diziler you dont know me diziler moon knight

Steven Spielberg –an outstanding American director, a pupil of the Californianuniversity . Yourcreative path beganon television The cinematic debut of S.Spielberg had a film "Duel", in whichin an allegorical form (a big truck is chasingpassenger car) the director condemned any manifestations of violence . This onetape became forSpielberg symbolically , to be surethereby defining the leitmotif of his work- confirmationideals of humanism, which found their embodiment in films of all genres, in which the director worked, – "Shchelep i" (film-kata stanza).The impeccable professional skill of S. Spielberg's films determined the highevaluation of itcreativity on the part of specialists, and most importantly -great interest of the audience . It is indicative of thisofficial sociological fact: afterrelease on the screens of the thirdparts of the adventures of Indiana Jonesincreased sharplycompetition forarchaeological departmentAmerican universities .The real creative triumph of S. Spielberg was the picture"Schindler's List " -or notthe highest achievement of world cinema inunderstanding and tragediesgenocide is terribleof a crime against humanity committedfascists.

A special place in the book is occupied by a purely theoretical approach to the phenomena of Ukrainian cinema offered by V. Horpenko. The author considers the history of cinema as an architectural typology, focusing on the analysis of a variety of types, genres, stylistic directions, on the transformation of life observations into specific, concrete forms of artistic works. Studying the director's score of various screen works based on their genre and stylistic features, the author singles out separate systems of language production in cinema - epic, lyrical, lyrical-epic and dramatic, seeing in their manifestation and interaction in specific screen texts the key to creating a scientific history of 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.