diziler professor t diziler diziler we own this city

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.

The 1960s and 1970s were rich in monographic publications, which covered specific problems of domestic cinema. In the 70s, the works of I. Kornienko "Half a century of Ukrainian Soviet cinema" (1970), "Cinema of Soviet Ukraine" (1975) were published. The appearance of these books made it possible to create an academic history of Ukrainian cinema. Of the planned three volumes, only two were published. And there was a certain regularity in this. The fast-moving course of events, the change in social attitudes made the third volume obsolete already in the manuscript. Did this mean the rewriting of history, about which some learned men lamented? Probably not. It's just that history began to reveal its secrets, which had been carefully hidden for a long time. And artistic phenomena, accompanied, it would seem, by a fixed look, suddenly appear in their other renewed quality.