Review: This paper contains a generalization of the author's reflections on the products of modern Yakut film-makers and the actual process of creation of film forms in the socio-cultural environment of the North-Eastern region of Russia. Being the factory of dreams and society introspection tool cinematograph fit in very well for organic self-reflection and self-identification of ethnic culture at the turn of the centuries. Complementarity of the cinema and ethnic culture is also dictated by the mechanism of mythologem translation which was and still remains a vivid cultural tool that still preserves the features of folklore, rituals and rites of the traditional epoch. The object of this article is a film production in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) over the last five years. The subject of this article is specific features of film forms combining synthesis of symbolic constructs of universal and local ethnic culture issues and consequently resulting features of the influence of this form on the ethnic culture. In the course of his research Pudov has carried out analysis of particular films regarding whether there are symbols of different nature and philosophical generalization of cultural processes in the region on the whole. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author provides a philosophical evaluation of a totally new stage of  the development of Yakutian cinematograph that had declared itself at both Russian and international levels. The author has made conclusions about causes of the ontological regional boom in filmmaking, its potentials in relation to self-identification and culture, and peculiarities of developing a new sociocode of regional culture. 

Keywords: cinematograph, ethnic culture, ethnocultural modernization, symbolic ontologization, transmigration of symbols, being of ehtnicity, cinema, art, Yakutia, sociocultural transformation

References:
Petrov M.K. Antichnaya kul'tura. M.: ROSSPEN, 1997. 352 s.
Pudov A.G. Simvolicheskaya ontologizatsiya soznaniya kak osnova konstruirovaniya etnosa na etape etnogeneza // Etnosotsium i mezhnatsional'naya kul'tura. 2014. ¹7 (73). S. 110-116.
Mamardashvili M. K., Pyatigorskiy A. M. Simvol i soznanie. Metafizicheskie rassuzhdeniya o soznanii, simvolike i yazyke. M.: Shkola «Yazyki russkoy kul'tury», 1997. 224 s.
Pudov A.G. Estetika simvolicheskogo v epokhu tranzitivnoy sotsial'noy real'nosti / A.G. Pudov. Yakutsk: RIO media-kholdinga, 2014. 336 s.

References (transliteration):
Petrov M.K. Antichnaya kul'tura. M.: ROSSPEN, 1997. 352 s.
Pudov A.G. Simvolicheskaya ontologizatsiya soznaniya kak osnova konstruirovaniya etnosa na etape etnogeneza // Etnosotsium i mezhnatsional'naya kul'tura. 2014. ¹7 (73). S. 110-116.
Mamardashvili M. K., Pyatigorskiy A. M. Simvol i soznanie. Metafizicheskie rassuzhdeniya o soznanii, simvolike i yazyke. M.: Shkola «Yazyki russkoy kul'tury», 1997. 224 s.
Pudov A.G. Estetika simvolicheskogo v epokhu tranzitivnoy sotsial'noy real'nosti / A.G. Pudov. Yakutsk: RIO media-kholdinga, 2014. 336 s.

Review: In his article Khrenov attempts to define mythological subtexts that define how particular movies and films created in different periods are perceived by the audience. According to the author, these subtexts have a strong influence on mass consciousness of public, however, public is usually unaware of them. Among other things the content of mass reception includes out-of-cinematographic manifestations of collective unconscious. Mental projections of archetypic images which came into existence in different periods of cultural history and connected with utopian visions, myths, and religious symbols are coming to the fore. Noteworthy that projections on the city are precede the projections of collective unconscious on the cinema; they are transferred into the cinema later on. Finally, the cinema in principal makes a colossal intertext in which cultural history is reflected both in its axial and pre-axial aspects. The scope of analysis comes down to the projections which become realistic already at early stages of cinematography history. To define mythological, folklore and archetypical subtexts of cinematography reception, the author of the article has used methodology of such academic disciplines as receptive esthetics, cultural semiotics, sociology of art, crowd psychology, psychoanalysis and analytical psychology. The main conclusions of the research are the following: a) the structure of the audience of early cinematograph was made up mostly of urban social groups which had folklore stereotypes in their consciousness; b) the city was perceived in accordance with the folklore stereotype of the festive revelry; c) the folklore aura around the city projected by the yesterday's peasant- migrant defines many things including how cinematography is perceived by mass audience. The author's contribution to the topic of cinematography reception is the cinematography perception in terms of the myth of the city that existed in the nonindustrial culture. The  novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author of the article describes specific archetypes including religious archetypes that exist in the mind of the audience (recipients) and became evident in the process of cinematography perception in the 1900 - 1910s. 

Keywords: myth, folklore, reception, archetype, holiday, utopia, liminality, rite, city, cinematography

References:
Arendt Kh. Istoki totalitarizma. M., 1996., s. 441.
Belyy A. Gorod // Belyy A. Arabeski., M., 1911.
Blok A. Sobranie sochineniy v 8 t., t. 2., M-L., 1960.
Bryusov V. Sobranie sochineniy v 7 t., t. 1., M., 1973.
Bulgakov S. Geroizm i podvizhnichestvo // Vekhi. Sbornik statey o russkoy intelligentsii., M., 1990.
Bulgakov S. Apokaliptika, sotsiologiya, filosofiya istoriya, sotsializm // Russkaya mysl'., 1910., ¹6.
Kayyua R. Mif i chelovek. Chelovek i sakral'noe. , M., 2003.
Krakauer Z. Psikhologicheskaya istoriya nemetskogo kino. Ot Kaligari do Gitlera. M., 1977.
Massovaya literatura i krizis burzhuaznoy kul'tury Zapada., M., 1974.
Nitsshe F. K genealogii morali // Nitsshe F. Sochineniya v 2-kh t., t. 2., M., 1990.
Raykh V. Psikhologiya mass i fashizm., SPb., 1997.
Sennet R. Padenie publichnogo cheloveka., M., 2002.
Toporkov A. Kinematograf i mif // Kinematograf. Sbornik statey., M., 1919.
Khrenov N. Razvlechenie v epokhu smeny kul'turnykh tsiklov: model' fol'klora // Razvlechenie i iskusstvo., SPb., 2008.
Khrenov N. Izbrannye raboty po kul'turologii. Kul'tura i imperiya., M., 2014.
Khrenov N. Publika v istorii kul'tury. Fenomen publiki v rakurse psikhologii mass., M., 2007.
Khrenov N. Mif v formakh kinematografa kak slagaemoe imperskoy identichnosti // Teoriya khudozhestvennoy kul'tury. Vypusk 15., M., 2014.
Khrenov N. Arkhetipy pravoslavnogo messianizma v russkom kino // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. Vypusk 82., M., 2007.
Chilingarov A. Vliyanie Dyurera i sovremennoy emu nemetskoy grafiki na ikonografiyu postvizantiyskogo iskusstva // Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Zarubezhnye svyazi. M., 1975.
Chukovskiy K. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t., t. 6., M., 1969.
Tsiv'yan Yu. Istoricheskaya retseptsiya kino. Kinematograf v Rossii. 1896-1930., Riga.
Shestov L. Pobedy i porazheniya (Zhizn' i tvorchestvo G. Ibsena) // Russkaya mysl'. 1910., ¹ 4.
Eyzenshteyn S. Izbrannye proizvedeniya v 6 t., t. 3., M., 1964.
Etkind A. Khlyst. Sekty, literatura i revolyutsiya., M., 1998.

