After turbulent changes at the end of the
twentieth century one might think that communism and strict
censorship in today’s Russia are gone, and everyone is allowed to express
themselves freely. Perestroika went down in history as the period of softening censorship and increasing number of critics of deteriorating situation in the country.
However, is today’s Russia respecting the freedom of expression or are the
censorship and control still the order of the day?
Russia’s regime transformation in
the 1990s undoubtedly let the intelligentsia emerge from hiding, and Russians
nowadays do not experience an absolute lack of freedom of speech. What is
encountered, however, is the manipulation and certain limitations of expression
in the media and culture, which prove the existence of the still prevailing
censorship as “deliberate policy put into practice by those in power”,
described by Beate Müller (5). In her article she discusses the social
transformation based on power and knowledge which – according to Michel
Foucault – give an advantage over the others, and, therefore, enable maintaining control
over a society. As a result, in Russia the nation has become subordinate to its
authorities, particularly Vladimir Putin’s rules.
One of the numerous evidences of censorship
in contemporary Russia and enjoying “power” by the authorities is the law
implemented in 2014 by Putin banning swearing in the media, movies, books and
television. Those who have not been complying with it since then, are forced to
pay high fines. Consequently, a movie released around the period of the Sochi
Olympics “The Hope Factory” of Natalia Meshchaninova cannot be watched in Russian cinemas due to frequent swearwords and vulgar behavior of the
characters which could be considered as violating “the traditional values” and
“inappropriate in high art” (BBC “Russian law”, Boele).
As Müller stated, „the censorship is
unavoidable (…) [and] one can only discriminate among its more and less
repressive effects” (5). Answering the question in the introduction, it is
nearly impossible to imagine the Russian society and its cultural activities without
being controlled by the power of authorities deciding – inter alia – about the
language in movies. The “authoritarian intervention” (11) discussed by Müller
has been unquestionably present in the Russian mentality, and the authorities
still have a considerable (but not that repressive nowadays) capability of maintaining
its power.
Works consulted:
BBC
News Europe. Russian law bans swearing in
arts and media. 5 May 2014. Web. 22 Feb 2015. < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27286742>
Boele,
Otto. „Beyond Moscow and
St. Petersburg (Hope Factory, The Russian provinces and the ZATO’s)”. Leiden University Campus Den Haag. 4 Nov. 2014. The
Hague. Lecture.
Müller, Beate. „Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the
Territory.“ Critical
Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam &
New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
Picture from the movie: https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/the-hope-factory-film-review.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1
Picture from the movie: https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/the-hope-factory-film-review.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1
Glasnost during Perestroika fought for openness in the society. Indeed, people thought after the fall of the Soviet Union that censorship will also disappear together with communism. However, as you argue, that is unfortunately not true. I think that this specific movie was banned because the government did not want the Russian society, and the rest of the world, to see how such closed cities lookes like. And how life is lived in such cities. The swearing is just an excuse to exclude such footage. Another example of censorship is the video of the protest of Pussy Riot. The Russians are not able to see the video of Pussy Riot on the internet. The government says that such a video must be banned because it offends religious people. Such excuses for banning video's and movie's are indeed as you argue a way of the government to maintain their dominance.
ReplyDelete