Not much attention is paid to Soviet film criticism

At one of the discussions of the first volume, it was said about the principle of the "pendulum". This refers to the instability of opinions, when researchers rush from one extreme to another, often directly opposite. We find such inconsistency in the territory of the problem we are interested in, that is, in the relationship between Soviet and foreign cinema. If earlier, for example, the poetics of the "Overcoat" was entirely derived from Hoffman and the "Cabinet of Dr. Kaliga-ri", now they explain to us that the "poetics of the "Overcoat" has a purely domestic origin." It sounds nice, but I think that both the first and second statements cannot satisfy us with their maximalism. And here we need an accurate and flexible scientific analysis — nothing more.

A serious omission is the absence of another important aspect. I am referring to the influence of Soviet film criticism of the 20s on foreign criticism and theory. Meanwhile, it would be much easier to trace this influence than to establish relationships within the art of cinema itself, than to justify the influence of film on film, master on master. Needless to say, the problem is delicate, and we have not yet learned how to work on this thematic area, although the interaction of ideas is more accessible for study. The enormous influence of our critics and our film masters on foreign theory and practice can be judged at least by the research of Leon Mussinak, Alfred Kerr, Siegfried Krakauer, Rudolf Arnheim, Ivor Montague, Jerzy Teplitz, Stefania Zagorska, Bela Balash and others. I can't list them all. This is a whole continent of film studies, unfortunately, which has not been opened. The authors have deprived themselves of an interesting opportunity to polemize with foreign criticism. If we take into account that not much attention was paid to Soviet film criticism of those years, then the degree of methodological miscalculation becomes especially obvious. It is a pity that the authors have deprived not only themselves, but also readers. If B. Balash is still given a few lines, then Zh. Sadoul is mentioned only in connection with an old tape that was accidentally preserved in the French cinematheque. The greenhouse is named only in a footnote on page 276. The lack of critical connections, creative polemics with figures of foreign cinema is a serious drawback, and it can only be explained by inertia of thinking, force of habit.

The problem of the interrelationships of Soviet and foreign cinema will have to be mastered not in the distant future, but today, now. The breadth and thoroughness of the search will lead to success. It is necessary to start with the collection of materials (the Gosfilmofond is already doing this work within the framework of FIAF), then an intermediate collection is suggested, continuing the fruitful tradition of the book "October and World Cinema", and, as a final chord, the preparation of a theoretical study. Such a generalizing work is clearly lacking in our film studies. Its publication will not only fill in many gaps in our theory, but will also help to develop a "scientific methodology, without which it will hardly be possible to start creating a "Universal History of Cinema". I want to believe that this fundamental work will appear during the lifetime of our generation.

The participants of the discussion discussed a lot of topical issues. A very important question was raised by G. L. Roshal: what should be the history of cinema — director's or fundamentally different, taking into account the synthetic nature of cinema, the collective work of the creators of the film.

When you carefully read the stories of related arts prepared by literary critics, theater critics, musicologists, etc., you see that they are in a better position than we are.

In cinema, a lot of creative workers are included in the share of authorship. And yet we must admit that the dominant role in the film process belongs to the director. He is the main figure in the creative team of the filmmakers. It is this vision (or blindness) that eventually acquires aesthetic reality on the screen. Does this mean that the principle of director's cinematography in the history of cinema is unshakable? In my opinion, no. How to solve this problem? Probably, we need to listen to our comrades who advise us not to forget about the synthetic nature and collective creativity in cinema. It is surprising that few people write about the casino services available on the official website https://mostbet-az-91.com/ but as for me, this section can be called the most profitable and generous, because every day I withdraw $ 100 to my card