It is difficult to find an ambitious person who would not at some point write a screenplay.1
We are abstract people. Each day divides us up between ten different activities. That is why we go to the cinema.2
T
he rise of the so-called “formal method” in the immediate post- revolutionary years has been associated almost exclusively with questions of literary specificity, and with the search for a methodology that would not only exceed various forms of intentionalism and/or determinism, but would also destroy the pretensions of a general aesthetics to account for the presum-ably transgredient “essence” of art.3 As a consequence, the logical corollary of any claims for the specificity of the literary, namely that this implies also the formal specificity of the other modes of art from which literature is differenti-ated, has been just as consistently neglected: What does the differentiation of the means available to literature imply for “not literature,” whether “not litera-ture” be seen primarily as the broad verbal context against which the literary defines itself (“practical language”), or as the technically variegated forms of art against which, in a sense, it competes—painting, music, theater, and of course cinema? This question takes on yet more practically dramatic dimensions when we consider the extent of the involvement in cinema of the leading Formalists, not just as theorists and critics, but also as writers and, in certain cases, admin-istrators. The present chapter proposes, then, to proceed from a brief account of Formalist engagement with cinema to a more focused examination of the activity of Iurii Tynianov, and, specifically, the screen version of his story“Lieutenant Kizhe,” which will allow us to return to the question of artistic specificity, and to reconnect, on a necessarily provisional basis, to a more recent discourse around the relationship between literature and cinema—adaptation.
166 alastair renfrew
It is important in coming to this material to bear in mind two related provisos: The first, as indicated by the use of the qualifier “so-called” in apposition to the Formalists, is that the theorists and critics who have been grouped under the heading “Russian Formalism” do not represent a unified or consistent school or “method” of literary theory; they were characterized as such in the 1920s chiefly by their opponents, and, conversely and under-standably, in the 1960s to 1980s by their supporters, anxious to recover and champion what had been lost through repression in the “cultural revolution.”
With regard to the cinema, however, in terms equally of theory and practi-cal involvement, there is even less ground for considering their activities under a broad unified heading. Boris Eikhenbaum, for example, although the most conservative of the leading Formalists with regard to disciplinary and institutional range, not only published on cinema in the mid-1920s, but also taught a course at the State Institute for the History of Art (GIII) on “General Theory of Cinema” and, along with Tynianov and leading literary figures such as Evgenii Zamiatin and Mikhail Zoshchenko, joined the newly formed
“Cine-Literary Committee” of the Sevzapkino studio in late 1925.4 This rela-tive reticence contrasts with the sustained involvement of Osip Brik, as both screenwriter and, for a time at least more significantly, as a “creative admin-istrator” and head of the Script Department at the Mezhrabpom studio. Brik achieved this influential position following the production of his script for Pudovkin’s Storm Over Asia (1928), but this would turn out to be the height of his success, creatively and administratively. As a leading figure in Lef (The Left Front in Art), Brik’s position at Mezhrabpom became increasingly compromised after 1928, and indeed the difficult production process of his script for The Two Buldis (Kuleshov and Agadzhanova, 1929) is an illustrative case of how Mezhrabpom and the studio system in general were “purged”
and reorganized as the 1930s dawned. Brik’s relations with Mezhrabpom and other major studios deteriorated to the point where his scripts were routinely and sometimes mercilessly rejected, culminating on more than one occasion in the threat of legal action for return of fees paid in advance.5 Brik’s engage-ment with the cinema in the 1930s is restricted largely to docuengage-mentaries and newsreel, often trading on his former association with Lef’s undisputed and now deceased star, Vladimir Maiakovskii.6 Brik’s involvement in cinema is above all else exemplary of the manner in which the film industry became a domain like any other for the evisceration of the cultural intelligentsia, and is therefore far from being unique.
