/lit/ - Literature

>>19397946
No, people who (pretend to) draw from film in the same way people do from high art are pseuds and should be ignored.

>>19397960
Glad somebody agrees, I feel like /lit/ has been full of fucking pseuds since 2014, who genuinely think film matches up to literature or even music. Now to be fair there’s shitty literature out there which film and even some TV (Sopranos, Dekalog) has outmatched, mostly genre fiction and some high school tier lit, but at its very highest peak, film is inherently middlebrow

>>19397946
Magnificent Ambersons maybe, or my favorite of his The Lady from Shanghai (has a Nathanael West feel).

Inherent Vice

End of Eva

The shining was better as a movie

>>19397946
The problem with literature is that you give an author 500 pages and they fill 300 of them with superfluous details.
The problem with film is you give a screenwriter 100 pages to adapt a 500 page book.

>>19398027
>Inherent Vice
Shit tier Pynchon
>End of Eva
Love this movie, but its just Childhoods End
>the Shining
Of course the movie was better, Stephen king is genreshit

>>19397977
Film can be important from a social perspective, for understanding mass culture and the like, and can be in some lesser way an artistically valuable appendage to a society or person such as Mishima's Patriotism is (I believe film has a bright future in that respect), but it has not had the same intellectualisation as the traditional arts, and this is precisely because it cannot. So we find those who, with no guide whatsoever, merely jump into explaining and praising cinema to the most ridiculous degrees without any real thinking. I can't imagine Kant or

The potential, the best, is what defines the medium/nature, so it doesn't matter if one movie is better than one book. The nature of cinema simply cannot compare with any of the traditional artforms. Literature is Shakespeare, film is Bergman, and it doesn't say much for the uniqueness of cinema as an artform if merely the filming of a play is enough to put it on par with play.

>>19397977
Film can be important from a social perspective, for understanding mass culture and the like, and can be in some lesser way an artistically valuable appendage to a society or person such as Mishima's Patriotism is (I believe film has a bright future in that respect), but it has not had the same intellectualisation as the traditional arts, and this is precisely because it cannot. So we find those who, with no guide whatsoever, merely jump into explaining and praising cinema to the most ridiculous degrees without any real thinking. I can't imagine Hegel including cinema in his aesthetics, and it's not as if cinema is too brilliant for a traditional conception.

The potential, the best, is what defines the medium/nature, so it doesn't matter if one movie is better than one book. The nature of cinema simply cannot compare with any of the traditional artforms. Literature is Shakespeare, film is Bergman, and it doesn't say much for the uniqueness of cinema as an artform if merely the filming of a play is enough to put it on par with play.

>>19398073
>its just Childhoods End
lmao wtf are you talking about

>>19398141
It’s literally the inspiration for EOE

>>19398141
Okay maybe it isn’t, but it’s certainly not highbrow, upper middlebrow definitely, I’d say on par with, say Infinite Jest

>>19397946
Films and literature are completely different art forms and you're retarded if you think one is superior to other

>Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, Tsai Ming Liang, Yang, Tarr, Bresson, Ozu, Tarkovsky
There's definitely more. Probably not comparable with the highest heights, but good nonetheless.

>>19398279
>Antinioni

Hes so boring

>>19398275
Say what you will about the movie, the tv show is basically weeb GR

>>19398297
It is, so’s the movie actually, crossed with the Book of Revelation

>>19398279
Based.

>>19397977
Sopranos sucks, and there’s better mini series than Dekalog. None are better than the best of literature.

>>19398279
Horrific taste in general

>tarr
>Tsai
Kys

>>19398316
>None are better than the best of literature.
Kek

>>19397946
Many have, and no it's not Andrei Rublev or the admittedly good Laurence Oliver Hamlet adaptation.
>>19398279
lol

>>19398316
>Sopranos sucks
Sopranos was great for what it was, you just have shit taste, and I wasn’t saying they’re as good as the best of literature, where did I even imply that??

>>19398322
Midwit core for people too retarded to read a book aside from genre fiction

>>19398333
ok low test ,low spatial cognition,effeminate retard

>>19398341
Don’t embarrass yourself, all Kubrick fans are literally what you described, go back to /tv/, projecting retard

>>19398322
He’s a Hollywood director overrated by film bro’s who only watch Hollywood films. For Americans, he’s probably my second favorite after Robert Kramer though, excluding Tourneur and Lang. Third, fourth, fifth would be Cassavetes, Ford, Reichardt. Barry Lyndon mutilated Thackeray’s novel, and Burgess’ and Nabokov’s novels are much better. I loved Eyes Wide Shut though.

>>19397946
Is saying Moby Dick or Ulysses is your favorite book equivalent to saying Citizen Kane or Casablanca is your favorite movie?

>>19398327
It was shit and you have shit taste. Endless quips and making white trash brutes as interesting, likable, and unique. Morally despicable. Only enjoyed by unserious people

>>19398360
Citizen Kane and Casablanca aren't even some of the greatest movies, let alone comparable to Moby Dick and Ulysses in style.

>>19398362
lol retard.

Ingmar Bergman’s Fanny Och Alexander a Christmas movie that feels and employs most of the same techniques as literary alchemy. A24 is a studio that churns out movies repeatedly that feel like literature.. Slow moving with a respect for the alchemical underpinnings of great literature.

>>19398360
Nah, it’s more like saying 1984 and The Great Gatsby are the best books.

>>19397946
The Wire

>>19397946
>Has any film reached the heights of literature?
hard to measure different mediums against each other. Has any painting ever reached the heights of literature? The answer is yes, to both, but in their own ways.

>>19398372
Or, if you need a movie

>>19398369
>retard
>normie tier hbo show any retard enjoys
The show is absolutely unwatchable in every aspect from the ‘moral issues’ to the banal ‘crime and punishment’ and obvious political messages. The only Grace is that it’s better than the putrid Wire.

>>19398362
You agave just outed yourself as a midwit, everyone knows that sopranos enjoyers are either high or low iq

>>19398379
You sound like a real hit at parties

>>19398380
>agave
*have
A small error in my usually perfect typing skills

>>19398380
It’s the highest show on IMDb basically and beloved by Reddit who read endless analyses into it. It also clearly takes itself as a serious show not dumb fun. It is the ultimate midwit show regardless if you yourself are low iq and enjoy it.

The high-low iq show is the office which everyone enjoys.

>>19398351
>Don’t embarrass yourself
ok mutt
>>19398355
idk if u're visually impaired or just a discord tranny who can't spot the subliminals and deep themes or at the very least acknowledge its presence.

>>19398383
>Reddit quip to defend a Reddit show
Fitting

>>19398390
>the office
Okay, here’s your (You). (You) earned it.

>>19398394
>idk if u're visually impaired or just a discord tranny who can't spot the subliminals and deep themes or at the very least acknowledge its presence.
You’re just repeating something you heard with ‘discord’ tranny to throw some spice in. Move along.

>high iq
>middlebrow
embarrassing, this thread is pure posturing

>>19398397
The office is dumb fun that is mostly good for a few seasons, the sopranos posits itself as this sophisticated revelation that supersedes all literature and makes books obsolete with surface level ideas and references while implicitly immorally glorifying a white Trash brute saved by a few retard characters and quips so as not to sabotage the brain dead audience.

>>19398409
>the sopranos posits itself as this sophisticated revelation that supersedes all literature and makes books obsolete

Wut

>>19398365
My main question I guess is: When someone says one of those movies is the greatest movie of all time, you typically have to roll your eyes and assume that they are just regurgitating critical consensus rather than having arrived at this opinion after exploring the medium for themselves. So are most people on this board sincere in their love for these books, or are they saying they love these books because they'd like to think of themselves as artistic and sophisticated?

>>19398409
If you want dumb fun you watch Seinfeld, Peep Show or Friends, not that reddit shit, Sopranos is funny, but can be serious, it’s good, you seem to hate the sopranos a lot

>>19398413
My friend was arguing with me that Sopranos is better than Moby dick even though he never read it, because reading is unnatural and Moby Dick is fiction, so I equate all sopranofags with that.

>>19398423
I’d watch Cheers over any of those 3, and can’t do any British comedy. Seinfeld is too Jewish for me.

I liked Sopranos when I saw it, but have grown to dislike it over the years. I hate all the other dramas like Mad men, wire, breaking bad more though.

>>19398430
Now as I mentioned earlier, I think the sopranos is great, and you should stop bashing it so much because it’s genuinely more than you think it is, but that’s your opinion, whatever, but your friend with the opinion that it’s better than moby dick is absolutely retarded

Film:

Excalibur
The Passion of the Christ
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Batman v Superman
The Prince of Egypt
Ostrov
The Lord of the Rings
Braveheart
Apocalypto
The Tree of Life
Hacksaw Ridge
The Great Beauty
Interstellar
Pickpocket
The Man Without A Face
Joker
In This Corner Of The World
Arrival
Bone Tomahawk
Master and Commander

TV:
Legend of the Galactic Heroes 1988
Violet Evergarden
The Young Pope

>>19398439
I said it’s probably the best of all the Hbo/showtime dramas except for the newest Twin Peaks. I don’t like drama tv shows in general.

