Film Theory General

[Anonymous No.5998083]

Let's try to get some actual discussion about film going.

Narrative
Subtext
Psychoanalysis
Use of Cinematography (Non technical)
Use of Editing (Non technical)
Anything else related to the creation of syntax and communication of message through the film medium

This thread is not /tv/ style posturing and arguing what is "le pleb". Please avoid such posts.


My question is, are cinematography, color, editing, and sound design the equivalent of prose in the film medium? Consider the following scene from Ingmar Bergman's Fanny & Alexander and how one might describe it if transliterated to a written format.

http://youtu.be/nE3ESgz6F0c

[Anonymous No.5998111]

>/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5998116]

>>5998111
film is a text

[Anonymous No.5998117]

i kinda want this thread to happen but i have no idea how to help it get started

[Anonymous No.5998129]

>>5998111
/lit/ is kill
accept it

[Anonymous No.5998130]

>>5998083
lol at the 'psychoanalysis' bandied about by film theorists

man i would love if this didn't turn into a zizek thread

[Anonymous No.5998137]

>>5998083
>are cinematography, color, editing, and sound design the equivalent of prose in the film medium?
Yeah, pretty much. Mise en scene is to film as prose is to literature. Characterization and narrative are basically unchanged between media, aside from the technical restrictions/necessities of the two formats.

[Anonymous No.5998146]

>>5998111
>>5998117

There are philosophy threads all the time. This is at least as relevant as philosophy. It's actually more relevant because it is at least fiction.

[Anonymous No.5998152]

>>5998137
I also agree. Anyone can tell a given story, but the director's/author's mark comes out in the style in which it's told. I'm not style over substance or vice versa, but style is essentially the lens through which the substance is seen, and that style can add innumerable depths to the substance. If it's uniquely the director's work, you'll see that stamp.

Any other Michael Mann fans here?

If so, I've been pondering lately what sets him above other action directors. There's definitely a reason, but I can't put my finger on it...

[Anonymous No.5998154]

>>5998117
Just think about a director you love and talk about what his/her movie means. then ask if anyone agrees or disagrees.

[Anonymous No.5998155]

>My question is, are cinematography, color, editing, and sound design the equivalent of prose in the film medium?

No use making a mess of it with all those categories. The frame is the word. No need to preface it with "film is a audiovisual medium", it isn't rocket science.

>Consider the following scene from Ingmar Bergman's Fanny & Alexander and how one might describe it if transliterated to a written format.

"A picture is worth a thousand words" applies here. That's a project, not a translation.

[Anonymous No.5998157]

>>5998083
the two are basically equivalents, with film restricted by timing and expanse and written text restricted by a lack of visual and auditory references.to more easily convey extra-textual concepts.

[Anonymous No.5998158]

>>5998146
>philosophy
>fiction
Pick two.

[Anonymous No.5998176]

>>5998152
Mann is far more conscious of tone and keeping the action realistic. The over the top action antics of most action directors really ruins immersion and tone so they almost have to have a winking sense of irony about the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.5998185]

>>5998158
Sure, it is aimless narrative-less badly written self indulgent fiction. The equivalent of all those pretentious film school movies.

[Anonymous No.5998190]

>>5998152
i've only seen Public Enemies in full. He pays more attention to his color palette than most (It's noticable in Collateral, also). Also, his compositions tend to measure themselves across the entire film rather than on a scene basis, which extends to Heat, which i've seen the patches of.

[Anonymous No.5998197]

>>5998155
You know that in actuality sound is a lot more important to film than the image, right? Like tests have been done with audiences where something with awful image quality is watchable while something with awful sound quality is utterly unwatchable.

[Anonymous No.5998203]

>My question is, are cinematography, color, editing, and sound design the equivalent of prose in the film medium? Consider the following scene from Ingmar Bergman's Fanny & Alexander and how one might describe it if transliterated to a written format.

As a rule of thumb for that, would you guys agree with the idea that everything in a piece of art that you can describe to someone who never read/watched it is part of the rudimentary narrative, and everything that is left out of this (prose, cinematography) is "art"?

[Anonymous No.5998212]

what do you guys think of this style? particularly the completely static sets and bleached-out colours.

http://youtu.be/91tVgbkIT40

[Anonymous No.5998215]

>>5998197
But it doesn't need to be said, we all know film is a an audiovisual medium. It's simply that, if we're going to find the unit to measure film against prose, it might as well be the frame to the word. If need be, we can configure an audio-visual correspondence.

