Research Statement

Research Questions

“Russo turisto! Oblico morale!”, a phrase in broken Italian, or “Tsigel-tsigel, ai liu liu”, untranslatable wordplay. Gibberish that does not make sense in English but would be instantly recognised and picked up by a Russian speaker. Generations of Russians, not only in post-Soviet countries but worldwide, have watched at least one of Leonid Gaidai’s comedies1.  

Gaidai’s legacy extends beyond the 20 feature films he directed, including several top-selling hits like Kidnapping, Caucasian Style (1966) and The Diamond Arm (1969). His films have long been dissected into famous quotes, while the films’ soundtracks and songs have taken on a life of their own. TV shows on leading Russian channels have reimagined scenes from Gaidai’s films, including the famous Old Songs About the Most Important-2 (dir. by Dzhanik Fayziev, 1996), a TV project exploring the role of nostalgia in post-Soviet culture (Zhurkova 2019). Three of Gaidai’s films have been remade: The Diamond Arm 2 (dir. by Sergei Ivanov, 2010),  Kidnapping, Caucasian Style! (dir. by Maksim Voronkov, 2014) and Ivan Vasilievich Changes Everything (dir. by Mikhail Semichev and Roman Kim, 2023).  

Despite his popularity, Gaidai operated under the strict constraints of Soviet censorship, where any overt critique of the regime was prohibited from reaching the screen. After his first independent satirical film, A Groom from the Other World (1958), Gaidai was suspended from his position for two years due to the film’s mocking portrayal of Soviet bureaucracy. In Ivan Vasilyevich Changes Profession, the final version of the film was shortened by 177 meters of film stock—approximately 10 minutes of screen time—due to various censorial objections. Even the now-iconic scene of striptease in The Diamond Arm was considered extremely provocative by 1969 standards. By the time the Diamond Arm was in production, Gaidai already anticipated that the commission would object to certain scenes. To protect himself from excessive criticism, the director deliberately included a clip of a nuclear explosion at the end of the film. This horrified the officials, and Gaidai “agreed” to remove the explosion in exchange of keeping other scenes. These interventions serve as a stark reminder of the ideological pressures shaping Soviet cinematic production and highlight the strategies of negotiation and subversion that directors like Gaidai employed to preserve artistic expression within a tightly controlled system. 

Gaidai’s portrayal of women is unmistakably shaped by the male gaze—his camera often observes female characters with a mix of enchantment, mischief, and playful voyeurism. His heroines are frequently portrayed as flirtatious, bold, and visually liberated for their time—stylish, attractive, and unafraid to command attention. Gaidai consistently cast the most celebrated actresses of Soviet cinema, including Natalya Seleznyova, Natalya Varley, and Svetlana Svetlichnaya.  

“People live such hard lives. Let them laugh,” used to say Gaidai to his wife (Guzeva, 2023). Leonid Gaidai’s comedies are characterized by physical humor, slapstick, and farce—often centered on exaggerated gestures and comic situations—though traces of his sharp satire occasionally break through. While Gaidai’s films became massive hits in the Soviet Union and remain cultural touchstones, their universal comic language has not yet reached the Western academic community in any significant way. Many of his works, with their emphasis on visual comedy, would be easily accessible to international viewers—a point I aim to underscore more effectively through the explanatory video essay format, rather than through traditional academic writing. As a native Russian speaker with lifelong exposure to Russo-Soviet cinema and culture, my aim is to share appreciation of  Soviet films that are often overlooked in English-speaking academia and to offer an effective way to convey the cultural significance, stylistic nuances, and socio-political context of Gaidai’s cinema, ensuring its accessibility to non-Russian audience. 

What are the distinctive stylistic elements employed by Leonid Gaidai in his comedy films?  

Context / Significance

References to Leonid Gaidai’s name typically appear in filmography sections on the post-Soviet comedy in Russian Cinema (Gillespie 2014), or in broader literature that explores world comedy genres, including William V. Costanzo’s When The World Laughs (2020). A Companion to Russian Cinema (Beumers, 2016) features the chapter “The Man Who Made Them Laugh”, which offers an extensive investigation of Gaidai’s distinctive position in Soviet cinema. More politically-orientated works, such as Kristin Roth-Ey’s Moscow Prime Time: How the Soviet Union Built the Media Empire that Lost the Cultural Cold War, frame Gaidai’s aesthetics in the perspective of being “subtly subversive commentary on Soviet society”, noting the director’s use of “physical comedy and crude humour, often revolving around alcohol and petty crime” (Roth-Ey 2011). What prompted my research was the underlying feeling that these characterisations risk reducing Gaidai’s comedy to cultural cliché. To introduce international audiences to the full scope of Gaidai’s work, it is crucial to foreground the rich cultural nuances, witty satire, and insightful reflections on the Soviet man’s condition that elevate Gaidai’s films beyond mere entertainment.  