References (transliteration):
Arendt Kh. Istoki totalitarizma. M., 1996., s. 441.
Belyy A. Gorod // Belyy A. Arabeski., M., 1911.
Blok A. Sobranie sochineniy v 8 t., t. 2., M-L., 1960.
Bryusov V. Sobranie sochineniy v 7 t., t. 1., M., 1973.
Bulgakov S. Geroizm i podvizhnichestvo // Vekhi. Sbornik statey o russkoy intelligentsii., M., 1990.
Bulgakov S. Apokaliptika, sotsiologiya, filosofiya istoriya, sotsializm // Russkaya mysl'., 1910., ¹6.
Kayyua R. Mif i chelovek. Chelovek i sakral'noe. , M., 2003.
Krakauer Z. Psikhologicheskaya istoriya nemetskogo kino. Ot Kaligari do Gitlera. M., 1977.
Massovaya literatura i krizis burzhuaznoy kul'tury Zapada., M., 1974.
Nitsshe F. K genealogii morali // Nitsshe F. Sochineniya v 2-kh t., t. 2., M., 1990.
Raykh V. Psikhologiya mass i fashizm., SPb., 1997.
Sennet R. Padenie publichnogo cheloveka., M., 2002.
Toporkov A. Kinematograf i mif // Kinematograf. Sbornik statey., M., 1919.
Khrenov N. Razvlechenie v epokhu smeny kul'turnykh tsiklov: model' fol'klora // Razvlechenie i iskusstvo., SPb., 2008.
Khrenov N. Izbrannye raboty po kul'turologii. Kul'tura i imperiya., M., 2014.
Khrenov N. Publika v istorii kul'tury. Fenomen publiki v rakurse psikhologii mass., M., 2007.
Khrenov N. Mif v formakh kinematografa kak slagaemoe imperskoy identichnosti // Teoriya khudozhestvennoy kul'tury. Vypusk 15., M., 2014.
Khrenov N. Arkhetipy pravoslavnogo messianizma v russkom kino // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. Vypusk 82., M., 2007.
Chilingarov A. Vliyanie Dyurera i sovremennoy emu nemetskoy grafiki na ikonografiyu postvizantiyskogo iskusstva // Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Zarubezhnye svyazi. M., 1975.
Chukovskiy K. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t., t. 6., M., 1969.
Tsiv'yan Yu. Istoricheskaya retseptsiya kino. Kinematograf v Rossii. 1896-1930., Riga.
Shestov L. Pobedy i porazheniya (Zhizn' i tvorchestvo G. Ibsena) // Russkaya mysl'. 1910., ¹ 4.
Eyzenshteyn S. Izbrannye proizvedeniya v 6 t., t. 3., M., 1964.
Etkind A. Khlyst. Sekty, literatura i revolyutsiya., M., 1998.

Review: The article is devoted to aesthetic evaluation of Andrey Zvyagintsev's film 'Leviathan'. Using rather provocative methods, the researcher proves the genre of the flim to be a classical ancient tragedy where a protagonist, Kolya, becomes a victim of fatal events represented by a Biblical monster Leviathan. Tokmachev finds a number of features bringing together the film's heroes with the heroes of ancient tragedies (plasticity and integrity of their images, no reflection towards their own actions, irrational behavior and amechania, i.e. inactivity in extreme situations). The film's plot resembles a tragedy, too, in particular, it has a great number of narrative mismatches and accidents (recognition and peripeties) as well as a fatal chain of irreversible events and misfortunes that fell on the shoulders of the innocent hero. The researcher believes that Andrey Zvyagintsev's film has got double layers. Classical ancient tragedy is 'disguised' as a burning drama, the conflict between a 'corrupted' mayor and an 'honest' businessman unfolding among sublime beauty of the Polar Region and plain charms of provincial towns. The author of the article notes that that external conflict literally split the audience into those who supported the film and those who opposed the film. The author proves that the aforesaid conflict was not the essence of the matter but just decoration and circumstances in which the existential tragedy unfolds. Andrey Zvyagintsev excludes the episode of 'Kolya's rebellion against the mayor' from the final version of the film. At the main moments the hero stays inactive being in the state of amechania. This means that his opponent is not personified. However, neither mayor nor church is guilty in Kolya's misfortunes. Nobody is guilty here. The author reminds that the logic of ancient tragedy is different from the logic of the Judeo-Christian myth because there are no cause-and-effect relationships expressed by the 'crime and punishment' formula. Going beyond the borders of the Judeo-Christian myth or even cause-and-effect relationships, Andrey Zvyagintsev 'stops the samsara wheel' and 'screws out' the hero from numerous 'dispositifs of power' in order to see it as a purpose but not means (Immanuel Kant's expression). This allows the audience to empathize the hero or even experience a catharsis but not shallow selfish feelings relating to the support of or opposition against political preferences. This relates Andrey Zvyagintsev to the best fiction of Russian philosophy and literature.  

Keywords: ancient tragedy, dispositif of power, eyeless destiny, cause-and-effect relationship, movie, Kola Peninsula, Andrey Zvyagintsev (film director), aesthetics, Judeo-Christian myth, Leviathan

References:
Demkova N.S. Gramoty Ivana Groznogo shvedskim korolyam Eriku XIV i Iogannu III (Po rukopisyam Shvedskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhiva). // URL: http://odrl.pushkinskijdom.ru/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=_W-5ebuoLlQ=&tabid=2296 (data obrashcheniya 30.09.2015)
Panyukov M., Lifantsev D. Nedostatochno chernukhi. // Ekspress gazeta: sayt. URL: http://www.eg.ru/daily/cadr/45127 (data obrashcheniya 23.10.2015)
Petrarca Fr. Canzoniere CLVI // Biblioteca dei Classici Italiani di Giuseppe Bonghi da Lucera: sayt. URL: http://www.classicitaliani.it/index001.htm (data obrashcheniya 23.10.2015)
Pushkarev I. V gorode, gde snimali «Leviafan» biznesmen zastrelil mera… // TLTgorod.ru: sayt. URL: http://tltgorod.ru/reporter/?theme=134&page=5&reporter=49352 (data obrashcheniya 23.10.2015)
Pieter Bruegel / La pittura a cura di Arturo Bovi. Giunti-Nardini Editore. 1977.
Agamben Dzh. Profanatsii / per. s ital. K. Tokmacheva pod red. B. Skuratova. M.: Gileya, 2014.

