Features of Perception of Pre-revolutionary Non-fiction Films

Beliakov Viktor Konstantinovich ORCID: 0000-0001-5832-0160 PhD in Art History External doctoral candidate, Department of Film Studies, Russian State Institute of Cinematography named after S. Gerasimov; Associate Professor of the Sergiev Posad branch of VGIK  141310, Russia, Moscow region, Sergiev Posad, Red Army Avenue, 193 vic.belyakov@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

            Newsreel is a special kind of cinema with its own completely separate function. Newsreel, unlike game cinema, is a kind of media in which information prevails (which can be of completely different kinds and properties) in the form of a message. This information is provided using artistic techniques and means (camerawork techniques of shooting belong to those). Numerous modern documentaries devoted to various issues of history, natural sciences and technology are characterized by a predominance of mediality, but they are by no means just educational or instructional.

            Early pre–revolutionary cinema began with newsreels - the first shootings were documentaries and the first films were chronicles.

            Very often there is a misunderstanding of the fact that it has become customary to call all non-fiction films newsreels. This is due to the fact that in our country it is traditionally accepted to identify newsreels, non-fiction (documentary) films and simply so-called chronicle materials (that is, materials that appeared on the basis of chronicle filming) with a film document. The most important archive of our country, which stores non–fiction films, newsreels and chronicle materials, is called the Russian State Archive of Film and Photo Documents - RGAKFD. Unfortunately, because of this, even documentaries with a pronounced imaginative solution stored in this archive are called newsreels (for archivists, it is a film document, no more).

Thus, speaking of newsreels, we mean, including non-fiction films that began to be created since 1908. To a certain extent, there is a certain justice in this, since only fragments remained of many films, and some of the films did not retain their editing structure – due to the specifics of the rental of early paintings in pre-revolutionary times, since sometimes chronicle films were issued to cinema owners in an unglued form without titles, which were provided separately so that there was the possibility of remounting or reduction of the footage of the film.

            Both historians and film theorists were engaged in studying the issues of the viewer's perception of the first domestic films, including non-fiction ones. More than once, at the same time, regrets have been expressed that serious studies concerning the phenomenon of pre-revolutionary cinema are disappointingly few - many aspects of the existence and interaction of pre-revolutionary cinema with Russian society at that time have not yet been practically studied.

            Meanwhile, the interest in pre-revolutionary newsreels in our society, which has become noticeable since the perestroika times, makes it relevant to study the functioning of pre-revolutionary non-fiction cinema, since it becomes important both to understand the phenomenon of pre-revolutionary cinema itself and to know individual chronicle tapes that are visual evidence of that era and a source of historical information.

            The identification of the peculiarities of the perception of pre-revolutionary newsreels becomes the purpose of this work, which leads to the study of the qualities of the newsreel itself on the example of individual films included in its corpus. A correct understanding of the process of perception of screen images contributes to the correct presentation of pre-revolutionary newsreels to the audience.

            Relying on the uniqueness of newsreels as a specific type of cinematography, an analytical approach is used as a method in the review of historical evidence of viewing chronicle films in cinemas, as well as a historical-analytical approach in considering specific pre-revolutionary chronicle films.  

One of the first works affecting the subject under consideration was the book by N.M. Zorka "At the turn of the Century. At the origins of mass art in Russia 1900-1910".^[1]. The author has undertaken an analysis of the audience tastes and preferences of representatives of different strata of society who visited the first Russian cinemas. Unfortunately, the study of the audience's interest in cinema is conducted on the example of exclusively feature films, which, according to the author, are close to serial mass literature, popular in the middle-class environment. When comparing the organization of themes and plots of feature films and "low fiction", the author concludes that the pre-revolutionary cinema captivated with its accessibility, easy assimilation by all social strata of all ages and educational level. Thus, the newsreel somewhat falls out of the researcher's field of view.

