/lit/ - Literature

There are none.
In order to be a /lit/eratus, you must hit the books.

I hate films pretentiousness. I hate film culture, film people, films themselves. When I enjoy them, when I am ecstatic or lulled into drowsy euphoria or spurred to thought - I still hate them. Even down to its very core it’s rotten. The camera is a vomit device, evil objectivity. Dissimulation extreme. Consensus machines. Auteur farce. Writing is soulfood, personal communication, even LOW and worldly - film is from hell and devilry, full of black magic. Occult performance. But not in an exciting way, instead horribly banal, petit-bourgeois, childish, salaryman and “auteur” vomit spectacle. Every “anti-bourgeois” filmmaker - Bünuel, Haneke - are in fact the most evil and orthodox bourgeoisie. Total mind-domination. Brutal art.

>>11333980
good post tbqh senpiepie f a m

>>11333957
digits for chicken run

>>11333980
kys

>/lit/
>Movies

I enjoy the films of Edward Yang and Robert Bresson

>>11333980
A trash novel is just as soul destroying as a trash movie. Space Raptor Butt Invasion is not better than an entire artistic medium just because you have aspergers.

Before this thread takes off I would like to take the opportunity to say that Lynch and Kubrick are both terrible directors who are name dropped by people who don't know film.

>>11334119
>bresson

everyone point and laugh at the cinephile

>>11334146
thats because they aren't making "movies" they're making literature tier art that brainlet film buffs cant comprehend

/lit/ is a Griffith board. The only director who actually made film into an art form

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.

>>11334166
>ruiz

yo u mean rauol ruiz or whatever? i just found two videos from him in my downloads folder like an hour ago in french with no subtitles i was like wtf even is this shit why did i download it, probably some pseud on here recommend me it

>>11334166
At least Griffithposter turned off his fucking tripfag.

Garfield 2

>>11334180
>look up griffith
>David Wark Griffith (January 22, 1875 – July 23, 1948) was an American director, writer, and producer who pioneered modern cinematic techniques.

ugh a "pioneer"

>>11334187
Whats the problem?

>>11334190
because its the kind of shit people like you think are good because you read they were historically influential in some book, not because the films are actually good art that you valued, the worst kind of plebs

>>11334192
So you ignore some of the best thinkers/creators the world has just because they are praised on wikipedia?

>>11334197
no but just because the professor make u read a chapter about them in your intro to film class doesnt mean there's anything good about their movies today, why do u like grifith? tell us about why u think his art is "good"?

>>11334151
Does this image suggest he did not show this 'emotion' accurately enough? His best movie is "Money".

>>11333957
If you liked this you might as well watch:
Fallen Angels
Goodbye Dragon In
A Brighter Summer Day
Millenium Mambo (vastly inferior)
Sing a Song of Sex

>>11334204
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.

>>11334190
Welles > Murnau > Tarkovsky/Eisenstein > Griffith >>> Bergman

>metamodernist

oh you're a pseud, good to know

ten bucks says u didnt watch all three hours of intolerance even tho he is supposedly the greatest director or whatever

>>11334227
>Welles

The cinephile rears his ugly head

>>11334233
wow man they both put a camera up above a scene, clearly grifith was a genius since his career started first so he got to do it first

>>11334233
Here is a better example showing how much of a hack Welles was

>>11334238
I knew you were retarded but not this retarded. You can't even pick out what the image is showing even though it's glaringly obvious.

>>11334243
idk what is it showing

explain why you think grifith doesnt suck rather than showing some slides u took from an overpriced film lecture

ITT : we are reminded that 'film buffs' are retarded dipshit pseud's
didn't reallly need the reminder desu

>>11334146
Incorrect opinion written by a contrarian

Thanks Griffithposter for taking what could have been many great discussions on the merits of silent era filmmakers, what could have persuaded more people into watching and appreciating them, and turning it into a complete meme. Arrogant dismiss and preaching pastas always makes people want to take you more seriously. Absolutely Based.

