Eisenstein Prokofiev Correspondence Levaco

7/21/2019 Eisenstein Prokofiev Correspondence Levaco

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eisenstein-prokofiev-correspondence-levaco 1/17

University of Texas Press

Society for Cinema & Media Studies

The Eisenstein-Prokofiev CorrespondenceAuthor(s): Ronald LevacoSource: Cinema Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Autumn, 1973), pp. 1-16Published by: University of Texas Press on behalf of the Society for Cinema & Media StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1225055 .

Accessed: 23/07/2011 07:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Texas Press and Society for Cinema & Media Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Cinema Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=texas

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scms

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1225055?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1225055?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scms




h e

Eisenstein Prokofiev

orrespondence

Ronald

Levaco

The Eisenstein-Prokofiev

correspondence

assembled

and

translated here

begins in July of 1939 and ends in February, 1946. It remained unpublished

in Russia

until

1961,

the

period

of

"de-Stalinization,"

when

it

appeared

in

the fourth number

of

the

journal, Sovietskaya

muzika

(Soviet Music).

The

letters

were

written

against

a

backdrop

of

what

may

be

termed the

most

arduous

period

of

recent Soviet

history,

a

period

marked

by

the

indelible

consequences

of the

Stalinist

purges

and the

incalculable

human

loss

of Rus-

sia's

grimmest

and costliest

war.

During

the

war

years,

many

Soviet artists

were

evacuated

from the Mos-

cow

area

and

relocated

in

the

picturesque

and remote

resort cities of the

Caucasus

or,

as

in

Eisenstein's

case,

in

the exotic

capital

of

Kazakhstan,

Alma-Ata,1 situated in the mountains of Central Asia, quite near the Chi-

nese

border

and some three thousand

kilometers from

Moscow. The

Soviets

settled

on

Alma-Ata

as the

site of

wartime relocation for

virtually

their en-

tire

film

industry,

as well as

VGIK,

the

All-Union

State

Institute of

Cine-

matography,

to

be

headed,

Eisenstein

hoped, by

his

former

teacher,

col-

league,

and

friend,

Lev

Kuleshov.2

Thus,

it

was

principally

while

they

were

secluded

in

such

hideaways

and

attempting

to

go

on

with their

work,

at the

direction

of the

State,

that

Eisenstein and

Prokofiev

exchanged

these

let-

ters,

in

what

must have

been

a

bucolic and

surreal

asylum

from

the

ravages

of a war

of annihilation

that

spread apocalyptically

before

them,

across the

plains which lay to the North and West and separated them from Moscow.

In

a

large

sense,

this

correspondence plays

out

elliptically

the

scenario

of

both

artists' lives

in their last

years.

(Eisenstein

died in

1948;

Prokofiev

in

1953,

on the

day,

ironically,

of Stalin's

death.)

One

wishes,

perhaps,

that

the letters

had

dealt

with

more

substantive

matters,

but with the

mails un-

certain

as

they

must have

been

and

with

the threat of

internal

security

mani-

fest,

one can

also

imagine

that the

correspondents

exercised

a

measure

of

restraint.

Prokofiev's

reference to

Meierhold

in

his

letter of

July

30,

1939,

1

Jay Leyda,

Kino: A

History

of

the

Russian and Soviet Film

(London:

George

Allen

&Unwin, Ltd., 1960), p. 374.

2

Ibid.,

p.

374.



2

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

for

instance,

seems

cautiously vague. Clearly,

Meierhold's

tragic "disappear-

ance"

must

have

been

correctly interpreted by

most

who knew

him,

yet

Prokofiev could only permit

himself

the briefest

allusion

to

the

"catastro-

phe"

that had befallen

the

great

director.

There

is,

for

instance,

no reference

in

these

letters to

the

speech

that

the

sixty-eight-year-old

Meierhold

had

read

before

the First

National Convention of

Theatrical Directors

on

June

15,

1939,

a

month and

a half

before

Prokofiev's

letter

marks

Meierhold's

arrest. His

theatre

had

been

shut down since

January,

1937.

Expected

to di-

rect

Prokofiev's

new

opera,

Semyon

Kotko,

in

1939,

Meierhold

apparently

declined

the "second

chance" offered

him

by

Stalin when

he

openly

char-

acterized

the

Soviet theatre

as

colorless and

boring

and

defended

himself

against-rather

than

confessing

to-the

charges

of "formalism"3

hat

had

al-

ready been leveled against him by Stalinist critics. Meierhold's was a coura-

geous speech

but

one

which

at once

lost

Semyon

Kotko its

director and at

the

same time

placed

him

in the

gravest

jeopardy.

Thus,

these

letters

are

best

read

against

a

background

of

Soviet

life in

those

pre-war

and wartime

years

and best understood

in

light

of

what

was

left "unsaid"

as well

as

"said."This

necessarily

brief introduction

is intended

to

provide,

however

sketchily,

such

a

background.

In

addition,

one

might

find

interesting

and

informative

Israel

Nestyev's

massive

"official"

biogra-

phy,

Prokofiev,

expanded

and revised

in

1960;

Victor Seroff's

Sergei

Proko-

fiev;

Prokofiev's

own

Autobiography,

Articles,

Reminiscences;

Marie

Seton's

biography, Sergei M. Eisenstein; Jay Leyda's history of the Soviet cinema,

Kino;

and

S.

M. Eisenstein's

Notes

of

a Film

Director,

a

somewhat

mislead-

ingly

titled

Soviet collection

of

general

essays

and

reminiscences,

in

which

his famous

essay

on

Prokofiev,

entitled

"P-R-K-F-V,"

appeared.

The

combined

efforts of

Eisenstein

and

Prokofiev

were

exemplary

from

several

standpoints.

First,

their work

was

and

remains

a

paragon

of

an inno-

vative

mix

of

film and

music

in

the feature

length

motion

picture.