V.P. Mikhailov paid a lot of attention to this topic – in his works he analyzed the pre-revolutionary Russian cinema, paying special attention to the functioning of cinemas and their public.^[2]. In his work, the author points out that cinema began with newsreels, which, along with feature films, played a certain role among the audience of the first illusions. Perhaps for the first time, an attempt is being made to analyze in more detail the preferences and tastes of different segments of the population, attention is drawn to the fact that the audience was not so homogeneous, although the visual appeal of cinema conquered everyone.

A.O. Kovalova pays attention to this topic – her analysis of the activities of the first St. Petersburg cinemas contains many important comments.^{[3, 8]}. Based on numerous documentary facts, the author reports many interesting facts about the functioning of the cinemas themselves and about the public who visited them.

If the above-mentioned authors considered the issues of perception of pre-revolutionary cinema largely from a historical point of view, then the famous domestic and American researcher Yu. G. Tsivyan approached the problem of perception of pre-revolutionary cinema in his work "Historical reception of cinema: Cinema in Russia, 1896-1930" from a phenomenological standpoint. ^[4]. The author analyzes the reception and perception of cinema, having conducted a large review of the preserved impressions of visiting the cinema by different persons and figures. The social composition of the audience and the features of the film session from the point of view of "going to the cinema" are carefully analyzed. Attention is drawn to the fact that cinema was accessible and mass, but if at first the viewer was inclined to consider cinema as an attraction (it was "a spectator cackling during a drama"), then different layers began to have their own tastes and preferences.

A number of interesting observations were made by the German film historian Natasha Drubek.^[5]. She analyzed the period of formation of early Russian cinema, emphasizing that the success of certain film entrepreneurs was associated with their capture of the mass tastes of the public, which was associated with knowledge, sometimes intuitive, of the requests of cinematic viewers.

Bearing in mind these analytical studies, it seems important to us to approach the problem of perception of pre–revolutionary newsreels (chronicle films), which has so far been given a frustratingly little attention, from the point of view of the originality and specific features of the newsreel itself - the perception of any subject depends largely on its properties.

The originality of historical newsreels. The problem of its perception and understanding.

Newsreel, due to the continuous nature of its cinematic language, carries excessive information about the part of reality that it presents to us. Of course, if we view certain shots of the so-called "tsar newsreel" (film materials and films created with the participation of the Photographer of His Majesty's Court A. K. Yagelsky and his atelier "K. E. von Gan and Co.", dedicated to the life and work of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II), then our main attention is focused on the person of the Sovereign himself and the ceremony that is now unfolding in the frame before our eyes. However, any attentive viewer can confirm that these movie frames are valuable and interesting not only for this. In them, you can see a lot of other interesting details that do not have a literal relation to the action unfolding directly. In fact, the pictures of the life of the imperial Court captured on film carry detailed information, according to which it is possible to judge a variety of things of a bygone era. In fact, our attention is drawn not so much to films (they are still too primitive and artless), and not to chronicle reports, but to pictures of the life of the Imperial Court and the August Personages in their ritual completeness and sophistication. All other meanings, in fact, will always be artificially introduced into this self-sufficient completeness.

It should be borne in mind that the newsreel has a floating, changing meaning. Its perception depends on the current historical time and the dominant worldview views today. Actually, the propaganda effect itself arises in newsreels due to the introduction of certain author's intentions into it - in the form of certain ideological views of the author.

Of course, we see what we can and are able to see; we see to the extent that we can realize and perceive the emphasis embedded in the frame. Yes, sometimes we actively do not accept this message in screen images (for example, in the Nazi chronicle), but we are still inevitably aware of what they wanted to say and convey to us.  

