diziler juliantina index

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.

At the same time, cinematography can by no means be called a "technical" art. Man's primordial need for a figurative understanding of reality gave birth to this mass form of art. Cinema is synthetic in nature, it combines elements of literature, theater, painting, music, choreography. That is why cinematography operates with many expressive possibilities borrowed from other forms of art. At the same time, cinema has its own specific means and techniques, in particular: perspective (angle of view of the film camera), change of plans (general, medium and large), montage, which combines individual frames in a logical sequence and makes it possible to convey the emotional and psychological tension of the episode.

In some texts, the authors focus not so much on the film process as on its historical and social context. Thus, Z. Alfyorova draws attention to those general civilizational conflicts that were related to Ukraine and Ukrainian culture even in Soviet times. The author examines the artistic culture of Ukraine at the intersection of the influences of economic, political and socio-cultural systems and observes how the "crisis of reality", the "replacement of reality with signs of reality" is provoked both by the influence of "official" Soviet culture and the phenomena of early postmodernism. The author rightly notes that the internal dissidence of a certain circle of Ukrainian artists is reflected in the very style of screen works. However, interesting observations and theoretical generalizations do not always find concrete confirmation in the direct examination of the film process.