References (transliteration):
Demkova N.S. Gramoty Ivana Groznogo shvedskim korolyam Eriku XIV i Iogannu III (Po rukopisyam Shvedskogo gosudarstvennogo arkhiva). // URL: http://odrl.pushkinskijdom.ru/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=_W-5ebuoLlQ=&tabid=2296 (data obrashcheniya 30.09.2015)
Panyukov M., Lifantsev D. Nedostatochno chernukhi. // Ekspress gazeta: sayt. URL: http://www.eg.ru/daily/cadr/45127 (data obrashcheniya 23.10.2015)
Petrarca Fr. Canzoniere CLVI // Biblioteca dei Classici Italiani di Giuseppe Bonghi da Lucera: sayt. URL: http://www.classicitaliani.it/index001.htm (data obrashcheniya 23.10.2015)
Pushkarev I. V gorode, gde snimali «Leviafan» biznesmen zastrelil mera… // TLTgorod.ru: sayt. URL: http://tltgorod.ru/reporter/?theme=134&page=5&reporter=49352 (data obrashcheniya 23.10.2015)
Pieter Bruegel / La pittura a cura di Arturo Bovi. Giunti-Nardini Editore. 1977.
Agamben Dzh. Profanatsii / per. s ital. K. Tokmacheva pod red. B. Skuratova. M.: Gileya, 2014.

Review: Based on Mikhail Bulgakov’s literary heritage (both narrative and dramaturgical), the author of the article explores the problem of the screen adaptation of literary works. The author interprets screen adaptation as a “translation” of a given artwork between the two different art languages. This means that an interpretation of any literary source for screen purposes (both for the cinema and for TV) is a creative action that stands closer to a philosophical and cultural analysis that to a work of a copyist or an illustrator. The author also argues that interpretation of the classics may be also understood as a “dialogue of cultures” (using M. M. Bakhtin’s term); in this case – a dialogue between the print (book) culture and the screen (audio and visual) culture. Analyzing the problems of screen interpretation of Mikhail Bulgakov's works, the author bases her research on historical-comparative and interdisciplinary methods combining art history and cultural analysis with the method of the philological analysis of texts. The importance and novelty of the topic are caused not only by the growing role of screen (audio visual) culture as the phenomenon of the information epoch but also the increasing academic interest in the screen interpetation of literary works. 'Screen culture' is a broad term. It covers all screen forms of creativity: cinema, television, video, computer technologies, Internet, network art, etc. This is what makes the problem of the screen interpretation (film adaptation) of literary works (epic, poetic and dramaturgical) so important. Screen adaptation is nothing else but a 'translation' of an artwork from one art language to another. Analyzing the works of screen culture (films by A. Alov and V. Naumov, V. Basov and L. Gaidai, V. Bortko and Yu. Kara, S. Snezhkin, A. Efros etc.) that were based on the M. A. Bulgakov’s literary heritage, the author comes to the conclusion that the interpreter’s task is extraordinary difficult: using audio and visual images, he or she has to transmit not just the content, but the original idea, the “soul” of the literary work, at the same time bringing it closer to the contemporary perception of the artwork.

Keywords: political satire, tragicomedy, tragifarce, magic realism, macroworld of Mikhail Bulgakov, screen culture, screen adaptation, interpretation of the classics, dialogue of cultures, phantasmagoria

References:
Bulgakov M.A. Master i Margarita//Bulgakov M.A. Izbr. soch. v 3-kh t.t. – T.2. – M.-SPb.: Izd-vo «Literatura», 1997.-731 s.
Efros A. Mizantrop//Efros A. Izbr. proizv. v 4-kh tt. T. 4. – M.: Fond «Russkiy teatr», 1993. – S. 282-339.
Lakshin V.Ya. Roman M. Bulgakova «Master i Margarita»//Novyy mir, 1968, ¹ 6.-S. 284-311.
Rudnitskiy K.S. Spektakli raznykh let. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1974.-S. 343.
Bulgakov M.A. Kabala svyatosh//Bulgakov M.A. Izbr. soch. v 3-kh t.t. – T.3. – M.-SPb.: Izd-vo «Literatura», 1997.-731 s.
Bulgakov M.A. – dramaturg i khudozhestvennaya kul'tura ego vremeni. Sb. statey/Sost. A.A. Nilov. – M.: STD RSFSR, 1988.-384 s.
Efros A. Prodolzhenie teatral'nogo romana//Efros A. Izbr. proizv. v 4-kh t.t. T. 3. – M.: Fond «Russkiy teatr», 1993.-431 s.
Sabashnikova E.S. Tret'e rozhdenie. Puti razvitiya televizionnogo teatra. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1982.-168 s.
Bulgakov M.A. Belaya gvardiya//Bulgakov M.A. Izbr. soch. v 3-kh t.t. – T.1. – M.-SPb.: Izd-vo «Literatura», 1997.-686 s.
Sokolov B. Bulgakovskaya entsiklopediya. – M.: Yauza; Eksmo, 2016.-832 s.
Kirillova N.B. Kinometamorfozy: Vremya. Portrety. Sud'by. – Ekaterinburg: Bank kul'turnoy informatsii, 2002.-320 s.
Eyzenshteyn S. Montazh attraktsionov// Izbr. proizv. v 6-i tt. – T. 2. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1964. – S. 269-273.
Zak M. Kinorezhissura: opyt i poisk. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1983.-269 s.
Bulgakov M. Iz literaturnogo naslediya. Pis'ma//Oktyabr', 1987, ¹ 6.-S. 137-191.
Bulgakov M.A. P'esy 1920-kh gody. Teatral'noe nasledie. 2 izd.-L.: Iskusstvo, 1990.-591 s. s il.
Bakhtin M. Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. – M.: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1972.-470 s.
Bakhtin M. Fransua Rable i narodnaya kul'tura srednevekov'ya i Renessansa. – M.: Eksmo, 2015.-640 s.
Smelyanskiy A. Mikhail Bulgakov v Khudozhestvennom teatre. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1986.-384 s.
Elektronnaya kul'tura i ekrannye formy tvorchestva/Pod red. K.E. Razlogova. – M.: RIK, 2006.-384 s.
Sergeev E.A. Perevod s originala. Teleekranizatsiya russkoy literaturnoy klassiki. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1980.-200 s.