By way of a very different contrast, Viktor Shklovskii was so prolific, as a writer in general and as a screenwriter in particular, that it becomes impos-sible to contextualize his film work against the constricted background of his former association with Opoiaz (The Society for the Study of Poetic Language), or of his continuing personal and professional relations with
against adaPtation? 167 either Tynianov or Brik. It is also extremely difficult to correlate his writing on film, with its characteristically polemic and almost occasional manner,7 to his work in film, which stretches from screenplays for The Bay of Death (Room, 1926) and the brilliant The Wings of a Serf (Tarich, 1926), all the way to The Ballad of Bering and His Friends (Iurii Shvyrev) in the distant year of 1970. This is exacerbated by the fact that Shklovskii’s scripts are often co-authored, his input being of a corrective nature, rewriting a prob-lematic script or developing an early treatment. Shklovskii’s name crops up in archival materials on the cinema in the 1920s and 1930s with astonishing frequency: More than any other writer attracted into the cinema from the 1925 literary campaign onwards, Shklovskii became an almost ubiquitous consultant, adviser, and troubleshooter, a role which was not at first under-mined by the final “defeat” of Formalism and Shklovskii’s very public recan-tation of his former “errors” in 1929.8 Shklovskii’s adventures in the cinema are in fact best contextualized against the long-running story of the wit and resourcefulness of Shklovskii the personality, a story that can be accessed in its most perfected form in the extensive memoir literature authored by none other than Shklovskii himself.9
Tynianov’s engagement with the cinema is distinct from that of each of his colleagues in a number of ways, which combine to make him a more productive subject for integrated analysis and, at the same time, a more challenging one. First, the relatively small number of films made from his screenplays were all produced—or, in the case of the exception that will be our main focus of attention, conceived—in the relatively homo-geneous period between the 1925 “literary campaign” and the onset of
“cultural revolution.” Second, Tynianov’s writing on film, which is more extensive than Eikhenbaum’s and more controlled than Shklovskii’s, is almost entirely contemporaneous with his practical work as a screenwriter.
Tynianov’s key essay “The Fundamentals of Cinema” and the shorter “On the Screenplay” and “On Siuzhet and Fabula in the Cinema” not only repre-sent a more coherent and indeed fundamental contribution to film theory than Shklovskii’s film writings, but were also written and published in 1926 and 1927,10 in the closest possible relationship to the discussions, negotiations, and creative activity that would result in the films The Overcoat (Kozintsev and Trauberg, 1926), S.V.D. (The Club of the Great Deed) (Kozintsev and Trauberg, 1928), and Lieutenant Kizhe, the last of which, by a series of twists of circumstance, was not produced until 1934. Tynianov’s film writings in themselves warrant re-examination as a contribution to film theory, but the temporal coincidence between their composition and the production of his screenplays presents itself as an almost irresistible ground upon which, albeit with appropriate caution, to assess the theory in direct contiguity to the practice.11
168 alastair renfrew
The third reason Tynianov holds such appeal in this context has two particular though by no means distinct aspects, each of which bears on the problem of adaptation. The first of his films, The Overcoat, is an ambivalent response to the vogue for literary adaptations that was in a sense the natural consequence of the literary campaign in the mid-1920s, and which, to some extent, invoked the risk of compromising the drive to develop a specifically cinematic language that united the otherwise disparate elements of the Soviet avant-garde.12 Yet Tynianov’s career had begun to develop in a way that would further complexify the relation between theory and practice in his work: By the time he and Eikhenbaum had joined Sevzapkino’s Cine-Literary Committee in late 1925, Tynianov had already published a short story “Brooks’s Parrot”
under the pseudonym Iuzef Motl’,13 and was working on a novel on the early nineteenth-century writer and schoolmate of Pushkin, V. K. Kiukhel’beker.
The novel, Kiukhlia, was published on December 2, a week after the Cine-Literary Committee had met for the first time.14 He had also already delivered the first draft of the screenplay for The Overcoat, for which he had signed a contract on October 13.15
The early part of 1926 sees Tynianov engaged in a range of activi-ties, the sheer volume of which may strike us as remarkable, but it is their interlocking and mutually affective nature that is crucial to an under-standing of his work in the cinema in general, and of his significance for adaptation in particular. Tynianov was co-opted as consultant on the pro-duction of The Overcoat,16 a position he retained in a more general capac-ity until becoming a member of Sevzapkino’s Script Department in July.17 The script for S.V.D. was conceived and written with Iulian Oksman in January–February, at which time Tynianov, who was also preparing a preface to accompany the republication of his article “The Archaists and Pushkin,”18 actually screen-tested for the role of Pushkin in what would later become The Poet and the Tsar (Gardin, 1927).19 “On the Screenplay”
and “On siuzhet and fabula in the Cinema” were published in March, by which time Tynianov was already at work on what would become his second novel, The Death of Vazir-Mukhtar, which commenced serial publication in the journal The Star in January 1927, but would not be completed until March–April 1928.20 While writing The Death of Vazir-Mukhtar, Tynianov published the story “Lieutenant Kizhe,” which later became the ostensible model for the film of the same name. Understood against this background of creative quotidian life the putative comparison between Tynianov-film-theorist and Tynianov-screenwriter is thus problematized by its imbrica-tion in a second species of comparison, between Tynianov-screenwriter and Tynianov-literary author, an exercise that becomes all the more pregnant when we characterize him, in the specific instance of Lieutenant Kizhe, as adapter of his own work.
against adaPtation? 169