[Anonymous No.5998222]

>>5998203
The narrative's description necessarily involves a level of artistry. It's hard to say that the essence of narrative can be separated from art.

[Anonymous No.5998232]

>>5998190
If you have Netflix, check out Manhunter and Thief. Really, you can't go wrong with any of his films, though I'd reserve Miami Vice for later.

[Anonymous No.5998236]

Just because /tv/ has gone COMPLETELY shit now doesn't mean you can come running here, kid

[Anonymous No.5998244]

>>5998212
So what the director is doing with these is making everything but the subjects incredibly boring to highlight the subjects. It works as a juxtaposition but might get tiring if overused.

>>5998215
I just think that only talking about a frame would be overly reductive. It is any one element of the overall product. Sure every frame is a painting but it is the interconnection of those frames together that actually provides the sense of narrative flow. You can't discount the importance of sound design, camera movement and editing to the narrative because you will lose the essence of what is "film".

>>5998236
So far the discussion has been civil and informative. Take part.

[Anonymous No.5998251]

The beauty of film lies in it's ability to combine several elements; not simply audio and visual but also underemphasis and overemphasis.

Take the running scene from Shame for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wI6OX8BkL0

A clearly tense situation (his co-worker just took his sister to bed) is juxtaposed with a simple run accompanied with classical music. As stated previously here, film is often restricted by time, I think the true sign of a great film-maker is their ability to use this restraint as a form of expression. It's near impossible to write solely about a man running, and keep the reader completely captivated as McQueen does in this scene from Shame.

[Anonymous No.5998252]

>>5998236
There's actually a lot more substance in this thread than in most threads that have been posted here lately. This is probably one of the threads least deserving of a mod cleanup.

[Anonymous No.5998259]

>>5998212
Eh. I'm not such a fan of it myself. I've always eyed this film from a distance. It feels like I'm paying attention to the diegesis of the scene . . . and it calls attention to itself aesthetically, the static set. Meanwhile, I'm not paying attention to the narrative line--I don't care about what actually hapenning. Transitionally, thereafter, I might as well be watching television.

[Anonymous No.5998266]

>>5998251
I definitely agree with this. If you look at the progression of Paul Thomas Anderson career you will see he move toward a lot more restraint in his use of the camera. Initially it was flashy and distracting but now rather restrained and formalistic.

[Anonymous No.5998269]

>>5998083
I don't understand this extraneous cultures and analysis about film. When you see a blue curtain, that's it and that's all. No, the blue does not represent the director's inner anguish or some shit.

[Anonymous No.5998276]

>>5998244
It feel its made a functional converstion by it. I don't know, maybe because I'm a Bordwell enabler.

[Anonymous No.5998281]

Thoughts on this book?

It made me realise how important editing was. And thus gave me a much greater understanding of cinema.

[Anonymous No.5998288]

>>5998232
Oh, I forgot about Miami Vice. Yes, I need to see that. Hopefully it'll be surrealmoviez or something when I get a PC again. I only have a tablet now.

[Anonymous No.5998289]

>>5998244
have you seen any of his films in full? i think it works for this because new characters and settings are introduced throughout, with lots of interesting transitions and little motions in the background that tie in with previous settings or add subtext.

the pale colouring also goes well with the already pale swedish skin colour, making everybody seem sickly

[Anonymous No.5998305]

>>5998269
Clearly I'm not advocating overreading into a film but if all of a director's main characters exhibit certain traits it is probably safe to assume that those traits have some psychological relevance to the director.

>>5998276
It is not impossible to discuss all of these elements at the same time by talking about a particular scene or series of scenes. You can specifically discuss the frame in the same way you can specifically discuss sound design or editing or cinematography.

>>5998289
I haven't seen any of his movies but if used to introduce new characters it is probably very effective to illustrate who that person is without an exposition dump.

>>5998281
Never read it. Could be interesting. I'll look into it.

