/lit/ - Literature

>>16131072
Yes. Martin is a generally better artist than Tolkien.

>>16131072
not literature

>>16131072
Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words, especially if it is moving.

>>16131072
No, he's a moron. In practically every interview he just says "and it shows what it's about to be human, and that's what it's all about!" this lukewarm neoliberal soullessness.

Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not.

The two aren't really comparable

>>16131072
Neither is superior without some system of valuation to put one above the other. Define the rubric first.

>>16131072
Music reigns over both.

yes, because there is no superiority of media. however, i enjoy reading more than any other media because i get more emotional gratification from reading. nothing else compares.

>>16131153
>In practically every interview he just says "and it shows what it's about to be human, and that's what it's all about!" this lukewarm neoliberal soullessness
that's because it's impossible to explain film, or even literature, so any attempt just caves in to buzzwords

>>16131162
Use your intuition.

>>16131153
You've been BTFOd several times on /film/. Give up already

>>16131072
>>16131153
And might I add! That where literature embodies the very idea, film can do no more than be, as an overly sensual thing, a circumferencing of the idea by way of its own emotional leveling.

>>16131176
I've heard this before, but I don't think it's too difficult to explain it in terms that are correct, but are still simple. He literally makes no effort to explain it because his knowledge barely goes beyond film technicality, which is why he draws all his inspiration from his unthought life and "muh italians and marfia!".

>>16131183
Pfh, for a fool such as yourself. No one has attempted to seriously argue with me.

>>16131208
have you watched wolf of wall street? It's a masterpiece. So he's just not italians and mafia.
He CAN make good films actually. Now how that is possible with him having, in your words, 'soulless understanding' of art is the question you should be asking.

>>16131244
>have you watched wolf of wall street? It's a masterpiece. So he's just not italians and mafia.
Same difference, it's a rich man that gets ahead of himself.

>He CAN make good films actually.
Quite easily, though of course like anything and especially in art it's not just a simple singular thing. One can know nothing about anything and still make "good" movies like Scorsese, or one can know as much as one can about culture and philosophy and still make mediocrity. But the thing is, I never said there aren't a ton of good movies, but most just cannot compare to traditional art and neither have the form alone to do it nor the intentions from director.

>>16131278
>it's a rich man that gets ahead of himself.
if you judge merit of a whole film on how the plot sounds like in a single line, you don't have any ground to talk about other people's understanding of films

>>16131208
Dilate

>>16131293
Did I not say it is a more sensual and limited medium, not bad, but limited? And yet here you are asking me to understand most of the good things in the film are of a purely sensual performance. Very little original idea.

As for the filming goes, I have seen some scenes, it seems well filmed but still just an entertaining movie.

Any worthwile movie is inherently based on the clever use of the written word first and foremost. The motion picture itself is, yes, articstically convenient and expressive, but also narrow and limited in artistic range. For me, the written word is the superior medium because it involves the consumer into a dance of mental cues and games that forces active interpretation and co-creation.
Its the thinking man's choice, really.

>>16131321
Based
>>16131153
Cringe

>>16131072
perhaps - but cinema is not yet a mature medium:
there is no film which is to film what, say, finnegans wake / the bhagavad gita / my diary desu are to literature

/tv/ brainlets absolutely fuming

>>16131321
You chose the superior medium based on how the audiences perceive each medium's creation.

Shouldn't the judgement be solely by the creation itself?

>>16131346
>there is no film which is to film what, say, finnegans wake / the bhagavad gita / my diary desu are to literature

>>16131346
Never will be something like that because of the particularity, and portability, of film. However if we may guess it would probably be Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will, Napoleon, and those sort of films.

>>16131072
can you show me proof he said this quote.

His movie book adaptations are not better than their book counterparts.

>>16131378
Why are you proving his point instead of refuting him, are u a retard

>>16131391
/tv/ raider.

>>16131391
Kindly explain to me how Charlie Kaufman isn't on par with the likes of Joyce, please.

I'm not joking, I'm genuinely curious.

>>16131388
Pretty sure it was from the Scorsese masterclass, let me check.

Couldn't find where he says that but I do remember seeing something like it in the early masterclass adds.

>>16131400
Please explain to me how he is on the same level of Joyce. Even Fellini did it better than him like 40 years before, but he’s just an crude entertainer at the end of the day

>>16131378
>>16131400
After just looking at the trailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIizh6nYnTU , it looks good but definitely not equal to Joyce.

Any literature like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6504eRh5h6M

>>16131418
A lot of the nu decent movies being made now are pretty basic and the rest of the mainstream stuff is trash. I haven't been the movie theaters in years, though every once in awhile I see a past flick I wish I had seen on the big screen like the vvitch and first reformed.

