[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 155 KB, 440x626, 1349651084993.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052399 No.3052399 [Reply] [Original]

Hello, /lit/. /tv/ here. I was wondering if you guys have a list like this?

Lower levels are less deep and less sophisticated, but more notable, digestible, plebbier and mainstream.

Higher levels are more 2deep4u, experimental sopisticated, and less conventional, digestible and notable.

I imagine Dan Brown would be somewhere in level 0, while James Joyce would be level 5 or so.

>Level 0: Plebbiest hollywood, easy and substanceless. Lowest common denominator
Bay, Apatow, Spielberg, Snyder, Cameron

>Level 1: Notable mainstream films with substance, IMDB top 100 films
Nolan, Tarantino, Lucas, Jackson, Singh, Fincher, Scott

>Level 2:
Academy approved, classics, sundance films
Coppola (Both), Scorcese, Kubrick, PTA, Coen Bros, Welles, Ford, Soderbergh, W.Anderson, Carpenter, Gondry, Aronofsky, Hitchcock

>Level 3:
Somewhat experimental and sophisticated films
Malick, Kaufman, Kurosawa, Truffaut, Bresson, Jarmusch, classic Noir, Lang, Herzog, Refn, von Trier, Lang, Reggio

>Level 4:
Black and white foreign films, Experimental films
Lynch, Godard, Tarkovsky, Bergman, Ozu, Noe, Eisenstein, Conrad, Vertov, Korine, Renoir

>Level 5:
The event horizon of normalcy, notability and digestability; even knowledgeable and sophisticated cinephiles won't know much here
Warhol, Parajanov, Barney, Jodorowsky, Kenneth Anger

>Level infinity:
Incomprehensible or unknown.
Snow, Brakhage, Nuytten, Bódy

>> No.3052408

please respond

>> No.3052427

Probably someone has a list like this, but either way please move PTA up one or two rungs.

>> No.3052432

Just know that true patrician-core is the Greek and Roman classics read in their original languages, with a bit of pre-Victorian British lit sprinkled on top. And you have to actually exhaustively study these books, not just skim your eyes over the words until you run out of pages then never think about them again.

>> No.3052433

There's a thread with charts on like the 3rd or 4th page which might have what you're looking for.

>> No.3052436

OP I think I can recognize almost all of these directors but who the hell is Snow?

>> No.3052448

>>3052436
>OP I think I can google almost all of these directors but I can't google Snow?
Michael Snow

>> No.3052451

>>3052448
Yeah, because googling "Snow" is only ever going to turn up obscure and experimental film directors, right?

>> No.3052456

informer you know say daddy me snow me ah go blame

>> No.3052490

Out of curiosity, where does Woody Allen fit on there?

>> No.3052497

>>3052490
2 probably

>> No.3052504

>>3052399
>joyce would be five...
sigh..will that psycho micks fanboys EVER stop confounding obscurity and profundity. And recasting Homer in a modern milieu? Sounds like a HOllywood "reimagining" ploy more than anything serious. inb4 shitstorm. Joyce (and Rand) suck balls. not debatable so I wont be replying to arguments.

>> No.3052506

>>3052504
Then who's a 5 or infinity, literary wise?

>> No.3052507

>Jodorowsky
>relevant
>in fucking level 5 out of 7

>> No.3052511

>>3052507
out of 6 actually

>> No.3052515

>>3052399
Jodorowsky and Anger = GOD tier

>> No.3052531

I'm actually moving Jorodowsky down from 5 to 4

>> No.3052538

>>3052497
i say 3. he is quite literary.

>> No.3052539

>>3052504
dat autism

why are joyce's detractors on /lit/ so uniformly retarded?

>> No.3052558

SOmeone please make me a list ;_;

>> No.3052569
File: 8 KB, 251x221, 1282966415758.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052569

>>3052399
Are you niggas serious?

Kubrick, Welles, or Hitchcock are in a completely different league than the likes of Anderson or Aronofsky.

