcstroika ancl depicted in Cold Summer, or'dccadent' stories about pre
revolutionary debauchery that wc-.re popular during the last years of the
Soviet empire and werr-. dcpicted in Elem Klin.rov's RasputinlAgonia (1974,
released 1981), a story of wal time betrayal and 1lfe long;repcntance promiscd sufficient empathv among the public.
critii:s havc compared Fathcr Anatoiii
Russran
49
Alexonder Etkind
9.
ln this respect, /.s/ond
ond ihe other fi
ms
onolysed here converge
with the colegory of
historlcol me odrcmcr
described by
(2000)
Lorsen
The swift action of Island decelerates with the ethnogaphic depiction of
the life in the monastery and Father Anatoiii's relations with its administration. Though devout monks and holy fools are not supposed to be particularly
competitive, in the monastery we see a personal fight. Two powerful men, the
abbot and his secondary compete with Father Anatolii for leadership; eventual1y, both of them recognize the authority of Anatolii. He attains this position
due to a number of holy miracles and funny tricks that entertain the viewer.
However, the deepest reason for his victory in this race of virtues seems to be
the fact that he is the worst sinner. In a spiritual disguise, the film foliows the
trajectory from the lowest to the highest, ftom homo sacer to sovereign At the
same time, the film skips over the entire world in between these two poles.e
The commonality of this self-refashioning in post-Soviet films about the past,
which occurs in religious as well as in secular contexts, leads me to suggest
that these miraculous transformations are not only a part of a new Russian
piety, but belong to a broader pattern of memory.
... WILI ALWAYS BE LIKE THIS
Aleksei German's Khrustalm, My Car! also te11s the improbable story of a citizen who is turned into an outcast and then eievated to the very top of power.
However, I will demonstrate that, in this film, the two lurns of the story are
performed in a different context from that above, more plausible historically
and satisfying aesthetically: the personal narrative of memory. Critics have
argued that Gerrnan's film possesses a 'dream-1ike nafure' and a 'disorienting quality' and that its different parts work in different ways (Vasil'eva 1999;
Wood 2001; Lawton 2001). I submit that the film is a coherent narrative of
mourning that makes fuIl sense when properly read.
Aleksei Klenskii, a man who lost his father in his adolescence, tells the
story from off the screen. He moums his late father, admits his guilt towards
him, and fantasizes about his surwival and return. Aleksei is 12 years old when
the action of the film starts, but he narrates the story as an old man. On the
screery we see Aleksel e
ever, we hear his aged v
gap between two stager
remarkably different ac1
between the face of abc
situation, there is no wi
sory unless the voice te
nuity of the person if, b,
bitter voice did not affir
The story as Aleksei
fantasies.lo The film is
b1e soundtrack, requirir
Aleksei Klenskii, the prc
its creator, is intention
matches his age. He als
The film is autobiograp
junctive mood. Germar
what would have happr
'It all comes from my c
His previous hlm, |rtIy I
based on novels that wt
German (1910-67). Set
by the son, this film de
earlier film presented a
police, Khrustalm, my
Cr
the same po1ice.12 In bo
have no colour' and thr
black-and-white (Germ
Aleksei and his family
Aleksei could not possit
witness or camera-man
or Philip Roth's) novels,
he saw and what he imz
ing before our
eyes. Th
memory is not preclse b
The film begins wlt
scene of an empty Mosr
It is all, all
as
it used
And it will always br
A little horse and a l
Neither finds the co
The narrator says that
though she did not writ
says that on 'our street
Figure 1: Still from Khrustalev, My Carl
50
nobody remembers it an
the only moment of nosl
along the street and an a
lated to the story. Playir
monologue focuses the
at once. To be sure, the
r
The tole of two turns
we see Aleksei as a boy, never as an adu1t. Throughout the film,
how
lh" fil-,. acti.n. The
is reprcsented by twcr
remarkably different actors, is suggestcd herc vi.l tht unbridgt,abl..
diffe'rr_.ncc
between the .face of a boy and the uoice of the samc man 45
ycars latcr. Jn this
situatirn, thcre is no way to attributc thc voice and thc face to the
same person, unlt'ss the vrice tclls y.u sr. Thc vicwcr woulcl not
rccognize the continuitr'' of the pc-'rson if, behind the chaotic action on the
screc.n, Aleksei,s aged,
bitter voicc dicl not affirm his idcntity with Alcksci,s youn&
insc.cure face.
. Thc story as Aleksei telrs it is a mixture of remrnisccnc.s, conjcctures and
screL'n,
10. Mtkhoil ompolski
ever, we hear his ag;cd voicc sporadically .ommt-.nting
or.',
gap bctwcen two stages of onr' p('rson, which in Isratui
fantasies.r{)
jrm\uth!)t. l-nlio,.
inll- rrtn,r) h,.iorffrorcs N1y Frk:rd
ivon lops/rlrr ond
Khltstak:v. My Grrl io
Morr:-^ Prouslrs ln
Sectrc:h
roroliol, iqrtollq
lho
of Lctst' Tirte r] cltnlr0sl,
Vol-^rii Podorxrcr
(2000) r:mphrisizr:s rhr:
dreom ike qrc ity o1
Thc film is grainy black-ancr-whitt-. with a barely comprehcnsi-
ble.soundtrack, requiring interpretatirn, likt-. a dream. Thc distance
between
Aleksei Klenskii, thr: protagonist and narrator of the film,
and Areksei German,
its creat.r, is intc'ntionally short. Klenskii bears cerman,s first
namc. and
matches his agc. He also shares cerman's fasclnatl.n
with the fhtrrcr figure.
Thc fiim is autobiographical and historical, but this is a historl,
in the subjunctive m.od. German said in an interview that
this firm is a iantasy about
r'vhat would havc happc'ned to his own father if his father
had been arrested.
'lL all comes from my childl-rood
- faces, senses, evcrything,'saici cerman.lr
His prerrous f1lm, MV Friend laan LapshinlMoi rlrug Iian Lipshut (19g4),
was
basc'd on novels that werc. wriiten by Alcksci Gc.'nan,s
father, thc. writer lurii
cerman (1910-67). Sc't at thc' time of the father's youth and also narrated
bvthc son, tlris film depicts the Soviet secret police of the 1930s.
\A4.'ile this
earlier film presented a fathc-.r who admircs the sovict regime
ancl glorifies its
p.olict, Khrustalea, my carl presc.nts a son who mourns his
father as i victim of
the same policc'.12 ln both fiims, Gern-ran realizes his infuition
that,mcmones
havc' no colour' anc-l that when pr-..ple visuarize their
dead, thcv see them in
black-and whitc' (German j999a: 127; sec also Bert-.zovchuk 200s;.,.
we see
,{lcksc'i and his familv in 1953; we also sce large chunks
of thc acti.n that
Alcksc.i could not possibly have seen. Hc is the nirrator of
the story but not its
r'utness or camera-man. Likc n.rrrators of m.dern (say,
VladimiiNabtrkovs
or Philip Roth's) novels, Aleksei Klenskii realizes his ptwer
to c.mbine what
he saw and what hc imagined in one .omprex narrative,
which is now unford1ng before our L'yes. This is thc way of memory.
From this distance in time,
n.L'mory is not prccisr-' bu t it is n.t arhitranr. It ii not inn.ccnt
either.
Thc filn-r bcgins with hrur rhlrncd lines rhat the narrator reads
over thc.
sccne of an emplv Moscow street:
colsislell
bef nrJ tho scrc--r.
Addrr:ssirro tho sonr-,:1isc,rr,,:t ,ii,,q p,ob
-^,r,.
