TOPICAL VOCABULARY1film фильм, кино

What’s the film about? О чем этот фильм?Is it worth seeing this film? Стоит посмотреть этот фильм?Syn. picture, movie (A. E. coll.) кинофильм, кинокартина adventure film приключенческий фильмaction film боевикblack-and-white film черно-белый фильмcartoon (film) мультипликационный фильм colour film цветной фильмSyn. technicolour filmdocumentary (film) документальный фильмdubbed-in film дублированный фильмfeature film xyдожественный фильмhorror film фильм ужасовmystery film детективный фильмpopular science film научно-популярный фильмshort film короткометражный фильмsilent film немой фильмthree-dimensions film стереофильм wide-screen film широкоэкранный фильмSyn. cinema-scope film news-reel киножурнал, кинохроника, хроникальный фильм

2cameraman кинооператорcast состав исполнителейcinema-goer (кино) зритель, частый посетитель кино, любитель кино

This film is very popular with the cinema-goers. Этот фильм пользуется большой популярностью у зрителей.Syn. film-goer, picture-goer, moviegoer (A. E.)

director peжиссерfilm actor киноактерfilm actress киноактриса

Which of the British film actresses are your favourites? Кто из британских киноактрис вам больше нравится?Syn. film star кинозвезда

producer npoдюсерscriptwriter сценарист, кинодраматург3

aisle npoxoд между рядами креселbox-office кacca

Syn. booking-officeadvance box-office касса предварительной продажи билетов

cinema 1) кинотеатр; 2) киноAre you fond of the cinema? Вы любите кино?Syn. pictures, movies (A. E.)

hall (зрительный) залDon’t enter the hall during the show. He входите в зал во время сеанса.

lobby фойе We have ten minutes left before starting time. Let’s wait in the lobby. Еще десять минут до начала. Подождем в фойе.Syn. foyer

poster афиша, плакатSyn. bill

row рядNot further back than the ninth or tenth row, please. Прошу не дальше9-10 ряда. Our seats are in the tenth row. Наши места в 10-м ряду.front rows передние рядыback rows задние ряды

screen экранI don’t like to sit too near the screen. Я не люблю сидеть слишком близко к экрану. screen version экранизированный вариант

seat место (в зрительном зале)Where are our seats? Где наши места?

show сеансLet’s buy tickets for the 4.20 show. Давайте возьмем билеты на 4.20.evening show вечерний сеансmatinee show утренний, дневной сеансSyn. performance

ticket билетextra ticket лишний билетHave you an extra ticket? Нет ли у вас лишнего билета?

4part 1) серия

Have you seen the third part? Вы уже видели третью серию?2) рольWho plays the main parts in the film? Kто играет главные роли в фильме?

3

Syn. roleleading role ведущая роль title role заглавная роль

plot сюжетamusing plot занимательный сюжетboring plot скучный сюжет

script сценарийWho wrote the script? Кто автор сценария?

subtitle субтитр, надпись на кинокадреWe’re sitting too far; it’s difficult to read the subtitles. Мы слишком далеко сидим; трудно читать надписи. Syn. caption

5acting игра (актеров)

How did you like the acting? Как вам понравилась игра актеров?His acting is splendid. Он играет превосходно.

camera work работа кинооператораdirection постановка фильма, режиссураphotography (кино) съемкаtrick photography комбинированные съемкиproduction производство

The film is a Mosfilm production, and it speaks for itself. Этот фильм производства "Мосфильм", а это уже говорит само за себя.

6to be on идти (о фильме)

What’s on at this cinema? Что идет в этом кинотеатре? Where is this film on? Где идет этот фильм?

to depict описывать, отображатьto dub дублироватьto play играть

He plays the part of Hamlet. Он играет роль Гамлета.Syn. perform

to produce производить; ставить (фильм)The film produces a powerful impression. Фильм производит сильное впечатление. Spielberg is producing a new film. Спилберг ставит новый фильм.

to release выпускать (на экран)to shoot (shot, shot) снимать

They say the last part is still being shot. Говорят, последняя серия еще снимается. to show показывать, демонстрировать

Where is this film showing? Где идет этот фильм?to star (in a film) сниматься в ведущих роляхto held in suspension держать в напряжении

7amusing развлекательныйboring скучный, нагоняющий скукуcharming очаровательныйexciting волнующийfunny смешнойsplendid великолепныйsuperb прекрасный, великолепный; величественныйthrilling волнующий, захватывающийthriller сенсационный фильм (особенно детектив), боевик

In what situation might you say the following? Match each question with one of the situations on the right.

