/lit/ - Literature

>>10826499
>Only seen one Flaherty
Then you're not qualified to call something new. Get in the back of the line.
>Costa, Bresson
Bresson thrills through austerity. Costa beautifies through elongated abstractness. They both became 2001. Overexpansion and overabstraction which branch into obviousness and banality. They are both vulgarizations of Flaherty whose complexity goes beyond every cinephile's head, whose emotional heft is gifted by the piercing of reality within the confines of it.

Bresson took reality, Flaherty's imprint on it, and the density of Dostoyevsky, and streamlined it to multiply questions based around narrative convergence (Brief Encounter and Bicycle Thieves)

Bresson is vulgar because he is so direct. He stripped reality in reality, he did not pierce it. Bresson is no truth whatsoever. He's psychological imprint. He's literature. And he appeals t the middlebrow literary majors that consume film circles (i.e. cinephiles, dropout_bear)

In short, Bresson is bullshit.

Costa is editing out all exposition and maintains only quiet moments and glances so you're forced to peer outside his pidgeonholes. He is further abstaction of Bresson, and it is abstraction to the point of obviousness. To aim for closeups and design around those as your nucleus is to be obvious and to abuse emotional investment with technique, to aim your camera in obfuscated postions forcing an impossibility of looking outside the frame is trickery. Flaherty is superior to each, his ideas are disguised by common, universal mundanity, not through precise editing. Flaherty lulls the viewer into a transient state where you begin to not notice the edits and parallels he is making.

1948 was the end