Why has this thread dragged on for so long? 
It’s dragged on like one of those interminable Russian novels.
Maybe Woody Allen will make a movie of it.
The Motion Picture Production Code (a.k.a., “The Hays Code”) was repealed in 1968 and replaced by the rating system. I’ll grant it’s because of my age but I’ve always placed the border between “old movies” (i.e., those affected by the Code’s censorship standards and often produced under the Hollywood Studio System) and “new movies” (i.e., those no longer under a censorship code and instead rated for content with the Studio System extinct) at around 1967-68 so a movie from 1970 is getting close but on the “new” side of the ledger. Of course, that was more than 50 years ago so I can understand why people would consider it practically ancient.
It’s within my lifetime, so hardly ‘old’. 
All happy threads are alike, but every unhappy thread is unhappy in its own way.
That line is best when spoken in the original Klingon.
Or Russian?
According to you words, Russian students are more educated, and more cultivated than their American peers.
Your level of culture is so showy.
First of all, all the adult Americans should have learnt all these names. As for the incarnate lies of the local public, it’s so easy to reveal their Anglo-Saxonist intentions that there’s no need in a very voluminous set of comments, for the local public just forgot about Stanislavsky. They just forgot about ithe basis of their own cinema culture.
As for yourself, the question is not whether you’re lying or not but whether you’ve been lying by omission or not, just because you’ve already blamed me in saying that Russian or Soviet cinema was superior, even though I didn’t even attempt to say so, to be honest.
so that’s why victor/victoria was so smooth Andrews and garner already knew each other …
Eeeew! 
Garner was basically the answer to “What if Rock Hudson could actually act and had a natural sense of humor?” Casting Hudson in it was one of many problems with ‘Darling Lili’ I would say.
If it makes you feel any better, the conclusion was that there was very little “real” cannabalism. It was mostly small scale ritual stuff.
Oh, well, that’s okay, then. Who among us hasn’t indulged in a little light ritual cannabalism, amirite?
Yes, this is because American culture is far, far more influential than Russian culture. In other words, it not only doesn’t support your premise; it refutes it.
Or, if you want a third party’s opinion, check to see how popular American media is vs. Russian, in China, or India, or any other nation in the world. If everyone in the world outside of Russia somehow manages to make do with a lack of familiarity of Russian media, then that rather makes it hard to believe that familiarity with Russian media is necessary for culture.
While Stanislavsky, like lots of other famous actors, definitely influenced American cinema culture, it would be ridiculous to claim that he was THE “basis” of it. By the time Stanislavsky’s work became internationally famous, the American cinematography industry was already established, with a “basis” in a varied mix of theatrical/spectacle traditions that had nothing to do with Stanislavsky.
(Including French, German and Yiddish traditions, by the way. There’s nothing specifically “Anglo-Saxonist” about the rational debunking of hyperbolic claims that American cinema owes EVERYTHING to Russian art.)
Tolstoy! I forgot Tolstoy! Sorry.
Man, Russia sure had itself a golden age back at the tail end of the empire.
Out of curiosity, I googled who these people were. All information drawn entirely from their wikipedia pages:
Pisarev was a 19th century nihilist philosopher. Apparently Lenin was a big fan. Looks like very little of his stuff has been translated to English. No real reason to know about him, unless you’re doing a really deep dive on the origins and motivations of the Revolution.
Sofia Kovalevskaya sounds genuinely impressive, and someone who should be more widely known: pioneering mathematician, first woman professor in Europe, bunch of stuff like that. Not sure reading her work would be a great use of time, though, as she was a mathematician, not a writer or philosopher. Not to knock mathematicians, but if I wanted to read a treatise on differential equations, I’d probably be better off with one that’s more modern and not translated from a foreign language.
Chernyshevsky is another 19th century philosopher, whose work focused mainly on issues of Russian populism, which isn’t all that important or interesting to people who don’t live in or near 19th century Russia. Dude was a big fan of Abraham Lincoln, though, which is cool.
German Lopatin was a 19th century revolutionary. Not the one that actually succeeded. He was apparently also a writer and poet, but Wikipedia can’t be arsed to actually mention any of his works, instead focusing on his political troubles.
Pomyalovsky was a prominent novelist, and really the only person on this list where there’s a reasonable argument that he should be more widely read outside of Russia. He’s not, largely because Dostoyevsky* has pretty much dominated the “19th century Russian novelist that non-Russians have heard of” niche, but he at least appears to be famous chiefly for his books, and not for his involvement in failed Russian political movements.
*On preview, like Alessan, I had forgotten Tolstoy.