>>11333957
Just watch the rest of tsai's films
Chronologically, of course

>>11334263
i tried watching that three hour long napoleon film by some film buff favorite "significant" director, i was like yeah i can live without silent film in my life

>>11334227
> Welles > anyone

no

>>11334262
>he likes Kubrick and Lynch

Is the Griffithposter literally autistic?
Do you think he is starting to believe his own farce?
Has he ever even had an original thought?
Is he the ultimate brainlet?

>>11334287
it's probably some kind of edgy redpill /pol/ thing since grifith did birth of a nation and had ties to the confederate army, i never saw the grifith poster before actualy, but i have seen some film buff wanker shilling ford, another confederate sympathizing anglo, its probably the anti-semite trying to be low key

>>11334204
>doesn't mean there's anything good about their movies today
Why would a movie stop being "good" today? Also, why does the only conceivable reason for liking a director you don't like have to be that we were told to like Griffith by a perceived authority figure?

>>11334287
Its a she and it's mostly just imitators these days

>>11334296
Pretty sure the point of Birth of a Nation wasn't to glorify the KKK

>>11334315
because obviously those early films were heavily influenced by opera with this "epic" format were you make shit that goes on for hours and hours and hours, to me that kind of early shit is worse because the art form is not developed at all, i dont care if they did it "first", that doesnt make it good, may actually be good, but since the only arguments presented in this thread are "did it first" i remain skeptical

>>11334321
yeah if u skim the sympathetic wikipedia you'll probably think that but try taking some history classes like african-american history instead of film school shit for wannabes

Call me a pseud, but my favorite directors are Bergman, Tarkovsky, Lynch, Kubrick and Gaspar Noé.

>>11334330
I wont call you a pseud but ill call you a troll

>>11334330
You have two good directors on that list.

>>11334335
Bait: defused
Good work based anon

>eisentein
>google his ass

wait, hes the fag who did alexander nevsky? how is it im not even a film buff but ive seen shit by almost all of this shitty "film school" directors, that birth of a nation homo is the only one i didnt watch and sorry id rather watch triumph of the will, i fuckin hate film but i still seen all your precious crap

>>11333957
There's a Japanese movie called Eureka which a character watches in a Don Di Lilo short story. The Guardian's film critic wrote an article about both the short story and the movie

>>11334326
The idea the other poster is pushing about Griffith isn't about the plot concepts or the grand scale of the scenes, but instead about the usage of the camera/shot composition to show certain concepts. What makes Stroheim and Griffith better than Welles is that they originated a new visual "language" within a new art form. Nobody had ever composed a shot with the camera in such a way prior. Griffith used the camera in such a way that broke the boundaries set by stage and prior filmmakers, who were just filming straight ahead and level for the most part at the point in time. These types of visuals are commonplace today, which goes to show the importance of Griffith's work. It's influence is so ubiquitous as to not even be consciously noticed.

>>11333980
>Camera is objective
Oh boy

>>11334166
>Griffith made film into an art form
>Griffith realized film could never be art
At least try to stick to the same story you repetitive fuck

>>11334337
What´s wrong with the rest? Are they just too mainstream for the contrarians of /lit? I really enjoy all of their movies and they actually challenge you to think and not just push the plot to your face. I should really get into older films though, if only for the sake of knowledge.

>>11334366
again just because he was the first to do it doesnt mean someone else wouldnt have done it, probably it was limited by the technology, im sure the first cameras couldnt be pointed at weird angles and still function, and again just because doing these new angles was new doesnt mean those films are actually good, or worth watching today except by historians, does it stand on its own as a piece of art? have u even watched the whole thing? probably not

>>11334287
Incredibly autistic. I mean how deranged do you have to be to endlessly post the same shit over years and years, having little texts prepared ready to copy paste, always with an unearned smugness. Disgusting
>>11334296
>it's probably some kind of edgy redpill /pol/ thing
Erm no it isn’t? If you’re not from lbg you don’t know what this whole thing is about

>>11333957
everything by Andrei Tarkovsky, but first of all you might want to watch his masterpiece STALKER( Cтaлкep)

>>11334382
Lynch is just dressed up camp with some disturbing stuff thrown in there to make it seem deep. Kubrick is a lot of fun, but he doesn't "challenge you to think," he is extremely heavy handed and tells you exactly what to think in most of his movies. (Strangelove, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket all come to mind.)

