diziler rebellion diziler diziler the boys

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.

The cinema of independent Ukraine becomes the object of research by I. Zubavina. It must be said that the author set himself a difficult task: the material, one might say, is still pulsating, having "not stood up" in numerous studies. But the author decently overcomes these difficulties, singling out the most noticeable and expressive tendencies manifested in film productions created at domestic studios. I. Zubavina observes how the breath of time changes the aesthetics of national cinema, how painfully these changes sometimes occur, but the author does not doubt their regularity and necessity.