/lit/ - Literature

>>11229477
Was he /fitlit/?

>>11229477
truly a legend

>>11229477
I wish Armond White would finish his book

post this one more time ill feed your mouth my fist

/lit/ doesn't know about tarkovsky, they watch entry level film like Kubrick and Lynch

bump

it resembles baroque tempo rubato concept of "stolen time" where the basic rythm (editing) is constant but the melody (momentum within scenes) is flexible.
>tarkovsky studied music befor switching to film
dats the connection

I like Jacques Aumont, Bela Balázs and Phillipe Dubois. And some random Cahiers du Cinéma, their roundtables are pretty good without having too much theoretical content.

I don't like film that much though, painting is the superior medium.

Is this the new Cultur of Critique?

>>11230431
Tarkovsky is exactly as "entry level" as Lynch or Kubrick, what the fuck?
Also,
>using "entry level" with a negative connotation
kys

>>11230377
i'll feed your mouth my dick, faggot

>>11230431
>Kubrick and Lynch
>entry level
reatrd

Currently reading Japanese Cinema - an introduction, despite the name this is a great in-depth book about the beginning of Japanese cinema. After this I’ll be starting Film Technique by Pudovkin, what should I read after this? Delueze’s prose is obnoxious, I’ll read Cinema 1 + 2 at a later date when I can tolerate it.

Arnheim wrote some good stuff.

>>11230431
>>11231857
>>11231859
>>>11230431
what are some mid and exit level directors?

>>11229477
Mackendrick's On Filmmaking
John Truby's The Anatomy of Story
Robert Bresson's Notes on the Cinematograph
John Yorke's Into The Woods (useful for screenwriting theory)

Been meaning to pick up In The Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch.

Gonna list off some film history books that helped me through film school:
Kracauer's From Caligari to Hitler (literal history of German cinema, the historical context, the importance of the expressionist movement, etc)
Stephen Prince's The Warrior's Camera
Jonathan Clements' Anime: A History
Hitchcock/Truffaut
Donald Richie's The Films of Akira Kurosawa
Isolde Standish's A New History of Japanese Cinema
Japanese Cinema: Texts and Contexts
Akira Kurosawa's Something Like an Autobiography
Steven D Katz's Film Directing Shot by Shot
The Atomic Bomb in Japanese Cinema

I also very much enjoyed our last thread on Sculpting in Time that ended up becoming a large discussion on film

>>11230431
but this isn't /tv/ anon

>>11232063
I've read a bit from this list but thanks, this looks good.

>>11231857
>>11231859
I meant entry level as in they are shit that get touted as good.

What are the best films anyway?

>>11232941
"The films we've made with our friends along the way" - David Foster Wallace

>>11232941
"the films we've made under the light of our loins" - Vladimir Nabokov

Theres a fuckload of good structuralist film theory
Try Lotman as intro

hack

>>11230431
bait

>"Lynch and Kubrick are good directors"

>>11234681
>"Hehe if I tell them I dislike critically acclaimed filmmakers I'll seem smart."

CLOSE THIS THREAD BEFORE THE GRIFFITH FAGGOT COMES BACK. GET DELETE

>>11229583
Daddy sculpt my bussy in time

>>11231857
>entry level
If like that slut that every coworker had sex with....
Like "dude she is eaaaasy xD"

>>11234735
It's a sure sign that someone doesn't know film.

/lit/ is a Griffith board. That is he is the only director that actually made film as an art.

I could encapsulate every work and "accomplishment" by any other established directors in a couple words because they only gleaned superficialities.
>Hitchcock, thriller and meta elements
>Ozu, social masks, elliptics, breaking 180 degree rule and low camera angles constantly as some needlessly condescending stylistic choices, and environmental cutaways
>Bresson narrative convergence centered around closeups as transferrential nucleus,actors as models of precise textual delivery
>Costa, personal scenes cut, impersonal presented through forced pidgeonhole as attempts at evocation of tertiary information
>Benning, diaries and everyday objects juxtaposed with present day environments
>Peter Hutton, portraiture as evocation
>Ford, iconography as evocation and intercommunication with narratological dissertation
>Straub-Huillet prior just with regular people, not professional actors
>Brakhage, textural manipulation for phenomenological simulation
>Dreyer, faux-spiritualism wrung by willpower
>Tarkovsky, synergistic navigation of structuralist emanations, nature as monistic void
>Bergman, denotative deconstruction, dark romanticism, existentialist themes
>Tarr, motivational push-ins, sublimated absurdity
>Lynch, extremified expansion of ecological underbelly
>Ruiz, youth as ontological reversion for epiphenomenal facilitation
You cannot, and I repeat adamantly, you cannot do the same for Griffith, Flaherty, or Eisenstein. They are bar none the most complex individuals

All plebs that disagree must vacate. This is non negotiable.

