"School cinema" of the mid-1970s: "education of feelings" and love discourse (on the example of the film "One Hundred Days after childhood")

Smirnov Aleksei Doctor of Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of Cultural Studies, Philosophy of Culture and Aesthetics, St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, nab. University, 7-9 darapti@mail.ru

Bezzubova Ol'ga Vladimirovna ORCID: 0000-0002-0494-3386 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, St. Petersburg Mining University 199106, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Saint Petersburg, ul. 21-Ya lin. V.O., 2 bezzubova_olga@mail.ru

IntroductionInterest in Soviet cinema in modern humanities is growing along with the growth of interest in Soviet culture.

Moreover, in the light of modern trends, Soviet cinema can be considered not so much as an artistic phenomenon, but as a cultural phenomenon. This approach allows the researcher to focus on what role it played in the translation of the ideological and cultural narratives of the Soviet state and what socio-cultural standards it formed at the same time. Another important aspect of Soviet cinema as a cultural phenomenon is connected with the question of the specifics of its artistic language, namely, in what artistic form the narratives of power were embodied in films, by what means they were realized, taking the form of artistic utterance.

Soviet art has repeatedly become the subject of analysis by cultural researchers ^[4],[9]. Most authors believe that its specificity is determined by the fact that it is designed in such a way as to carry not so much cultural and aesthetic as political and ideological meanings. Accordingly, Soviet art dedicated to school (literature, painting and cinema) acts as a representative not only of artistic or educational and pedagogical, but also of political and ideological strategies, and since school in the USSR played almost the main role in the process of socialization of children, then the cinema about the school was special.

The "school cinema" can formally include films where the main characters are students, members of the school, educational, collective, teachers also play a significant role. At the same time, we significantly narrow the understanding of "school cinema" that was developed by V. Yu. Mikhailin and G. A. Belyaeva ^[8]. In their opinion, almost any film about school can be attributed to "school cinema", for example, about teachers or about the role of school in building a new society in the early years of Soviet power. The list of films analyzed in the book "Hidden Curriculum. The anthropology of Soviet school cinema of the early 1930s - mid–1960s" ^{[7, pp. 582-583]}, unequivocally allows us to draw such a conclusion. This book V. Yu. Mikhailina and G. A. Belyaeva have exceptional significance for the research of Soviet culture. Despite the fact that we cannot agree with some of their initial attitudes and conclusions, and some of the authors' assumptions are not fully proven, this book forms a model for analyzing Soviet "school cinema" not as a set of individual films, but as a significant phenomenon of Soviet culture. It is for this reason that we will so often refer to the terminology of this book, discuss individual assumptions of its authors or rely on their results. It should also be noted that this book covers the history of Soviet school cinema until the mid-1960s, although the development of the genre of "school cinema" continued further, reaching its heyday by the end of the 1970s. During these years, huge changes took place in Soviet culture, which could not but lead to a change in the artistic strategies of Soviet cinema, including the "school cinema". In the mid-1970s, a number of films about school that were significant for Soviet culture were shot, for example, "The woodpecker's Head does not hurt" (directed by D. Asanova, 1975), "The Key without the right to transfer" (directed by D. Asanova, 1976). Among the "school films" shot during the same period, one can also include the film "What's going on with you?" (directed by V. Sarukhanov, 1975), "Bubbles" (directed by V. Kremnev, 1975) and a number of other films. "School films" were also shot by such well-known domestic directors as I. Maslennikov ("Tomorrow April 3", 1969), V. Grammatikov ("A dog walked on the piano", 1978) and V. Menshov ("Draw", 1976), known for their works not only in "school cinema". These films, as well as the whole tradition of "school cinema" of the late 1960s - early 1980s, have not yet been analyzed in domestic, as well as in foreign, science.

In this article we turn to the film by Sergei Solovyov "One Hundred Days after Childhood", which was released on the screens of Soviet cinemas at the end of 1975. S. Solovyov, having begun his cinematic career with adaptations of Russian classics ("Egor Bulychov and Others", 1971), "The Stationmaster", 1972), gained fame as the author of a number of iconic films of the perestroika era, in particular, the film "Assa" (1987). His trilogy ("One Hundred Days after Childhood", 1975, "The Rescuer", 1980, "The Heiress in a straight Line", 1982), devoted to the problems of growing up, "education of feelings" of Soviet youth, also became widely known. It is in this trilogy that the film we are considering is included. This film was mainly the subject of discussion in critical essays, although its script became the material for structural analysis ^[1]. The realities depicted in the film were also analyzed by V. Yu . Mikhailin in the course of considering a number of features of Soviet culture in the 1970s ^[6].