Loriso BerozovclrLrk
(20051 spr:r:ulor--s o [rori
d ivetqcrcg5 b--1ry,-s',
'lristoiirll memory' onci
perSono mei|orv tI
G,-rnon's lilms
Il.'Aeks-^i
Shopoiinril. Chonne
Rossiic, (2005).
l2
On Gcrnon's
dcconslr ucl iv,- l--.lr I io
,l p, rl ir r e1 r,J
sul v-rl n, r
l,i:
Lrll
,:
:
uove] o,,'ihe screcr,
s{r,A
{tt92l
Rilkin
1
l--
3. t My
Frierr| lvon
lc4rs|tr, bockcrdwhil-- sr:enes lronr thc
;tcsl rlntro.sl with ihr:
coirurecl sr:ere llrol
i ,u
-e
I
I
i+lnl rilr/
I
rl
r
;-, lnolul,
K.hnt:Jctlcv, y',/y C-or1
wc
fev{tr sec lltis norobr
orrd lhr: who,^ Ii nr is ir
onr:l-wh
ii--
Hovi
ro
rro norrokrr, Ls/crd
olso exp otls o aof lrosl
[p1ry----1 1i1-^ bkrckrr rd
whilc cJ slont posl crr:t'
tho r:olor --cl, r,-lol iv-^ y
r{:cent posl.
r
r
The narrat.r says that he used t. attribute this p.em to his
grandmother,
though she dicl not writc ve'ses. Thc' he shifts to thc thcmt_. of"mem.rrand
l4 \,- v-1, lI rf
1,1.r1 rr r
b l.r ['rl
vscqdo: /loslrod[r:
.n 'rur street',
which wc arc watching, 'a persian 1i1ac, grew but
nobody'remembers it anymore. In this rilm dedicat"ed to memoq,,,
this iemark rs
thc' rnly momc'nt .f n.stalgia.15 Tl.ris long static scene ends
with a dog strolli.g
along the street and an arrcst of a certain Feciia, wirrsc sad fate is
entiiely unre
laLed kr the story. Play'ing thr: rore of an epigraph to
tr.re whore firm, Aleksei,s
monologue focuses tl-re viewcr on his memc.rn, which is bright ancl
unreliable
at once. To bc. surc, the stanza was not pcnned by the
G-^rmon'.
o rlocunr--nhrv {ilrl
dri 1 d bJ fctr
blor:l
that
evcn slubLnrl
voir:,^ of lhe nrourrer
It is all, al1 as it used to be
And it will always be like ilrat.
A little horse and a little boy
Neither finds the cold swt_.ct.ra
savs
l
{19991 fornubled
w--i : 'Gcrnnn's fi rns
rlo not pr:tercJ io b-^
o r--rlrrslrucllol of
hislory, they prcs-^f t o
grandlother.
mol cliil<e molomu/Ne
soclki khokxlo.
15.
thot the fi rn
is o'nor:rorcolisl'
S otinr-;
dep r:tbn ol 'thr: hcl
which is Russio',
Akosh Silodi (t999)
rrrrtrosied Khntst'ole:v,
My Grrl ooolrst Nikito
Miklrolkov's Burrt by
51
T-
Alexonder Etkind
I
tLe Sun/Utonlennye
so/ntsem (1994): th-'
oher conloins'nice
nostolglc lies', the fotmer
is nonroslolglc.
16.
Lechu, lechu
k
mcl'chishke molomu,,/
Sred vjkhrio i ognio .../
V:e, vse Po :lo omu
byvo omu, /Do tol'lu
b-^z menio!
Following a reference that German (1999b) gave in an interview, Nancy
Condee (200-4) and Roman Timenchik (2009) identified this poem as the fourth
quakain of Aleksandr Blok's 'In C)ctober' (1906; Blok 1960, vo1' 2:193-94)'
iik" G"r-un's film, Blok's poem is written from the Perspective of an aged
narrator looking at himself as a boy. In the poem and the film, the narlator
singles out a particular moment of his cold, uneasy boyhood as thc s)'rnbolic
cenke of his passing life. In the last stanza of the poem Blok writes:
I
apparently had a wet dr,
looks in the mirror, and s
45 years later. For the ner
self with power, cognac, r
The film is the story,
diately before and after
time of the 'Doctors'plot
attempt to help hinU
I fly and fly to this litt1e boY
Among the storm and fire.
a1l as it used to be
But on1y, without me!t6
It is alf
a for
flom Klenskii's
relatives i
message, the joumaList is
an agent. The journalist i
until agents murder him.
subsequent murder, he
Like a distant country the past exists whether remembeled or not; the task of
remembrance is understood by analogy with a journey. Introducing the film
with an unrecognized poem by a famous poet, German offers a bitter experiment on memory. viewers do not remember the Persian 1ilac; they do not
remember Blok's poem.
In this film, the father is a dazzling general a miiitary neurosurgeon and
a cheerful alcoholic. His huge body, beautiful uniform, funny tricks and success among women provide a striking contrast to his son's adolescent ordeals.
ImmediatJy after the title, we obserye a scene in which the 12 year-old has
dr
the journalist's seduction
Having received this
pursuers and leaving his
and confiscated by secret
report on his father if he
whom he hoped to escapr
who gang rape him anall
riffng it evokes a viscerai
imagination of the Holoci
'traumatic realism', which
mimesis, but reproduces
spectator, forcing them tu
hauma. To be sure, even
which makes them differ
these representations verl
caf in the viewer. The rap
course, a suave general tu
ordinary soon-to-be-dead
is not worlh living. By the
thing similar about ourse;
unprecedented force, it er
amongst its actua1 and p
the pleasure of the rapist
works as the realization
ol
'Eb fooego offsa' - this is the
self-hating fantasy. It is as
father by addressing this f
Homosexual gang rap
two literary traditions of r
of Evgenii Zamiatiry Aldor
of communism with the d
love. A different but inter
totalitarian dictatorships w
Rozanov rn The People of
Nabokov in Bend Sinister
\
Den' oprichnika (2006) purs
Figure
52
2:
Still
from Khrustalcv My Car!
phobia with liberalism.
But Klenskii's story dc
is suddenly abducted by a
The tole of two turns
apparently had a wct dream; having soiled hls underpants, he rlnses them,
looks in the mirror, and spits at his reflection. 'This is me,' comments his voicc
45 years later. For the next couple of hours, we watch the father enjolng him-
1/
For
o hislorico occounl
of ihe lnvori,.d world'
ol I 953,
see Brent ond
Noumov (2003).
wrth power, cognac, women and physlcal exercisc.
The film ls the story of General Klenskii's anest. It is set in 1953, immedrately before and aftcr Stalin's dt-.ath. Running his military hospital at the
time of the 'Doctors' plot', General Klenskii forcsees disaster.lT In an unusual
attcmpt to help him, a foreign journaiist in Moscow tries to pass on a message
ftom Klenskli's rclatives in Stockholm. While Klenskii pretends to ignore the
mL.ssage, the journalist is scduced by a seemingly (azy Muscovite, evidently
an agent. The journalist is stubborn and pursues his task of waming Klenskii
until agents murder him. V\4rile Aleksei does witness the journalist's visit and
subsequent murder, he does not see the long and particularly bizarre scene of
the journalist's seduction by thc agent, which is Aleksci's fantasy.