Moreover,

each

one's

interest

in the

form and

technique

of

the other's

art

was

deep

and

unpretentious;

and while

it

is

not known

how

thoroughly

Prokofiev

might

have delved

into

Eisenstein's

theory

of

montage,

it

is

known,

for

instance,

that Prokofiev was both exploratory and ingenious enough to discover that

certain

technical difficulties

in

recording

sound for film

could

be orches-

trated and

exploited.

Despondent

after

a

discouraging

mixing

session with

Boris

Volsky,

the recordist

for

Alexander

Nevsky,

Prokofiev

discovered that

part

of

the

recording

made for

Nevsky

had

been

improperly

modulated

and

had

"spilled

over."

Apparently,

however,

Prokofiev had

already

learned

enough

of

working

in

the cinema

to

convert

errors

into

advantages,

for it

was

this

very

harsh

quality

of sound which he

incorporated

into the

rasp-

ing,

dissonant,

and

fright-filled

brass

motifs

for

the

Teutonic

knight

se-

quences

in

Alexander

Nevsky.4

3

Victor

Seroff,

Sergei

Prokofiev:

A

Soviet

Tragedy

(New

York:

Funk

&

Wagnalls,

1968),

pp.

230-32.

4

Israel

V.

Nestyev,

Prokofiev

(trans.

Florence

Jonas),

(Stanford,

California: Stan-

ford

University

Press,

1960),

p.

294.



CINEMA

JOURNAL

/

3

It

was Eisenstein

who later

described

the

general

method that Prokofiev

and he had

evolved

in

working

on

Nevsky. Projecting

the

rushes

for Proko-

fiev,

often

in

rough-cut,

Eisenstein would

explain

in

words, sounds,

and

ges-

tures what he

sought.

On

one

occasion,

for

example,

not

being

able

to im-

press

on

Prokofiev what he wanted for

the memorable

sequence

in

Nevsky

when

pipes

and

drums

are

played

for the

victorious

Russian

soldiers,

Eisen-

stein ordered

some

prop

instruments

constructed,

shot

these

being played,

and

projected

the

results for

the

composer. According

to Eisenstein's ac-

count,

Prokofiev

almost

immediately

handed

him

"an

exact musical

equiva-

lent to that

visual

image."5

"He

is

the

perfect composer

for

the

screen,"6

Eisenstein

often said of Pro-

kofiev,

characterizing

Prokofiev's

music

as

"amazingly plastic"7;

but

indeed,

if Prokofiev's music were termed "plastic," so could Eisenstein's films be

termed

"symphonic"-conceived

in

structure

around

a

central

theme

which

pulsated recurrently

through

a film and served

as

its

unifying

leitmotif.

In

the case of his

painfully

irreclaimable

Que

Viva Mexico

(on

which the

di-

rector worked

on location in

Mexico

from

December, 1930,

until

March,

1932),

Eisenstein had

virtually

generated

a

symphonic

structure with four

movements,

framed

by

a

prologue

and

epilogue,

and unified

by

the recur-

rent

visual

motif

of the

serape,

the

simple,

cloak-like

blanket

worn

by

the

Mexican Indian.

In

Fergana

Canal,

the next

film Eisenstein

was to

begin

in

1939

but

not

to

finish,

the visual motif

was to

be

water,

as

a

life-source

for

man.

The two

abortive

films-with

the successful

Alexander

Nevsky

(1938)

coming

between-bear

comparison

in a

number of

ways.

Both dealt with

the

transmigration

of

great

civilizations,

as

symbolized

by

the

image

of bur-

ial. In

Que

Viva

Mexico the

burial

exemplified by

the

prologue

was

of one

man;

in

Fergana

Canal

it was

to

be

the

burial

of

thousands. Both films ex-

plored

a tension

between

the

physical

plasticity

and

historical

autonomy

of

man,

on the one

hand,

and the static

immobility

of

stone and

horrifying

in-

anition of

sand,

on

the other.

Both

films

adumbrated the

haunting question

before

Eisenstein,

as

any

Soviet artist-the

choice

between

relativism,

on the

one hand, and absolutism, on the other. Both films dealt with the protean

struggle

of

humanity

against petrifaction

and

death. Both films

were to re-

veal

a

rather

bleak

vision of

history

as

decadence and

blight-a pessimism

of

which Eisenstein

had

spoken

prior

to

leaving

Hollywood

for Mexico

in

early

December

of 1930. And

both

films

remained

unfinished.

Fergana

Canal,

the

subject

which

begins

this

heretofore untranslated cor-

respondence

between

Eisenstein and

Prokofiev,

was to have

been an

epic

film which dealt with

a

region long

fascinating

to Eisenstein-Central Asia.

In

a

letter

to

Jay

Leyda,

the

film scholar and

Eisenstein's

translator,

written

in

1939,

Eisenstein

described the

project

as a

"big

film .

. .

starting

with

5

Leyda,

Kino,

p.

351.

6

Seroff,

Sergei

Prokofiev,

p.

217.

7

Sergei

Eisenstein,

Notes

of

a Film

Director

(trans.

X.

Danko),

(London:

Lawrence

&

Wishart,

1959),

p.

163.



4

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

Tamarlaine

the Great

(Timur)

on

the

background

of

the

architectural mar-

vels

of

Samarkand,

Bukhara,

etc."8

Coming

shortly

after

the

release,

on

November 23, 1938, of Alexander Nevsky, Fergana Canal should be con-

sidered in

the

political

ethos in

which Eisenstein

conceived

it.

The late

1930's

in

the Soviet Union

were

years

of terror

for the

members

of

the

film

industry,

as,

indeed,

for

millions of

Soviet citizens.

