diziler togetherness

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.

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.

Such a significant phenomenon as Ukrainian poetic cinematography has been in the circle of scientific interests of L. Bryukhovetska for a long time. Perhaps, that is why the chapter written by this author is marked by special thoroughness and persuasiveness. Separately, it is worth noting the detailed filmography, which gives the chapter even greater scientific value.