It seems important to us to fit this film into the general context of Soviet "school" cinema, that is, the network of cultural meanings that V. Yu. Mikhailin and G. A. Belyaeva called the term "hidden curriculum" ^{[7, p. 29]}. Such an intention allows us to formulate the purpose of the work, which is to identify the role that this film played in the development of the theme of the school in Soviet cinema and to indicate those trends of Soviet culture of the 1960s and 1970s that made this development possible.

As a method, we have chosen the methodology of so-called "cultural research", that is, the method of explication of cultural and social meanings based on semiotic and discursive analysis of a work of art. Accordingly, the proposed research does not relate either to the problematic field of art studies or to the aesthetics of Soviet cinema. The approach we have chosen also allows us to reveal how the meanings indicated could be translated by means of cinematography, how the film was embedded in the context of Soviet art and how it formed new contexts.

First love as the education of feelings. The experience of Soviet cinema

S. Solovyov's film "One Hundred Days after Childhood", which has become the subject of analysis, is interesting, first of all, because it demonstrates the emergence of new trends in Soviet cinema of the 1970s.. During this period, the "school cinema", which became in the 1960s, as shown in the book by V. Yu. Mikhailina and G. A. Belyaeva, an important tool for the translation of key concepts of the era of the "thaw", has entered a new phase of its development. High school students, whom we see in Soviet films of the turn of the 1960s and 1970s, are interested not only in their future role in the construction of socialism, but also in issues of relations between the sexes. "School love", which is the theme of several Soviet films of the early 1960s (for example, the films "And if it's love?" (dir. Yu. Raisman, 1961), "Wild Dog Dingo" (directed by Y. Karasik, 1962), etc.), received a more solid cultural legitimization.

Analyzing the film "And if it's love?", V. Yu. Mikhailin and G. A. Belyaeva note ^{[7, pp. 236-285]} that in it, as in several other films of the same period, a problem completely new to Soviet art is touched upon. In a number of "thaw" films about high school students, it is not even about a "big feeling", but rather about the relationship between a student and a student, at the heart of which love could be present as one of the elements. The authors of these films tried to convey to the viewer the idea that "if this is love", then there is no need to fight with it, it has the right to exist. The decision on the future of these relationships was postponed until the end of school and the heroes reached adulthood, the age when the grown-up young people will understand how and in what form they should preserve the feeling that has arisen. It is important that the optimal solution to the question of the future of school love was considered to be the creation of a family and marriage, that is, school, student love was considered as a desexualized form of premarital interpersonal relationships. And although such relationships were not welcomed, which is why none of the Soviet films contained a call for them, the romantic friendship of a student and a student during the "thaw" ceased to be considered as the first step towards moral decline, vice and debauchery. Since Soviet school students still formed, as a rule, gender-homogeneous communities, romantic relationships between high school students remained somewhat atypical, but they were no longer considered a misdemeanor or a crime against the foundations of Soviet morality or the rules of informal communities. The appearance of films on a difficult topic for the early 1960s indicates that Soviet pedagogy and the Soviet school developed the technology of "working out" the youthful love of high school students, more precisely, the craving for each other of some boys and girls who sought to gain a new emotional experience.

The film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" shows us a completely different initial situation. The love story shown in this film has at least two significant features. Firstly, we are not talking about mutual sympathy, but about the unrequited love of the main character, rivalry and refusal to reciprocate feelings. In addition, several characters of the film are involved in this relationship, as a result of which their sympathies are not even a love triangle, but in some significantly more complex figure, and open. In fact, the film shows not so much the development of relationships as their experience by the main character. The second feature of this story is that the underlying feeling has a certain self-worth, and is not a prelude to real, "adult" love. The main character of the film comes to this truth, pronouncing it in the last scene of the film, inventing, like little Hans, one of the key characters of Z. Freud, his comforting myth about the future. Such a narrative acts as a tool for the internalization of the traumatically developed experience of socialization, which serves as a source of neurotic experience. And, finally, the individual trauma caused by youthful infatuation, endowed with a number of signs of "adult" love, requires an adequate language for pronouncing it, talking about it, becoming the only means available to the heroes of its elaboration.

