/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19424978]

What's the literary equivalent to persona by bergman?

[Anonymous No.19425002]

>>19424978
Didn't watch persona, but from the impression i have it could be the mixature of three sisters and the glembays by yugoslav author krleza or i don't know, something boring and chamber like, like nora by ibsen.

[Anonymous No.19425007]

>>19424978
sartre / de beauvoir

[Anonymous No.19425026]

>>19424978
That film was garbage. One of Bergman's worst, even if it did display a higher level of skill than in his earlier films.

[Anonymous No.19425032]

Lesbian YA shlock, just look up whatever is the big faggy / tranny FOTM book on goodreads

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19425033]

>>19425026
it's a beautiful, pretty, well-made movie

[Anonymous No.19425036]

I watched Persona and have no FUCKING idea what it was about

The Seventh Seal is king. The Virgin Spring sucks
>you raped and killed my daughter
>but it's cool!
>le ebin forgiveness!
Cux Von Sydow

[Anonymous No.19425038]

>>19425026
Movie for chicks. I've watched 5 different Bergman films now and Seventh Seal is the only one that I rate. Through a Glass Darkly was okay.

[Anonymous No.19425040]

>>19424978
Samuel Beckett. A pretentious piece of shit that only hardcore pseuds pretend to find value in but interestingly, actual connoisseurs of the arts understand it as being vapid and empty as fuck.

[Anonymous No.19425053]

>>19425040
>OMG JUST A MOUTH??
>THAT'S THE WHOLE PLAY??
>HECKIN BRILLINO!

[Anonymous No.19425149]

>>19425040
post your top 5 films, or at least a representative sample
>>19425026
same question

[Anonymous No.19425163]

>>19425149
Eat shit faggot.

[Anonymous No.19425175]

>>19425163
Wow. such bait. You could have at least thrown in some wild cards for lolz like The Day the Clown Cried, Only God Forgives, or One from the Heart

[Anonymous No.19425181]

>>19425149
Taxi Driver
Godfather pt. 2
Master and Commander
Crocodile Dundee
Gallipoli

[Anonymous No.19425183]

>>19425163
holy shit go back to letterboxd

[Anonymous No.19425187]

>>19425149
>>19425181
Actually I'm gonna switch out Godfather for Time Bandits.

[Anonymous No.19425190]

>>19425175
You can pretend you enjoy insufferable exercises in pretension all you want because some film student friend of yours told you to, but the real measure of reaching adult psychological maturity is to be able to enjoy high art and still just enjoy the things you like without putting on airs over what you know is just drivel.

[Anonymous No.19425224]

I hate that film
Wild Strawberries is in my top 5 favourite films though
t. midwit

[Anonymous No.19425233]

the best films are
>Days of Heaven
>The Wages of Fear
>Chinatown
>The Godfather
and
>Taxi Driver
thank you, good night

[v_v !!+e0M0fBMYzt No.19425267]

>>19425233
>Days of Heaven
>The Wages of Fear
cool
>Chinatown
>The Godfather
>Taxi Driver
no

[Anonymous No.19425285]

>>19425163
>The Holy Mountain
Bloated rubbish. El Topo was better in every way.

[Anonymous No.19425286]

>>19424978
The entire point of this film is to create an experience that can only be grasped through the film medium. There is no possible equivalent. This is a lesson in cinematography.

[Anonymous No.19425576]

>>19425040
>>19425163
See? That's the level of the "actual connoisseurs of the arts" who hate Beckett. How lovely that they embarrass themselves without me having to do it for them.

[Anonymous No.19425610]

>>19425576
Not that it is all that valid to go around comparing playwrights with filmmakers and what not, but there is not a single item in that list that is not infinite leagues superior to anything Beckett ever produced. I know you're probably 19 and first getting into "proper literary fiction" and you think anyone gives a shit about his pseudo-experimental affectations, but Beckett is just mangled disjointed style over non-existent substance.

[Anonymous No.19425614]

>>19425286
Correct. Same thing for all other arts, really.
If a film can be written, then it should be only written, because this means the image/audio are dispensable.
If a book can be filmed, then it should be filmed, because it means the words alone have not yet explored the subject to the point of making us say, 'Alright, enough of that, you can end it now'.

Good cinematographic adaptations of books have almost nothing to do with the books, usually just the plot and a few scattered quotes, e.g., Kurasawa's Ran and Piavoli's Nostos.