The specificity of observing a screen image is that when viewing it, the viewer believes that screen objects really exist, although in fact, he sees their representations, symbolic constructions or culturally and historically conditioned images. Therefore, we can say that historical newsreels, including pre–revolutionary ones, are trying to make up for the vanished material existence of history - with the help of the continuous ephemerality of a moving image ^{[6, p. 252]}. And on the other hand, it is precisely by its ghostly nature that the historical newsreel provokes the question: was there really that reality? In addition to the purely mental properties of this question, the expressed doubt is due to the fact that due to "hardware" limitations, we observe that reality on the screen not literally, but with known lacunae and introduced conventions.

The problem of understanding screen reality is quite acute. Different groups of the audience understand newsreels differently. It is due to the fact that they see one thing in the demonstrated and do not notice the other, they do not fully understand what is happening on the screen, they find it difficult to identify characters, events and the time of the event. The understanding of newsreels by ordinary people differs from its understanding by specialists and professionals. Which is quite a natural thing. And that is why there is a whole trend of "explanatory" documentaries based on archival newsreels, whose task is to interpret historical facts and those visual evidences that are presented in the form of images of archival newsreels. This direction in documentaries gives rise to the temptation to create a propaganda effect, since often the authors of films face the task of achieving unity, common understanding of certain historical facts by the audience. And the unity of understanding is precisely the task of propaganda.

In the process of watching newsreels, the viewer is faced with a kind of textual task. Any film can be considered as a text written in a special language. And in this sense, the text of any newsreel requires its own decoding. That is why there are completely different interpretations and interpretations of what he saw. Nowadays, it is customary to say that for a more accurate and in–depth understanding of visual images, cinematic experience is necessary, which means the so-called viewing - a skill that is acquired on the basis of a fairly close mastering of cinematography and newsreels, in particular. A person with such experience is guided by the newsreel being shown, easily distinguishes historical figures in the frame, is guided by the circumstances of the unfolding action, etc. ^[7].

The very fact that newsreels belong to the pre–revolutionary period aggravates the problem of understanding, since we observe on the screen those forms of life that do not meet modern ideas - the viewer has to first arm himself with some kind of pre-knowledge about that reality and reckon with an unusual screen lifestyle.

The mental picture of life created during perception is far from complete and does not fully correspond to historical reality, as it is described by various sources. But nevertheless, it is a cumulative set of visual images that are sometimes more vivid than any verbal evidence. We should only be aware that we observe these images in a certain degree fragmentary in the absence of some important images in the visual picture of that historical life.

            If we want to find out how the first chronicle films were perceived at the beginning of the twentieth century, it is best to turn to the pre-revolutionary press and eyewitness accounts.

            Although illusions and electric theaters were very popular (there were about two dozen of them on one Nevsky Prospekt in St. Petersburg ^[8]), and the most diverse audience went to them – from aristocrats to students of gymnasiums and schools – nevertheless, reviews and impressions were the most colorful, and often diametrically opposed.

            For example, Leo Tolstoy (an aristocrat by birth and an aristocrat of the spirit by position) for a long time showed distrust of the new trend of the century, what was the passion for cinema at that time, but then with the arrival of film entrepreneur Alexander Drankov to his estate in 1908, he became interested, asked, was impressed with himself on the screen (at his request, he was shown the footage Shingles the material even twice at a time), and decided to attend a movie show with the most ordinary audience.

            Together with pianist A.B. Goldenweiser, they went to the electrotheater on the Arbat in Moscow. Later, A.B. Goldenweiser recalled: "The pictures of cinema, and generally stupid, were especially ridiculous this time: some kind of boring, meaningless melodrama was presented... Listening to the terrible music of a broken piano, L.N. turned sympathetically to me all the time, as if pitying me that I had to listen to this music. As soon as the first section was over, L.N. got up, and we all followed him. He was struck by the absurdity of the performance and wondered how the audience fills a lot of cinemas and finds pleasure in it." ^{[9, c. 344-345]}.

            Before us there is a misunderstanding on the part of the great man of the action presented to him, aggravated by the lack of any skill of watching what is unfolding on the movie screen. At the same time, for sure, the audience itself in the hall perceived everything that was being shown to it quite benevolently.