1. What’s on? a) You want to know whether the actors are any good.2. Who’s in it? b) You can’t see a free seat anywhere.3. What’s it about? c) You need to know what time to get to the cinema.4. Where’s it on? d) You’re thirsty.5. What time does it start? e) You’re leaving the cinema with a friend.6. Where shall we sit? f) There are three cinemas in town and you don’t know

which is showing the film you want to see.7. Where’s the bar? g) You haven’t a clue what to go and see.8. What did you think of it? h) It might be a horror film and you wouldn’t enjoy that.

Make sure you can explain the meaning of the following words:Producer, composer, assistant director, screenplay, script, movie-goer, scene de-

signer, screen version; review, critic, subtitles, to be dubbed, supporting actress, top star, sound track, close-up, cast, to dub, billboard, to releаse a film, designer.

4

Read the text about the history of cinema.

WHERE DID CINEMA COME FROMAND WHO INVENTED IT?

Our journey begins in the Far East.Moving images have always been popular. In China, for example, there were

‘shadow plays’ 5.000 years ago. These used firelight to project images of puppets onto screens. So projection is a very old idea. But cinema only became possible when this old Asian idea met a new European one – photography.

The two came together in the middle of the 19th century. That’s when photos were first used in ‘magic lanterns’. Before that these early projectors had used glass slides. The pictures on these slides were painted by hand and very expensive. In compari-son, photos were cheap and easy to produce.

So – by 1850 projection and photography had come together. But the result still wasn't ‘cinema’. How could it be when the pictures didn’t move? The solution to that problem came in several stages.

The first, in 1877, came via English inventor Eadweard Muybridge. He discov-ered a way to take photos very quickly, one after the other.

Eleven years later, an Ametican called George Eastman produced the first cellu-loid film on a roll.

By 1890, it was possible to take up to 40 photos per second. Next, in 1893, came another invention – Thomas Edison’s ‘Kinetoscope’.

The kinetoscope projected moving pictures, but it had three problems: (a) It was noisy, (b) the pictures it produced were very low-quality, (c) only one person could watch a kinetoscope at a time.

Before cinema could be born, one last invention was necessary – a quiet ma-chine able to project high-quality pictures onto a large screen. And the men who produced that were two French brothers from the city of Lyons.

Louis and Auguste Lumiere‘The Lumiere Cinematograph’ allowed large audiences to watch ‘moving pic-

tures’. Its debut took place on 28 December 1895 in a Paris cafe. That day the Lumieres showed several short films. They were all documentaries and one of them was called ‘Ar-rival of Train at Station’. Afterwards, Auguste Lumiere talked to reporters about his in-vention. ‘It can be exploited for a certain time,’ be said, ‘but apart from that it has no commercial value at all."

Well, he was completely wrong. In less than a year, cinemas had started to open in Europe and America. The public’s appetite for films was instant and enormous – which meant that more and more had to be made. By 1905 movie-making wasn’t just an inter-

esting idea – it was a successful new industry. And by 1915 it was an industry with a cap-ital – Hollywood, USA.

The Silent EraHollywood was established in 1912. That’s when a group of New York film pro-

ducers decided to open a new studio in California. Why California? Because the climate was good, labour was cheap and there were lots of beautiful locations nearby.

As a result of their decision, Hollywood soon attracted film actors and echni-cians from all over the country. While World War One was fought in Europe, and for sev-eral years after, these cinema pioneers made thousands of black and white films – come-dies, tragedies, fantasies, romances and historical dramas. This was ‘the silent era’ – the era of Charlie Chaplin, Rudolph Valentino, Clara Bow, Douglas Fairbanks and Buster Keaton. It was called ‘silent’ because there was no recorded sound. Instead, the actors’ dialogue appeared on cards shown every 15 or 20 seconds. At the time it seemed per-fectly normal. That’s simply how films were.In fact, even as late as 1924, director D. W. Griflith declared ‘There will never be speaking pictures’. But Griffith like Auguste Lu-miere 29 years before, was wrong. A revolution was coming and its name was...

The TalkiesRecorded sound ended the silent era in 1921. That’s when Al Jolson both spoke

and sang in "The Jazz Singer". (His first words were ‘Wait a minute, wait a minute folks. You ain’t heard nothing yet!’) The impact on cinema-goers was enormous. They loved ‘The Jazz Singer’ and demanded more and more talking pictures. The studios quickly obliged and by 1930 audiences were up from 57 million a week (1926) to 110 million a week. Only 31 years after the Lumieres’ first film-show, modern movies had arrived.

A Golden AgeIn 1932 Technicolor arrived. Coming only five years after the sound revolution

it made cinema more popular than ever. So popular, in fact, that the next 20 years are of -ten called Hollywood’s golden age. In the ’30s and ’40s millions queued every week to see films produced by the top studios. These included Paramount, RKO, Warner Brothers and – most successful of all – Metro Goldwyn Mayer.