References (transliteration):
Bulgakov M.A. Master i Margarita//Bulgakov M.A. Izbr. soch. v 3-kh t.t. – T.2. – M.-SPb.: Izd-vo «Literatura», 1997.-731 s.
Efros A. Mizantrop//Efros A. Izbr. proizv. v 4-kh tt. T. 4. – M.: Fond «Russkiy teatr», 1993. – S. 282-339.
Lakshin V.Ya. Roman M. Bulgakova «Master i Margarita»//Novyy mir, 1968, ¹ 6.-S. 284-311.
Rudnitskiy K.S. Spektakli raznykh let. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1974.-S. 343.
Bulgakov M.A. Kabala svyatosh//Bulgakov M.A. Izbr. soch. v 3-kh t.t. – T.3. – M.-SPb.: Izd-vo «Literatura», 1997.-731 s.
Bulgakov M.A. – dramaturg i khudozhestvennaya kul'tura ego vremeni. Sb. statey/Sost. A.A. Nilov. – M.: STD RSFSR, 1988.-384 s.
Efros A. Prodolzhenie teatral'nogo romana//Efros A. Izbr. proizv. v 4-kh t.t. T. 3. – M.: Fond «Russkiy teatr», 1993.-431 s.
Sabashnikova E.S. Tret'e rozhdenie. Puti razvitiya televizionnogo teatra. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1982.-168 s.
Bulgakov M.A. Belaya gvardiya//Bulgakov M.A. Izbr. soch. v 3-kh t.t. – T.1. – M.-SPb.: Izd-vo «Literatura», 1997.-686 s.
Sokolov B. Bulgakovskaya entsiklopediya. – M.: Yauza; Eksmo, 2016.-832 s.
Kirillova N.B. Kinometamorfozy: Vremya. Portrety. Sud'by. – Ekaterinburg: Bank kul'turnoy informatsii, 2002.-320 s.
Eyzenshteyn S. Montazh attraktsionov// Izbr. proizv. v 6-i tt. – T. 2. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1964. – S. 269-273.
Zak M. Kinorezhissura: opyt i poisk. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1983.-269 s.
Bulgakov M. Iz literaturnogo naslediya. Pis'ma//Oktyabr', 1987, ¹ 6.-S. 137-191.
Bulgakov M.A. P'esy 1920-kh gody. Teatral'noe nasledie. 2 izd.-L.: Iskusstvo, 1990.-591 s. s il.
Bakhtin M. Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo. – M.: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, 1972.-470 s.
Bakhtin M. Fransua Rable i narodnaya kul'tura srednevekov'ya i Renessansa. – M.: Eksmo, 2015.-640 s.
Smelyanskiy A. Mikhail Bulgakov v Khudozhestvennom teatre. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1986.-384 s.
Elektronnaya kul'tura i ekrannye formy tvorchestva/Pod red. K.E. Razlogova. – M.: RIK, 2006.-384 s.
Sergeev E.A. Perevod s originala. Teleekranizatsiya russkoy literaturnoy klassiki. – M.: Iskusstvo, 1980.-200 s.

Review: In the article the author attempts to identify mythological implications that determine perception of particular films produced by various directors in different time periods. These implications have a strong influence on public consciousness but this impact does not comprehended. Among other things the content of mass reception of cinema includes out-of-cinematic manifestations of collective unconscious. Mental projections of images - archetypes which came into existence in different periods of cultural history and connected with utopian visions, myths, and religious symbols are becoming actual in it. Noteworthy that projections on the city precede the projections of collective unconscious on the cinema; the latter are transferred on the cinema later on. Finally, the cinema in principal makes a colossal intertextuality in which cultural history is reflected both in its axial and pre-axial aspects. The subject under analysis of the present article is the projections that become realistic already at early stages of the history of film. In his research of the perception of early cinematography (mostly Russian) Khrenov has applied methodologies of such psychological schools as psychoanaysis and analytical psychology as well as crowd psychology as it was introduced by Gustave Le Bon and Serge Moscovici. The main conclusions of the research are the following: a) the audience of the early cinematography had the layers of urban population that preserved folklore stereotypes in their minds; b) perception of the city occurs in accordance with the folklore stereotype of perceiving the city as a holiday; c) the aura produced by the public consciousness on the city is defined by the attitude of public on the cinema. The author's contribution to the research of cinema perception is his analysis of cinema as a city myth. According to the author, early cinematographic plots reproduce motives of the holiday myth. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author defines specific archetypes that become actual in the process of cinema perception. 

Keywords: city, myth, folklore, reception, archetype, holiday, utopia, liminality, rite, cinematography

References:
E.V. Odintsova Kul'tura, byt i prazdnik v zhizni
russkogo naroda posledney treti XVII veka // Filosofiya i kul'tura. - 2011. - 11. - s. 73 - 80.
Yampol'skiy M. Vidimyy mir. Ocherki ranney kinofenomenologii. M., 199
Eykhenbaum B. Literatura i kino // Eykhenbaum B. Literatura. teoriya. Kritika. Polemika. L., 1927.
Eyzenshteyn S. Izbrannye proizvedeniya v 6 t., t. 2., M., 1964.
Shelling F. Filosofiya iskusstva. M., 1966.
Tsiv'yan Yu. Istoricheskaya retseptsiya kino. Kinematograf v Rossii. 1896-1930. Riga., 1991.
Khrenov N. Vozdeystvie "esteticheskikh gorizontov" massovoy publiki na otnosheniya kino i literatury v pervye desyatiletiya KhKh veka // Ekrannye iskusstva i literatura. Nemoe kino. M., 1991.
Khrenov N. Ot lubka k kinematografu: rol' lubka v stanovlenii massovoy kul'tury // Traditsionnaya kul'tura. 2001., ¹ 2.
Khrenov N. Psikhologiya goroda i vzaimodeystvie zrelishch i publiki v kontse KhIKh-nachale KhKh vekov // Khudozhnik i publika. L., 1981.
Toporkov A. Kinematograf i mif // Kinematograf. Sbornik statey. M., 1919.
Platon. Sochineniya v 3-kh t., t. 3., chast' 1., M., 1971.
Mikhalkovich V. Poezd i prizraki // Iskusstvo kino., 1995., ¹ 11.
Mikhalkovich V. Kino i televidenie ili o neskhodstve skhodnogo // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. 1996., ¹ 30.
Maklyuen M. Ponimanie media: vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka. Moskva-Zhukovskiy., 2003.
Lotman Yu. Syuzhetnoe prostranstvo russkogo romana KhIKh stoletiya // Lotman Yu. Izbrannye stat'i v 3-kh t., t. 3., Tallinn., 1993.
Losev A. Dialektika mifa // Losev A. Filosofiya. Mifologiya. Kul'tura. M., 1991.
Kler R. Razmyshleniya o kinoiskusstve. M., 1958.
Ivanov Vyach. Vs. K semioticheskomu izucheniyu kul'turnoy istorii bol'shogo goroda // Semiotika prostranstva i prostranstvo semiotiki. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 19., tom 720., Tartu., 1986.
Ivanov Vyach. Rodnoe i vselenskoe. M., 1994.
Burlyuk D.Futurist o kinematografe // Kine-zhurnal., 1913., ¹22.
Geynim. Sinematograf i teatr // Sine-fono., 1913., ¹ 23.
Gor'kiy M. Sinematograf Lyum'era // Gor'kiy M. Sobranie sochineniy v 30 t., t. 23., M., 1958.
Brailovskiy M.Sinematograf i futurizm // Sine-fono., 1913., ¹ 23.
Andreev L. Pis'ma o teatre // Istoriya otechestvennogo kino. Khrestomatiya. M., 2011.
Bazen A.Chto takoe kino? M., 1972.
Bashlyar G. Novyy ratsionalizm. M., Progress., 1987.
Sertakova E.A. Kontsept «gorod» v russkoy kul'ture // Chelovek i kul'tura. - 2014. - 2. - C. 97 - 126. DOI: 10.7256/2409-8744.2014.2.12044. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/ca/article_12044.html
Sertakova E.A. Kontsept «gorod» v russkoy kul'ture // Chelovek i kul'tura. - 2014. - 2. - C. 97 - 126. DOI. 10.7256/2409-8744.2014.2.12044. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/ca/article_12044.html.
E.V. Odintsova Kul'tura, byt i prazdnik v zhizni
russkogo naroda posledney treti XVII veka // Filosofiya i kul'tura. - 2011. - 11. - C. 73 - 80.