            Goldenweiser briefly says that they only endured the first separation. If we take into account that each department, and especially the first one, consisted of a set of so–called species pictures and dramas (usually two species, that is, documentaries, and two with actors), which together amounted to about 30 minutes (each film then lasted no more than 5-6 minutes, longer dramas became events and were shown especially) ^{[10, pp. 28-29]}, then it becomes clear that Lev Nikolaevich did not even have time, as they say, to delve into and look at the screen. Unaccustomed to it, he was just stunned and disappointed. The accidental first visit to the illusion could not have ended with anything else.

This is also indicated by the impression of the poet Sergei Gorodetsky, who also visited the illusion once. Here's what he saw there: "On the tall elephants of the rajah under date palms and bananas, his face is suddenly planted, and the skin is torn off from a yard-long banana like a whirlwind, the fruit climbs into thick lips. Some kind of river, and they jump into the water. Ladder. Room. A gentleman in the dance of St. Vitus reads a newspaper, they break in, pull out, somersault. Hamlet sings over the skull, and his voice is wrapped in a hissing snake. Suddenly there are two cockerels, it's dark, and the boy is running through the field, through the forest, swimming up a tree, from a tree, into a house, the house is burning, he's out of the chimney, and behind him the crazy fat men are tumbling, one over the other, and the old woman is wearing thick lace-free pants, and they will never catch up, but they will never escape never for a boy." ^{[4, p. 163]}. The poet was clearly determined to experience some fleeting emotions from the attraction, which he considered cinema. It did not occur to him to delve into any logic of the action unfolding before his eyes.

            And this despite the fact that the majority of the most ordinary public of illusions perfectly understood everything and provided their owners with sometimes chock-full fees.

            What was important to the audience was not the genre certainty of the drama being demonstrated, not the verbal accuracy and sharpness of the dialogues (despite the fact that the cinematography was mute, many quite clearly distinguished what was being said on the screen), namely nonverbal communication that steadily arose during viewing with on-screen reality. It was visual and had an instantaneous character. The viewer watched and saw not a detailed literary intrigue, but a continually filled situation. Aahs, loud sighs and even squeals when watching the majority of viewers testified to an instant grasp of the situation on the screen and feeling into it. If it were taken to explain it in words, it would immediately become boring and uninteresting – because you can see quickly, but you need to explain for a long time. The instant reaction caused the audience to affect when watching.

            And here's another piece of evidence:

"... Somewhere, with a general fear - it crackled, hissed – and suddenly – figures came on the canvas…

            - Go-go-go, everyone was laughing…

            The figures ran, jumped, hugged, kissed, and it was all so true, so vitally true that when the two men bowed from the screen, many of us took off our hats and greeted strangers with friendly gestures.

            A beautiful alley of some park of beautiful Switzerland stood out in front of me. The curve seemed to have melted, there was no longer a canvas in front of our eyes, but a variety of trees stood tall, harmoniously bordering a smooth narrow path.  Fountains were silvering all around, roadside flowers were waving… I have been admiring this spectacle for a long time ..." - recalls someone Free-dick, an ordinary spectator of that time. ^[11].  

            Strangely enough, something important is noted in these seemingly random words: Firstly, an instant connection was established between the viewer and the screen reality filled with living people, so much so that people in the hall, forgetting themselves, reacted with gestures to the bows of ghostly screen characters.

            And secondly, the main thing is that our viewer stopped noticing the turn (that is, the color of the image), stopped noticing the screen with a frame and immersed himself entirely in a beautiful park landscape. He started daydreaming.

            But Tolstoy and Gorodetsky, such contact did not happen – all the time there was an unavoidable distance that prevented immersion and dissolution.