Proof that Bergman was a talentless hack

For many critics and scholars — myself among them — D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance is the greatest film ever made. A century later we are as close to its subject as we are distant from its art. Political specifics, moral arguments, and movie styles may look different today, yet the only real difference is Griffith’s still-daring ingenuity, which calls for a more open-minded reception than in our simplistic habits we are accustomed to: It calls for an optimistic, united popular audience, which Griffith took for granted. When Intolerance premiered on September 5, 1916, its opening intertitles introduced silent-movie viewers to an extraordinary narrative device: “Our play is made up of four separate stories, laid in different periods of history, each with its own set of characters.” Employing a prologue and two acts, Griffith called it “a sun-play,” marked by florid melodramatics developed from Emersonian Transcendentalism, which film scholar Bill R. Scalia has described as “calling for an original American literature,” for “poets with the ability to ‘see’ past the material, apparent world to the world of eternal forms, which shaped nature in accordance with a divine moral imperative. Through this connection, man-as-poet would discover God in himself.

>>11235152
>>11235158
>>11235168

>single non-western director is Ozu

how to spot a pseud

>>11235158
>>11235168
these are images made to instigate confused, indignant reactions

>>11235291
>there are good non-western directors

>>11235399
>meme

how will my argument ever recover

your superficial and misguided analysis of Ozu only further demonstrates the fact that you have no actual knowledge regarding the history of film production or style in Japan

>>11235390
Its showing the deterioration of film over time. You have to be retarded if you can't make out the simple changes

>>11229477
sculpting in time is my 2nd favorite film related book. pic related is #1

>>11235518
>no u

>>11235553
It's ok. You just have to come to terms that you weren't born smart enough for these things.

>>11235518
>>11235579
Interesting how you have the time to respond with evasive non-answers and vaguely provocative images, but can't muster up even a semi-intelligent response when called out directly >>11235435

Whats the most /lit/ film?

>>11235598
>semi intelligent response
>literally just "your analysis is misguided"

>>11232063
u done some movies?

>>11235604
What do Ozu's compositions and formal elements say in the context of Japanese filmic tradition versus dominant Western modes of filmmaking? (we're talking Griffith here, this should be easy)

>>11235604
>>11235630
And he's gone!!! What a surprise

>>11235630
Ozu is in the western tradition of filmaking you retard

>>11234681
>kubrick is a bad director 'cause I say so lmao

>>11235671
Name one Ozu film you retard

tarkovsky anon is really uoping the frequency

>>11235681
It's ok, not all of us can be patrician. Kubrick has not once made a film that could be considered anything more than pop entertainment.

>>11235690
They are literally all the same. What is more he tried copying Griffith and did poorly,

>>11235741
What do Ozu's compositions and formal elements say in the context of Japanese filmic tradition versus dominant Western modes of filmmaking? (we're talking Griffith here, this should be easy)

Now try again and keep in mind that neither >>11235741 nor >>11235671 are correct

>>11235741
It doesn't matter what he is trying to say if he can't make film without resorting to cheap imitation and stale tricks.

Dreadful display by shitzu

>>11235724
Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, Paths of Glory, 2001.

>>11235724
>kubrick is just pop entertainment xD
and they told me /lit/ was the board with brains

>>11235833
>>11235828
Go back to /tv/

>>11235890
ladies first

>>11235890
>look mom, I told them to get back to /tv/, another argument won today xD

>>11235942
You never provided an argument retard

>>11229477
MODS!! MODS!!

>>11229477
Report this off topic bullshit. Sage

>>11236026
>>11236029
Discussing a literal book is off-topic?

>>11236026
>>11236029
>>11236049
The absolute state of /lit.

>>11229477
Tarkovsky is one of the few people who I think I agree with on literally everything.

>>11235771
>both directors shot water at one point
really makes you think

>>11236049
This is a literature board. Should we discuss coffee table books too? The subject of the book is film. There is a film board. Leave. Sage.

>>11236026
>>11236029
>>11236327
Griffith poster loses an argument and desperately attempts to shut down thread.

>>11236019
I provided movies of his that werent "pop enterteinment" as you call it, faggot. Barry Lyndon is "pop entertainment"? Fuck off.