>>16131400
Lmao, no one can come close to Joyce, pseud

> I am delighted to see that you do like being fucked arseways. Yes, now I can remember that night when I fucked you for so long backwards. It was the dirtiest fucking I ever gave you, darling. My prick was stuck in you for hours, fucking in and out under your upturned rump. I felt your fat sweaty buttocks under my belly and saw your flushed face and mad eyes. At every fuck I gave you your shameless tongue came bursting out through your lips and if a gave you a bigger stronger fuck than usual, fat dirty farts came spluttering out of your backside. You had an arse full of farts that night, darling, and I fucked them out of you, big fat fellows, long windy ones, quick little merry cracks and a lot of tiny little naughty farties ending in a long gush from your hole. It is wonderful to fuck a farting woman when every fuck drives one out of her. I think I would know Nora’s fart anywhere. I think I could pick hers out in a roomful of farting women. It is a rather girlish noise not like the wet windy fart which I imagine fat wives have. It is sudden and dry and dirty like what a bold girl would let off in fun in a school dormitory at night. I hope Nora will let off no end of her farts in my face so that I may know their smell also.

>>16131450
My diary desu

>>16131400
Listen gaylord, nobody living is close to Joyce. I say this person who dislike Joyce writing, yet respects him as artist.

>>16131453
Agreed, at least your average action flick could still be entertaining 15 years ago.

>>16131469
You're going to conquer the world and be considered a demi-god by Goethe?

>>16131418
OP here, yes it's from masterclass

How did you like it?

>>16131528
I haven't taken it, but I remember that being in the earlier masterclass adds with him. I guess they later scrapped that.

Is it actually good?

>>16131072
Depends. I'd watch Taxi Driver over reading The Fault in our Stars. You can't really compare them because they're entirely different things. It's like saying "oh you don't like apples? I bet you hate avocados too."

>>16131378
"no!"
it's pretty good, i recommend watching with gf
but it is absolutely not a mature work of fiction
the horrified / disgusted response to antkind is what happens when a good screenwriter expects to be taken seriously in an actually mature medium

>>16131384
>the particularity, and portability, of film
probably, yes - read "filmic project" for film i guess
in the creation of a masterpiece, our conception of *a film* is probably prohibitive - tv serial format is definitely so

triumph of the will is technically amazing, but has been superceded - it survives on its forbidden allure
best dw griffith is his country doctor short imho. i highly recommend watching où gît votre sourire enfoui

>>16131400
dfw is a better comparison, and even then kaufman's not even close
i assume you have not read finnegans wake - i have no doubt you'll understand why joyce is superior if you seriously, with humility, do so

>>16131470
>nobody living is close to Joyce
actually i am. not joking

>>16131542
Only on episode 2, pretty good till now

>>16131574
Unless your work requires specific technical skills, you can have any work with any degree if you have it in you

>>16131544
>I'd watch Taxi Driver over reading The Fault in our Stars.
And I'd read War and Peace over Taxi Driver.

>triumph of the will is technically amazing, but has been superceded - it survives on its forbidden allure
Nah not at all, I still find it to be a great piece of cinematic "genius"(as much as there can be for that). What's a film that has superseded what it's trying to do and succeeded in?

>>16131581
I might give it a watch when it's free on videomotion or something.

>>16131072
The extremely commercial nature of film deteriorates it as an art form because it fills the medium with vices for the sake of marketability (like how almost any film with "mature" themes has to have pornography in it)

>>16131072
>webp-to-jpg

Nigga just add ".jgp?99" to the end of the link and refresh and it will turn into a jpg.

>>16131181
To do what? Define a rubric? I don't have any interest in placing film above literature or vice versa.

>>16131680
What do you do for a living?

>>16131693
So you can't use your rational to do it anyway? You don't have an understanding of the determination of the meaning of art as it is whether people recognise that foregrounding structure or not consciously?

>>16131714
>So you can't use your rational to do it anyway?
I'm making a choice not to. Why would I do a thing I don't care to do?
>You don't have an understanding of the determination of the meaning of art as it is whether people recognise that foregrounding structure or not consciously?
Did you have this nonsense at the ready, or do you periodically black out while typing?

the diffculty to movies is having a vision that actors do not need intense micro-control from a director to pull off, and thus you are limited to money and time when doing such a thing you need 100 moving parts (keep in mind these are humans with emotions in motion) to not necessarily act perfectly but can act underneath the supposed vision. this is not the case with modern movies and video games as obviously that is just atrocious not worth to taken seriously

>>16131072
Authors at least know how to end a story.