>>19398456
What year is this?

>>19397946
The Grand Budapest Hotel feels very lit
https://youtu.be/rj_MIypNh7E
I can think of a few books I'd love to see adapted in this style

>>19398454
>Joker
>Hacksaw Ridge
>Arrival
>Apocalypto
>Interstellar
Cringe
>Batman v Superman
Based

>>19398399
nah,u better gtfoh little femboi

>>19398454
Why are you putting Dreyer and Bresson in the same list as capeshit and Nolan?

>>19398454
>Joker
But no taxi driver?

>>19398479
Not him but get the fuck off my thread, you illiterate retard

>>19398454
>batman vs Superman
That film was so awful and boring that I couldn't even fall asleep through it and contemplated walking out and leaving my gf in the cinema.
>>19398436
>>19398423
America humour is mostly shit, I can't do anything American for the most part. Office is a good example of something mildly believable relatable turned into generic American over the top shit.
>>19398355
>>19397977
>>19397960
>>19397946
Pretentious kids lol Film is fun, it's not too long, it has sound and visuals and you can enjoy it in real time with others. Nothin better then watching lotr whilst plowing my ex gf dressed in a schoolgirl outfit.

>>19398518
You sound really sentimental, don’t be a bitch

>>19398522
QQ pussy

>>19398403
Based silent film fan

>>19398535
Are you referring to yourself? I’m just saying you’re being the pussy here, talking about fucking your ex, QQ yourself faggot

>>19397946
Film can reach or surpass the heights of top-tier genre fiction. Example: The Maltese Falcon.

And I think the medium of film could conceivably match up with the greatest literature, although it has not yet achieved such heights.

Consider Dante and Shakespeare as representative great literary artists. Now, depending on where you place the starting point, it took the Western tradition some five hundred to a thousand years or more to produce two artists of that caliber.

Film as a medium, by contrast, has existed for less than 150 years. Nature is a niggard of greatness in the arts, granting us few Mozarts, etc. If an artist the caliber of Dante or Shakespeare happened to work in the medium of film, however, that work could indeed reach the same heights as Dante and Shakespeare's work in their respective mediums.

In short, greatness in the arts depends on the artist, not the medium, as such.

And note that Shakes was working in a somewhat disreputable medium - theater, which, with its use of actors, etc, is in some respects more akin to film than it is to pure literature. Through his genius, however, Shakespeare raised that medium to heights it had not previously known. The same could happen if an artist of a caliber similar to Shakespeare worked in the medium of film. The problem is that Shakespeare don't come along everyday, or even once in a lifetime, but more like once every five hundred or a thousand years.

>>19398436
Even The Shield?

>>19398591
Couldn’t get into it. I liked House though.

>>19398569
>y-you talk about something I haven't done
>Y-you are crying!
>b-books better, you are b-brainlets!

>>19398655
I’ve done it, more recently than you that’s for sure, my reply to you wasn’t related to books, though they are better, it was related to the fact that you just seemed to be in a really agitated mood when typing your post. Stop freaking out bitch

>>19397946
It's different arts doing different things.
In the extremes, it really makes no sense to compare pure cinema, say, Vampir-Cuadecuc or Man Ray's films, with literature.

There are aspects in which cinema (video) is, in my opinion, clearly superior or equal to literature:
>scaring people
No work of literature has ever made me scared, ever, while sometimes I need to pause a David Lynch or a Polanski film because I have a weak heart.
>showing the sexual and the erotic
I can get hard from literature, but seeing a beautiful actress naked while being filmed by a truly good director is better or at least as good as a great metaphor or description
>showing horrific things and provoking disgust
Pasolini's Salo comes to mind, and gore scenes from Hollywood movies.
>showing the lives of animals, catastrophic events etc.
You need to see it, mere writing can give you only a rough idea of what it's like, even though there's been a good deal of great writing on nature in the past.
>people's voices
Literature is total shit in describing voices, no simile, metaphor, or detailed description can capture the specific tone color of even the dirtiest beggar's voice while in cinema all you have to do is to record it.
>people's faces (photography and painting, actually, but cinema can enhance it by making the face move)
There can be extraordinary descriptions of a person's face, but no generation of men will go crazy for a literary character like the 50's generation went for Marilyn Monroe or today's generation for whoever-is-the-biggest-sex-symbol-right-now. The fact that the past century has been one of cinematic sex-symbols proves that cinema has more or less appropriated the beauty of the body for itself, defeating the other arts. Words and painting can still do *a lot* here, but cinema is probably more powerful or at least as powerful.

There are aspects in which literature is superior, such as basically anything having to do with words, or facilitated by words, including psychological exploration, philosophical considerations, or the fantastic (which, in my opinion, looks horribly forced when filmed).
Cinema can fit those into itself, though, because it's an almost all-encompassing art, and contains words (also music), but it's very rare for a screenwriter to have as much talent as real playwrights, novelists, poets etc.

>>19398420
Well, Melville and Joyce obviously were geniuses, and a sense of the Western canon exists for a reason. So it's a fine line between modesty (respecting the tradition before your own opinion) and narcissism (wanting to look educated).

>>19398454
>The Man Without A Face
Based Mel-connoisseur.

i feel like the lighthouse was very close

>>19398774
lmao pic unrelated

>>19398682
>Literature is total shit in describing voices, no simile, metaphor, or detailed description can capture the specific tone color of even the dirtiest beggar's voice while in cinema all you have to do is to record it.

Uhoh midwit alert

>>19398277
/thread

>>19398798
Show me a passage of literature which captures a voice. You can't.
Literature can do many things around voices, including, through similes for instance, make us laugh at a character's voice; or, through noting a change of tone, reveal us something of a character's psychology as the book progresses. But it cannot capture a voice due to the physical limitations of the medium. Literature cannot make me feel the specific kind of pleasure I feel when listening to Marlene Dietrich's voice.

>>19398682
>Literature is total shit in describing voices, no simile, metaphor, or detailed description can capture the specific tone color of even the dirtiest beggar's voice while in cinema all you have to do is to record it.
can you not just fill in the blanks? You can even put in archetypal hollywood stereotype voices for every character, just like the dirty beggar or the british orphan boy ‘ello mista can i get a 2 pence for a bag o soup’

>>19398362
Why yes I'm a most serious person, as a matter of fact I did not care for "The Sopranos" for it portrayed italian-americans as likeable and interesting. But that notion I most certainly must disagree with, for they are no more than morally reprehensible brutes, unlike me, a coastal Liberal with a meme degree and a foot fetish.

>>19398669
What seemed agitated? I just said you kids are pretentious and films are fun, then you got upset. Do you often have a hard time understanding emotion and context?

>>19398798
>>19398827
>t.pretentious loners who cannot connect with normal people

>>19398420
Ah, are you the anon I said Sopranos is shit too; well I misjudged you? Yes, best books and films have been a sort of intellectual social commodity akin to Louis Vuitton bags or wearing Gucci. The best people to talk to are people with very niche interests in both, not people who 'love literature.' I'd much rather discuss films some horror film afficionados than people who 'love cinema,' basically NY film snobs.

As for those books, I think they clearly do not love them as they seldom think to read other books from those authors, aside from Joyce who's previous books are requisite for reading Ulysses, which is frankly mostly an unenjoyable novel. Look at all the people who simply skip the one Dostoevsky novel he wrote between Demons and Brothers K, yet they're 'Dosto fans.'

>>19397946
Actual Kino list:
Die Nibelungen: Siegfried
Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari
Sunrise
Cтapoe и нoвoe
Чeлoвeк c кинo-aппapaтoм
Пoтoмoк Чингиcхaнa
羅生門
Ascenseur pour l'échafaud
Pierrot le Fou
La Caza
Gummo
Peleshyan's Life (1993)
鉄男
ラブ&ポップ
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
月光の囁き
愛のむきだし

>>19399204
I’m too tired to reply with an actual answer to your post so i leave you with this image

>>19399398

>>19398409
I too hate the sopranos brother.

>>19399423
Plebeian

>>19399326
Lmao Fear and Loathing . . . Sunrise is totally valid tho, great silent film.

>>19399452
The sopranos is as plebeian as it gets.

>>19397946
Is Legacy Of Kain /lit/core or is it just a meme by /v/tards?

Fixed the shortcomings of the original book.

>>19398403
‘Intolerance’ is poorly edited,
with some scenes poorly directed,
and half the storylines are boring.