Beginning

with

the

assassination

of

Sergei

Kirov in

Leningrad

in

1934,

a

period

of

xenophobia

and

repression

had settled

over the

Soviet

film

industry

and all

the

arts.9

Kirov

had

been the

party

head

of

the

Leningrad

district

(Fried-

rich

Ermler

later

based

his film

A

Great

Citizen,

released

on

February

13,

1938,

on Kirov's

life),10

and

Stalin seemed to have chosen

the incident

of

Kirov's

assassination as

grounds

for the

expulsion

of

"undesirable"

foreign-

ers and the arrest of numbers of suspected Trotskyist conspirators. It was

during

this

period,

for

instance,

that

Jay Leyda,

an

American,

left Russia.11

During

1936-37, Eisenstein,

who was

recovering

from

smallpox,12

had

continued

sporadically

to revise

his

ideologically

"unripe"

Bezhin

Meadow,

with the

help

of the

writer,

Isaac

Babel,

one of

the

Soviet

Union's most

extraordinary

talents,

himself

shortly

to

be

arrested

and

imprisoned.l3

On

March

17,

1937,

Eisenstein's

nemesis,

Boris

Shumyatsky,

the

then head of

the

Soviet film

industry,

halted the

production

of

Bezhin

Meadow

and

is-

sued

a

vicious attack on its director. It was

this

denunciation

which

precipi-

tated

Eisenstein's

humiliating

confession,

"The

Mistakes of Bezhin

Mea-

dow." Later, in the disquieting atmosphere of Stalinist intimidation, Shum-

yatsky

himself

was dismissed

on

January

9,

1938,

and

demoted to

an

ig-

nominious

post

in

charge

of

a

small

film studio.14

In

the

autumn

of 1937 Eisenstein was

permitted

to

resume work and

be-

gan

collaborating

on the

scenario

of Alexander

Nevsky

with

Piotr

Pavlen-

ko.15 For

Eisenstein

Nevsky

might

well

be termed

a

project

of

ideological

accommodation,

as

well

as an

attempt

at

the reclamation of his

eroded ar-

tistic

pre-eminence.

In

a

period

of

great political

turmoil and

uncertainty,

Eisenstein seemed

keenly

aware that he

needed

a

major

triumph

to coun-

tervail the slanderous

charges

of formalism

consistently

leveled

against

him

by such formidable adversaries as a Shumyatsky and Khersonsky, a party

film critic.

As a

grim

affirmation

of the

peril

to

any

dissident

artists,

Vladi-

mir Nilsen

(a

former student

of Eisenstein and author of

The

Cinema as

a

Graphic

Art),

Isaac

Babel,

Sergei

Tretyakov,

and Vsevolod

Meierhold

were

8Marie

Seton,

Sergei

M.

Eisenstein

(New

York: A.A.

Wyn,

Inc.,

1952),

p.

392.

9

Leyda,

Kino,

p.

338.

10

Ibid.,

p.

290.

11

Ibid.,

p.

338.

12

Ibid.,

p.

334.

13

Ibid.,

p.

338.

14 Ibid., pp. 339-40. It is crucial to note, Jay Leyda reports, on reading this manu-

script,

that

contrary

to

official

accounts,

Bezhin

Meadow was

completed

before its

con-

demnation and

should

be

regarded

as a lost

finished

film

rather

than as a halted

produc-

tion.

15

Seton,

Sergei

M.

Eisenstein,

p.

379.



CINEMA

JOURNAL

/

5

all

arrested

during

these

years,

1938-39,

and,

as

far as can

be

deduced,

ex-

ecuted

soon after.16 All

had been

fairly

close associates

of Eisenstein.

For an imperiled Eisenstein, the war against the fascists called for the

patriotically

galvanizing

theme of

Nevsky,

which

could

protect

him

against

further

ideological

harassment and

permit

him to return to

work

unencum-

bered.

It is in view

of

this

political

climate that

Fergana

Canal

might

also

appropriately

be

appraised,

for

it

is

likely

that Eisenstein chose

the

Fergana

Valley

as

his location

not

only

because

it

represented

a

historical,

epic

metaphor

of the

struggle

of

humanity against

nature and the

struggle

of

Asian Russia

against conquerers

like

Tamerlaine

but

also

because

he could

culminate

the film with a

paean

to the

construction of the

170-mile-long

Fergana

Canal

in

Uzbekistan

(the

Uzbek

S.S.R.)

in

1939. The Canal had

been constructed in the name of Stalin in the incredible duration of six

weeks,

using

a

compulsory

labor force

of

Uzbeks.

It seems

likely

that this

futile

struggle

of

humanity against

the

intransigent

stone

and

sand

suggested

to

Eisenstein the mental

images

of the last

nightmarish

years

of his

life and

his

own

struggle against

the

retrograde,

intransigent

elements

in

Soviet

so-

ciety.

Each

of Eisenstein's last

three

films

reflects the

glint

of a

two-edged

sword,

at once an

appeasement

to Stalin and

his

troglodytes

and

a

veiled

attack.

Thus,

in

the wake of the acclaim of

Alexander

Nevsky,

which

finally

se-

cured for Eisenstein his Order

of

Lenin,17

he

again

sought

the

collaboration

of Prokofiev for Fergana Canal.l8 There seems little question that Eisen-

stein's

deep

esteem and affection

for

Prokofiev

were

reciprocated.

Yet,

as

the

exchange

of letters

just

before

the

last

indicates,

Eisenstein's

determina-

tion

to

press

toward

completion

of the second

part

of Ivan

superseded

even

considerations

of Prokofiev's

failing

health.

By

then,

Eisenstein

and

Proko-

fiev were

immersed

in

Ivan.

A

few

days

after

conducting

his

great

Fifth

Symphony

on

January

13, 1944,

Prokofiev

apparently

fell while

visiting

friends and

suffered

a

brain concussion.19

Nowhere

in

Nestyev's

lengthy

"official"

biography

is the

diagnosis

described,

except

as

simply

"a

grave

illness."