And Gaspar Noe is criminally underrated. Possibly the best director of our time.

>>11333980
Is it a new meme to use smart words when it's absolutely uncalled for? You sound like a freshman student coming hometown on his first summer vacation after studying for a year in a large city.

>>11334330
Literally me

>>11334166
dat boi is at it again!

>>11334390
>guy on 4chan austistically spams director of most notorious racist film in american history
>claims jewish directors are all terrible

yeah dont be naive, you been /pol/led, but like they say "pol is never wrong" so maybe you're right

>>11334402
ya i would have done a shrek on that shit if i was the meme forcing type

>>11334366
>prior filmmakers
>literally one of the first filmakers
I guess Homer was once a revolutionary too...

>>11334397
>guy talks shit about kubrick
>highlights his most pop films

if ur gonna be an edgy captain obscuro at least reference paths of glory or something ya pseud

>>11334407
If that's the case why does he shittalk Ingmar "I was on Hitler's side" Bergman (no, the berg in his surname doesn't make him jewish)

>>11334349
Eureka is a really great movie, have you seen it? It has one of my favourite opening sequences of any film I've seen. The movie is in turns heartbreaking and uplifting.

>>11334424
idk man i'm not a specialist in troll profiling i just know everything he's done in this thread would be pol approved, that may just be coincidence but it does activate the almonds

>>11334387
You seem to have a really specific definition of art. To many, the idea of entirely changing an artform with your techniques makes your artwork stand on its own. Consider Van Gogh. Sure, someone could have eventually painted the same way, and all he did was paint a lot of people and landscapes, but why he is held in such high esteem today is entirely based on his technique. A Von Gogh painting of a haystack isn't interesting because it's of a haystack, it's how he did it. The same goes for Griffith's greatest contributions to film.
>have you even watched the whole thing durr
I don't even know why I'm bothering to reply anymore.

>>11334390
>lbg

RIP

>>11334417
People were using those weird camera contraptions for a little before him.

>>11334419
I'm sorry I didn't mention every film Kubrick has made that I feel that way about.

>>11334397
I get your viewpoint,but don´t really agree with your statement about Lynch. What makes him great in my eyes, is how he distorts the border between what´s real and the metaphysical struggles in our minds and uses nonlinear timelines in some of his works. Like take for example Lost Highway: the whole movie is just journey through the protagonists mind; how he perceives the situation and the people around him and how they become these strange images of their actual being. You are right about Kubrick though, come to think of it, most of his movies are pretty straightforward, with the exception of Space Odyssey. And Shining left some things unexplained too and has a lot of strange easter eggs.

>>11334429
>why he is held in such high esteem today is entirely based on his technique
Then why every painter who paints in the same technique as Van Gogh isn't held in high esteem? Because it has lost its novelty?
>>11334447
The thing is, portable cameras wasn't Griffith's invention. He simply used the new technology to get new and weird angles. But you don't need to be a genious to do that. It's like saying "oh this writer is so unique he is the first one to employ italics in his text!". No, he obviously isn't.

>>11334429
yeah but monet and searat were up to mighty similar shit, and part of the reason van gogh is acclaimed today is because people still like looking at his shit even if they arent art historians, if u go in some shop to buy a card there will probably be something with van gogh, but if u go to anywhere but a university archive no one is gonna have have intolerance in a commercially accessible format because no one is gonna pay to see that shit, also it helped that van goghs brother was an art dealer or whatever and so was able to shill the fuck out of it, also he produced enough work so that every dinky museum around the world should be able to cop one, so that also increases his appeal, sort of like warhol, he cranked out enough shit that every oligarch can cop a couple and there are still plenty for every podunk museum, to be "canonical" it really helps to be "prolific"

>>11334349
seconding Eureka, it's a bit lengthy but in the end makes it worth

>>11334330
Two of those things are not like the others

>>11334425
I havent im afraid, i have it on DVD though! Think i watched the first half hour one time. Must give it another go

Griffith was shit. feature films ruined society.

