The culture of the authorʾs image in modern cinema texts
Abstract
The article substantiates the culture of the author's image in the screen arts, defines cultural approaches to the study of the figure of the director-author in modern author's and mainstream film texts. The researcher uses analytical and systematic methods in their unity, which makes it possible to study the cultural aspect of the problem. Historical and complex approaches to the study of the author's cinematography and the image of the author in the screen arts are applied. In the development of the topic, a cultural approach was used to interpret the peculiarities of the presentation of the culture of the author's image on the screen plane. The research used an interdisciplinary approach, the basis of which was general scientific theoretical methods: induction, deduction, complex cultural analysis, synthesis.
The scientific novelty of the research is the study of the culture of the author's image (represented in the worldview directorial models of European countries and the USA) as a social value, which is aimed at the general public, as well as at the individual personal perception of the recipient. The culture of the author's image can be traced through the interrelationship of screen arts and literature, as well as visual arts. The culture of the author's image is considered, in particular, on the example of the work of such Hollywood directors as V. Allen, T. Burton, F.F. Coppola, A. Hitchcock, M. Scorsese, M. Forman, D. Lynch, S. Spielberg, K. Tarantino, who made a significant creative contribution to the film culture of the USA, producing author's film texts. The article highlights and correlates the common and distinctive features of the director-author as a real person with the features of the created image of the screen author. The article substantiates the collective nature of authorship in screen arts. It is proven that modern filmmaking involves new cultural approaches to identifying the author's image on the screen and is revealed at the script level. It is emphasized that in the analysis of the author's image in the screen arts, it is necessary to take into account the creation of an artistic image in the individual creativity of the members of the film crew (cameraman, artist, composer, sound engineer). The researcher analyzes the essence of cultural representation of the author's image through the cameo. The researcher observes that the author-director tries to communicate with the viewer, strives to update the screen language and in this way represents his own unique individuality. It turns out that the image of the author in screen art is expressed through: presentation to the viewer of his own production palette; a score of visual arts typical for the director; the author's idea, which originates in the worldview of the artist.
References
2. Bergman Ingmar. Lanterna Magica.
URL: https://salo.li/E970Cc3 [іn English].
3. Bohutskyi, Yu., Korablova, N., Chmil, H. (2013). Nova kulturna realnist yak sotsiodynamichnyi protses liudynotvorennia cherez roli [The new cultural reality as a sociodynamic process of human formation through roles]. Kyiv: Instytut kulturolohii NAM Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
4. Cherkov, H. (2017). Ekranne zobrazhennia: informatsiinyi zmist [Screen display: information space]: Mizhnarodnа vykladatsko-aspirantskа konferentsiа, prysviachenа 120-richchiu ukrainskoho kino. Kyiv: KNUTKiT imeni I. K. Karpenka-Karoho, 47-49 [in Ukrainian].
5. Chmil, H. (2014). Pryroshchennia filosofskoho dyskursu ekrannymy mystetstvamy [Growth of philosophical discourse by screen arts]. Мizhdystsyplinarne piznannia zakonomirnostei suchasnoho ekrannoho dyskursu. 11-25 [in Ukrainian].
6. Filatova, O. (2012). Terminolohichna veryfikatsiia avtorstva: «systemno-subiektnyi metod» B. Kormana [Terminological verification of authorship: “system-subject method” by B. Corman]. Naukovi pratsi. Literaturoznavstvo. 193(181), 119-122 [in Ukrainian].
7. Horpenko, V. (2001). Predmet i material rezhysury audiovizualnykh mystetstv: Mystetstvo ekrana. Vinnytsia: HLOBUS-PRES, 89-106 [in Ukrainian].
8. Kondrashov, V. (2012) Kinomova yak spetsyfichna systema khudozhnikh zasobiv u literaturnomu teksti (z dosvidu ukrainskykh pysmennykiv-shistdesiatnykiv) [Cinema as a specific system of artistic means in a literary text (from the experience of Ukrainian writers of the sixties]. Kyiv: Pytannia literaturoznavstva. 86, 18-25 [in Ukrainian].