>>19399455
Although the story might seem trite and it's mostly known as a stoner movie it shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
It's use of internal and external editing to subject the frame to the MC emotions is masterful and rivals both the soviet vanguard and the expressionists. It's ability to recontextualize a scene only through lightning, acting, editing and framing without changing it's content deserves acknowledgement. Take the adrenochrome scene for example, how it smoothly transitions from an objective portrayal of the situation into a subjective one. Without special attention this goes under the spectator and he feels suddenly transported.

>>19397946
People who mount the literature high horse to lord over film-watchers are complete and utter fucking cringe.
>literature is superior to film
People who say this think they're saying "Bordeaux's are superior to Burgundy's". But what they're saying is more akin to "eating apples is superior to riding in cars". Like what the fuck? They're not even comparable.
>b-b-but categorically they are both le art! they both have the same goals and literature does it better!
They can both be art, sure (whatever art is). They share some qualities, like eating pumpkin pie and riding roller coasters do. Pie and rides both give me pleasure, and I could maybe rate one as more pleasurable than the other. But they don't share many qualities. I can tell you pumpkin pie is very tasty, while roller coasters lack this quality entirely. This is a quality they don't share.
Likewise, film and literature share some qualities, sure, but to judge one as wholly superior or inferior to the other? If you even could, in what sense? By which dimensions and qualities are you even using to compare them?

Far better than the original book it was supposedly based on, which would be mostly forgotten if not for the movie.

>>19397946
>Has any film reached the heights of literature?
In what sense?

>>19399585
Quality, and as a form of artistic expression

>>19399579
>People who mount the literature high horse to lord over film-watchers are complete and utter fucking cringe.
>literature is superior to film
>People who say this think they're saying "Bordeaux's are superior to Burgundy's". But what they're saying is more akin to "eating apples is superior to riding in cars". Like what the fuck? They're not even comparable.
Literature has to tell a story, or convey an idea, using a single medium, which the audience has to read.
“Graphic Novels”( ie. comic books) tells a story, or conveys an idea, using two mediums, visuals, as well as type.
To properly interpret graphic novels, a “reader” must be able to understand and interpret both the text, and the visuals.

With “film”, there is usually dialogue, visuals, music, as well as editing and passing, which are at a set speed, unlike novels or graphic novels, which can be read at the readers pace.
To properly interpret a film, the viewer( ie. Reader) has to be able to comprehend a wider variety of mediums.

>>19399238
Well said, that's always the hunch I had too. It seems art snobs approach art from a top down level, in that they have ideas about what's good and what they should enjoy and then go from there rather than stumbling upon art that truly draws them in then exploring further either the artists' work or that genre of art.

I live in Brooklyn which is essentially the hipster capital of the world where young rich aspiring artists flock to and there's a pretty specific genre of (in my opinion unappealing) art that they all enjoy, but that's just the thing: they all enjoy it. It seems inauthentic given how impersonal it is.

>>19399485
>I'm dumb

>>19399604
this doesn't mean shit

>>19399708
Does it mean piss though?

>>19397946
Spalovac Mrtvol

>>19398827
>can you not just fill in the blanks?

Yes, you can. It's literature that cannot.
Asking literature to reproduce a voice is like asking music to paint a portrait. The medium does not allow it. In cinema and theater (and music), this is natural, so this is an aspect in which they are superior to literature. As a result, here is a realm, the human voice, on which literature only scratches, while cinema can do a lot of things with it, as can be seen, for instance, in Godard's experiments with sounds.
This is why it's stupid to compare different arts. If a writer is good, he will do things only literature can do (it's impossible to film a poem by Hart Crane). If a filmmaker is good, he will do things only cinema can do (it's impossible to turn Sayat Nova into a poem, even though the film is inspired by poetry).

anons, I fall asleep watching Tarkovsky movies. The scenery is beautiful, the soundtrack is great but I don't get the fucking plot. Have I been filtered?

>>19397946
The Tale of Princess Kaguya. For the record, I generally dislike animated films (even as a kid I didn't watch them) and never watch anime (I don't think this counts as one though).

It had as much thematic depth as a well-written novel and its art style (hand-brushed watercolor and charcoal drawings) serviced all aspects of it.

>>19399874
Plot isn’t important
>>19399461
What’s “patrician” to you then faggot?

>>19399853
In general, you're wrong. Film is a passive media,

>>19399901
>books are about "themes" and "big ideas"
Go back.

>>19399907
Passive media.

>>19399885
>The Tale of Princess Kaguya

I loved that movie, that scene you posted is great, however I think the movie was to long, specially the part when she starts to reject her pretenders felt a bit boring. The the rest of the movie was fantastic though.

>>19397977
>I feel like /lit/ has been full of fucking pseuds since 2014
Yeah there sure are a lot of you

>>19399907
>go back
Ironic. You should take your own advice midwit, enjoy rotting your brain

>>19399660
>It seems art snobs approach art from a top down level, in that they have ideas about what's good and what they should enjoy and then go from there rather than stumbling upon art that truly draws them in then exploring further either the artists' work or that genre of art.
This is exactly how I've seen it, from films to literature, and it's annoying. They also almost never read books before 1900 lol.

I never understood this mindset though, although I was in STEM in college and never really had any other friends into literature (except for one whose favorite book was Moby Dick, who has gone MIA for many years now and I no longer talk to even though he was my best friend for many years) or now have anyone to talk about it with. I only really got into literature further because I loved reading Moby Dick, which I only ever read because one professor I had made fun of it by basically calling him autistic and another professor I had calling it Biblical, so I dove in and really loved the religious aspects to it, and started reading other books that seemed like they would be similar, even if Moby Dick is mostly known as being a classic, I found it through other ways.

Sounds absolutely brutal, and I'm right in the area so I know the exact type. Anyone who identifies as an 'artist' I usually can't interact with, because it's just a look not a genuine pursuit.

It's funny because I got into films in high school because I remember sitting with a group of kids at lunch every day who were talking about movies and I had zero idea what they were talking about, but I liked talking to them and got along with them, so I started watching movies to fit in with them my junior year. I was in a big private school, so there many people you didn't know and I was never the most sociable or popular person nor autistic or independent enough to commit to the loner archtype, so I weaved in and out of friend groups every few months or so. Unfortunately, after a few months everyone started sitting in different spots, so the group dissolved when I had seen enough films to actually talk to them, but still kept the hobby lol, although it's not the same joy now as then.

But in general, yeah, art is really about a personal reaction so you'd think all these people coincidentally liking the same things did not make sense and would have to be inorganic, and if a movie is watched socially as a group it doesn't really matter how good it is since it's secondary to the social function. I've also noticed many people change their opinion on something when they realize it has a 'repuation' for being good.

>>19399946
The real midwit philosophy is thinking every piece of art has to have a "LE DEEP MEANING THATS SO HECKIN RELEVANT TO OUR TIMES". I bet after finishing a book you immediately open your phone and look up the themes section on sparknotes so you can read it and feel smart, like a true r*dditor. A /lit/izen should only care about aesthetics.

>>19397946
As with any media, film is best when it plays to its strengths. Hard to compare literature and film because film is so young

>>19399937
Pacing seems to be pretty different in Japanese storytelling than it is in the West. I think they have more respect for the audience, crediting them with having an attention span, and haven't crept away from such as much as (most of) the West has.

>>19399946
Imagine getting filtered by a fucking meme (making fun of filters).
>>19399969
Active vs. passive media retard.

>>19399874
His films are more like poetry so they are mostly to be felt

>>19400063
You're thinking of Michael Snow

>>19398370
A24 is also
>muh film school fag shit
hereditary could not have been more blatantly satanist.

>>19397946
Film is a different medium altogether, so comparing it to literature in terms of "greatness" is kind of stupid because it has its own merits and what makes a film great is different than what makes a novel or poem great. If you want the short answer, then yes, it has. Directors like Tarkovsky, Ozu, Hitchcock, Bresson, Dreyer, and Berman should be held in the same esteem as the great authors throughout history.
>>19399874
Which one was it? If mirror, then it was a dying man reliving his memories and vignettes from his life. Most are fairly straightforward though.

>>19400100
Tarkovsky considered himself a poet as he wrote in Sculpting in Time, not a filmmaker
Is Michael Snow good?

>>19400192
>Is Michael Snow good?
Sometimes, not always. Watch Corpus Callosum.

>>19400173
>Which one was it?
Mirror and Solaris

>>19400195
Thanks for the rec!

>>19400226
Solaris is my favorite, but I don't think it's his best, objectively speaking. Try watching it on acid. I thought that the plot was pretty easy to understand, except the end was definitely ambiguous. Mirror takes a few viewings to really "get."

>>19398420
Welles is a true genius and Citizen Kane could easily compete for #1, Casablanca is just American garbage.
This board also has horrific taste in films compared to somewhere like /film/.

>>19397960
Art does not exist. There are only artists.