Run by Louis B. Mayer, MGM’s motto was ‘more stars than there are in heaven’. This referred to the ‘family’ of film stars who had contracts with the studio. (In those days actors only worked for one company.) During the ’30s and ’40s MGM’s fam-ily included The Marx Brothers, Greta Garbo, Jean Harlow, Clark Gable, Joan Crawford, Spencer Tracy, Judy Garland, Gene Kelly.

It was an impressive list but only one of several. All the other ‘dream factories’ had stables of top box-office names, too. In fact, competition was an important part of Hollywood’s success. The reason was simple. Each studio wanted to make bigger, better

5

films than its rivals. After 1948, though, movie tycoons like Louis B. Mayer began to face another kind of competition. And this time it wasn’t from inside the cinema industry – it was from outside.

TelevisionAmerica's TV revolution began in the years following World War Two. At first

Hollywood didn’t worry. After all – what was there to worry about? John Logie Baird’s invention only produced small, black and white pictures. It was a gimmick. It wouldn’t last. But as more and more people bought TV-sets, cinema queues began to get shorter. And not just 5% or 10% shorter. By the early ’5Os weekly audiences had been cut in half to 50 million. Clearly the movie industry had a serious problem on its hands.

Hollywood Fights BackStudio bosses tried to solve the problem in several different ways. These in-

cluded: CINEMASCOPE – This technique made it possible to show films on a wider screen than ever before. Several action-packed CinemaScope films were made. The first, Bibli-cal epic, was called “The Robe”. 3D – To watch 3D or “three-dimensional” films, audiences had to wear special glasses. These gave images on the screen extra height, width and depth. The idea was used in several ’5Os horror films, but never really caught on. CINERAMA – Three projectors were needed to show Cinerama films. Each one filled a third of a huge curved screen. Again the idea didn’t catch on – this time because it was too expensive. SMELL-O-VISION – Another Hollywood scheme for winning back TV audiences was Smell-O-Vision. This was an electronic system which sent the smell of roses, gun-smoke, coffee, etc., (whatever was showing on the screen) over movie-goers during a film. 70MM FILM – Before the ’5Os movie cameras and projectors used film which was 35mm wide. The arrival of 70mm film produced a much bigger, clearer image. 70mm is still used for some films today.

Basically, then the Hollywood studios competed with television by making movies bigger, better and more realistic. Some of their ideas succeeded, others failed. But what really saved the cinema industry wasn’t a technical development at all – it was an-other ’50s invention ... teenagers.

Movies and youth culture discovered each other in the mid-’50s with two key films – ‘Rebel Without A Cause’ (l955), starring James Dean, and ‘Rock Around The Clock’ (1956), starring early pop idol Bill Haley. For Hollywood it was a turning point. Before then, the average cinema-goer had been over 30. Suddenly, all that began to

change. And it’s a change that’s continued ever since. Today 75% of all box-office tickets are sold to people between the ages of 15 and 25.

The Modern Movie IndustryThese days cinema and television live side-by-side. The movie industry didn’t

collapse (as some people predicted) in the ’50s and ’60s. But cinema audience-figures are still low compared to 50 years ago. In Britain, for example, most people only see one or two films per year. In Europe it’s three or four and in America six or seven, Because of this, modern movie-making has become very different from how it was in Louis B. Mayer’s time. For example:

– Hollywood has more competition from international film-makers now than ever before;

– enormous ‘picture palaces’ with one screen are being replaced by ‘multi-screen’ cinemas;

– there are still large studios, but the old ‘studio system’ (with troups of stars work-ing for one company) has disappeared;

– modern flms have three lives instead of one. First, they appear in the cinema, then on video and finally they’re shown on TV.

Speak about the main stages in the development of cinema in the world. What facts from the history of Russian, Belarussian cinema are known to you? Do a research into the problem if necessary.

Read the text about cinema in America and then check your comprehension.

AMERICAN CINEMA

The world of American cinema is so far-reaching a topic that it deserves, and of-ten receives, volumes of its own. Hollywood (in Los Angeles, California), of course, im-mediately comes to mind, as do the many great directors, actors and actresses. It contin-ues to attract and produce. But then, one also thinks of the many independent studios throughout the country, the educational and documentary series and films, the socially-relevant tradition in cinema, and the film departments of universities, such as the Univer -sity of Southern California (USC), of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) or New York University.

For over 50 years, American films have continued to grow in popularity throughout the world. Television has only increased this popularity.

The great blockbusters of film entertainment that stretch from “Gone with the Wind” to “Star Wars” receive the most attention. A look at the prizes awarded at the lead-

6

ing international film festivals will also demonstrate that as an art form, the American film continues to enjoy considerable prestige. Even when the theme is serious or, as they say, “meaningful”, American films remain “popular”. In the past decade, films which treated the danger of nuclear power and weapons, alcoholism, divorce, inner-city blight, the effects of slavery, the plight of Native Americans, poverty and immigration have all received awards and international recognition. And, at the same time, they have done well at the box-office.

