Sergei Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair: The Making and Unmaking of "Que Viva Mexico!"

Annotated Bibliography

A. Articles and Books(in Chronological Order)

FISCHER, LOUIS. “Mass Movies,” Nation, CXXV (9 November 1927), 507-508. Explains “naturalistic” basis of Soviet film method, montage, and expresses Eisenstein’s hope of coming to U.S.A. to learn “America’s highly developed movie technique.”

GRUENING, ERNEST. Mexico and its Heritage. New York, 1928. One of the books studied by Eisenstein in connection with the Mexican film.

MOUSSINAC, LEON. Le Cinéma Soviétique. Paris, 1928.

RICHMAN, A. “Sergei M. Eisenstein,” Dial, LXXXVI (April 1929), 311-314.

BRENNER, ANITA. Idols Behind Altars. New York, 1929. One of the most influential books consulted by Eisenstein in connection with the Mexican film.

New York Times, 16 February 1930, p. 5. Report of interview with Eisenstein originally published in Het Volk , Amsterdam.

Pour Vous (Paris), 1 May 1930. Reports Eisenstein’s engagement by Paramount.

New York Times, 21 May 1930, p. 33. Eisenstein honored at luncheon by Russian-American Institute.

“Eisenstein Predicts New Type of Film,” Boston Globe, 27 May 1930. Reports of Eisenstein’s lecture in the Baker Memorial Library of the Harvard Business School, 26 May 1930.

Motion Picture Herald, 28 June 1930. Publishes anti-Eisenstein denunciations by Major Pease.

Rob Wagner’s Script, 28 June 1930. Reports anti-Eisenstein statements by Major Pease.

HONIG, ERWIN. “In Eisenstein’s Domain,” Experimental Cinema , I (June 1930), 4-5. Article translated from Internationale Filmschau (Prague). Notes on Eisenstein’s current activities, his departure for Hollywood, and his plans to film Marx’s Capital.

LORY, JAQUES. Cinémonde (Paris), XXXIX (31 July 1930). Report of Press banquet in honor of Eisenstein. See Eisenstein’s letter of 9 October 1930 in this journal.

Rob Wagner’s Script, 9 August 1930. Account of Ernst Lubitsch’s dinner in honor of Eisenstein.

HOWARD, CLIFFORD. “Eisenstein in Hollywood,” Close-Up (London), VII (August 1930), 139-142. Speculates on Eisenstein’s visit to Hollywood. Contrasts his distinguished work with the stereotypes of Hollywood.

New York Times, 27 September 1930, p. 1. Congressional Committee investigating Communism in U.S.A. warned of Eisenstein’s activities as a film director when he begins work at Paramount-Famous-Lasky.

MARSHALL, H. J. P. “Moscow Invited to Hollywood,” Moscow News , 5 October 1930. Mentions Eisenstein’s plans to film Marx’s Capital and his problems over the script of An American Tragedy.

EISENSTEIN, S. M. “Après le Banquet d’Hollywood,” Cinémonde (Paris), CHI (9 October 1930). Letter to Leon Moussinac contradicting Lory’s report previously published in Cinémonde.

“Beau Geste,” Outlook and Independent, CLVI (12 November 1930), 406. Eisenstein just terminated a six month contract with Paramount without shooting any film. Bought N.Y. Russian rights to Kaufman-Hart satire on Hollywood, Once in a Lifetime, with intention of mounting a Moscow production. Eisenstein said, “I have been here for six months on a very big salary and I have, like the mother in the play, done nothing. I was on the verge of beginning a production several times, but in every instance there would be a series of conferences, and then, phfftt! everything was off. . . . It is a strange place, this Hollywood. . . .”

SEILER, CONRAD. “The Red Mongers Go West,” New Republic, LXIV (12 November 1930), 346-348. Account of the Fish Committee investigation of communist activities in California, and its inquiry into Eisenstein’s presence in the U.S.

WATTS, RICHARD, JR. “The Passing of Eisenstein,” Film Mercury, XIV (November 1930). On Eisenstein, the Fish Committee, Pease, and Paramount.

“Eisenstein Says ‘Adios,’ “ Los Angeles Times, 7 December 1930. Interview with Eisenstein concerning his Mexican plans and his remarks on miniature golf. His misgivings about the routine future of sound films.

SELDES, GILBERT. [“Letter to Editor”], New Republic , LXIV (17 December 1930), 140. Apologizes for his erroneous statements on Eisenstein’s salary.

“El Sr. Eisenstein, Director Ruso de Cine, Estuvo Detenido 24 Horas,” El Universal (Mexico City), 23 December 1930. On Eisenstein’s arrest and detention.

“Cinematografista Ruso A Quien Se Le Detuvo En Un Centrico Hotel,” Grafico (Mexico City), 23 December 1930.

New York Times, 24 December 1930, p. 5. Mexico considers deportation of Eisen־ stein on a charge of being a Communist agent.

TILDESLEY, ALICE. “What Happened to Eisenstein?” Theatre Guild Magazine, VIII (February 1931), 54, 56. Recapitulates events leading to the stalemate of Eisenstein’s plans to complete a film in Hollywood and recounts how he came to work on the Mexican project. Reports his views on the state of American civilization.

GUTMAN, WALTER. “News and Gossip,” Creative Art, VIII (March 1931), 94. Refers to Tissé’s statement that the technique of the film will be “evolved from the technique of the Orozco murals.”

MIRSKY, D.S. “Books and Films in Russia,” Yale Review, XX (March 1931), 472-487.

B[USTAMENTE], A. F. “Eisenstein El Magnifico,” El Ilustrado (Mexico City), 11 June 1931, pp. 24-25, 47. Photos of many parts of the film.

B[USTAMENTE], A. F. “Los Indios del Senor Eisenstein,” El Ilustrado (Mexico City), 25 June 1931, pp. 24-25, 43. Photographs from Hacienda sequence.

“Sergio Eisenstein ha Sido Descubierto en Mexico,” La Opinion (Los Angeles), 5 July 1931. Has photo of Eisenstein and A. Best-Maugard.