This, perhaps, is the main "historical" significance of the film we are considering, its role in the history of Soviet "school cinema": school love becomes a very important stage in the process of "educating the feelings" of a Soviet student. Thus, a schoolboy of the 1970s is no longer only a fighter for a bright communist future and for the freedom of the Motherland, not only a future worker – builder of socialism and not even just a carrier of specific moral values of a socialist society of full equality. He acquires the right to experience and realize his own emotional, one might even say, existential experience. He comes to moral and ethical values that are no longer connected with the values of socialism, but also do not contradict them. In relation to the ideal image of the Soviet schoolboy of the 1950s and 1960s, the schoolboy of the 1970s is a completely different anthropological type.

School and pioneer camp: the space of learning and the space of educationIn the process of personality formation, a student of the 1970s is still helped by adults, but now, as a rule, they are not parents or teachers.

Moreover, emotional experience, so important for the formation of personality, according to the creators of the film, is best acquired and improved not in the usual space of the school, but in the social space of the school team, placed in a different landscape. It is these properties that the pioneer camp has, where the action of the picture unfolds. Although school is also important, and further we will demonstrate why it is important.

In the pioneer camp, where there are no school classes, teachers and lessons, there are no parents, the group of schoolchildren is immersed in situations of social interaction that are fundamentally different compared to those that occur in their urban life. It is precisely new situations that lead to the formation of a new emotional and social experience (and not only the experience of feelings), which was mentioned above. The pioneer camp is one of the alternative, more precisely, additional models of socialization, the role of which was considered in the work of D. Dimke ^[5], it allows you to test the effectiveness of socializing strategies of Soviet pedagogy and prepare children for social interaction outside the school space. The pioneer camp was already becoming the scene of Soviet "school" films. The painting "Welcome or no trespassing" (directed by E. Klimov, 1964) was analyzed in sufficient detail in the book by V. Yu. Mikhailina and G. A. Belyaeva ^{[7, pp. 498-511]}. However, the pioneer camp in the film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" differs significantly from the camp shown in the film by E. Klimov, which represented a kind of apotheosis of the entire Soviet.

The camp shown in S. Solovyov's film is saturated with traces of the Soviet educational model, some simulacra of the Soviet, that is, signifiers, the way of interpretation of which, if not yet completely lost, is largely deactualized. This camp is an absurdist space due to the fact that it carries both elements of a Russian landowner's estate and features of a Soviet pioneer camp. Such a coexistence of the Soviet and the "old regime" in the space of the pioneer camp, shown in the film "The Bronze Bird" (directed by N. Kalinin, 1974), demonstrated the struggle of the emerging new and outgoing past. In the film by S. Solovyov, shot about a year later, we see the disincarnation of the Soviet, which is already losing its relevance and is looking for support in something more archaic and stable. The absurdity of what is happening is also emphasized by the fact that the manor entourage becomes a space in which a number of typical practices for the pioneer camp unfold (pioneer meetings, rulers, bathing, dancing, amateur concert, etc.), and these practices are readily perceived by the characters, which suggests that the heroes of the film are ordinary Soviet schoolchildren, not unique, although they have a number of special features.

It should be noted that among the inhabitants of the pioneer camp shown in the film, there are no bright "passionate" personalities, and essentially bad characters. We can distinguish only two structural elements, gender and age. The camp levels both the academic performance of its inhabitants and the social status of their parents, although a number of signs (for example, reading the French book "Lettres d'Amour" by the heroine T. Drubich) suggests that the camp's inhabitants do not study in the most ordinary Soviet school.

In the film by S. Solovyov, the pioneer camp not only teaches children work, independence and skills of staying in the pioneer team, but also solves a fundamentally different task. It allows an individual to discover and manifest new qualities and a new vision of the world, which was difficult in the conditions of an urban school. The ideologically neutral name of the camp – "Forest Island" – was also not the most characteristic of Soviet-era children's institutions, but much more important is that the pioneer camp, located on the territory of a noble estate (which, in general, was common in the USSR), symbolically transfers its inhabitants to the space of Russian literature. Russian Russian literature made the image of a noble manor ("noble's nest") one of the archetypes of Russian culture of the XIX century, and was actualized as such during the thaw period.

Russian Literature as a matrix of love discourseThus, another distinctive feature of the film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" is its correlation with the literary text and context.

The events unfolding in the film can be interpreted as a continuation of literature lessons, but not in the school classroom, but in the atopic space of social interaction of schoolchildren. Taking the action outside the walls of the school was supposed to demonstrate the potential of classical literature, acquaintance with which is not limited to simple memorization of educational material, but teaches a person something different. Accordingly, the assimilation of such "material" is possible only where students can acquire a social experience that is different from what is formed in the urban space of the school itself and the family. The film we are considering, therefore, actualizes the question of the role of literature (and even art in general), but not as a school discipline, but as an important tool for "educating feelings", forming the personality of a Soviet person.