Movies (films), including those on video-cassettes, remain the most popular art form in the USA. A book with 20,000 readers is considered to be a best-seller. A hit play may be seen by a few thousand theatergoers. By contrast, about a billion movie tickets are sold at movie houses across the USA every year.

There are three main varieties of movie theaters in the USA: 1) the “first-run” movie houses, which show new films; 2) “art theaters”, which specialize in showing foreign films and revivals; 3) “neighborhood theaters”, which run films – sometimes two at a time – after

the “first-run” houses.New York is a movie theater capital of the country. Many of the city’s famous

large movie theaters, once giving Times Square so much of its glitter, have been torn down or converted (in some cases into smaller theaters), and a new generation of modern theaters has appeared to the north and east of the area. Most of them offer continuous per-formances from around noon till midnight. Less crowded and less expensive are the so-called “neighborhood theaters”, which show films several weeks or months after the “first-run” theaters. There are several theaters that specialize in revivals of famous old films and others that show only modernist, avant-garde films. Still others, especially those along 42nd Street, between the Avenue of Americas and Eighth Avenue, run movies about sex and violence. Foreign films, especially those of British, French, Italian and Swedish origin, are often seen in New York, and several movie theaters specialize in the showing of foreign-language films for the various ethnic groups in the city.

The major film genres developed in the United States are the following:Comedy. Charles Spencer Chaplin became the most widely recognized comedy

figure in the world. He emphasized the development of character and plot structure, in contrast to the simple reliance on gags and gimmicks that characterized the work of other comedy producers of the day.

Westerns. The Western (a film about life in the American West in the past) was the first American genre to be developed and has remained a staple of the American mo-tion-picture art and industry. It has been estimated that one quarter of US films have been Westerns. However, today most American Westerns are made in Italy and are called “spaghetti Westerns”.

Musicals. The musicals of the late 1920s and the early 1930s consisted of a se-ries of “numbers” by established stars of Broadway, vaudeville and radio. Later manifes-

tations of the form were the biographical musicals, often highly fictionalized, about great composers, musicians, singers, providing an opportunity to string together some of their most popular hits. The transferring of musicals intact from the Broadway stage became almost automatic beginning in the 1950s.

Gangster films. While the Western deals with a mythical American past and the musical with a fantasy lаnd, the gangster film is closely tied to a real facet of American life. In earlier films, the gangster had risen to the top to enjoy wealth, power, beautiful women, expensive homes and large cars, but before the end of the film he was bound to be caught by law-enforcement officers, overthrown by fellow gang members or killed. Such punishment was considered obligatory. By 1971, however, “The Godfather” showed how far the genre has evolved: Marlon Brando, in the title role, dies of old age. The gangster was another businessman.

War films. They have evolved into a major American genre, since wars have oc-cupied so much of contemporary American history. The Second World War has been the subject of the greatest number of American films in this genre.

Horror films (thrillers). In the 1920s the creation of a monster who gets out of control or is coming to life from nonhuman beings, who survives by killing the living provided the basic story lines of countless horror films. These films also have dealt with supernatural forces that manifest themselves as an unseen power rather than in individual form. A third major kind of horror films deals with people who are insane or in the grip of psychological powers beyond their control.

Horror films as a genre is associated with the name of Alfred Hitchcock. Like Walt Disney with animated cartoons, Alfred Hitchcock was thought not just to have in-vented a film genre but to have patented it (hence “Hitch”, another name for a horror film).

Detective and spy films. These include first of all the James Bond series. Hitch-cock’s films of this genre feature ordinary people who accidentally become involved with spies or other evil doers.

Science fiction. After the Second World War science-fiction films increasingly suggested that the dangers of the future stemmed from what human beings were doing in the present.

Comprehension Check.1. What is a movie capital of the USA?2. What serious themes are treated in films?3. Which figures characterise a successful book? play? film?4. What types of cinemas can be found in the USA?5. What kind of films do the "neighbourhood theatres" show?6. What made Chaplin one of the most famous world comedy figures?7. What is the western?8. What are musicals based on?

7

Complete the following sentences from the text.1. Even when the theme is serious American films …2. Most of them offer continious performances from …3. By 1971 The Godfather …4. The World War the second has been the subject of …5. Detectives and spy films include …

What do you know about westerns as a genre of films? What makes them popular with the viewers?

Read the following text, check your comprehension and comment on the technology of making a western.

A NEW LOOK AT THE OLD WESTERNFilms and facts

a) You have watched this scene in many films: two man face each other in a small-town street. One wears white; he has a sheriff’s badge pinned above his heart. The other is dressed all in black. Suddenly their hands move like a flash of lightning. Guns roar, smoke fills the air. For a moment the men stand as still as statues. Then, slowly, the one dressed in black falls in the dust. The sheriff blows on his gun and puts it back in its holster.

