Talk:Lev Kuleshov

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers Stub‑class This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Soviet Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Technology & engineering / Performing arts / Science & education High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the performing arts in Russia task force. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.

Second paragraph, third line:

I think the experiments to which this sentence refers are psychologically very important - not only to film -, but also difficult to explain. (I myself do not have an explanation; although I have a feeling for their importancy.)

Therefore, I think (1) it is a MUST to point out the fact that EXACTLY THE SAME scene of (the face of) an actor was cut into different environments in which the actor actually seemed to be living. Otherwise, the sentence about the reaction of the spectators cannot be understood.

But (2) the statement of this fact should be supported by some examples: If the environment of the actor was depressing, spectators tended to interpret the actor's face as sad; if the environment was amusing, spectators tended to interpret the actor's face as happy - although it was exactly the same face of the actor and the same scene being cut in.

And then (3) it should be elaborated WHY the spectators interpreted the same face of the actor as sad or happy. This seems to be a challenging and important message for each movie composition. (And might make the difference of good and not so good movies...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.245.188 (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]