Having received this foreign message, Gcneral Klenskii flees, eluding his
pursucrs and leaving his wife a note. FIis apartment is immediately searched
and confiscatc.d by secret agents. One of them asks Klenski's sory Alcksei, to
report on his father if he comes home. Soon, Klenskii is captured by those
whom he hopcd to escape. He is put into a covered truck with other prisoners,
who gang rape him anally and orally. The scene is unbearably long and horrifying; it c.vokes a visccral response of disgust and fear. Addressing the literary
imagination of the Holocaust, Michael Rothbcrg (2000) coined the concept of
'traumatic realism', which docs not reflect a traumatic past in thc act of passive
mimesis, but rcproduces traumatic events in order to transform a readcr or a
spectator, forcing them to develop their own attitude toward the re-enacted
trauma. To be sure, events in a book or on the screen are safe and secure,
which makes them differ from actual trauma. However, the most powerful of
these represcntatlons verge on causing real harm, psychological if not physical, in the vlewer. The rape sccne in Khrustalca, A4y Car!is such an event. Jn its
coursL., a suave general turns into a bleeding, vomiting and weeping viclim, an
ordinary soon to-bc-dead who can be kil1ed but not sacrificed because his life
is not worth llving. By the force of art, after watching the scene we feel somt_.thing similar about oursclves. The rape scene is obscene and revolting. With
unprecedented force, it embodies thc fear that thc Stalinist reglme provoked
self
amongst its actual and potential vlctims. Interestingly, it also dcmonstrates
the plcasure of the rapists, primordial and collective at once. The scene also
works as the realization of the fbrmula of Russian mat, but with a gender shift.
'Eb tooego ottsa'- this is thc hidden but central thought ofAleksci-the-narrator's
self-hating fantasy. It is as if Aleksei is punishing himself for his betrayal of his
father by addressing this formula to himself and visualizing it.
Homosexual gang rape as an emblem of the horror of the Gulag merges
two litcrary traditions of representing communism. The anti-utopian oeuwes
of Evgcnll Zar:riaflry Aldous Hr.r-rlcy and many others havc connectcd the idea
of communism with the dissolution of marriage, family and traditional ways of
love. A different but interdcpendent tradition connects the twentieth century
totalitarian dictatorships witlr homosexual violence. In llussian literature, vasilii
Rozanov in The Peoplc of the Moon LightlLiudi lunnogo tsoeta (1911), Madimir
Nabokov in Bend Sinister (1947) and Madimir Sorokin in Day of the. Oprichnikl
Den' rryrichnika (2006) pursue this line, which merges, in a pcculiar way, homophobia with libcralism.
But Klenskii's story docs not finish there. Bleeding and stinking, Klenskii
is suddenlv abducted by a nt-.w group of officials. They wash Klenskii, uniform
53
---
Alexonder Etkind
affee to accept
as the
which realif, claims
n
are
iife-long melancholia,
c
ar
for his father that mixes I
The son remembers
I
grandeur and, most imp
the redemption of the so
He knows (and he telis L
decades have not soothe
centre point of these thr,
son merges with thc his
and shows us how he br
In this hlper-emotional
follows this attempt, in r,
the father leaves the sor
aged Aleksei-the-narratr
his memory. However, n
is his fantasy.
Figure 3: Still from Khmstalev, My Car!
him and bring him to stalin. The soon-to-be-dead dictator is dirty, unconhands' In
scious and piifu1. Providing hclp, Klenskii finds Stalin dying in his
family.
his
to
home
returns
who
Klenskli
releases
Beria
iawentii
gratitude,
Kenskii
and
him
denounce
iJpu., ,""irrg his father, Aleksei calls the police to
of the
leaves his fu"r1]ily for",r"r. 'I never saw my father again,' reports thc'voice
the
screen.
aged Aleksei behind
InAgamben'sprecisewords,'thebarelifetowhichhumanbeingswere
reduced neither demands nor conforms to anything [...] It is absolutely
justified,
immanent, (Agamben 1999: 69).It cannot be further reduced, or
in the
absurd
and
senseless
was
Suffering
or redeemed, o. .olnp"nruted'
most profound, existentialist meaning of thc word. However, to live with this
absuriity, to inherit it and to identi$ oneself as its heir is unbearable. Out of
this tension, the second turn of the talc emerges. In thc final frames, we see
Klenskii as a conductor of a train. Drinking, working out and playng tricks'
Klenskii seems as comfortabie in his new clrcle of drivers and prostitutes as
he was among generals and academjcians' His new job is no less important
than his former one, operating on brains. Hls train transports those who have
frame,
been released from the dissolved camps back to their homes. In the last
Klenskii,s traln brings home the pathetic Fedia, an avelage dweller of the
Gulag whose ordeal in the first frame iaunches the story'
Tii"r" ur" three axes in this film. The psychological axis is formed by the
The
disparity between the father and the son and the son's tortured feelings.
historical axis is shaped by the representation of the Stalinist terror, which
the
deprived miliions of sons of their fathers and which, therefore, imbues
verisimilitude.
and
meaning
broader
idiorymcratic cvents on the screen with
reality
The narratological axis is defined by the relations between ther narrated
(what the narrator assumes and the viewer perceives as representing the actual
life-world of the narrator), the narrated fantasy (what the narator and viewer
Psychologically, Alekr
Island. l3oth men feel ren
as they (dis)be1ieve, caus
redemption, magical or ;
guilt and repentance
do not alleviate their
giv
g.ui
victims survived their or
very fact of their survival
this mercy, Aleksei does
as he tells his story.
Historically, Aleksei G
chaotic life of the Soviet 19
and largely incomprehenr
frightened adults direct al
in this; his father does nor
remembers his father as th
close-up at the beginning
Klenskii upside down whi
the film, we see him, al,o i
top of his head. Performer
physical power with inexhi
highlv unusual, tr.rgicomic
Though the historical
psychological conflict seen
are both incomprehensible
ture. Since we watch and
only those events in which
events about which he cou
his memory. The other eve
sibly have seen or heard al
parts of the film feel plausit
weird and outlandish thou
and curve. C)nly those part
belong to the narrator's me
The iole of two turns
agcc to accept as
the narrator's fantasy), and the zonc of indistinction, in
claims arc dubious or contested.18 Thc_.se axes structure Aleksei,s
life long mclancholia, an incompiete and never-to-be completed mourninS;
tbrhis father that mi-res love, guilt, self hatrcd and obsessive fantasy.
which reality
remembcrs his father as hc knew him, and inragines his ordeal,
and, most importantly, survival. The father's rcturn would mean
the redemption of thc son's guilt. The son is melancholic but he is not mad.
Heknows (and he telis us) that his father has not returned; but the passlng
decades have not soothcd his 1oss, guilt and fantasy. The son's guilt is the
centre point of these thrce axes. ln Aleksei's case, thc universal guilt of the
son nergcs with thc historically specific guilt of the survivor. Alcksei te11s
and shows us how hc betrayed hls fathcr by attempting to denouncc_. him.
In this hypcr-emotional film, the highest tension occurs in the sccne that
foliows this attempt, in which the son and thc father wcep together before
the fathcr leaves thc-. son forc-.ver. Accompanied by the commentary of thc
aged Aleksei the-narrator, the viewcr believc.s that this scene bekrngs to
his memory. However, much of what happened bcfore and after the scene
Thc son
grandeur
t8
Thes-^
lomulotions
mine
For r:lossicct
or
r:
occounls of norrotolocy
in literoiure ond liim soo
Boorh ( I 961 ), Bordw-^ I
{1985) ond Shmitr
(20031
his fantas1,.
is
Psvchologically, Alcksei's feclings are structurally similar to Anatolii's in
lsland. Both
men fecl remorsc for their betrayal of the patc_.rnai figure that,
they (dis)be1ievc, caused hls death. Both arc trying to lnvent routes to
redemption, magical or artistic; and both discovcr that, cven though their
as
prilt and repentance givc them unusual encrgies, thcir accomplishmcnts
not alleviate their guilt. Roth men live in the hope that, actually, their
uctjms survivcd their ordeal and w111 come back, bringing mercy by the
very fhct of their survival and a1so, by their forgiveness. Anatolii achieves
this merc1,, Aleksei does not; but Alekscl keeps l.ris father alive for as krng
do
as
he tel1s his storv.