>>16131072
No, and I doubt he's a serious reader.

>>16131751
>I'm making a choice not to. Why would I do a thing I don't care to do?
So why are you complaining, little boy?

>Did you have this nonsense at the ready, or do you periodically black out while typing?
The latter, but it makes perfect sense!

>>16131072
Fictional literature and cinema are both vulgar, low art forms even at their supposed "peaks".

>>16131955
>So why are you complaining, little boy?
I'm certain I didn't, but could you point out to me where I've complained?
>The latter, but it makes perfect sense!
You may be hopeless.

>>16131970
Which is peak

>>16131153
Based. Visual art is almost worthless.

>>16131990
>I'm certain I didn't, but could you point out to me where I've complained?
You think we started talking for no reason? You're complaining by asking another to do the job for you.

>You may be hopeless.
I think it is just that you are not familiar with traditional thinkers talked about in a modern context. See Bill Hopkins meeting with Sartre "
fasciste! fasciste, fasciste!".

>>16132308
>Your bait is awful, even by /lit/ standards.

>>16131072
Film is far more immediate than writing, because there is no mental conjuring on your part, you are simply swept along an intuitive experience, which continues to happen on its own timescale independently of you, and allows you only enough time for reflection as it chooses. It is a far more lifelike medium in this way, and far more visceral and thrilling.
However, literature gains from its mediation specifically in its lack of viscerality and its capacity for reflective experience. The ability to dwell on a moment, return to previous ones, insert time at any point, all allow penetration to deeper levels of meaning than film can convey. And the requirement of the reader to be an active participant, not merely a passive observer but the actual director himself, creates a far more interactive experience where the reader's own contextual world supplies the fuel for the imagery and the connotative textures, which ultimately makes it more personal than film can ever be.

>>16132344
Unironically anon I was not baiting.

>>16132715
You write well, what do you study?

>>16131124
>worth a thousand words
quantity is not quality

>>16132908
Oh thanks anon. I work in vidya doing modeling and texturing, lit is a hobby for me.

>>16131153
the idea that one art form can hold more intellectual weight than another because of the artworks medium is short sided. art reacts on an individuals perspective

>>16133143
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MEDIUM, THERE IS NO POINT IN SPECIFYING "ARTWORK" AS DIFFERENT FROM MEDIUM IN THIS SENTENCE, SINCE THE MEDIUM IS DEFINED BY ITS GREATEST ARTWORK.

Thank you for listening anon.

>>16131072
Think about it this way: would you rather see a Scorcese film about David Foster Wallace or read a David Foster Wallace novel about Martin Scorcese?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

>>16133315
That's because Scorsese is no where near as interesting as David Foster Wallace, whatya on?

Video games will surpass them all

>>16131346
The Other Side of the Wind is pretty terrific, parts feel Hotels Joyceian, though obviously with a more limited scope. But then Welles was always the most literate (and best) of filmmakers, and he exploited the medium as much as was possible.

>>16133652
>The Other Side of the Wind
Just looked it up, surprised I haven't heard of it. Looks like it could be pretty kino, will watch after I've watched Citizen Kane.

>>16133652
>Hotels
halfway*
>>16133681
It's good, though it's not the easiest film to approach. Part of it is Welles riffing on Italian surrealism and French New-Wave cinema (structurally it actually reminds me a bit of Rivette), but it's also distinctly American and Wellesian.

I enjoyed his film essay "F for Fake" as well, though it didn't do anything particularly innovative with the medium.

>>16131153
Based.

>>16131072
Depends on the realm of the competition in question. Superior in what sense? Superior in terms of transferring a philosophy to a future generation? Absolutely not. Superior in terms of invoking the imagination and stimulating the intellect? Again, absolutely not. Superior in terms of stimulating the senses? Yeah, sure.

He never said that.

>>16133652
pls die

>>16133712
>I enjoyed his film essay "F for Fake" as well, though it didn't do anything particularly innovative with the medium.
Quick rundown?

>>16131072
potentially, maybe, but modern films all suck. literally all of them. all films made today necessarily suck

>>16131680
thanks

>>16133767
He did, I literally remember seeing it unless it's Mandela effect.

>>16133315
scorcese sucks tho, he made one pretty good film in the 70s. altho its meaning is largely open-ended, and is open-ended quite literally, and depth entirely overhyped

>>16131153
Wow, can you teach me to say so much yet mean so little? 'Cause all you have said equals to >cinema is bad, with no reasoning whatsoever.