>>19399969
Referencing critical sources as a means to better understand a novel CAN be midwit (only when those opinions become "your's" and you regurgitate them); generalizing to the point of denigrating people for putting in the effort to better understand a work is ALWAYS pseud. Being encouraging for its own sake would mean that I have to go back--so I'll now call you a retard (you're a retard) and also a faggot (you're a faggot).

Go back you retarded faggot.

>>19397946
Godard alone has been more influential than every post-war novelist combined.

>>19400192
>Tarkovsky considered himself a poet
If you want to watch actual poetic cinema watch Artavazd Peleshyan's films

>>19398774
I enjoyed The Lighthouse but it seemed a bit too forced to qualify as high art to me. I think you'd be better off just watching Bergman.

>>19399901
Film is only "passive" because you're a fucking idiot who doesn't know how to watch.
And you still haven't shown a literary example where timbre is captured by words, because it doesn't exist.

>>19400258
I'm always surprised by how good Citizen Kane is each time I revisit it. Welles was a genius filmmaker - F for Fake, A Touch of Evil

>the list could go on

If paintings can be high art then film can also qualify as high art - but I admit it is rare. Tarkovsky is a good candidate. Jane Campion maybe. My personal suggestion would be Edward Yang.

>>19397946
Laurence Olivier's overwrought and melodramatic delivery destroys the rhythm and musicality of Shakespeare.

>>19399581
It loosely follows the book, but the film is a lot more interesting in a variety of ways. The book is still a great read.

>>19400327
Gonna check him out

>>19400258
>/film
Go back. This is /lit newfag.

Fuck, a thread not about books with this many replies, people are right, /lit/ doesn’t read

>>19400455
Multiple redditors have been confirmed on this thread.

>>19400462
I haven’t been reading the posts, but would you care to reference them by their post number, I’m up for a kek or two?

>>19400258
>somewhere like /film/.
thank God

No one has mentioned Death In Venice yet?

>>19400258
t. 105 IQ pleb who needs to go back to /tv/

>>19400455
This guy (>>19398071) doesn't read though. Sacrificing one thread to be about something film-related seems to deflect the pretentious pseuds from participation across the board. I'm for it. Keep these faggot like this (>>19400404) contained.

>>19400465
This fag >>19400365
This fag >>19400192
This fag >>19400258
This fag >>19399971
There's plenty of pseudery about on this thread and it's good for a decent laugh.

>>19397946
Film is too semitic in its nature and fundamentals to be counted as one of the Arts.

>>19400365
>"passive"
>watch
You're a retard and the fact you were filtered by a meme is now confirmed.
>And you still haven't shown a literary example where timbre is captured by words
>"I...I haven't been filtered! Movies aren't--movies aren't passive! Learn to watch! Y-y-you can't simply LISTEN to a book! Timbre! Ha, who's being pretentious now!"
You're a pseud. You're a retard. You're a pseud retard. You're a retarded pseud. Go back.

>>19400496
>t. reads all of shakespeare in iambic pentameter

It’s of absolutely no surprise that everyone on /lit/ has absolutely dogshit movie taste, and that nobody here understands the medium.

>>19400631
It's of absolutely no surprise that film pseuds would lack the attention span to stay on topic and resort to the idea "everyone just doesn't understand film as well as I do."

This is a gay and retarded thread. But the answer is Apocalypse Now. Coppola and Brando actually pulled off filming the prose of Heart of Darkness.

>>19400809
kys

>>19400833
No

>>19400792
Would you waste your time with someone that legitimately thinks literature is a waste of time and not an art form? Why try to explain something to someone that isn’t mentally or emotionally capable of understanding it?

>>19400631
Listen, being a “film buff” is not intellectual, literature will always be better in quality, so frankly, I don’t give a fuck if me or anyone else who reads in this thread has shit movie taste, watching television/movies rots your brain. No matter how artsy your little tarkovsky, tarr, brakhage or godard flick is, it will never match up to even entry level literary fiction like Dubliners or Stoner. I’d rather watch American Pie or some shit

>>19400891
It’s funny because I actually think John Houston’s The Dead improves upon Joyce’s writing in a few ways. It’s different but I prefer the movie.

>>19400863
>It's ok that I'm disingenuous because every anon in this thread doesn't appreciate film as an art form.
Defending fallacies using fallacies only underscores the idea that you're actually a pseud and it also makes you look retarded.

>>19400891
Based as fuck.

>>19400916
Never seen it, but I have the idea that it’s adapted for the movie. In which case it’s been written to suit the movie. If you prefer it then fair enough. You must enjoy film more than literature

>>19400961
There’s no narration until the end so it’s entirely observational as if you’re a guest at the party rather than being inside Gabriel’s head, and then a final narration is written to be said in first person rather than third like it is in the book. I like lit and film about the same desu. Hearing The Lass of Aughrim sung as Greta looks up the staircase is very emotional in film. Both mediums have their strengths, people in this thread are seething for no reason. You should watch it.

Twin Peaks The Return
Samson and Delilah (1996)
Up to Speed
In Cold Blood
Quinquin
Coincoin
Les Maison des Bois
World on a Wire
Eight Hours Don’t Make a Day
Berlin Alexanderplatz
Fanny and Alexander
Scenes From a Marriage
Histories of Cinema - Godard
Southcliffe
Riget
Riget 2
Heimat
Heimat 2
Heimat 3
I Know This Much is True
Going My Home
I Claudius
On Death Row
Phantom India
Age of Medici
Acts of the Apostles
Carlos
Death of an Expert Witness
Caleb Williams
The Norman Conquests
Jesus of Nazareth
Dekalog
L'héritage de la chouette
Povinnost
The Knick
The Knick 2

>>19400987
Sounds interesting, I’ll give it a watch

>tfw you're about to post your favorite tv shows, but they're all coming of age stories about teenage girls.

>>19400988
There are four good things listed there

>>19401036
They're all good

>>19401012
Also it’s John Houston’s last film before he died, he basically directed the film from his deathbed. and his daughter plays Greta, so there’s a clear emotional resonance with the story for everyone involved.

>>19400988
Capote is better than In Cold Blood and I'd argue referencing that particular film instead underscores a lack of knowledge as to how pioneering the book, and the process of writing it, actually was at the time. Also, Riget was a based TV series and Berlin Alexanderplatz was a great adaptation.
>>19401043
Twin Peaks: The Return wasn't great. I'll admit that I'm biased toward the original run though.

>>19398316
>Sopranos sucks
Kys

>>19401093
>Twin Peaks: The Return wasn't great. I'll admit that I'm biased toward the original run though.
Sounds like you were filtered tbqh

>>19401093
>Capote is better than In Cold Blood and I'd argue referencing that particular film instead underscores a lack of knowledge as to how pioneering the book, and the process of writing it, actually was at the time.
The second-half of the book where they keep saying how misunderstood Perry is was nauseating, hb the part where Capote makes up Dick being a pedophile just to make him look bad, and the fact that he's shown as the 'villian' when he had zero desire to kill the family, but merely rob them but Perry goes fucking insane, yet Dick is still the villain.

>>19401122
>filtered
Not the same thing as not liking something anon. Everything after Blue Velvet has just been Lynch exploring further and further up his own ass. His shit is still good though.
>>19401123
Unintentional metafiction.

>>19397946
It's this entire board just a giant circle jerk?

>>19401179
>Unintentional metafiction.
Capote found Perry cute so he couldn't fully paint him as the villian because he was writing with his cock.

>>19401291
Pretty much, and that's why I found Capote much more interesting to watch than In Cold Blood. The realism angle of the latter was just derivative of Capote's book in that regard.

>>19401235
Pretty much >>19400514. Nothing attracts pseuds like comparing mediums and giving them a chance to brag about their taste.

>>19401395
Capote was so bad holy shit I can't believe you were talking about that film. I was talking about the 90s mini-series which was kino.

>>19397946
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11sMDQIgggA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3qOf5dJqao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUbjWRrRxg

>>19400891
I 100% agree. Makes me laugh every time /tv/ is shitting on marvel movies, like the best of film is even comparable to some of the best chapters in Moby Dick. Film is the inferior art form. its on the same level as video games. Is there any filmmaker you can say is a genius? You can easily say Shakespeare, Dante, Joyce, Homer, Ibsen, Borges, Woolf, Eliot, Shelley, Milton, Donne, Thomas Browne, and Robert Burton are geniuses. But can you say Tarkovsky and Kubrick are geniuses?

>>19402589
Agree 100 percent, although films can be fun


>Is there any filmmaker you can say is a genius?
I think Michael Snow is a genius and possibly Peter Watkins, Jean-Marie Straub, Alain Robbe-Grillet and Peter Greenaway.

I unironically think Tarkovsky is kind of retarded and Kubrick is just a merchant.

