Why ideology is still a nightmare even for proactive Ukrainians

To summarize the results of the extremely difficult year of 2022 for cinema production and distribution, as Ukrainian films were still released. To outline prospects and predict audience demand for the future. All those present, despite their different views on current forms, methods and meanings, recognized that film production in Ukraine has awoken and made a low start after the legal ban on Russian cinema. But then there was a call not to discuss ideology in the context of cinema. To focus only on the artistic component.

An attempt to explain that cinema, and in a broader sense, the culture of which it is a part, does not exist outside of ideology, was met with a categorical protest from part of the audience. The director, 75-year-old Serhiy Masloboishchykov, was the first to be labeled as an ideologue, there is no question about it. He is one of those artists who experienced the ideological pressure of the communist government in their youth and adulthood. But the producer Illia Hladshtein, a young man who, fortunately, knows about ideological pressure on individuals and society only from George Orwell's novel 1984, also warned against ideology. In particular, he equated ideology and everything related to it with Orwell's Ministry of Truth.

“In today's Ukraine, the concept of "ideology" has become something terrible, incompatible with manifestations of freedom of creativity and any freedoms in general. There is another word, concept, and self-determination that self-respecting people try to avoid in every way possible: "patriotic." For many people, patriotic means low-quality, kitschy, lowbrow, and, again, ideologized”

In this way, the concept of "ideology" in today's Ukraine has become something terrible, incompatible with manifestations of freedom of creativity and any freedoms in general. There is another word, concept, and self-determination that self-respecting people try to avoid in every way possible: "patriotic." For many people, patriotic means low-quality, kitschy, lowbrow, and, again, ideologized.

Congratulating everyone involved on the Day of Ukrainian Cinema in September 2017, the then President Petro Poroshenko said that in terms of state support for cinema, preference should be given to patriotic films rather than horror films. But his words in this case are not a value judgment, but rather a Freudian slip. Because the very term "patriotic cinema," along with the definitions of "patriotic book," "patriotic song," "patriotic poetry," etc., was prepared and presented not only to Poroshenko but to the entire society on a silver platter by good people with a civic position, pro-Ukrainian, but still with remnants of USSR or even “soviet” thinking. Those who were severely wounded by the Soviet regime are still armed with stereotypes. Otherwise, such segmentation would not have been allowed.

For that matter, a horror movie can theoretically be made patriotic as well. For example, you could come up with a plot in which a descendant of a Cossack hetman or a wizard saves Ukraine and the world from zombies wearing kosovorotkas, bast shoes, and balalaikas. Doesn't it sound disgusting? But this is exactly how many of our contemporary artists imagine a patriotic work that represents a certain state ideology.

“A horror movie can theoretically be made patriotic as well. For example, you could come up with a plot in which a descendant of a Cossack hetman or a wizard saves Ukraine and the world from zombies wearing kosovorotkas, bast shoes, and balalaikas. Doesn't it sound disgusting? But this is exactly how many of our contemporary artists imagine a patriotic work that represents a certain state ideology”

However, those who fight against ideological dogmas are eager to watch Western cinema, European and American, as well as the recently fashionable Asian cinema. Opponents of the ideology are enthusiastically discussing the American film Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, which has won a number of prestigious awards, including 2 Oscars. In the story, an ordinary American citizen challenges the sluggish American justice system and, after a difficult confrontation, wins, breaking the system in her favor.

This film and hundreds, if not thousands, of films made in free countries are essentially ideological. After all, each of them is based on the struggle for one's place in the sun and democratic values. This may not always be read literally. But the beliefs of the creators of such films, and not only of films, are always visible. In essence, ideology is the same as worldview. A work, especially a work as influential as a movie because of its accessibility to the masses, always has a story at its core, shaped by the worldview of the authors. Cinema is a collective endeavor. And if the authors are not like-minded, there will be no movie, as they say.

