Chapter summaries Hope Is of a Different Color Magda Lipska & Monika Talarczyk

Chapter 17: The Training of Third-World Filmmakers in Eastern Bloc Schools before 1991

⚠️ Spoiler Warning: This guide contains detailed spoilers for the entire novel. Proceed only if you've finished reading or are comfortable knowing the plot.

Summary

Chapter 17, written by Gabrielle Chomentowski, examines the under-studied phenomenon of scholarship students from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America who trained at film schools in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe between the end of World War II and 1991. It situates this movement within overlapping contexts: the Cold War competition for influence, decolonization and independence struggles, and the institutionalization of film education. The chapter details the motivations behind choosing Eastern bloc schools—free tuition, political affinity, and the appeal of schools without a colonial past—and describes daily life at VGIK in Moscow, FAMU in Prague, and the Łódź Film School in Poland. It traces the trajectories of specific filmmakers such as Nabil Maleh, Ahmed Lallem, and Abderrahmane Sissako, noting how some went on to shape their national cinemas while others faced censorship, suspicion, or repression upon returning home. The chapter concludes by acknowledging that while many students received a rigorous and formative education, their experiences were also marked by racism, ideological pressure, and disillusionment with real existing socialism.

Key Events

  • 1919: The State College of Cinematography (GTK) is founded in Moscow, later becoming VGIK, the world’s first national film school.
  • 1946: FAMU (Film and Television School of the Academy of Performing Arts) opens in Prague.
  • 1948: The Łódź Film School is established in Poland.
  • 1945–1950s: Postwar student mobility increases; colonial powers and later the US and USSR compete to educate future elites from decolonizing nations.
  • 1955: The Bandung Conference brings together Asian and African states, leading to the Non-Aligned Movement and intensifying Soviet and American outreach.
  • 1956: At the Twentieth Party Congress, Nikita Khrushchev formally declares the Soviet Union’s intent to support developing countries and adopt a policy of peaceful coexistence.
  • 1960s–1980s: Peak periods of Third World film students in Eastern bloc schools; approximately 600 students came to the Soviet Union alone, with more to FAMU and Łódź.
  • 1960–1965: Piyasiri Gunaratna from Sri Lanka studies at FAMU after learning of a scholarship from a Czech correspondent.
  • 1963: Director Mikhail Romm teaches a group including Jean-Pierre Lledo at VGIK, offering a mix of personal memories and directing practice.
  • 1966: Costa Diagne from Guinea wins an award at the Dakar World Festival of Black Arts; later arrested and sentenced to ten years in a labor camp.
  • 1970s–1980s: Several Moroccan and Algerian filmmakers trained in Łódź face censorship; returning filmmakers from Eastern bloc schools are often treated with suspicion in their home countries.

Character Development

The chapter presents the real experiences of several filmmakers rather than fictional characters. Touré Mandiou of Guinea (quoted in the epigraph) expresses both gratitude and a sense of mission upon graduating from VGIK. Nabil Maleh (Syria) switched from nuclear physics to cinema at FAMU and later founded Syrian cinema. Ahmed Lallem (Algeria) studied in Łódź and contributed to Algerian film and television. Sjuman Djaya (Indonesia) and Abderrahmane Sissako (Mauritania) both studied in Moscow. Boubaker Adjali and Mohammed Lakhdar-Hamina (Algeria) were FLN militants who studied in Prague; Lakhdar-Hamina won the Palme d’Or in 1975. Ateyyat El Abnoudy (Egypt) chose London over the Soviet bloc because of language. Piyasiri Gunaratna (Sri Lanka) studied at FAMU but was ignored by his home industry on return. Mohammed Abouelouakar (Morocco) arrived in the USSR with a vague scholarship and later entered VGIK on a teacher’s advice. Michel Papatakis (Ethiopia) was sent by his government and later worked for the Ministry of Information. Jean-Pierre Lledo (Algeria) studied under Mikhail Romm and later struggled to find the same creative freedom at home. Costa Diagne (Guinea) was repressed after his award-winning film. Mostafa Derkaoui (Morocco) faced censorship and bans on his films.

Themes, Symbols, or Motifs

  • Ideological Education as Soft Power: The Soviet bloc used free scholarships and prestigious film schools to win the allegiance of future cultural leaders from newly independent nations.
  • Decolonization and Self-Representation: Many students saw filmmaking as a way to reclaim their countries’ narratives from colonial distortions and to serve their people.
  • The Gap between Promise and Reality: The chapter contrasts the official narrative of international solidarity with students’ actual experiences of racism, ideological constraints, and disillusionment with life in socialist states.
  • Censorship and Repression: Several filmmakers faced state censorship or political persecution both in the host country and at home, highlighting the limits of artistic freedom on either side of the Iron Curtain.
  • Nostalgia vs. Hardship: Graduates often recalled their student days with affection, yet the chapter insists on including the negative experiences—difficulty, ostracism, and thwarted careers.

Why This Chapter Matters

This chapter fills a significant gap in the cultural history of cinema by shifting focus away from Western film schools and toward the transnational networks established by the Eastern bloc during the Cold War. It demonstrates how film education served as a tool of geopolitical influence and shows the complex, often contradictory outcomes for the individuals who participated. By tracing the paths of more than 600 filmmakers, the chapter enriches our understanding of postcolonial national cinemas in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, and challenges the binary East-West framework by foregrounding the agency and struggles of the students themselves.

Study Questions and Answers

1. What factors led many Third World students to choose Eastern bloc film schools over Western ones?
Students were attracted by the prospect of free tuition and living-expense scholarships, the high reputation of schools like VGIK and FAMU, and political sympathy for anti-imperialist struggles. Some also valued the opportunity to study in a country without a colonial past—though the chapter notes this perception was somewhat false. Language barriers sometimes limited choices, but many were willing to invest a year in intensive language study.

2. How did the teaching methods at VGIK combine theory and practice, and what ideological components were included in the curriculum?
At VGIK, courses included mise-en-scène, camera work, Russian and foreign literature, Russian history, economics, and politics—all tied to Soviet ideology. Students shot a silent 16mm film in their first year, completed a 35mm production in their third year, and made a degree film in their fifth year. Discussions and debates about films were common, sometimes leading to disagreements with instructors. Screenings of foreign and Soviet films not shown in commercial cinemas broadened students’ exposure.

3. What challenges did these filmmakers face after returning to their home countries?
Many encountered official censorship, political repression, or professional ostracism. For example, Costa Diagne was arrested and sentenced to ten years in a labor camp; Mostafa Derkaoui’s films were banned in Morocco; Piyasiri Gunaratna was ignored by the Sri Lankan film industry for years. Those who expected to apply innovative techniques often found that local infrastructure and colleagues were not on the same level. Some, like Michel Papatakis, worked within state institutions, while others had to fight for creative freedom.

Navigation