[Anonymous No.5998309]

>>5998269
You could say the same thing about any form of literature

[Anonymous No.5998323]

>>5998251
>>5998251
Offhandedly, the film is much more fasconating between the siblings, than scenes like this. These type of scenes have already been mined for me.icgen

[Anonymous No.5998333]

>>5998305

it definitely helps that way. this scene, for example, is shown without any previous context:
http://youtu.be/43R1k8vHCh0

[Anonymous No.5998344]

>>5998333
Yeah, my only problem with this is that it has limited application. it assumes of the subject that they are 100% open and reveal themselves in their appearance which is not true for most people. This basically limits the film to being surrealistic in order to avoid tonal dissonance.

[Anonymous No.5998346]

>>5998333
oh derp, i'm not thinking. there was context.
time to actually watch this again...

[Anonymous No.5998348]

>>5998323
I agree that the relationship between him and his sister was fascinating, I just used that scene as an example to show how film can use it's restrictive qualities to good effect.

[Anonymous No.5998357]

>>5998348
I remeber when they used to shit on this film over on /tv/. One of my favorites though. I believe this is the only music we hear in it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2hvq2pr-_k

[Anonymous No.5998372]

>>5998269
P L E B
L
E
B

>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.5998379]

>>5998357
It's been recommended to me before, haven't got around to watching it yet, will definitely do so soon though!

[Anonymous No.5998384]

>>5998357
/tv/ has the main problem that ~50% are trolls, ~30% want to appear patrician, ~15% are just teens posting about things they like, then only about 5% are interested in film as a medium and discussing it.

[Anonymous No.5998402]

>>5998384
>5%
Maybe 5 people

[Anonymous No.5998409]

>>5998384
you can't make a thread on /tv/ about real film and not get told off for being 'pretentious'

[Anonymous No.5998420]

>>5998402
It was wishful thinking.

>>5998409
Not that sometimes it isn't pretentious. Like, there are things to learn by studying "mainstream directors" but to actually discuss theory is far beyond their abilities

[Anonymous No.5998423]

>>5998152
Never liked Michael Mann's stuff, all style no substance, never felt immersed in his work. Not like Greengrass's work, I know his shakycam style is mocked but check out Bloody Sunday, it was perfect for showing just how anarchic and confusing the whole situation was

[Anonymous No.5998424]

Has anyone read Tarkovsky's sculpting in time? I really enjoyed it

[Anonymous No.5998431]

>>5998420
You'd be surprised, there are odd threads with genuinely interesting discussion that go under the eye of trolls.

[Anonymous No.5998433]

Can you guys show me a what a good/bad directing in cinema is (with the same actors is possible)

[Anonymous No.5998435]

>tfw moot will never make a /film/ board

[Anonymous No.5998446]

>>5998433
I can show you good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPAloq5MCUA

[Anonymous No.5998451]

>>5998435
It wouldn't work anyway. all the "patricians" of /tv/ would migrate there.

[Anonymous No.5998460]

OP, it sounds like you want us to write your paper for you. The fact that you're only using Swedish examples further cements the belief that these examples have been handed to you by your teacher to analyze.

[Anonymous No.5998481]

>>5998460
Haha, no. I 'm not in film school. I'm and econ Int'l affair major.

[Anonymous No.5998488]

>>5998460
let's have some jan svankmajer, then.

> intermixing of puppets and stop motion with real subjects
> extreme close-ups

how do these things affect you?

http://youtu.be/9fqrrcrgpss

[Anonymous No.5998493]

Check this shiz:

Dreaming of Jeannie: Tag Gallagher on Stagecoach:
http://vimeo.com/40092986

Tag Gallagher on Rossellini's Francesco, Giullare Di Dio:
vimeo.com/53775224

Edward Yang’s The Terrorizers
By Jimmy Weaver:
http://www.theseventhart.org/essays/The-Seventh-Art-Edward-Yang-Terrorizers.pdf

Introduction to André Bazin, Part 1: Theory of Film Style in its Historical Context:
http://offscreen.com/view/bazin4

[Anonymous No.5998502]

>>5998446
Good god, Every Frame A Painting is fucking horrible

[Anonymous No.5998504]

>>5998502
Why?

[Anonymous No.5998517]

>>5998433
http://vimeo.com/68514760

[Anonymous No.5998524]

>>5998269
this is relaly dumb and makes it very clearl that you have never created anything good before

[Anonymous No.5998540]

>>5998083
>are cinematography, color, editing, and sound design the equivalent of prose in the film medium

Yes. Everything that goes into what you see and hear, how these are controlled by the creators of what you are seeing and hearing, all of that is the written word of film.