Historicalll', Aleksei Gc.rman convincinglv rcconstructs the miserable and
A iargc part of thc film documents unmotivatcd
and largely incon.rprehensiblc outbursts of aggression that the cxhausted,
frightened adults dircct at each other and Aleksci. His mother participates
in this; his father docs not. In the hvsterical world of late Stalinism, Aleksei
remembers his father as the embodiment of sanitv and masculinity. In a long
closc-up at the bcginning of the film, we watch the tense face of Ceneral
Klenskii upside down while doing a gl,rnnastic cxercise. In the last frame of
the fiim, we see him, also in a long closc-up, balancing a glass of wine on thc.
top of his hr.ad. Performed bv thc extraordinary Iurii Tsurilo who combines
physical powcr with inc.xhaustible ir-ony, this memorial imag;e of the fathc.r is
hrghly unusual, trag;icomic and subtlv uncanny.
Thor.rgh the historical background and, for a sympathetic vicwer, thc
psychological conflict seem thc most rcmarkablc features of this film, they
are both incomprchcnsible without a careful analysis of thr_. narrative structurc.. Since wc watch and hear thc first person narratt'on, we assume that
only those evcnts in which the narrator participated as a witness, and those
cvcnts about which he could hear from othc.r crediblc. witnessc.s, constitute
his memory. The other events that he narrates - though hc could not possibly have seen or heard about them - constitutc his imagination. Memory
parts of the film fccl p1ausib1c., detailed and even precise; imaginary parts feel
wcird and outlandish though no lcss detailed. Here difterent axcs interar:t
and curwe. Only those parts of thc. story that, in the narratological analysis,
bclong to the narrator's rric.mory arc historically true; those parts whiclr arc
chaotic life of thc. Soviet 1950s.
55
Alexonder Etkind
19. Aclrrcllng
kr lhe orlginol
sr:ripl {G-ormon ond
Kormelito 2006: 5/91,
A-^kseri oLso sees his
lolher's dolbLe dlrirrr;
tho seorr:h of their
oporlmenl. He lokcs
htm br h s fuilrer, bul
soon teo zes ltis -^ttrT
ln thc fi nr, how'ovot,
--vofls orc shorlen--d
ord the oppeoronr:er of
th-. doubi,. ln Kenskii's
opofifite r11 is om tterl.
told as figments Of imagination are not. In this film like in any human realitl',
boundaries betwecn memofy and imagination are sometimes cvident and
sometimes va6Jue. A task of the critic is to maP these boundaries'
... A TEAR AS HOT AS
Second, the father spendr
with him, thus promisingAlr
other erotic scenes in the filr
to memory.
FIRE
whc-.n thc shift from victimizatlon to valorization
occurs, we obsele the fatefu1 me eting betwcen the rehabilitated victim and tht:
soon-to be-dead sovcreign, in which they cxchange their positions in resPcct
At thc centre of the story,
Throughout th
potcncy with his own sexual
with General Klenskli,
the
scene
By a tear as hot as fire,
heard
An inhuman
about thls scene from his father, because they did not talk durinS; his return.
Immediately following Aleksei's dcnunciation, Aleksei-the-narrator says, '[
nevcr saw my fathcr again.' In doing sO, Aleksci revcals to the viewr-'r that the
visit to stalln',s dacha never happcned to his father. Evidently, the boy's adoration does not cease with his father's disappearancc and with the son's bctraval
In fact, the reverse seems to be the casr-.. Thc more-' gurlt the son fecls, the morc
remarkable an image of his father hc produces.
Now, is the gang rape also a fantasy of the son? For many ycars, Nadezhda
Mandelshtam (1970: 386) had a painful, persistent nightmarc: she-' stands in
line to buy food and her arrestcd husband stands behind her; but when shtr
looks back, he is not therc. Shc runs after him to ask, '\A'4rat is being done to
you "there"?'The rape scene is Aleksci's answer to this inescapable question'
He could not possibly have witnessed or heard about this scenc. Hordfying as
it is, Alcksei's fantasy is not cmelle-.r or more scnselc'ss than myriad soviet sto
ries of investigative torlure or fights between 'political' and 'criminal' prison
ers. IJut the nightmarish scenc of thc gang rapc in the paddy wagon destroys
the father,s aignity precisely in the area in which the son admlrcd and envit-'d
him most of all, the area of masculinity.
Four uncoordinated phantasms accompany the father's dlsappearance.
First, the father is doubled, producing a man who looks, smokcs and performs
tricks like the father, but is not the father. C)ne could speculate that the procluction of doubles and clones is thc imminent result of the procc'ss of levelling
diffcrences. we sec Klenskii's double at the cruciai moments of the film: first
in Klenskii's hospital, where he is kept as a privilegcd patient; and then_afier
the rape, when this doublc, with other uniformed offlcials, escolts Klenskii to
Stalin. In the critical interpretations of this doublc, he is undi-'rstood as c'lther
a part of Klenskii's plan of escape or as an agent who chases Klenskii, oI even
as an actor who is prepared to be Klenskii in the show trial if the general
refuses to collaborate (Bykov 2000).''q since we do not see Aleksc-i in c'ither of
thc scenes with the double, we should treat this double as Aleksei's fantasy
*'i;'.ST,T:.1:l'frT:""1
etement or horror movie-'s (Coates 1ee1). one or
doubles r-'voke stems from the fact that they
that
many reasons for the horror
lf Aleksei should see Kienskii again,
recognition.
of
processes
ther
obstr-uct
how could he be sure it was his farther? Multiplying Aleksei's uncertainty, his
father's double works as a powerful tropc that suggests thc incomprehensibility of terror. Nluding to the uncanny doubies of Gogol's and Dostoevsky's
siori"s, who subverted the sacred order of the bureaucratic world, Klcnskii's
double plays an entirely differcnt role in the midst of the Soviet terror. The
cxistcnce of the double casts into doubt any possible cvidence of Klenskil's
Sr
parable of fantastig superhur
of power and death. \\4rc.n dor-.s the narraLive make the shift from thr-' assumed
,"ulity t.) the admitted fantasy? Aleksei could not possibly havc seen the
in which his fathcr attcnds to the dying Stalin. Neither could he have
50
surwival tl-rat might comc frc
cllts any rational effort to ur
tear!20
In the crucial scene in which
song, 'Tumbalalaika':
night a young lad c,
And he thought and iho
How to marry and not b
C)ne
How to marry
soon.2r
The father is lost not only aft
also in the process (and beci
Third, Aleksei's memory
and the acoustic and absorl
lilnr: the ,,llacloy. Beginning
culminales in his rntense [an
people) anal pains, sounds ar
fascinating dcmonstration o1
ment; the sounds of farting
attempts to threaten and hur
nal fart, which is shown in dt
of Klenskli's anus and his sr
and the rcpctitive complainti
smell. Thc scnsory intimary
with the mcmory of his fath
domains that are new to Rrviewers responses of unusut
feeling of the dense realiiy
r
largc part of this fi1m is intror
it is
elaborak--d
with naturah:
Fourth, the arrc.st and ra1
monster. Though the rapist:
drinks from a puddle and p
and anus. Llke a dog, he sn
humanization of wolf', forn
of the bare life in thc camp.
as 4 (script by Vladimir Sorc
accompany human charach
hear four animals, peculiar
parrots and mcn. llespondir
film, the final hint at this tr;
1
The tole of two turns
suryival that might come from the clusive world of the Gulag. It also undcrany rational effort to understand what happened to Aleksei's father.