“Film ando uno Pelicula dio Mue rte a su Propria Hermana,” El Universal (Mexico City), 18 July 1931. Recounts accidental shooting.

LEIVA, A. A. “Eisenstein in Mexico,” Orbe, No. 21 (31 July 1931). With six excellent stills.

El Universal (Mexico City), 2 August 1931. A page containing six stills from the film.

B[USTAMENTE], A. F. El Ilustrado (Mexico City), 8 October 1931, pp. 10-11, 43. Stills of film material shot at Hacienda.

MIRSKY, D. S. “The Soviet Films,” Virginia Quarterly Review, VII (October 1931), 522-532.

WILSON, EDMUND. “Eisenstein in Hollywood,” New Republic, LXVIII (4 November 1931), 320-322. Article republished in Wilson’s book, American Jitters, 1932, pp.244-253; Wilson’s The American Earthquake, 1958, pp.397-413. See Eisenstein’s reply below, 9 December 1931.

HALPRIN, MORRIS . “Eisenstein’s New Film,¹’ New York Times, 29 November 1931, “Screen Section,” p. 6. Long article on Eisenstein at work. EISENSTEIN, S. M. “A Mexican Film and Marxian Theory: A Communication,” New Republic, LXIX (9 December 1931), 99-100. Eisenstein’s contradiction of Edmund Wilson’s imputations that the Soviet director would have the creative freedom in Mexico that had been denied him in the USSR. Wilson’s article, “Eisenstein in Hollywood,” appeared in New Republic, 4 November 1931. El Ilustrado (Mexico City), 24 December 1931, pp. 22-23. Photographs of General Calles, the Mexican President. Eisenstein talking to Calles, Tissé and Eisenstein filming the president, pp. 22 & 41, unsigned article “Eisenstein y Nuestros Grandes PoHticos.”

HERRING, HUBERT C. Genius of Mexico. New York, 1931. One of the books studied by Eisenstein in connection with his work on the Mexican film. “Eisenstein Halted at Mexican Border,” New York Sun, 22 February 1932. New York Times, 22 February 1932, p. 2. Eisenstein refused re-entry from Mexico to U.S.A.

“Backers Need Eisenstein or No Film,” Variety, 1 March 1932.

“Barred from U.S. Serge Will Cut Film Abroad,” Variety, 15 March 1932.

B[USTAMENTE], A. F. “Eisenstein en México,” Nuestro México (Mexico City), I (March 1932), 11, 14, 15. Stills of the Mexican film. Pasadena Post, 3 April 1932. Laurence Stallings deeply impressed by 10 reels of Mexican film.

“Thinks Hollywood Gagged to Death; Afraid of New Things,” Los Angeles Times, 26 April 1932. Interview with Eisenstein. Film Kurier (Berlin), 28 April 1932. Eisenstein, interviewed by Lotte Eisner, talks about his plans for editing the Mexican film. KIRSTEIN, LINCOLN. “Que Viva Mejico!” Art Weekly, I (30 April 1932), 76, 178-179. Response to viewing 30 reels of film. “Eisenstein’s Monster,” Time, XIX (2 May 1932), 24. Interview with Eisenstein prior to his departure for Russia. WATTS, RICHARD, JR. “Mexico as Done by Eisenstein,” New York Herald Tribune, 15 May 1932.

“Eisenstein, Sinclair Can’t Agree on B[ox] Offfice],” Variety, 5 July 1932.

“Eisenstein’s Plans,” Living Age, CCCXLII (July 1932), 462-463. Records Eisenstein’s plans for the future on his return from Mexico and the U.S.A. States his intentions of producing a travel film of Russia and a modern Götterdämmerung picture set to Wagner’s music and depicting the dissolution of the old social order. Also explains the fiasco of the American Tragedy project and the Mexican film.

LEIVA, A. A. “México y la tragedia de Eisenstein,” El Nacional (Mexico City), 11 September 1932.

“La Pelicula Que Hizo En Mexico Sergio Eisenstein,” El Universal (Mexico City), 11 September 1932.

“Bankers Seek Out 75 G Tied Up in Eisenstein Film,” Variety, 20 September 1932.

“Eisenstein and Sinclair,” Variety, 15 November 1932.

BEST־MAUGARD, ADOLFO. “Mexico into Cinema,” Theatre Arts Monthly, XVI (November 1932), 926-933. An appreciation of the original Que Viva Mexico! by the party’s chief advisor.

“Cut Eisenstein Film is a Travelog,” Variety, 6 December 1932.

STERN, SEYMOUR. “ Que Viva Mexico! The Fate of Eisenstein’s American Film,” Cinema Quarterly (Edinburgh), I (Winter 1932), 73-80. “In a word, the fate of the film itself already overshadows the historical tragedy which it was intended to depict. It is without doubt the greatest single tragedy of the cinema and one of the saddest in the history of art.”

LEIVA, A. A. “Eisenstein’s Film on Mexico,” Experimental Cinema, I (1932), 5-6. Eisenstein’s assistant reveals director’s intentions regarding the film.

HALPRIN, MORRIS. “Que Viva Mexico,” Experimental Cinema, I (1932), 13-17. A study of Eisenstein’s methods of work on the Mexican film. Includes a sketch of the various episodes of the film.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. American Outpost. New York, 1932. See “Envoi,” pp.268-273.

London Weekly Diary, 18 January 1933. On TOM: “On reflection we think M. Eisenstein has himself to blame. If we are asked to write an article ana turn out an encyclopedia we cannot blame the editor; it is an established dictum that the artist must work within the limits of his art.”

PEET, CREIGHTON. “History in Fine Films of Three Nations,” Stage, February 1933, p. 40. Includes a discussion of the treatment of history in the Mexican film.

“Reisenfeld Music in Thunder Over Mexico Variety, 28 March 1933.

MONTAGU, IVOR. “Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair,” New Clarion (London), 8 May 1933. Ivor Montagu blames Sinclair’s “destructive impatience” for allowing a “hack” to work with “some of the most magnificent movie material in history.”

