/lit/ - Literature

>>13038590
I think both can be equally good but capitalism is ruining film as an art form. The film industry is more concerned with making money than art, which is why we rarely get great films.

>>13038637
Well Shakespeare was concerned with making money as well you know

Who gives a fuck what a worthless thread nobody cares about your retarded obvious opinion

>>13038637
But isn't there also a billion shit tier books out there? Everyone can write a book and nowadays you can publish it by yourself and no one can stop. To make a movie you have to at least try to make it good because people won't work on it if they don't see potential.

>>13038699
Good luck getting an editor or an actual print publisher if your book is shit. Amazon publishing is a fucking joke. Publishing a book has as many hurdles as making a film.

>>13038637
If it wasn't for the current blockbuster system/model a lot of indie films wouldn't get financed you absolute blockhead. I'm sure once you do some research you will find out your favorite independent distributors are simply arms of Paramount/Sony/MGM/Warner/Universal.

>>13038804
Many frogs are self publishing on amazon nowadays, making decent money.

> Publishing a book has as many hurdles as making a film.
Lol

>>13038893
You can recognise the benefits of the film industry while being critical of its consumerist mentality. Are you seriously going to tell me that the film industry doesn't constantly pump out consumerist trash to their brainlet audience because they know it will make them money?

>>13038893
You are correct. But I haven’t liked a film that has come out after 1960

Capitalism works with art for a few decades before it turns it into hollow imitation art. Golden age/Pre code Hollywood is a masterpiece, experimental underground films were solid until about the 80’s or so. Nobody knows how to make a film anymore.

>>13038590
the apparatus of film operates on the subconscious in a way no other medium can. this is why film is the superior medium. however I do not go on /tv/ cause it probably is the worst board I have ever visited on this site.

read Metz.

>>13038590
I think the actual battle is animation vs. literature. Film does not allow extremely unrealistic scenarios the way animation and literature does. In that sense, I'd say both animation and literature "give room for your imagination". The main reason why literature and music and painting are higher than other forms of art, in my opinion, is because the creator is just one person. You can't possibly have that in a film, you can have that to a smaller degree in animation, but still.

When a creative individual is able to make something entirely by himself, with absolute freedom to do it in the way he chooses to, then you can have great art.

>>13038983
Doubt.jpg

>>13038590
Would love to have a good film thread on here, like >>13039106 said, /tv/ is disgusting, there's some real discussion there but it's not worth sifting through all the aids. The thing I find weird is that unless you're a super fast reader, film is just a much more time-efficient medium to consume, you can become well-versed in film much more quickly than you can become well-read, not that this means one is better or more valid than the other.

If any anons have good obscure film recs I would appreciate it, I've gone through Tarkovsky, Bergman, Bresson, Ozu, and Dreyer recently, watching some Kiarostami atm. Also which torrent sites tend have the best selection?

>>13039161
i’m >>13039106
you should branch out from art-ho-foreign-film-core a bit (not that any of those directors are bad). Maybe try some Americans like John Ford or Samuel Fuller. Also at least a few Eisenstein and Griffith films should be mandatory viewing for everyone.
Based on the directors you listed, I’d recommend Fellini, Bunuel, Murnau, and Fassbinder.

>>13039266
Based, there are a ton of great filmmakers in your own backyard that you've never heard of. Not from the US so I recommend Kusturica, Kenovic, Tanovic and Makajev from my backyard

Literature tells deep stories.
Visual media tells intense stories.

>>13039266
I started with those specifically since they (excluding Bergman) were grouped under the umbrella of "transcendental style" by Paul Schrader in his book on the subject, so it seemed like a good starting point, and I especially prefer that specific approach, although I do want to get a good sense of all the different styles that are out there. Ford seems like a good one to add for classic American films. I know Griffith and Eisenstein are both considered pioneering directors, what did they specifically do that was special though?

>>13039359
This is the kind of thing I was looking for, thanks anon.

