Section
UDC
791.224:316.472.4:004DOI
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-26-1-105-123How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Никулич Ю.В.
Abstract
The article presents the findings of an analysis of the primary discursive modules emphasized by bloggers through the practice of deconstructing historical fiction cinema. The attitude of film producers towards the past, as well as the audience’s reaction to the value and meaning messages in it, are considered to be part of historical culture. In this context, historical cinema is regarded as both a semiotic code and an element of symbolic mass politics. The article categorizes feature films according to the objectivity of their representation of historical material, and it identifies the emergence of novel genres. The evolution of historical cinema in Russia during the 21st century has been delineated, and it has been determined that the medium has maintained the established trends while undergoing a transformation in its mode of presentation. The empirical basis of the study is a corpus of videos created by bloggers in social media for the years 2020–2025. This corpus is dedicated to the analysis of Russian historical films and TV series. The most obvious value and semantic points of confrontation between producers and consumers of historical cinema have been identified by means of critical discourse analysis (N. Fairclough). Recent research has indicated that bloggers who function as leaders and spokespeople for consumer opinion in reviews of Russian historical film productions highlight several trends. Firstly, there is a tendency for de-ideologization. Secondly, there is a retouching of the motives of the main characters’ actions to make them appropriate to the epoch. Thirdly, there is a tendency to follow trends in popular psychology. A conclusion of paramount importance is the observation concerning the existence of an ideological framework of confrontation ‘producer — audience’. This concerns, first of all, representations of the Soviet period of the country’s history, as well as parallels with contemporary reality. A potential shortcoming of the study is might be the failure to address the impact of filter bubbles and echo chamber effects on the practices of historical bloggers.
Keywords
References
Assman, A. (2014). Refreimiruya pamyat’. Mezhdu individual’nymi i kollektivnymi formami konstruirovaniya proshlogo. Reframing memory [Between Individual and Collective Forms of the Past Construction]. Gefter [Gefter]. Retrieved from https://gefter.ru/archive/11839
Assman, Ya. (2004). Kul’turnaya pamyat’: Pis’mo, pamyat’ o proshlom i politicheskaya identichnost’ v vysokikh kul’turakh drevnosti [Cultural Memory: Writing, Memory of the Past and Political Identity in the High Cultures of Antiquity]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskoi kul’tury.
Begby, E. (2022). From Belief Polarization to Echo Chambers: A Rationalizing Account. Episteme, 14, 1–21. DOI: org/10.1017/epi.2022.14
Berger, P., Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Penguin Books.
Burd’e, P. (1977). O simvolicheskoi vlasti [On Symbolic Power]. Gumanitarnyi portal [Humanitarian Portal]. Retrieved from https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/3052
Dubrovin, V. L. (2024). Khudozhestvenno-igrovoi kontent kak instrument “myagkoi sily” v usloviyakh gibridnoi voiny protiv rossiiskogo obshchestva [Feature Content as a Tool Of “Soft Power” in a Hybrid War]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie [Knowledge. Understanding. Skill], 1, 210–224. DOI: 10.17805/zpu.2024.1.16
Einav, G. (2022). Bursting Filter Bubbles in a Digital Age: Opening Minds and Reducing Opinion Polarization through Digital Platforms. Technology in Society, 71. DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102136
Ekström, A. G. (2022). Self-imposed Filter Bubbles: Selective Attention and Exposure in Online Search. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7. DOI: 10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100226
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Ferro, M. (1992). Kino i istoriya [Cinema and History]. Voprosy istorii [Matters of History], 2, 47–57.
Fuko, M. (2004). Arheologiya znaniya [Archaeology of Knowledge]. Saint-Petersburg: Gumanitarnaya Akademiya.
Hal’bvaks, M. (2007). Sotsial’nye ramki pamyati [Social Frameworks of Memory]. Moscow: Novoe Izdatel’stvo.
Hohmann, M. (2023). Quantifying Ideological Polarization on a Network using Generalized Euclidean Distance. Science Advances, 9(9). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abq2044
Il’in, I. P. (2001). Postmodernizm. Slovar’ terminov [Postmodernism. Glossary of Terms]. Moskva: INION RAN — Intrada.
Isaev, E. (2021). Kinematograf [Cinematography]. In A. Zavadskiy, V. Dubina (Eds). Vsyo v proshlom. Teoriya i praktika publichnoi istorii [Everything is in the Past. Theory and Practice of Public History] (pp. 267–284). Moskva: Novoe izdatel’stvo.
Karasik, V. I. (2023). Yazykovoe preobrazovanie real’nosti [Linguistic Transformation of Reality]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennyi Institut Russkogo Iazyka im. A. S. Pushkina.
