Talk:Lev Kuleshov

Untitled
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)