[Anonymous No.19425630]

>>19425610
You know nothing about writing. Explain to me why this is good:

>Once more. Say, you are in the country; in some high land of lakes. Take almost any path you please, and ten to one it carries you down in a dale, and leaves you there by a pool in the stream. There is magic in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest reveries—stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region. Should you ever be athirst in the great American desert, try this experiment, if your caravan happen to be supplied with a metaphysical professor. Yes, as every one knows, meditation and water are wedded for ever.

If you manage to express the qualities which make that passage good (you probably won't, and will fall into generalities and platitudes which have nothing to do with the intricacies which are happening between the words which compose the passage), you will find that similar qualities can be discovered in Beckett, and in fact very often are.
Or, if you dislike that passage, choose any other passage that you think is good and then explain.
You claim that Nabokov, Joyce, Pound, Barth, Coetzee, Havel, Pinter were all "hardcore pseuds", so let us see what marvels you, the "actual connoisseur of the arts" can do in terms of stylistic exposition.

[Anonymous No.19425638]

>>19425163
Embarassing

[Anonymous No.19425667]

>>19425630
Not him, but Pound didn't like Beckett's more serious work. He liked endgame and his early poems

[Anonymous No.19425741]

>>19425667
>He liked endgame

Exactly. And he had quite an emotional reaction to the play.

>In 1965, Samuel Beckett invited the aged Ezra Pound to a performance of his play “Endgame,” in which two of the characters, Nagg and Nell, live in trash bins. Pound reportedly broke his by now habitual silence to say “C’est moi dans la poubelle” (“That’s me in the trash.”)

But of course, that other anon says that Jodorowski's kitschfest Poesía Sin Fin is "infinite leagues superior to anything Beckett ever produced", which would include Endgame and the rest of it. Well, then.

[Anonymous No.19425754]

holy shit man, slit your throat asap.

[Anonymous No.19425755]

>>19425630
Oh faggot, you think I'm taking homework assignments from some teenager who sucks on Beckett's dead, pretentious, irish cock because he thinks that makes him such a scholar of the post-modern and experimental.

Here's a better one from Moby Dick:

"And when we consider that other theory of the natural philosophers, that all other earthly hues — every stately or lovely emblazoning — the sweet tinges of sunset skies and woods; yea, and the gilded velvets of butterflies, and the butterfly cheeks of young girls; all these are but subtile deceits, not actually inherent in substances, but only laid on from without; so that all deified Nature absolutely paints like the harlot, whose allurements cover nothing but the charnel-house within; and when we proceed further, and consider that the mystical cosmetic which produces every one of her hues, the great principle of light, for ever remains white or colorless in itself, and if operating without medium upon matter, would touch all objects, even tulips and roses, with its own blank tinge — pondering all this, the palsied universe lies before us a leper; and like wilful travellers in Lapland, who refuse to wear colored and coloring glasses upon their eyes, so the wretched infidel gazes himself blind at the monumental white shroud that wraps all the prospect around him. And of all these things the Albino whale was the symbol. Wonder ye then at the fiery hunt?"

Here's an analysis of why it's good: It was not written by Samuel Beckett.

>>19425741
>it is good because Ezra Pound liked it! He was able to see himself in it!
>Auto-biographical fictionalizations of one's own life are kitsch

lol

[Anonymous No.19425796]

>>19425755
>>Auto-biographical fictionalizations of one's own life are kitsch
No, the kitsch has nothing to do with that.
If you don't see why Jodorowsky's film is a kitschfest, then it's useless talking to you. Even the poetry is mediocre, French surrealism pastiche (and yes, I watched it in Spanish).

>from some teenager who sucks on Beckett's

I am a novelist in my mid-20's, and it's clear to me that you don't know anything about the art of writing.
Anyway, you have embarrassed yourself enough by posting that list of films. I don't need to make you look even stupider.

>>it is good because Ezra Pound liked it! He was able to see himself in it!

No, it is good because of the techniques employed by Beckett, or rather by those he *doesn't* employ, which you would know if you knew how to differentiate good from bad writing.
Now, go back to Jodorowsky and Tchaikovsky's piano concerto.
Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.19425826]

>>19425796
>It is theatrical and colorful so that makes it kitsch!
Bitch ass, I like my literary fiction with black and white cover art of abstract expressionist paintings, that way everyone knows it's really dark and cerebral, amirite.

