In the 1960s, in the Soviet Union, director Marlen Khutziev completed a drama feature movie I Am Twenty (Original title: Zastava Ilycha). A magnificent film about Soviet society, about especially young people who lived then and there, about their dreams and reality. The cinecamera now zooms in, now zooms out, now pans, now follows the movement of protagonists. The accompanying soundtrack – including real radio news and the chiming of the Kremlin bells – complete the message that is put across by the images. There is a huge amount of good poetry while particular shots are in themselves works of chefs-d’oeuvre. The viewer can learn with amazement that the young people in Moscow wore the same clothes and the same hairdo that their Western peers did, that the young Russians in Moscow listened to the same music and danced the same dances that their Western peers did. Yes, there are shots from the First May Parade (Labour Day) and there are references – if few – to communistic ideals. These are, however, contrasted with the reality of everyday life: people in general lived their lives as best they could, so that there was barely a difference between them and their Western counterparts.
Yes, there is a palpable presence of the recent past, of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. This culminates in the scene in which the young protagonist talks with his long-dead father who appears in uniform in the company of soldiers. They talk about this and that and eventually the son asks his father for advice about which way in life to follow. The father pauses, then asks his son about the son’s age. I’m twenty-one, answers the son. And I’m twenty, says the father and adds: So, I cannot give you advice. A poignant scene.
The movie was short lived and soon withdrawn from distribution. Why? Because the Soviet tsar – Nikita Khrushchev – did not like the film at all. A father can – and should – always give his child advice, said the Soviet tsar. And besides, why the film shows the Soviet youth as if it were the Western youth? Why does the film not focus on the ideals of communism? And so on. Once the first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union castigated the film director and vilified the story line, the less important officials followed suit. They savaged the movie and the director and the screenwriter. But you know what? The film was withdrawn from cinema theatres not because there was censorship or because the top party bosses did not like it! No, not by any means! The film was withdrawn because it was condemned by… the common people, by the communities, by the individuals that pass you in the street. It was these people who – full of indignation – would write petitions to the newspapers asking for placing a ban on the film. Does that remind you of something? It should.
Well, post a video on YouTube with a certain content and your video will be taken down by YouTube the way I Am Twenty was. And, of course, it is not YouTube that bans your video but the mysterious YouTube community and its mysterious values. You see, that kind of underhand censorship was not peculiar to the Soviet Union. Not at all. Once the gullible citizens of the Soviet Union believed that out there in the West there was freedom of speech. Now they know better. Content is taken down not because of censorship but –just like in the Soviet Union – it is the community, the common people who want to have limited access to information of works of art. You see, it is not the managers of the world but you and me who beg YouTube (and other platforms) to gag the mouths of selected content creators.
To make things even more hilarious, we need to know that Marlen – the first name of the director of I Am Twenty is an artificial name composed of Marx (Mar-) and Lenin (-len); he was raised by parents who were staunch believers in communism and his parents imbued him with respect for the system. The mentioned film ends with the shots presenting the changing of the guards at Lenin’s Mausoleum! Nonetheless, his work of art was viewed as inimical to the Soviet state and detrimental to the viewer.
I Am Twenty was only released in 1989. You watch the movie today and you wonder how was it possible to ban such a work of art, what possible threat did the picture pose to the mighty state, which – what an irony! – eventually disintegrated without people having watched this supposedly dangerous content!
Is it not going to be the same with the content that is banned by YouTube and other platforms? In a decade or three we will wonder why such things were banned. And – yes – in a decade or three the current system will collapse like the Soviet Union without us having seen the banned content. Because it is not the work of art or information that kills the system: the system kills itself because it is built on shaky foundations and supported by lies. Again and again the managers of the world think they can control minds and reality. How wrong they are!