>>11231857
Tarkovsky is never an entry-level, unless if you regard his average films like Solaris or Ivan's Childhood to be his best

I FUCKING TOLD YOU HED BE HERE WHY DID NOBODY LISTEN TO ME

Should i kms if tarkovosky is nothing more than eye doodles i prefer dymorphic simpsons i will never be patriciam

>>11236671
Barry Lyndon is very much pop entertainment. The whole story is something straight out of a cheap historical fanfiction with forced drama and all the acting felt ingenuine. Kubrick is only good as cheap entertainment and nothing more.

>>11235791
this is obvious bait, but I feel bad for you if you genuinely didn't enjoy Tokyo Story

Any recommendations on film theory concerning the medium's relation with Time and History as a general concept? Besides Deleuze's Cinema 1 and 2,

Ive never liked film or 'film theory'.
Fuck that shit.

>>11235890
Paths of Glory and Barry Lyndon are kino though don't be a philistine

>>11232020
Parajanov
Zulawski
Brakhage

>made over 500 films
>only two of them are remembered
What did Griffith mean by this?

Why did he ruin a perfectly good film with such a pretentious voice over?

>>11239250
Paths of glory is quite simpleminded.

>>11239437
>pretentious

Leave.

>>11239250
Barry Lyndon is just pretty scenery and hamfisted drama.

>>11235152
>>Dreyer, faux-spiritualism
I mean, I know this, is, a baitpost but, st,ill,,,

>>11239544
Dreyer was an athiest who pretended to be religious to seem cultured

>>11238164
if Kubs is cheap entertainment then who do you consider "profound art", inb4 tarkovsky.

>>11239529
>he watches film for the plot

>>11238164
>Blood Meridian is very much pop entertainment. The whole story is something straight out of a cheap historical fanfiction with forced drama and all the writing felt ingenuine. McCarthy is only good as cheap entertainment and nothing more.

>>11239564
source?

More despairkino like this?

>>11238164
>"all the acting felt ingenuine"
>doesn't get Kubrick's ironic sense of humor
why even bother, anon? just kys

>>11239700
Anything by Bela Tarr

>>11239723
Already watched Damnation actually, but good taste

>>11239700

>>11239701
Stop trying to defend your terrible taste. Watch some actual film

>>11239664
false equivolence. Blood Meridian has great prose. Barry Lyndon doesn't have anything worth while

>>11239813
Kubrick is a proper filmmaker. What are you onto? Name a better filmmaker, inb4 tarkovsky.

>>11229477
>>11230431
>>11231857
>>11231859
>>11231902
>>11232020
>>11232063
>>11232941
>>11234344
>>11234681
>>11234743
>>11235671
>>11238972
>>11239362
>>11239437
>>11239526

Reminder Tarkovsky appeals to bibliophiles because they're all soft, weak, effeminate beta males that would rather whine about their post-recessive state and make up excuses and "alternatives" for not leaving the house during the day.

The long take is soft, camera stylo, equated with the pen.

The edit is the cine-fist.

You'd rather hide than run, no wonder a man complaining about his mommy issues resonates with so much with you prissy hordes

>>11238972
>>11239362
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Through the Ages, by D.W. Griffith, is a film which thematically concerns the cultural continuity of a theme, intolerance, across disparate time periods and connects four narratives on that theme one to the other with a common image: a mother, gently rocking a cradle. Symbolic of the eternal march of generations, the cradle represents both the passage of time and the eternal emergence of culture within humanity, nurtured by love, symbolized by Griffith's romanticized mother figure. The film's parallel narrative structure, four stories from centuries apart progressing toward their climaxes in tandem and in narratively conventional increasing urgency, was virtuosically constructed and edited, and soon shown to be highly influential to other filmmakers, of the American and Soviet cinemas and of many others.

>>11239544
>>11238972
>>11239362
In Cinema 1: The Movement Image, Gilles Deleuze also demonstrates the film's influence on his way of thinking about the cinematic medium's potential,discussing how its uniquely cinematic structuring of temporal sensibilities outmodes simplistic apprehensions of time and demonstrates time's multiplicity. He argues that the alternation between Intolerance's four distinct narratives is not motivated by the requirements of the film's theme, of a message sourced in the narratives themselves, but instead, based in the powerful concept of cinematic montage itself, a distinguishing feature of the cinema, which can bring disparate visions of specific times and spaces into conversation in a way that may, in Deleuze's apprehension of the American tradition, be fashioned to seem purely organic. Therefore, it it cinema's intrinsic ability to invisibly stitch together actualities of immensely different spatial and temporal provenance which enables the "timeless struggle" theme of Intolerance, as well as provides the exceptionally apt depiction of temporality as it really is, extant across all of history in equal measure in simultanaeity, in what Deleuze might have termed "any time whatever," but also only able to be experienced in the immesurably atemporal moment of "the present." In addition to Intolerance's organicized representation of time as existing and being experience identically across eras, "time as whole, as great circle or spiral," time as it might exist in the fullest sense of ideal history and memory, Deleuze also uses Intolerance to help illustrate the other part of the dialectic of experienced time, time as "The continually diminishing interval between two movements or two actions."