>>11334463
come on man lynches most significant film is blue velvet, lost highway is minor, although i quite enjoyed it, you should watch dfw prattle on about blue velvet blue his mind, dfw is a greater artist than you maybe some people just can understand things on a higher level than "wow man the camera had a bitchin angle when batman/jesus/napoleon/whoever came on stage!"

>>11334419
All of his films were pop films. Even /tv/ likes him and that really tells you a lot.

>>11334499
yeah that means like shakespear it worked on many levels and has something for both the pleb and patrish

>>11333980
oh hey, it's you again

>>11334495
Yeah I hear that a lot and I loved Blue Velvet, but I love his more obscure works more.

>>11334495
>blue velvet
>not eraserhead

Silent films are shut because they cut too much

>>11333980

This but unironically. Movies are trash and a plebeian form of art.

>>11334495
dfw literally wrote that lost highway would probably be bigger in significance than blue velvet because lynch seemed to be really getting into his own, he even wrote that blue velvet seemed like lynch diluted, just lost highway wasn't finished when he was writing

>>11334592
Both dfw and lynch were talentless hacks

>>11333980
this is plebeian

/tv/ here

You all have terrible taste in film. Its not about trying to impress people you pseuds

>>11334618
don't you have an Infinity war thread to make

>>11333980
This. Even "marxist" directors pander to the bourgeoisie. Mao had the right idea with the cultural revolution but didnt go far enough

>>11333980

>>11334227
Why hate Bergman?

>>11334618
I bet you don't even Armond White cracka bitch

>>11334253
>explain why you think grifith doesnt suck
>why you think griffith doesn't suck
Is this a fucking joke? ARe you 12 years old? The only concessions I can think of.

>>11334263
>>11334263
>Arrogant dismiss and preaching pastas always makes people want to take you more seriously
Wah wah! ANYTHING BUT POWER!

Shut the fuck up, little twerp. I'm not making you watch anything, I'm pointing out that duncecap you think makes you look cute.

>>11334366
>The idea the other poster is pushing about Griffith isn't about the plot concepts or the grand scale of the scenes, but instead about the usage of the camera/shot composition to show certain concepts.
Give him a cookie.

>These types of visuals are commonplace today
*spits in your face
Keep the change

>>11334221
>What's this image supposed to show
It's a Rorschach test for femboys

>>11334190
>>>/tv/99950412

>>11333961
pleb

>>11333957
good film but it's not literary
it's just a beautiful film
film is its own thing
film is not literature
literature is litearture
film is film
i love rebels of the neon god btw
i'm not saying it isn't a beautiful film

>>11334119
Proof film can never be art

>>11333957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS1esgRV4Rc

>>11334726
Neither proof nor evidence, stop posting, kill yourself

>>11334679
Jesus christ off yourself fucking pseud

>>11334745
>>11334748
Give'em a banana

>>11334726
???

>>11334759
Don't answer. I already know.

>>11334766
WHAT'S LEFT? PLEASE! FREELEECH!

>>11334726
This is hardly a failure of film and is the problem with film consumerism.

>>11334766
Now explain anon, what did "you" prove right? What was it Griffith said? Honestly the intelligent posters who spend their time shitposting without trying to inform other posters are arguably worse than those trying to educate themselves.

>>11334771
You proved me right too. Give him an extra cookie

>>11334775
>What was it Griffith said?
The funny part is, the guy in pic-related is better than you.

>educate
Fuck you.

>>11334766
Fuck this is some advanced shitposting
Hats off to you

Nobody ever mentions Fritz Lang, why is that ?

>>11334795
only good movies were his last few

>>11334790
Word to the wise. People hate nothing more than the truth.

>>11333957

>>11333980
>I hate films pretentiousness.
I hate your pretentiousness.

>>11333980
>The camera is a vomit device, evil objectivity. Dissimulation extreme. Consensus machines.
Is this taken from the 90s or something?

>>11334679
You seem like such a lovely person.
At least use a trip so I can filter you.