            Probably, many representatives of the so–called enlightened public experienced similar feelings in the cinema - they were alien to this kind of spectacle; to their taste, it was all vulgar and primitive. They did not notice the phenomenon of animated moving photography itself, they were not ready to perceive it. Although the perception of the unpretentious simple audience was the most direct and direct – everything seemed to them on the screen as in life!

            The very fact that in the early period of cinema, not educated, refined people began to engage in it, but, as they say, cunning businessmen, some of whom in this case got rich just fantastically, suggests that, first of all, flair and intuition played their role, helping to grasp the features of film writing in order to brilliantly then exploit it at the most primitive level.

            Mass tastes, the existence of which was seriously talked about only after a while, determined the success of early cinema. ^{[1, pp. 81-84]}.  The mass audience did not need depth and sophistication, he longed to see the situations that worried him, to experience the feelings and passions that took possession of them after the heroes. The viewer on the screen needed the atmosphere that prevailed at that time in society. At the same time, the mass taste testified not just to the rudeness and simplicity of the spiritual mores of the public. It was a separate social phenomenon associated with collective ideas and opinions about life. In addition, it was also divided into categories: different strata of society had their own preferences, which quickly led to the orientation of electric theaters according to the profiles of the films being shown. It turned out that students and students like and want to watch one thing, clerks and shopkeepers with the master's staff are quite another, and the refined public is the third. ^{[2, pp. 274-281]}.  

            The dealers of early cinema perfectly understood these mass tastes of the audience. Perhaps because they themselves came out of the masses. Natasha Drubek, analyzing the composition of Russian film entrepreneurs of the early twentieth century, came to the conclusion that in the capitals of the empire they were newcomers, many of them of Jewish origin, and some of them were baptized in order to calmly go about their business ^{[5, p.94-129]} - like the same Alexander Drankov, who started a photographer of the State Duma and a photojournalist for a number of newspapers and magazines, and before that, in his youth, he kept a dance hall in Sevastopol, from where he came to St. Petersburg. ^{[12, pp.34-35]}.

            With regard to newsreels, cinema played the role of a living newspaper – taking into account the newsreels that appeared soon, it filled the screen with momentary visual information that literally made the viewer feel certain events, experience the realities of edges and weights where you have never been. Many owners of pre-revolutionary electric theaters neglected the so-called view films, and in 1908 the fact of incredible interest in a rather modest documentary film in which the flood in Moscow that happened in the spring was filmed became a real revelation for them. The film did not leave the screen for several weeks. ^{[2, p. 288]}. 

            Nowadays, a viewer watching a newsreel from a century ago experiences it differently than the viewer of that time, and finds himself in a situation accompanied, from the point of view of phenomenology, by certain effects and qualities. He sees old chronicle plots and frames taking into account the modern interpretation and interpretation of the events reproduced by the screen. We can say that the process of visibility has remained the same – we see all the same things that the previous viewers saw, that the film has preserved for us, but the visibility of all this becomes different – we see in accordance with the attitudes of understanding that we have in the present.

            When viewing on-screen reality, we use our imagination to more clearly imagine the things revealed by the screen. We connect the lived experience of reality based not only on personal memories (we cannot literally remember what happened a hundred years ago), but on verbal eyewitness accounts, memoir texts, as well as iconography in the form of preserved photographs and even scenes of watched feature films of similar historical themes that seem plausible to us.

            We perceive old newsreels while staying in the Imaginary. But at the same time we perceive her screen paintings symbolically. The symbolic is the invisible order of perceived reality, it structures our perception. Thus, we automatically correlate what we see with a certain ideal order of things that we imagine for the reality that has been lost, but revived by the screen.^{[13, pp. 148-149]}.

