diziler the missing

A characteristic feature of French cinematography in the 30s–60s of the 20th century. was his constant connection with the processes taking place in the philosophical environment. Thus, the creativity of the country's leading cinematographers (M. Carnet, J. Renoir, A. René, etc.), who worked in different historical periods and held different aesthetic positions, was stimulated by the concepts of the outstanding European theoretician A. Bergson. The American "counterculture", which was based on the concept of neo-Freudianism, the idea of ​​youth rebellion, was represented by A. Penn's films "The Chase" and "Little Big Man"; M. Nichols "Graduate"; D. Hopper's "Light Rider"; M. Forman - "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" etc.

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.

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.