>>11239544
>>11238972
>>11239362
The pacing of the intercutting between the narratives of Intolerance grows increasingly rapid over the course of the film, and the dual race scenes in the final hour of the film, the physical and cinematic metaphors for the infinitessimally divisible intervals of time are iterated in a suspenseful fictionalization of the experience of Zeno's arrow paradox. The shots themselves become shorter and shorter, demonstrating how experienced time, the "accelerated variable present," is inherently interval-oriented, described in its form as between points or actions. Thus, the race scenes demonstrate in their parallel spatialized approaches to a goal moment, a finish, a hopeful fateful encounter, the movement nature of time. The intercutting between the two stories and the tension that it builds makes it seem, from the temporal perspective of the viewer, that even though the time is decreasing in interval, it is increasing or unchanging in its arrival at the point of stasis. The viewer's experience of time is controlled and distorted by the cinematic feature of montage, which has in this way organicized and made felt the unlocateable, tanscendent quality of experienced time as interval. This is, of course, cinema's unique effect of suspense. Incidentally, in both stories, the finish of the races are the hopeful resolutions of conflicts that are to result in the salvage of life itself, of the prolonging of existence and of its inherent continued experience of, on the one hand, the husband's individual time and on the other, Babylon's shared cultural time. They are races against the end of time, races to delay what is experientially inconceiveable but historically inevitable.

>>11239875
>Kubrick is a proper filmmaker.
Shot composition is neutered. Take Kubrick's methodology of shot composition for example. He took Eisenstein's approach of structuralist shot creation, but changed Eisenstein's often triangular depth module to a one-point symmetrical perspective. What people perceived as depth in the latter was ultimately oversimplification, in reality mind you (not caligari expressionist denotation). Therefore, he was asserting this is the single goal of life. He took overly readable images to an extreme. Really, Kubrick only worked on wavelength, but his obfuscating tone and polysemitic metaphors (2001 monolith) culled you into believing there was more thematic depth beyond a shaggy God story.

>>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.

>>11230431
there's so many flaws in just one paste

>>11239660
>he watches film for the plot
And what are you doing, cinemaphile #3425892499658

Scrounging for lists, looking at a screen passively several hours a day, afraid of the big mean capitalist society so much you've gone so far as to simulate looking at nature while getting slowly bulldozed out of existence.

Your time's up, the grants are gone. Straub has already died, Duras hasn't made anything in years, Costa will croak soon and so will Lynch.

Anything outside the corporate entity is merely fringe holdover, and you're the 21st century hippie sit-in fighting the hegemony with ironic emoji's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9LvqESsRlM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rih7y52sv7c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-uOEITTO9c

>>11235694
agreed

>>11240008
Upvote

https://letterboxd.com/darrencb/list/vote-best-directors-of-all-time/detail/

>>11240014
it's time to stop posting anon

>popular means its bad

Cant understand people like this

>>11239362
>Parajanov
>Zulawski

>wide angle lenses are kino!
Hacks. Can't even keep camera shadow out of frame

>Brakhage
Putting dies on frame doesn't take skill

>>11239941
>culled you into believing there was more thematic depth beyond a shaggy God story.
He did say in an interview the God concept was at the core of 2001. Still, he's a proper filmmaker, you're trying to make him look like Michael Bay or something, also, no filmmaker is that deep, anyway, he's as deep as the medium allows.

>>11240026
>overexposed garbage
No you!

>>11240057
>Michael Bay
The hallmark of the only ones to fully explore the potentialities of the photorepresentative medium. To be a true director, you must be reserved from humanity and reign dominance as a disseminator of mass-consciousness, unplugging the holes of cherished outdated ideals and meager expectations. For Griffith, it was challenging the holdovers of pagan heartship with the speed and rapidity of modernity, with Demille it was the juxtaposition of prior epochal debauchery as justification of consumerist flourishment, with Stroheim it was the portrayal of the aristocratic in their surreal extremes as extensive discourse that utlimately led to validation of hegemonial hypocrisy for the bereavement of the underclass. With Bay today, he exhibits culture's sutured transformation into globalized and immediate incubation. Its consequences are the various scattered ideals of the past that have now been tidal-waved by the unstoppable force that is the metamodernist aristocracy, secured by the perpetual minority.

