diziler bir baskadir diziler diziler stranger things izle 2

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.

Cinematography of the Soviet period of the 30s of the XX century. became a kind of mirror of the totalitarian era, because all cinematographic genres of that time fulfilled certain "social orders". A vivid example of this was the historian-revolutionary film presented by M. Romm's dilogy - "Lengn in October" and "Lenin in 1918"; trilogy by H. Kozintsev and L. Trauberg - "Maxim's Youth", "Maxim's Return" and "Vyborzka Side"; paintings by S. Yutkevich - "Man with a gun", the Vasiliev brothers - "Chapaev"; O. Dovzhenka - Shchors.

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.