Hollywood Reporter, XIV (11 May 1933), 4. Unsigned review of TOM.

CROW, JAMES FRANCIS. “Backers Face Bitter Attack in Manifesto,” Hollywood Citizen News, 13 May 1933, p. 4. On manifesto by Seymour Stern against Lesser’s version.

WAGNER, ROB. Rob Wagner’s Script, 13 May 1933. Review article on TOM. [Reprinted as broadside.]

SCHEUER, PHILIP K. Los Angeles Times, 14 May 1933. Review of TOM.

“Communists See Red But Control Selves,” Variety, 16 May 1933. On lack of expected demonstrations against Sinclair at Los Angeles preview of TOM. Details of campaign against film. Heavy police guard outside the Carthay Circle Theatre, L.A.—where the film was previewed. Indicates falsely that Sol Lesser planned to sell 180,000 ft. of unused film—presumedly as stock footage.

“Photo Beauty and Angles for Ballyhoo Loom Here,” Hollywood Herald, 18 May 1933, p. 6.

“Long-Delayed Mexico Film to Be Shown,” San Francisco Chronicle, 21 May 1933. Variety, 21 May 1933. Identifying Harry Chandlee and Donn Hayes as editors of TOM.

BURNS, HELEN. Hollywood Screen World, VI (28 May 1933), 6. Review of TOM.

Calls it a story “with Russian art against a Mexican background.” LEIVA, A. A. “ ‘Viva Mexico’ y ‘Rayos y Truenos Sobre Mexico’ Palabra Final en el caso Eisenstein-Sinclair,” El Nacional (Mexico City), 10 June 1933. MOEN, LARS. “The Fate of Eisenstein’s Mexican Film,” Moscow News, 10 June 1933, p. 5. Contains interview with Eisenstein who “spoke quite without bitterness” about disappearance from TOM of historical background of people and “the main revolutionary theme.” WAGNER, ROB. “Dons, Docks, and Damages,” Liberty, no. 24 (17 June 1933). Review of TOM.

AM AYA, J. “La Pelicula Mexicana de Eisenstein,” Crom (Mexico City), (Organo de la Confederacio Regional Obrero Mexicana), June 1933. “Manifesto on Que Viva Mexico!,” Experimental Cinema, no. 4 (June 1933).

Protests mutilation of the film. SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Thunder over Eisenstein,” New Republic, LXXV (5 July 1933), 210. An open letter in which Upton Sinclair reviews his connection with the film. Later issued as broadside. See also discussion of this article in New Republic LXXV (9 August 1933), 344-345. LXXVI (23 August 1933), 49. LXXVI (6 September 1933), 104. TROY, WILLIAM. “The Eisenstein Muddle,” Nation, CXXXVII (19 July 1933), 83-84. “What the current dispute has brought out more clearly than anything else . . . is a recognition on the part of a number of people of the importance of cutting or montage in a film.” Modern Monthly, VII (July 1933), 373-375. Letters by Seymour Stern, Herman G.

Weinberg concerning Eisenstein and Sinclair. GEORGE, G-L. “ ‘Que Viva Mexico,’ film américain renié par Eisenstein,” Pour

Vous (Paris), 3 August 1933. “Mexican Film to Show Here—Hunter S. Kimbrough, Greenwood Boy, Managed Production of Universal Film,” Greenwood (Miss.) Commonwealth, 7 August 1933, p. 7.

“La Pelicula de Eisenstein Salio Sin Haberse Aprobado. El Capitalisto Norteamericano Upton Sinclair no Cumplió lo Estipulado con el Sr. Best Maugard, Designado Supervisor Oficial de la Cinta,” El Nacional (Mexico City), 9 August 1933.

“More Thunder over Eisenstein,” New Republic, LXXV (9 August 1933), 344-345. Letters from Seymour Stern, A. A. Leiva, H. W. L. Dana in response to a letter by Sinclair in the issue of 5 July 1933. “Eisenstein’s Film Up Against Many Tangles,” Variety, 15 August 1933. Concerns injunctions taken out by Eisenstein’s attorneys in U.S.A. and also protests against showing of the film by the Mexican government. BOND, KIRK. “Destruction of a Masterpiece,” Adelphi (London), VI (August 1933), 372-374. Review, denouncing Sol Lesser and Upton Sinclair’s editing of the film and the elimination of Eisenstein’s montage.

B[RAUN], B. “Mutilation of a Masterpiece: S. M. Eisenstein’s Que Viva Mexico “ Film Art (London), I (Summer 1933), 23. “The whole American avant-garde has risen against the Hollywood version of Eisenstein’s film he made in Mexico. That this said-to-be masterpiece should have been mutilated by a bunch of commercialists whose knowledge of montage leaves much to be desired, is a proof of the commercial ethics that have always dominated Hollywood.”

SETON, MARIE. “Eisenstein Aims at Simplicity,” Film Art (London), I (Summer 1933), 27-28. “At last the mutilated version of the film Eisenstein made in Mexico has been shown in America: naturally amid a storm of controversy. . . . Only one episode out of the great mass of material shot by Eisenstein has been used ... it is now more the work of . . . Tissé than of Eisenstein, whose conception and meaning only come to life in the editing room. No greater tragedy could have befallen Eisenstein than to have had the work of fourteen months put upon the commercial market in an entirely foreign form, dominated not by ideas but by beautiful camera angles. What would have been a profound philosophical and social document of the Mexican people has been reduced into a beautiful study in anthropology. Such an attitude is indicative of Hollywood’s prostitution of the artist to commercialism. . . .”

COHEN, JOHN S. New York Herald Tribune , 2 September 1933. Review of TOM.

“Projection Jottings,” New York Times, 3 September 1933. Brief account of the history of the Mexican film; mentions forthcoming première at the Rialto Theatre in New York, scheduled for 15 September 1933.

New Republic, LXXVI (6 September 1933), 104. Letter to editor by Kate Crane-Gartz, in defense of Sinclair.

