/lit/ - Literature

>>11239700
>>11239723
>>11239733
>>11239782
Stroheim > Tarr

He has learned tonal branching from Griffith and entered into disturbing camp which is why he is acclaimed by the surrealists and is beyond any of them. Any matter of naturalism in a Tarr flick is directly controlled and motivated by the camera through his tracking shots, push-ins, and theatrical tendencies. Tarr is trying so hard, but floundering like a fucking fish. His tableau long takes stolen poorly from Griffith's biographs which already did long takes with slight synergistic camera shifts in upwards to 20 minutes. Then like usual, Griffith discarded. Tarr is recreating somehting achieved already 90 years ago. Stroheim's camera doesn't motivate like Tarr's, it involves with the action at hand while refraining from engagement. Absorptive without release, harnessing then imploding. The devastation is off-screen you dumbfuck, any tragedy in Stroheim is suffused under equilibrium. Stroheim's making fun of you, how dumb and impressionable you are. He's making fun of himself. He's making fun of the world. He recreated Monte Carlo, then when in the real, he destroyed as much for his vision (anything to uptick costs). The world is in his hands, nothing matters except the act. Your emotions hinder you. You seek catharsis and appeal meanwhile being fucked in the ass.