>Malick
>experimental
>sophisticated

And, are you really implying Godard is anything more than a straightforward political hack?

>> No.3052571

>>3052569
How is godard a straightforward political hack? His style is extremely individualistic and sophisticated. And this isn't just about how "good" or "sopisticated" they are. Kubrick, Welles an Hitchcock are super fucking well known, which pushes them down in terms of hipster cred

>> No.3052574

>>3052558
Why, so you can namedrop anyone we categorise as "patrician" in front of your friends for hipster cred? The thread's premise is reductive and disrespectful to literature as a form of art.

>> No.3052576

>>3052569
how is malick NOT experimental?

>> No.3052578

>>3052574
Not at all, actually. I just like lists, its one things I have always liked doing since I was little. I like putting things in order, and I know nothing about literature

>> No.3052582

>>3052569

Hitchcock is an incompetent clown compared to PTA.

>> No.3052585

>>3052582
>h-h-here i go

>> No.3052587

>>3052578
what is even the criteria?

>> No.3052588
File: 597 KB, 1208x3504, 1339287368796.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052588

there

>> No.3052594

lvl 4: NYRB's catalogue.
lvl 5: Dalkey Archive's catalogue.

>> No.3052599

>>3052588
>No Chesterton
ya belw it

>> No.3052602
File: 36 KB, 350x427, 1346151368175.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052602

>>3052588

No.

>> No.3052604

>>3052571
Regardless of how much he might toy around with the formal aspects (and I grant that), his movies always carry a straightforward political agenda of fight against "injustice" understood in vaguely Marxist terms. (This by the way is a common leftist disease; recently I read Zizek´s review of the new Coriolanus film in which he rejoiced at how Fiennes transformed Coriolanus the elitist into a revolutionary, without the slightest reflection on the significance of the original Coriolanus´ "elitism".)

There´s a great document on Godard, Truffaut and their friendship called Two in the Wave. In it is recounted how in Truffaut´s Day for Night a character of an actor is brought to come to terms with the fact that ordinary life isn´t as exciting as movies, by comparing the film to a smooth journey in a night-train.

Godard then proceeded to write a furious rant to Truffaut, in which he wrote something along these lines: "Who travels in this train and in which class? Is it a trans-european train? A local one? Line Munich-Dachau?"
In short, cheap politicking which I believe is apparent in Godard´s films from (at least) Sympathy with the Devil up till Socialism.

>Kubrick, Welles an Hitchcock are super fucking well known, which pushes them down in terms of hipster cred
I see your point.

>> No.3052605 [DELETED] 

>>3052588
lel
that is the entriets of entry level charts ive ever seen on here...

and why the fuck is satan tier defiled by rand?

>> No.3052606

>>3052588
>>3052588
lel
that is the entriest of entry level charts ive ever seen on here...

and why the fuck is satan tier defiled by rand?

>> No.3052607

>>3052604
I agree with you, but themes are different from cinematic substance. You can disagree with a filmmakers moral or even agenda and appreciate their abilities to evoke, enthrall and progress a tale

>> No.3052609
File: 6 KB, 85x120, 85px-1252555993318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052609

this post is the shit as in the bottom of the barrel, the dregs, the less, detritus, etc.

Shit pure and simple.

OP please just kill yourself.

>> No.3052614

>>3052607
>themes are different from cinematic substance
Well Godard managed to transcend this distinction: his films are so thoroughly infected with his politics that I find it impossible to enjoy them, as that would require constant conscious subtraction of his ideological filth to uncover the truly enjoyable properties of his films.

To that I prefer simply to watch something beautiful.
>Lubitsch
>von Trier
>Wilder

>> No.3052619

>>3052538
>>3052490
no. 2 or 1, his last film was an ultimate shit from 1, previous ones may categorize in 2.

>> No.3052626

Either get the fuck out of /lit/, or learn to stop posting in such a shitty, /tv/ slash /mu/ manner where everything is about "tiers" and being "patrician".

I fucking hate you and you need to get the fuck out of /lit/ immediately if you pull this bullshit.