Lighting, color, montage, movement, sound

It's why I get confused when people try to talk to me about movies and all they can point out is what you would notice while reading a book.

[Anonymous No.5998541]

>>5998424
Reading it right now. I love everything about Tarkovsky. Certainly a lot of good talk about art and what qualities he thinks it should have. I like the comparison of Margarita Terekhova and Da Vinci's Ginevra de' Benci in that the women are beautiful but have something fiendish about them, they're almost the same woman.

Tarkboi's diary is also very interesting. He's a different person than what I thought he was, his inner thoughts are almost crude to a point.

[Anonymous No.5998549]

>>5998504
>doesn't care about symbols
>obsessed with what Berger calls the mysticism of art "This match cut makes you feel X"

[Anonymous No.5998551]

>>5998541

[Anonymous No.5998556]

Who the fuck is making all these white text on inspirational background pictures.

[Anonymous No.5998570]

>>5998549
Do you even know what a match cut is? I don't think there's even a match cut in the video.

>>5998556
I am

[Anonymous No.5998572]

>>5998551
>television isn't art
>Rossellini's Age of The Medici isn't art
>Day of Hope isn't art
What a pleb

[Anonymous No.5998577]

>>5998504

It's vaguely popular so someone's got to be edgy and bash it without giving a reason.

[Anonymous No.5998579]

>>5998083

>mfw people actually go to college and spend their parent's money studying shit like this

No wonder milleniums can't find a fucking job

[Anonymous No.5998597]

>>5998549
>doesn't care about symbols
So what?
>>5998572
He wrote that in the beginning of '73, find some new criteria. Image is for you.

[Anonymous No.5998603]

>>5998269

It's not always the case but for some director's in definitely means something. If I put orange in my films it's because of my mother, purple, the first girl I ever loved. Colors do mean something to us, they aren't just nothing.

Green is greedy, red is violent/caution, blue is calm/dreamy, pink is a girl, brown is murky/mysterious

Does it HAVE to be that? NO. A director can take a color and readjust it for what he wants to say. He can even trick you into thinking the color means one thing and the twist is that it was the opposite all along. Tropes can be played with if you know what you're doing.

Unfortunately because almost all films are color now, because it is just how it is, because films are just accepted as having to be in color, a lot more filmmakers DO NOT take into account the colors they are showing. They take color for granted and assume that their primary job is to tell a story.

[Anonymous No.5998617]

>>5998603
In the film I'm planning to make I have a very particular color palette chosen already. the main character for instance will be the only person wearing blue and most backgrounds will be green/brown.

[Anonymous No.5998618]

>>5998570
please stop ruining /lit. with your generals, we dont want circle jerking and more trips

[Anonymous No.5998630]

>>5998618
This, it ruined the /mu/ I once loved

[Anonymous No.5998632]

>>5998618
The threads are mean to contain marginally related content to 4 or 5 threads. The number of incidental philosophy threads has decreased since the institution of the philosophy general. I also did not make the theology general. I tried a history and greek general but interest was too low to justify their continuation.

Calm down. /lit/ isn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous No.5998635]

>>5998572
Because of the reference to "the State," I assume the only TV he gets to watch is at best state-controlled and at worst Soviet propaganda.

[Anonymous No.5998637]

>as a vision of the future and the relation between man and its destiny is pushing the frontier of cinema as an art

Tarkovsky on The Terminator

[Anonymous No.5998639]

>>5998632
how long have you been here?

[Anonymous No.5998643]

>>5998617

I'm nowhere near being able to do that. I have lots of interest in colors but I work so slowly and alone so what I have to say with them is very limited.

I've noticed that I do attribute very bright, friendly colors to sadness and confusion. I think that those happy colors, those bright forces in today's world have been corrupted and as beautiful as they are, all they can do now is lie.

[Anonymous No.5998652]

>>5998637
>implying the terminator isnt of the best films, mainstream or not, of the 80s

[Anonymous No.5998654]

>>5998639
I'm the guy that designed the cover of aLoTiaT. I've been here long enough.

>>5998643
As long as you remain consistent you can use whatever you want. I think the use of those bright color could be done very effectively to illustrate the impact of imposed happiness that most commercials portray. You're definitely thinking in the right way.