However,

according

to Seroff's

well-written,

but

largely

undocu-

mented biography, doctors diagnosed Prokofiev's illness as an extreme case

of

hypertension

which

led to

an

excessive flow of

blood to the

brain and

caused

his fall.20 After a

long

confinement at a

sanitorium

near

Moscow,

Prokofiev

spent

the

summer of 1945 at the

government-maintained

Com-

poser's

Home

in

Ivanovo,

from which

he

had

previously

written

Eisenstein

on

July

31,

1944.

As Eisenstein

must

have

known,

Prokofiev's

life

had

be-

come a constant

struggle

against

severe headaches and endless

convales-

16

Steven

P.

Hill,

"Inquisition

in the Other

Eden,"

Film

Comment,

Vol.

5,

No.

1,

Fall, 1968,

p.

22.

17

Leyda, Kino,p. 351.

18

Ibid.,

p.

349.

Khersonsky,

however,

had

already

attacked the

scenario in the

March, 1938,

issue

of the

leading

Soviet

film

journal,

Iskusstvo Kino.

19

Seroff,

Sergei

Prokofiev,

p.

265.

20

Ibid., p.

267.



6

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

cences,

during

which there

were

long periods

when Prokofiev was not

per-

mitted

by

his

doctors to

work

more than two hours a

day.21

Nevertheless,

Eisenstein seems to have withheld his solicitude long enough to urge again

Prokofiev's

completion

of

the

score

for Ivan.

It

was this letter from

Eisenstein

which

occasioned

the rather

terse

reply

from

Prokofiev's

long-time

companion,

Mira

Mendelsohn,

inseparable

from

the

composer

from 1941

until his

death

in

1953. Little is

known

for

certain

about

Mira Mendelsohn

and

Prokofiev,

except

that

they

lived

together

as

married,

although

Prokofiev's

estranged

wife,

Lina

Llubera-Prokofieva,

a

woman of mixed

Spanish-Russian

ancestry,

was

still

apparently living

in

Russia at the time.

Prokofiev's

biographers

take contentious

views on

the

issue. The

Soviet

biographer, Nestyev,

scarcely

mentions the

matter,

while

the emigre biographer, Seroff, uses the issue to dramatize his obvious repug-

nance for what

he

feels to

be

the

expediency

of

man's

acts

when

living

under totalitarianism.

Seroff,

however,

weakens

his

case for desertion

by

resorting

to innuendos rather than

documented conclusions.

In

short,

Seroff

seems to

imply

that

Prokofiev's motive for

deserting

his

wife,

who man-

aged

at

grave

risk to maintain contact

with her

aging

mother

in

Nazi-occu-

pied

Paris,

was

simply

the

fear

that

Beria

might

wreak

reprisal against

them

both.

What

is

known

is

that Mira Mendelsohn

was,

in

fact,

the niece

of

Lazar

Kaganovich,

the

then

Minister

of

Heavy

Industry

and a

close confi-

dant

of Stalin.

Thus,

Seroff

implies

purely

through

innuendo

and

conjec-

ture that Stalin, who was then

openly

living

with

Kaganovich's

sister,

might

have

looked with favor on Prokofiev's

intimate

relationship

with

Mira

Men-

delsohn-favor,

in

other

words,

particularly

invaluable

during

a

period

of

the

severest

persecution

of artists and

shortly

after

Prokofiev's latest

effort,

Semyon

Kotko,

had

been

mercilessly

attacked

by

the

official

press

for

its

lack

of

understanding

of

the Soviet

people.22

And

finally,

of

course,

what

Seroff

hints is

that Prokofiev was

privy

to this

information and calculated

his

relationships-a

cruel

implication

for

which he offers

no

basis

in fact.

Moreover,

according

to

Seroff,

Prokofiev's desertion of

his first

wife

is

further vitiated

by

her arrest

in

1948

during

the

post-war

purges

by

Stalin.

Based on

fairly

reliable

sources,

Lina Llubera-Prokofieva

probably spent

some

fifteen

years

in

confinement

in

Siberia,

after

which she

was tried

for

high

treason, convicted,

sentenced

to

death,

and

finally

had

her

sentence com-

muted

to

life

imprisonment.23

Her

arrest had

been

precipitated by

her

per-

sistent

attempts

to

apply

for

permission

to leave Russia

with her two sons.

Ultimately,

the matter of

Prokofiev's

estrangement

from Lina

remains

moot

and

mysterious, although

admittedly

it

may

reflect

a

side of the

composer's

character

that these

letters

to Eisenstein

cannot reveal.

There

are,

of

course,

untold

dimensions

of

personality

and

collaboration

which

this brief

correspondence

between

Eisenstein

and

Prokofiev-though

21

Ibid.,

p.

268.

22

Ibid.,

p.

249.

23

Ibid.,

pp.

292-296.



CINEMA

JOURNAL

7

all

we

have-does

not

reveal. These

fragments

of the

writings

of both

artists

provide only cursory insights

into

the character of their

relationship

and

do

not reveal, for instance, the state of their

being.

Their artistic

compatibility

can

only

be

inferred from

the

correspondence-and

only

with

hindsight.

However,

the hardened

ego-drive

of each man for

artistic

as well

as

physi-

cal

perseverence

and

survival flashes

occasionally, arcing

between

the

lines.

But

what reveals

itself

most

remarkably-despite

their

endured

hardships

and,

perhaps,

the

expedient

decisions each

might

have made-is each

man's

almost

unswerving

indomitability.

Under

the kind of

unrelenting

pressure

from

above which

ultimately

suffocates

any

artist

encysted

in

the

machina-

tions of

a

sclerotic,

diseased

social

organism

such

as

Stalin's

Russia,

the

health,

first,

of

Eisenstein, then,

of

Prokofiev,

had

begun

to

fail.