“Sinclair Ruined Eisenstein Film, Mexicans Hold,” New York Herald Tribune, 16 September 1933. Report of Leiva’s denunciation of Sinclair.

Excelsior (Mexico City), 19 September 1933, p. 1. Report of Leiva’s statement on Sinclair and Eisenstein, made before the Centro Nacional de Ingenieros, Mexico City.

“Upton Sinclair Critic ‘Bounced’ at Film Debut,” New York Herald Tribune, 19 September 1933. Report of ejection of Lincoln Kirstein from special showing of the film at the New School for Social Research, N.Y., 18 September 1933.

GRIJALVA, S. R. “Con un Discipilo de Eisenstein,” Todo (Mexico City), No. 3 (19 September 1933). With photos of Leiva, Liceaga, and Eisenstein.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. [“Circular Letter”] 20 September 1933. Circular open letter concerning TOM. [Quoted extensively by Marie Seton in her biography of Eisenstein, pp. 266, 272, 274.]

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Sinclair Explains,” New York Sun, 22 September 1933, p.30.

BOEHNEL, WILLIAM. New York World Telegram, 23 September 1933. Review of TOM.

DELEHANTY, THORNTON. New York Post, 23 September 1933. Review of TOM.

WATTS, RICHARD, JR. New York Herald Tribune, 23 September 1933. Review of TOM.

“Mexican Movie Evokes Thunder Over Sinclair. Workers Protest Against Hollywood Version of Eisenstein’s Work,” Daily Worker (New York), 26 September 1933, p. 5. Deals with Sinclair speaking and answering questions at the Rialto première. Variety, 26 September 1933. Review of TOM.

New York Herald Tribune, 29 September 1933. Refers to sign on the Rialto Theatre, 42nd St. : “Upton Sinclair Presents Thunder Over Mexico.’ “ No indication of Eisenstein’s connection with the film.

BEST-MAUGARD, ADOLFO. Close Up (London), X (September 1933), 256-257. A letter from the overseer of the Department of Fine Arts, Mexico, recapitulating his connection with the original Eisenstein version of the film and disclaiming all responsibility for the version edited by Sol Lesser.

STERN, SEYMOUR; LEIVA, AUGUSTIN ARAGON; and others. Close Up (London), X (September 1933), 248-254. A second manifesto on the “mutilation” of Que Viva Mexico!

BULL, H. A. “Twelfth Street Razz,” Town and Country, 1 October 1933. Concerns ejection of Lincoln Kirstein from première of TOM.

HALL, MORD AUNT. New York Times, 1 October 1933. Review of TOM.

WATTS, RICHARD, JR. New York Herald-Tribune, 1 October 1933. Review of TOM.

BARRY, IRIS. Museum of Modern Art Bulletin, II (2 October 1933), Review of TOM.

New York Evening Post, 2 October 1933. Caricature cartoon of the film.

P., J. “Royos y Truenos Sobre Mexico,” Todo (Mexico City), V (3 October 1933).

LITTELL, ROBERT. “Tempest Over Eisenstein,” New Republic , LXXVI (4 October 1933), 213-214. Summary of the TOM controversy.

TROY, WILLIAM. “Selections from Eisenstein,” Nation, CXXXVII (4 October 1933), 391-392. Review of TOM.

New York Herald Tribune, 8 October 1933. Reports Sinclair’s announcement that half-a-dozen or more Eisenstein releases will follow TOM, which had just closed at the Rialto movie-house. One of the later films would be concerned with a bullfight. The others would include travelogues.

“Smile Suh!,” Variety, 10 October 1933.

WOODWARD, HELEN. “Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair,” Nation, CXXXVII ( 11 October 1933), 410. Letter in defense of Sinclair.

GARLAND, HILL. “Stürm über Mexiko Eisensteins Neuer Film,” Zürcher Illustrierte, 13 October 1933, p. 1322.

LoRENTZ,PARE. Vanity Fair, October 1933. Review of TOM.

STERN, SEYMOUR. “The Greatest Thing Done This Side of the Atlantic,” Modern Monthly, VII (October 1933), 525-532. Stern denounces Sinclair as a “sordid” money-grubber.

BOHNEL, WILLIAM. New York World-Telegram, 1 November 1933. Review of TOM. [Differs from Bohnel’s review of 23 September 1933.]

COHEN, JOHN S., JR. New York Sun, 1 November 1933. Review of “Eisenstein in Mexico,” additional 5,000 feet of film.

New York Times, 1 November 1933. Reviews unfavorably “Eisenstein in Mexico.”

WATTS, RICHARD, JR. New York Herald Tribune, 1 November 1933. Review of “Eisenstein in Mexico.”

COWAN, MAURICE. “Sol Lesser arrives with Eisenstein film,” Kinematograph Weekly (London), 2 November 1933, p. 38. Interview with Sol Lesser on his arrival in England for the British première of TOM. Lesser’s remarks include: “I don’t know what stories you have heard about this embattled picture . . . but here is the authentic version. ... I was asked to take charge of the film. I read the scenario and cut the picture according to the best interpretation I could put on it. I could not enter Eisenstein’s mind, and I confined my job to making a film for entertainment purposes, which I regard as the function of the screen.” MARTIN, MILDREN. “A Motion Picture Masterpiece of Mexico Earns the Enco-

miums of Leopold Stokowski,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 19 November 1933. New Movie Magazine, November 1933, p. 11. Three stills. Survey Graphic, XXII (November 1933), 558-559. Review of TOM. “Soviet Cinema News,” New York Times, 17 December 1933. Long article on Eisenstein’s current activities back in U.S.S.R.—a new film called “Moscow” to be shot in the fall of 1934. [Letter to the editor.] Close-Up, X28)־־ December 1933), 361. Letters by Kenneth Macpherson and Upton Sinclair. The latter defends himself against charges made by A. Best-Maugard in the September issue of Close-Up. EISENSTEIN, S. M. “The Cinema in America,” International Literature (Moscow), No. 3 (1933).

