David Perlov

David Perlov (Hebrew: דוד פרלוב) (born June 9, 1930 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; died December 13, 2003 in Tel-Aviv, Israel) was an Israeli documentary filmmaker.

Biography

David Perlov, memorial plaque in Tel Aviv

David Perlov was born in Rio de Janeiro and grew up in Belo Horizonte. At the age of 10, he went to live with his grandfather in São Paulo. At the age of 22, he moved to Paris and worked as a projectionist for the newly established Cinematheque.[1] In 1957, he made his first short film, Tante chinoise (Old Aunt China), based on drawings of a 12-year-old girl of the French provincial bourgeoisie of 1890 which he found in the cellar of the Paris house in which he was living.[2] In 1958, Perlov immigrated to Israel, settling with his wife Mira on Kibbutz Bror Hayil.[2] The couple had two daughters, the twins Yael and Naomi.

Film career

In 1963, Perlov made a 33-minute documentary In Jerusalem (בירושלים, Be-Yerushalayim). This film came to be one of the most important films of Israeli documentary cinema.[3] Although Perlov made two feature films by 1972 (The Pill and 42:6), his film proposals were repeatedly rejected by the Israel Broadcasting Authority and Israeli film board, which found his work too lyrical.[1] In May of the year 1973, Perlov bought a 16 mm camera and filmed his everyday life alongside dramatic events that took place in Israel at the time. He continued this work for 10 years, sometimes with almost no economic resources, until Channel 4 of British television expressed an interest in the project in 1983. Produced in association with Israel's largest television and film studio, Herzliya Studios (Ulpanei Herzliya), the result was Perlov's work Diary (יומן). From 1973 Perlov taught in the department of film and television at Tel Aviv University.

Awards and recognition

In 1999, Perlov was awarded the Israel Prize for his contribution to cinema.[4]

gollark: Oh, and if you look at versions where it's "pull lever to divert trolley onto different people" versus "push person off bridge to stop trolley", people tend to be less willing to sacrifice one to save five in the second case, because they're more involved and/or it's less abstract somehow.
gollark: There might be studies on *that*, actually, you might be able to do it without particularly horrible ethical problems.
gollark: You don't know that. We can't really test this. Even people who support utilitarian philosophy abstractly might not want to pull the lever in a real visceral trolley problem.
gollark: Almost certainly mostly environment, yes.
gollark: It's easy to say that if you are just vaguely considering that, running it through the relatively unhurried processes of philosophizing™, that sort of thing. But probably less so if it's actually being turned over to emotion and such, because broadly speaking people reaaaallly don't want to die.

See also

References

See also

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.