{"title":"What Happened to Andres Lapeteus? An Upper-Class Homo Sovieticus Caught in the Gears of Soviet Modernity","authors":"Liisa Kaljula","doi":"10.1515/bsmr-2015-0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article looks at What Happened to Andres Lapeteus? (Mis juhtus Andres Lapeteusega, Estonia, 1966), a film that marked the directing debut of Russian-Estonian theatre and film director Grigori Kromanov, as a cinematographic narrative that follows the development of a homo sovieticus. The concept of homo sovieticus, initially simply an ironic reference to the “New Soviet Man” promoted in the official Soviet vocabulary, was elaborated in the 1980s and 1990s by several thinkers and writers from Eastern Europe into a concept allowing for a more analytical description of the bureaucratic human type that developed under the Soviet regime. The German- American philosopher Hannah Arendt in her renowned The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) found that the juridical, the moral, and the individual in a man could most effectively be killed in concentration camps. The Russian philosopher Aleksandr Zinoviev and the Polish philosopher Józef Tischner, however, have seen the homo sovieticus syndrome as resulting from spiritual rather than physical imprisonment. Predisposed by the planned Soviet economy, which did not motivate Soviet people to make any creative, intellectual, or moral efforts, homo sovieticus soon started to represent a certain official ritualistic behaviour that maintained the symbolic legitimacy of power. What Happened to Andres Lapeteus? tells the story of an ambitious young Estonian official during Stalinist and post-Stalinist years, but does it in a novel way for its time, tackling the popular criticism of the cult of personality in the Thaw era from the viewpoint of individual responsibility. Offering a charismatic black-and-white version of the novel The Case of Andres Lapeteus (Andres Lapeteuse juhtum, 1963) by the Estonian writer Paul Kuusberg, Kromanov’s new wave film still makes us ponder the often avoided and delicate issue of the Sovietisation of the Baltic states from the inside.","PeriodicalId":253522,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Screen Media Review","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Screen Media Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bsmr-2015-0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Abstract This article looks at What Happened to Andres Lapeteus? (Mis juhtus Andres Lapeteusega, Estonia, 1966), a film that marked the directing debut of Russian-Estonian theatre and film director Grigori Kromanov, as a cinematographic narrative that follows the development of a homo sovieticus. The concept of homo sovieticus, initially simply an ironic reference to the “New Soviet Man” promoted in the official Soviet vocabulary, was elaborated in the 1980s and 1990s by several thinkers and writers from Eastern Europe into a concept allowing for a more analytical description of the bureaucratic human type that developed under the Soviet regime. The German- American philosopher Hannah Arendt in her renowned The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) found that the juridical, the moral, and the individual in a man could most effectively be killed in concentration camps. The Russian philosopher Aleksandr Zinoviev and the Polish philosopher Józef Tischner, however, have seen the homo sovieticus syndrome as resulting from spiritual rather than physical imprisonment. Predisposed by the planned Soviet economy, which did not motivate Soviet people to make any creative, intellectual, or moral efforts, homo sovieticus soon started to represent a certain official ritualistic behaviour that maintained the symbolic legitimacy of power. What Happened to Andres Lapeteus? tells the story of an ambitious young Estonian official during Stalinist and post-Stalinist years, but does it in a novel way for its time, tackling the popular criticism of the cult of personality in the Thaw era from the viewpoint of individual responsibility. Offering a charismatic black-and-white version of the novel The Case of Andres Lapeteus (Andres Lapeteuse juhtum, 1963) by the Estonian writer Paul Kuusberg, Kromanov’s new wave film still makes us ponder the often avoided and delicate issue of the Sovietisation of the Baltic states from the inside.
本文探讨了安德烈斯·勒佩特斯的遭遇。(Mis juhtus Andres Lapeteusega,爱沙尼亚,1966),这部电影标志着俄罗斯-爱沙尼亚戏剧和电影导演Grigori Kromanov的导演处女作,以电影叙事的方式讲述了苏维埃人的发展。苏维埃人的概念最初只是对苏联官方词汇中“新苏联人”的讽刺,在20世纪80年代和90年代,来自东欧的几位思想家和作家将其阐述为一个概念,允许对苏联政权下发展起来的官僚人类类型进行更深入的分析描述。德裔美国哲学家汉娜·阿伦特在她著名的《极权主义的起源》(1951年)中发现,在集中营里,一个人的法律、道德和个性最可能被有效地杀死。然而,俄罗斯哲学家亚历山大·季诺维也夫(Aleksandr Zinoviev)和波兰哲学家Józef蒂施纳(Józef Tischner)认为,苏维埃人综合症是由精神上的监禁而不是身体上的监禁造成的。受苏联计划经济的影响,苏联人没有做出任何创造性、智力或道德努力,苏维埃人很快就开始代表某种官方仪式性行为,以维持权力的象征性合法性。安德烈斯·拉佩特斯怎么了?这本书讲述了斯大林时代和后斯大林时代一位雄心勃勃的年轻爱沙尼亚官员的故事,但以一种当时的新颖方式,从个人责任的角度解决了对Thaw时代个人崇拜的流行批评。这是爱沙尼亚作家保罗•库斯伯格(Paul Kuusberg)的小说《安德烈斯•拉佩特乌斯的故事》(the Case of Andres Lapeteuse juhtum, 1963)的魅力黑白版,克罗曼诺夫的这部新浪潮电影仍然让我们从内部思考波罗的海国家苏维埃化这个经常被回避的微妙问题。