Thus,

clear-

ly,

the circumstances for Prokofiev's motives and actions

during

these last

years

of

his

life

were,

at

best,

extenuating.

His

biographer,

Seroff,

however,

portrays

a

compromised

Prokofiev

who,

already seriously

ill,

declined to

write a

ballet

based

on

Othello

with

the words: "It

would

mean

to live

in

an

atmosphere

of

ill

feeling,

and

I

don't want to have

anything

to

do with

Iago."24

Thus,

Seroff

portrays

a

culpable,

capitulated figure

in

Prokofiev,

seeking only

those

themes in

which he said he found

"depths

of

ideas,

hu-

manitarian

attitudes,

keen

humor,

and clear

images

of man

and

his

striving

for

good

and

justice."25

In

the

end,

Seroff

portrays

a

once-spirited, explora-

tive

Prokofiev,

who had

always sought

new

forms,

seeking palliatives

in

what sounded like a

predictable description

of

soporific,

socialist realist

art.

In all

Prokofiev wrote

some

twenty-nine

musical

numbers

for

the cinema.

Yet,

such had

been

the nature of his association

with

Eisenstein that

when

he

was asked

by

Boris

Volsky

in

1948 to

write the

music for

another

film,

Prokofiev shook

his head: "Since the

death

of

Sergei

Eisenstein,

I

consider

my

motion

picture

activities

terminated."26

24

Ibid.,

p.

277.

25

Ibid.,

p.

277.

26Ibid.,p. 304.





CINEMA

JOURNAL

9

2)

The

victory

of the

sands

(the

finale of Part

1).

3)

The

advance of the sand

(through

the

second

part

and

in

particular

in

the finale:

by

the

death of the

girl, N.B.-Through

her

dance-

through

the

background

too.).

The

third

group-this

is

Tokhtasyn's

song (ephemeral),

and

apparently,

somehow

coming through

her

(the

song)

the theme of

labor

in

Part 3.

In

general,

we shall

have to make

the

third

part

like our battle3-2-3

musical

knots and

the rest is

up

to

Volsky4,

who

is

of

course

with us

again.

Here

very

cursorily

are mes

decirs a

ce

sujet.

I

beg you

to

write

me

your

thoughts

about

everything

at

once,

as

in the

beginning

of

August,

around the

tenth,

I

am

flying

out to the construction

site

of

the

Fergana

Canal.

I

embrace you and anxiously await your letter.

Yours,

Sergei

Eisenstein

Moscow,

Potylikha,

54-6

Apt.

7,

Bldg.

I.T.R. Mosfilm

Write

special delivery.

2.

Prokofiev

to

Eisenstein

Kislovadsk 30

July

(19)39

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich,

I

was

awfully happy

when I

saw a

first-class American

envelope

with

Sergei

M.

Eisenstein on

it,

but

after

reading

the contents I

became

very

upset,

since it

appears

that

the

pleasure

of

working

with

you

this

time is

not to be fated for me. I am presently up to my ears in an opera which

they

have

just begun

to learn.5 As

soon

as

that is

finished,

rehearsals

will

begin,

while

concurrently

there is-the

production

of Romeo

and

Juliet

in

Leningrad

with the eventual

coming

of the

Leningrad

company

to

Moscow. To

take

up

such a

large

theme

as

yours

is

impossible:

it is

difficult to

split

into

two;

one's

thoughts

wouldn't

be

there.

Don't

be

surprised

that

I've switched to

opera.

I

continue

to consider

cinema

the most

contemporary

of the

arts,

but

specifically

because of its

novelty

in

our

country

we

haven't

yet

learned

to value

integral

parts

and

consider

music

to

be

some

sort of

appendage,

not

deserving

of

any

particular attention. And meanwhile, in order to write such a thing as

"sands and

water,"

one

must

invest

a

great

deal in

it. That

is

why

I

have,

in

the old

style,

taken

up

with

opera,

where

music

already

holds its

established

place:

the

work

is surer.

By

the

way,

after the

catastrophe

with

M[eierhold]

who was

to have

staged

my opera, my

first

thought

was to

throw

myself

at

your

feet

and

ask

you

to take over its

staging

yourself.

The theater

was

very receptive

to

my

idea,

but

you

were

in Asia with the

prospect

of a

long project-and

the

idea

had to be abandoned.6

I

hope

that

in

answer to this

letter

you

won't curse me

or

if

you

do curse

3

Reference to

Nevsky

battle

sequence.

4

Sound

mixer for

both

Nevsky

and Ivan.

5

Semyon

Kotko.

6

The

opera

Semyon

Kotko was

eventually staged

by

S.G.

Birman.



10

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

me,

that

it

won't be for

long,

and we'll

meet

in the

very

near

future,

be it in

film

or

in

opera-I

somehow

a

priori

believe

in

Eisenstein-as an

opera

regisseur

I

embrace

you

tenderly

and

wish

you

a

tremendous

success,

Yours,

S. Prokofiev

3. S. M.

Eisenstein

to S.

S.

Prokofiev

23

December

41

My

dear friend

Sergei Sergeevich

I

am

writing hurriedly;

the

director Petrov7

is

leaving today

to

see

you

in

Tibilisi

(Tiflis)

and

is

taking

this

message.

I

have not written

by

post-not

counting

on

it

getting

to

you.

Facts: Terrible8is

to

be

shot.

I

shall

begin,

it

appears,

at

the end of

the

winter.

Currently,

I

am

completing

the scenario

and will send it to you on the next occasion. At the beginning of next year,

it

will

already

be

possible

to

come

to

agreements-to

get together,

etc.

It

has

two

parts-entertaining

at

the

highest

level.