>> No.3052633

>>3052626
gimme a tier list and ill leave

>> No.3052639

>>3052633
hahahahaha fuck off, there are no tier lists, tier lists are inherently bullshit, and the fact that you want one implies that you're an idiot

stop posting in /lit/ if you can't handle talking about /lit/ in a way that's at least halfway intelligent

this place is killing me, i've got to get out of here, this place is going to be the death of me. i feel things closing in around me all the time, this places' attitude is going to suffocate me, i can tell, you bastards, i can barely think freely anymore.

>> No.3052642

>>3052639
You should write a young adult fiction novel about the crawling in your skin, and the wounds that will not heal

>> No.3052645

>>3052642
those are dead words, words from 20 years ago, when we were teenagers now. the teenagers of today are on to better and brighter ways of being angsty, or have better things to do with their time and better ways to be self-absorbed and think that they are the measure of all things, presumably.

>> No.3052657

>Level 0: Earnest schlock and popular consumption
Genre fiction, popular fiction, etc.

>Level 1: Undergraduate English major and high school core
All modernist and postmodernist authors, 19th century Russian literature, popular-but-not-pop literature

>Level 2: Sperg Ascendant
Easily digestible short stories by "deep" or philosophical authors like Camus, Mishima, Kafka, and pointlessly elaborate 20th century literature that requires a guide and extensive annotation to trudge through

>Level 3: Actually reading books
Everything from Homer to the 20th century, skipping the 19th century authors most commonly read in undergraduate English/literature courses

>> No.3052665

>>3052657
Are you saying Dostoyevsky is level 1?

>> No.3052666

>>3052645
>have better things to do with their time and better ways to be self-absorbed and think that they are the measure of all things, presumably.
if only

>> No.3052667

>>3052665
He is when you read him.

>> No.3052671

>>3052667
what

>> No.3052690

>>3052639
You'll eventually feel you're missing out on something and come back. The same thing happens with me.

>> No.3052695

OP you faggot.
dat Herzog in lev 3
those Lynch, Noe and Korine in 4
dat everything (except Paradjanov) in 5

and finally, you huge faggot, that pretentiousness in level infinity. You must be stupid to think any of those things you mentioned are incomprehensible/unknown.I could go on for hours on how Narcissus and Psyche was retarded and I'm not even bothering with the rest.

>> No.3052704

>>3052399

I-it's baffling...Warhol?...Barney?...HARMONY KORINE?!...this isn't even on any of the entry level lists on /tv/.
It's beyond 'babbys first arthouse'...

/lit/ is actually more ignorant than /tv/...all is lost!

>> No.3052707

>>3052704
but harmony korine sucks

>> No.3052710

>>3052704
you're responding to a post that begins with "Hello /lit/, /tv/ here"

and you think that this post is stupid

and the conclusion you draw from this... is that "/lit/ is actually more ignorant than /tv/"

what are you on

>> No.3052717

>>3052710
He doesn't think the post is stupid, he's baffled that there's more than entry level shit, because he would never expect it

>> No.3052721

>>3052710

yes, but let's be honest...that not 'really' /tv/ there, where's the waifus and underaged feet pics.

...and yes, harmony korine sucks, that is the point.

>> No.3052722

>>3052717
oh i see, it was kind of hard to tell where he was coming from exactly

>> No.3052724

>>3052710
but there are never movie threads on /lit/ and when there are it's embarrassing to watch, really.

>> No.3052736

>>3052639
>tier lists are inherently bullshit
Why are tier lists bullshit?
If certain books aren't better than others then how come you read books that aren't Harry Potter and Hunger games?

>> No.3052751

>>3052736
it's not that certain books aren't better than others, it's that grouping them into "tiers" is a fucking bullshit way of looking at and understanding literature and does not indicate any intelligence or understanding

>> No.3052752

This list implies the more fucked up and edgy a film is, the better the director is. Complete bullshit. Go back to /tv/ you fucking cunt.