References (transliteration):
E.V. Odintsova Kul'tura, byt i prazdnik v zhizni
russkogo naroda posledney treti XVII veka // Filosofiya i kul'tura. - 2011. - 11. - s. 73 - 80.
Yampol'skiy M. Vidimyy mir. Ocherki ranney kinofenomenologii. M., 199
Eykhenbaum B. Literatura i kino // Eykhenbaum B. Literatura. teoriya. Kritika. Polemika. L., 1927.
Eyzenshteyn S. Izbrannye proizvedeniya v 6 t., t. 2., M., 1964.
Shelling F. Filosofiya iskusstva. M., 1966.
Tsiv'yan Yu. Istoricheskaya retseptsiya kino. Kinematograf v Rossii. 1896-1930. Riga., 1991.
Khrenov N. Vozdeystvie "esteticheskikh gorizontov" massovoy publiki na otnosheniya kino i literatury v pervye desyatiletiya KhKh veka // Ekrannye iskusstva i literatura. Nemoe kino. M., 1991.
Khrenov N. Ot lubka k kinematografu: rol' lubka v stanovlenii massovoy kul'tury // Traditsionnaya kul'tura. 2001., ¹ 2.
Khrenov N. Psikhologiya goroda i vzaimodeystvie zrelishch i publiki v kontse KhIKh-nachale KhKh vekov // Khudozhnik i publika. L., 1981.
Toporkov A. Kinematograf i mif // Kinematograf. Sbornik statey. M., 1919.
Platon. Sochineniya v 3-kh t., t. 3., chast' 1., M., 1971.
Mikhalkovich V. Poezd i prizraki // Iskusstvo kino., 1995., ¹ 11.
Mikhalkovich V. Kino i televidenie ili o neskhodstve skhodnogo // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. 1996., ¹ 30.
Maklyuen M. Ponimanie media: vneshnie rasshireniya cheloveka. Moskva-Zhukovskiy., 2003.
Lotman Yu. Syuzhetnoe prostranstvo russkogo romana KhIKh stoletiya // Lotman Yu. Izbrannye stat'i v 3-kh t., t. 3., Tallinn., 1993.
Losev A. Dialektika mifa // Losev A. Filosofiya. Mifologiya. Kul'tura. M., 1991.
Kler R. Razmyshleniya o kinoiskusstve. M., 1958.
Ivanov Vyach. Vs. K semioticheskomu izucheniyu kul'turnoy istorii bol'shogo goroda // Semiotika prostranstva i prostranstvo semiotiki. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 19., tom 720., Tartu., 1986.
Ivanov Vyach. Rodnoe i vselenskoe. M., 1994.
Burlyuk D.Futurist o kinematografe // Kine-zhurnal., 1913., ¹22.
Geynim. Sinematograf i teatr // Sine-fono., 1913., ¹ 23.
Gor'kiy M. Sinematograf Lyum'era // Gor'kiy M. Sobranie sochineniy v 30 t., t. 23., M., 1958.
Brailovskiy M.Sinematograf i futurizm // Sine-fono., 1913., ¹ 23.
Andreev L. Pis'ma o teatre // Istoriya otechestvennogo kino. Khrestomatiya. M., 2011.
Bazen A.Chto takoe kino? M., 1972.
Bashlyar G. Novyy ratsionalizm. M., Progress., 1987.
Sertakova E.A. Kontsept «gorod» v russkoy kul'ture // Chelovek i kul'tura. - 2014. - 2. - C. 97 - 126. DOI: 10.7256/2409-8744.2014.2.12044. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/ca/article_12044.html
Sertakova E.A. Kontsept «gorod» v russkoy kul'ture // Chelovek i kul'tura. - 2014. - 2. - C. 97 - 126. DOI. 10.7256/2409-8744.2014.2.12044. URL: http://www.e-notabene.ru/ca/article_12044.html.
E.V. Odintsova Kul'tura, byt i prazdnik v zhizni
russkogo naroda posledney treti XVII veka // Filosofiya i kul'tura. - 2011. - 11. - C. 73 - 80.

Review: The subject of the present research is the mythological subtexts that define how particular movies and films created in different periods are perceived by the audience. According to the author, these subtexts have a strong influence on mass consciousness of public, however, public is usually unaware of such influence. Among other things the content of mass reception includes out-of-cinematographic manifestations of collective unconscious. Mental projections of archetypic images which came into existence in different periods of cultural history and connected with utopian visions, myths, and religious symbols are coming to the fore. Noteworthy that projections on the city are precede the projections of collective unconscious on the cinema; they are transferred into the cinema later on. Finally, the cinema in principal makes a colossal intertext in which cultural history is reflected both in its axial and pre-axial aspects. The scope of analysis comes down to the projections which become realistic already at early stages of cinematography history. To define mythological and archetypical subtexts of cinematography reception, the author of the article has used methodology of such academic disciplines as receptive esthetics, psychoanalysis and analytical psychology. The main conclusions of the research are the following: a) the structure of the audience of early cinematograph was made up mostly of urban social groups which had folklore stereotypes in their consciousness; b) the city was perceived in accordance with the folklore stereotype of the festive revelry as a synonym for freedom; c) the aura around the city created by the mass consciousness defines many things including how cinematography is perceived. The author's contribution to the topic of cinematography reception is the recognition of the image of cinema containing the myth of the city. The  novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author of the article describes specific archetypes that exist in the mind of the audience (recipients) and become evident in the process of cinematography perception. 