Seconcf thc father spends a night with a woman who wishes to have a child
with him, thus promising Aleksei a chance to have and find a brother. This and
other erotic scenes in thc film belong to the spherc of imagination as opposed
?a
cr"lts
slezoil (Lermontov,
Demon,V)lnthe
poem, fhes-.
pr-oc-^d-^
to memory. Throughout the fi1m, thc aged Aleksci jr.xtaposes his father's
with his own sexually deprived youth. In this spiri! aJter thc meeting
with General Klenskii, the Scandinavian socialist recites Lermontot/s Demon, a
parable of fantastic, superhuman mascr-rlinity which is fatal to the female:
hot as firc,
Art inhuman tear!2(r
In thc crucial scene ln which Klenskii departs, a Jcwish boy sings the long
song, 'Tumbalalaika':
G-^rno n's
folk
n
lc.rt-.xtuo
l/
this
po-.nr (ond Rubinstein's
open) conlinrcs in r:r
crozy saef -a in K enskii's
hospitol: o nursc sinqs cr
quotroin from'Chorming
Eyes' ('Or:horovole nyr:
g ozki'),
o
romonce:
by ivon Konl1roti-.v
(l 849 1904), whtch
oloboroles on o krw
ines lrom Dornon: ' wil
The fathcr is lost not only after (and be cause of) the son's politicai bctrayal
riesc-^nd 1o thc b<ttonr of
lho s-.o,/ wil osconcl ftr
th-^ clouds,,/l wrrld give
yo everyihino on eorth,
I you only lov-^ me.'
also
and the repetitive complaints of Stalin's internal sccurity at Klenskii's offensive
smell. The sensory inLimacy of Aleksei's fantasy brings him into closer contact
witl.r the memory of his father than any other detail could. Exploring sensory
domains that are new to llussian cinema, German forcefully provokes in his
viewers rcsponses of unusual intensity, from fear to rer,.ulsion to the unusual
feeling of thc dense reality of the representcd 1ife,wor1d. Prccisely becausc a
large part of this film is introduced as the self-conscious fantasy of the narrator,
it is elaborated with naturalist detail and sensory power.
Fourt[ the arrest and rape turn thc father into a semi-human, half-animal
monster. Though the rapists call him 'a cockcrel' he behaves like a dog. He
i
inlermr:dio work on
One night a young 1ad could not sleep
And he thought and thought
How to manl, and not be shamed
How to marry soon.2r
but
in the process (and because of) the son's scxual maturation.
Third, Alt-.ksci's memory brcaks out of thc cinematic duality of the visual
and the acoustic and absorbs another sensory domain which is unusual for
film: thc. olfactory. Beginning with Aleksei's memory of his wet dream, the film
culminatc.s in his intensc fantasies of his father's (and Stalin's, the father of the
people) anal pains, sounds and smells. The anal processes in this film include a
fascinating demonstration of the logistics of toilct usage in a communal apartment; the sounds of farting that many characters produce in thc.ir permanent
attempts to threaten and humiliate others; Stalin's intlated stomach and tcrmina1 fart, which is shown in detail as Kienskii's therapeutic success; the violation
of Klenskii's anus and his subsequent blceding, suffering and futile sclf-help;
lin,^s
the sr:one
in which D-.nror is
visiled by or .rnge,
o m-oss,orqer of God,
who wrrns Denron
obout lho imminent
r:lonq-or ond urgos him
to fleo. Dernon re ecls
this co1l. Fventuo ly, he
ccuscs th-. rjeoih oi
Tomcro, nol lris own.
potency
By a tcar as
Slezoiu zhorkoir,
kok plomen',/
N-.chebvechoskol
{'o oprshchus no dncr
morskoe,/ o podninrus'
no obhko,/Otdol tebe
by vse zemnoe,/Lish
tol ko po
2l
irbi mcnio.'l
Kok+o noch iu porrrek/
Rozmyshliol i spol' ne
rnoo/Kol by zhonit'sic
chtoby ne svdil siol
Kok by zlrenitsio mne
prrskorei.
drinks from a puddle and paws a pile of snow to cool his blccdlng mouth
and anus. Likc a clog, he sniffs the dy-rng Stalin. The 'lupization of man and
humanization of wolf', formuiated Agamben (1995: 106) in his own fantasy
of the bare life in the camp. As in somc other post-Sovjct film trag;edics such
as 4 (script bv \4adimir Sorokin, dirccted by Il'ia Khrzhanovskii, 2005), dogs
accompanv human charactcrs throughout Gcrman's fi1m. Hcre we see or
hear four animals, peculiar bcasts of the Sovlet apocalypse: cockerels, dogs,
paffots and men. I{csponding to the image of the dog at the very start of the
film, the final hint at this transformation of the father into a beaten-up dog,
EA
Alexonder Etkind
him to
22. On
the son ond lhe
fother in lhe Glf,
see Puperlo (19921,
Green *ol ( I 994) or d
Borskovo (2005).
come back. But ac
not that the image of the
now in his sixties,
In Aleksei's
I
cherish
melancholic f
survives betrayai by the st
his bare, dog-like life, he p
pdsoners of the Gu1ag.
... TWO
SYMMETRIC
First, a citizen turns into a
have seen, this improbable
films about Stalinism. \Ahr
completed, we will see thr
charismatic officer Kolov
second and third parts, he
and meets Stalin to devisr
the premiere of the film is
scene, the meeting of Stal:
lmia
Figure 4: Stilt t'rom Khrustalev My Car!
aparodyofthewerewolf,isbizarreandbitter;butitalsobearshopeforthe
faiher,s vlability and return. This monstrous image of the raped father.echhave speculated
oes the flgure of the doubie. For a long time, cultural critics
'There is no
uncanny'
the
of
tlpes
major
as
two
o., *onrt"tr; and doubles
who does
double
no
himself
duplicate
to
["']
tend
not
does
who
monster
(1984:
Girard
Rene
not yield a monstrous aspect on closer scrutiny', said
too). rhe reduction of a human person to the bare life inevitably leaves
that has
an uncanny trace, an irreducible leftover of the dear and familiar
become foreign and then horrifying.
his
The son Teeh his griel guilt ind admiration many decades after
life
continuing
the
imagines
He
father,s disappearance and piobable death.
of the lost oUlcct atrd desplrately hopes that it will return. Using another
artistic language and relying on a different historical experience, German',s
(Dar' 1938)
Aleksei ..proa.r.":; the ordeal of Fedor from Nabokois The Gift
whichdocumentstheSensoryprocessesofre-presentingthefathertothe
son with an equal power.22 Aioring their lost fathers, both sons desperately
the sons
believe in theii survival. Constming their fathers' fate as uncertain,
that
adventures
heroic
engage in unbridled fantasies about their fathers'
the
with
narrative
the
Starting
return.