[Anonymous No.5998685]

>>5998652
Too bad T2 turned out to be overly sentimental trash.

[Anonymous No.5998742]

Can this boil down to top five directors or a top ten favorite films thread already? I'm getting antsy.

[Anonymous No.5998786]

In response to the discussion re. film as text, is anyone familiar with Pasolini's theories?

This seems really good:
desistfilm.com/a-natural-living-film-pasolinis-written-language-of-reality/

I loved Edipo Re and Arabian Nights and I've been meaning to read some of his theory stuff.

[Anonymous No.5998788]

>>5998742
No.

[Anonymous No.5998824]

>>5998786
Also posting the film Manuel DeLanda made as a student. Feels relevant because he's a philosopher who should be discussed more on /lit/ and the whole film is about Lacan and signs.

[Anonymous No.5998830]

>>5998824
http://vimeo.com/23710552
forgot link

[Anonymous No.5998845]

>>5998824
>the whole film is about Lacan and signs
that sounds terrible!

[Anonymous No.5998861]

>>5998424
Reading it now too. Going to start the Nostalghia chapter today.

Such a fantastic read. Learning so much about cinema and art in general.

[Anonymous No.5998867]

>>5998830
this is extremely bad. Million Dollar Extreme is a lot better.

[Anonymous No.5998869]

>>5998597
>>5998551
>>5998541
Wow I'm not the only one reading his diary. I'm going to cry so much towards the end.

[Anonymous No.5998891]

this thread turned out better than expected.

I mean look at /tv/ right now.

[Anonymous No.5998902]

>>5998891
/tv/ regularly has threads better than this

[Anonymous No.5998907]

>>5998902
What? It maybe has one thread a month discussing actual films.

[Anonymous No.5998909]

Anyone follow the contemporary avant-garde scene?

http://poisonberries.net/films.html

My current favorite, though it's been awhile since I checked up on him. They say The General Returns ... is his definimg work, and my favorite.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LgqH3PK6-3Q

I feel he suspends the characters, makes them seem as if they were on display in museum.

I'm trying to get a hold of Jim Jennings, but it's hard to do it on a tablet.

[Anonymous No.5998921]

>>5998654

Commercials, advertising, corporate trademark of colors is something that definitely interests me. But for me it has less to do with happiness and more to do with truth.

We are sold these colors in such a way that they are used to make us feel certain things about our world and ourselves. Happiness being a part of that message, a positive feeling we are supposed to derive from the bright red, bright yellow, bright blue.

But those colors used, what we are being led to believe may be false. And if that's the case where does it leave us, how can we understand ourselves then if all we know are these plastic, pretty lies that force themselves on us everywhere, everyday. I think those colors extract something true from us then. People right now seem just as manipulated and manipulative as the colors they're in.

I don't say this cynically or as someone who is pessimistic about our world. I love the world that we are in, I have no choice but to find something beautiful in those colors since they are what I know, they have become the natural world, they have become part of the people I know and love.

But I think there is something very repressive in them. They limit our feelings. So for artists to make something beautiful, they should be honest about that ugliness that is keeping us away from our true selves.

>I'm not a robot

[Anonymous No.5998939]

>>5998909
There is no art form more pathetic than "experimental" cinema. They're just doing over and over and over again the same things since the 1940. Same effects, same editing, same tricks, same everything. The avant-garde of cinema is stuck in the avant-garde of the 1940s.

And it's not like they're doing it any better than the originals, there is no refinement, only bland copying.

[Anonymous No.5998941]

>>5998549
>doesn't care about symbols
symbols are babby's first artistic expression, though. There's a reason why symbolism is the first and basically the only thing that is analysed in novels in highschool, for example (as opposed to every other technical tool, ever).

[Anonymous No.5998954]

>>5998921
They are representative of the distractions that limit our ability to feel and think and repress our expression of emotion. If we feel unfulfilled we watch netflix, look at pictures on tumblr or facebook, and repeat trite life affirming aphorisms to one another. In a sense, that is what most people live for. If you remove the fake, they have nothing so they cling to the fake.

>I'm not a robot
My movie is about a robot.

[Anonymous No.5998962]

>>5998909
pretty cool

[Anonymous No.5998975]

>>5998146
philosophy is literature.

but this is the only decent board for discussion, so i welcome the broadening.