            Thanks to the involvement of phenomenological mechanisms, we perceive old newsreels in a special way. On the one hand, we trust what we have seen (because we have nothing to compare them with on our own experience), we re-imagine on-screen pictures of reality and form memory gestalts as some kind of imprints of what we have seen, placed in our memory. ^{[7, p. 64]}. The grasping of screen images during perception occurs instantly – it is not by chance that a visual turn has occurred, which indicates a different mechanism of perception of visual images compared to verbal information. On the other hand, screen paintings are filled with symbolism, become signs of historical events and characters, and also form a kind of figurative series if the perceived image has the ability to become not a sign, but an image of the event. The sign refers to the event, it is poorer than the event itself. The image is a screen expression of the event, it represents it.

            Gagarin sitting in the rocket is a sign; the detailed episode of the launch of the rocket with Gagarin on April 12, 1961 is an image of the event, framed in this way, and not in another way.

            Let's turn to specific examples of surviving chronicle films to understand how they open up to our perception.

            The film "The Sovereign Emperor, the Empress Empress and the Heir Tsarevich are pleased to taste sailor food on the imperial yacht "Shtandart" during their stay in the Skerries in 1908" (RGAKFD Uch. 1892) was shot by A.K. Yagelsky during the rest of the royal family in the Finnish Skerries in the summer of 1908. It was one of the very first films included in the so-called "royal newsreel", which was shown in cinemas.^{[14, p. 24]}. There are no credits in the film and there is no editing sequence. Scenes follow one after another without observing temporal logic. It would be more correct to define it as a set of certain chronicle frames, united by the place of action and the reigning personages present in them.

            The dominant scene of the film is a repeated sample of food prepared for the lower ranks several times. Strangely, this action seems to deliberately echo the recent riot on the battleship Potemkin, which happened three years earlier due to the use of rotten meat in sailors' food. It is impossible to believe that the audience of the pre-revolutionary cinema did not feel this parallel. In the frame several times - and this means that this demonstration is intentional - a sample of food is shown, which is made by the commander of the "Standard" Admiral Chagin, and Minister Fredericks, and the Sovereign, and the Empress, and certainly the Heir to the Tsarevich, little Alexei. There is nothing wrong with the sailor's food, since it is eaten fearlessly by the reigning personages. And the sailors traditionally drink a daily portion of vodka distributed by the boatswain.

            The film is also full of shots that captivate with their sweetness and tenderness:  there is also a game on the deck, reminiscent of serso, in which Nicholas II takes part together with the officers, and little Alexey, who is touching himself, and the embarrassed August daughters running back and forth.

            Behind all these fairly understandable informational and symbolic meanings of the episodes being demonstrated, the dark meaning of the fatal nature of this whole cloudless life of the royal family is now revealed. It is impossible for a modern viewer to perceive these frames otherwise, although in 1908, when they were shown in electric theaters, the viewer could look at them quite indifferently – the officialdom was not perceived differently then. Yagelsky, offering this film for rental (with the knowledge of the Ministry of the Yard – it could not be otherwise), of course, could not even think about any hidden meanings. He only wanted to contribute to the awakening of loyal feelings among the audience.

            About the demonstration of the film "The Opening of the Bridge across the Volga in the center of Rzhev" (1911) (RGAKFD Uch. 20340), no mention has been preserved on pre-revolutionary screens. Neither in newspapers and magazines of those years, nor in later filmographies. Paradoxically, he began to arouse interest in himself only today. Of course, for a modern viewer, which is, say, a local historian, he is interesting primarily for his informational meanings. In addition to the consecration ceremony and the opening of the new bridge, the film abundantly shows us views of the city, panoramas of the surrounding area taken from the church bell tower, as well as the types of people who took part in the opening of the bridge and stood staring at what was happening. We also see boys and girls, carts with merchant goods and signs of various shops and banks, as well as a beer shop and a factory beer warehouse.

