[ 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: 307 KB, 700x1096, 1396359651475.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4728790 No.4728790[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Considering films and literature are describing the same thing through different means, which approach do you consider the most pure?

>> No.4728805

Literature. Assuming no excessive editorial meddling, it's ideas straight from writer to reader with no middleman. No actors, directors or other crew.

>> No.4728815

>>4728805
Makes sense, on the other hand don't you think the director might have a higher control over the way his vision is seen by the public? At least if it's an independent production. I mean a writer can't control the fantasy of his audience as much as a film maker. Doesn't mean it's a good thing to control how you work is seen but that's a different topic.

>> No.4728816

Film is ultimately the better medium. It's the culmination of every art form brought together to make one massive collaborative piece of work.

>> No.4728819

>Considering films and literature are describing the same thing through different means

stop right there criminal scum

>> No.4728820

>>4728816
>collaborative
>a good thing
almost never

also have fun with you FIS in your films, faggot

>> No.4728826

>>4728820
But when it all does come together, it's the best thing you can ask for.

>> No.4728828

>>4728826
i actually disagree with that but i don't have a nice argument as to why. my argument is instead that i've never seen a film nearly as good as war and peace.

>> No.4728838

>>4728820
You're implying a writer has total control over the medium. Even though this might be true for self published content I think it really isn't regarding the traditional way of distribution. There are editors and so on. It's not like a publisher wouldn't have a commercial interest in you, so I doubt they would leave you alone unless you're already a big name.

>> No.4728839

>>4728828
Citizen Kane maybe?

>> No.4728841

>>4728828
War and Peace doesn't have imagery, music, acting and writing all coming together in unison to create one experience.

>> No.4728849

>>4728839
i love citizen kane but i don't think it's close. kane has a lot of too obvious symbolism and thematically is kind of generic (it's an american dream story). welles was the best director but he never got to make the movie he was capable of. if anyone could have matched w&p it would've been him but as is he didn't get close. chimes at midnight is my fav of his tho, and it's one of my favorite films

>> No.4728853

>>4728849
Fellini's 8 1/2

>> No.4728860

I love Night of the Hunter.

>> No.4728867

>>4728853
love that movie too but lacks the emotional punch, detailed characters, and scope of w&p and is maybe too solipsistic to boot, which is the point, but is a more narrow point than the grand human concerns in war and peace. great comic spirit though, and impeccable style.

>> No.4728874

>>4728826
Would you say video games might have even more potential considering they add even more layers to the experience?

>> No.4728876

>>4728819
>>4728819
>>4728819
Seriously, /lit/. You newfags can't actually be this stupid.

Protip: To avoid the fucking hotbed of worthless argument this shit >>4728816 >>4728874 will get you into, you better start with a definition of art and a measure of its consumption (ie Kant's) before taking another goddamn step

>> No.4728883

>>4728876
I think art has the goal to portray an image of reality through the filter of subjectivity. If art lies it's just to say the truth in a way it would've been possible otherwise.

>> No.4728885

>>4728790
>films and literature are describing the same thing through different means

A fictional film or piece of literature isn't describing anything but itself.

>> No.4728897

>>4728885
Yes and no. Ultimately it's about a vision and even though the vision might differ in terms of content it's still about the same things. A progression of events, emotions, personal change and so on. There's a pure dimension hidden behind the curtains of the world and all art does is tap into that dimension through the particular medium you're using. It's a bad analogy but I'd say you could compare writing to radar where as cinema is like a series of paintings.

>> No.4728908
File: 52 KB, 233x299, mcluhan-energy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4728908

Monitoring the thread.

>> No.4728947

>>4728897
>Ultimately it's about a vision
No it isn't. Books aren't about vision, books are about thoughts. Have you read a book in your life, you neanderthal?

Also, low_quality_bait.jpg

>> No.4728954

>>4728816
>interaction

>> No.4728969

>>4728947
Thoughts are just more less abstract descriptions of shape and form. They aren't a separate entity, they are part of the material world. What were thoughts like before language?

>> No.4728981

>>4728969
>Thoughts are just more less abstract descriptions of shape and form.
No they aren't. Is your enjoyment of music a description of shape and form??

>> No.4729003

>>4728981
It is. Gaps and spaces. It's just a pattern, no information without a carrier.

>> No.4729013

Recently a friend and I were having a discussion about cinema and how dated or primitive films of fifty years of age or more look and I argued that in the same amount of time in future years, our films would be looked at in, if not the same manner, at least a similar one, given how technology keeps evolving and tastes change at quick rates. He never really presented any arguments other than "no, they won't" and wasn't really that great of a debater in this discussion. Can I ask /lit/ for some counter arguments to ideas?

(I ask this here only because a cinema thread's already active and /tv/ wouldn't take this seriously)

>> No.4729018

>>4729013
I don't know. Who is to say the technology doesn't just stop at a certain point? I think this more of a question of zeitgeist.

>> No.4729027

>>4729018
While I agree that this question doesn't have a simple answer, I personally doubt technology would just stop and that engineers/directors/producers would stop trying to better themselves and others at creating out of this world effects (and when I say effects, I don't just refer to the kind used in science fiction films) or new innovations. It just seems implausible and, quite frankly, depressing to think that we've reached or neared a height of cinematic technicality, both in terms of acting and in terms of visuals.

I mean, they were probably saying the same thing when Citizen Kane, Technicolor, etc came about, weren't they?

>> No.4729030

>>4728790
Why aren't non-cinematic scripted performances being included in this discussion?

>> No.4729033

>>4729027
Human perception is limited though. At some point the human brain is the limit at another it's physics. Technology won't progress forever. It's more likely we take a few steps back.

>> No.4729039

>>4729033
This is very true but as of the moment technology stills seems to progressing, doesn't it? Even in the most mundane ways, cinematic technology is still evolving. Watch the first Toy Story and tell me the animation in the film doesn't already look slightly dated. Wouldn't that be a sign, in some regards at least, technology is still moving a long, if we can recognize such simple differences ?

>> No.4729054

>>4729039
Hm. I actually think technology slowed done already at least in terms of cgi. But you could still argue cgi is still and might always will be behind real effects. Saying in 50 years or so Citizen Kane might be still a classic where as avatar has been long forgotten.

>> No.4729458

>>4728816

No, it's video games

>> No.4729480

>>4728828
The Wire... it's like a novel detailing the tragedy of the modern American city. In a century, if humanity is still around to do so, The Wire will be seen as era defining.

>> No.4729500

>>4729480
Any era-defining thing [film or book] are era-defining no matter the distance into the future just by definition.

>> No.4731043

>>4729480
the wire is a good show but i think it's too head-y, or maybe heady also. it's dialogue heavy. it's philosophical and intelligent, but not beautiful. it's like war and peace if you had all the philosophical discussions of history and farming and none of the parts where andrei gazes up into the sky

>> No.4731045

>>4731043
It sucks real bad that something made you think, Anon. A lesson must be taught. Point him out and I'll punch him in the nose.

>> No.4731076

>>4731045
... are you joking? i never said i don't like philosophical, intelligent dialogue in my art, just that, ideally, i'd also like moments of beauty. tbh i don't think the wire even approaches the top level of philosophical discussion in art, i think goethe is a better philosophical artist, as is dosto, probably tolstoy, and a lot of others. my problem is that the wire has all of this heavy dialogue delivered with none of the high style that it gets delivered with in war and peace, thus missing out on the local pleasures of w&p, and also lacks the other side of a novel like w&p, which is the side of the tenderness and human moments