>>11334679
Based. Tell it like it is MLE

>>11334742
Wtf is this pleb shit?

>>11334227
>Murnau

>>11334771
Wiazemsky was a good actress when she worked with godard

>>11333980
nice pasta

Film was invented in Rome but all of the film has since deteriorated

>>11334146
>Lynch
Good director, name dropped too often by people trying to impress others because of his relative inaccessibility in mainstream even though he is mainstream. Also overrated by those who think he's making deep or subtle statements. Style is unrivaled though considering he's also american. Good painter too.

>Kubrick
Unequivocally great director. Don't know how anyone could hate him since his movies are widely appealing without being gratuitous. Definitely mainstream.

You are obviously
>a contrarian
>hate mainstream fags
>direct your hate at their favorite directors
>think you "get" film
adorable or just plain bait

lit film taste in the nutshell:
>edgy captain obscuro
>'alternative' directors that are popular among normies are on default rejected

>>11334227
>tarkovsky
>greater than bergman
you dont actually like movies, do you?

Griffithfag is not nearly as bad as that other guy from the same general who just obsesses over this one movie because it has hippie waifus.

>>11334860
>Style is unrivaled though considering he's also american
I didn't even bother to read the rest

>>11334864
>>'alternative' directors that are popular among normies are on default rejected
Those are the only people mentioned favorably so far, except Griffith who was the most popular director of his era and not alternative.

>>11334634
he probably watched the seventh seal and found a few scenes humorous, which hurt his indie pride. damn you comedy

>>11334876
>most popular director

>>11334879
>4 biggest flops
>most watched today

>>11334882
We all know who won in the end though

>>11334870
Griffith posters are the bell children of our time. Bless them

>>11334879
Eww you like dreyer? Leave now

>posts meme pictures
>is unable to articulate what is great about the films he likes
this is why film is the objectively inferior medium, it creates bumbling illiterates

>>11333957
I know he's considered the ultimate pseud director or whatever but Godard's Breathless is fantastic and very /lit/. aside from the obvious Faulkner reference the themes of the movie have a sense of clear poignance that remind me more of a good book than a good movie

>>11334634
>watch persona
>towards the ending
>dude it's a movie
>look there's a guy behind the camera
>look at me
totally unprofessional

>>11334873
Can't think of another contemporary american director that uses lynch's style effectively or consistently. I don't even like lynch but keep on shitposting if it makes you feel better.

>>11334893
>I don't even like lynch
Nice touch.

>>11334896
does anon feel better after shitposting? did you get to post your cool black and white movie screenshot to let everyone know you have a shit movie on your hard drive? dawww

>>11334896
Lynch is better than fucking Dreyer, you pseud fuck. Lynch has more to say to people today. Lynch knows how to grab one's soul, something Dreyer never achieved. Go back to your stupid general, and never come back.

>>11334896
Nobody likes you. You're not funny. You can't even articulate why Dreyer is good because he isn't

Leave, you pompous prick.

>>11334896
griffithfag, why do you do this?

>>11334914
>Lynch has more to say to people today. Lynch knows how to grab one's soul,
why does this feel like bait even though it is true that he does have a more contemporary and captivating style

>>11334924
This. dreyer's boring shit. lynch's main draw is sound design

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

Watch Downton Abbey.

I /lit/erally hate watching movies because it's boring and pointless. I'd rather stare at a fucking wall.

>>11333957
Mike Leigh's Naked.

>>11333980
Shut up pleb. If there was no films, there'd be no film called "Drive" and then where would we be?

>>11334627
this desu

>>11334893
> totally unprofessional
> missing the entire point of the film that much

>>11335026
>duality of man
>people confide through personality
Literally philosophy already espoused by Plato. Read more Greeks, faggot.

>>11335026
>> missing the entire point of the post that much
but humor me
what do you think the point was?

>>11335043
That man is naked

>>11335047
él habla por el mismo

>>11333980
Where does this meme of associating petit bourgeois with extreme negative come from?