>>16133652
anon you were replying to here: that's actually one of my favourite films
both it and f for fake remind me of the recognitions, i wonder if welles ever read it

>>16131072
>wood is NOT superior to a house with wood in it.

both struggle to justify the death of the tree.

>>16133836
>Wow, can you teach me to say so much yet mean so little?
Many have told me this.

On a serious note, I said quite a lot in a very compact form, I put a lot in there that I would not expect you now to understand all of it, so many necessary references for which you should have an understanding of already in some form. I blame your lack of understanding.

>>16133886
NO! Opera has wood in it, in this case the medium is at the same time the sum of its parts by being less, and because of that given nothing more than the parts.

Literature is not a smaller compartment of the building of the grand house of cinema! For I would rather slit my throat in that room than sit comfortably in a cheap hall of mirrors!!!!!!!

>>16133886
Based.

>>16133909
No, he suffers from a simple misunderstanding of an unthought idea which is common the world today, chiefly as if that cinema is the "art work of the future!", the Gesummtkunstwerk, the collection and greatest of all the arts, wherein as I said before "in those moments of its artistic uniqueness" it is so much less than the sublimity of those often comically sacrificed traditional artforms.

See>>16131153
and>>16133908

>>16133790
He NEVER EVER said that.

>>16133939
He literally did, I remember seeing it unless it's Mandela effect.

>>16131072
What a shit fucking comparison
Film is still a newborn baby while literature is thousands of years old

>>16134016
Film will not do much more than now pal.

>>16134022
You are underestimating these over evolved apes way too much

>>16131153
wow
and you posted a frog
deep shit m8

>>16133315
and yet posts a picture
hmmm?

There is a spectrum of entertainment which goes from the very abstract (just thinking and using your imagination lol) to the more concrete (reading) to the more sensual and immediate (film) until eventually you arrive at a rollercoaster ride.

Somewhere along this spectrum there is a good place to make true art..I'd say literature and film are both in this 'art zone'.

>>16133950
prove it then

like literally prove it

>>16134022
screenshotting this to utterly btfo you in 500 years

>>16134602
Kek
Based transhumanist

Martin Scorsese is a giant faggot who's films will be the first to be forgotten after his death, I say this an an expert kino academic.
On that note for this specific statement he's probably right or something.

>>16132228
Music is confirmed to lower testosterone in men and Suckenhauer is a fag.

>>16134031
That is a purely nihilistic characterisation, were it not used to comical means friend.

But I do think film wont "pique" as much like the other arts, we've already seen the lazy modern medium of film split into an array of different movements after it's been given all the information and a headstart by such an advanced culture. Film is really is little more than a cherry on top of the previous arts, but as I said, much (founding/traditional arts) is often sacrificed to the specificity of what the person wants to create with that cherry. See music for example. I explained all this here

>>16134031
>>16134659
see>>16131153

>>16134154
Well, for starters, I literally saw him say it unless for example that's the Mandela effect(amd tjere is op too).

>>16134154
Nooooo please don't I'm so afraid me, Mr. anonymous, with my name on the internet, will be embarrassed! Film will only get better in the spirit of its focuses and content, the medium itself we will see nothing "woowwwowowow" like a Goethe in.

>''Written word is NOT superior to motion picture''

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:32-35

>>16131153
Look mom I made it political again

>>16133767
>>16131528

>>16131680
This is really cool but for those nitpicky guys out there who want the best quality just know that by converting with this method there will be some tiny artifacts, very small by noticeable. So if you want a 1:1 perfect conversion just use the conventional programs, if you just want to convert it quick and nothing more then use the method suggested by this poster.

Motion pictures are the evolution of the opera.
Now if you want to say operas aren't art, well then fine, but you can't say opera is without also including film.

>>16134840
Why opera and not theatre in general?

>>16131153
holy pseud batman....

>>16131072
well i dont think its a black and white thing. i guess by its very nature one is not necessarily better than the other, but are qualitatively different mediums. i think the written word can provide a much more curated experience, while film can provide a greater verity of stimulations, but is much easier to fuck up due to the greater amount of logistics and artistical concerns you need to balance. personally, i prefer the former simply because of its higher level of general curation and by the fact that it is usually made by a single athor who does not usually have many constraints in oreforming their artistic task as a director (who is often limited by time, money, logistics, possibly even a limited run time, compromising with others since its usually a multiple person task, etc)

so video is more volitial, but can be more dynamic within its own medium.

>>16134855
Theater is just actors.
Operas incorporates so many different kinds of art, costumes, dance, sculpture, music, etc. At one point, the pinnacle of art, for how much human creativity could be squeezed into one event.
I see film as an evolution of that kind of creative opportunity format.