STERN, SEYMOUR, and BRAVER-MANN, BARNET G. “Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair,” Film Art (London), II (Winter 1933), 67. Brief selection of previously published comments on the film—most of which are highly critical of Sinclair. Stern’s comments conclude: “And the facts are that QUE VIVA MEXICO is being shown in a mutilated edition called THUNDER OVER MEXICO, and that a film which might have been one of the greatest motion pictures ever made has been reduced to a travelogue. . ..”

LEJEUNE, C. A. “Thunder on the Left,” The Observer (London) (7 January 1934). Review of TOM. “It is lovely to look at, tiresome to hear, with a sophisticated musical setting and puerile in its arguments. Whatever Eisenstein’s original conception may have been, it is safe to assume that it was better than the present one “

Referee (London), 7 January 1934. “As a matter of fact Thunder Over Mexico’ has been excellently ‘cut,’ and so far as one may judge the only point which Eisenstein himself might criticize is the shortness of an almost communistic ending. .. .”

Sunday Express (London), 7 January 1934. Unsigned review of TOM. “As a straightforward story it is a good, exciting, pictorially beautiful show. Of the message that Eisenstein wanted to get across about Mexican peonage there is little left. . . . But if it is not what Eisenstein would have wanted it to be, the film as a whole is very much above the average, in spite of being in silent form with spoken sub-titles. You ought not to miss seeing it.” DUNSTAN, ERIC. The Star (London), 8 January 1934. Review of TOM. “Given a good cameraman and director, and one-quarter the resources afforded to Eisenstein, I’m positive that I, with no experience whatever, could have made a much better film.”

The Times (London), 8 January 1934. Unsigned review of TOM. “Each episode is solidly imagined, and its presentment comes as near to composing the quarrel between purely pictorial and purely dramatic values as any film in which human beings figure has ever got... in the title itself romance beats down on the political implications.”

GRIERSON, JOHN. “Heavy Weather Over Mexico,” New Britain, 10 January 1934, p. 222. Waste of time to speculate on what Eisenstein might have made of TOM.

“Thunder Over Mexico,” Kinematograph Weekly (London), 11 January 1934, p. 8. “This picture . . . fails to live up fully to expectations, the moral of its message being somewhat obscure. Pictorially it is remarkably fine, but the vehicle selected by the producer for dramatization is weak, the weaknesses are accentuated by excessive camera treatment.”

DAVY, CHARLES. “Thunder Over Mexico,” Spectator (London), CLII (12 January 1934), 46. “. . . the cutting is vigorous and efficient, and no one, certainly, can accuse Mr. Sinclair of having watered down the Marxian moral. Indeed, the film—silent, with a good musical accompaniment—would be more dramatically successful if its Marxian intention were not so evident from the start. . . . Eisenstein’s camera-man, Tissé, has done marvellous work in the pure, harsh Mexican sunshine. ... I have never felt the atmosphere of a distant country so powerfully present on the screen.”

Daily Worker (New York), 18 January 1934. Attacks insincerity of Experimental Cinema clique.

The New English Weekly, 18 January 1934, pp. 327-328. Review of TOM and Old and New.

MONTAGU, IVOR. “The Sinclair Tragedy,” New Statesman and Nation, VII (20 January 1934), 85-86. “Tragedy lies in the self-exposure of a man who for so many years has been in the forefront of the struggle for liberal ideas.”

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Thumb Over Mexico,” New Britain, 24 January 1934. “The protest against political censorship of motion pictures is one of the greatest in most of our so-called civilized countries and I thought that your readers might be interested to have the following item of information with regard to the British censorship of the Eisenstein picture, Thunder Over Mexico.’

“American producers of this picture were compelled by British censorship to make a number of cuts. One such cut was when Maria was praying over the dead body of her lover, she was not permitted to use the words, ‘Christ, deliver us.’ I do not understand the basis for this cut, whether it is forbidden to mention Christ on the motion •picture screen or whether it is forbidden that a Catholic girl should pray to him. Another cut was ordered of the title reading as follows: ‘The blood and strife of the new revolution ended oppression, overthrew tyrants.’ This referred to Mexican history of 1914.”

BRUNIUS, J -B. “Que Viva Mexico! Ou Tempête sur le Mexique,” Regardes (Paris), III (January 1934), 4-5.

RÖTHA, PAUL. “London’s West End Sees ‘Thunder Over Mexico,’ “ Public Ledger (Philadelphia), 11 February 1934. “Let us . . . steal a laugh at the poops who clap their flabby hands at what Upton has permitted them to see.”

GERSTEIN, EVELYN. “Eisenstein Seen In His Missing Reels,” Boston Transcript, 14 February 1934. Review of TOM in the light of omitted fragments.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Thunder Over Mexico,” New Statesman and Nation, VII (10 March 1934), 339-340. Sinclair counters charges made against him by Ivor Montagu in 20 January 1934 issue of New Statesman and Nation.

Sociology and Social Research (Los Angeles), XVIII (March 1934), 398. Unfavorable comparison of Cavalcade (1933) with TOM.

RÖTHA, PAUL. Cinema Quarterly (Edinburgh), II (Spring 1934), 182, 185. Objects to attribution of TOM to Eisenstein and to extreme use of filters. R[OTHA], P[AUL]. “Thunder Over Mexico, יי Sight and Sound, III (Spring 1934), 30-31. “Probably more ink has been spilt and more reputations soiled over this picture than any other since cinema began. . . . Let it suffice to report that the film bearing this name contains little which should be associated with Eisenstein. ... To take a director’s uncut print and edit it to fit an entirely different conception is an act of vandalism which merely inspires contempt for the perpetrator. . . . We are so accustomed to socialist views being muzzled by upholders of the capitalist system that for socialist to thwart socialist is something new even in cinema.”