Keywords: rite, liminality, utopia, holiday, archetype, reception, folklore, myth, city, cinematography

References:
Shelling F. Filosofiya mifologii., t. 2. SPb., 2013.
Tsiv'yan Yu. Istoricheskaya retseptsiya kino. Kinematograf v Rossii. 1896-1930. Riga., 1991.
Chukovskiy K. Nat Pinkerton i sovremennaya literatura. M., 1910.
Khrenov N. Kino v funktsii formirovaniya i podderzhaniya kollektivnoy identichnosti // Kino i kollektivnaya identichnost'. M., 2013.
Khrenov N. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie aspekty vzaimodeystviya iskusstva i publiki.M., 1981.
Khrenov N. Kino: reabilitatsiya arkhetipicheskoy real'nosti.M., 2006.
Trubetskoy E. "Inoe tsarstvo" i ego iskateli v russkoy narodnoy skazke // Literaturnaya ucheba. 1990., ¹ 2-3.
Terner V. Simvol i ritual. M., 1983.
Toporov V. Peterburg i peterburgskiy tekst russkoy literatury // Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 18., t. 664.. 1984.
Psikhologiya teatral'noy tolpy // Teatr i iskusstvo. 1898., ¹ 5.
Sennet R. Padenie publichnogo cheloveka. M.. 2002.
Propp V. Russkie agrarnye prazdniki.L., 1963.
Kayua R. Mif i chelovek. Chelovek i sakral'noe. M., 2003.
Lotman Yu. Simvolika Peterburga i problemy semiotiki goroda // Semiotika goroda i gorodskoy kul'tury. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 18., t. 664., Tartu., 1984.
Ivanov Vyach. Predchuvstviya i predvestiya // Ivanov Vyach. Rodnoe i vselenskoe. M., 1994.
Ivanov Vyach. Vs. K semioticheskomu izucheniyu kul'turnoy istorii bol'shogo goroda // Semiotika prostranstva i prostranstvo semiotiki. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 19., t. 664., Tartu., 1986.
Dellyuk L. Fotogeniya kino. M., 1924.
Zorkaya N. Kinematograf v zhizni Aleksandra Bloka // Iz istorii kino. Vypusk 9., M., 1974.
Zorkaya N. Na rubezhe stoletiy. U istokov massovogo iskusstva v Rossii 1900-1910-kh godov. M., 1976.
Veber A. Rost gorodov v KhIKh stoletii. SPb.,1903.
Voloshin M. Mysli o teatre // Apollon., 1910., ¹ 5.
Geynim. Sinematograf i teatr // Sine-fono., 1913., ¹ 23.
Gurevich L. Zametki o sovremennoy literature. Mechty i mysli o novoy drame // Russkaya mysl'., M., 1910., ¹ 4.
Vasil'ev N. Vopros o padenii Zapadnoy Rimskoy imperii i antichnoy kul'tury v istoriograficheskoy literature i v istorii filosofii v svyazi s teoriey istoshcheniya narodov i chelovechestva // Izvestiya obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom universitete. t. KhKhKhI., Vypusk 1-4., Kazan'., 1920.
Belyy A. Teatr i sovremennaya drama // Belyy A. Simvolizm kak miroponimanie.M., 1994.
Bazen A.Chto takoe kino? M., 1972.
Belyy A. Sinematograf //Belyy A. Arabeski.M., 1911.

References (transliteration):
Shelling F. Filosofiya mifologii., t. 2. SPb., 2013.
Tsiv'yan Yu. Istoricheskaya retseptsiya kino. Kinematograf v Rossii. 1896-1930. Riga., 1991.
Chukovskiy K. Nat Pinkerton i sovremennaya literatura. M., 1910.
Khrenov N. Kino v funktsii formirovaniya i podderzhaniya kollektivnoy identichnosti // Kino i kollektivnaya identichnost'. M., 2013.
Khrenov N. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskie aspekty vzaimodeystviya iskusstva i publiki.M., 1981.
Khrenov N. Kino: reabilitatsiya arkhetipicheskoy real'nosti.M., 2006.
Trubetskoy E. "Inoe tsarstvo" i ego iskateli v russkoy narodnoy skazke // Literaturnaya ucheba. 1990., ¹ 2-3.
Terner V. Simvol i ritual. M., 1983.
Toporov V. Peterburg i peterburgskiy tekst russkoy literatury // Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 18., t. 664.. 1984.
Psikhologiya teatral'noy tolpy // Teatr i iskusstvo. 1898., ¹ 5.
Sennet R. Padenie publichnogo cheloveka. M.. 2002.
Propp V. Russkie agrarnye prazdniki.L., 1963.
Kayua R. Mif i chelovek. Chelovek i sakral'noe. M., 2003.
Lotman Yu. Simvolika Peterburga i problemy semiotiki goroda // Semiotika goroda i gorodskoy kul'tury. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 18., t. 664., Tartu., 1984.
Ivanov Vyach. Predchuvstviya i predvestiya // Ivanov Vyach. Rodnoe i vselenskoe. M., 1994.
Ivanov Vyach. Vs. K semioticheskomu izucheniyu kul'turnoy istorii bol'shogo goroda // Semiotika prostranstva i prostranstvo semiotiki. Trudy po znakovym sistemam. Vypusk 19., t. 664., Tartu., 1986.
Dellyuk L. Fotogeniya kino. M., 1924.
Zorkaya N. Kinematograf v zhizni Aleksandra Bloka // Iz istorii kino. Vypusk 9., M., 1974.
Zorkaya N. Na rubezhe stoletiy. U istokov massovogo iskusstva v Rossii 1900-1910-kh godov. M., 1976.
Veber A. Rost gorodov v KhIKh stoletii. SPb.,1903.
Voloshin M. Mysli o teatre // Apollon., 1910., ¹ 5.
Geynim. Sinematograf i teatr // Sine-fono., 1913., ¹ 23.
Gurevich L. Zametki o sovremennoy literature. Mechty i mysli o novoy drame // Russkaya mysl'., M., 1910., ¹ 4.
Vasil'ev N. Vopros o padenii Zapadnoy Rimskoy imperii i antichnoy kul'tury v istoriograficheskoy literature i v istorii filosofii v svyazi s teoriey istoshcheniya narodov i chelovechestva // Izvestiya obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom universitete. t. KhKhKhI., Vypusk 1-4., Kazan'., 1920.
Belyy A. Teatr i sovremennaya drama // Belyy A. Simvolizm kak miroponimanie.M., 1994.
Bazen A.Chto takoe kino? M., 1972.
Belyy A. Sinematograf //Belyy A. Arabeski.M., 1911.

