World cinema and Hollywood

From time to time it seems that the cinema has come once again into deadlock - and then with inevitability there is a sacramental question: “That such cinema?”. Somewhere about three years ago Alexander Sokurov even declared in one of teleinterview that would be very grateful to those who can define at last certain a cinema which would allow to understand precisely in what exclusive specificity of this screen art (if that it consists, certainly, to recognise). Than, better to say, the cinema differs from certain “no cinema”?

Likely, Sokurov knew that the whole decades over a solution of the given phenomenon theorists (first of all semiotics fought) and cinema practice - is admissible, Pierre Paolo Pazolini. As it is known, Pazolini has come on a set from the literature and cultural science, therefore tried, like linguists-structuralists, to isolate a primary cell of cinema figurativeness almost as a word or even a syllable having semantic value. What in this case to accept for a film organism section - a shot (and it can long last, how at Kendzi Midzoguti, Andrey Tarkovsky, especially at Miklosha Jancho) or in general cadr, flashing with a speed “24 in a second”?

By the way, the ordinary citation “cinema is truth 24 shots in a second” is naive at all because Jean-hatch Godard during a hobby time Levatski political views proved the return, asserting that the movie camera is inherently bourgeois means  realities, the manipulation form public consciousness and  weights agrees to the selected ideological installations. Long before Godard, first of all the Soviet cinematographers (at least Sergey Eisenstein, differing remarkable intellectual talent of a substantiation of the practical film experiments), have come to comprehension of improbable force of influence of the shots mounted in a certain order when it is possible to inspire the necessary thought, without resorting at all to the help after open notorious “25th shot”.

By the way, nowadays actively spread hearings about zombiing of people at means of the television using this most 25th shot, are improbable already because in television  (and also on video) 25 shots in a second are really applied on technical features of the image just not 24, but. So all conversations on specially put latent message appear a full nonsense. Both the television, and a cinema are capable to influence minds and moods of wide spectator weights thanks to own nature of screen hypnotic suggestion when with the big success it is possible to extend truth or a lie some shots in a second.

Each formed person should love and understand art – the literature, painting, music, cinema. There are people who equally love books, musik , pictures, an opera, films etc. I cannot tell that I concern different displays of art equally ardently. At present priority for me is cinema. The cinema is a surprising art. The cinema is likely the lung for perception and the understanding, the most accessible art. The cinema is a fast art. If to read the book, week film viewing occupies a maximum of hour three is necessary to the average person a minimum.