The process of assimilation of additional meanings of Russian literature, a kind of "extracurricular reading", takes place without the participation of a teacher, which in a sense problematizes the Soviet pedagogical model itself. Literature is taught by a person who has personal social experience, consonant with what his students should learn. This is exactly the role that Sergey Borisovich (S. Shakurov's character), a layman, a sculptor, who got a job at a pioneer camp for the summer period, performs. There were a lot of such "summer" counselors in Soviet times, when the most important quality of a mentor was not professional education, but a kind of love for children, life wisdom and the desire to share this wisdom with them. This character is contrasted with another heroine of the film, the senior pioneer leader Ksenia Lvovna (played by N. Menshikova), in whose speech there are formal school intonations characteristic of a literature teacher, which in turn casts doubt on the possibility of the school to teach a full understanding of art.

Thus, the film demonstrates to us that teaching literature is a complex process that takes place not only at school. The authors strive to show that literature should not be considered only as a school discipline that allows to form literacy and erudition, it is not limited to the school curriculum. Literature should not be considered only as an instrument of ideological influence. Therefore, in the film, the conversation turns both on the status of Russian literature as a school subject and on art as a way of forming a person. For several generations of the Soviet intelligentsia, literature became the cultural background that was formed at school, but then accompanied a person throughout his life.

The filmmakers draw our attention to another important aspect of the literary text: it becomes a source of love discourse, legitimate for Soviet schoolchildren of the 1970s. This discourse differs significantly from what was offered in school films about love, characteristic of the thaw period ("And if it's love?" (dir. Yu. Raisman, 1961), "Wild Dog dingo" (directed by Y. Karasik, 1962), etc.) and analyzed in detail by V. Yu. Mikhailin and G. A. Belyaeva ^{[7, pp. 236-285]}. The peculiarities of the love collisions of the heroes of the film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" significantly complicate the verbalization of the feelings of the heroes, and the situations themselves that require and allow statements of love turn out to be somewhat different compared to the schematically simplified plots of love-friendship films of the thaw era. In addition, the specifics of the character's experience of the experience of first love required pronouncing, signifying his feelings. Fragments of Russian literary classics are offered to the heroes as the most appropriate words to denote their own lyrical experiences. The creators of the film express the following idea: it is the artistic text that carries words and actions appropriate for expressing one's own feelings, thereby anticipating the original concept elaborated in detail by R. Barth ^[2]. And, on the contrary, nowhere, except in the space of a literary text, such statements are not appropriate at this age: you need to learn to talk about love only from the stage.

However, you can relate your own feelings to a literary text in different ways. Several key episodes of the film in question demonstrate these ways to us. The first of them is a "story" about compote, a prize for the detachment that showed the best output during field work, to which the inhabitants of the pioneer camp were involved. Note the fact that even in a fairly elite pioneer camp in the 1970s, schoolchildren could be attracted to work in the fields of nearby agricultural enterprises. Another interesting point is that the reward is canned cherry compote, most likely imported (most likely Hungarian) production, which was a well-known but rather rare product in the diet of that time ("deficit"). It was this prize, obtained by deception ("postscript"), that caused the main character to clash with the antagonist. Such a situation could become a central ethical problem in a film about a school in the 1950s and 1960s, or even in an adult film on a production theme (for example, the film "Award" (directed by S. Mikaelian, 1974)), but in the film "100 days after childhood" it becomes nothing more than an unsuccessful attempt by the main character to speak out about love. This action-statement, as well as a number of similar ones, are the result of the hero's search for adequate ways to express his feelings for a classmate. It should be noted that the direct forceful clash of the hero with his rival, which became a continuation of the "compote conflict", is also immersed in the literary Pushkin-Lermontov context, since in this confrontation it is possible to distinguish both the actions preceding the duel (insult, challenge) and the duel itself. But the "heroic" actions and sufferings of the character, which should attract the attention of the object of love feelings, do not lead to the desired result.