>> No.3052759

>>3052751
If you agree that some books are better than others, surely you agree certain books are similarly good, and thus can be put into one group? Tier lists are a great way of categorizing quality.

>> No.3052763

>>3052752
Of course it implies that, how would a "normal", "non-edgy" film be intellectually stimulating?

>> No.3052770

>>3052752
No it doesn't

>> No.3052773

>>3052759
>surely you agree certain books are similarly good, and thus can be put into one group?

i don't agree that you necessarily can, no. it's a simplistic way of looking at books.

even if it were so, the desire for tier lists and the style of reading they tend to support is one that i do not think is a good style of reading. overly reductive style of reading that treats books as a means towards an end, not as ends in themselves. tiers tell you comparatively little. they are not information-rich except insofar as they tell you the relative prestige of a book, and they're only useful if that's all you care about.

>> No.3052774

I used to watch a lot of lesser-known & avant-garde films but at some point I just stopped. At least it freed up more time for reading.

>> No.3052775

>Kubrick level 2

Stopped reading there. Just because something is popular or well known does not make it bad.

Fuck off.

>> No.3052781

>>3052773
i don't agree that you necessarily can, no. it's a simplistic way of looking at books.
Its entire purpose is supposed to be simplistic. To categorize books by relative quality. It doesn't try to compare every single detail about the book, tier lists aren't even supposed to have similar books, just equally good books.
>even if it were so, the desire for tier lists and the style of reading they tend to support is one that i do not think is a good style of reading. overly reductive style of reading that treats books as a means towards an end, not as ends in themselves. tiers tell you comparatively little. they are not information-rich except insofar as they tell you the relative prestige of a book, and they're only useful if that's all you care about.
Exactly, it's just copy and pasting pictures of book/tv covers into boxes, it doesn't have to be "information-rich".

>> No.3052785

>>3052774
>I used to watch a lot of lesser-known & avant-garde films
Why? Did you actually enjoy them?

>> No.3052787

>>3052763
there's a difference between intellectually stimulating and edgy for the sake of being edgy and pretentious. American experimental films are the very definition of pretentious, a lot of explanation for something that has absolutely no original content or importance.

>> No.3052788

>>3052781
and that's bad and dumb, and supports people who just want to read a book because it's "high-tier" and they can feel superior and "patrician" and act high and mighty on the internet

and fuck those people

>> No.3052790

>>3052775
THIS ISN'T A GOOD OR BAD LIST YOU FUCKING MORONS
HOLY SHIT

>> No.3052791

>>3052775
typical academy award drone

>> No.3052794

if you think that foreign films are inherently better than american films, you should kill yourself, you fucking moron

>> No.3052796

>>3052594
this.
lvl 5: Dalkey Archive, independent literary publishers, Tao Lin
lvl 4: NYRB catalogue, Joyce, Proust, Faulkner
lvl 3: Many Russians, Camus, Kafka
lvl 2: Penguin classics. Better high school reads.
lvl 1: Most science fiction and better fantasy books. Easier high school reads.
lvl 0: Meyer, 50 shades trilogy, Game of Thrones.

>> No.3052798

>>3052790
You're ranking them on levels by the lesser known and more "hipster retard" list, not what is actually good.

Honestly, consider suicide, you and anyone who takes that list seriously.

>> No.3052800

>>3052794
>implying they aren't
name me some good American films. Please, I'll be eagerly waiting.
protip: you can't.

>> No.3052801

>>3052796
lol nice one

>> No.3052802

>>3052569

>Hating on Malick

Did this become cool when Tree of Life came out? It wasn't even that bad, to say nothing of the rest of his films.

>> No.3052806 [DELETED] 

>>3052802
>Did this become cool when Tree of Life came out
Yes. And why do you think that is?

>> No.3052812

>>3052588
>woolf not in titan tier at the very least

yeah, nah you're a cunt

>> No.3052815

I don't even like Malick that much but you're being dishonest if you're going to deny that he's an extremely talented, intelligent, skillful filmmaker.