Bay is taking the monumental leaps to show the future. Recognizing, like Griffith, the shoddy nature of history, and overwriting it with technology. He understands and has absorbed voraciously the commercial entities before him. With the apparatus afforded to him, he is now duplicating and extending the boundaries of these entities so that they are now sentient and globally linked. He fully recognizes the power of the digital for assisted augmentation and its ability for proliferation. Closer to reaching the ideal. Ideal elimination of humanity and the perception of light. The destruction of the senses. Freeform consciousness.

Transformers is announcement, technical breakthrough, programmable, proliferative action that defeats attachment and investment. Challenges. The evolution, digitization, elimination of humanity altogether.

And cinephiles are mad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJl5piv1FrY&t

>>11240085
>For Griffith, it was challenging the holdovers of pagan heartship with the speed and rapidity of modernity, with Demille it was the juxtaposition of prior epochal debauchery as justification of consumerist flourishment, with Stroheim it was the portrayal of the aristocratic in their surreal extremes as extensive discourse that utlimately led to validation of hegemonial hypocrisy for the bereavement of the underclass. With Bay today, he exhibits culture's sutured transformation into globalized and immediate incubation.
FELIX

>>11240097
>Deleuze
See here >>11239918 here >>11239923 and here >>11239925

As well as here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5eQwoj4qE

>>11240116
BRAINLET!

Haha LOL XD

>>11240127
this unironically

>>11240116
wheres tarkovsky

>>11240157

>>11240085
>genuinely thinking this
kek

>>11240164
Advance or perish. You can run but you can't hide!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8NFsiegVM

>>11240170
>>11240116
>>11240085
>>11240014
>>11239958
>>11239941
>>11239925
>>11239923
>>11239918
>>11239900
best schizo poster on /lit/ today prove me wrong

Which of these looks more like art, reddi- I mean /lit/?

>>11240026
wannabe modernist primitive trash?

>>11240065
>>11240085
Or neo-Baroque?

Any good religious films besides the films of Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Bresson and Bergman?

>>11240065
>>11240243
are there two Señorita's or are you losing track on who you have and haven't replied to lmao
>>11240238
this

>>11240256

>>11240257
>he won't answer a simple question >>11240243
That's how you KNOW they're MAD!

>>11240256
>>11240267
>religion
I thought /lit/ loved Nietzche

>>11240274
>he didn't start with the Hebrews

>>11240274
>he thinks I really CARE about religion

>>11240274
>I thought /lit/ loved Nietzche
Any good Kierkegaardian films?

>>11240280
see
>>11240267

>>11240276
haha I know memes too!

>>11240280
WHOOPS!
>>11240284
Drinking bleach too

>>11240285
you sure do post a lot of them

>>11240289
Observe the syntax everybody. Recessive bibliophile in action

>>11240289
The unquantifiable quanta of the unregarded unconscious is only machinized to the point which the subject (the bibliophile, the wandering Jew) is left displaced from the center of his orienting vectors. Bibliophilic masturbation is often marked by this vague unloosening of hyper and post-hyper quantifications (both congealed value selection processes and somatic actions). The quicksilver vacillations of Bresson are only the paltry sub-vocalized utterings of the Other (Griffith). The bibliophile is left clinging to the fat of surplus artistic retrogression stemming from a production system underpinned by the state (the grant) which has atrophied alongside the super-system of production which has self-interpolated the state within itself (the volk, the people). This is the millstone which grinds the vision of the new auteur into constellation (see: >>11240085).

>>11240330
>tonal sobriety
Is this you? >>>/tv/99049978

>>11240380
Why do I you keep asking people if they are that poster?

>>11240396
You must be OBSESSED

>>11240421
What program are you using to search /lit/? Mine does not tell me how many results there are for a query.

Deleuze thinks Griffith's the best
Eisenstein thinks Griffith's the best
Godard thinks Griffith's the best
Herzog thinks Griffith's the best
Costa thinks Griffith's the best
Welles thinks Griffith's the best
Straub thinks Griffith's the best

And cinephiles are MAD!

>>11240421
That's not me, I'm the one that went through your trash on Monday. You need to start composting, anon.

>>11240427
>>>/v/
>>>/goodreads/

newfaggot

>>11240432
>shit
Just like all these shitposts >>11240428

Film pleb here, I want your opinion on Bela Tar's Turin Horse.

