centre of Russia. This event coincided with the development of film. From the silent era, Russian cinematography was considered the forefront of discoveries in cinematic art. Works of such directors as Sergei Eisenstein, Dziga Vertov, and Lev Kuleshov became subjects of book-length research. From early on, the capital has been an important subject in cinema. Films tended to stress the main attitude that ruled at that time: Moscow was perceived as a place where people from all over the country came to obtain careers and education, friendship and love. In such motion pictures as Jolly Fellows (Grigori Alexandrov, 1934), Moscow was depicted as a spacious, festive city full of opportunities for everyone. Stalin’s reconstruction plan of 1935, with its imperial architecture, strengthened this attitude. During 1930s-1950s the role of Moscow was emphasized, as the city played a dominant part of Stalin’s geopolitics. People linked their hopes with the idea of Moscow becoming the future capital of the world. In the “construction films” of this period, life in the city was shown as more appealing than life in the country. During the Thaw (mid 1950s – mid 1960s) the attention finally shifted to the private life, as opposed to the political (I am Twenty, Marlen Hutsiyev, 1965). In contemporary drama of this time, the downsides of Moscow were shown. Soviet Union cinema was still strictly controlled by the government, but directors found ways to express themselves and depict reality as it was with the help of the comedy genre (Beware of the Car, Eldar Ryazanov, 1966). In the 1990s Russian cinema became renowned for its negativity. The city was often depicted as a source of evil as opposed to the pure life in the village. This pessimistic attitude in film characterised the general climate in post-soviet Russia. The sudden transformation to the market economy and the seeming availability of Western culture was juxtaposed to poverty and internal conflicts, which brought a general feeling of despair and moral disorientation to film. 1.4 Russian Film Industry Today In the 1990s the Russian film industry experienced a crisis. New conditions of the free market forced it to compete with Western cinema. On the other hand, the new economic and political situation brought civil liberties: political censorship was abolished and the government no longer imposed its ideology on filmmakers, at least
Some landmarks of the urban environment are inaccessible because of their size and geographic position (the Yuri Dolgorukij monument), some are available to a small amount of residents (Stalin’s Sisters), and others can be traversed only during the day (Moscow metro). But film breaks down these barriers and allows the spectator to see what is hidden in real life. Iconic locations can become nostalgic ‘recollection-objects’ as they are connected with Moscow’s history and the past of its inhabitants. The viewer like a meticulous tourist travels through the city’s unapproachable, most intimate parts, exploring small physical details. The spectator can visit not only the objects of cultural heritage, but also the private and public lived spaces. 4.3 A Local’s Site: Inhabited Places For most Muscovites, much like for the inhabitants of other global cities, iconic locations such as the Red Square play a secondary role. Instead they inhabit and visit diverse public and private spaces like offices, hospitals, cinemas, and apartments. The houses where they dwell can be spacious lofts in central Moscow, or crammed worker’s barracks on the outskirts. Sometimes films give a realistic presentation of a Muscovite’s life, sometimes they embody their aspirations. For example, the episodes with famous skyscrapers in Moscow, I Love You express the desires of the inhabitants, rather than reality. To the majority of Muscovites, Stalin’s Sisters are mythological touristic locations and not home. Some films allow their protagonists and spectators to approach the more ‘presentable’ and impressive parts of Moscow, such as the city centre. As Mazierska and Rascaroli assert, the historical centre has always played an important part in European cities. In postmodern conditions, it becomes a place of fragmentation. The center turns into a cosmopolitan area where more and more immigrants assemble, while the locals tend to move into the suburbs. All this can be said about Moscow. And yet the city centre still remains in focus of most films. In many cases it is a dwelling place of successful businessmen (in Tycoon), well-connected middle class (in Lovey-Dovey), or “native” Muscovites that have inherited family apartments (Valerik). Their apartments might not always be properly renovated, but they still provide the luxury of living in the center.
Image 5: Any-space-whatever, in Another Sky (Dmitri Mamulia, 2010). Image 6: Office mini-golf in Lovey-Dovey (Alexandr Strizhenov, 2007). Image 7: Getting dressed in a car, The Queen (Moscow, I Love You! Alla Surikova, 2010). Image 8: Romantic trolleys in July Rain (Marlen Khutsiyev, 1966). Image 9: Typical panorama view as the opening scene of Moscow Does not Believe in Tears (Vladimir Menshov, 1980).