/lit/ - Literature

>inb4 le Plato argument.

I don't think. I know.

yup you got it
every book is better than every cinema

>>16470477
>he listens to black people music

>>16470477
>cinema
you mean joints?

>>16471102
>he doesn't listen to Kanye

>>16471102
>He listens to music
Pedestrian

>>16470477
Everyone who thinks otherwise is likely an idiot, or a director trying to make more money.

>>16470480
Plato and Socrates weren't entirely opposed to all writing. Socrates reads Aesop in one dialogue. He also mentions Protagoras' Truth.

>>16470477
Cinema is overrated and will NEVER match the best or higher tiers of literature.

>>16470477
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.

>>16472647
>read fifty shades of grey
>watch The Three of Life

debunked.

>>16472675
Show me what portion of language that this refutes of mine? I never said a film can't be better than a book, did I? But as I believe was obvious, the best of any given so called medium, is what defines it, seeing the exceedingly superior Goethe and Shakespeare to any single film/performance(dust thou take the spectacle of it for tha' thing itself? The Aristotle's would be ashamed!).

>>16470477
>>16472714

film is a really broad medium, and you can explore every other superior medium in film. and, as it it's the case with all other mediums, it can be cheap, lazy and mediocre.

literature is a superior medium that can be cheap, lazy and mediocre, as film. films can have a literary side. being great lines, or great drama.
music is a superior medium that can be cheap, lazy and mediocre, as film. films can have a musical side. being great ost, or even musicals.
painting is a superior medium that can be cheap, lazy and mediocre, as film. films can have a picturesque side. being great composition, colors, lighting, etc.

and so on...i'm really passionate about cinema, and because of that, I became interested in all these other mediums, I want to learn about them best I can so I can make a good movie one day.

>>16470477
>cinema
Lower than even video games.

>>16472856
there is nothing lower than video games

>>16470477
>liking cinema
>thinking
Pick one.
>>16472647
Based and redpilled

>>16472836
That's good anon, movies are great, but I advise you to be well aware of the depicting-imminence of film, and how that thereby calls the need of something from literature that will last, whether you create it yourself or you're basing it on some other thing, you should work very tirelessly on that. After all they do say how good a film is/will be can be seen before any other knowledge, just by looking at the script.

Any ideas? Film hasn't really been raised to its full potential yet, but an extreme closeness of it with the higher arts is the only thing that could bring it into a natural and historically normal cultural development and presence; think Mishima's Patriotism. As we all know, and as I said before, how dire the state of all modern art is, but very much so cinema when it has chosen the last century to be its birth, but of course no one other than the Aryan mind could have started such birth.

bump.

>>16470477
based

Andrei Rublev is the only good film ever made.

>>16473286
t. Reddit.

An active medium will always be better than passive medium.

>>16470477
>not appreciating the sheer power of image, motion and time
books cannot do what cinema does and cinema cannot do all that books can. Anyone who thinks books are inherently better than movies just doesn't understand cinema nor art in general.
Read Cinema 1+2

>>16473360
If you believe film to be a passive medium you're telling me the vast majority of films and other media you have consumed is basic normalfag trash made to overstimualte the senses and keep you doped up.

>>16470477
>character’s internal monologue portrayed as narration in film
cringe, ruins immersion

>character’s internal monologue portrayed as free indirect discourse in a novel
based, immersive

literature is naturally better for portraying thought and thinking. it is the thinking person’s medium. brainlets need not apply.

>>16473398
A pleb filter films exist but they still don't compare to the best literature out there. That being said, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

>>16473310
You would know.

>>16473390
>Read Cinema 1+2
No faggot, of course they're artistically unique but literature will always be superior.

>>16473705
what is your reasoning?
Anytime I hear someone tout literature's superiority there is always an immense misunderstanding of what cinema is. As in they always assume the goal of cinema is the same as the goal of literature. Like >>16473407 a complete brainlet take that assumes that being able to portray thought better=better for thinking, and that internal monologue in cinema exists for all the same reasons as it does in literature. In fact a more apt critique of narration would be that it ignores a unique function of cinema in favor of a literary approach, although I would still disagree with this ultimately.
Also, why not read Deleuze's writings on Cinema? He is easily one of the most important thinkers of the past 100 years. Are you perhaps scared of being proved wrong?

