Conclusion
Stalin’s image was everywhere in Russia during his rule, but analytical and insightful portraits of the ruler were virtually nonexistent—and for obvious reasons. Public monuments cast Stalin as an omnipotent, beloved father figure, while censorship, terror, and mandatory conformity made it dangerous...
Saved in:
| Published in | This Thing of Darkness p. 336 |
|---|---|
| Main Author | |
| Format | Book Chapter |
| Language | English |
| Published |
Cornell University Press
15.03.2019
|
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| Summary: | Stalin’s image was everywhere in Russia during his rule, but analytical and insightful portraits of the ruler were virtually nonexistent—and for obvious reasons. Public monuments cast Stalin as an omnipotent, beloved father figure, while censorship, terror, and mandatory conformity made it dangerous to produce a counterportrait, even for the drawer. It is deeply ironic, therefore, that the most thoughtful contemporary portrait of the Soviet ruler and the history of Russian state power can be found in a work of art from the 1940s that seems more surreal than analytical, a film that was butchered by censorship and self-censorship, that |
|---|---|
| ISBN: | 9781501732782 1501732781 |