9. Kopeitseva, L.P. (2009). Problema avtora ta avtorskoi pozytsii v suchasnomu literaturoznavstvi [The problem of the author and the author's position in modern literary studies]. Naukovi zapysky Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu im. H. S. Skovorody. 2 (1), 168-173 [in Ukrainian].
10. Koval, D. (2004). Vizytna kartka ukrainskoho kino [Visiting card of Ukrainian cinema]. Svitova kinoklasyka. Kyiv: Vyd. dim “KM Akademiia” [in Ukrainian].
11. Pashkovska, M., Yaskiv, O. Inhmar Berhman: Pivnichnyi orakul liudskoi doli z ostrova Foro [The Northern Oracle of Human Destiny from Foryo Island]. Available at: https://salo.li/725c520 [in Ukrainian].
12. Sakhaltuiev, O. ( 1999-2000). Anhliiska spadshchyna Alfreda Hichkoka [The English heritage of Alfred Hitchcock]. Kino-kolo. 4-5, 126-128 [in Ukrainian].
13. Sakhaltuiev, O. (2001). Kameo, abo miniatiuryzatsiia obrazu [Cameo, or miniaturization of the image]. Mystetstvo ekrana. 184-200 [in Ukrainian].
14. Serhii Paradzhanov i Ukraina (2015). [Serhiy Paradzhanov and Ukraine]: zb. st. i dokumentiv. Kyiv: KMA [in Ukrainian].
15. Shevchuk, M. (2018). Istoriia i kultura riznykh chasiv u filmi “Kaminnyi khrest” [History and culture of different times in the film “Stone Cross”]. Kino-teatr, 2 (136), 42-43 [in Ukrainian].
16. Skurativskyi, V. (1997). Ekranni mystetstva u sotsiokulturnykh protsesakh ХХ stolittia: geneza, struktura, funktsiia [Screen arts in the socio-cultural processes of the 20th century: genesis, structure, function]: u 2 ch. 1. Kyiv: KMTs Poeziia [in Ukrainian].
17. Trymbach, S. (2014). Serhii Paradzhanov. Teksty i konteksty? [ Sergiy Parajanov. Texts and contexts]: Ekrannyi svit Serhiia Paradzhanova. 269-291 [in Ukrainian].
18. Vilchynska, T. (2013). Obraz avtora khudozhnoho tekstu v paradyhmi suchasnykh linhvistychnykh doslidzhen [The image of the author of a literary text in the paradigm of current linguistic research]: Uchenye zapysky Tavrycheskoho natsyonalnoho unyversyteta ym. V.Y. Vernadskoho. Seryia “Fylolohyia. Sotsyalnye kommunykatsyy”. 26 (65), 1, 190-194 [in Ukrainian].
19. Yudko, L. (2011). Movna ta kontseptualna kartyny svitu yak vidobrazhennia svidomosti natsii [Language and conceptual world pictures as a reflection of the nation's consciousness]. Studia Linguistica. 5, 292-298 [in Ukrainian].
20. Zabalbeascoa, P. (2008). The nature of the audiovisual text and its parameters. The Didactics of Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam. 21-37 [іn English].
21. Zabuzhko, O. (2007). Notre Dame dʾUkraine: Ukrainka v konflikti mifolohii [Notre Dame dʾUkraine: Ukraine in the conflict of mythologies]. Kyiv: Fakt [in Ukrainian].
22. Zubavina, I. (2010). Khudozhnie modeliuvannia ekrannoho khronotopu yak zasib kinematohrafichnoi reprezentatsii svitu [Artistic modeling of the screen chronotope as a means of cinematic representation of the world]. Mystetstvoznavstvo Ukrainy. 11, 133-140 [in Ukrainian].
23. Zubrytska, M. (2004). A teper kudy? – Odisseia suchasnykh literaturnykh teorii[Now where? – Odyssey of modern literary theories]. Visnyk Lvivskoho Universytetu. 33, 1, 121-128 [in Ukrainian].
ISSN 