>>16473754
Check the three following frog posts in this thread by me, not the coffee apu, but not the first two pepes either.

>>16473789
Already read, pure pseudery with a fundamental misunderstanding of what an image even is. Devolves into personification of cinema and then an attack on Hollywood. Most seriously into cinema is anti-Hollywood, and none of the traits of Hollywood are inherent to the medium.
I could easily name movies that I believe are just as good or even better than the best books that I have read--but that would be pointless, because you would just say "no they aren't". Just like you could name a book or a work of art and I could say that they are inferior.
>inb4 "you could say that about any art"
untrue. I can very easily argue why video games are currently a lesser art form--although I wouldn't argue that they are, in essence, a lesser art form. I could argue that childrens books are lesser to books meant for adults, and argue that in essence they are lesser.
Read Deleuze if you're actually interested in cinema and want to understand it. Deleuze argues that a filmmaker only should adapt a novel when they have more to say than the novel does. Keep in mind he was not a filmmaker.
doubt you will read him though. Like most posters on /lit/ you care less about being right than you do about not being proved wrong.

>>16473977
>Most seriously into cinema is anti-Hollywood, and none of the traits of Hollywood are inherent to the medium.
I never said this, but I did say that this has seriously held it down in contrast to what it could have been. Or do you think any Hollywood sodomite could make a work equal to a Beethoven?

>I could easily name movies that I believe are just as good or even better than the best books that I have read--but that would be pointless, because you would just say "no they aren't". Just like you could name a book or a work of art and I could say that they are inferior.
Sure, so we will say neither, but please tell me because I wish to reserve it for my own opinion anyway.

>Read Deleuze if you're actually interested in cinema and want to understand it.
I will anon, but not anytime soon. I have much to read but when I get around to it I will indeed read him.

>Deleuze argues that a filmmaker only should adapt a novel when they have more to say than the novel does.
Are you kidding me? Well duhh whadya know, for a good movie to be a good movie by its own right it has to be creative in some unique way to the medium... shocking. Maybe I wont read it if the rest of it is so stupidly self-evident, and merely jumps to ridiculous conclusions by self-evidencies that don't show that at all.

>>16474006
>Well duhh whadya know
femoid

>>16474006
>I never said this, but I did say that this has seriously held it down in contrast to what it could have been. Or do you think any Hollywood sodomite could make a work equal to a Beethoven?
Why are you even talking about Hollywood? Do you think that the heights of the medium have been created in Hollywood?
>ease tell me because I wish to reserve it for my own opinion anyway.
There are many I would say are just as good but to give 3 examples that undeniably do what literature is unable to, I would recommend Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible, Bresson's L'Argent, and Herzog's Lessons from Darkness. As a bonus all three are written, so while I could have recommended something like Brakhage, whose work is completely incomparable to literature, you can much more easily see where cinema goes further than literature. They're also all very different approaches.
>Are you kidding me? Well duhh whadya know, for a good movie to be a good movie by its own right it has to be creative in some unique way to the medium...
Not what he's saying. The key is in the word more.

>>16474116
>Why are you even talking about Hollywood?
Maybe because the artform was essentially created and primarily developed there, qua those circles. And has since its inception had a dominance over the form.

>There are many I would say are just as good but to give 3 examples that undeniably do what literature is unable to, I would recommend Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible, Bresson's L'Argent, and Herzog's Lessons from Darkness.
Thank you for these, I'll get to watching them.

>Not what he's saying. The key is in the word more.
It quite literally is, I've just put it in more and plainer words. I would have expected you would have mentioned some thing about the "presence in the moment" or some such, but many have parroted such a thing beyond Deleuze, including Sartre when he rejected Citizen Kane.