Comrade

Composer

is

offered

great

freedom in

any

direction.

How

are

you

both

living?

We have

situated ourselves

quite

comfortably.

Whatever

concerns

the

shooting,

we'll

be

shooting,

it

seems,

in

various

locations-not

excluding

Moscow

Am

impatiently

awaiting

some

news from

you.

Write to:

Alma-Ata,

Ob'edinennaya

Kinostudio.

Petrov will tell

you

in

colorful

detail

about the

difficulties

of our move

and of our life here.

I

embrace

you

most

sincerely.

Heartfelt

regards

to

your

life's

companion.

Yours

always,

Sergei

Eisenstein

4. S. M.

Eisenstein

to

S. S.

Prokofiev

Dear

Sergei

Sergeevich

Nikolai

Mironovich,9

who has

promised

to

see

you

and to

show

you

the

scenarios,

is on his

way

to

Tibilisi.

I

hope you

will

like

him

The

work on

the

music can start

whenever

you

wish.

I'll

begin shooting

toward

the end

of

the

summer. You can

begin

either in

the

Spring,

in

the

Summer,

or in

the

Fall,

or

even

in

the

Winter-whenever

most

convenient

for you.

You can come to an

arrangement

about

everything

with

Nikolai Mirono-

vich. If

money

is

needed,

we

can draw

up

a

contract.

Please write us

about how

you're

getting

on. I've

heard

that

you

have

completed

War and

Peace-am

very

curious.10

7

Vladimir

Mikhailovich

etrov,

ilm

director.

8

Russians

frequently

use

grozny

(literally,

stem)

alone

to refer

to Ivan

IV. Eisen-

stein's Ivan

Grozny

was

conceived

in three

parts,

only

two of

which

had

been

completed,

the first

in

1944;

the

second,

while

completed

in

1945,

was

not released

until 1958.

Prokofievwrote scores

to both

parts

of

Ivan

Grozny.

Eduard

Tisse and

Andrei N.

Moskvin

served as cameramen-Tisse for exteriors,Moskvinfor interiors.Eisenstein was working

on

the third

part

when he died

of heart

failure on

February

10,

1948.

9

Nikolai

Mironovich

Sliozberg-Head

Editor

for

Ivan

the

Terrible.

10

Prokofiev's

opera

with

a

libretto

by

Prokofiev and

Mira

Mendelsohn-Prokofieva,

appeared

in

its first

version in

1943

and

its

second

in

1952.



CNEMA

JOURNAL

/

11

A

heartfelt

embrace,

Yours

always, Sergei

Eisenstein

Best

regards

to

the

family

Alma-Ata

3

March

42

5. S.

S.

Prokofiev

to

S. M. Eisenstein

Tibilisi

House of Communications

Poste

Restante

29 March 1942

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich,

Nikolai

Mironovich

brought

your

letter

just

at

the

right

time: I

am

completing the last bars of War and Peace and therefore, in the very near

future,

I'll

be

ready

to

bend to

your yoke.

In

view of the fact

that

Sliozberg

is

about

to

return

in

the end of

April,

Mira and I

are

planning

to

leave

with

him. He

promises

to

deliver

the

scenario

to

me

any day-I'm

waiting

for

it

with

aroused interest.

I

am

affectionately "looking

forward"

[sic]

to

our

work

together

and

embrace

you.

Yours,

S.

Prokofiev

Petrov

carried

your

letter,

written

in

December,

exactly

three

months

and delivered

it after

the letter written

in

March.

6. S. S.

Prokofiev

to S. M. Eisenstein

Semipalatinsk,

4

December

1942

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich,

I

am

sending

you

a

list

of

the first

seven scenes of War and Peace.

I'll

send the

rest off

tomorrow. Tomorrow we're

planning

to

push

off

for

Moscow,

since I've

finished the work

on the film.

I

embrace

you.

Heartfelt

regards

from Mirochka.

Yours,

S.P.

Be

kind

enough

to

find out from

Sveshnikov"l

whether

he's

returned

the

books

I

left

behind

to the

library.

7.

S.

M.

Eisenstein to

S.

S.

Prokofiev

Dear

Sergei

Sergeevich

I am

sending

you my

warmest

regards

on the faintest rose-tinted

paper

to

be

found

in

all Alma-Ata

in addition to an article

about

you.12 Anything

that

might

not

please you-strike

out

mercilessly.

With

heartfelt

regards

a

madame,

Toujours

a

vous,

Sergei

Eisenstein

7 December

1942

11

Boris

Aleksandrovich

Sveshnikov,

assistant director on

Ivan

the

Terrible.

12

The

reference is

to the

article

P-R-K-F-V

originally published

as an introduction

to

the

biography

Sergei

Prokofiev,

His Musical

Life

by

Israel

Nestyev, published

in the

U.S.A.

by

Alfred

A.

Knopf,

1946.



12

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

8.

Telegram:

S. M.

Eisenstein to S.

S.

Prokofiev

[4

January

1943]

Heartiest

congratulations.

I

embrace

you.

Confirm

receipt

article.

Await

your

arrival.

Eisenstein.

9.

Telegram:

S.

S.

Prokofiev

to

S.

A.

Eisenstein

[20

January

1943]

Splendid

article

received. Thanks

for

the

telegram.

Samosudl3

supposes

he

will

do the

opera

in

the

Spring.

We're

preparing

to

leave for

Alma-Ata

on

the 19th.

We

embrace

you.

Prokofiev.

10.

S. M.

Eisenstein to

S. S.

Prokofiev

[9

July

1943]

Dear

Sergei

Sergeevich

I

beg

you

very,

very

much not to leave this

place

until the

recording

of

the

Chorus

of the

Oprichniksl4-without

you

the chorus and the

recording

will

be

hopelessly

botched

(if

you

know

what

I

mean ).