My favorite filmmakers are Maurice Pialat, Eric Rohmer, Jean Eustache, Carl Theodor Dreyer, and Robert Kramer so check them out

>>19401395
You’re an idiot. Capote is based on the biography about Truman Capote. In cold blood is the book that capote wrote. If you wanted to pretend like you have read the book, a basic Google search Could have saved you the embarrassment. They are not related. This is what happens when /tv/ fags lurk in literature threads shitting on their medium.

>>19397946
Au Hasard Balthazar

>>19400514
You offer no arguments whatever, and I bet you know nothing either about cinema or about literature.
It's impossible to compare them, and no, cinema is not inferior, although there haven't been as many masterpieces as in literature.
Having written four novels, I know very well what the tools of literature can and cannot do.

>>19402723
Not him, but you’ve written four novels, care to share details?

>>19402829
Well, they're not written in English, and I don't really like talking about my work here.
Also, they're not published, but I do not intend to be published before I'm 30, so I haven't sent anything to anyone yet, only to friends. I think they are quite good, or at least good enough, and certainly better than most of the stuff that is currently published, but of course most people will say the same about their own work, otherwise they'd still be revising it.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask and maybe later I'll answer.

>>19403089
Ah fair enough, well I wish you all the best, are they long novels?

>>19400263
Literally the other way around.

>>19402603
Hey retard--where did I say that Capote was an adaptation of In Cold Blood? I even said I liked it better because it was about the process of writing it and not derivative of the supposed realism of it. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>19402723
That post wasn't an argument so much as a display of examples of pretentious pseudery. If you appeared on the list more than once, it's a pretty good indication that there's a general pattern to how insufferably retarded you are. Further, the fact you tried to flex about writing four novels as if it were an argument in service of your authority (itself a fallacy) underscores the fact you're a pretentious pseud who lacks self-awareness. That last point is especially true if you're the faggot who didn't understand the difference between active/passive media.

>>19397946
Am I the only one who didn't "get" Andrei Rublev? It was basically a random collection of scenes. For example he cries about leaving his friend and then his friend shows up the very next scene. Maybe I was just filtered but it was too slow and plodding and I never really got the central message. The battle scene was pretty cool I guess.

Gayniggers from Outer Space is greater than any work of literature. Fuck you if you disagree.

>>19401403
what's your taste?

>>19404325
Based. I agree
>>19402723
They could be E.L James quality for all we know so your opinion is just as irrelevant as the rest of the faggots here

>>19404119
It’s just the same message as TBK, but more focused on visuals, it doesn’t convey it as well as any Dosto work does, but why would it, it’s a film, and is objectively less complex or detailed than literature. This isn’t a criticism against cinema

>>19403794
The one I am working on will be somewhat longish, but its unity is thematic.
I usually try to stick to around 150 pages, which is also my preferred size for reading. I prefer to write novels that can be read in one day, so that there will be no significant breaks in the reading/aesthetic experience. It's an old Poe/Borges thing.

>>19404103
>who didn't understand the difference between active/passive media

If I listen to an audiobook, does literature become passive? If I watch a movie with subtitles on, does it become active?
Fucking imbecile.
Activity and passivity are attributes of the reader/viewer. The fact that you identify cinema with passivity only reveals that you are a bad viewer of cinema.
So far, no examples of voice apprehension in literature have been shown. They can't be shown. Sometimes, video and audio do what mere writing cannot. My original point is true and you cannot refute it, all you can do is appeal to irrelevant distinctions whose truth is entirely relative.
If cinema is so inferior, while did Cocteau, Robbe-Grillet, Duras, Pasolini and Handke dedicate so much time to it?

>>19404533
>If I listen to an audiobook, does literature become passive?
Yes.
> If I watch a movie with subtitles on, does it become active?
No.
>Fucking imbecile.
Pretentious pseud.
>Activity and passivity are attributes of the reader/viewer.
No, they are attributes of the medium. Being able to interpret a medium has nothing to do with whether the medium is active/passive. You're a complete retard for not being able to understand this distinction.
>The fact that you identify cinema with passivity only reveals that you are a bad viewer of cinema.
The fact that you construe your ability to interpret "cinema" with the idea that it is active means you're both pretentious and retarded.
>So far, no examples of voice apprehension in literature have been shown.
To paraphrase you (as quoted above): the fact that you identify an aspect of a passive medium as something that an active medium cannot do only reveals that you are a bad reader.
>They can't be shown.
No shit. This is why literature is an, say it with me, ACTIVE MEDIUM.
>Sometimes, video and audio do what mere writing cannot.
Correct. They can, say it with me again, PASSIVELY engage the listener/viewer. Are we starting to get it now?
>My original point is true and you cannot refute it, all you can do is appeal to irrelevant distinctions whose truth is entirely relative.
You've made no point. You've offered a contrived opinion that basically breaks down to "art is art" and will retreat to that simplistic idea when it's pointed out you're a pretentious pseud. It's a literal tautology that you'll continue to regurgitate as if it's a signifier of a deep level of introspection on your part. FYI: this is what makes you a pseud. In reality, you've failed to understand the distinction being made and have tried to strawman the idea toward the service of your own arrogance. To paraphrase you again: all you can do is appeal to your irrelevant tastes of which the quality is entirely superficial to the matter being discussed.
>If cinema is so inferior, while did Cocteau, Robbe-Grillet, Duras, Pasolini and Handke dedicate so much time to it?
Case in point.

You're both a retard and a pretentious pseud. You are 100% the worst type of personality when it comes to appreciating art of any type of form. One day, perhaps this day, you will learn that some people aren't impressed by the arrogance embodied within an air of pretension and you aren't smart enough to use condescension to the effect of intimidation. You're pathetic.

>>19398583
>Through his genius, however, Shakespeare raised that medium to heights it had not previously known.
Wrong, classical drama was already better.

>>19404352
Why? So we can compare and have a meaningful and mutually beneficial discussion about our common interests?

>>19397977
Of course a halfwit who believes Sopranos possesses any artistic merit despite having seen it would discard an entire artfield as if it were intrinsically worthless for some reason or other. What common advantage do literature and music have over film apart from being older? How many films have you seen and which? Then again, given that you consider Sopranos passable, you probably lack any discernment whatsoever.

As for OP the question still stands: How many films have you seen and which? Consider that film as a legitimate artform has existed for merely 112 years and very few of them reach the highest echelons of achievement. Nevertheless, they exist (Rublev) and some others are partially satisfying (Hamlet). Search for them. Steer clear of populist garbage, political agitprop and arthouse diarrhea like the previoisly mentioned Tsai and Tarr (even a total neophyte should be able to see through the smokescreen with these two).

Oh, and by the way only the first episode of Decalogue is any good. A fluke given where it came from.

>>19405025
Ironic, you’re calling someone a halfwit but this has to be the most halfwitted post I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. You’re getting upset because someone said your favourite pastime is shit, I mean you sit there staring at a box, stop being a retard. Also name ten films which you consider le artistique. You didn’t actually provide any examples in your poast. I think personally Click, starring Adam Sandler, if you disagree you have proved every point i just made about you

>>19398583
I like this post. Good thread, all around.

>>19404819
>If I listen to an audiobook, does literature become passive?
>Yes.

So written literature is superior to spoken literature?
Written Homer is superior to spoken Homer?
Congratulations, you've proven yourself the biggest idiot on this board. You know nothing about literature and you know nothing about cinema.
Imagine thinking cinema can't actively engage the viewer... Your ignorance is immense.

>If cinema is so inferior, while did Cocteau, Robbe-Grillet, Duras, Pasolini and Handke dedicate so much time to it?
>Case in point.

You probably don't even know their writings. You're too ignorant for that, and you base your understanding on ready-made distinctions and concepts too much. "Active vs. passive", "pseud", that stupid "filter" you posted, and so on, everything for you can be decided by appealing to an idée reçue from some communications class or, even worse, imageboard. You can't think. Get fucked.

Maybe it’s just my personal taste speaking, but I feel like the best Bergman movies easily rival literature in terms of emotional intensity and thematic complexity

>>19397977
>Sopranos

what the fuck man

>>19397977
>Sopranos
based and based opinion, my words exactly
Sopranos simply isnt decorated in enough pretentious clothing for a lot of pseuds on here (who also haven't even read the Bible or know any history for that matter); it's solid, honestly Cassavetes vibes at times
Classical music is like to pop music what good literature is to film.

>>19398277
Dumbest shit I've ever heard. I'm not even going to bother articulating a sentence and explain because you'll never understand anything. This board is a bunch of shit too. Site too.

>>19405474
That's because they do.
Saying cinema can't rival literature is similar to saying theater can't rival literature, which is nonsense for obvious reasons.
If Bergman had been only a writer, he'd still b respected. Maybe not at Strindberg level, but certainly he's better than someone like Tennessee Williams, or at least as good.