>>11334618
go back, pedo

>>11335095
Is this the quintessential /tv/ piece of literature?

http://flavorwire.com/481487/50-best-films-about-writers-ranked/6

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls062579892/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_writers

>>11335057
Second generation of marxists (Kautsky and co).
To some extend the "cultural" socialism of Gramsci is at play too. It induces a tactical shift away from truly big guys and focused the envy on the "petty bourgeois".
It is very effective because envy is often a proximity phenomenon. Most people hate their neighbors with a better car or a prettier wife much more than foreign billionaires.

>>11334278
Antonioni and Welles are in their own league. The lost 20 minutes of fun house footage in The Lady from Shanghai is one of the three greatest tragedies of film history.
>>11334634
The closest thing I've seen him achieve to authenticity is the train scene in Dreams.

>>11335285
Antonioni is a bore, he made one masterpiece shame about the rest...

>>11334860
Kubrick is a bit of a robot. He displays emotion, but in a purely natural, almost psychiatric way, without pathos. I expect this to be a positive for most anons but I can understand why he doesn't click with some sensibilities.

>>11335288
That being?

arthouse faggots are the most insufferable people on the

infinitely more respect to the Tarantino fanboy than any avant teen maggot

>>11335292
>Kubrick is a bit of a robot.
I remember this being exactly what some famous critic or director said of Kubrick and I totally agree. I would say he makes dumb movies for smart people but that's too simplistic. More like he's smarter than the movies he makes but his calculating nature as a director trumps any semblance of free artistic vision.

>>11333980
>"mentions the bourgeoisie once"
opinion discarded

>>11335317
Go back to /tv/ pleb

>>11334914
Shrek.jpeg

>>11334239
Welles executed each of these ideas much better

>>11333980
Those are some big words you're using, kid.

>>11335317
>every film that aspires to be something more than entertainment is arthouse... oh so pretentious

tv is full of insufferable scum

>>11335370
Being a robot doesn't make anyone dumb. He has great artistic insights. They are simply not related to a certain range of emotions, supposedly humane.
Only someone that thinks life revolves around said set of emotions would find Kubrick dull.

>>11335598
Well it still is a common critique of Kubrick from other directors or critics of his that his work is lacking emotion in general. I didn't say anyone was dumb and I certainly don't mean to discredit the guy in any way but what I meant is he was willing to sacrifice free expression of empathy and was more of a master of calculated technique and deliberate interaction which to some means a sterile practice of the craft rather than art.

>>11334940
Downton Abbey is kino.

I majored in film theory and I fucking hate these threads. All of you are stupid as fuck. Americans should not be allowed to talk about cinema. You guys can't even understand your own filmmakers.

I haven't watched a movie in years

Since nobody is actually giving recs, although admittedly what counts as a "literary film" is of course kind of nonsensical and arbitrary.

Carol Reed - The Third Man (1949), The Fallen idol (1948), both written by Graham Greene
Jean Renoir - Boudu Saved from Drowning (1932), The Grand Illusion (1937), The Rules of the Game (1939)
David Lean - Brief Encounter (1945), Doctor Zhivago (1965), adapted from the novel by Boris Pasternak
Francois Truffaut - Jules & Jim (1962), adapted from the novel by Henri-Pierre Roché about his relationship with Franz Hessel
Wim Wenders - Paris, Texas (1984) and Wings of Desire (1987)
Rainer Werner Fassbinder - Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980), adapted from the novel by Alfred Doblin
Guy Debord - Society of The Spectacle (1973), adapted from his philosophical treatise
Jean Cocteau - Blood of A Poet (1932), Beauty & The Beast (1946), Orpheus (1950)
Chris Marker - La Jetee (1962), Letter from Siberia (1957), One Day in the Life of Andrei Arsenevich (1999)
Max Ophüls - Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948), La Ronde (1950)
Derek Jarman - Blue (1993)
Charles Laughton - Night of The Hunter (1955)
Orson Welles - F for Fake (1973) and Chimes At Midnight (1965)
Manoel de Oliveira - Doomed Love (1973)
Alexander Mackendrick - Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
Éric Rohmer - like all of them

>>11333957
great film

>>11334796
Of course, Metropolis, M, Scarlet Street, Ministry of Fear, The Dr. Mabuse films, they're all far too popular for you to consider them "good."

