diziler shooter diziler we own this city

V. Skurativskyi, considering the film process of the totalitarian era, resorts to convincing generalizations, searching for certain regularities according to which the cinematography of that era existed and developed. Analyzing the cinematographic works of the 1920s, S. Trimbach traces film processes in the context of national culture, highlighting the personality of O. Dovzhenko in a "close-up", emphasizing how fateful the appearance of this artist was for Ukrainian cinema.

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.

The US film industry has developed a system of multi-genre independent cinema: both cult films and creative experiments by directors. As a rule, these are low-budget films made by little-known directors. "Independent films" are mainly non-commercial films that bring maximum profit to their creators, such as blockbusters, and therefore in them you can often see some creative experiments. Most often, it is from "independent" cinema that world-class stars emerge: for example, the debut film of the famous K. Tarantino was the film "Mad Dogs", which is now called a classic of independent cinema.