They

are

literally

flogging

themselves

to

death in

rehearsal

so

far,

and

therefore

it

would be

highly, highly

desirable to

plan your

departure

not for

Monday

but

for

the

next

day

on which

transportation

is

available.

For

my part,

I shall

apply

pressure

with all

available means.

I

await

your reply.

Yours

sincerely,

Sergei

Eisenstein

11.

Telegram:

S. M. Eisenstein to S. S.

Prokofiev

[7

October

1943]

Have

wired to Perm'

a

request

to

come

to

Alma-Ata at

end

October.

Waiting.

Embrace

you

both.

Sergei

Eisenstein.

12.

S.

S.

Prokofiev

to

S.

M.

Eisenstein

Moscow,

Postal

Department

No.

25,

General

Delivery

17

November 1943

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich:

I want to hope that you are not too angry with me for not coming to

Alma-Ata.

I

wasn't

able

to.

And at

present, preparation

for

two

symphonic

concerts

has

begun:

one

being

War and Peace

with artists from the

Bolshoi

Theater under

the

direction of

Samosud,

the

second selected

from others

of

my

new

composi-

tions.

Both

will

be

given

in

December.

I

am

sending you

"Peschnoe

Deistvo"15

and

heartily

request

that

you

1)

send

me

detailed

dispositions

of

those

pieces

that

I

can do

prior

to

your

arrival,

2)

wire me

precisely

what

part

of

January

it

will be that

you

will

need

me.

The fact

is that the

Kirovskii

Theater

will be

starting

rehearsals

13

Conductor

of orchestra

for

premiere

performance

of War and

Peace at Bolshoi

Theater,

Moscow,

on

7

June

1945.

14

The

"Pledge

of the

Oprichniks"-fragment

from

the

first reel of Ivan.

15

A

fragment

from the

first

part

of

Ivan.



CINEMA

JOURNAL

/

13

on

Zolushka

and Duen'al6 and

I'll

need to

go

to

Perm'.

I'll

arrange

my

time

depending

on

your

telegram.

We're both very anxious to see you, await your arrival, are planning

to

see

Ivan-and

embrace

you

to

our hearts.

Yours,

S.

Prokofiev

13.

Telegram:

S. M.

Eisenstein

to

S. S.

Prokofiev

16

January

1944

Sound

recording put

off till last

part

of

March.

Regards,

Eisenstein

14. S. S.

Prokofiev

to

S. M. Eisenstein

(handwritten

in

pencil)

To:

Eisenstein,

Alma-Ata

7 March 1944

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich,

A

long

time without

news from

you.

How do

your

labors

progress?

Will

it

be

long

before

you

and the whole

grand

outfit will

be

coming

to

Moscow?

Little

reaches

me

regarding your

work,

but

what does

is

good.

The

change

of the

artistic direction

of the

Bolshoi

Theater has

been

expressed

in

War

and Peace

being

delayed

somewhat,

as Pazovskii

has

to

revive the

classical

repertoire

with

the

performance

of a

couple

of classical

operas.

For

my

placation they

are

staging

Zolushka,

with rehearsals to

begin

this

month,

the intention to

prepare

it

for

the

start of the fall season.

Drop

me a

line,

not to the

9th

postal

zone

but

the

159th;

the former is

located

in the Hotel

Moscow where

I'm

staying;

I

prefer

to

receive

my

mail

by general

delivery,

rather than

having

it sent to the hotel

room,

which,

one not-so-fine

day,

we

may

be

asked to

vacate.

Mirochka and I

often

think of

you

and we are

missing

those

pleasant evenings

which we

spent

with

you

at

Alma-Ata.

I

embrace

you,

S.

Prokofiev

15.

Telegram:

S. M. Eisenstein

to

S.

S.

Prokofiev

30

July

1944

Categorically

beg

you

to

come at once. Based

[on]

your

agreeing

to

come

by my arrival, time limits have been fixed. A fortnight's delay will upset

all

my plans

for

the

release of

both

parts.17

I ask it

very

much.

Sergei

Eisenstein

16. S. S.

Prokofiev

to

S.

M. Eisenstein

Ivanovo,

31

July

[19]44

To: Eisenstein

Moscow

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich,

I

joyfully

greet

your

return

to

Moscow.

I

anticipated

that

you

would

call

16Referenceto Zolushka,a ballet of Prokofiev's,with librettoby N.D. Volkova,and

Duen'a-Betrothal

in

a

Monastery-a

comico-lyric opera

with

libretto

by

S.S.

Prokofiev

and

M.A.

Mendelsohn-Prokofieva.

The

premiere

performances

were

held

in

Leningrad

in

1946.

17

Reference

to

Ivan the

Terrible.



14

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

me out

at the

beginning

of

July

and was

waiting

for the

promised

materials

from

Indenboml8

at

the

end of

June.

At

present,

I'm

busily

at

work on

the

Fifth Symphony, the composing of which has gained momentum which I

cannot

interrupt

under

any

circumstances

and switch to

Ivan

the Terrible.

I

am

certain

that

you

will understand

my

position.

On

the

15th of

August

I'll

be

in

Moscow

and will devote

all

my

energies

to our

film-I

shall

work

quickly

and

exactly.

At

the

same

time,

I

am

writing

to

Indenbom

that the contract

expired

in

1943,

and

I'm

asking

that he formalize our

collaboration

anew.

Support

me

in

this

regard.

I

embrace

you

vigorously.

Heartfelt

regards

from

M[ira]

A[lexsandrovna].

Yours,

S.

Prokofiev

17. S. M. Eisenstein to S. S. Prokofiev

[22

September

1944]

Dear

Sergei

Sergeevich,

I

am

sending

you

"Kazan"19

with the

timing

and

markings

to

help

you

remember

what is

going

on

and what is needed in

terms of

its

character.

