diziler hasmukh index

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.

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.

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.