SETON, MARIE. “Review of Thunder Over Mexico,” Film Art (London), III (Spring 1934), 21-22. “The advance-guard, which has been prosecuting for months, is now answered. ‘The film was edited in accordance with Eisenstein’s own scenario bearing his pencil annotations on the side.’ Well, anyone with the slightest understanding of film aesthetic knows that a film cannot be cut to order in quite that way. . . . [MJoments could be mentioned that bear the authentic Eisenstein touch. But the nuances of form that he would have created by cutting and recutting, they are pitifully lost in Hollywood misunderstanding of the medium. . . . What Eisenstein would have created one can but guess. ... Of what use to speak of this as a film? One can only consider it as a series of photographs, and the best possible proof that composition is not form until it is ruled by some intent.”

New York Herald Tribune, 29 April 1934. Ban on TOM declared by Union of Motion Picture Employees of Mexico, which includes the personnel of all film-houses in the Federal district. The film, already booked for showing in one of the largest houses in Mexico City, was forcibly canceled by the Union’s action. “Thunder Over Mexico Okayed by Mex Gv’t.,” Variety, 8 May 1934. “No ‘Thunder’ in Mexico,” Variety, 22 May 1934.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Reply to Eisenstein,” New Leader (London), 26 May 1934. SINCLAIR, UPTON . Letter advertising the première of TOM, dated 19 June 1934.

[Facsimile in Seton’s biography, p.283.] SETON, MARIE . “Jottings for ‘Que Viva Mexico,’” Film Art (London), IV (Summer 1934), 79. Marie Seton’s selection of Eisenstein’s notes for his screenplay for the Mexican film. WEINBERG, HERMAN G. In Little Theatres of the South (New Orleans), V (Octo-

ber 1934), 16-18. Objects to misrepresentation of Eisenstein’s project. WEINBERG, HERMAN G. “Cinema America,” Film Art (London), V (Winter 1934), 28-31. Film gossip, including comments on Romance Sentimentale, TOM, and Soviet and Nazi films showing in New York. EISENSTEIN, S. M., and ALEXANDROV, G. V. Experimental Cinema, II (1934), 5-13, 52. Synopsis of the original scenario for Que Viva Mexico! with notes by Seymour Stern, pp.3-4.

STERN, SEYMOUR, and others. Experimental Cinema, II (1934), 14. Deplores “vulgarization” of Eisenstein’s film by commercial interests, and failure of those sympathetic to Eisenstein to raise the $100,000 needed for the purchase of the footage. First issued as a mimeographed leaflet, June 1933. PORTER, KATHERINE ANN. Hacienda. New York, 1934. A story based on the author’s visit to the hacienda Tetlapayac during the filming of the “Maguey” episode. It contains vivid caricatures and vignettes of Eisenstein and party. The same story was later included in her Flowering Judas and Other Stories, New York, 1940.

“Principal,” Motion Picture Herald, 27 April 1935. Trade boost for TOM.

HERRING, HUBERT C., and WEINSTOCK, HERBERT. Renascent Mexico. New York, 1935. With an introduction by Ernest Gruening.

New York Post, 21 February 1936, p. 9. Brief comment on the showing of Death Day at the Youth House, 159 West 49th Street, New York City.

KIRSTEIN, LINCOLN. “Dancing in Films,” New Theatre, III (September 1936), 11-13. Concerns the problems of transposing the art of the dancer to the screen. Kirstein maintains that Eisenstein best “understands the moving body in its stylized lyricism” as demonstrated in his “Xandunga of the Tehuantepec Indians,” an unreleased sequence from the original Mexican film.

RÖTHA, PAUL. Documentary Film. London, 1936.

LONDON, KURT. The Seven Soviet Arts. London, 1937.

CHURCHILL, DOUGLAS W. “Eisenstein’s ‘Viva Mexico’ Reçut—The Liberals at Work,” New York Times, 22 October 1939. On Time in the Sun.

SETON, MARIE. “Treasure Trove,” Sight and Sound, VIII (Autumn 1939), 89-92. Describes the author’s recovery of the original footage of the film, left out of the version edited by the Sol Lesser company. Includes synopses of several sequences.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “I Made a Russian Film,” Cinegram Preview (London), 13 December 1939, pp. 12-13. Brief excerpt on the Mexican film from Sinclair’s American Outpost, 1932.

“Eisenstein’s Film, Lost 8 Years, Comes to N.Y.” PM’s Weekly, 29 September 1940, p. 52. Three good illustrations, and comment on Time in the Sun.

EISENSTEIN, S. M. The Film Sense. New York, 1942. Translated and edited by Jay Leyda. Prints early scenario.

ANSTEY, EDGAR. Spectator (London), CLXXIV (2 February 1945), 103. Review of Time in the Sun. “The London Film Institute Society revived an old controversy at its latest performance by combining into one program all the available material photographed by S. M. Eisenstein in 1932 for his Que Viva Mexico. . . . Sinclair assembled two films, Thunder Over Mexico and Death Day, and now the Institute Society has afforded us the opportunity of seeing for the first time in this country a non-Sinclair film made from Eisenstein’s remaining material and adhering as closely as possible to his original scenario conception. Unless there is still more material to come the evidence seems now somewhat in favor of Mr. Sinclair. His Thunder Over Mexico (apart from a ghastly final sequence) makes not so bad a job of the apparently limited number of episodes which had been photographed, and are to be seen in the new film Time in the Sun.”

ROBINSON, IONE. A Wall to Paint On. New York, 1946. Reminiscences of the Eisenstein party in Mexico—by one who saw them at work there. See pages 169-173.

SETON, MARIE. “Histoire du film inachevé d’Eisenstein: Que Viva Mexico,” Revue du Cinéma (Paris), III (October 1948), 2-8. Twelve illustrations including one portrait Qf Eisenstein and one of Tissé.

DICKINSON, THOROLD, and DE LA ROCHE, CATHERINE. Soviet Cinema. London, 1948.

Eisenstein, 1898-1948, Film Section of the Society for Cultural Relations with the U.S.S.R. [London, 1949]. Contributors: Paul Rötha, Ivor Montagu, John Grierson, Marie Seton, Herbert Marshall. Marie Seton writes at length about Eisenstein, Que Viva Mexico , her intentions in Time In the Sun and her attempt to get negative for Eisenstein just before World War II.

