diziler animal diziler moon knight

That is why, when studying the cinematography of the 1930s, two important aspects should be taken into account: the social one, which prevailed in the cinematography of the Soviet period, German cinema and the cinematography of the United States, and the ontological one, which gave an impetus to the understanding of the processes that took place in the French cinematography of the specified period.

A text dedicated to television (by I. Pobedonostseva) stands a little apart from the general picture. And yet its appearance seems quite logical in the general structure of the book. After all, today most of the films become the achievement of a wide audience precisely thanks to their demonstration on the TV screen. In addition, television makes it possible to introduce the younger generation to the heritage of cinematic classics. Essays are thought to be just the beginning. They will become the foundation of the publication, built on a systematic and consistent presentation and analysis of the processes and phenomena of domestic cinema.

Each era, each generation examines and studies the history of art from its own point of view. This constitutes the same subjective knowledge of objective truth. The history of Ukrainian cinema began in the 20th century. already at the end of the 20s. One of the first books that highlighted the history of domestic cinema was Ya. Savchenko's book "The Birth of Ukrainian Soviet Cinema" (1930). Years of repressions and wartime disasters did not contribute to the emergence of fundamental works of film studies. And only at the end of the 1950s, three books of essays "Ukrainian Soviet Cinema" published by the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR appeared. Its authors I. Kornienko, A. Zhukova, G. Zhurov, A. Romitsyn provide a systematic picture of Ukrainian cinema from the post-revolutionary years to the post-war years. It is interesting that in the early 1960s, the American film critic B. Berest published his work "The History of Ukrainian Cinema" (1962), which was largely polemical about the point of view of Soviet historians.