>> No.3052818

>>3052785
Of course, sometimes a film didn't quite meet my expectations but it was always time well spent. Although 'enjoy' seems the wrong word to apply to films by directors like Snow, Kubelka, Kren et al.

>> No.3052819

>>3052815
you must be a troll. I don't even... Does anyone know shit about films here? Do you guys just read books and don't even bother with other forms of art at all? I mean, this is just quite ignorant, you should be ashamed.

>> No.3052824

>>3052819
lol what's your critique of Malick, seriously

i'm not denying that he has flaws, he does, like i say i don't like him that much. but he's skilled at making films and he's intelligent and that intelligence carries across to his films.

>> No.3052826

>>3052819
Malick is pretty smart for an American though.

>> No.3052828

>>3052815
Tree of Life was shit and if you think it's good you are a pseudo-in-well, that's not the right word, anyone who is only knowledgeable of the arts and not sciences is one- you want others to think you understand the complexities of art, but are really an inferior pleb, and when you say you like that film, everyone around you like me, who has the wisdom you wish you had, laughs at you in our minds.

>> No.3052829

>>3052826
oh that's what we doin. we doin' that. cool.

>>3052828
i didn't like tree of life. i thought The New World had a lot going for it though.

>> No.3052831

>>3052828
Sorry, you don't get to take the intellectual high ground if you use phrases like 'inferior pleb'

>> No.3052833

>>3052824
He has a very good DP and that's it, I don't see any sort of intelligence carrying across his films when his main lead is Brad Pitt who isn't even an actor, he's a celebrity playing the role of an actor in a shallow film with a very good DP.

So, from what I understand Canadian/American avant-garde is what you faggots think is high art in cinema? Is this some kind of shit they teach you at college because in Europe this wouldn't fly.

>> No.3052838

>>3052833
i happen to think that The New World is a good film, you're the one ranting about Brad Pitt and how terrible America is instead of saying anything about Malick's filmmaking. fucking shit, man, i wish bastards like you would stop pretending that your aesthetic judgments have any validity at all when they're clearly entirely based on whatever fucking cultural grudges you hold. you don't even care about his movies, Malick is an American held in high regard by some, ergo you're going to shit on him. pretty weak stuff.

>> No.3052839

>>3052815

He reminds me a lot of Kubrick. His films are great and visually they are spectacular but the dude can not write good characters and interesting stories to save his life. I like his films but all his characters are terrible and the stories are kinda boring. I think he is going in the right direction though

>> No.3052840

>>3052828
>>3052833

ITT: 'Tree of Life' is Terrence Malick's only film

>> No.3052841

>>3052831
Says the inferior pleb.

>> No.3052843

Welles should be moved up 1.

Why cant /tv/ have discussion like this ever?

>> No.3052846

>>3052843
I thought /tv/ often had baseless name-calling and sweeping generalizations.

>> No.3052849

>>3052838
when I was speaking of American/Canadian avant-garde I wasn't speaking of Malick but the aforementioned directors, you would know who I was talking about if you knew anything about cinema. Jesus christ, Malick avant-garde, do you even know what that means in cinematic terms?

I don't have time for this. Watch what you like.

>> No.3052851

>>3052846

No even this sort of discussion is above /tv//

>> No.3052853 [DELETED] 

>>3052843
Because moot decided to make /tv/ a /cel/ board too, bringing in all the moron pedos. I used to spend way too much time there in 2010-2011 out of some hope it would get better and the occasional good film thread, but it's in general a terrible board.

Just go to a Breaking Bad or waifu thread and see for yourself.

>> No.3052856

>>3052840
Apart from TOL he's only had 4 significant movies. Badlands is just an edgy serial killer movie, Days of Heaven and Thin Red Line are both really fucking slow with no content, and New World is pleb level romance shit.

Unfortunately I've seen them all, although I couldn't finish Thin Red Line, it was fucking excruciating.

