So, the style is the manifestation of some new knowledge about the world through the media. A truly solid edition of the Institute of World Literature gives here, unfortunately, too general, aesthetically low-conditioning definition. It does not "work."

Do not help and identify the style, data in the 20s. V. Turkin believed that the film style was "forms of installation and rhythmic schemes." B. Eikenbaum reduced him to the style of installation - "frames wall", "film syntax". Noting along the way, that installation is not only frames and syntax, we turn, attention to the main thing: V. Turkin and B. Eikenbauma is one unknown is replaced by others, and we return to the original - what is "forms of installation and rhythmic schemes" and "Syntax Film "as a style remains unclear.

In this difficult situation, V. Mikhalkovich intends "in the cinema language itself, in the very camera activity, find the particular large-scale form, without which the style is impossible."

Do I need to understand the author so that he drives the camera to the camera? Or is it just an awkward expression? But it recorded a clear position of the author throughout the article, where the search for styrene-forming factors in the showroom itself is being searched.

"Camera, - We read in the article - becomes a physical, material carrier and an expressant of my attitude to visible." Same camera, alone? But what about other expressive agents - they are, optional? It immediately it turns out that "the positions of the chamber are the basis of a movie" At E. Playing and M. Marten in their "popular cinema grammar" (Really, in the eyes of V. Mikhalkovich - the works of good and solid?) "... from here - he believes - that the form that is necessary for the manifestation of the style, we must first look for the fact that it is the specifics of cinema and is its most necessary tool - in the movements of the chamber, and not in the word, music or the actors' game, as if They are important for the general meaning of each painting. "

You can beat the mortgage that the path selected by the author of the article will certainly and very quickly lead it to a dead end.

After all, the movement of the camera is only one of the expressive means of cinema. In itself, it does not solve anything and does not determine in the cinematographic form in general, nor in style. It becomes artically meaningful (significant) only in the general system of expressive means creating a film. As for the specifics of the cinema, V. Mikhalkovich knows perfectly well: it cannot be reduced to one expressive means or their aggregate. At their level, neither the specifics of art, nor the style can not be understood. The specificity of all art is the specificity of its artistic image, that is, the peculiarity of the ratio of image and imagery, turning the first to the second. Not the behavior of the film apparatus determines the specifics of the cinema, and it itself is determined by it: this is generally the relationship between the technique and the language (artistic form) in any art. Реклама: Pardavimų skatinimas, seo paslaugos, reklama internete, svetainių ir elektroninių parduotuvių kūrimas - seopaslaugos.com