>>19405437
I am hardly upset, I'm merely diagnosing a cretinous way of thinking. I wouldn't have given you 10 titles, even if you asked me nicely. Search for the truth yourself. I doubt you will, however.

>>19397960
>>19397977
>>19400287
>>19400496
>>19400514
>>19400547
>>19400792
>>19400929
>>19401403
>>19404103
>>19404819
>>19405528
You will never be smart, you will never produce anything of value. Nothing you create will ever be loved by someone else. Socrates would mock you, Kant would spit on you, Gödel wouldn't notice you existed. You will always be a low IQ sperg faggots who compensate for their mental illness and social disabilities by engaging in 4th hand mental masturbation.

The same can be said for pretty much all of this board.

>>19398096
In what way do plays count as literature that movies do not? Couldn't Shakespeare have just as easily been written for film? In fact, Shakespeare would have had more artistic and symbolic control over his plays if they had been performed before a camera.

>>19399901
What about drama? What about Shakespeare?

Is that not /lit/?

(According to your somewhat procrustean taxonomy, apparently not.)

>>19405549
aww poor babby :(

>>19402706
There's no question in my mind that certain very good films are equivalent aesthetic achievements - reach the same heights as - very good novels, albeit not necessarily those novels that are reckoned truly "great."

I would put Au Hasard Balthazar and L'Argent and a number of other films in this category. I don't think those films reach the heights of Shakespeare or Dante... but in the final analysis, that's not because of any inherent limitation in the medium of film.** Rather, it's because film has not yet had an artist with gifts equivalent to a Shakespeare or a Dante... and indeed, literature itself, over some 2000 years (vs. film's less than 150), has only produced two artists of that caliber.

**If a dramatist like Shakespeare, working with actors and theatrical effects, can achieve "the heights of literature," then so too can an artist working in the medium of film, for Shakespeare's dramas are far more akin to film than they are to pure literature.

>>19405535
I didn’t expect you to give me one film, because there isn’t any. But any pretentious film fan such as yourself are by definition, retarded

>>19405549
You won’t be saying that when I pin you down, and take a shit down your throat, and make you chew and munch it up.

>>19397946
Audiovisual mediums are inherently superior

>>19405549
>anyone who ever expresses interest or attempts to read anything substantial or say anything interesting should be discouraged
>there are no further distinctions between people except top and bottom
>there is no such thing as genuine interest for its sake, only surface appearance and pleasing the crowd
gotcha

>>19405728
They are inherently not. It’s easier to stimulate brainlets such as yourself

>>19405458
>So written literature is superior to spoken literature?
Who said that? I've made no argument as if to say ALL active media is above ALL passive media. You're forcing that strawman because you're a pseud and have nowhere to go after your golden mean fallacy was called out. (inb4 you try to insist "in general" means the same thing as "specifically" while ignoring context; the last bastion of pseuds who have been BTFO'd is aping semantics and you still think your ego changes something from passive to active).
>Written Homer is superior to spoken Homer?
Possibly; it would come down to the reader. I'm not sure if you picked something that was meant to be performed as a pathetic "GOTCHA" attempt or you're just retarded.
>Congratulations, you've proven yourself the biggest idiot on this board.
(From the guy who can't understand the difference between active/passive).
>You know nothing about literature and you know nothing about cinema.
Why? I pointed out you pathetically retreat to the authority of your own ego when it's pointed out how contrived and basic "your" actual takes are--and yet you still do it. It's such a sorry form of cope and anyone can see right through it.
>Imagine thinking cinema can't actively engage the viewer
Imagine still not understanding the difference between interpretation and what constitutes something as a passive medium. You're pretty narcissistic so I'll point out that people aren't robots).
>Your ignorance is immense.
Yes it is, but it's likely much smaller than your ego. Do you have a really small dick or something? Are you short/ugly? I only ask because there's usually a secondary reason behind pretentious blustering.
>Ha! I'm going to quote myself! I know these people! Can you not see that their names are...EUROPEAN! The glory of my magnificent, and oh so worldly, esoteric knowledge into cinema blinds you! Accept that I am your better, you who are ignorant of fine writings on cinema, and rejoice in my light!
Remember when I said your opinion breaks down to a really basic and contrived idea of "art is art" and, when called out, you retreat up your own pretentious ass as if it's a signifier of authority? Again, case in point.
>everything for you can be decided by appealing to an idée reçue from some communications class or, even worse, imageboard.
kek. Imagine lacking the self-awareness that, even though you've been called out for hiding behind condescension, you come out and say "I'm too good for this board!"

It is what you make of it faggot.

>>19405901
Shut the fuck up about your autistic definitions of active vs passive media. Please believe me that not clued into any sort of special insight. You’ve been arguing for hours with strangers over something that would be laughed at by any sort of actual scholar

This (>>19405549) is just that pseud seething that, even though they were anon, they had all of their posts tagged here >>19400514 and were called out for being a pretentious pseud.

>>19398027
The Nice Guys was almost a better adaptation of Inherent Vice than the actual Inherent Vice movie, though neither were that good

>>19405549
>>19398518
>>19399969
>>19398096
>>19400365
>>19400863
>>19402723
>>19398277
This (>>19405549) is the samefag as the posts above.

How pathetic is this guy? His arrogance and pseudery were pointed out to him. The fact he's a pretentious cunt was well laid out. His take was shallow and he was told hinting at nonsequitur esoteric details he may or may not have monopoly on, it doesn't actually matter, doesn't hide this fact.

He continued to be a pretentious cunt and display the exact same M.O. He has absolutely no self-awareness (at one point he pathetically flexed that he had written 4 (kek, unpublished) novels so, thereby, had insight into creativity everyone else here lacks) and now he has gone as far as to mass reply at everyone who chipped at his ego.

And yes pseud, this (>>19405901) is me again. Do you want to take a shot at me now because I'm wasting my time making fun of how much of a lolcow you've turned out to be?

You're a complete joke. You elevated the thread but not in the way your ego thinks it did. Thank you.

I have never understood this elitism about some forms of art. If anything is pretentious and full of ego.

What matters is the piece itself, not the medium. Not every book is art, not every movie is art, not every videogame is art, but I think some are.

When it comes to mediums, though, some are capable of producing stronger emotions than others. And in this regard, books fall behind. Movies, music, and videogames produce stronger emotions.

Books for historic reasons and artistic merit are usually put above everything. But this is pretentious and a grave error. And sorry to break it to you, but most books are boring.

>>19405025
>Tarr
Tarr is okay, at least The Turin Horse was. The pacing was fine and it wasn't bad to watch. Ming-Liang, Apichatpong, Frammartino, Hu Bo, etc. are dreadful.

>>19397977
Holy cringe fuck off

>>19406432
You're schizophrenic. I (>>19405549) didn't make any of those other posts.

>>19405650
>>19405726
>>19405733
>>19405945
>>19406432
PSEUDS!!!!

Citizen Kane
Yi Yi
In the Mood for Love
A City of Sadness
The films of Lee Chang-dong and Hirokazu Koreeda

Clerks

>>19397946
verse = ballet > opera > drama >> novels >>>>>>>>>>>>> film

>>19406684
Don’t tell me there are Anons here who actually go to ballet? Lol. Total opposite of a panty dropper

>>19406684
Sorry, fucked up:

verse = ballet > opera > drama >> novels >>>>>>>>>>>>> film >>>>>>>>> anime >>>≥> shit >>>>>>> vidya

>>19397946
no

>>19406689
>Total opposite of a panty dropper
one should not curate their entire personality around being a panty dropper. Not only will it make you dull and uninteresting, but every person who adopts this mindset (that I’ve known) spectacularly fails to drop any panties. Liking high art, yes ballet is included here, is cool and good and interesting and owning your enjoyment of high art, yes ballet is included here, is cool and good and interesting and will impress women who are cool and good and interesting. Basically, while he enjoys high art, yes ballet is included here, with his girlfriend you will be alone with a dull try-hard personality.

>>19405680
>There's no question in my mind that certain very good films are equivalent aesthetic achievements - reach the same heights as - very good novels, albeit not necessarily those novels that are reckoned truly "great."
>I would put Au Hasard Balthazar and L'Argent and a number of other films in this category. I don't think those films reach the heights of Shakespeare or Dante... but in the final analysis, that's not because of any inherent limitation in the medium of film.** Rather, it's because film has not yet had an artist with gifts equivalent to a Shakespeare or a Dante... and indeed, literature itself, over some 2000 years (vs. film's less than 150), has only produced two artists of that caliber.
>**If a dramatist like Shakespeare, working with actors and theatrical effects, can achieve "the heights of literature," then so too can an artist working in the medium of film, for Shakespeare's dramas are far more akin to film than they are to pure literature.