>I am a novelist in my mid-20's
KEK, Aren't we all anon, aren't we all. You went and read a novel about a dude rolling in mud, then watched Godot and Godot 2 (Endgame) where two guys sit there just talking when you could have used that time to consume actual decent philosophical literature delivered through dialogues and the pursuit for an unattainable goal such as Don Quixote, or if you need it in play format Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, which is infinitely superior because not only it has an actual plot, is actually funny and actually deals in decent philosophical themes, but it is ACTUALLY SUCCESFUL in being experimental with the medium of play in an entertaining and artistic fashion.

>or rather by those [techniques] he *doesn't* employ
Such as any, as he is the cllosest thing to a literature Jackson Pollock. You compare him to Melville, who was able to give you a surface level story about a vengeance against nature and extrapolate dark romanticist themes of the esoteric treacherous nature of the Universe, and transcendentalist, pantheistic themes of the very fundamental constitution of reality, nature and the Universe, all through lavish poetic prose, what the fuck does Beckett give you? A novel of pedestrian prose about a dude rolling in the mud where absolutely nothing happens that a faggot will read and cum all over himself because it is sooooo po-mo. If there is no substance and the style is disjointed bullshit then in itself this exercise in futility must have some philosophical point.

Again, eat shit and die.

[Anonymous No.19425847]

>>19425630
Not that guy, but post your analysis please. Ngl I have a sneaking suspicion that you are going to quote John Gardner's essay with a few dressings.
I apologize in advance for my this if i am wrong.

[Anonymous No.19425851]

>>19425026
Lol ok

[Anonymous No.19425868]

>>19425826
>extrapolate dark romanticist themes of the esoteric treacherous nature of the Universe, and transcendentalist, pantheistic themes of the very fundamental constitution of reality, nature and the Universe, all through lavish poetic prose,

>If you manage to express the qualities which make that passage good (you probably won't, and will fall into generalities and platitudes which have nothing to do with the intricacies which are happening between the words which compose the passage),

Ah, the beauty of it. The treacherous nature of the Universe! The fundamental constitution of reality! The transcedentalistic! The pantheistic! It's all there, in the very veins of the mighty Dick!
And just like that, you embarrass yourself again. You are so easy to predict. I know just the way you think and what things you are going to say. How? Well, I've been there too, when I was a teenager.
Also, I find Beckett one of the funniest authors I've ever read, and many people agree, but you said he's not funny, so he isn't.
Anyway, it's natural that a Jodorowsky fan, specifically a fan of Poesía Sin Fin, wouldn't like him. Now, go back to your kitsch. The more you do it, the more you embarrass yourself.

>It is theatrical and colorful so that makes it kitsch!
No, the color of the film has nothing to do with it, either. There are many colorful films which are not kitsch. But I won't explain. Either you know it, or you don't. (In your mind, you are calling me an obscurantist). Now go back to your realm of "artists", go be a Poeta (with a big P) and show all those ignorant salesmen where the fundamental nature of reality is really at.

[Anonymous No.19425892]

>>19425847
I have never read anything by John Gardner.
So no, I am not going to quote from that, and chose the Moby-Dick paragraph because I know just what type of book that anon likes, and knew that Moby-Dick would be just it. I was going to post the candles speech actually, because it's closer to what he prefers (as has been confirmed by the other paragraph he posted), but was too bored to try to remember the chapter.
As I said, he only cares about generalities, he can't see the art, only the overall impression it causes on him, which is why he is so easily affected by kitsch and has no idea of what Beckett achieved in terms of novelistic form.

[Anonymous No.19425943]

>>19425868
>no, I won't tell what it is but it isn't that!
>no, you're embarrassing yourself!
>I already know what you're gonna say, because I repeat it to you when you already said it to me!
I hope you know how much of an effeminate little teenage girl pathetically trying to play coy you sound like, but what can be expected from someone who KNOWS what a well-written novel of lavish poetic prose filled with proper development of philosophical points and decides to dickride what he himself ascribes as being the opposite of it, because it makes him cum that someone on the internet may give him a pat on the back and call him a big boy for like bullshit that no one willingly suffers unless their head is chronically stuck into their anus.

