It is a known truth that if an artist has nothing to say to his viewers, he will not be able to work in depth according to the thoughts and feelings. Our viewers have grown in their culture and their aesthetic needs. Superficial judgments and minor author observations can no longer satisfy them. The same can be said about criticism. If the author has nothing to say to the artist, if he is not able to draw theoretical conclusions, then a valuable critical article will fail. The review of the film should include not only the analysis of the theme and images, but also take into account the synthetic nature of filmmaking, to help their findings to all the artists included in the production group. And this sometimes does not work. Instead of analysis, general reasoning is given and the words are too readily used - succeeded or failed - without attempting to determine the reasons for what succeeded and failed.
Talent must be treated carefully, especially when it comes to a modern topic, which requires the tension of all the spiritual strengths of the authors and the knowledge of life. But this does not mean to reduce high demands, not to fight against hack and dullness.
A fight against the flow of mediocre and sluggish films can only be by raising demands on artists, without lowering their mistakes and mistakes. However, this must be done sensitively, noting the good.
In his speech, Comrade. Suslov reproached critics with the fact that instead of an objective and qualified analysis, they “sometimes perpetrate the separation of their works unfair and offensive to the authors, completely wiping out the artist’s great creative work”.
It happens in film criticism. Too often in reviews scornful tone and unfair attacks against artists are allowed, films are evaluated from aesthetic or subjectively taste points of view.
It is even more unpleasant when critics, contrary to the view of the audience, undeservedly praise weak films.
Film critic is responsible for the situation in the cinema on a par with artists. And the situation here is very serious. The theme of modernity, which occupies 90 percent of the production plan, has not yet found its vivid artistic expression. Film heroes are often still characterized by spiritual poverty, sketchy characters, facelessness. The aesthetic level of films on contemporary phenomena is often very low.
Many films are archaic in their drama and visual solution. Unfortunately, we have to talk about the loss of interest of Soviet viewers to Soviet films telling about Soviet reality.
There are, of course, exceptions. Our films “The Fate of a Man”, “The Ballad of a Soldier”, “Seryozha” and others have gained fame among Soviet viewers and at international festivals. But these exceptions make it even more intolerant to treat weak films. Some of our masters are able to create clever, original and ideologically directed works.
It is necessary to raise the general ideological and artistic level of Soviet cinema. And in this deep and complex process of becoming a cinema, film critic should have its say. acheter kamagra gel https://www.kamelef.com/kamagra-oral-jelly.html acheter du kamagra jelly