>>19406684
>>19406695
>>19406737
confirmed queer

>>19397946
Day of Wrath
Ordet
Two People
Gertrud
A Gentle Woman
Four Nights of a Dreamer
Lancelot of the Lake
Devil Probably
L'argent
Mother and the Whore
My Little Loves
L'enfance nue (1968)
La maison des bois (1971, TV mini-series)
Nous ne vieillirons pas ensemble (1972)
La gueule ouverte (1974)
Passe ton bac d'abord (1979)
Loulou (1980)
À nos amours (1983)
Police (1985)
Sous le soleil de Satan (1987)
Van Gogh (1991)
Le Garçu (1995)
1967 The Collector
1969 My Night at Maud's
1970 Claire's Knee
1972 Love in the Afternoon
1976 The Marquise of O...
1978 Perceval le Gallois
1981 The Aviator's Wife
1982 A Good Marriage
1983 Pauline at the Beach
1984 Full Moon in Paris
1986 The Green Ray (Summer)
1987 My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (Boyfriends and Girlfriends)
1987 Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle
1990 A Tale of Springtime
1992 A Tale of Winter
1993 The Tree, The Mayor, and the Mediatheque
1995 Rendezvous in Paris
1996 A Tale of Summer
1998 A Tale of Autumn
2001 The Lady And The Duke
2004 Triple Agent
2007 Romance of Astree and Celadon
Doc's Kingdom
Route One USA
Corpus Callosum
L'Immortelle
Trans-Europ-Express
The Man Who Lies
Eden and After
N. Took the Dice
Successive Slidings of Pleasure
Le jeu avec le feu
The Beautiful Prisoner
Gradiva (C'est Gradiva qui vous appelle)
1984 – Moy drug Ivan Lapshin (My Friend Ivan Lapshin)
1998 – Khrustalyov, mashinu! (Khrustalyov, My Car!)
2013 – Trudno byt' bogom (Hard to Be a God) (original title History of the Arkanar Massacre)
Andrei Rublev (1966)
Solaris (1972)
Mirror (1975)
Stalker (1979)
Nostalghia (1983)
The Sacrifice (1986)

P1.

>>19406974
White Nights
Rocco and His Brothers
The Leopard
Sandra
The Stranger
The Damned
Death in Venice
Ludwig
Conversation Piece
The Innocent
L'amour Fou
Out 1
Out 1 Spectre
Celine and Julie
Duelle
Noriot
Merry Go Round
Le Pont du Nord
Love on the Ground
Wuthering Heights
The Gang of Four
Beautiful Troublemaker
Divertimento
Joan the Maiden
Joan the Maiden 2
Up Down Fragile
Top Secret
Va Savoir
Marie and Julien
Duchess of Langeais
Around a Small Mountain

Nicht versöhnt oder Es hilft nur Gewalt wo Gewalt herrscht (1965)
Chronik der Anna Magdalena Bach (1968)
Les Yeux ne veulent pas en tout temps se fermer, ou Peut-être qu'un jour Rome se permettra de choisir à son tour (1970)
Geschichtsunterricht (1972)
Moses und Aron (1975)
Fortini/Cani (1976)
Dalla nube alla resistenza (1979)
Trop tot/trop tard (1982)
Klassenverhältnisse (also released as Class Relations) (1984)
Der Tod des Empedokles (1987)
Die Antigone des Sophokles nach der Hölderlinschen Übertragung für die Bühne bearbeitet von Brecht 1948 (Suhrkamp Verlag) (1992)
Von heute auf morgen (1997)
Sicilia! (1999)
Operai, contadini (2001)
Quei loro incontri (2006)
1971 : Punishment Park
1974 : Edvard Munch
1975 : The Trap
1977 : Evening Land (Aftenlandet)
Fritänkaren
La Commune
The Falls (1980)
The Draughtsman's Contract (1982)
A Zed & Two Noughts (1985)
The Belly of an Architect (1987)
Drowning by Numbers (1988)
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)
Prospero's Books (1991)
The Baby of Mâcon (1993)
The Pillow Book (1996)
8½ Women (1999)
The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 1: The Moab Story (2003)
The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 2: Vaux to the Sea (2004)
The Tulse Luper Suitcases, Part 3: From Sark to the Finish (2004)
Nightwatching (2007)
Goltzius and the Pelican Company (2012)
Eisenstein in Guanajuato (2015)

P2.

>>19406432
I only made two of those posts.
You're so smart but you can't differentiate between the posters. Fucking imbecile.

>>19407367
Whatever faggot. You know what you did. Wait, you know what--you can have this one. I was pretty sloppy and didn't really put in the time to inspect the comments. It was pretty random on my part and--well, you should know what it looks like when someone admits the possibility that they were wrong. I didn't even go through all of them. Besides, you obviously need this one. You know how I know that?

I've come to understand something about people like you. You don't have much of a personality and you compensate by going around--jerking yourself off in front of others in order to impress them (but really yourself anon) with the only quality (you think) you have. If you're not as smart as you think you are then what are you? That's not a nice question for you to have to think about for someone like you.

It's fairly certain you don't even realize how arrogant and conceited you come off. When someone points out you're being a pretentious cunt; it comes off as out of left field to you. It can't be because of how you're presenting yourself beccase you're definitely the smartest person around. So how could someone even come to that conclusion!

Well, it comes from the fact you spit out a really shallow idea about something and probably don't even realize the fact the little details you try to show off with don't really have much to do with it. It's not hard to tell that you see knowledge as something you can collect and spit out when needed. You're probably pretty good at memorizing the key points of things and regurgitating them when you need to. You don't realize you don't have the ability to come up with your own ideas about anything and, well, that doesn't matter because you can always just get angry and tell people you've read more. Because, you do spend a lot of time reading. Alone.

Sorry, that was pretty long-winded.

tl,dr: You're reactive. The facade of intelligence is all you've really got going for you and you don't realize you're a pretentious cunt. Hiding behind (unrelated) esoteric knowledge when someone points out how shallow your take is and that you haven't understood something is natural. It's something that hits your core and, when there isn't much there, that's scary.

Good luck. (You're still a retarded faggot and a complete pseud though; I tell you because you need to work on that).

>>19397946
>Has any film reached the heights of literature?
No. I used to think it did until I studied it at university. I also realised it's a useless question. There many films/filmmakers that transcend the medium however. Here's some I didn't find in the thread:

Festen
Come And See
Sans Soleil
Fallen Angels
Aguirre: The Wrath of God
Tabu
La Belle Noiseuse
Lessons Of Darkness
Pina

>>19397946
That film is so ridiculously overrated

>>19399944
>>19399999

>>19405549
Especially yourself.

>>19407691
Dogville is better. Manderlay has titties though

>>19397977
>or even music
Que? Music is far superior to literature. Though, I agree that film is garbage in comparison to both.

>>19407760
>Music is far superior to literature
I would have agreed with that statement a year ago, but not now, literature goes beyond, not by far. But it does. Having said that, Bach, Sorabji, Wagner, Telemann and Autechre are GOAT

>>19407691
>von trier
Cringe

>>19398454
>Joker
Reddit: The Film

>>19408384
All oscarbait films are reddit

>>19397946
Stalker, The Mirror, Diary of a Country Priest, Au Hasard Balthazar, Gertrud, Days of Heaven are all /lit/

>>19398362
The Sopranos is meant to be understood as a satire of the mafioso type and a social critique of peak American capitalism that also breaks the conventional screen norms of your typical mobster movies/tv series. Almost all the main characters lack self-awareness and self-esteem and are fucked up in their own ways, and the show pretty much capitalizes on that by showing how stupid and ignorant your average Italian-American gangster is. The characters are not supposed to be idolized, rather the opposite. If you haven't understood that by now you probably have an IQ of below 100

>>19408755
Also The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries by Bergman

>>19399604
>Quality
Pertaining to what?

>as a form of artistic expression
Yes, sure. I rewatched Hitchcock's Rear Window about a month ago and was blown away again by how absolutely stunning the artistic vision of the whole experience is. One of my favorite Hitchcock movies to be sure, but that's a clear example in my mind of how film has reached the level of high art.

>>19408827
>film has reached the level of high art
I agree with everything else you said but that is something a pretentious film fan would say

>>19408827
>but that's a clear example in my mind of how film has reached the level of high art
Not the same guy, but I suggest you to watch more movies

>>19408838
>>19408841
Why?

>>19408848
Because Rear Window is nowhere near what you described as high art, and neither are the rest of Hitchcock's movies. Vertigo had some nice visuals tho

>>19408856
Why not? It makes fantastic use of a small set, fantastic use of the visual medium, and fantastic use of the motion picture to tell a respectably simple and engaging story that also has the effect of capsulizing a certain time and place in history.

>>19408783
>judges art by perceived ideas and not the art itself
You’re an idiot and fell for the bait, but yes the surface level themes it thinks it conveys are pretty apparent. In turn, the show ends up glorifying them by existing at all.

>neo-liberal secular anti-capitalism critique
Golly what could be more thrilling! Any anti-racism in there too!!!

