A Companion to Russian Cinema provides an exhaustive and carefully organised guide to the cinema of pre-Revolutionary Russia, of the Soviet era, as well as post-Soviet Russian cinema, edited by one of the most established and knowledgeable scholars in Russian cinema studies. The most up-to-date and thorough coverage of Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet cinema, which also effectively fills gaps in the existing scholarship in the field This is the first volume on Russian cinema to explore specifically the history of movie theatres, studios, and educational institutions The editor is one of the most established and knowledgeable scholars in Russian cinema studies, and contributions come from leading experts in the field of Russian Studies, Film Studies and Visual Culture Chapters consider the arts of scriptwriting, sound, production design, costumes and cinematography Provides five portraits of key figures in Soviet and Russia film history, whose works have been somewhat neglected
The present chapter is dealt to the main steps of becoming and exisiting of Russian film in 1900-1990s.
The paper describes how the market meets culture in modern Russian cinema through the technologies of product placement. Interpreting data of the expert interviews and using content analysis of modern Russian blockbusters, the author reveals peculiarities of product placement in contemporary Russian cinema. Commercialisation of domestic film production industry is also analysed.
product placement; российский кинематограф; реклама; коммерциализация культуры.
Recent Russian blockbuster emerged approximately at the same time with Vladimir Putin’s Russian presidency and Nikita Mikhalkov’s appointment as the chair of the Union of Cinematographers of the Russian Federation. In the same years multiplexes in the country were opened, and theatres became filled with people. The context defines Russian blockbuster’ specifics. It has a considerably low production budget, since it has a part of state finance. Such movie doesn’t necessarily get profit, but it uses Hollywood techniques to transfer Russian national ideology. Before now, Russian blockbuster was mostly historical; it used to avoid working with contemporaneity. In 2017 along with historical there are blockbusters in modern setting, which marks a new level for Russian cinematic ideology. Depicting sexual intercourse Russian blockbuster highlights its paradox of double determination. The ruling party’s modern cultural conservative position contradicts the obligatory entertaining features of popular culture that implies principal ability to show sexual intercourse. The cases of using this tool by Russian high-budget cinematographers define the erotic dimension for Russian ideology. We can see its actual state by analyzing erotic scenes in three Russian blockbusters released in 2017. In historical film ‘Viking’ rape serves as a war tool for the protagonist. In sci-fi ‘Attraction’ chauvinist aggression is triggered by aliens’ interruption of the main characters’ sexual intercourse. The film ‘Crimea’ is more explicitly politicized, and it has two main characters taking different positions on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The characters’ last sex is explicitly associated with a political crisis between two states.
This book examines shifts in the meaning of montage in different historical situations and in various artistic media, including literature, cinema, theater, and visual arts. Its scope includes literature and art of Soviet Russia (both official and unofficial), Germany, France, and the United States from 1910 to the 2010s. While this book does not provide a cohesive historical sketch, it delivers comparative studies on artists whose works problematize common understandings of the avant-garde in art history.
This study argues that different types of artistic montage correspond to different conceptions of history, dividing the history of montage aesthetics and techniques into three periods: (1) constructing, (2) post-utopian, and (3) historicizing or analytic montage. This book intends to demonstrate how the revolutionary montage aesthetics of the 1920s was reinterpreted and adapted for critical analysis of utopian consciousness in unofficial literature and art of the 1960s and 1970s. This change became possible because unofficial art, unlike Soviet socialist realism, was connected with the experiments of European and American radical modernism and postmodernism.
Article is dedicated to the problem of defining classical legacy in modern sociology. The nature and constitution of this process is analyzed as everyday framing practice. Some effects arising from classicalization procedures described by cases of embarrassing classicality - interpretations and reinterpretations of Erving Goffmans theoretical works. For this purpose Goffmans frame analysis is applied to itself; theory of framing helps to understand framing of the theory.