Karpuhin, O. I., Komissarov, S. N. (2024). Chto tvoryat tvorcy? Hudozhestvennaya intelligenciya v usloviyah gibridnoi voiny [What are Creators Doing? Creative Intelligentsia in the Era of Hybrid War]. Gumanitarij Yuga Rossii [Humanitarian of the South of Russia], 6(13), 245–261. DOI: 10.18522/2227-8656.2024.6.19
Kolesnikova, S. M., Kolesnikova V. V. (2024). Rol’ kinematografii v formirovanii kul’turnoy identichnosti: istoriya, traditsii i tsennosti [The Role of Cinematography in The Formation of Cultural Identity: History, Traditions and Values]. Uchenye zapiski NovGU [Scientific Notes of the Novgorod State University], 3(54), 420–430. DOI: 10.34680/2411-7951.2024.3(54)
Lotman, Yu. M. (1973). Semiotika kino i problemy kinoehstetiki [The Semiotics of Cinema and the Problems of Cinematography]. Tallin: Esther Raamat.
Lotman, Yu. M. (2000). Semiosfera [The Semiosphere]. S.-Peterburg: “Iskusstvo-SPB”.
Malinova, O. Yu. (2019). Politika pamyati kak oblast’ simvolicheskoi politiki [Politics of Memory as an Area of Symbolic Politics]. In M. V. Il’in (Ed.). METOD: Moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin: sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Vyp. 9: Metodologicheskie aspekty transdistsiplinarnogo transfera znanii [Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Sciences: Collection of Scientific Works. Vol. 9: Methodological Aspects of Transdisciplinary Knowledge Transfer] (pp. 285–312). Moscow: INION RAN. Retrieved from https://inion.ru/site/assets/files/4892/metod_2019–9.pdf
Malinova, O. Yu., Dzhonson, Dzh. (2020). Simvolicheskaya politika kak predmet political science i Russian studies: issledovaniya politicheskogo ispol’zovaniya proshlogo v postsovetskoi Rossii [Symbolic Politics as a Subject of Political Science and Russian Studies: Research on the Political Use of the Past in Post-Soviet Russia]. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science], 2, 15–41. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2020.02.01
Meyer, T. (1992). Inszenierung des Scheins. Voraussetzungen und Folgen symbolischer Politik [Staging of the Appearance. Preconditions and Consequences of Symbolic Politics]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Miller, A. I. (2015). Politika pamyati v Rossii: rol’ ehkspertnykh soobshchestv [Politics of Memory in Russia: The Role of Expert Communities]. Simvolicheskaya politika [Symbolic Politics], 3, 210–234.
Nikulich, Yu. V. (2023). Riskogennost’ publichnoi istorii v tsifrovoi srede (na primere rossijskogo videobloginga 2020‑h gg.) [Risk-Generating Aspect of Public History in Digital Environment (on the Example of Russian Video Blogging in the 2020s)]. Tsifrovaya sociologiya [Digital Sociology], 6(3), 11–20. DOI: 10.53598/2410-3691-2022-4-309-113-120
Potseluev, S. P. (1999). Simvolicheskaya politika: konstellyaciya ponyatii dlya podkhoda k probleme [Symbolical Politics: A Constellation of Concepts for an Approach to The Problem]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 5, 62–75.
Rakachev, V. N., Rakacheva, Ya. V., Sergeev, V. N. (2021). Istoricheskaya kul’tura: k voprosu teoreticheskogo osmysleniya fenomena v zarubezhnoi i otechestvennoi nauke [Historical Culture: Towards A Theoretical Understanding of The Phenomenon in Foreignand Domestic Science]. Yuzhno-rossiiskii zhurnal sotsial’nykh nauk [South Russian Journal of Social Sciences], 22(2), 124–142.
Romashin, M. I. (2024). Voennyi fil’m /serial v prostranstve istoricheskoi pamyati [War Film / Series in the Space of Historical Memory]. Chelovek i kul’tura [Man and Culture], 4, 132–144. DOI: 10.25136/2409-8744.2024.4.43840
Rosenstone, R. A. (1995). Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Scheibenzuber, C. (2023). Dialog in the Echo Chamber: Fake News Framing Predicts Emotion, Argumentation and Dialogic Social Knowledge Building in Subsequent Online Discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 140(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107587
Smith, P. (Ed.) (1976). The Historian and Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shtein, S. Yu. (2024). Kinovedenie i professional’noe kinematograficheskoe obrazovanie [Disciplinary Cinema Studies and Professional Cinema Education]. Articult [Articult], 4(56), 19–27. DOI: 10.28995/2227-6165-2024-4-19-27
Volkov, E. V., Ponomareva, E. V. (2012). Igrovoe kino kak istoricheskij istochnik [The Acting Cinema as a Historical Source]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural’skogo gos. universiteta. Ser. “Social’no-gumanitarnye nauki” [The Bulletin of the Southern Ural State. University. Vol. “Social and Human Sciences”], 10(269), 22–26.
Zhabsky, M. I., Tarasov, K. I. (2024). Raznolikoe kachestvo kinofil’ma [The Many-Faced Film Quality]. Vestnik VGIK [Vestnik VGIK], 2(16), 147–155.