diziler bored to death

The appearance of "Essays" was a qualitatively new step in the development of domestic film studies. A wide range of scientists belonging to different schools and directions in film studies took part in the work. The authors did not set themselves the goal of consistently covering all stages of the formation and development of cinematography on the territory of Ukraine. But, without a doubt, the compilers and authors managed to focus on key moments, trace the most important regularities of the filmmaking process. Issues that have remained on the margins of the historical science of cinema have come into focus. Separate chapters are devoted to both local phenomena and entire historical stages, and the authors mostly build their research on a solid theoretical foundation.

In the context of the totalitarian era, the historical film actively developed - "Alexander Nevsky" (director S. Eisenstein), "Bohdan Khmelnitsky" (director I. Savchenko), "Petro I" (director V. Petrov), the trilogy "Zlyva", "Perekop" , "Koliivshchyna" (director I. Kavaleridze).

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.