/lit/ - Literature

>>10635540
Massive misnomer, the notion that Griffith is a pioneer and nothing else. It's a constant perpetuated myth that Griffith is "classical continuity" or is a "basic pioneer". He certainly influenced classical continuity, but only because he was so beyond his peers that they only gleamed his superficialities (see: Ford). Griffith's works are the most complex of any known medium. They are not film because no one within that medium has replicated or advanced his metaphysical dialectic in any known quality. You can like what you like, but if you're serious about, you should come to realize that almost the entirety of "film" has never even came close to the likes of Griffith or Flaherty. I don't see new, I see vulgarity. I don't see advancement, I see oversimplification and degradation. How Griffith is lightyears beyond anybody else since goes to show how most that are attracted to "film" are autists that wish to capture life in the same self-contained isolated way they see the world, and that does perhaps the most damage to their work. But alas, genes cannot be changed. Kubrick was born this way, Ozu was born this way, Bresson was born this way, Tarkovsky was born this way and so on ad infinitum. This near-indomitable pile of backwash sludge that permeates the entire medium and is praised beyond aptitude is what makes me agree with Griffith's indirect notion that he never once made a film. I don't know of Flaherty to have either.