>> No.3052860

>>3052851
how's this better than any half-assed cinema discussion on /tv/? No one is getting recommendations, no one can make a distinction between good/pretentious and bad/pretentious, most people don't even know half of the names mentioned and they end up talking about/defending hollywood movies they assume are art simply because they haven't seen anything else.
That's /tv/ for you.

>> No.3052861

>>3052856
> New World is pleb level romance shit

lol, seriously?

If you seriously think this, you didn't even come close to understanding New World, and don't have the capacity to criticize Malick. Seriously, not even close to what New World is about.

Should probably be pointed out (for those who don't know) that before Malick was involved in filmmaking, he studied philosophy under Stanley Cavell, and was a serious analyst of Heidegger. Not a fucking lightweight.

>> No.3052864

>>3052860
It's actually worse. Occasionally /tv/ will have a pretentious art film thread that will have decent discussion and recommendations.

>> No.3052875

>>3052861
>lol, seriously
That was exactly what it was, with slight hints of HURRR COLONIALISM, same depth as Avatar
>he studied philosophy
lol

>> No.3052876

>>3052864
why can't you and me have a good film discussion. What's the last good film you watched? Speaking of philosophy in film I highly recommend Weininger's last night, it's funny and a bit schlocky at times but overall great and well made.

>> No.3052884

>>3052399
Warhol at a higher level than Herzog? you dun goofed mate, you dun goofed
Warhol films atually have a reason to be so obscure: they are mostly failures, and definitely not sophisticated. Just pretentious failed attempts

>> No.3052887

>>3052875
you have to pay pretty close attention to his source texts and the way he uses them to catch what he's doing, i tihnk

The New World is fundamentally about, well, about several things. i agree that the "colonialism / relationship with nature" aspect of the text is kind of blatant and on the face of it bad. but i tihnk what he's really doing is contrasting american mythmaking about the origins of our country and our tendency to see them as this kind of fairy-tale love story, and he's trying to point out that this kind of mythologizing is inherently impossible and also serves to erase the human reality and the personality of the people involved in the story. the very fairy-tale unrealisticness of the love story is part of that - and it's important to point out that the love story doesn't really end in any kind of happy or satisfying way - it starts off as this simplistic fairy-tale romance story, and it starts off with this simplistic native good, european bad framework, and then i think by the end of the movie both of those structures have fundamentally disappeared.

it's a complicated little movie, it's rather too subtle for its own sake - but i rather like it.

>> No.3052888

>>3052876
Because I'm an inferior pleb whose mind has been slowly degrading the last few years and I'm just wasting my days on 4chan waiting to have the final push to commit suicide.

I honestly can't remember the last film I watched.

>> No.3052892

>>3052887
rather

>> No.3052897

>tfw into Snow and Brakhage
I got in a fistfight over whether or not Wavelength was something of substance.

>> No.3052898

>>3052887
rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather, rather,

>> No.3052899

>>3052888
that's kind of sad, don't do that.You at least have got the will to be better, no? That makes you at least better that what you might call a "pleb" (I don't like this term, it's imprecise and obnoxious)

Watch a good movie, you'll see there are things worth living for and worse things things that could be happening to you. Watch Idi i smotri, it's one of my favorite films.
I'd wish death upon every single fucking moron out there but if you've got at least 1% of a spark within you, don't give up.

>> No.3052901

>>3052897
I hope you were supporting a negative argument.

>> No.3052902
File: 45 KB, 300x321, 1329517597524.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052902

>>3052399
>tfw no Fellini

>> No.3052906

>>3052897
It's funny how personally people can take art that they didn't make themselves. I can understand thinking that 8 hours of the Empire State Building is dumb, but I can't understand getting angry over it.

>> No.3052915

>>3052906
That's not what people get angry over, it's the ridiculous amount of exposure it gets while infinitely more talented projects never get shown 'because they're not famous enough' (for filthy rich NY JEWS to enjoy, j/k)

>> No.3052936

>>3052899
That was on my to-watch list, it might be just the thing to rekindle my interest. Thanks.

