Political Satire in a Soviet Film: ,, An Unbeliavable Story"

Abstract

The use of satire in art is especially advantageous under strict censorship conditions. In the presented study, we examined political satire in a Soviet film. Within the scope of the research, we analyzed the Soviet Georgian film “Blue Mountains, or An Unbelievable Story.” The aim of the paper is to explore satirical humor as an instrument of political discourse in a feature film. The film’s dialogues reflect ideas conveyed through subtexts that go beyond everyday life. The study shows that in this film, humor is not just humor. It employs satire to expose the flaws of the existing governing system.          The Soviet government accurately assessed the importance of cinema as a tool for managing public opinion. In 1921, a film department was established within the People's Commissariat of Education. In the 1920s, Georgian cinema was characterized by relatively greater independence, which cannot be said of the ideologically driven period of the 1930s. Films produced during this time were marked by Soviet propaganda content. In the 1940s, during World War II, Georgian cinema was disrupted, but filming actively resumed in the 1950s. In 1968, the Georgian Film Studio was founded. The 1960s and 1970s are considered a decisive period for Georgian Soviet cinema. During this time, an allegorical form of directing was established in Georgian cinema, marking a qualitatively new stage.            Satire in cinema reflects reality, but it does so in a sarcastic and metaphorical form. In film, satire is even more effective, which can be attributed to its visual impact. A director can create a successful satirical film by using an appropriate script, cast, shots, and music. Eldar Shengelaia's famous film "Blue Mountains, or an Unbelievable Story" was released in 1984. The film satirically portrays the Soviet life of that era and predicts its collapse. The film allegorically uses the landscape of "Greenland," which in reality represents the Soviet Union. The film's script was written based on a story by Rezo Cheishvili and was deliberately filled with details that served to highlight the absurdity of the Soviet Union's existence.                    Satirical humor is considered a particularly effective tool for assessing reality because it is criticism through laughter. In academic circles, satire is regarded not only as humor but also as an effective instrument of criticism (Day 2011). Young describes the critical yet academic language of satire as a desirable tool for exposing political failure and indicating the need for change (Young, 2019). Analysis conveyed through satire is a much lighter form of political criticism, which defines its advantage (Reilly, 2012). At the same time, it should be noted that the use of satirical humor in cinema requires greater skill. Satire takes on a completely different meaning under political censorship and requires separate study. In this regard, Horton’s work (Horton, 1993) is interesting because it describes and analyzes the role of satire in Soviet cinema. The main drawback of the study is its descriptive nature and the fact that the cause-and-effect relationship of the facts is less explained. Literature of this kind is particularly scarce in political science, although it is worth mentioning Cuck’s work (Cuck, 1994), which explores the role of satire in Soviet cinema.          Our research is based on Goffman’s (1974) frame theory, according to which social life and consciousness operate within a kind of “frame.” In such cases, the “frame” is of principal importance because it determines what society should think about. According to Goffman’s theory, the media is considered the so-called “gatekeeper” that creates the “frame.” In our study, we examined the director and the film he created through this prism. At the beginning of the research, we posed the following research question: What is the role of cinema as a tool of political satire under conditions of censorship in the process of exposing the flaws of governance? Our research hypothesis is as follows: Under conditions of censorship, cinema as a tool of political satire is an effective means of exposing the flaws of governance. Our goal was to determine the significance of cinema as political satire under conditions of censorship. To achieve this goal, we set the following tasks: we selected an appropriate film, analyzed it both thematically and substantively, and investigated the nature and effectiveness of the political satire presented in it. During the research process, we used qualitative research methods, specifically qualitative content analysis and discourse analysis. Within the framework of content analysis, the film’s dialogues were thematically divided using pre-defined thematic codes. The main themes were the political system of the Soviet Union, everyday absurdity, and satirical humor. In the process of critical discourse analysis, we examined how language and discourse create social power and political criticism. First, we identified the main themes discussed in the film, such as the absurdity of the Soviet system, and determined how the director used humor and satire to present this theme. Then, we conducted an analysis of discourse construction to study how humor techniques are used to convey this issue. The final stage of critical discourse analysis was contextual analysis, where we discussed the political environment of Soviet Georgia, which allows us to analyze the meanings and role of satirical criticism.