>>11240441
>>11239958

>>11240271
>>11240274
>>11240276
>>11240284
>>11240285
>>11240287
>>11240294
>>11240330
>>11240380
>>11240396
>>11240421
>>11240428
>>11240432
>>11240435
>>11240436
shut the fuck up

>>11240449
Is this you?

>>11240464
>incoherent mess
I thought bibliophiles loved complexity >>11240330

>>11240435
>He uses goodreads
>If someone doesn't waste their time with goodreads they are a newfag

>>11240466
insofar as it's not exhausting while I relax in my computer chair playing video games in the background

>>11240448
please post more often

>>11240469
>This off base
if not deliberate, this next >>11240287

>>11240479
>reverse psychology
*BELCHES

video games
movies
anime
books
music

just the essentials

>>11240496
i want to make use of your brain, wise one.
what are the best videogames and musics and books?

>>11240555
>what are the best videogames
Berzerk

>>11230431
>tarkovsky
>anything but entry-level

>>11240085
This

What is this tripfagotry

There are like 2 or 3 /tv/ anons with enough mental fortitude to spar with Megan, probably zero on /lit/

Just give up. Do you really think you can win by doubling down on Criterion-approved platitudes?

>>11235435
>>11235630
>Ozu

Ozu's failure as an artist is a reflection of the Japanese people as a collective lacking empathy and conception of the numinous. His films lack 'that spark of emotive connection' because his people lack the internal awareness and emotional volatility that permit European art to communicate on a more profound and abstract level, just as they lack the ability to relativise their experience of reality. The results – as women are incapable of making art about anything other than their vaginas, so too are the Japs incapable of making art about anything other than being Japs.

>>11240703
i could ruin anyone on this board on any subject relating to the arts, don’t even have to know anything i have the spirit of apex predator’s long fallen into the bowels of this Earth at my back

films is shallow and for people with ADHD

Cinephiles will defend this

>>11240712
literature and music is even more shallow

>>11240712
>films is shallow and for people with ADHD


HAH

>lbg
>literally 10 people circlejerking each other these days

CANT MAKE THIS UP

>>11240740
dumb redditfrog poster

>>11240679
It is pure tripfagotry. You've answered your own question.

>>11242432
he’s much better then the rest of them, including AW

>>11242455
>he
griffithfag's a gurl

>>11240707
>lacking empathy
NO

I shitted on Ozu because he has too much empathy. A coat for his autistic lack of understanding for reality. So his works, on the surface, look like they're presenting something soberingly real, but it's all mathematical contrivance with his shot composition based around modernist geometry and japanese naturalist aesthetics encroached by industrialization. So it's ripe for the picking by the alienated, effeminate, and weak, autistic, teenage, cinelitophile. But for anybody that's had more than a share of real struggle, real hardship, and real loss, not enduring being grounded from video games and whining about being privileged middle class through violent tantrums, he's a mudpuddle meant to be driven over.

>>11240707
Ozu is social masks and passive conditioning. Japanese societal norms. Adapted from the presentation of elemental aristocracy by that of Stroheim, Lubitsch, and Griffith. Making excuses, exploration of desire, and elliptical styling.

Ozu did not extend either of these elements, and neither did he refine. He adapted and subsequently condensed. Whereas with Griffith there will be multiple parties with lack of unifying singular characterization, Ozu will aim attention toward single individual and primary family. Whereas with Stroheim, he will extend time so as to show dubiously superfluous excess of aristocratic flourishment and pettiness to expand resources for psychological deduction, Ozu will simply cut to the moral of the story with a direct address to the camera. Whereas Lubitsch will feature roundabout ways of constant reversals between exhibition of subject's needs and desires, Ozu will simply frame around single subject explored through others around ad infinitum.

>>11240707
Through excessive focus, repetition, and condensation, Ozu amounts to saying as much as language is precise, but delivery isn't. Mask on, mask off. Power plays as much a role as sex. Which, needless to say, is none in his work. And that's as far as his reality goes. Truly, the modernist. Truly the forebearer of the sexless desire-less Gen Z. The cinephile.

>>11240707
And what does Ozu say about your condition?

Go along with the program and wear a self-effacing smile. Never raise your voice and never defend.

>>11240707
>numinous
>emotional
"The highest form of pure thought is mathematics. Let no one ignorant of Mathematics enter here. [Said to have been above the doorway of his Academy.] He who can properly define and divide is to be considered a god."

-Plato

only good living director is wes anderson

>>11229477
fuck off, tarkovsky is a bore. bergman is above him, at least his films were fun to watch.