>>19408864
That’s not high art you fucking imbecile

>>19408856
Are you crazy? I'm not really into thrillers but Psycho is fucking amazing.

>>19408874
Define it then.

>>19408874
It made precedents for other people to imitate it. That is what is "high art" is supposed to be about, making "new rules".

>>19408864
>It makes fantastic use of a small set, fantastic use of the visual medium, and fantastic use of the motion picture to tell a respectably simple and engaging story that also has the effect of capsulizing a certain time and place in history.
I agree, but still not fantastic enough to qualify as high art. Diary of a Country Priest, for example, comes closer to the sublime of the human soul and experience than any movie by Hitchcock

>>19408880
>the human soul
Let's not pretend that there is only one human soul out there. If high art exclusively pertains to that which reaches deepest into souls (plural), then I don't see why Hitchcock doesn't fit in there too.

>>19408876
There's a big difference between a movie being simply 'amazing' and qualifying as high art. Sorry, but Psycho doesn't transcend the realm of film as a medium in any way

>>19408896
Is it ever going away?

>>19408878
It’s like saying haunted houses are achievements in architecture. You’re fucking retarded and anything can be imitated

>>19408896
If it has no effect on me, why should I care about it?

>>19408913
Is it ever going away? Yes, but people choose to imitate certain things. You might not love it, like I said I'm not really into thrillers, but I don't think that such thing is ever going away.

>>19408887
I guess that in the end all boils down to the subjective experience and perception, but I still strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with more classic filmmakers (especially European) and thus expand your tastes. I can almost guarantee you that once you've seen enough classics, you'll change your mind

>>19408918
I never said I didn’t love it, but it’s a Hollywood thriller at the end of the day. I love Blair witch project too and that was ‘influential’ neither are high art.

>>19397946
I think you're largely correct. Unironically, Lolita by Kubrick and Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress are also masterpieces but I do firmly agree that film is largely subpar to literature because artistic genius typically is at the level of the individual.

>>19408920
I'm open to new experiences, but I doubt I'll change my mind. I watched The Seventh Seal earlier this year and found it boring, for example. I agree with your previous sentiment that high art has to do with reaching deep into souls, but I disagree that there is only one type of soul to reach into. Certain movies will resonate with certain audiences and each audience will have their own notion of high art and a universal high art is an incomprehensible notion.

>>19408870
>You’re an idiot and fell for the bait, but yes the surface level themes it thinks it conveys are pretty apparent.
I just opened the thread and happened to come across that anon's reply. My response to him was not in relation to the visual arts in general, only to the interpretation of the Sopranos' messages and themes.

>In turn, the show ends up glorifying them by existing at all.
No, it doesn't. At least not to anyone who's not underage or an impressionable retard.

>Golly what could be more thrilling! Any anti-racism in there too!!!
What are you talking about? The show is considered to be fairly racist by today's standards.

>>19406866

>>19408955
By presupposing there’s something to critique or worth showing, much less with the in depth psychology of that show, it glorifies them. Either you hate the characters and laugh at their misfortunes and thus become vindictive, or you love the characters and regress as a person. Same problem with Scorsese, 70s Coppola, Tarantino. Cimino (even if inferior and made some outright terrible movies like the 2 after Sicilian), de Palma, post-70s Coppola, Spielberg (even if other political motives are implicit) all do it right.

>>19408955
>The show is considered to be fairly racist by today's standards.
I do think it paints Italian Americans badly, but they are white so wouldn’t be a problem for the woke crowd.

>>19409081
>By presupposing there’s something to critique or worth showing, much less with the in depth psychology of that show, it glorifies them.
Lol wut? Do you realize how asinine and retarded what you just said sounds?

>Either you hate the characters and laugh at their misfortunes and thus become vindictive, or you love the characters and regress as a person.
If there are people out there who idolize and are sympathetic towards the mobsters from The Sopranos then it's not my problem that they don't have basic understanding of underlying messages.

>>19409138
Why should brutes like that be given in depth psychological evaluation and be viewed as ‘complex.’ This all presupposes a fascination I frankly find juvenile, not to mention it’s the secular democrats wet-dream all in one. I doubt some out of touch HBO producer is meaningfully critiquing capitalism. It’s just endless consumerist nonsense with a faded veneer of sophistication. Complete waste of time. You could read all of first folio in the same length of the entire Sopranos.

So then it just criticizes them? Sounds completely worthless to me, since that should be obvious before the show starts. No it plays on people’s sentiments and pretends to critique them so they’re not guilty while watching. At least it’s better than The Wire.

>>19409160
>Why should brutes like that be given in depth psychological evaluation and be viewed as ‘complex.’
Why do you ask me that? Go ask David Chase. As to the capitalism critique, it becomes pretty obvious by the second season that the show has a pervasively implicit anti-capitalist tone throughout it, showing how the American dream has been rendered and reduced to mere nihilistic materialism thriving on distorted family/friendship/community values. As far as I remember, the creator of the series himself stated that in an interview years ago. Overall, one shouldn't forget that after all The Sopranos is an entertainment show made for entertaining purposes, what makes it good is the acting and the breaking of the conventional format style which all mobster movies have more or less been following till then.

>>19409230
The only mob movies I like are the de Palma ones as the hero is the guy who turns on the mob. I dislike the Coppola and Scorsese ones that posit themselves as high art while showing what I consider to be hedonistic filth. Something like Sopranos is in the same vein as Coppola’s and Scorsese but not as well-made

>>19409252
Sopranos despite being overrated is better made than those shitty flicks made by those shitty hacks

>>19409230
Nah, Sopranos is just Eva for normalfags

>>19406444
The thread’s a natural response to /tv/ crossboarders constantly making the very same threads, but about how film is the superior medium. All this could have been avoided if jannies did their jobs but we know they’re fags.

>>19398322
Based
>>19397946

>>19409759
Rome was a little bit ass

>>19410312
I remember they mailed a DVD of the first five or so episodes of season 1 to people for free as part of the marketing for season 2. I had the DVD for months and months and never bothered but it comes to mind whenever I see the show mentioned...can't tell if that means it was good marketing or bad.

>>19398027
>anime
In all seriousness it was a cinematic masterpiece but it was limited to the fact it was anime, too good for anime if you ask me.

>>19399959
you sound from Southern Europe

>>19398454
>Batman v Superman
don't forget Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Thor 2

>>19397977
>>19397960
film is for NPCs, aka people who lack an internal monologue and creative visualization. amounts to nothing more than a dopamine hit for the modern retard

>>19411339
This, yet they think they’re genius for liking films that are French, 4 hours long and in black and white.

>>19411339
>>19411371
Anyone who thinks in terms of NPC's lack an internal ability to model conciousness, and so anything that isn't verbally explained to them seems like flat surfaces. Amounts to nothing more than an oxytocin hit for the modern schizoid

>>19407525
Fucking schizo.

>>19405901
>>19406432
>>19407525
hoooly shit. I have no idea what your position is or who you're arguing with. but you sound fucking deranged, bro. just be honest, how many pills (prescription or otherwise) do you pop a day? you don't sound like you're in a good place.

Most books suck.
> Most books suck.
Most books suck.
> Most books suck.
Most books suck.
> Most books suck.
Most books suck.
> Most books suck.
Most books suck.
> Most books suck.

They’re different mediums. Which one is better depends on which context you mean.

>>19402589
Yes.

>>19397946
>Has any film reached the heights of literature?
Yes of course, it surpassed it. Tell me, do more people read novels or watch films?

>>19397946
>>19397960
Unbelievably based. I also find all film incredibly fucking boring and whenever I watch a movie it makes me want to just read a book.

>>19413282
>more people watch therefore better
We truly are living in the reign of quantity. Fuck off back to /sffg/, manchild.

>>19397946
Its impossible to compare, and the answer is likely always going to be that film cannot accomplish what prose can.
Barry Lyndon is brilliant tho and really the most literary experience of a film I can think of, mostly because of the amazing narration and beautiful cinematography.

Literature hasn’t even reached the heights of Twin Peaks kek.

>>19413551
Kek, twin peaks is CSI for pseuds

>>19403089
>feel free to ask
Who are your favorite 20th century writers? Based on this answer I will judge the merits of your work

>>19414065
Seconding this >>19402829

>>19413492
I was being quasi-ironic brainlet, easy b8 m8

Too many replies for a thread of this subject…. Bump

>>19398518
>plowing my ex gf dressed in a schoolgirl outfit.
Based teen cunny enjoyer

>>19414409
Thirding. Deliver before thread dies

>>19415155
Fourthing, I want to know this pseuds taste in lit

>>19405535
You got him bro film is so good that I can't even name 1 good one. It's too hard. If only he asked for 50 or 60 recs.

>>19415250
Fifthing, and waiting

>>19415555
Final bump.