Methods 

I am an avid observer of online reels and fan-made videos dedicated to films and world cinema. I encountered a wide range of creative interpretations – remakes, re-edits of films, and scene compilations. From my perspective as a researcher-turned-practitioner, such videos are far more than mere examples of fanvids. Instead, they represent thoroughly curated, carefully researched and prepared selections of film fragments that highlight the potential cinephile practices as meaningful contributions to the emerging digital field of film studies.  

The main inspiration for my video essay was a 1-minute 22-second YouTube supercut “Sounds of Gaidai”(2017) by Misha Petrick - a compilation of various sounds and sound effects from four of Gaidai’s films. Rather than dedicating my analysis to just one aspect of Gaidai’s aesthetics, I decided to extend the video into a more comprehensive yet concise overview of the most prominent characteristics of his style.  

I have long followed the YouTube channel of Kinopoisk, an online database of film and TV-related information. Their headline states that the channel discusses “the theory and history of cinema, while also analysing works of directors, new releases and iconic films” (Kinopoisk 2024). Kinopoisk has published 377 video essays to date, with topics ranging from “How Tarantino films dialogues” and “Which film is the worst in cinema?”. The lead editor of the channel, Lisa Surganova, suggests that “Video essays in English that I liked had millions of views, and we wanted to try whether we could do the same” (Surganova 2023). What attracted me most to the  Kinopoisk video essays was the excellent quality of audio-visual assembly and the engaging voiceover that did not sound like a typical film studies lecture.  

Another figure who greatly influenced my videographic practice is Kogonada, a South Korean-born American filmmaker widely known for his outstanding video essays. Kogonada’s works are predominantly dedicated to his favourite filmmakers, with a particular focus on Ozu, who was also the subject of Kogonada’s PhD. Apart from the undeniable scholarly value of his videographic work, it is also important to highlight the unique poetic style and varying forms of his video essays: some are entirely wordless, others are accompanied by the reading of a poem, and some are narrated by a voiceover.  

For my work dedicated to Gaidai, I wanted to assemble an explanatory video essay that would combine Kogonada’s expository voiceover and his aesthetically pleasing yet highly functional approach, as well as Kinopoisk essayists’ aspirations to spread the awareness of video essays to a broader audience. I wanted to address the English-speaking viewer to continue the tradition of enriching the global discourse on cinema, ensuring that less frequently represented Soviet and Russian films and filmmakers receive the recognition they deserve.  

The data collection process included the selection of film scenes and shots corresponding to pre-defined criteria, leading to a comprehensive review of findings that were subsequently translated into a voiceover text. In relation to the copyright aspect of this work, I used film materials based on copyright exceptions. I rely on the principles of criticism and review, both demonstrated in my supporting statement and the video essay. Within the framework of videographic criticism, I provided commentary and scholarly analysis through voice-over; therefore, I chose the form of explanatory video essay. Some parts of the essay also feature characteristics, of the supercut format, particularly in the video’s opening. I also engaged in editing experiments informed by my professional experience – for example, in the sequence with “Звенит январская вьюга”[ The January blizzard is ringing], I juxtapose the original film performance with  Polina Gagarina’s 2023 cover in a split-screen and sound remix. This practice in assembling video essays underscores the potential contribution and advancement of videographic criticism when professional editors bring their creative and technical expertise into the field.  

There is an excellent online resource for lovers of Russian and Soviet film, Russian Film Hub, created by Richard Wess, which offers a wide array of information about films, cataloguing them and providing access to links where you they can be watched, often with English subtitles. Under the Copyright Policy, the site’s owners state: “Generally when these copyright holders upload videos to the streaming websites we link to, they enter into a royalty-free licensing agreement that grants public usage rights” (Russian Film Hub, 2025). 

To comply with copyright policy, I express the purpose of my video essay as non-commercial; I acknowledge the authorship of the content included, and the use of the material is fair (CopyrightUser, 2025). I rely on the exception for non-commercial research and private study, as one of the primary purposes of this research is to promote knowledge about Russo-Soviet cinema in English-speaking videographic criticism. The film fragments I use are already publicly available through Youtube on FSUE Mosfilm Cinema Concern Channel. 