>> No.3052947

>>3052578
OH WOW, AN AUTISTIC HIPSTER

>> No.3052950

common jap rus klin isaa lib alg other feyn and rus prob

>> No.3052969

>>3052899
>>3052899
Ok, I'll download it. The "things could be worse" view doesn't really work with my situation though.

>> No.3052972
File: 33 KB, 314x314, 134376235412.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3052972

>>3052899
let's make this a bit more like /tv/.

...

OH SHI-

>> No.3053020

>>3052451
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=snow+film+director

>> No.3053021

If it's not exclusively on KG, then it belongs to the 4th tier or something.

>> No.3053034
File: 938 KB, 600x2400, Deeper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3053034

Posting superior list

>> No.3053038

>>3053034
>duras
>extremely few people know about her

"lel"

>> No.3053041

>>3053034
The higher tiers seem pretty empty.

>> No.3053042

1
Malick, Ford Coppola, Sirk, Hawkes, John Ford

2
Mekas, Rivette, Fassbinder, Kubrick

3
Mizoguchi, Bresson, Dreyer, Dovzhenko

4
Marker, Farocki, Lav Diaz, Godard

5
Kluge, Tarr, Pedro Costa, Piavoli

6
Reis, Monteiro, Terayama, Noren, Michael Snow

∞
Straub/Huillet, Debord, Nam June Paik, Brakhage

>> No.3053043

>>3053038

It is the truth, though. Even among cinephiles she is extremely little known, or do you really think a lot of people talk about India Song?

>> No.3053044

>>3053034
>Rashomon
>Kurosawa's best known film
lel

>> No.3053046

>>3053041

What do you mean by empty?

>> No.3053049

>>3053044

It may not be the single best known, but it definitely is among his most discussed.

>> No.3053050

>>3053046
Whoever made it only put 3 directors in each section for some reason.

>> No.3053052

>>3053050
Because it's /tv/ and that's pretty much their entire knowledge of the semi-obscure

>> No.3053057

>>3053052
Good point. If you know enough directors to fill each section you probably don't think in terms of 'tiers' anyway.

>> No.3053061

>>3053043
614 ratings on imdb is rather high (for "obscure" films).

>> No.3053078

>>3052887

agreed. His deconstruction of American historical revisionism & unthinking romanticism is done excellently in many of his films- Days of Heaven is pretty spectacular, in my opinion. The Thin Red Line is great, too. Grouping Malick in with average-tier directors like Tarantino is supreme faggotry.

>> No.3053109

>>3053078
Pity we'll never see the whole cut of The Thin Red Line ;.;

>> No.3053768

>>3053042
do you happen to have a mubi/kg account?
I'd like to talk to you about something but it seems pretty pointless doing that on 4chan

>> No.3053773

>>3052599
amen

>> No.3053838

Please note that this list is in no way representative of /tv/ and was made by a single faggot.

>> No.3053842

Please note this is a list of how experimental directors are, not quality

>> No.3053845

Apatow should be Level 1

>> No.3053847

Apatow is the Lubitsch of our generation

>> No.3053858

having to categorize everything is super autist
>anyone who makes lists is a autist,pleb-y cunt.

>> No.3053866

>>3052588

why are Murakami & DFW on there? anyone who isn't completely daft would realize they don't fit with the rest.

>> No.3053869

>>3052399
Spielberg directed Munich.
That's all I have to say. Nice to see that according to your list I would be pretty patrician (Tarantino is my gulty pleasure, though).

>> No.3053879

>no spike lee

/lit/ confirmed for plebs

>> No.3053881

>>3053869
Munich is of course better than anything Warhol or Snow ever made. We can all agree that Spielberg is a giant and a master.

>> No.3053883

>>3053881
The guy who created Terra Nova sure is a master

>> No.3053885

>>3053869
Which is why he's on level 0.

>> No.3053889

>>3053883
You don't know what you're talking about and I refuse to argue with you until you get your facts straight.

>> No.3053896

>>3053889
>Stop disliking what I like!

>> No.3053940

>>3052588
If /lit/ ever crashes they should just post this chart.

since so unoriginal