>>16474143
>Maybe because the artform was essentially created and primarily developed there, qua those circles. And has since its inception had a dominance over the form.
there have been millions of movies that do not at all adhere to the Hollywood's cinema. Using it as an argument towards films inferiority is dumb.
> It quite literally is, I've just put it in more and plainer words. I would have expected you would have mentioned some thing about the "presence in the moment" or some such, but many have parroted such a thing beyond Deleuze, including Sartre when he rejected Citizen Kane.
I promise it isn't. Cinema 1 and 2 aren't about this by the way, they are about cinematic theory, and go far beyond Sartre's writings. I only bring up his quote about adaptations because it is an example of Deleuze explicitly saying that a film can say more than a book.

>>16474175
>there have been millions of movies that do not at all adhere to the Hollywood's cinema. Using it as an argument towards films inferiority is dumb.
Not at all, nevertheless Hollywood stands in respect to the same problems of art in which the whole of modernity does.

>I promise it isn't. Cinema 1 and 2 aren't about this by the way, they are about cinematic theory, and go far beyond Sartre's writings. I only bring up his quote about adaptations because it is an example of Deleuze explicitly saying that a film can say more than a book.
Alright I believe you, but did he ever say "a writer only should adapt a movie when they have more to say than the movie does"?

>>16473390
Healthy answer, based recs, but also check the Cinema courses and read Epstein and Robbe-Grillet

>>16474216
>but did he ever say "a writer only should adapt a movie when they have more to say than the movie does"?
No, but I'm sure if people did adapt movies to books (which, while there are novelizations of movies, none have ever been viewed with anywhere near as much respect or legitimacy as movie adaptations) then I'm sure he might have. He definitely would not have said the same about theatre adaptations of literature.

>>16472647
shakespeare & homer & quixote were all primarily entertainment.
no one calls film the artwork of the future. they called it the artwork of the time 70 years ago & immediately afterwards called it dying.
>developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites
oh nevermind

>>16472878
books

>>16473286
tarkovsky is horrid

>>16473407
thought weighs down any poetry

>>16473286
he looks like Gigachad, what a ridiculous bone structure

>>16474257
That is what he would say. But nevertheless, thank you for the conversation anon, I'll read Deleuze someday.

>>16475246
>shakespeare & homer & quixote were all primarily entertainment.

thought I was INFP because I spent a lot of time on faggy emotional poetry and shit but i got 70% thinking over feelign for INTP which feels good

>>16475274
>shakespeare & homer & quixote were all primarily entertainment.
happens to be true

>>16475302
Do you draw not something different in the makings of highest artistry and lowest entertainment?

>>16475304
rephrase that

>>16475322
Do you not see something different in high art and low entertainment?

>>16475327
it almost looks to me as if we shall have to judge all this stuff on its merits - just like literature and painting and that type of thing.

>>16475256
what a glorious bone structure*

>>16475347
Yes, and just like we identify based on groups, that is the definition of an identity, which contrary to you thinking it goes against judgement by merits, they perfectly go together as reality.

>he thinks its a competition and that the two mediums are even comparable

>>16471102
Kanye is unironically better than Shakespeare.

>>16471165
Baste

>>16471102
>he doesn't plat the whole orchestra in his mind with just a glance of the sheets

>>16470477
Cinema is dead.

>>16472647
This.
>>16470477
Threadly reminder, pic related.

>>16473398
Film is purely passive no matter how many layers of "makes you think" bullshit you tell yourself.
Yes, watching Tarkovski is passive. Also Vigo, Renoir, Ozu, etc.

>>16473407
>literature is naturally better for portraying thought and thinking.

Fair enough, but I would note that film has gotten much better and more sophisticated at this, in films such as Days of Heaven, Goodfellas or Casino.

>>16476201
those are just three theme park rides you listed. filmfags love to shut off their brain and go along some sensory thrill ride. ultimately those are no different than the experiences the masses get through the avengers. this is the problem with film.

>>16476245
in fact you can probably write a longer treatise of how the avengers or spider man encapsulate all kinds of universal themes and archetypes, than you can do with those you mentioned. this is the other problem with film is cinephiles are totally deluded about the function of the arts.