Review: The subject of the research is the screen sound as a component of audiovisal image in Japanese cinematograph. The author of the article discovers some capabilities and other features of audio information that influence the process of formation of artistic time continuum of a screen piece. The fact that the sound has a temporal characteristic in cinematograph and appears in the real-time environment of a recipient makes it possible to search for global dependencies between screen sound as a phenomenon and aspect of time in a sound image. Being part of Japanese aesthetic system, modern Japanese cinematograph has its peculiarities which allows to examine these factors thoroughly. The present research is based on the phenomenological approach to sound as the phenomenon of cinematograph reality as well as concepts of traditional Japanese aesthetics. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the author develops the system of dependencies between properties of a comprehensive sound solution of a piece of screen in terms of its connection with the chronotope. The given system of dependencies 'sound - artistic time continuum' has a universal nature and reveals new opportunities for audio expressivity in cinematograph. 

Keywords: Japanese, contemporary, chronotope, time, artistic, sound, screen, cinematograph, phonography, aesthetics

References:
Sterne J. The Sound Studies Reader. Routledge, 2012. 578 p.
Mes T. Iron Man: The Cinema of Shinya Tsukamoto. Godalming: FAB Press, 2005. 237 p.
Masaoka M. Notes From a Trans-Cultural Diary // Arcana: Musicians on Music / ed. J. Zorn. Granary Books, 2000. 153-166 pp.
Chion M. Audio-vision: Sound on Screen / M. Chion, W. Murch. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. 282 p.
Yampol'skiy M.B. Kino bez kino / M.B. Yampol'skiy // Iskusstvo kino. 1988. ¹ 6. S. 88–94.
Obrist Kh. Kratkaya istoriya novoy muzyki. M.: Ad Marginem, 2015. 280 c.
Lem S. Filosofiya sluchaya. M.: AST Moskva. Tranzitkniga, 2005. 201 s.
Delez Zh. Kino. M.: Ad Marginem, 2012. 560 c.
Keydzh Dzh. Tishina. Lektsii i stat'i. Vologda: Poligraf-kniga, 2012. 123 s.
Grigor'eva T. P. Yaponskaya khudozhestvennaya traditsiya. M.: Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoy literatury izdatel'stva «Nauka», 1979. 370 c.
Bart R. Camera lucida. Kommentariy k fotografii. M.: Ad Marginem, 2013. 192 s.
Balash B. Kino: stanovlenie i sushchnost' novogo iskusstva. M.: Progress, 1968. 324 c.

References (transliteration):
Sterne J. The Sound Studies Reader. Routledge, 2012. 578 p.
Mes T. Iron Man: The Cinema of Shinya Tsukamoto. Godalming: FAB Press, 2005. 237 p.
Masaoka M. Notes From a Trans-Cultural Diary // Arcana: Musicians on Music / ed. J. Zorn. Granary Books, 2000. 153-166 pp.
Chion M. Audio-vision: Sound on Screen / M. Chion, W. Murch. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994. 282 p.
Yampol'skiy M.B. Kino bez kino / M.B. Yampol'skiy // Iskusstvo kino. 1988. ¹ 6. S. 88–94.
Obrist Kh. Kratkaya istoriya novoy muzyki. M.: Ad Marginem, 2015. 280 c.
Lem S. Filosofiya sluchaya. M.: AST Moskva. Tranzitkniga, 2005. 201 s.
Delez Zh. Kino. M.: Ad Marginem, 2012. 560 c.
Keydzh Dzh. Tishina. Lektsii i stat'i. Vologda: Poligraf-kniga, 2012. 123 s.
Grigor'eva T. P. Yaponskaya khudozhestvennaya traditsiya. M.: Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoy literatury izdatel'stva «Nauka», 1979. 370 c.
Bart R. Camera lucida. Kommentariy k fotografii. M.: Ad Marginem, 2013. 192 s.
Balash B. Kino: stanovlenie i sushchnost' novogo iskusstva. M.: Progress, 1968. 324 c.

Review: The subject under research is the screen as a form-making principle in culture as well as particular forms of screen art. Even though there is a great variety of modern screens, gigantic and small, private and public, interactive and linear, dynamic and static ones, we can still easily recognize the screen form as it is. It is clearly distinctive from other visual phenomena. The screen can be recognized based on several features: it has the frame (visible border between the screen and other space), surface, it demonstrates the dialectics of the hidden and discovered and has the polyscreen feature. The latter takes us to a completely new of the analysis of screen, i.e. in terms of mediality. The screen is a particular case of mediality in which regard we can only partly reconstruct the ‘movement’ given at the moment of ‘change’. In her research the author uses the approaches of media studies as well as screen studies or screenology viewing screen as a medium, i.e. the combination of many conditions related to the features of a particular data storage device (but not limited to them) allowing to make information visible. The novelty of the research is in the fact that the author is the first one to apply to the concept of mediality to the phenomenon of screen. The author’s approach allows to explain the vision effect when the image is rendered through a particular screen. The author also raises a debating question about the material nature of medium (metaxu) and the relation between the material and mediality. The author has made a great contribution to the development of the performance concept of mediality (in other words, the concept of mediality as a practice). It is concluded that the screen is a particular case of mediality. It has no ontology or chronological certainty. In other words, the screen does not exist but ‘being established’.

Keywords: Screen, medial, medium, screen culture, screen practice, TV, computer, cinematograph, surface, border.

