Previous studies have addressed this issue.
The articles are unequal. Some are more successful, reflect and analyze historical phenomena more correctly, while others are less so. To the credit of the team, there are more of the former than the latter.
But the general history of the Soviet cinema of the 20s has not yet turned out...
It seems to me quite natural that the publication of a new book on the history of cinema causes controversy. I think this indicates both a certain scientific level of the publication, which is capable of provoking such a reaction, and the level of our film science, which is not frozen in a stable position, but is continuously developing, giving rise to new concepts and assessments.
When a new generalizing work appears, the main task of our film studies, it seems to me, is to try to extract positive experience from it, taking into account the mistakes and miscalculations of this work. I want to focus on this side of the issue.
It was emphasized here in separate speeches that this is a fundamentally new publication in the sense that it widely presents the cinematography of our republics. Indeed, in previous studies on the history of cinema, this problem has only been addressed to some extent. But to date, there have been no books where the life of Soviet cinema has been presented as widely and as fully as in this one.
I would like to emphasize this fact as a fundamentally new methodological quality of the approach to the study of the history of cinema, probably not accessible to any science except modern science, except Soviet science, which covers the subject in its entirety, taking into account all phenomena.
Undoubtedly, the authors failed to fully solve this problem. But its very formulation is extremely promising and determined by the level of modern Soviet science.
"The History of Soviet Cinema" was created by a large number of people, united not by order, not by any formal feature, but by a very important desire for each member of the team to truly create a multinational history of Soviet cinema.
Film critics from the national republics worked on an equal footing with Moscow and Leningrad film critics to create the volume. Before our eyes, film studies in some republics seemed to be born anew. And as a result, there was a growth of the entire Soviet film studies. One could name a number of people who defended their dissertations, wrote books and articles in the process of working on the volume. It seems to me that this is the experience that can and should be drawn from this kind of collective collaboration of art historians, covering literally the entire territory of the Soviet Union, and that this experience is qualitatively different from everything that has been observed so far. Of course, it was not without its costs. There was also a stylistic discrepancy and a different scientific level of the chapters, but, obviously, it could not have been otherwise.
Next, I would like to emphasize as an important methodological feature of this work the desire of the authors to follow a path that is not descriptive, but primarily analytical. If you take a recent edition, also created within the walls of the Institute of Art History, in the cinema sector, namely "Essays on the History of Soviet Cinema", then in this volume you will notice the conciseness of the description, the greater conciseness of the wording, the lack of elaboration of the characteristics of individual films compared with the "Essays". But I am inclined to attribute this not to the number of disadvantages, but to the number of advantages of the new work. True, as it was rightly noted, the book does not always find sufficiently accurate proportions for the presentation of the plot and its analysis, some films are insufficiently emphasized and highlighted, but, undoubtedly, the methodological principle of the approach to the coverage of the cinematic process as a whole, to comprehend the features of this process in a given historical period, to explain how This process was linked to the country's general civil history. برومو كود رهان مجاني 1xbet
But the general history of the Soviet cinema of the 20s has not yet turned out...
It seems to me quite natural that the publication of a new book on the history of cinema causes controversy. I think this indicates both a certain scientific level of the publication, which is capable of provoking such a reaction, and the level of our film science, which is not frozen in a stable position, but is continuously developing, giving rise to new concepts and assessments.
When a new generalizing work appears, the main task of our film studies, it seems to me, is to try to extract positive experience from it, taking into account the mistakes and miscalculations of this work. I want to focus on this side of the issue.
It was emphasized here in separate speeches that this is a fundamentally new publication in the sense that it widely presents the cinematography of our republics. Indeed, in previous studies on the history of cinema, this problem has only been addressed to some extent. But to date, there have been no books where the life of Soviet cinema has been presented as widely and as fully as in this one.
I would like to emphasize this fact as a fundamentally new methodological quality of the approach to the study of the history of cinema, probably not accessible to any science except modern science, except Soviet science, which covers the subject in its entirety, taking into account all phenomena.
Undoubtedly, the authors failed to fully solve this problem. But its very formulation is extremely promising and determined by the level of modern Soviet science.
"The History of Soviet Cinema" was created by a large number of people, united not by order, not by any formal feature, but by a very important desire for each member of the team to truly create a multinational history of Soviet cinema.
Film critics from the national republics worked on an equal footing with Moscow and Leningrad film critics to create the volume. Before our eyes, film studies in some republics seemed to be born anew. And as a result, there was a growth of the entire Soviet film studies. One could name a number of people who defended their dissertations, wrote books and articles in the process of working on the volume. It seems to me that this is the experience that can and should be drawn from this kind of collective collaboration of art historians, covering literally the entire territory of the Soviet Union, and that this experience is qualitatively different from everything that has been observed so far. Of course, it was not without its costs. There was also a stylistic discrepancy and a different scientific level of the chapters, but, obviously, it could not have been otherwise.
Next, I would like to emphasize as an important methodological feature of this work the desire of the authors to follow a path that is not descriptive, but primarily analytical. If you take a recent edition, also created within the walls of the Institute of Art History, in the cinema sector, namely "Essays on the History of Soviet Cinema", then in this volume you will notice the conciseness of the description, the greater conciseness of the wording, the lack of elaboration of the characteristics of individual films compared with the "Essays". But I am inclined to attribute this not to the number of disadvantages, but to the number of advantages of the new work. True, as it was rightly noted, the book does not always find sufficiently accurate proportions for the presentation of the plot and its analysis, some films are insufficiently emphasized and highlighted, but, undoubtedly, the methodological principle of the approach to the coverage of the cinematic process as a whole, to comprehend the features of this process in a given historical period, to explain how This process was linked to the country's general civil history. برومو كود رهان مجاني 1xbet