There is a little truth in the idea of the Wild West Sheriff as a gunfighter. For ex-ample, Wyatt Earp, one of the most famous sheriffs of all, killed only one man during his years as marshal of Dodge City. His own favourite way of fighting was knocking a man over the head with a gun. He even managed to ban guns and pistols. If he heard of anyone wearing or using a gun, he had him arrested and made him pay $2.50, which was a lot of money in the 19th century.

b) Another very popular figure in Westerns is the good-for-noting cowboy who plays cards and gambles in saloons all night, drinks a lot of whisky and is always ready to join in a fight and use his guns.

In fact, this is only one side of the picture. Cowboys loved fun and were always ready to spend their money, but often they had to work 18 hours a day in a saddle. They had to care for the cattle and drive them to market, often covering 1,000 miles in three long months. It was a difficult job keeping a herd together on an open prairie during a thunderstorm, or getting it across a river. They were happy if 90% of the animals reached the market.

c) Another favourite figure in Western stories is the buffalo hunter. He is shown thundering over the plains, shooting down one buffalo after another. Suddenly dozens of Indians attack him, but he fights for his life and puts them to flight. When in the second half of the 19th century railroads were built across the American plains, food was needed for the armies of workers. So the railroad companies employed hunters to shoot buffalo for meat. Buffalo Bill was the most famous of them. They often killed more buffalo than were needed. By 1875 hardly any of the 4,5 milion buffalo were left, so the Indians no longer had enough meat, or skins for clothes and tents. The white man had taken away their land and now their buffalo. So they went on the warpath.

The truth about the Wild West. What is right?1. Sheriffs in the Wild West usually a) killed a lot of bad men.b) did not do much shooting.c) knocked men over the head with their guns.

2. Wyatt Earpa) was the best-known sheriff in history.b) made a lot of money by arresting people.c) did not allow people to wear guns.

3. Nineteenth century cowboysa) never drank much or gambled in saloons.b) often didn’t have much time for sitting about and drinking.c) didn’t enjoy spending their money.

4. Cowboys in those daysa) often had to drive herds of animals to market.b) usually had no difficulty in getting their herds across the rivers.c) were always able to keep the herds together.

5. Indians attacked buffalo hunters becausea) they believed the buffalo ought not to be killed.b) they hated all white men.c) they needed the buffalo themselves for food.

6. Buffalo hunters were employeda) to help the Army build the railroads.b) in order to fight the Indians.c) because the railroad workers needed a lot of meat.

8

“If I made Cinderella, the audience would immediately be looking for a dead body in the coach.” Alfred Hitchcock

THE SCREAMY WEAMIESWhen the first horror films were made at the bottom of the depression, the pro-

ducers were horrified at what they’d done.For many years now Universal Pictures has been ministering to the American

public’s apparently insatiable appetite for ghouls, werewolves, zombies, vampires and mad scientists.

“Dracula” opened in Cleveland,” said Universal’s Mr. X. “We sold that picture with all the horror we could put on it. We had an ambulance in front of the theater. We had the house full of girls in hospital uniforms, and signs saying: “See the Doctor – Nurses in Attendance”. In the papers we ran ads made to look like tombstones, daring people to see the picture and warning people with weak hearts to see their doctors first. We hired women to faint. The funny thing was, we got as many real ones as plants. Peo-ple lined up in the lobby could see the limp bodies of the patrons being carried out. Pretty soon they were fainting themselves.

“But,” Mr. X. continued proudly, “Frankenstein” was where we really turned on the horror. Fortified with our “Dracula” experience, we gave it everything we had. We sat down and mapped out a strictly horror campaign: leather badges to the customers for courage, faint routine, gravestone motifs in the advertising. We got thirteen real faints in one afternoon.

Universal Pictures may be looked upon as the First Family of Virginia of the horror industry. Not only did Universal make the first real horror films; they have main-tained almost a monopoly on frenzied scientists, phantoms with operatic ambitions, mad ghouls and Frankenstein monsters of both sexes. All this has put a pretty penny in the stu-dio’s poke.

The highly conventionalised techniques of horror films have been developed over a number of years. Perhaps the first of the prototypes were old silent serials like “The Iron Claw”, cliff-hangers that featured masked villains, opiumden conspirators, and hands that groped out of the wall.

The writing of horror scripts has come to be as peculiar an art as publicising them. In writing for a mummy, for instance, it’s scarcely necessary to tailor the part to the actor when he’s a foot deep in old bandages. One must, on the other hand, include several conventional but absolutely necessary scenes. Most important of these is the beauty-and-the beast combination, usually a head-on shot of the monster lurching through a miasmal swamp, carrying the unconscious heroine in his arms. The heroine must be dressed in a diaphanous nightshirt, and is allowed to have no more than one hair out of place. Some-

times a large, perfectly symmetrical black smudge is rubbed on the center of her forehead for the sake of realism.