Outcomes

Significant scholarship is dedicated to Soviet and Russian cinema, considering its rich and diverse history spanning over a century and its undoubted influence on the world’s motion picture industries and film studies. With such prominent film practitioners as Andrei Tarkovsky, Sergei Eisenstein, and Dziga Vertov - whose works and theories have enjoyed substantial scholarly attention - it becomes increasingly important to recognise those overlooked yet significant Soviet and Russian directors who have not yet received the exposure they deserve in international academic, practice-oriented, and cinephile circles – let alone in the form of videographic criticism. 

The expository video essay—the form I decided best serves my research—undertakes a closer examination of eight selected films by Gaidai, produced between 1961 and 1973. The objective is to offer insights into the evolution of Gaidai's cinematic approach over time, highlighting recurring symbols, techniques, and patterns that define his filmography. As the video essay demonstrates, these include social satire, ‘family gesture’ (Gaidai’s approach to shaping three-dimensional characters by attributing to them a unique and memorable gesture), brevity in dialogue, the extensive use of songs and dances, as well as cameos, the symbolic use of black cats and erotic appeal of women on screen. 

Impact

Fueled by nostalgia, and given how deeply Gaida’is comedies are embedded in the Russian-speaking cultural consciousness, it becomes essential to preserve and celebrate these cinematic memories through a shared visual archive. Videographic criticism offers a powerful medium for this purpose—allowing not only a revisitation of these iconic moments, but also a critical reflection on their emotional resonance and cultural legacy. 

Beyond contributing to academia, I hope to introduce Russian-speaking video essayists to the growing community of videographic criticism. With unique access to archival materials found exclusively within the Russian web space, I aim to shed more light on the diverse cultural and artistic heritage that remains underappreciated—particularly outside Russia and the former Soviet Union. In times marked by political tension, fostering a global understanding of film as a powerful medium for creative expression and dialogue becomes all the more essential. 

References

Bibliography

Beumers, B. (ed.) (2016) A Companion to Russian Cinema. Wiley Blackwell Companions to National Cinemas. Chichester and Malden: Wiley Blackwell. 

CopyrightUser.org. (n.d.). Exceptions. Retrieved June 2, 2025, from https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/ 

Costanzo, W.V. (2020) When the World Laughs: Film Comedy East and West. United States: Oxford University Press, p. 208. 

Gillespie, D.C. (2014) Russian Cinema. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, p. 66. 

Guzeva, A. (2023). Леонид Гайдай: в чем секрет его культовых комедий? [Leonid Gaidai: What Is the Secret of His Cult Comedies?]. Available from https://ru.gw2ru.com/read/4437-leonid-gaida-rezhisser-kassovyh-filmov 

Kinopoisk. (2024.). YouTube channel. Accessed June 11, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/@kinopoisk 

Petrick, M. (2017). Sounds of Leonid Gaidai [Video]. YouTube. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZuWZ8Dy3Vw&t=1s 

Roth-Ey, K. (2011) Moscow Prime Time: How the Soviet Union Built the Media Empire that Lost the Cultural Cold War. United States: Cornell University Press, p. 73. 

Russian Film Hub. (2025). Copyright Policy – All Your Questions Answered. Retrieved from https://russianfilmhub.com/copyright-policy/ 

Surganova, L. (2023). ‘7 лет видеоэссе на Кинопоиске! Отмечаем вместе с вами’. Kinopoisk. Accessed June 11, 2024, from https://www.kinopoisk.ru/media/article/4008126/ 

Zhurkova, D. (2019) 'TV Project "Old Songs About the Most Important": the Destiny of Nostalgia in the Context of Post-Soviet Culture'. Proceedings of the International Conference on Arts, Social Sciences and Education (ICASSEE-19). DOI: 10.2991/icassee-19.2019.30. 