>>11235168
i dont see paul strand posted often, even on /p/. nice

>>11242739
*BURPS

>>11236327
We have and do discuss those books too, yes.

What defines a coffee table book?

>>11242728
Sounds like you should just stick to superhero movies.

>>11242630
>>11242657
>>11242672
>>11242680
>>11242749

She's right you know

>>11240721
No one can defend that

>>11235390
>"I can't understand these, they confuse me. Must be a trick!"

>>11240703
I don't think its worth it. She won't accept film from a Hegelian or Marxist standpoint. Griffith was one of the people who sowed the seed of capitalist cultural hegemony and turned the spectacle into something which could be mass produced so that no one could escape it anymore. He alone could be blamed for our descent into late capitalism.

>>11243313
Marx was a fag. Fuck Marx

>>11243316
To disagree with Marx is to believe capitalism is on the right track

>>11243333
It is desu

>>11243333
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqpQegP8kSY

"Call me Oops Wublay"

Can anyone here point me to a watching guide to help me unserstand the medium more deeply, im a /tv/ baby and the most experimental thing i've watched was raw or maybe under the skin

>>11243376
Anna (2015) by Will Butler

>>11243366
Griffith is the one who ruined film from becoming a serious art form with his feature films. He turned it into some cheap adventure/thrill that people would routinely spend their evenings. He was a genius but he couldn't anticipate the social impact his film would have, he just wanted to make entertainment.

Eadward Muybridge is the one who ruined film from becoming a serious art form with his films. He turned it into some cheap adventure/thrill that people would routinely spend their evenings. He was a genius but he couldn't anticipate the social impact his film would have, he just wanted to make entertainment.

>>11243376
These are some solid films. But what do you mean experimental? Are you looking for avant garde shit?
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_100-1.htm

>>11243386
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyBBiUPzd4I&t=109s

>>11243376
If you truly like watching films, you will, and it's important you forge your own past. If you only want to see films to get faux-credence on a Zambian dog barbering forum you're gonna waste your life and never be happy.

Start with the They Shoot Pictures Don't They top 1000 if you want to see the films everyone is constantly talking about.

>>11243410
>>11243391
>>11243376

>>11243425
Who's William C. DEMILLE?

>>11243405
Are you implying that you are an accelerationist and that through capitalism is the only way to reach the next phase of human existence? I'm not sure how to respond since I can't exactly deny it.

>>11243425
How about some post 60s directors, philosophical themes have advanced since the 20s.

>>11243428
>durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr he's not on any list ://///

>>11243437
Why him and not Cecil??????

>>11243433
>>11240085

>>11243442
see >>11243386 >>11243388
entertainment

You say Tarkovsky- I say Eisenstein

You say Bresson- I say Demille

You say Welles - I say Flaherty

You say Bergman- I say Strand

You say Ozu - I say Stroheim

You say Italian neorealism ? I say shut the ---- up

You say Dreyer- I scream Griffith!!

You say? Fellini -i ------- punch you in the face

92% of cinephiles have turned to La Nouvelle Vague and Deleuzianesque metaphysics. If you are part of the 8% that still watch real film? DON'T? LET? THE? SPIRIT OF FILM DIE

>>11243457
wahoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>11243433
>human evolution

>>11243410
I just want to discuss film on the same level as film snobs, and im tired of watching all the mainstream auteurs.

>>11243473
>friendship
Go outside rickmasters!

Amaranth???

>>11243473
>I just want to discuss film on the same level as film snobs
*like kenan from kenan and kel* WHYYYYYYYY??????

Amaranth!!!

>>11243484
BBBBBBBBUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

>>11243494
degenerate

>>11243470
Consciousness becomes more rational and towards the truth generally over time. We definitely aren't on the same level of consciousness as those desert people who wrote the ten commandments

>>11243508
God wrote the ten commandments.

>>11243510
Yeah he is the most advanced form of consciousness. Human consciousness is working toward becoming more pure.

>>11243410
That sky is incredible, which film is it from?

>>11243539
Your ass

Hello lbg
Hello #film

Go back to discord and stop shutting up other boards

>>11243550
>>>/hr/3163454

>>11243508
>>11243516
>Human consciousness is working toward becoming more pure.

>desperately crave religion and 'transcendence'
>deny The Bible
Why do you think they're like this, Bruce?

>>11243556
They don't give a fuck about anything. They lack desire, and they lack understanding. All they want is to watch themselves on a screen and read things that defend their self-destructive habits.

Narcissus

Greek

Fuck off sothoth

The purest were the base. Bible proved it. Griffith and Demille proved it.