References:
Flyusser V. Za filosofiyu fotografii / Per. s nem. G. Khaydarovoy. — SPb.: Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta, 2008.
Khukhtamo E. Elementy ekranologii: k probleme arkheologii media / Ekrannaya kul'tura. Teoreticheskie problemy: sb. statey / SPb.: «DMITRIY BULANIN», 2012.
Osnovy muzeevedeniya. Uchebnoe posobie. M.: Editorial URSS, 2005.
Mersh, Diter. Meta/Dia. Dva razlichnykh podkhoda k medial'nomu // Issledovatel'skiy tsentr mediafilosofii, rezhim dostupa: http://mediaphilosophy.ru/biblioteca/articles/mersh_dia/#footnote-27
Manovich L. Arkheologiya komp'yuternogo ekrana // Ekrannaya kul'tura. Teoreticheskie problemy: sb. statey / SPb.: «DMITRIY BULANIN», 2012.
Ginzburg S.S. Ocherki teorii kino. M.: Iskusstvo, 1974.
Ioskevich Ya.B. Novye tekhnologii i evolyutsiya khudozhestvennoy kul'tury. Spb.: RIII, SPbGUKit, 2003.
Bazen A. Chto takoe kino? Sb. statey. M.: Iskusstvo, 1972.
Bergman I. Laterna magika. M.: Iskusstvo, 1989.
The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (CDC). New York: The Century Co, revised and enlarged, 1911 (orig. 1889). Vol. VIII, “screen”.
Panofsky, Erwin. Die Perspektive als ‚symbolische Form’, in: ders., Aufsätze zu Grundfragen der Kunstwissenschaft, Berlin, 1998.
Oxford English Dictionary, II edition / ed.by J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Musser, Charles. Emergence of the Cinema: the American screen to 1907 // History of the American Cinema. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press: 1994. Vol. 1. Chapter 1, “Towards a History of Screen Practice”.
Levie, Françoise. Étienne-Gaspard Robertson, la vie d’un fantasmagore, Longueuil et Bruxelles, Les Éditions du Préambule et Sofidoc, coll. «Contrechamp», 1990.
Flusser V. Two approaches to the Phenomenon, Television / The New Television: A Public/Private Art / ed.by D.Davis and A. Simmons, Cambridge, Mass.: The Mitt Press, 1977.
Huhtamo E. Elements of Screenology: Toward an Archaeology of the Screen // ICONICS: International Studies of the Modern Image. 2004. Vol. 7.
Gere Ch. Genealogy of the computer screen // Visual Communication. 2006. No. 5. DOI: 10.1177/1470357206065306. Rezhim dostupa: http://vcj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/141
Yurenev R.N. Chudesnoe okno: Kratkaya istoriya mirovogo kino: Kn. dlya uchashchikhsya. – M.: Prosveshchenie, 1983.
E. V. Sal'nikova K voprosu o predystorii sovremennoy vizual'noy tekhnicheskoy kul'tury // Kul'tura i iskusstvo.-2012.-2.-C. 53-61.
O.V. Krasnoyarova Ob istokakh ontologizatsii media
v fenomenologii M. Merlo-Ponti // Filosofiya i kul'tura. - 2012. - 1. - C. 23 - 29.

References (transliteration):
Flyusser V. Za filosofiyu fotografii / Per. s nem. G. Khaydarovoy. — SPb.: Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta, 2008.
Khukhtamo E. Elementy ekranologii: k probleme arkheologii media / Ekrannaya kul'tura. Teoreticheskie problemy: sb. statey / SPb.: «DMITRIY BULANIN», 2012.
Osnovy muzeevedeniya. Uchebnoe posobie. M.: Editorial URSS, 2005.
Mersh, Diter. Meta/Dia. Dva razlichnykh podkhoda k medial'nomu // Issledovatel'skiy tsentr mediafilosofii, rezhim dostupa: http://mediaphilosophy.ru/biblioteca/articles/mersh_dia/#footnote-27
Manovich L. Arkheologiya komp'yuternogo ekrana // Ekrannaya kul'tura. Teoreticheskie problemy: sb. statey / SPb.: «DMITRIY BULANIN», 2012.
Ginzburg S.S. Ocherki teorii kino. M.: Iskusstvo, 1974.
Ioskevich Ya.B. Novye tekhnologii i evolyutsiya khudozhestvennoy kul'tury. Spb.: RIII, SPbGUKit, 2003.
Bazen A. Chto takoe kino? Sb. statey. M.: Iskusstvo, 1972.
Bergman I. Laterna magika. M.: Iskusstvo, 1989.
The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (CDC). New York: The Century Co, revised and enlarged, 1911 (orig. 1889). Vol. VIII, “screen”.
Panofsky, Erwin. Die Perspektive als ‚symbolische Form’, in: ders., Aufsätze zu Grundfragen der Kunstwissenschaft, Berlin, 1998.
Oxford English Dictionary, II edition / ed.by J.A. Simpson and E.S.C. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Musser, Charles. Emergence of the Cinema: the American screen to 1907 // History of the American Cinema. Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press: 1994. Vol. 1. Chapter 1, “Towards a History of Screen Practice”.
Levie, Françoise. Étienne-Gaspard Robertson, la vie d’un fantasmagore, Longueuil et Bruxelles, Les Éditions du Préambule et Sofidoc, coll. «Contrechamp», 1990.
Flusser V. Two approaches to the Phenomenon, Television / The New Television: A Public/Private Art / ed.by D.Davis and A. Simmons, Cambridge, Mass.: The Mitt Press, 1977.
Huhtamo E. Elements of Screenology: Toward an Archaeology of the Screen // ICONICS: International Studies of the Modern Image. 2004. Vol. 7.
Gere Ch. Genealogy of the computer screen // Visual Communication. 2006. No. 5. DOI: 10.1177/1470357206065306. Rezhim dostupa: http://vcj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/2/141
Yurenev R.N. Chudesnoe okno: Kratkaya istoriya mirovogo kino: Kn. dlya uchashchikhsya. – M.: Prosveshchenie, 1983.
E. V. Sal'nikova K voprosu o predystorii sovremennoy vizual'noy tekhnicheskoy kul'tury // Kul'tura i iskusstvo.-2012.-2.-C. 53-61.
O.V. Krasnoyarova Ob istokakh ontologizatsii media
v fenomenologii M. Merlo-Ponti // Filosofiya i kul'tura. - 2012. - 1. - C. 23 - 29.

Review: the present article is devoted to comparative analysis of the two international film festivals that belong to one (conditional) class A but have completely different structures and priorities in the global motion-picture process. On one hand, the Cannes and Moscow International Film Festivals are very different from the point of view of their interior structure, on the other hand, they are close and interweaved in their art contents. The latter allows to use the method of art review in cultural research. Professional and business life is quite active both at Moscow and Cannes International Film Festivals. Experts in cinematography come all over the world. However, the Moscow Festival is oriented at the audience in the first place. The author of the article describes both general patterns of the festival activities and history of each festival as well as particular festival programs of 2013. Special attention is paid at the process of official selection of award winners, on one hand, and retrospectives on the other hand.

Keywords: cultural studies, art history, film festival, motion-picture process, film industry, awards, retrospectives, video art, cinema of Russia.

Contact information: Razlogov Kirill Emilieivich, 119072, Russia, Moscow, Degtyarny pereul. 8, stro. 3.