Filmography

All I Desire (Douglas Sirk, 1953, USA) 

A Groom from the Other World (Leonid Gaidai, 1958, USSR)   

Bootleggers (Leonid Gaidai, 1961, USSR) 

Déjà vu (Leonid Gaidai, 1965, USSR) 

Dog Barbos and Unusual Cross (Leonid Gaidai, 1961, USSR) 

Ivan Vasilievich Changes Everything (Mikhail Semichev and Roman Kim, 2023, Russia) 

Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future (Leonid Gaidai, 1973, USSR) 

Kidnapping, Caucasian Style (Leonid Gaidai, 1967, USSR) 

Kidnapping, Caucasian Style! (Maksim Voronkov, 2014, Russia) 

Old Songs About the Most Important-2 (Dzhanik Fayziev, 1996, Russia) 

Operation Y and Shurik's Other Adventures (Leonid Gaidai, 1965, USSR) 

Station for Two (Eldar Ryazanov, 1983, USSR) 

The Diamond Arm (Leonid Gaidai, 1969, USSR) 

The Diamond Arm 2 (Sergei Ivanov, 2010, Russia) 

The Twelve Chairs (Leonid Gaidai, 1971, USSR) 

Walking the Streets of Moscow (Georgiy Daneliya, 1964, USSR) 

Peer Reviews

All reviews refer to the original research statement which has been edited in response to what follows

Review 1: Accept submission subject to minor revisions of written statement

What are the main claims and purposes of the work? 

The work introduces you to the work of Leonid Gaidai, who is a Soviet comedy film maker. It talks about his film making, some of the main stylistic elements of his films and the significance of his work. His work is very successful and unique. The short film covers his most significant film and is made and narrated by Marina Ivanycheva.  

Does it seem to make a genuine new contribution to knowledge or understanding of practice-research? 

As someone entirely new to this film maker, it was a really good introduction to Gaidai’s work. There was an extensive list of references and further reading. I presume these will be available in the notes for anyone wanting to follow up?  

Is there any important relevant work that the submission does not acknowledge? 

As I am not familiar with his work, I would find this difficult to judge.
 
How strong is the research and theoretical context of the accompanying written statement? The abstract is well written however it does not mention that the films are comedic. It might also be helpful to mention the years that Gaidai has been making films (1960s onwards I believe). I was interested in some of the features he included in his film, such as the inclusion of black cats and this might be worth noting to attract a wider audience.  

Are there particular changes that you would deem either necessary or helpful for the work to be published? 

The additions to the abstract I mentioned above would be helpful to make it more helpful for future researchers not familiar with Gaidai’s work.  

How well organised and written is the accompanying statement? 

The statement is well organised and well written overall.  

Are there particular changes that you would recommend to its presentation?
Some of the audio is quite loud, particularly at the start – it rather made me jump! 

Review 2: Accept submission subject to minor revisions of written statement

This video essay effectively brings together the work of Russian filmmaker Leonid Gaidai, also known as the king of the Soviet comedy. The supercut technique employed accompanied and guided by the researcher’s voice over illustrates the features that characterised his comedic genre. There is an interesting comment in the statement about videographic criticism, which calls to taking seriously the voice of fans and cinephiles – the films “is not just a fan-made supercut”, as the researcher suggests, but one that adds value to the field of film studies, contributing to knowledge through situated and informed love for cinema.  

This focus, according to the researcher, responds to a research gap associated to the limited distribution of Russian and Soviet cinema in the anglophone world. The researcher seems to use the terms Soviet and Russian indistinctively, so a potential comment on terminology may be helpful to diverse readers, as well as the clarification of the period in which Gaidai made his films, and what is the current memory or appreciation for that work.  

The statement could specify what the main argument is, for instance with regards to why this genre matter, or why it is worth known the work of this filmmaker and acknowledge him as “the king of Soviet comedy”. There are some interesting points made that could also be further elaborated in the written statement, such as comedy, its link to censorship (just briefly mentioned by not elaborated) and gender – has the filmmaker been criticised along the time for a male gaze? Overall it is very well written and structured but it could benefit from reinforcing the key argument and uniqueness of this filmmaker. 

The video essay offers an engaging introduction to Leonid Gaidai’s work and is professionally edited. The written statement reads well and makes use of references to other video essayists who inspired the work. However, the statement does not address the copyright aspects of the project, which is to be expected in a special dossier titled ‘Filmmaking and Copyright Law’.  

On which legal basis are the materials used? With permission from the copyright owner or based on copyright exceptions? If the latter, is the author relying on criticism and review, on quotation, on pastiche, or a combination of these exceptions? It would be interesting to see a connection between the concept of videographic criticism and the copyright exception for criticism and review. The author should address these questions explaining how they interpreted these notions when creating the video essay (e.g. is the criticism provided through voice-over or by juxtaposing images with images), citing examples from the video essay. They may find it helpful to go back to the Learning on Screen course materials and to consult these links: https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/  and https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/resources/guides/video-essays/ 

All reviews refer to the original research statement which has been edited in response