>>16134681
are you OK?

>>16131072
Film is the fast food of art

>>16133795
Open endedness does not indicate quality or depth.

>>16131072
Do you guys think the kids applying to film degree courses in college are wasting their time and money?

>>16134952
Anyone going to college is wasting their money.

>>16134642
>I say this an an expert kino academic.
lmfao. I will say that Scorsese hasn't done anything particularly innovative in 40+ years though.

But his movies on the whole are fine for what they are, are generally better than most of what is released these days, and he was absolutely right to bash on all the capeshit out there.

>>16133784
Unreliable Narrator: The Documentary

You should just watch it, anon. It's ~80 minutes long so you could get through it in less time than most of us spend shitposting in an afternoon.

>>16131168
What music do you listen to, anon?

>>16133405
>will
Already have, since they already do what both literature and movies do while joining the two and creating a third effect.

Film is inherently a weaker medium than literature because film is a collaborative art with too much money/executive meddling involved.

>>16135750
>Film is inherently a weaker medium than literature because I can't compete in it due to being an antisocial poorfag

>''Written word is NOT superior to motion picture''
psued cope

>>16131153
based
only midwit consoomers disagree

>>16131072
Written words are superior because they demand way WAY more concentration to understand, while you can zone out and still watch motion

>>16136093
You can zone out in both and you can't understand what's happening in either of them when you zone out

>>16135750
>>16135762
No, no, he's right. Something mass produced for the sake of capital with little to no artuer involvement generally leads to something less than good regardless of potential.
See video games as an example.

>>16136268
Something mass produced for the sake of capital generally leads to something good for the masses. It says nothing about movies or videogames themselves.

this could also mean they are equal, or parts of two different spectrums.

>>16131072
Videogames allow more control over the artwork for the artist than the motion picture, and the motion picture allows more control over the artwork than the picture, and the picture allows more control over the artwork than the word.

>>16136923
VG > MP > Theatre > Music > Picture > Word

>>16136093
Why is that good? That just shows you need to put in more effort to make up for the artists lack of control of effect over the artwork.

Literal brainlet nothing is better than the written medium.

The idea of mediums being superior to each other is childish and betrays a significant lack of experience with the media that one consigns to inferiority. No book is as visceral as a film, no film has the depth of a book, no book has the challenge of a game, they are all different. Being a human being, you have the capacity for so many kinds of experiences; it's not the media that are above or below each other, it's you who is more or less receptive to them.

>>16136966
A word is just a shitty picture. A word refers to something that is imagined, with the signifier being insignificant in itself artistically, whereas the picture is not only beautiful but also can signify just like the written word, and even to greater clarity.

>>16136975
because they are different does not mean you cannot rank them according to their utility in regards to some end. Once you set up this criteria, then you can rank them in a hierarchy. This is how people decide what their favorite artworks are.

>>16137010
The rank order you see in creation is that which you have put there. Nothing more.

>>16137015
Everything we see we have put there.

>>16136975
>>16137010
For instance, >>16136923 ranks them in regard to the control the artist has over the effect of his art.

>>16137015
OK? What exactly is your point? Of course I put value into the artworks, and it wasn't innate in them. That doesn't mean ranking is impossible according to criteria. If it wasn't possible, organizing according to value would be impossible, which means valuation itself would be impossible.

>>16137028
My point is that saying a medium is superior to another one is dumb. Thought that was pretty clear.
>>16137017
Correct.

>>16137031
And I'm saying that you are wrong and I clearly can rank artforms as long as I outline the criteria on which my ranking is based. If this wasn't possible, then valuation would be possible.

>>16137044
Persist in your defensive justifications all you like, but I've already asserted the truth in this thread, and articulated it perfectly. I will now go read more Zhuangzi. Ciao.

>>16137050
You have articulated perfectly that you are a moron who thinks valuation is impossible. Of course someone who though such a thing would be reading the "eastern cannon".

>>16136991
>a word is just a shitty picture
Do you have an inner dialog? Can you visualize moving pictures?

>>16137072
yes.

It's not superior in theory, but superior in content since it's had such a long headstart.

Also Raging Bull is the best film ever made.

>>16131153
cringe
nothing of substance said + inane /pol/ garbage

>>16134855
It would be theatre in general if by motion pictures we also include things like recordings of stand up comedy and documentaries. But if we just mean the standard non-documentary film, the comparison would be opera.

>>16134910
No, I'm sorry anon.

>>16135288
Will do anon, thanks. I need to learn more about Welles anyway.

>>16137274
Fuck off tranny.