Urlr-,g about their saivation and
-orrii
shifts
pedantic refonstruction of his youth in.the shadow of his father, Aleksei
it'
understands
German
as
fi1m-maker,
of
a
task
But
the
fantasy.
sheer
into a
dreamed
or
fantasized
is to depict his drlams as if they are real 'The boy
would
about the general. But we had to;how it in such a way that the viewer
('O
...')'
fii'me
believe us', said German
The film ends with a cheerful picture of Klenskii balancing a glass of wine
onthetopofhisheadwhilestandingonashakyrailwaycarriage.tlafter
for
all, Klenskii is still eager to perform his tricks, Aleksei can keep waiting
58
Rossiia in 2008. ln thi:
military philosophy while
to press reports, another;
Kotov takes part in a dreat
his guest, serves him a ca
Stalin in the cream (Anor
cal and aesthetic views be
turns of the plotline in cor
less victim who is then tur
be a prince'), said Beria to
probably referred to the
tr
prince'), which precisely d
Agamben (1995: 170) r
ture with a massive body
exempted from 1aw: the t
say' the tlnant; and the ir
mous victims of the tyran
Agamben, these latter pa
politicai theory that he bc
ereignty' is defined
as the
state of emergenq/ or a cc
which the state of exceptr
the camp are both states
this structure, Agamben 1
limits of the order, the sr
figures [...]: the sovereip
potentially homines sacri,
men act as sovereigns'. B
Hobbesian state of natur
are nothing but two sides
strip'. In other words, the
ol lile, a threshold in
whic
(Agamben 1995: 84, 37,
2
The tole of two turns
him to comr-' back. But actual1y, the vit-.wcrs believe in somethir.rg different:
not that the image of thc living and playful Klenskii is tr-ue, but that Alckscj,
now in his sixties, chcrishcs this image as the dearc.st par-t of his inner lifc..
In Aleksei's melancholic fantasy, which contrasts with Hamlet's, the fathcr
survives bctrayal
his bare, dog-likr-.
by the son to return with unusual powers. Emerging from
lifc, hc provides Stalin his final stlice and brings homc the
23
Comporine Gernmr's
onrl Mikhc kov's w,orl,
Dmitrii Bykov l2OO0)
rrotes thot both {i m
mckers cro sons of ih-eodl nq Sovk-.| wr lt-^rs,
rn--r of to,^nl ord
prisoners of the Gulag.
... TWO SYMMETRICAL FIGURES
Frrst, a citizcn turns into a victim. Second, a victim turns into a hero. As we
have seen,
this improbablc sr:quence of events occurs in a number of llussian
films about Stalinism. \4hen Mikhalkov's sc.quel to Burnt by the Sun (1994) is
complc'k-'d, we wjl1 see the same chain of cvc-.nts there. In the first part, the
charismatic officcr Kotov is arrested and beatcn by the secret policc. ln the
third parts, hc miraculously surwives, forges a nc-.w military career,
and meets Stalin to dt-.visc an of'fcnsive operation in World War II. Though
the premiere of the film is schcdulcd for 2010, Mikhalkov scrcened its central
sccnc., thc nre-.eting of Stalin and Kotov, on tlrc television show Nome Russial
lnria Rossiia in 2008. In this fragment, Stalin espouscs hjs cruel, indiscriminatr:
military philosophy while Kotov trembles with adoration and fear. Accorcling
to press reports, another and morc sy.rnmetrical meeting betwc.cn Staiin and
Kotov takes part in a dream Kotov had in the Gulag: Kotov recr-.ives Staiin as
his guest, seles him a cakc which is shaped like Stalin's facr:, and drowns
Stalin in thc crc-.am (Anon.2008). Despite thc imnrc.nse difTerence in politisecond and
cal and acsthctic vjews between Mikhalkov and Gcrnlan, they hold the twcr
turns of thc plotline in common.23 The powerful citizcn is turned into a hapless victin'r who is then turr-red into a noblc hcro. 'Kniazem budesh' ('You w111
be a prlnce'), said Beria to Klenskii whcn thr:y parted from Stalin's dacha. He
probably referred to the Russian saying 'lz. gltazi v kniazi' ('From diri into a
prince'), which prccisr-.l1, dcsi:ribc-s the second, ascending turn.
Agambcn (1 995: 170) construes the political univcrsc as a tripartite structure with a nrassivc body, which is the state of 1aw, and two parts that are
exempted from 1aw: the superior part, which is the sovereig;n or (:asicr to
sar') the t1'rant; and the inferior part, which consists of the pathetic, anonymous victims of the tyranny, those who can bc killerd but not sacrificcd. For
Agamben, thc.sc lattcr parts are unequal but symmetrical. In terms of the
political thc.ory that hc bor-rowed fiom the Nazi theorist Karl Schmitt, 'sovereignty'is defined as thc ability to create exceptions from thc larw, such as a
state of emergency or a concentration camp. 'Tl-re camp is thus a structure in
whiclr the state of exception [...] is realized norrnally'. Since the tyrant ancl
tl-rc can-rp are both states of exception, they arc intrinsically connected. In
this structure, Agambc.n pcrccivcs a kind of svmmetry. 'As thc. two extreme
limits of the order, the sovcrcign and homo sacsr present two symmc.tricai
figures [...]: the sovc.rcign is thc onc r,r'ith respect to whom all men are
potentially honitrcs sacri, and horno sacer is thc onc in respect to whom all
nrc-.n act as sovereigns'. Both of them, the tyant and thc victim, live in the
Hobbesian state of nature. 'The state of cxccption and the state of naturc
are nothing but two sidcs of a singlc. topological process [...] as in a Mobius
strip'. In other words, the tyrant ancl thr: victlm both represent'a limit-figure
of lift-., a thrcshold in which lifr: is both inside and outside the juriclical order'
(Agambcn 1995: 84, 37,27; emphasis in the orlginal).
59
Alexonder Etkind
random ones. On the contri
appear recurrently, maybe
that does not belong to a P
in its
desperate search to re
able. While the historical Pr
and unproductive for a nat
to redeem these processes
i
even more, into self-sacrific
their losses. Arguably, ascrib
distortion of reality is an op,
In post-catastrophic me
ized with fantastic but unc
work of mourning employs
185) put it, 'the only pleasu
fu1 one'. The severe truth
c
not know why they
suffer
gigantic transformation of h
between the superior PerPt
memory transgresses the fri
REFERENCES
Figure 5: Still t'rom Khrustalev My Car!
Agamben, Giorgio (1995), I
Stanford University Prer
(1999), Remnants of A
Zone Books.
in which
Thinking about the Holocaust and the Gulag, is there any way
tyrant? I
the
and
victim
the
between
slmmetry
it makes sense to talk about a
the
I
confrontcd
until
anti-historical
or
profane
either
question
had found the
imagination' In
uncanny rl*rrr"try that these figures shape in the post-Soviet
into the hel1
the films under consideration, a central character first is iowered
of a
position
the
into
himself
reshapes
second,
of political victimiz-ation and,
mects
actually
victim
the
fi1ms,
these
of
In
some
life-worlds.
sorrer"ign of their
of power' such
the tyrant and exchanges with him the most significant regalia
imporanother
is
sti1l
which
as life and the ability to take life. Like a werewolt
transgrcrsses
character
accursed
this
tant concept of Agamben's philosophy,
of power along
those very borders that definl him, demolishing the hierarchy
to sovereigns
happens
sometimes
A
similar
stigmata.
acquired
his
Process
with
Gcrman said
As
life.
bare
the
into
who have c'herishedlantasies of descending
'The
myth-making
political
Russian
of
ages
in an interview, summarizing
someone.9l,s9
to
be
longing
is
everyone
thai
is
such
Russian mentality
!)ne
Tu go and hide is an
tsar became a wanderer, another one became a monk [...]
important component of the Ilussian mentality' ('O fi1'me "'')'
post_catastiophic cultural memory does constr"uct the Mobius strip that
Agambenattributestotheveryfunctioningoftotalltarianrc.gimes.Butin
oifusitlon to Agamben's vision, historically this strip did not mysteriously
in
,pi"ua fr,,* the tyrant to the victim and back to the t1.rant, equalizing them
rather' the mournu *ur-t.", that was entirely foreign to these regimes lt is'
this ryrnmetty'
justice,
constructs
at
attempt
belated
in
a
ing memory that,
rfi:j posthumous mechanism elevates the sick, weak, soon-to-be-dead victim
t1'rant
to the level of the sovereign. In a reciprocal move, it brings dovm the
not
but
fantasies,
are
mobility
this
and
symmetry
to the level of a victim. This
60
-Anon.