Comment on the author’s point of view. What’s your attitude to horror films?

Read the following article and summarize it in English.

Почему мы смотрим " c трашилки"

Человеку необходимо чувствовать себя героем?Природа не терпит дисбаланса. Все должно присутствовать в нашей жизни в строго

определенном количестве. В прошлые века войны, моры и эпидемии буквально выкашивали города. Сейчас лекарства помогают бороться с болезнями и эпидемиями, инстинкт самосохранения не позволяет развязать очередную мировую войну.

Но по Закону Природы человеку нужна определенная "доза страха". Необходима настолько, что, когда ее не хватает, человек "вкалывает" ее себе сам, перенося огромное количество убийств и крови на экран.

Дефицит страхаВ древние времена человек постоянно тренировался в преодолении страхов – Природа

их поставляла в изобилии. Нынешняя цивилизация – цивилизация больших городов – слишком комфортна. Мы тревожимся, что можем потерять работу, попасть под машину, что нас могут ограбить. Мы переживаем, но эти опасения привычные и “скучноватые”. Настоящего страха современному человеку не хватает. И вместо реальных опасностей приходиться пользоваться суррогатами, которые поставляет индустрия кино и компьютерных игр.

Острыми “псевдоэмоциями” развеиваем притаившуюся где-то в углу тоску, “перебиваем” накопившиеся за день стрессы. И в конечном итоге – засыпаем, бывает, гораздо спокойнее.

Во все времена в искусстве высоким жанром считалась именно трагедия. И это не случайно. Лишь трагедия позволяла и позволяет зрителю пережить катарсис – очищение при помощи страха и сострадания. Режиссер Альфред Хичкок называл кино “доброкачественным шоком”. Надо дать “зрителю шенкеля”, заставить его испугаться, заплакать.

– Интересно снимать такие шокирующие вещи, – говорит режиссер Андрей Кончаловский, – потому что боишься, что без этого “не сдвинешь” зрителя. У меня в “Первом учителе” тоже черт-те что творилось – и кишки были, и избиения. Мне очень нравится такая энергия.

Человеку необходимо хотя бы иногда почувствовать себя героем, это дарит массу эмоций – радость, счастье, гордость, уверенность в себе. Герой тот, кто свой собственный

9

страх преодолел прежде, чем одолел врага. Даже если враг этот – вымышленный и сражаешься с ним не ты, а киноперсонаж.

Воспитание "чернухой"?Многие режиссеры в последнее время забили тревогу – оттого, что производство

фильмов ужасов, всевозможной "чернухи" поставили на поток.– Знаете, как в кондитерской промышленности: если вас однажды подловили на том,

что вы любите сладкое, все эти "марсы" и "сникерсы" начнут выпускать тоннами, да еще в такой хитрой упаковочке! Это же произошло и с производством "чернухи" – она тут же превратилась в бизнес, вокруг закрутились большие деньги. Режиссер, который талантливо снимает "чернуху", – просто преступник. Потому что нельзя просчитать тот урон, который наносит подобное сильно сделанное произведение, – считает режиссер Иван Дыховичный.

У психологов на этот счет иное мнение: если речь идет о взрослых – все не так страшно. Нормальный человек в состоянии различать реальную кровь и клюквенный сок, истинные страдания и великолепную игру актера. От того, что за неделю мы посмотрим два-три боевика или "ужастика", жестокими и равнодушными мы не станем.

– Некоторым людям даже полезно научиться "правильно" смотреть такие фильмы, считают врачи психотерапевты. Психологи называют этот прием дистанцированием, умением посмотреть на ситуацию со стороны. От того, что ты понимаешь: все происходящее – лишь вымысел (с тобой самим все в порядке!), эмоции не притупляются, а вот травмирующее их действие нейтрализуется. Тогда и в любой стрессовой ситуации человек не будет переживать понапрасну. Во всяком случае, меньше риск получить инфаркт или язву желудка из-за неприятностей на работе илисемейной ссоры.

За рубежом существует даже способ профессиональной тренировки для тех, кому предстоит работать в экстремальной ситуации, например для сотрудников службы спасения. Им показывают специальные фильмы, моделирующие тяжелые для психики ситуации, с которыми, возможно, придется столкнуться на работе.

Когда речь идет о детях, все гораздо серьезнее. Они, во-первых, все происходящее в кино воспринимают как реальность. Поэтому страдают неврозами, энурезом, просыпаются и плачут ночью после “страшного кино”. Ребенок может посмотреть такое кино, но крайне редко и только “под боком” у мамы и папы.