Only the acquisition of his own, that is, essentially corresponding to the emotional experience, role in the text of Lermontov's "Masquerade" allows the hero to find an adequate way to express his feelings. We consider the production of "Masquerade" as the second key element of the plot of the film, in which we also highlight a number of significant moments. Firstly, M. Y. Lermontov's play "Masquerade" was not included in the standard school literature curriculum, and, nevertheless, its production was readily accepted by the camp residents. This tells us that the children who rested in the camp "Lesnoy Ostrov" studied at a school where considerable attention was paid to the study of Russian literature, although in the 1970s schools with a literary bias were not yet widespread. Secondly, during the work on the play, in which, of course, all the participants in a difficult love relationship were involved, the mutual dislike of the protagonist and his antagonist practically did not manifest itself, which allowed each of them to get a role that best suits his character. We can assume that the literary text, the space of literature, as well as "real" art in general, was destined to play the role of a universal conciliator, a means of resolving "spiritual" conflicts. Thirdly, Lermontov's text (as well as a number of other "precedent" texts of Russian literature) makes it possible to find a language for the adequate expression of feelings experienced by adolescents who are mastering the experience of inter-gender relations. Literature doesn't just teach you to talk about love. In the conditions of Soviet anti-eroticism, the school or, as in the film under consideration, the camp theater stage becomes the only legitimate space for public statements about one's own love experiences.

The results of the analysis. The role of literature in Soviet culture of the 1960s-70s.The presence of problems related to the study of literature in the Soviet "school cinema" is caused by the fact that it is this "subject" that allows us to correlate the practices and experiences of everyday life with the corpus of textbook texts that form a model of a number of discourses of everyday life, in which an individual is included as he grows up.

The literary-centricity characteristic of Russian gymnasiums with their literature lessons was reanimated in the Soviet school of the late 30s. The importance of literature lessons in the educational process was emphasized, for example, by the fact that portraits of writers became the second most important iconic images in the Soviet school after portraits of the founders of the Soviet state and the theorists of Marxism-Leninism. Domestic pedagogy, interpreting the Russian classical literature of the XIX century, included it in two very significant discourses, socio-political and personal-emotional, which can be described in a simplified way as "the discourse of struggle" and "the discourse of love". In Soviet times, the second of these discourses was practically ousted from the public sphere, but its importance increased significantly in the 1960s, as evidenced, in particular, by "school films".

By this time, the victory of the existing system in the USSR was considered final, and socialism was considered as an invariant path of development of the country and society. The young builders of socialism were no longer required to be ready to fight class enemies, which made it possible to pay attention to the issue of "education of feelings". It was necessary to learn to live under socialism, to fight for its "humanization", and this humanization, among other things, they tried to find in love.

The properly interpreted plots and vicissitudes of the canonical texts of Russian writers allowed the individual to find his place in the structure of society, having determined his attitude to it, and to develop strategies of behavior in relation to objects of desire. Precedent texts of Russian literature became benchmarks for evaluating personal experience of building relationships with the object of youthful infatuation. This is evidenced, in particular, by a remarkable episode from V. P. Kataev's book "Farmstead in the Steppe" (chapter XXIX "Love at first sight"), when the main character, Petya, tries to build his own attitude to the stranger he saw, correlating himself with Onegin, then with Pechorin.

Literature has thus turned from lessons of political history into "lessons of love", or, more precisely, according to Barth, into lessons of "love discourse" or "lover's speech". Of course, we can assume that it is literature that teaches schoolchildren to love, in particular, it was about this purpose of literature lessons that the literature teacher, played by E. Solovey, directly spoke in the film "You never Dreamed" (directed by I. Fraz, 1981). The film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" presents a slightly different point of view, according to which literature was intended, rather, to teach how to talk about love, to pronounce one's own feeling in a socially acceptable form. Thus, the problem of finding a language to describe one's own inner experience, which, in relation to school cinema, was identified by V. Yu. Mikhailin and G. A. Belyaeva ^{[7, p. 419]}, in certain periods could be solved due to a number of precedent texts, including texts of Russian literature.

Thus, the film shows the reason and significance of the literary-centricity of the Soviet educational model. Literature and its teachers are important structural elements of Soviet school education. In a number of domestic "school films", for example, in the film "Autumn Story" (directed by I. Seleznev, 1979), the authors try to justify the importance of literature lessons, more precisely, they use literature lessons as the most important semantic center around which the plot is built. Of course, the experience of revealing the "school" theme in Soviet cinema shows that the plot can be built around any subject studied at school, for example, geography. And although the film "Geographer Globe drank" (directed by A. Veledinsky, 2013) was released in the post-Soviet era, its expressive means were largely borrowed from the cinema language of the 1970s. The special status of literature in Russian, and, consequently, in Soviet, culture is due to a number of reasons. First of all, literature was the semantic center around which the spiritual position of the "lyricists" (as opposed to the "physicists") was formed in the 1960s, for whom Russian classical literature became one of the possible directions of social escapism of the post-thaw period. In the early 1960s, due to the availability of humanitarian knowledge to numerous representatives of the technical intelligentsia, not just education as a set of professionally necessary knowledge gained value in society, but education, assuming the ability to navigate in various spheres of cultural life, which made it possible to contrast "physicists" and "lyricists".