L1NDGREN, ERNEST, ed. Que Viva Mexico! London, 1951. Prints scenario with selection of stills and introduction.

SETON, MARIE. Eisenstein: a Biography. London, 1952. See especially chapters 8 and 9 and appendices 5 and 6.

EISENSTEIN, S. M. “Premessa alla pubblicazione della stesura di Que Viva Mexico! Revista del Cinema Italiano (April-May 1953), pp. 48-55. Screenplay of the Mexican film. Italian text.

Evening News (London), 30 July 1953. TOM shown on BBC television 29 July 1953. “Whatever persuaded BBC to put that horrible film Thunder Over Mexico’ on TV? The announcer admitted that it was a bad copy both as to sound and photography. It certainly was, writes Jympson Harmon. Even if the scrappy story of persecuted Mexican peasants could have been followed you could never call its torture scenes drawing room entertainment. For film enthusiasts Thunder Over Mexico’ has an academic historical interest simply as an essay in low-key photography and as a great experiment gone wrong. Even the neighbors don’t like it.”

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Thunder Over Mexico,” Institute of Social Studies Bulletin [1953-54?], pp. 42-48. Summary account of his involvement with Eisenstein during and after the making of Que Viva Mexico!

BABITSKY, PAUL, and RIMBERG, JOHN. The Soviet Film Industry. New York, 1955.

MITRY, JEAN. S. M. Eisenstein. Paris, 1955. See especially pages 145-155.

MANETTI, ROBERTO. “Ritrovato a New York il negativo originale di Que Viva Me: t- ico!” Cinema Nuovo, LXXXIV ( 10 June 1956), 330.

“1932 Eisenstein Film Draws Raves in Paris,” Variety, 27 February 1957. On French première of Time in the Sun at La Pagode, Paris, 19 February 1957.

“About An Unfinished Film,” Isskustvo Kino (Moscow), No. 5 (May 1957), 104-117. 36 illustrations between pp. 112 and 113. One full page illustration on verso of cover. Includes note from Tissé and “open letter” from Alexandrov reviewing the original expedition to Mexico and his recent visit which has inspired him to seek a way to complete the film according to Eisenstein’s intentions. (In Russian.)

ACIMOVIC, F., and others. Eisenstein: Zivot, Delo, Teorije [Life, Work, Theories], Beograd, 1957. Anthology of criticism and comments; pages 44-52 concern Que Viva Mexico! and gives comment by Ado Kyrou, Marie Seton, M. Bardeche and R. Brasillach. (In Serbo-Croatian.)

RIVETTE, JACQUES. “Que Viva Eisenstein,” Cahiers du Cinema, XIV (January 1958), 20-21. Discusses Eisenstein’s aims and methods as illustrated by the rushes of the Mexican film; includes portrait.

AUTERA, LEONARDO. “Una ‘storia vivente’ del progretto messicano di Eisenstein,” Bianco e Nero (Rome), 10-11 (October 1958), 56-59.

LEYDA, JAY. “Eisenstein’s Mexican Tragedy,” Sight and Sound, XXVII (Autumn 1958), 305-308, 329.

LEYDA, JAY. “Que Viva Mexico,” Deutsche Film Kunst (Berlin), VI (1959), 178-183. Leyda interviewed by Hermann Herlinghaus. The interview is preceded by a brief note by G. V. Alexandrov on Leyda and the Museum of Modern Art acquisition of the Mexican film footage.

LEYDA, JAY. “ ‘Que Viva Mexico,’ ein unvollendetes Werk,” in Sergei Eisenstein, Künstler der Revolution [Berlin-Eisenstein-Konferenz], Henschelverlag, Berlin, 1960, pp. 192-201.

LEYDA, JAY. Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film. London, 1960.

J., S. “Tonnerre Sur Le Mexique: Une Version Mutilée du Plus Beau Film du Monde,” Telerara, 28 May 1961, p. 15.

EISENSTEIN, S. M. Izbrannye Proizvedennye (Selected Works). Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1961-. Edited by L. A. Ilyin. Four of seven volumes have appeared. Herbert Marshall will be general editor of English edition for Dobson (England) and M.I.T. Press.

NIZHNY, VLADIMIR. Lessons with Eisenstein. New York, 1962.

WEINBERG, HERMAN G. “Coffee, Brandy, and Cigars,” Film Culture, No.27 (1962/ 63). The author’s reflections on the viewing of 50,000 feet of Mexican footage in the Museum of Modern Art.

LUCCHETTI, R. F. “Notas sobre ‘Que Viva o Mexico,’ “ Celuloide, April 1963, pp. 6-7.

EISENSTEIN, S. M. “Que Viva Mexico!” Cinéforum, May 1963, pp.439-459. French text of screenplay.

LAWSON, JOHN HOWARD. Film: the Creative Process. New York, 1964.

MOUSSINAC, LEON. Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein. Paris, 1964. General survey of Eisenstein’s work.

GOTTESMAN, RONALD. “Sergei Eisenstein and Upton Sinclair,” Sight and Sound, XXXIV (Summer 1965), 142-143. Reproduces telegram from Stalin and letters from Sinclair.

GARDIES, RENE. “Que Viva Mexico,” Image et Son, CLXXXVII (October 1965), 75-82.

BARNA, ION. Eisenstein. Bucharest, 1966. [In Rumanian; English translation forthcoming.]

SCHNITZER, LUDA and JEAN , with MARTIN, MARCEL. Le Cinéma Soviétique Par Ceux Qui L’Ont Fait. Paris, 1966. See particularly pp. 51-59, a section by G. V. Alexandrov, datelined Moscow, 19 July 1965. Concerning the Mexican film, Alexandrov observes: “Alors que nous étions sur le point de terminer les prises de vues et qu’il ne nous restait que deux à trois mois de travail, Upton Sinclair, l’écrivain américain qui nous finançait, voulant se faire élire gouverneur de Californie, a cru que notre film pourrait nuire à sa réputation lors des élections. Il nous a donc coupé les vivres. ... La pellicule a été expédiée dans nos bagages et elle est arrivée jusqu’au Havre, où elle a été saisie et renvoyée aux Etats—Unis à la demande de Sinclair. Eisenstein s’est querellé avec l’écrivain, qui nous proposait de retourner à Hollywood pour y monter le film. Eisenstein a refusé et n’est retourné en Amérique que pour liquider nos affaires; il a rencontré Sinclair à plusieurs reprises mais sans résultat. . . .”