>>11334239
Wow, a director adapting techniques from and referencing other directors, that's an absolute travesty.

>>11335898
Somebody's mad

>>11335911
>>11335431
WHOOPS

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

for me... its smoothhands

>>11335932
>>11336064
All of 4chan is 10 people larping and cross posting

>>11335932
What are you trying to say?

hey fellas. real excited for cannes this year

Contributing

Dovzhenko consciously and politically constructed his ‘filmmaking team’. Through a planned ‘collective creativity’, he synthesized and drew from the cultural renaissance’s leading groups. Punning on a current novel by Ukrainian neo-romantic writer, Yuri Yanovsky (Maistr Korablia, Master of the Ship, 1928) in which the young Dovzhenko figures as the main character, Yakiv Savchenko, would comment about Dovzhenko as a “Maister Syntezy” (Master of Synthesis)[142]. Savchenko would also similarly speak about Dovzhenko’s drawing from the cultural renaissance as a larger project of fulfilling early cinema’s ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’ (work of total art) synthetic ambitions. In later lectures at the Moscow Film School, VGIK, Dovzhenko would discourse on cinema as a syncretic aesthetic.

There is enormous importance in connection with the problem of enriching the expressive resources of film. The example is a model of the most reductive type of sound-picture, or the audio-visual composition. It seems amazing that there are those who think it hardly necessary to seek assistance from such media, and that one can accumulate quite enough experience in the study of co-ordination of music and action exclusively from the opera or ballet! Pushkin even teaches us how to work so that the picture shots avoid a mechanical coincidence with the beats on the music track. To consider only the simplest of circumstances - non-coincidence of the measures (in this case, the poetic lines) with the ends, beginnings and lengths of the separate plastic pictures. IN a rough diagram this would appear somehting like the following. This diagram makes it clearly evident what exquisite contrapuntal writing of sound-picture elements Pushkin employs to achieve the remarkable results of this polyphonic passage of poetry. In the poetry the carrying-over of a picture-phrase from one line to another is called "enjambment." In his Introduction to Metrics, Zhirmunsky writes:

When the metrical articulation does not coincide with the syntactic, there arises the so-called carry-over (enjambment)...The most characteristic sign of a carry-over is the presence within a line of a syntactic pause more significant than that at the beginning r end of the given line..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-kNLVe32aY

>>11336220
>not labeling Dovzhenko chooses beauty
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

In Arsenal, Dovzhenko foregrounds an ‘aesthetic of anarchy’. Contemporaneously writing about Arsenal, Eisenstein commented on this anarchy as a rearticulation of film form: “The liberation of the whole action from the definition of time and space. . .a dramaturgy of the visual film form”[152].

In Culture and Imperialism Edward Said suggests that ‘nation states’ and ‘imperiums’ themselves are ‘narratives’ and ‘fictions’ with their own structured ‘mythologies’[153]. Said suggests a correlation between the nineteenth century realist narrative and a culture of imperialism. Dovzhenko figures an avant-garde liberation against this type of formal imperial correlative. In terms of film form, Arsenal’s thrust is against the ‘three act narrative structure’. In a contemporary review (1929), Eisenstein would comment about Arsenal , “I do not think there will be any students of this genre either. Perhaps this is one of the consumer faults in a planned economy”.[154] Eisenstein’s valorization makes a connection between a cultural superstructure and a certain type of ascendant economic base, now at variance with Dovzhenko’s aesthetic. Significantly, in 1929, Eisenstein places Arsenal’s form in alignment with the revolution’s utopian aspirations.

>>11336241
>a dramaturgy
literature, sweetie

>>11336241
>Eisenstein places Arsenal’s form in alignment with the revolution’s utopian aspirations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7uLxu0XAc

>romanticism
>synthesis
>syncretic
Why are cinephiles so antiquated?