            With the advent of good computer technology, it turned out to be possible to sufficiently adequately restore historical newsreels with giving it a natural speed (at the dawn of cinema, as is known, there was a different projection speed) and appropriate colorization. The transformed screen reality is striking in its reality. Before us, the historical time itself suddenly comes to life, which is perceived totally. The perception of visual images occurs instantaneously, which would be impossible in the case of the verbal form of language. At the same time, their adequate description in verbal, that is, in verbal form, is impossible, because the perception of whole visual images occurs without their verbalization.

            With such a transmission (broadcast), images are perceived without any resistance - they affect the viewer magnetically and encourage them to peer into the screen reality in the most careful way, which R. Barth drew his attention to with regard to photography: "... Some photo touches me (m'arrive): she animates me, I animate her. That's what I should call the attraction that allows it to exist –animation....It just animates me."^{[15, p. 31]}.

            This effect of animating screen reality is observed when viewing pre-revolutionary newsreels, restored and restored in high quality. And that's why a rather modest film about the opening of the bridge in Rzhev is so exciting today.

            The film "Asbestos mining in the Urals" (1911) (RGAKFD Uch. 1328) was filmed at the Bazhenovsky quarry (now the city of Asbestos is located nearby), which belonged to the trading house of the heirs of A. F. Poklevsky-Kozell and Baron Girard de Sukanton ^[16], in 1911. It has been preserved in the film archive, however, without titles and with a violation of the editing sequence.

            When analyzing it, we have to make some assumptions, since the information that has reached us about the film is very insignificant.

            In the film itself, we see several scenes shot at an asbestos quarry, and scenes shot at a stand for demonstration purposes to show the miraculous properties of asbestos as a material.

            The quarry is huge and goes somewhere up the ledges. There are ordinary men sitting near the ledges, probably hired peasants who extract a valuable mineral with picks and hammers. At the bottom of the quarry there is a stream, through which two well-dressed people jump back and forth - perhaps engineers of the quarry.

            It seems that in 1911 this film was even presented as a scientific one, since a significant part of it is a demonstration of the properties of asbestos. For sure, the audience was not at all interested in the dark men-workers, but they were interested in the amazing qualities of the material made of asbestos: here you have hard sheets that look like plywood, and aprons and mittens that don't burn in the fire, and strong ropes and ropes.

            Now we are struck by just the same workers, cut in a circle and dining right there under the canopy with their women and children from the same pot.

            If the pre-revolutionary viewer was interested in the amazing unimaginable properties of asbestos, then the modern viewer perceives the same film in a more complex way. With the help of imagination and fantasy, as one of the components of imagination, he has to get used to the reality represented by the screen and endow the film frames, which become signs and images, with symbolism. The symbolism of perceived historical images and signs gives the film valuable and artistic qualities. It becomes important and valuable to see real people of that time who amaze us with their vitality and realism. The images of the quarry workers coming on the screen together with the people around them, the details of life and everyday life at the quarry help us to feel and understand the objective picture of life at that time, to experience the historical truth that eludes us.

            Of course, such a perception is possible only if the ability to get used to the displayed screen images is inherent in the viewer and is desirable and organic for him. Of course, a purely profane disinterested perception of the same images will be superficial and will be accompanied by boredom. But this is a completely different problem – the problem of the purpose of the visual evidence that the screen presents to us. First of all, they are always important and needed only by the viewer interested in them.

Conclusion

            Thus, based on the analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:

            For pre-revolutionary newsreels and non-fiction films, the problem of understanding screen images has always been relevant. At the dawn of cinema, this problem was subordinated to satisfying the mass tastes of the audience. At the same time, the viewer had to have a certain skill and ability to distinguish and decipher the images appearing on the screen.

            Over time, historical newsreels begin to possess properties and qualities deeper than those that the pre-revolutionary audience paid attention to. In addition to informational and symbolic meanings, screen images of pre-revolutionary non-fiction films become carriers of hidden meanings that cannot be deciphered for profane surface perception. When looking closely at these images, it becomes possible to feel the very breath of a long-lost life in its various forms and, ultimately, come closer to understanding the historical truth.