>>13039105
what a banal and incorrect opinion about both capitalism and films

>>13041197
Griffith = invented formal language of narrative cinema, father of American-Capitalist Cinema
Eisenstein = invented principles of editing (montage), father of Soviet-Communist Cinema

Ford is my favorite director of all time

film is a pseud medium: people too stupid for literature and too arrogant for vidya

>>13041287
Based and Fordpilled

>>13039161
Maurice Pialat
Éric Rohmer
Peter Greenaway
Michelangelo Antonioni
João César Monteiro
Jacques Rivette

Check them out

>>13039161
rutracker.org its in russian but good selection of high quality rips and remuxes

torrentz2.eu searches many torrent sites at once

If those are still not good enough then try for a private tracker but i hear it takes time to get in and persistence.

>>13041504
hell yeah

>>13041619
one of my favorites im glad its less known

>>13038590
It's all just propaganda. Take the nothing-pill and stop consuming anything and everything besides the bare basics. All I do is drink water and sit in the dark and I feel great.

>>13041684
you’re on 4chan

>>13041606
Я мoгy читaть нeмнoгo пo-pyccкий, тaк чтo этo хopoшo, cпacибo.

>>13041593
Thanks. Are all of Greenaway's movies worth watching? I've heard of him but he seems a bit eccentric to me for some reason.

>>13038656
Yes but Hollywood doesnt respect director freedom, you have movies made buy several producers.

>>13041751
not that anon, but of all the directors on that list, i would say greenaway is one of the least eccentric. some of his are better than others though.

>>13041691
implying im not one with 4chan

>>13041773
Yea I didn't mean eccentric in an absolute sense, just that from a basic glance at IMDB pages his movies don't seem to have much of a common thread (as opposed to, say, Rohmer, who subscribed to Ozu's "just keep making the same movie over and over again" school of thought).

I feel like I've seen every good movie there is. I have over 2000 entries tagged on IMDB, and maybe 200 of them didn't feel like a waste of time. Cinema, has a huge (and really unsolvable) problem of being FUCKING EXPENSIVE, which really harms the overall quality of the medium. Even the acclaimed masterpieces seem so juvenile and simplistic compared to the best of literature, simply because people who made them aren't the best possible people, just the best of those who can afford to secure a budget.

>>13041197
Griffith and Eisenstein are not merely innovators. Watch Intolerance and October, and you can see a cinematic form which is light years ahead of the vast majority of films which have been produced since. Those two films represent possible avenues for film to have taken, but largely didn't.

Can film and television criticism be /lit/?

>>13039161
Bresson and Bunuel are the best filmmakers of all time. As far as Bunuel goes: The Petite Charm of the Bourgeoisie, Los Olvidados, Belle de Jour, The Exterminating Angel. The best torrent site is passthepopcorn but good luck getting a membership.

>>13043258
yes, read Mark Fisher.
/TV/ is such a shit board for actual film discussion even /lbg/ was subpar in its prime. I wish there was a place to discuss film on this website

>>13043258
>>13043388
There's heaps of great film critics but is there anyone writing about television in an interesting way these days? I read an article comparing contemporary television critics to the Cahiers guys in the 50s but they didn't list any examples.

>>13043397
Television is generally pretty shit from a filmmaking standpoint, although the stories portrayed can be very powerful (HBO stuff like BB and Sopranos). As far as television that is as good as film goes, all I can think of is Twin Peaks and that Fassbinder series World on a Wire which is viewed as a movie nowadays

>>13043418
Yeah its definitely more of an extension of radio drama than cinema, but I think the medium still has a lot of potential. Hoping to see more interesting stuff happening.

>>13043437
an analogous argument you could make is that film is an "extension" of the theater. Bresson wrote a lot about how filmmakers can fight against this (his use of ellipsis, using actors as stand-ins/cardboard cutouts, the use of tight lenses to obfuscate, etc) in his book "Notes of Cinematography"

>>13043418
TV’s main problem is its serialized nature, the need to artificially draw out its stories. That’s why serious directors who’ve done television have generally stuck to the limited series format.

>>13038893
Fake independent films are just as soulless as the rest of the shit major studios will produce.

>>13043397
>I read an article comparing contemporary television critics to the Cahiers guys in the 50s but they didn't list any examples.
gee I wonder why

>>13038656
Shakespeare plagiarized Sir Henry Neville.