Letters of Van Gogh

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

In the American cinema geniuses, I do not watch.

They were there in bulk, but in our domestic, alas, if you will call the names of the five-geniuses of cinema, then it will be good. : D
But the geniuses! Level Charlie Chaplin, for example.

Here at the forum was already one chudik. He tried to prove that American art is not. : D

[Meister]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Well, yes funny sometimes. There are good witty, light little things. But about a genius - you are obviously exaggerating. In American cinema geniuses, I do not watch.

and Chaplin, Jarmusch, Levinson, Coppola, Spielberg finally. Is not it great directors? but there is still such as Tarantino, Carpenter, etc.

To the Americans can be on a different attitude, but they have notable cinematography.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

They are there in bulk, but in our domestic, alas, if you will call the names of the five-geniuses of cinema, then it will be good. : D
But the geniuses! Level Charlie Chaplin, for example.

Eisenstein, Paradjanov, Tarkovsky, Bondarchuk, Pudovkin, Gerasimov, Chuhray, Shukshin, Heifetz, Rowe, Protazanov, Romm, Kalatozov, Kulidzhanov, Dovzhenko ...
      At random turned 15-Th ...

[Meister]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Eisenstein, Paradjanov, Tarkovsky, Bondarchuk, Pudovkin, Gerasimov, Chuhray, Shukshin, Heifetz, Rowe, Protazanov, Romm, Kalatozov, Kulidzhanov, Dovzhenko ...
At random turned 15-Th ...

but not all geniuses, and not all. All directors, however, are good, but the masterpieces created unit.

[Pavel]

Сообщение от Meister

but not all of them are geniuses, and not all. All directors, however, good, but the masterpieces created unit.

Geniuses are those whose pictures you can watch many times and each time having fun. Now on our TV to watch only Soviet directors, without end.
Try to review Woody. You yourself will understand.
Commercial success in America, replacement talent. Rather, we should talk about the genius of advertising and promotion, etc. In general, it is boring and all.
They give money and they should be returned in any way. We gave the money the state and helped to make good movies and they did. All the talk as well in Hollywood-talk. How is our way to ask Konchalovsky. Especially if the problems with the nose.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Meister

but not all of them are geniuses, and not all. All directors, however, good, but the masterpieces created unit.

If you think Spielberg, Levinson and Jarmusch geniuses, all I listed - genius without a doubt!

Of course, Kozintsev, I forgot ...

[Pavel]

Сообщение от Meister

and Chaplin, Jarmusch, Levinson, Coppola, Spielberg finally. Is not it great directors? but there is still such as Tarantino, Carpenter, etc.

To the Americans can be on a different attitude, but they have notable cinematography.

Unih Commercial enterprise and not the movie. Factory. Factory of dreams.
Chaplin has ceased to be in sound film. In fact it is almost a communist-social undertones.

[Meister]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Levinson and Jarmusch's genius

Yes believe Levinson for "Rain Man", in Jarmusch some brilliant films, Spielberg in his ability to shoot high quality movies, too, genius, although Levinson for me is much higher.

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от Pavel

Geniuses are those whose pictures can watch many times and each time having fun. Now on our TV to watch only Soviet directors, without end.
Try to review Woody. You yourself will understand.
Commercial success in America, replacement talent. Rather, we should talk about the genius of advertising and promotion, etc. In general, it is boring and all.
They give money and they should be returned in any way. We gave the money the state and helped to make good movies and they did.

Add a brilliant, in my opinion, be regarded as the director, who shot at least one movie that could be considered a universal heritage. Such a film that parents and teachers all over the world could recommend to see the children or students, ie a film that would have been reassuring and relevant at all times. In the European, and hence in Russia's cinema of directors quite a lot. Americans, unfortunately, did not create films that meet these criteria. In American cinema is almost no copyright movies. In America, cinema - primarily a way to earn money. American cinema, like fast food, should please the maximum number of people. And as you know, "pleasing to all, not to please God" (French proverb). It was originally developed as an entertainment show, this was decisive for him. Hence the constant embellishment of reality, a far-fetched plots. Certainly, the American cinema unsurpassed entertainer. And they do not claim to be something else. It is no coincidence that they talk about their film as a "factory of dreams". The very same American cinema often ironically in this regard. Themselves as Americans, speaking about their film, they say that this movie - "Cinema for the scum.
     
      It should be noted an amusing curiosity. European directors, coming to work in America for no apparent reason to create mediocre movies. In general, cinema, like no other art, is always very responsive to the social context. Look what happened to Russia's cinema in the 90's. Even the recognized masters, such as Ryazanov or less, suddenly began to make little movies.
      American cinema has developed in a different reality than Europe or Russia. There's nothing you can do, so happened historically.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Tjutchev

Eisenstein, Paradjanov, Tarkovsky, Bondarchuk, Pudovkin, Gerasimov, Chuhray, Shukshin, Heifetz, Rowe, Protazanov, Romm, Kalatozov, Kulidzhanov, Dovzhenko ...
At random turned 15-Th ...
Of course, Kozintsev, I forgot ...
 

Eisenstein, Tarkovsky from your list Dziga Vertov ... Everything!
And some brilliant films - "The Cranes Are Flying", for example, "Balad of a Soldier" ...