I

embrace

you,

Sergei

Eisenstein

18. S. M. Eisenstein to S.

S.

Prokofiev

My

dear

and

beloved

Sergei

Sergeevich,

I

have

learned to

my great

concern that

you

are not

feeling better yet.

I

am familiar with

and share

your "Molieresque" response

to

doctors,

but

I

think

that

you

still

ought

to

have

yourself

examined.

I

am

already

here a

week-it's

very

pleasant

now

in

Barvikha:

everything

is

re-built

as in

pre-

war

days.

Why

don't

you

and Mira Aleksandrovna

arrange

to come

here-

Khrapchenko

can

arrange

it

(Okhlopkov

and

Ruben Simonov

are here

already);

Bol'shakov,

so

far

as I

know,

is

ill,

otherwise it could

be

arranged

through

him.

All

week

I've

been

ill

with

the

grippe

and for this

reason do

not

go

for walks and do

not

enjoy

life

as much as it

is

possible

to

do

here.

I

anxiously

await

news from

you

and

hope

that it will

be

good

news.

I embrace you vigorously. Heartfelt regards to M[ira] A[leksandrovna].

With

love,

Sergei

Eisenstein

Barvikha

8/11/[19]45

19. S.

M. Eisenstein

to S. S.

Prokofiev

Dear

Sergei

Sergeevich,

I

am

writing

in a

great

hurry,

so

please

forgive

my writing

in

pencil.

Besides

the

hurry-I

write

in

great

concern-both

for

your

health

and our

mutual work.

Apparently

you

are in

poor

health

once

again,

since

I

cannot

conceive

a

single

reason for

postponement

from

the

beginning

of

August

to

October:

I have

gotten

so accustomed to

trusting

your

promises.

This

post-

ponement

puts

my work in a catastrophic position. Based on your promise

18

Lev

Aronovich

Indenbom,

assistantdirector of

Ivan

the Terrible.

19

Fragment

of

scenario

from

part

one

of

Ivan.



CINEMA

JOURNAL

/

15

of the

music

for the

dance20 we

have constructed

corresponding

sets

and

have

hastened

all our

plans

and deadlines

for arrival

of

actors

for

this shoot-

ing. Now everything is going to come apart at the seams, so that you'll

never

pick

up

the

pieces

again.

I am

asking

you

very,

very seriously

if there

is

the

slightest

possibility

to

pursue

the

composition

of the

dance now-it will

take not

more than one or

two

days,

while

a

postponement

until

October

might

kill the release

of the

film

this

year

and

is

destroying

all the work to

come.

Let

me

know,

and

I'll rush to

see

you

immediately.

In the

meanwhile

I

kiss

and

embrace

you

in the

hope

that

your

health

will

improve.

Yours,

Sergei

Eisenstein

Heartfelt regards to Mira Aleksandrovna.

Moscow

1

August

1945

20. M. A.

Mendelsohn-Prokofieva

to

S. M. Eisenstein

3

August

1945

Dear

Sergei

Sergeevich,

I

am

extremely

saddened

to

have

to

reiterate to

you

the fact that

Sergei

Sergeevich

will,

under

no

circumstances,

be

able

to

compose

the

music for

the second

part.21

He

has tried to

work,

but

recently

he has

suffered from

several nosebleeds so that the Moscow professor named N. A. Popova,

who

is

treating

him and with

whom we have

spoken

on the

telephone,

became

alarmed.

She

strictly

forbade

any

activities

for the

present.

Sergei

Sergeevich

sincerely

wants

to

write

the

promised

dance

for

you

but will

hardly

be

able

to

undertake it

soon,

especially

since

this dance

demands,

by

its

very

character,

intense concentration.

Sergei

Sergeevich

embraces

you

fondly;

he

himself

yearns

for work and

keenly

suffers

his

imposed

inactivity.

I

send

you

my

most

heartfelt

greetings.

Mira

Mendelsohn

21. S.

S.

Prokofiev

to

S.

M. Eisenstein

20

February

1946

Dear

Sergei

Mikhailovich,

How

is it

you've

let

yourself go

like that?

I

frequently

pass

by

the

hospital

(electrification,

teethfication22)

and want

to visit

you very

much,

but,

apparently,

it is not

up

to

you

to

permit

yourself

visitors.

I

heartily

embrace

you.

Get well. Ivan

is

acclaimed

by

all.

Yours,

S.P.

20

Reference to "Dance of the Oprichniks" rom part two of Ivan the Terrible.

21

Prokofiev

recommended

that G.N.

Popov

be

invited to

complete

the

music

for

the

second

part

of

Ivan.

However,

on

recovering,

S.S. Prokofiev

himself

completed

the

work.

22

Intentional

malapropism

by

Prokofiev.



16

/

CINEMA

JOURNAL

22. S. M. Eisenstein

o

S. S.

Prokofiev

[22

February

1946]

MydearSergeiSergeevich

I

was

delighted by your

note.

I

want

to see

you

very

much,

but

due

to

the

grippe epidemic

n the

city,

no one

is

permitted

o

see

us.

As soon

as

the

quarantine

s

lifted,

I

promise

o

get

in

touch

with

you by

telephone

and

will

be

delighted

to see

you.

It

appears

shall

have

to lie

in

bed for

a

long

time.

Funny

to

say

it-but

the attackof

February

2nd

nearly

killed

me,

and

actually

I

survived

t

totally accidentally

and

unexpectedly.

I

include

a

present;

t was amidst

the

magazines

which

some kind

people

have sentme, so thatI wouldn'tget lonely.

Regards

o

MiraAleksandrovna.

I

heartily

embrace

you,

Yours,

Sergei

Eisenstein

Documents

Eisenstein Prokofiev Correspondence Levaco