Building his larger mythopoetic as a sequenced slide-show ikonostasis, Dovzhenko begins in historic fact and classic art historic typology. Out of this, he constructs an expressionistic, symbolic, Neo-Byzantine and secularized typologic form of conceptualization. There is a gesture similar to both the Western European modernists’ primitivism and rearticulation of ‘other’ cultures (eg. Brancusi, Gauguin, Modigliani, Archipenko, Boichuk) but also an appropriation of the current historic event and zeitgeist, articulated in the codes of the art historical antecedent and Byzantine iconography.
Building his larger mythopoetic as a sequenced slide-show ikonostasis, Dovzhenko begins in historic fact and classic art historic typology. Out of this, he constructs an expressionistic, symbolic, Neo-Byzantine and secularized typologic form of conceptualization. There is a gesture similar to both the Western European modernists’ primitivism and rearticulation of ‘other’ cultures (eg. Brancusi, Gauguin, Modigliani, Archipenko, Boichuk) but also an appropriation of the current historic event and zeitgeist, articulated in the codes of the art historical antecedent and Byzantine iconography.

>>11334151
>>11334166
>>11334226
>>11334233
>>11334239
>>>/tv/
this board is not for you my man, you have to read at least 1 book to be here

>>11336259
Why cinephiles hate Eisenstein.

Dialectical meta-insinuation through ironic study

>>11336296
>ironic
BOOOO

Where's the poetry???

I, for one, cant help but compare Hutton to Flaherty.

>>11333980
fucking BASED

reminder

>>11336287
>singling out
Somebody's mad

>>11336318
Tree of life I could tolerate and Andrei Rublev was good but synecdoche was honestly one of the hardest watches I've ever had the misfortune of completing. I struggled not to shut it off with all the hammy acting and obnoxious predictable writing and the fucking pretentiousness of it all.

>>11334239
Welles is better in most of these, pleb.

>smoothbrains is retracting opinions now

>>11336359
>better
Expanded. For dummies

Point of comparison is level of ambiguity. All eliminated by the two Welles shots. By getting RID of space and ENHANCING height of surroundings, he has now LITERALIZED what he is trying to convey. Griffith, the known realist, has more to share as he invites us to interpret the state of this individual. He often frames his subjects like this when he wants to cleverly examine them. Not too far away where they are hidden and detached and not too close for comfort. This framing is not Classical Hollywood and it's not really anybody else. It's a subject full-frame CENTERED and sideways with interacted coordinate NOT SEEN. This isn't interrogrative like a Dreyer or a Tarkovsky. This is the God-view. Study.

>>11334860
BTFO
solid post

>>11334679
based

>>11336372
Bigger IS Better, you dumbfuck.

>>11334742
awful

>>11334239
bo diddley was a better guitarist but the beatles were a better band, anon

>>11333980
Reads like something Nabokov would have written.

>>11336406
false dichotomy.

most people don't even like kane, and shrug it ff as good for the time at best

>>11334166
*dabs*

>>11336372
>more to share because he invites us to interpret the state of an ambiguous figure
>a film of bubbling individualized projections is better than a film of clearly communicated artistic declaration
oh boy
ask me how i know you're unhealthy

>>11334366
So many words and so little being said besides "first"

>>11335285
Welles is an obscenely overrated hack
Antonioni slightly less so

>>11334582
>he hasn't seen come and see

>>11334582
plebeian is the new patrician, faggot
readers should be humanely euthanized

>>11334119
frank yang > edward yang

>>11334166
Oh look, he's back. Can you add Kubrick to the list, in interest of covering the entire pseud spectrum.

>>11337074
Kubrick is pleb not pseud

>>11334726
Gonna need some clarification on how Yang is used here. where does Yi Yi fall

>>11336704
Welles is cinema and you don't know cinema.

>>11335519
>more than entertainment

Books are a billion times superior for whatever "more than entertainment" entails for you

>>11337161
What about a class 2 pseud in denial, A pseud who forces himself to enjoy lowbrow entertainment, but tells himself he understands, and/or enjoys it, on a higher plane.

>>11334146
This is commonly spouted by people trying to signal against /tv/-fags here. I see through your charade.