(2008), 'Prem'era "l
goda', news.ru, 6 Febr
utomlennye.html.
Accer
Barskova, Polina (2005),'Fil
of Hamli:t inTheGtt'{,)
Benjamin, Walter (1998), T,
Berezovchuk, Larisa (2005),
nii istorii proshlogo i pz
Lapshin" i "Khrustalev
Blok, Aleksandr (1960),
So
Khudozhestvennaia lite
Tlooth, Walme C. (1961),TL
Press.
Bordwell, Davld (1985), Nr
Wisconsin Press.
Brcnt, Jonathan and Naum
Against the lewish Docto
Brodsky, Joseph (1995),'U
and Reason, New York:
Bykov, Dmitrii (2000),'Ge
kinoart.ru/200
0 I6I
11'.hI
Cave, Terence (1 988), Reco3
Coates, Paul (1991), The G'
Image of Honor, Cambr
Condee Nanry (2009), The
New York: Oxford Uni
7
The
lole of two itrrns
randonr ones. On thr: contrary, in the works of post Sovie t film-makers they
appear recurrcntly, maybc even obsL.ssivelv. They form a systcn-ric allegory
that cloes not belong to a particular film but rather sharpes culfural memory
in its desperatc. scarch to rc.prcsent events and feelings that are unrc.presentable. Whilc the historical processL.s of victimization were sensclcss to victims
and unpr-oductive for a nation or c.vcn an ideologl', cultural mcmory tends
kr redeem thcse processcs ln hindsight by turning victims into sacrifices and
c\ren more, into sc..lf sacrificial heroes rvho carn sovereign[' in exchange for
thcir losses. Arguabl1., ascribing meaning to scnseless loss arnd the conscquent
distortion of rcaliiy is an opc.rating mecharnism of melancholy.
ln post-catastrophic memory, r-c.al but unimaginable suffering is symbolwith fbntastic but understandablc metaphors. Ily its very nature, this
rvork of mourning emplovs a11egoric.s, which are, as Walter Benjamin (1998:
185) put it, 'the only pJeasure thc n'relancholic per-mits himsclf, and a power
ful onr-.'. The severc truth of the pathetic, stinking soon to-bc-clead who do
not know why thc1, suffer becausc. no such rcarson exists, is rcdeemed bv a
gigantic transformation of historical realin*. At each end of this eeric cquation
behveen thi-. superior perpL.trator and thc krwest of his victims, thc work of
izecl
memoly transgresses the frame of history.
REFERENCES
Agamben, Giorgio (1995), Homo Sacer, Souereigt Ptwer and l3are Life, Stanford:
Stanford University Prcss.
(1999), Rernnants of Auschwitz, The Wi.fness and the Architc, New York:
-
Zor-rc lJooks.
Anon. (2008), 'Prem'cra "Utomlennvkh sulntsem-2" sostoitsia 9 maia 2010
goda', rtews.nr, 6 Februarv, http://w.wrv.ncwsru.com/cincma/06feb2008/
utomlennye.htn.rl. Accessed 24 March 201 0.
Barskova, Polina (2005), 'Filial Fcclings and Patr:rnal Patterns: Transformations
of Hamlct in The Gift' , Nobokoo Studics, g, pp. 191-208.
Benjamin, Walter (1998) , The Origin o.f Gemnn Tragic Dranm, London: Verso.
Berczovchuk, Larisa (2005), 'Identifikatsiia l,remeni. Ob ckrannom voploshchenii istorii, proshlogr i pamiati v fi1'makh Alekscia Germana "Moi drug lvan
I-apshin" i "Khrusta1ev, nrashinul"', Kitutaedchcskie zapiski, 76, pp.178-212.
Illok, Aleksandr (1960), Sobranie sochinenii,8 vols., Moscow ancl Leningrad:
KI-rudozh estvennaia li tcratura.
Booth, Walme C. (1961), Thc. Rhetoric of Fictiort, Chicago: LJniversity of Chicago
Press.
llordwell, David
(1 985), Narration in the Fiction Flliz, Madison: University of
Wisconsin lJrc.ss.
Ilrc-.nt, Jonathan and Naumov, Vladirnil P. (2003), Stalin's Last Crinc: The Plot
Agttinst thc lewislt Docfors, New York: HarperCollins.
Brodskr', Joscph (1995), 'Uncommon Visagc: The Noble Ltcture', in On Grie.f
ard ll.cason, New Yi1rk: Farrar.
Ilykor,-, Dmitrii (2000), 'Cerman vs. Mikhalkov', lsktrssfoo kino, 6, http://o1d.
kinoart.ru/2000/6/1 1.html. Accessc-.d 21 July 20tJ9.
Cave, Terence (1988), ltcco.g,litions: A Study in Poetics, C)xford: Clarr-.ndon Press.
Coirtes, l'aul (1 991), 'l'hr Gorgon's Caze: Gennon Cinenm, Exprcssionisn, ofld the
Image of I lorror, Cambridgc: Cambridge University Press.
Conder. Nani:y (2009), The hnpcrial Trace: Recent R:ussinn Cinona, ()xford and
New York: ()xford University I'rcss.
6r
-lz-
Alexonder Eikind
Dobson, Miriam (2006), 'show the Bandit-Enemies no Mercy: Amnr-'sty,
Criminality, and Irublic Rcsponse in 1953', in Polly Jones (ed')' Thc
Dilemmas'of De-stalinization: Negotiating Cultural and social Change in the
Khrushchert Era, London: Routlcdge, pp. 19-40'
Edkins,Jenny(2003),TraumaanrltheMemoryofPolitics,Cambridgi::Cambridge
University ['ress.
Etkind, Alexander (L998), Khlttst. sekty, literatura i rer:oliutsiia, Moscow: Nrlvot-'
literaturnoe obozrcnie.
(2008), ,Barc Monuments to L]are-. Lifc: Thc Soolz-fo-Be.Dead ln Arts and
Memory', Gulag Studies, 1, PP 27-33.
-Gcrman,
Aleksei (iSSSa),'lzgoniaiushchii
(1999b), 'Trudno
kinoart. ru/200
byt' Germanom', Interview with Natalia
Kilesso,
51:3, pp. 431-47.
llosenstone, RobertA. (ed.)
of a New Pasf, Princeton
Ross, Alison (ed.) (2008),'l
cial issue, 107: 1.
Rothberg, Michael
Ruttenburg, Nancy
Univcrsity
Svetlana (2006), Chto sknzal tabacLLnik s
Univr-'rsity Press.
Grainge, puul (ZOClg), 'lntroduction', in l'aul Grainge (ed'), Memory and Popular
Fllru, New York: Manchestcr Universlty l)ress'
in
Greenleaf, Monika (1994), 'Fathers, Sons, and Impostcrs: I'ushkin's Tracc
The Gtft' , Slar:ic Reaiew,53: 1, pp. 140-58.