“Hundreds, if not thousands, of films made in free countries are essentially ideological. After all, each of them is based on the struggle for their place in the sun and democratic values. This may not always be read literally. But the beliefs of the creators of such films, and not only of films, are always visible. In essence, ideology is the same as worldview”

It was ideology that gave rise to the active and intensive development of Ukrainian cinema. After all, as mentioned above, the field had to be cleared of Russian cinema first. Vadym Denysenko and Mykola Kniazhytskyi, the drafters of Bill 1317, which bans this content, opposed the views of the aggressor state with purely Ukrainian, democratic views. The positive consequences for Ukrainian cinema were not long in coming. Those citizens with ideology, clear worldview and motivation allowed, without exaggeration, hundreds of young Ukrainians to achieve some success in this field. At the time of the adoption of the law, they did not have such opportunities in their country. And without the decisive intervention of ideologues, they would not have succeeded in this field until now.

Recently, Yevhen Hlibovytskyi, a well-known values researcher and member of the Nesterov Expert Group, has once again voiced his opinion in his latest publication: Ukraine gained real independence not in August 1991, but in February 2014. This is not a new idea. It is shared to varying degrees by an increasing number of critically minded people. In short, until the end of November 2013, when the then head of state Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, independent Ukraine was a de-ideologized state. Not even that: a territory with borders officially recognized by the world-except for Russia, as it turned out-with ideological chaos reigning inside.

“Until the end of November 2013, when the then head of state Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, independent Ukraine was a de-ideologized state. Not even that: a territory with borders officially recognized by the world-except for Russia, as it turned out-with ideological chaos reigning inside”

The historical memory of the Holodomor tragedy is embedded in the vast majority of Ukrainians at the hereditary, genetic level. One of the traditions that we do not pay attention to is to feed the family first, to take care of strategic food reserves, and to keep an excess of canned food among ordinary housewives, and not only rural ones. Several generations of Ukrainians are subconsciously afraid of dying of hunger.

It's the same with ideology. For 70 years, the Soviet government put it at the head of all institutions, from political to family and household. A person loves the leader and his or her own party first. The leader and the party are the same as the state. And freedoms, including the freedom of creativity and self-expression, should take place only within the coordinates allowed by ideologues. This state of affairs was especially painful for creative people and their ego. It is not surprising that the historical memory and the echo of the traumas inflicted by the ideologues of totalitarianism automatically prompts artists to stigmatize the ideology as such and to place themselves outside of it.

Thus, the Russian ideology easily took over the empty space. It is not much different from the Soviet ideology. The only difference is that nostalgia for the USSR has been added to imperial grandeur and contempt for civilization. Propaganda has been, is, and will be a constant companion of ideology. It is therefore understandable why any step towards the search for a national idea for today's Ukraine is instantly labeled propaganda, politicking, caricature, nationalism, etc.

“The declarative rejection of ideology clearly demonstrates the infantilism of those who declare it. After all, ideology is not about posterizing, pathos, and using poster slogans. True ideology means having a clearly formed worldview. In turn, this indicates that a citizen is motivated”

Nine years ago, the war with Russia over Ukrainian identity began. And since then, there has been no clear answer as to what Ukrainian identity is, what it looks like, and what forms it takes. Because many conversations on this topic turn into the thesis of "culture outside politics." But it was the wartime era that showed its harmfulness. The declarative rejection of ideology clearly demonstrates the infantilism of those who declare it. After all, ideology is not about posterizing, pathos, and using poster slogans. True ideology means having a clearly formed worldview. In turn, this indicates that a citizen is motivated. And the realization of who they are, to what country they belong, and, accordingly, what set of values they have.

Russia, whether in its tsarist, Soviet, or current form, has traumatized entire generations of Ukrainians. The fear of ideology as a plague, an infection, an epidemic that affects the brain and affects the freedom of creativity is a consequence of this trauma. It is Russia that benefits from Ukrainians' categorical rejection of ideology, i.e., worldview, values, and identity. And we should not forget that American and European cinema is fundamentally about democratic values. Even if this is not explicitly stated anywhere. And in the vast majority of cases, it is not explicitly stated.

Exclusively for Espreso TV.

About the author: Andriy Kokotiukha, writer, screenwriter.

Espreso does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.