الفکر الروائي والفکر السينمائي

All that came in this chapter about the difference of visions between the director and the writer, during which I tried not to come to one of them for the other’s sake, and if it seemed otherwise, it is due to whom I came to; I was careful and careful in the reading that was taken, and I did not come up with anything outside of it. But all of it is from within the work and it is matched by its counterpart from the other work, and we have seen, according to what we have been given, that the novelist thinker devoted all his effort to serve his subject, making him with an accumulated intellectual load, asking him for more than one knowledge to master his thought, culture, philosophy, sociology and psychology; Where there were many threads with realistic references, and relations were intertwined and complicated in some aspects, and what came in the novelist text of a romantic plot between two lovers, but the novelist’s work employee did his best not to deviate from its context, while the cinema thinker worked hard to break it up until he started collecting scenes from here and there and stacking them Rasa even that the film did not rise to be merely transforming a story into pictures, as its images were faint and lacked real or societal truth in anything. The novelistic thought was focused on the subject, while the cinematographer was focused on the spectator and searched for ways to acquire it with various audio-visual effects. The seductive and seductive.