(2000),
kinoaedcheskie zapiski, 44, http:l ltut+w.kinozapiski.ru/articlc/656/. Accessr:d
4 September 2009.
Lrlya (2008), How the Soaiet Man wns L[nmade: Cultural Fnntasy
Kaganovsky,
-'and
MiIe Su,jectioity under Stalin, Pittsburgh: I'ittsburgh University Press.
iMelodramatic Masculinity, National Identity, and the
Larsen, Susan (ZOOO),
stalinist lrast in Irostsoviet Cinema" Studies in 20th Centurtl Literature:
Cinemns:
al of Con temp or ary F ilms, 1' : 2, pp . 9 8-1 12'
Levine, Lawrcnce w. (1993), The Llnpredictable Past: Explorations in Arnericmt
Cultural Ilistory, Oxford: Oxford University Press'
Lievers, Keith A. (2004), Conshacting the stalinist Body: Fictional lleprcsentatiorts
oJ Corporealiry in the Stalinist Sfafe, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books'
Lip.vr-'tsky, tvtait (ZOOz), 'The importance of being pious: Pavel Lungin's
islandi, KinoKultur a, 15, http //www.kin okultura.com/200 7/1 5r-island.
J o urn
:
shtml. Accessed 4 SePtember 2009.
Lowenstein, Adam (2005), shocking Representation: Historical Trattma, National
Cinema, anrl the MorlEm Horor Film, New York: Columbia university Prcss.
Mandelshtam, Nadezhda (1970), vospominaniia, New York: Izdatel'stvo im.
(2008)
Press.
Santncr, Eric (1990), Strand
Cetmany,Ithac4 NY: Cr
Scott, James C. (1985), I4
Resistance, New Haven,
Shmitt, Wolf (2003), Nanatt
Siladi, Akosh (1999), 'Sto I
kinozapiski.ru/article/65
Timenchik, Roman (2009),'
Na
Iampolskii, Mikhail (1999),'Ischeznovenie kak forma sushchestvovaniia',
rubezhe doukh stoleti
Novoe literaturnoe oboz
Vasil'eva, Svetlana (1999),' A
magazi nes.russ.ru/znam
i,
Wood, Tony (2001), 'Time t
Reaiew,7, pp.99-107.
SUGGESTED CITATIOI
Etkind, A. (2010), 'The tale
Lic memory oi the Soue
c
pp. 45-63, doi: 10.1386/s
CONTRIBUTOR DETAI
Alexander Etkind is Reader
University of Cambridge an
also the hcad of a largc Eur,
in
Russia, Poland, and l.lkrat
Mazower, Mark (2008), 'Foucault, Agamben: Theory and the Nazis" Boundary
(2010-13). Before coming to
at St Pctersburg and was a,
Georgetown and NewYork L
Rerlin and the Woodrow Wil
2,35:L, PP. 23-34.
,c) fi1,n.re Alekseia Gcrmana "Khrustalcv, Mashinu!"" Russian state univclsity
Eros of the Impossible: The Hist
Iiteratura i reaolitsiia (1 998) an
Chekhova.
of Humanities:'Kinocentcr', http://kinocenter.rsuh.ru/lib/fi1ms/hrustalev.
htm. Accessed 24 March 2010.
l,aperncr, Irlna (1992), 'How Naboko{s GiJt is Made', Stanford Slnaic Studies,
4:2, pp.295-324.
II poblagodaril sozdatelci fil'ma "C)strov"' (2009)'
Blagoae,st-Info, 29 November, http://wryw.blagovest-info.ru/index.
'I'atriarkii Aleksil
php?ss=2&s=3&id=10361.
62
12.htt
Repr esent ation. Minneap
Tabachnoi tLlitsy i drugie kinostsenarii, St Petersburg: S6ance'
Cirard, Rene (19-84), iiulrn* and the Sacred, IJaltimore: J.hns Hopkins
Russian Culture of the 1990s, 24: 1', pp. 85 120'
Lawton, Anna (2001), 'Russian cincma in troubled times', Nezu
0I6 I
Rifkin, Benjamin (1992),'1
My fricnd luan Lapshir
diavola', Iskusstno kino, 6'
Moskoaskii kontsomole ts, 19 C)ctober.
-German, Aleksei and Karmelita,
l'odoroga, Valerii (2000), '
Accesscd 24 March 201(l'
ber of the board of
Nouoe litet
Contact: King's College, Can
E-mail: ae264@cam.ac.uk
T
The tole of two turns
Podoroga, Valerii (2000), 'Molokh i Khrustalev', Iskusstuo kino, 6, http://old.
kinoart.ru/200 0 I 6 I 12.html. Accessed 4 September 2009.
I{iikin, Bcnjamin (1992),'The Reinterpretation of History in German's Film
My Friend laan Lapshin: Shifts in Center and Periphery', Slaaic Reaiew,
51:3, pp. 431 47.
Roscnstcrne, Robert A. (ed.) (1995), Rez isioning I listory: Film and the ConstructitttL
of a Ncw /)asf, Trrinceton: Princeton University Press.
Alison (ed.) (2008), 'Thr: Agamben Effect', South Atlantic Quarterly, spe
cial issue, 107: 1.
Ross,
Rothberg, Michael (2000), Traumatic Realism: The Dennnds of llolocaust
Reprcsentntiott, Minneapolis: University of Minncsota Press.
l{uttcnburg, Nancy (2008), Dostoeasky's Democracy, Princeton: Princeton
Univc-.rsity lrress.
Santner, Eric (1990), Stranded Obiects: Mourning, Memory and Fi.lm in PLtslzuar
Gennany, Ithaca, NY: Corneli University Prcss.
Scott, James C. (1985), Weapons of the Weak: Eaeryday Forms of Pessant
Ilesistance, Nc'w Havcn, CT: Yale University Press.
Shmitt, Wolf (2003), Narratologia, Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kul'tury.
Siladi, Akosh (1999), 'Sto let smerti', Kinoaedcheskie zapiski, 44, http:llvnvw.
kin ozapiski.ru I article I 657 I . Accessed 4 Septembcr 2009.
Timenchik, Iloman (2009), 'Trilistnik iubileinyi s subbotnim prilozheniem', in
Na rubezhe daukh stoletii. Sbomik o chest' 60-letiia A.V. Laaroaa, Moscow:
Novoe literaturnoe obozrcnic, pp. 710-28.
Vasil'eva, Svctlana (1999),'A. Gcrnran. Khrustalev mashinul', Znamitt,12,htp:ll
magazines.mss.m/znamia/1 999/12lvasil.html. Accessed 24 March 201 0.
Wood, Tony (2001), 'Time Unfrozen: The Films of Aleksci German', New Let't
Reaiew,7,pp.99 107.
SUGGESTED CITATION
Etkind, A. (2010), 'The tale of two
turns'. Khrustalca, My Car! and the cinematic memory of the Soviet past', Studies in llussian and Sooiet CinetLa 4:1,
pp. 45-63, doi: 1 0.1386/srsc.4.1.45_1
CONTRIBUTOR DETAIIS
Alexander Etkind is Reader in Russian Literature and Cultural History at the
University of Cambrldge and a Fe11ow of Kint's Co11ege, Cambridge. He is
aiso the head of a large European project, MemLny at Wat Cultural Dyttamics
Russia, Poland, and Ukraine, which is financed by the HERA Foundatlon
(2010-13). Ilcforc coming to Cambridgc, hc taught at thc European University
at St Pc.tcrsburg and was a visiting scholar or professor at Hclsinki, Haruard,
Ceorgetov,n and New York Universities, as well as at the Wissenschaftskolleg in
Berlin and the Woodrow Wilson Ccntcr in Wasl.rington DC. His books include
Eros of the lrnpossiblc: Thc I listonl of Psychoonalysis itt llussia (1993), Khlyst SekQ,
lLte.ratura i rnoli.tsi.ia (1998) and Non-Jicti.on po-russki prauda (2007). Hc-. is a rncm bc.r of the board of Noaoe literatumoe obozrenie andThe Russian llniuo.
in
Contact: King's Col1ege, Cambridge University, CB2 1ST, Cambridgc UK.
E mail: ae264@cam.ac.uk
63