Во-вторых, дети воспринимают действия взрослых (в том числе и в кино) как модель собственного поведения в жизни, копируют поведение мамы или папы дома, “впитывают” манеры и слова, так же, вполне вероятно, воспримут и “мочиловку” из боевика. Потом поздно будет переживать, что мальчик все свои проблемы пытается решить кулаками. “Откуда в нем это? Мы его этому не учили!” Зато он смотрел кино…

(from «Аргументы и факты»)

Learn how some tricks are made in films.

THE SPECIAL EFFECTS PEOPLEBryan Schulz and some of his friends are visiting a famous special effects studio

just north of San Francisco. Ken Smith, who works there, is showing them around.Ken: In the model shop here, we build exact models of things like cars or spaceships. And in the monster shop over there, we make all kinds of monsters and.strange animals. Look, at this one here!Bryan: Wow! How does it move?Ken: We use two different methods. With the older method we photograph the monster, then move it a little, then photograph it again and so on. Then, when we run the film at the usual speed, the monster seems to move. With the more modern method we use com-puter-controlled models. We get a more realistic effect with them.Jolene: What about the fantastic backgrounds for some movies? How do you make them?Ken: Sometimes we paint the background and sometimes we make models. And then we use the blue screen method to put the pictures together.Grog: That’s easy.Ken: Perhaps. But you’d be surprised how much work we put into all this. Sometimes we spend six to eight months on a three or four minute scene.Bryan: Six to eight months! That sure is a long time!

Read the text about Charlie Chaplin and do the tasks that follow.

CHARLIE CHAPLIN MYSTERY

On Christmas Day 1977, filmlovers everywhere were shocked by the death of Char-lie Chaplin, film director and comic genius. Three months later, however, the world was shocked for a different reason: who had stolen Chaplin’s body?

Sir Charles Chaplin died on 25 December, 1977, and was buried in a small cemetery near Lake Geneva in Switzerland, where he had made his home. TV and newspaper re -ports around the world announced the death of the world’s most famous comic actor.

On 2 March, 1978, press reports from Lausanne had a different story. Chaplin’s body had vanished from the cemetery at Corsier-sur-Vevey. “The grave is empty. The coffin has gone,” reporters were told. The Swiss authorities started their inquiries and In-terpol was called in.

The police had one piece of definite information; a local man had heard a noise that night, which sounded like a pickaxe being used in the cemetery. Otherwise, they just had theories. The strongest possibility was that the robbery had been done for money. How-

10

ever, no ransom note had been received by the family, and nobody had attempted to con-tact them.

There were several other theories. The body could have been stolen by a group of admirers who were keeping it as a kind of souvenir. It might have been taken to be buried in England. The comedian had once said that he wished to be buried where he was born. A number of English people had protested about the burial in Switzerland.

The thieves might have believed that there were old copies of Chaplin films in the grave. Some of his earlier work had never been shown and could have been worth a lot of money.

One person even suggested that the body had been dug up by animals (though the police must have ignored this suggestion, as animals don’t normally use pickaxes).

A newspaper in Hollywood thought that the body could have moved itself, because Chaplin had been interested in the idea of life after death and he might have known how to come back to life after he died!

The mystery continued for ten weeks before being solved. The solution, however, was not as bizarre as some of the theories that were put forward.

Find words or phrases in the text that match these dictionary deflnitions:1 put a dead person in the ground2 the box in which this is done3 a tool for digging holes in the ground4 a demand for money to return a missing person5 tried to 6 ideas which might be the answer to a mystery7 the answer to a mystery

Match each word in column A with an appropriate word in column B.A Bstrong actornewspaper notewild possibilityransom ideacomic report

In pairs, make two lists about the Chaplin mystery.Known information1.Someone heard a pickaxe.Theories1. The body could have been stolen by… In pairs decide which theory you think is right.

THE FILM OR THE BOOK?

1. Have you ever seen a film of a book after you have read the book itself? What did you think of it?2. Have you ever read a book after you have seen the film? If so, what did you think of it?3. If you have written a novel and it was being made into a film, what would your at-titude be?

FILM ADAPTATIONS ARE NEVER AS GOOD AS THE BOOKS THEY ARE BASED ON

By Carlo PontilloI believe that the argument about books versus films very much depends on the

quality of the book. A film adaptation of a bad book might improve on the printed ver-sion, but, in my opinion, a good book is always better than ‘the film of the book’. Many people who have enjoyed a book are tempted to go to the cinema to see the film adapta-tion or watch it on video, but I’m sure most of them are disappointed by the experience.

