![rveWaJI[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/6YkUD81.png "rveWaJI[1].png")
Did communism allow greater freedom of thought in cinema than a capitalist film industry considering that there was less pressure on a producer or director to make a film commercially successful, meaning they could actually follow their original idea?
I mean today if you want to make a big movie funded by a production company, you basically have to do whatever the company tells you based on what they think will create the biggest profits. That's how you end up with all this capeshit nonsense.
In communism, there was no such pressure, thus there were directors like Tarkovsky who could spend huge amounts of money making a picture that they wanted to make but would not necessarily be hugely financially successful.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ken-shepherd/2016/01/04/george-lucas-soviet-directors-had-more-freedom-i-had
>>71170462
Short answer, no.
>>71170462
when you choose to pick star wars as the movie made under capitalism, youre pushing a loaded question
>>71170462
Hahaha not at all. Ever hear of socialist realism? It was basicly a production code for the Soviet Union that would push films into having themes and messages in line with communist ideals. Such as the worker as hero. Yes you could make artistic movies but they were still severely limited in the types of films they could make.
>>71170462
>you basically have to do whatever the company tells you
In communism you have to do what the party tells you or your film won't be released or they will censor it to death.
no
back to >>>/his/
>>71170462
"under capitalism" includes European art films.
>>71170462
>Commissioned by a communist youth group, the film's production ran from 1935 to 1937, until it was halted by the central Soviet government, which said it contained artistic, social, and political failures.[3][7] Some, however, blamed the failure of Bezhin Meadow on government interference and policies, extending all the way to Joseph Stalin himself.[8] In the wake of the film's failure, Eisenstein publicly recanted his work as an error.[9] Individuals were arrested during and after the ensuing debacle.[5][10]
Capitalism: unapproved themes don't get money
Communism: unapproved themes get you arrested
Tarkovsky constantly fought with censors and they basically drummed him out of the Soviet Union. Some people even think the KGB assassinated him.
>>71170462
>why can't we take money from most people that most people don't want to see anyway
If you're a George Lucas-tier director, you have enough money to make anything you want. He's just buttmad over the fact that he'd have to take the monetary fall if it fails instead of taxpayers.
>>71170852
from most people to make movies that most people*
Here's the quote:
>One of the reasons I retired is so I could make movies that aren't popular. Because in the world we live in, in the system we've created for ourselves in terms of, it's a big industry, you cannot lose money. So, the point is that you have to, you're forced to make a particular kind of movie. And I used to say this all the time, with people, you know, back when Russia was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and they’d say, "Oh, but aren’t you so glad that you’re in America?" And I’d say, well, I know a lot of Russian filmmakers and they have a lot more freedom than I have. All they have to do is be careful about criticizing the government. Otherwise, they can do anything they want.
>And so, what do you have to do?
>You have to adhere to a very narrow line of commercialism...
I agree with his point about commercialism. He has enough experience to make a statement like this.
He never worked in the Soviet Union though, so I'm inclined to be a bit sceptical about this side of things, but then again neither did anyone in this thread. Saying the government censored everything may well be right, but it reeks of a horrible education where you are taught in elementary school that Soviet Union = BAD, America = GOOD.
>>71170955
It's complex. It depends of the period and the country. There was censorship everywhere, but sometimes the government allowed for more artistic expression.
>At the end of January 1968, after its poor reception at the Central Committee of the communist Polish United Workers' Party, the government authorities banned the performance of a seminal Romantic play by Adam Mickiewicz called Dziady (written in 1824), directed by Kazimierz Dejmek at the National Theatre in Warsaw, on the grounds that it contained Russophobic and "anti-Soviet" references and represented an unduly pro-religion stance.[14]
This for example was Poland.
Communists deserve to die
