/lit/ - Literature

>>11659998
Saul Kripke.

>Stephen King recalled Kubrick calling him late at night while he was filming The Shining and Kubrick asked him, "Do you believe in God?" King said that he had answered in the affirmative, but has had three different versions of what happened next. One time, he said that Kubrick simply hung up on him. On other occasions, he claimed Kubrick said, "I knew it", and then hung up on him. On yet another occasion, King claimed that Kubrick said, before hanging up, "No, I don't think there is a God."

Who was in the wrong here?

>>11659998
Kubrick, no question. And I say that as someone who thinks King isn't bad considering he's a genre fiction writer who doesn't aspire to be highbrow literature.

>>11660174
this, King is good cocaine-core, Kubrick however has made some real /lit/ kino even though pseuds will deride him because he's approachable and popular

>>11660212
Kubrick is one of the top 5 best directors of all time. Orson Welles is the only American director who comes close to him. The pseuds who shit on him fall into 2 camps; you have simple plebs who don't understand him and you have pseuds who masturbate to film festival bait that won't be remembered a century from now.

>>11660270
>Kubrick is one of the top 5 best directors of all time
Americans....

>>11660323
Post your top 5.

Genius author vs hack director
Hmmm

>>11660323
Reminder an American created the language of cinema. You insecure europoors will never match our contributions to cinema.

>>11660323
Filmfag here. I went through filmschool and now work in it, trust me when I say i've seen a good number of the european / artsy films of the 20th century and the majority of them are trash. When it comes to Director's, Americans kill it. At the box office and in the zeitgeist. I'm saying that as a Canadian before you start burgering me.

Kubrick 1000x

>>11660212
It's tough sell that Kubrick is that approachable. Many people don't appreciate him beyond his renown

>>11660140
King, for the kind of strong sense of superstition that leads to nowhere outside of his books

>>11660323
Is this a joke?

>>11660333
Alejandro Jodorowski
Jean-Luc Godard
Akira Kurosawa
Andrei Tartovsky
Alfred Hitchcock (for you plebs out there)

>>11660360
That's easy for you to say, Canada has no artistic merit at all.

Proust was the most important artist of the first half of the 20th century and Kubrick was the most important of the second half. There's God-tier directors like Bresson, Kurosawa, and Tarkovsky, but Kubrick IMO out-does them because of the performances in his films

>>11660372
>Jean-Luc Godard
>better than Kubrick
Also, Godard (along with the entire French new wave) and Kurosawa were heavily influenced by American cinema. Godard is a westaboo who masturbates to Nicholas Ray, Howard Hawks, Charles Chaplin, John Ford, Orson Welles, and other American directors, and Kurosawa's favorite film of all time was D. W. Griffith's Broken Blossoms.

>>11660390
ouch you got me. how will i ever recover?

>>11660372
>Jean-Luc Godard
the hackest of hacks

>>11660372
>Akira Kurosawa
>the Jap who was so openly influenced by American films other Jap filmmakers looked down on him
He's top 5 material but it's hilarious that you're bringing him up while mocking Americans.

>>11660372
>>11660463
And let's not forget that pretentious hack Jean-Luc Godard shit on Akira Kurosawa for not being Japanese enough.

>>11660425
>>11660463
>artists aren't allowed to enjoy other works
Americans...

>>11660472
Not the argument at all. You know damn well the point is that your precious non-American directors adored American cinema and took a lot from it. Stay jealous, europoor.

>>11660346
Griffith's a hack.

>>11660487
The "argument" was to name my top 5 directors, stay mad that I don't put americans on that list.

>>11659998

Soren Kierkegaard, you godless heathens.

Barry Lyndon is among my favorite films, even in spite of the performance by Ryan O'Retard. Are there any movies like it at all?

>>11660494
If he's a hack then all of cinema is shit.

>>11660496
Your top 5 lead to the argument that some of your favorite directors were heavily influenced by American cinema. Instead of offering any sort of counterargument you made a flimsy strawman and when that was refuted you tried to negate everything by going back to what started this. By the way, I'm not mad. I simply find it amusing that you're so quick to dismiss Americans when talking about an artform that has been molded by Americans.

>>11660532
>when talking about an artform that has been molded by Americans.
LOL yes I can't wait for Disney's Marvel's Avenger's 4 part 2, such a world changing voice in the medium.

>>11660549
Not even trying to engage with what I say. Is this the best you've got?

>>11660372
Jodorowski is psued bait

>>11660270
>>11660360

>popular films are good films
>b-but look at all the money omg
Lmao we say "pleb" for a reason

>>11660920
t. enlightened watcher of miserable yuros moping and coping for three hours while nothing happens

>>11660920
>dude check out this French film where the characters do nothing but ponder and fuck. It was just screened at Cannes
>Kubrick? Welles? Griffith? lol fuck them. I only care about pretentious shit that will be forgotten within a couple of decades.
Lmao we say "pseud" for a reason.

>>11660920
>>popular films are good films
>>b-but look at all the money omg
Once again a europoor resorts to a flimsy strawman argument. Sad!

>>11660976
Don’t waste your time. These people are closet masochists that enjoy being derided, forgettable, and worst of all just plain dull.