I think that there are three good reasons why films of good books are generally disappointing. Firstly, a film is comparatively short (perhaps just ninety minutes long), whereas the book, it is based on, may be several hundred pages long and take many hours to read. This means that when you go and see the film, you often find that some of your favourite characters or scenes are not included because the screen writer has had to sim-plify and cut the story. Secondly, books can give you important information that is diffi-cult to present in a film. For example, a novelist can tell us what a character is thinking as well as what he or she says, whi1e in a film we usually only hear what the character says. But the third and most important reason is that when we read a book, we imagine, for ex-ample, what a character is like and our mental picture of that person is very different to how he or she is represented on the screen. When we watch the film, we find ourselves thinking things such as ‘that actor is much too small’ or ‘that actress should be younger’ and that stops us enjoying the film.

For these reasons, my opinion is that while it might not be such a bad idea to read a book after you have seen the film adaptation, it is never good to see a film adapta-tion after you have read and enjoyed a book.

Do you agree or disagree with the author? Express your opinion on the problem.

11

Give a review of a film you have recently seen and liked (disliked). Make use of the following outline. Remember: a mere telling of the story is not a review.

OUTLINE FOR MOTION PICTURE REVIEW1. Type of film: feature film, comedy, black-and-white, short, etc.2. Production: What studio released the film? Was it co-production? Was the film dubbed?3. Story (plot): Is it by a well-known author? Is the story original? True to life? What is the climax of the story? Is the ending logical?4. Direction: Who directed the film? Was the introduction of characters and scenes skill-ful? Are useless scenes included?5. Photography: Is it artistically done? Are there good shots? Are close-ups used effec-tively?6. Acting: Name the leading characters. Are there any stars? Any outstanding perfor-mances of minor roles? True-to-life interpretation of characters? 7. Sound effects: Does speaking or acting predominate? Does the dialogue seem real? Do actors speak effectively? Are characteristic noises employed? Is the music suitable?8. Critics: What do critics say about the picture? Are their opinions sound? Do you share their points of view?9. General impression and conclusion: The impression the film made on you. How was the effect achieved? Do you think this film is worth seeing?

What is your attitude to old films? Should young people watch them? Why/why not? Practise the following dialogue. D: Do you like seeing old-films?V: No. Well, I like Charlie Chaplin.D: Mm. I saw a terrific Russian one the other day about a battle-ship. It was a silent film, before the “talkies” came in. You see the words on the screen before each scene.V: Heavens! I haven’t seen one so old. I saw an old Audrey Hepburn film two weeks ago. That was “Roman Holiday”. When she starred with Gregory Peck. I loved it.D: I saw it, too. It was all right, but not marvellous. The documentary film with it about the Antarc-tic really was good. The penguins were so funny–exactly like old men in evening dress.V: Ah, look. The queue’s beginning to move.D: Good! I wonder what this film will be like. It got very good reviews in all the papers. I don’t know much about Laurence Olivier, do you?V: No, I don’t. We’ve got a book about him at home. I’ve never read it, but I’m looking forward to the film.

Which silent Russian film is meant here? What do you know about L. Olivier? Which films made him famous?

STORY 1

(Jim Horner tells his friend his impressions of the new film he has just seen.)Have you seen My Fair Lady? That’s what I call a great film. It’s a delightful musical

comedy based on George Bernard Shaw’s immortal Pygmalion. The film presents a story about Professor Henry Higgins who makes a bet with a friend that he can make a “lady” out of a poor Cockney girl. He finds a young flower-seller named Eliza Doolittle, who has no education and whose language is awful. He takes her into his home where the “polishing” begins. During this process many amusing incidents occur. When the dirt is removed from her face and body she shows up as a beautiful girl. She takes the teaching easily and develops grace and manners. At the end of the film Eliza and Henry falI in love and get married.

The film is made with great skill and the team of actors is brilliant beyond all doubts. But I think that Rex Harrison who acts the Professor, and Audrey Hepburn who plays Eliza are the best. The music of the film is really wonderful and many lovely songs will live for a long time.

I must admit that though I’ve seen the play by Bernard Shaw on the stage, the picture held my interest from beginning to end and I enjoyed every bit of it.

STORY 2I’ve just seen War and Peace on the screen, the first two parts of it. What a wonderful

and profound film it is! It really produces a powerful impression. Though I’ve read the book, the picture held my interest from beginning to end and I enjoyed it immensely. It was pho-tographed with great skill and the cast is splendid beyond all doubts. But I think Savelyeva is the best. She doesn’t simply act, she lives her role. I also like Bondarchuk as Pierre Bezukhov and Tikhonov as Andrei Bolkonsky. After the end of the show I heard some spectators saying: “The picture is good but a bit dragged-out, especially the war scenes.” It may be so, but nevertheless it is splendid and in my opinion worth seeing by all means. I hope all film-goers will enjoy it greatly.

Have you seen the films mentioned in the dialogue and the stories? What are your impres-sions about them? What makes modern and old films different? Present your arguments for and against watching old films..

An employment agency is advertising various jobs in film-making. Create adverts describing the following jobs: a cameraman; a make-up girl, a costume designer; a sound en-gineer; a stuntman/woman.

12