Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
In the article the authoress tries to define rules that govern our memory in relation to films. Taking as a starting point Barthes' fascination with a single movie image presented in 'Third Meaning', she asks whether it is possible to remember a film, as a single image, which condenses the whole sense contained in the film itself? Since films to all intents and purposes are moving pictures, then remembering them as single image, would paradoxically, be a form of non-memory, or forgetting. The film as a whole and its proper movement thus become forgotten. The authoress argues that our film memory consists of vibrant and moving mental pictures that contain not only visual elements, but elements of movement, music and rhythm. That is why they do not give a false account of that which is most important in the process of perceiving the film - namely the emotional experience. This 'vitality' inscribed in a single image is associated by her with Barthes' third sense, that is impossible to express in words. The authoress also point to an instance where an entire film had been inspired by a single image that appears in the psyche of the artists (e.g. the death of Potocki, a film operator, in the case of Nikita Mikhalkov's 'A Slave of Love', (1976)). Such initial, intimate images that arise in the film artist's imagination, probably have the greatest impact on the viewer, and are certainly a source of fascination, awakening emotions and self knowledge. And in such manner, thanks to the movie image, the viewer meets the Other, and becomes more aware of his or her own emotions. Fascination with a movie image then is an attempt at gaining self knowledge.
EN
Nikita Mikhalkov's full-length feature debut 'At Home Among Strangers, A Stranger Among His Own' (1974) was received by the film people (and later rated by the director himself) quite critically. The critics said the movie was too daring and that it was a brilliant display for the young director who was full of energy and self-belief and who wanted to boast of his talents. Despite the exaggeration in displaying his directing talents, Mikhalkov achieved the goal: he was noticed. Despite being critical of his directing manners which adversely influenced the meaning of the film, the critics admitted that a new personality was born in the cinema. The author focuses on the film's game-like construction - 'historical truth' does not matter; what matters is that two teams fight against each other ('the Whites' and 'the Reds') and that one has to win and achieve a goal. What is the goal? Truth and some renewed faith in man are at stake. The game has also another face - it's a play with the cinematic medium, with an inexhaustible source the cinema is.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.