This chapter marks the tenth interval, since 1895, in which “feelings” and/or “emotions” play a pivotal role in prescribing a Documentary definiens. Its conversation is further focused in concert with the peculiar perspective provided by the Soviet film critic Sergei Vladimirovich Drobashenko (1921–2008) and, more specifically, his 1962 definition of Documentary as “reportage of feelings.” Against this backdrop, the chapter weaves its interrogation of Drobashenko’s definiens by dwelling on the philosophical and psychological distinction between “feelings” and “emotions.” With the already-established understanding that “feelings” and “emotions” (in other words, “sentiments”) are a natural constituent of the human physical and psychological existence, and by an equal measure of humans’ perception of reality, the chapter reaffirms that Drobashenko’s “reportage of feelings” bears the qualia of a necessarily dualistic expression of human truthfulness, characterized by both the interwoven-ness of “facts-in-themselves” and “facts that become known through sentiments.”

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

1962 Sergei Drobashenko

  • Dan Geva

摘要

This chapter marks the tenth interval, since 1895, in which “feelings” and/or “emotions” play a pivotal role in prescribing a Documentary definiens. Its conversation is further focused in concert with the peculiar perspective provided by the Soviet film critic Sergei Vladimirovich Drobashenko (1921–2008) and, more specifically, his 1962 definition of Documentary as “reportage of feelings.” Against this backdrop, the chapter weaves its interrogation of Drobashenko’s definiens by dwelling on the philosophical and psychological distinction between “feelings” and “emotions.” With the already-established understanding that “feelings” and “emotions” (in other words, “sentiments”) are a natural constituent of the human physical and psychological existence, and by an equal measure of humans’ perception of reality, the chapter reaffirms that Drobashenko’s “reportage of feelings” bears the qualia of a necessarily dualistic expression of human truthfulness, characterized by both the interwoven-ness of “facts-in-themselves” and “facts that become known through sentiments.”