One of the manifestations of the desire for education among the Soviet intelligentsia was an interest in the culture of pre-revolutionary Russia, which was served, in particular, by Russian classical literature. This interest led to the fact that the values and behavioral norms of the Russian nobility began to occupy an important place in the culture of the Soviet intelligentsia. Of course, these norms were implicitly contained in a number of elements of the "grand style" culture (for example, the school uniform created in the 1930s on the model of the pre-revolutionary gymnasium), but the open awareness of the noble-bourgeois nature of these norms was ousted from the public sphere. In the mid-1960s, a regression of this repressed connection took place in Soviet culture. The search for spiritual guidelines by representatives of the Soviet intelligentsia led to an increase in interest in Orthodoxy and in the values of the Russian nobility. In the circles of educated Soviet people, there was an interest in Russian church art and Orthodox spirituality in general, which caused the appearance of a number of cinematic ("Andrei Rublev", directed by A. Tarkovsky, 1966) and literary works (V. Soloukhin, "Black Boards", 1968). In the 1970s, new "director's" adaptations of Russian classics appeared ("Uncle Vanya", directed by A. Konchalovsky, 1970, "An Unfinished Piece for a Mechanical Piano", directed by N. Mikhalkov, 1977), in which problems close to, including, parts of Soviet citizens who were thinking about about existential issues.

A number of these trends, in particular the role of literature in the formation of an educated Soviet man of the "seventies", manifested itself in the "school" cinema, which we see in the film "One Hundred Days after Childhood". And this role, according to the authors of the picture, turns out to be dual. On the one hand, literature helps to understand love, teaching to talk about it and thereby helping to internalize, appropriate the social experience of the adult world. On the other hand, it is love that forms the part of social experience that allows you to truly understand, "live in yourself", literature. However, the hopes (rather than even teachers, but intellectuals and cinematographers) that the language of Russian literature would become the language of love of a new generation of Soviet youth were not justified. Lermontov's language, as well as the language of Russian literature in general, no longer corresponded to the love discourse of the 1960s-1970s. This language was suitable only for works of fiction, in particular, for "school" cinema.

ConclusionsThe film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" is of interest to researchers of Soviet culture because it reflected at least two trends characteristic of Soviet cinema of the 1970s. Firstly, it is the development of game "school cinema" of different genres and, secondly, it was planned in the late 1960s.Russian Russian culture's interest in Russian history and in Russian literature as a representative of this history.

Russian Russian literature In addition, this film contains a significant number of original cultural meanings for its time, related to the study of Russian literature in the Soviet school, with how the works of Russian classics affect the consciousness of individuals, both schoolchildren and the intelligentsia as a whole. The elements revealed in the analysis of the film show the role of the discourse of Russian literature in understanding the national heritage in the post-thaw and early post-cold era. Unlike earlier Soviet films about school, in the film under consideration, the possibility and permissibility of emotional relationships between schoolchildren is no longer questioned. Rather, the structure and quality of these relations (pair – "triangle" – "square") is problematized, as well as the influence of these relations on the group-wide, no longer pioneer, social "climate". At the same time, the very fact of such relations, as well as their nature, no longer become the subject of public discussion, they are discussed in personal, rather tense conversations by both their participants and their friends, which allows once again to draw a parallel with the noble environment.

The film "One Hundred Days after Childhood" shows us the degradation of the model of school socialization characteristic of the Soviet culture of the 1930s-1950s, and puts us before the problem of developing strategies for appropriation (internalization) or, as V. Yu noted. Mikhailin and G. A. Belyaeva ^{[7, p. 296]} intimization of social experience. Strictly speaking, intimization and interiorization can be distinguished, but in the context of our reasoning, this difference does not seem to us so fundamental. In the work we have considered, teenagers not only learn to build relationships, but also appropriate someone else's experience, not only socialize, but also carry out their own reflection on this socialization. And, unlike the model of socialization characteristic of the previous decades, the internalization of social experience can be carried out in various ways, one of which is presented in this film.