>>11660935
>>11660976
>>11660980
>>11661014
>replies: 30, posters: 15
>replies: 34, posters: 15
absolutely seething
Kubrick and Welles, while not bad, are no less forgettable than any other filmmakers. The problem is judging things based on their popularity instead of treating every film as equal, and thus equally likely to be a steaming pile of shit. There is no reason to be proud of what films you watch, just as there is no reason to be proud of the things you read, it's other people's work, after all. I call you a pleb because you seem to organise films you watch on a scale of good - bad based on vain ideas of status and popularity (I.e. yuros = gay, Americans = strong) and you seem quite proud of it too. I would still think that you are a faggot if you used that reasoning for liking something I liked too.

>>11660004
basado

>>11660372
>Alejandro Jodorowski
>Jean-Luc Godard
Yikes

david cronenberg

>>11660497
O'Neals performance is great you're fucked

Leni Riefenstahl.

You know it's true.

>>11660497
the duelists
not as good, but still good

>>11660935
>>11660976
>>11660980
holy epic ownage, this anon just got wrecked like that time thanos fought the hulk. epic, simply epic.

>>11660494
>Griffith's a hack
This guy hasn't seen Intolerance, the greatest achievement in cinematic history.

>>11661185
>Kubrick and Welles, while not bad, are no less forgettable than any other filmmakers.
What the fuck sort of argument is this? Are you seriously pulling some "dude everything is relative lmao" bullshit? No, two of the most influential and innovative filmmakers of all time are not "no less forgettable than any other filmmakers." Next you'll tell me that Charles Dickens and Mark Twain are no less forgettable than any other novelists.
>The problem is judging things based on their popularity instead of treating every film as equal
>I call you a pleb because you seem to organise films you watch on a scale of good - bad based on vain ideas of status and popularity (I.e. yuros = gay, Americans = strong) and you seem quite proud of it too.
I mocked modern French cinema but I never dismissed European cinema as a whole. I never said popularity = good. Also, this all started because one europoor shit on Kubrick and Americans. If anyone on here is grading films on vain ideas of status it's the idiot who started all of this who seems to think popularity = bad, and American = bad.

>>11661638

>>11662114
>two of the most influential and innovative filmmakers of all time
Americans...

>>11662164
Not an argument.

>>11660372
>Hitchcock
Christopher Nolan of the mid XXth century

>>11660499
>>11661791
>>11660346
fuck off MegaAutist, spam your shitty director on /lbg/

>>11662190
Hitchcock is THE thriller director. Practically every thriller made within the last 60 or so years has taken at least a few things out of his playbook. Also, Godard, Truffaut, and other key figures of the French new wave openly masturbated to Hitchcock.

Everybody too busy sperging out on a TUESDAY NIGHT to actually have a discussion. RIP /lit/ never forget

Every single person I’ve ever seen diss Kubrick unironically has either never used a camera in their entire lives or takes Facebook-tier photography. Y’all be some jealous ass crybabies I swear yah gawd

>>11660346

You mean Jews did

>>11660425
>>11660441
>>11660471
gtfo pleb

>>11662246
all the amateur photographers I know are either boomer dads or rich 16 yo girls.

>>11659998

>>11659998
Since I'm re-reading Lolita I thought I'd watch the 1997 movie. I felt it was just okay but it sits better with me after a day. I'm going to watch Kubrick's version next as I finish up the book. What will I think of it?

>>11663049
It's a great movie but gyps the reader qua viewer since it had to appease the censors

>>11663086
There will never be a great Lolita movie made until people lighten up about child eroticism. The '90's one didn't sit well with me for this reason still. But it was admittedly kino.

>>11663049
A pretty decent comedy
Sue Lyon is perfection, she literally had 10/10 facial aesthetics

>>11660372
>Jodorowski

Shan't read any more

>>11660390
Watch some Cronenberg body horror, bud.

>>11659998
What a stupid fucking question

Stephen King is a genre-fiction WHORE.

Stanley Kubrick is actually a legitimate artist.

>>11662114
But it is relative anon, in sense that Kubrick and Welles are relatively bad, compared to what I like. You also seem to be getting at some idea that there is an infallible list of objectively goat filmmakers based on "innovation". If you like them, great, but don't get mad at me for not liking something you like. My criticism is directed at you directly more than anything, not just because you're a faggot, but because you are trying so hard to make me like Kubrick and Welles by telling me that I have no good reason to dislike them because they are "influential". Something can be both influential and shit: take your own mockery of french cinema as an example.

Kubrick makes good movies but he is very overated. Its like if STEM made film

>>11660471
>>11660441
Explain why you call him a hack?

>>11661552

You think so? I think he is flat as a board almost throughout. But coming to think of it, that does give more gravity to the scene where he does actually show some raw emotion, when his child dies. Still, maybe my issue with it is that it's just a mediocre-to-good performance in a movie where the cinematography is quite honestly the greatest I have ever seen.

>>11661589

Thanks, I'll check it out.

>>11659998
Slovakia

>>11663494
You don't have to like anything. However, if you give a shit about cinema you should have at least a bit of respect for the people who pushed the artform forward. Plus even if you put aside Welles and Kubrick's innovations and influence they made some films that hold up as great works of art. Which of their films have you seen?