EISENSTEIN, S. M. Film Essays with a Lecture. London, 1968.

MONTAGU, IVOR. With Eisenstein in Hollywood. New York, 1969.“I do not write about it now to rehash old battles, but to do justice to all. Sergei Mikhailich is gone, Sinclair is a very old man now—passion must be spent. I know the principals. I talked with others. I received letters; to understand the situation is to have compassion. Sinclair dealt harshly with Eisenstein, but he thought that Eisenstein had wronged him. Sinclair accused Eisenstein of impracticality, megalomania, deceit. None of these charges was justified, but Sinclair’s motives had been pure and it was inevitable that he should mistakenly think they were. . . .”

WOLLEN, PETER. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. Bloomington, Ind., 1969. See chapter 1, “Eisenstein’s aesthetics.”

VIERTEL, SALKA. The Kindness of Strangers. New York, 1969. See pp.144-147, 154-160 especially. Letters from Eisenstein to “Zalka” indicate that the Russian “team” thought Que Viva Mexico! their best film and that Eisenstein was profoundly affected by the whole Mexican experience.

B. Manuscripts and Miscellaneous Material (in Chronological Order)

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Eisenstein Comes to Hollywood: A Contribution to Moving Picture History.” Typescript. 15 pages, c. December 1930. Unpublished article reviewing Eisenstein’s stay in Hollywood and how Sinclair and Eisenstein came together and developed plans for a Mexican film. Sinclair was persuaded by John Weatherwax and others to suppress this article.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Opinions of the Cinema Work of Sergei M. Eisenstein.” Single leaf printed both sides, c. December 1930. Consists of compilation of favorable comments prepared as publicity material by Sinclair.

SINCLAIR, UPTON, and MARY CRAIG . “Urgent and Strictly Confidential :A Statement concerning Eisenstein.” Unpublished typescript. 2 pages, c. January 1931. Fragment of statement evidently prepared to interest investors in the film. It contains the following comment. “Having come to know Eisensten well, we are convinced of his personal, as well as artistic, integrity. He will do what he agrees to do, and we do not see how such a picture can possibly fail to return the money and make large profit.”

LEIVA, AUGUSTIN ARAGON. “What’s Eisenstein Doing in Mexico?” Typescript. 1 page. 14 June 1931. In Museum of Modern Art.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “The Eisenstein Picture: A Statement from the other side of the case.” Unpublished typescript. 3 pages, c. January 1932. Statement in self-defense.

SINCLAIR, MARY CRAIG. “Announcement Extraordinary! Thunder Over Mexico (and Lightning Over Upton!).” Broadside, c. May 1933. Ironic announcement of film prior to release.

LEIVA, AUGUSTIN ARAGON. “The Destruction of Eisenstein’s Mexican Film.” Undated typescript. 3 pages, c. May-June 1933. In Museum of Modern Art.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Thunder Over Mexico.” Single sheet printed both sides. Reprinted in part from New Republic, 5 July 1933.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. Circular letter. Broadside.21 August 1933. “After thirty-three months the chariotwheels of Sergei Eisenstein have rolled on, . . .’י

SINCLAIR, MARY CRAIG. Typescript.10 pages, c. September 1933. Unpublished letter to Editor of New Republic recounting her stewardship as trustee of the Mexican picture.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Introduction to Hacienda.” Unpublished typescript.2 pages. 1933. Text of prefactory statement filmed for inclusion in TOM.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Thunder Over Mexico.” Unpublished typescript. 5 pages. Written in 1933. Defense of Lesser’s work on the film. SINCLAIR, UPTON. “The Eisenstein Picture—A Statement from the other side of the Case.” Typescript of unpublished article. 3 pages, c. 1933. Seems to be addressed to a magazine in reply to a previously published article or letter.

Sindicato de Empleados Cinematografistas del Distrito Federal. Circular mimeo— typescript. 3 pages. 23 April 1934. Boycott notice against TOM. In Museum of Modern Art collection.

Workers Film and Photo League and Anti Imperialist League of America. “Thunder Over Mexico’VLies! Broadside, c. 1934. Two states; 1) Intended for protest in New York. 2) Intended for protest in Chicago. Essentially same text in both states.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. “Eisenstein Repents.” Typescript. 10 pages, c. 1936.

A Season of the Films of Sergei Eisenstein: 1st October 1963—13th October 1963.London, 1963. Mimeographed booklet. Issued by the National Film Archive and the British Film Institute for a season of films at the National Film Theatre, London. Contains contributions (mainly reprinted material) by Jay Leyda, Marie Seton, Roger Manvell, and David Robinson.

LEIVA, AUGUSTIN ARAGON. “Eisenstein’s Political Conceptions on Mexico.” Undated typescript in Museum of Modern Art. 2 pages.

LEYDA, JAY. “Eisenstein’s Mexican Film—Episodes for Study.” Undated typescript in Museum of Modern Art. 5 pages. Describes the reels and reproduces the continuity notes.

SINCLAIR, UPTON. Reds I Have Known. Undated typescript.10 pages. Chapter VIII of unpublished MS by Sinclair; chapter entitled “Thunder Over Mexico.”

WEINBERG, H. G., compiler. “Report on miscellaneous Eisenstein footage for Que Viva Mexico!” Undated typescript in Museum of Modern Art. 2 pages.

WEINBERG, H. G., compiler. “Breakdown of materials screened from footage shot for Que Viva Mexico!” Undated typescript in Museum of Modern Art. 5 pages.