I decided to provide you the analysis you wanted just to show you the level of understanding that you are incapable to deliver towards any work, being still in your psychological teenager pseudo-intellectual who loves experimental faggotry phase of development. You think "the intricacies which are happening between the words which compose the passage" means anything, further showing how adolescent your affectations are. Give up your childish obsession with trying to sound like a big girl and just describe it simply as "a lavish and sophisticated prose", end of story.

You are still stuck into being a mental teenager, as right after you discovered the first novels one reads when they are "getting into" literary fiction (i.e. Moby Dick), you're now going through baby's first experimental fase. I went through my Godot and R&G fase when I was literally 17. You're too old for this shit, gaylord.

[Anonymous No.19425977]

>>19425943
Jodorowski is kitsch because he treats poetry like a religion without ever stopping to think that it might not be it.
You find all the clichés. Poetry as a separate world of "magic", the evil father "crushing the dreams" of the rebellious son and then the prodigal son (how predictable) asking his father for pardon, the symbolism of the poet as an "angel", and much else. Everything in that film is a cliché taken from the emptiest kind of discourse about art, the discourse of "connoisseurs" such as you who cannot shut up about big words which they can never explain because it's a load of vague bullshit that they pretend is "deep".
And the poems are mediocre. Jodorowski can't write.
That's why that film is kitsch, melodramatic, nothing else, but it uses big words and pretends to be serious, so you love it. Authors who don't offer cheap effects seem empty to you, because you are blind to the actual art of putting one sentence after the next and making it work.
If you haven't seen that, if you didn't realize that with your own eyes and brain, you are a fucking idiot.
Good-bye.

>effeminate little teenage girl

How curious that here in Latin America Jodorowsky is a favorite precisely among effeminate little teenage girls who want to be "artsy" and can't stop posting on Instagram about how they love Jodorowsky, Banksy and Puccini. What a deep, profound auteur!
Now get lost.

[Anonymous No.19425994]

>>19425977
Oh, look, the poet is an angel! An angel among the devils! An angel being raised by the devils! Pantheism! Transcendentalism! Structure of reality! How deep! Better listen to the Tchaikovsky concerto and the Rusalka moon aria so I can feel even more ELEVATED!

[Anonymous No.19426022]

>>19425977
Jodorowski bases a lot of his work in comics and film into tarot, esotericism and religious symbolism, often Biblical (like the prodigal son). So he doesn't "treat it as a religion" in your reductionist words as much as he bases it around religious ideas, motifs and symbols. Jodorowsky's proposal is never to tell some kind of believable or even great story, but to deliver theatrical, fantastic and highly symbolic concepts through allegories and parables. Even in his comics there are strong tarot based symbolisms. For someone who masturbates so much to the artist's capacity to work with the form and medium it seems to stump you that Jodorowsky mostly creates visual spectacle with symbolism more so than the straight-forward average stories an average film would portray.

>here in Latin America
>here
Where? You're an aspiring writer in your mid-20s in latin america, I guess we have more in common than we first thought. I'm going to give you the courtesy first because I am in a good mood this morning and say I'm from Brazil

[Anonymous No.19426035]

>>19425036
Doesn't he kill them?

[Anonymous No.19426080]

What's the literary equivalent of Edward Yang?

[Anonymous No.19426090]

>>19425977
I think it is wrong to ostracize Jodo for writing allegories when late Beckett and his plays can be described as almost nothing but allegories.

[Anonymous No.19426175]

>>19426022
>aspiring writer

No, just writer. You don't "aspire to be" a writer, you just sit and write.

>Brazil

Same. Have a nice day.

>>19426090
That was not my criticism at all, but whatever.

[Anonymous No.19426324]

>>19425163
His taste isnt terrible to be honest

[Anonymous No.19426331]

>>19425163
>>19426324
It manages to be extremely basic and tryhard at the same time. Impressive.

[Anonymous No.19427369]

>>19425040
>>19425190
>actual connoisseurs of the arts
I deeply despise you and every other person in this board that plays the same role as you, and I'm glad to have never met someone like you in real life. what a pathetic caricature of the self-aggrandizing art critic, always reminding everyone else that no one else is as deeply genuine and curious as they are. nice, into the void and the other shit in your list totally doesn't drip of the same pretension you bitch about, good work, fuck you. also no I do not like samuel beckett

[Anonymous No.19428243]

>>19425267
Less famous movie = cool B)

Famous movie = cringe