You can trace spiritualism through sexuality

We are now returning to that base with the dissolve of standard femininity and masculinity

Please mods euthanise this thread already

The problem is the mind isn't fast enough to keep up with physical and spiritual resolve due to conditioning by technological incubation

Androgyny is drawing closer, but understanding is lacking.

>>11243581
>>11243556
>reading contradictory fairy tales

Hi guys I'm sothoth :<)

>>11243601
>total synthesis
representative >>11243594

the liberated woman. the manwoman

>>11243607
Kill yourself

There is very little which constitues true oppression today therefore a near-total freedom, and because of that you are seeing revived idealized conflict. And through that idealized conflict, hyper-regression out of fear. Backlash derived from defense against stipulation and hyperoffense to combat fear of unknown. Lack of drive. The feminization of the man

The overconcern for personhood and its imprint on others creates an immense divide in communication and thereby enhances the fluctuation between parties

>>11242596
Not that poster but do you have proof?

>>11243645
>There is very little which constitues true oppression today
Spot the spoiled rich brat

Proxy culture wars and hive mentality, fooled individuation through sensibility. Search for philosophy for help but insofar as it solidifies viewpoint and perpetuates "hi(gh)vemind"

>>11243584
Most film theory/related literature threads were never this bad. This one just got infiltrated by tripfags from /tv/ that escaped their containment board.

>>11243677
Pic related is her

>>11243539
Give me one more (you) and I'll tell you

>>11243700
Please daddy, please

>>11243687
Really? If so, then hot damn.

>>11243709
Pretty sure that's MEW, dude

>>11243704
Confessions [2010], my favorite film of all time

>>11243712
I have no idea who that is.

>>11243719
Megan E. Winston

>>11243719
Mary Elizabeth Something

>>11243714
Thanks

>>11243721
>>11243722
Thanks, who is she? Searching got me basically nothing.

>>11243766
It's really Megan

>>11243766
Mary Elizabeth Winstead
She's an 'actress'

>>11243766
It's the autist capitalist enabler who tries to defend the devil himself (griffith)

>>11243812
So are there any other tripfags here I should know about besides Griffithposter?

>>11243944
Your mom

>>11243376
Un Chien Andelou

>>11243376
you can go straight to the cream of the crop

https://letterboxd.com/bel/list/essential/

>>11244009

>>11244016

People like THIS >>11244086 >>11244009 >>11243714 will NEVER understand masculine short "RED" hair!

>>99278296

>>>/tv/99278296

*FLIPS TABLE

who here /lbg/?

>>11244249
Sup

>>11240027
Generally popular things are bad. look at the tastes of reddit and youtube, thats popular stuff.

>>11235152
thanks for the recs

>>11244290
Why do you willingly want to be middle brow?

>>11240027
how can it be good if it appeals to the tastes of as many people as possible

>>11244331
yeah I fucking hate Beethoven too

>>11232020
Watching Bresson and unironically enjoying him as entertainment is my idea of exit-core

>>11244333
post some more ringtone composers

>>11244331
smart people like art based on what other smart people like. intelligent people like art for the work itself (e.g. popularity and accessibility don't matter). appealing to accessibility (either as a positive or negative aspect of artistic merit) should be disregarded as the epitome of mediocrity.

>>11244333
>he thinks plebs are able to appreciate beethoven beyond his meme pieces

just lol @ you

/lit/ pseuds BTFO

>>11244392
this would imply that his "meme pieces" are bad, which they aren't

slay, megan, slay!

>>11244392
>he can't tell which music is good or bad in a vacuum
>needs the plebeians to confirm his tastes as patrician through negation

>>11244333
this, Schubert is obviously the superior early romantic.

>>11243714
>of all time
how cute. your own huge grandiose world in one little sentence. in reality, no one cares this much what your favorite movie is.

that said youre not the only one ive seen claim such about that movie so i may rewatch it. i didnt think much of it when i saw it years ago.

>>11244249
What on earth am I looking at?

>>11244911
>in reality, no one cares this much what your favorite movie is.

Yeah fuck off mate. Some people are baitposting and giving shitty recs with their webms, I wanted to let the guy know the film was actually good.

>>11245382
emily bean

>>11245382
emily bean

>>11245382
peak performance

*queer theories your favorite movie*

heh...nothing personnel...fascist...

Guys what's essential viewing for Griffith? Looking to get into him.

>>11246073
The Criterion Collection of Griffith featuring hours upon hours of commentary on each and everyone of his films by 4chan's very own Griffithanon.

bump

Time to die

>>11229477


the Five C's of cinematography
shot by shot