A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z #

Site adresimiz diizibox.online olmuştur. Sürekli güncel adrese erişmek için dizibox.com alan adını kullanınız.

Beklenen / Eklenen Diziler

diziler ask the doctor

Ch. Chaplin's films are works that made a significant contribution to the development of the visual system of the cinematography, its montage structure and fulfilled the ultimate task of art - won the love and recognition of viewers all over the world. The 20s of the XX century. entered the history of world cinema as an extremely interesting period of experimentation and innovation. There was a process of finding new forms, visual means and techniques, awareness of the montage-poetic nature of cinematography, that is, in the bowels of cinema, its own aesthetic system was formed.

Scorsese and others; western– "Dances with Wolves"K. Kostner, psychological dramas - "Marathonets"J. Schlesinger, "Rain Man" by B. Levinsop, "Scent of a Woman" by M.Brest, "People vs. LarryFlint" by M. Foreman; disaster films - "Titanic" by D. Cameron and others.A characteristic feature of the modern American film process is active involvement incollaboration of leading foreign directors - L.Besson ("The Fifth Element", "Joan of Arc"), E.Kusturitsy ("Undegrau nd"), J.By ("Without a face"), E.Mengele ("The Englishman and the Patient","That gentleman is talentedRipley"), etc.The starry sky of Hollywood flash is new names. Nearwith recognized stars of the 80s and 90sx pp. A.Schwarzenegger , S. Stallone, R. Girom G. Ford,K. Costner, T. Cruz, N.Cage, S. Stone, K. Basinger, J. Foster, young actors A.diCaprio, E. North, D. Lowe.So, the cycle of acting life in Hollywood is endless...Characterizing recent significant eventsin US cinema, noone can not forget the phenomenon thatgot the name "tarantinomania". It's about creativityK. Tarantino. His movie" It's not a crimereading material" became to a certain extentepochal for the entire world film process. This istestimonythat the film world is tired of crueltyand started laughing. Today, K. Tarantino is considereda peculiar symbol of the new cinema, whichwon favor asintellectuals , yesandmass audience.

Hollywood is notonly movie studios andabode of the stars, thisalso a huge television business,record companies, commercial publishing houses , tourist offices.In a word, gigantica machine that continuously delivers entertainment and100% subject to lawsbusiness world. There is no profit herefrom the box office is only a thin onetop layer ANDthe lion's share of profits to companiesprovide product placement(let's remember, for example , howin the film "The Matrix" ineveryone flashes before our eyes every secondpossible products of the Samsung brand, andlet's try to imagine how much she earned from thisfilm studio), sale of rights tofilms for airlines, use of heroes ingames/comics/advertisements , releasesouvenir products.Let's not forget, no matter howI wanted to forget about it, that Hollywood cinema is quietalso serves state interests. Often the customer of that orthere is another tapePentagon. "The green onesberet" by John Ray, "The best shooter" by Tony Scott,"Pearl Harbor" by Michael Bay, "A Dayindependence " by Roland Emmerich, "Thirty minutes aftermidnight" Kathryn Bigelow, "Man fromof steel" by Zack Snyder and many other films in whichor else a good word soundsabout the state and its military power, removedto order and with solid financial participationPentagon.

Popüler Dizilerden Son Bölümler

Tümünü Gör

In some texts, the authors focus not so much on the film process as on its historical and social context. Thus, Z. Alfyorova draws attention to those general civilizational conflicts that were related to Ukraine and Ukrainian culture even in Soviet times. The author examines the artistic culture of Ukraine at the intersection of the influences of economic, political and socio-cultural systems and observes how the "crisis of reality", the "replacement of reality with signs of reality" is provoked both by the influence of "official" Soviet culture and the phenomena of early postmodernism. The author rightly notes that the internal dissidence of a certain circle of Ukrainian artists is reflected in the very style of screen works. However, interesting observations and theoretical generalizations do not always find concrete confirmation in the direct examination of the film process.