[Anonymous No.5998991]

>>5998907
it has multiple threads a day if you know where to look and what to ask

and unlike this thread there are more than a handful of people who are familiar with more than entry level arthouse and also people who actually appreciate the medium as more than just an expression of their "artistic knowledge"

[Anonymous No.5998997]

>>5998991
Then please be our guest to leave.
>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.5999012]

>>5998909
Currently taking a course on avant-garde and documentary cinema. Some contemporary, some older. Should be interesting. I've never been much for experimental cinema myself, but I'm hoping I can learn why some people love it.

[Anonymous No.5999014]

>>5998939
In all forms there are largely derivative strands--film, music...whichever. But, in this scene there are some gems. The aformentioned Robinson and Martin Arnold (Though their recent entries not as strong: the former seems to have fallen into the more conventional brand of gallery art, and the former has become too repititious, no pun intended), Ben Rivers (Look up Ah! Liberty and Slow Action), and the odd film from veterans cor my taste.

Anybody interested would do well reading academichack.net, and starting with the "A Critical Cinema" book series.

[Anonymous No.5999025]

>>5998997
fuck off you cunt.

[Anonymous No.5999027]

>>5998997
im not the one being an obnoxious pedant talking about how my "secret" discussion board has elevated discussion over the dirty plebeians

i would have no issue if YOU didnt make a point to remind people how much better this thread is than the pulp you find at /tv/

elitism generates base discussion, and lit is a board i enjoy too much to allow egotistical twats come in and parade around like theyre so superior because they know to avoid "shit"

[Anonymous No.5999028]

>>5999014
Oh, and P. Adams Sitney.

[Anonymous No.5999036]

>>5999027
Is this your first day The entirety of 4chan is like this.

[Anonymous No.5999038]

>>5999027
>>5999025
Good, let's stop then.

[Anonymous No.5999252]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L4A0rZwpOqc

[Anonymous No.5999261]

>>5998083
I'm from /p/ and all I can say is look at that barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, and falloff in the corners of a poorly composed and underexposed shot.

[Anonymous No.5999332]

>>5999261
Underexposed, yes. But probably more just poorly lit. This is a film set, after all. But maybe the DP wanted to go for that blurry effect.

As for barrel distortion, some directors / DPs use that purposefully from time to time. Look at this pic from Blackhat, for example:

http://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/blackhat-2015/primary_Blackhat_2015_1.jpg

It all comes down to stylistic choices.

I won't argue that this necessarily good composition, though, or that it's even a good shot.

[Anonymous No.5999421]

>>5999261
Are you talking about the OP pic? It's been darkened to highlight the text.

[Anonymous No.5999433]

>>5999261
It's a low res, badly cropped and written on screengrab. What have they done to the ratio?
Tarkovsky is better than this picture makes him out to be
>>5999332
It's almost certainly location not set

[Anonymous No.5999457]

>"film" theory

God I hate liberal arts majors. Read a book about mathematics you fucking idiots.

[Anonymous No.5999504]

>>5999457
> muh science and reason! !!
Take the fedora off.

[Anonymous No.5999515]

>>5999433
Its the original aspect ratio and kept as 16x9 like the other threads and most commercial televisions. It is indeed darkened so the text will stand out.

[Anonymous No.5999528]

Is based Malick /lit/ approved?

[Anonymous No.5999533]

>/tv/ is attempting to make fun of us again

[Anonymous No.5999544]

>>5999528
>Malick studied philosophy under Stanley Cavell at Harvard University, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa in 1965. He went on to Magdalen College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. After a disagreement with his tutor, Gilbert Ryle, over his thesis on the concept of world in Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein, Malick left Oxford without a doctorate.[14] In 1969, Northwestern University Press published Malick's translation of Heidegger's Vom Wesen des Grundes as The Essence of Reasons. Returning to the United States, Malick taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology while freelancing as a journalist. He wrote articles for Newsweek, The New Yorker, and Life

[Anonymous No.5999585]

>>5999433
It is the highest quality of that image you will find. No one has made 4k scans of the original negative. This is a direct blu ray rip.

[Anonymous No.5999590]

>transliterated to a written format

'good' cinema should not be possible to be transliterated, as it will make use of all the devices available solely to the filmic medium

[Anonymous No.5999596]

>>5999590
Shut up.

[Anonymous No.5999610]

>>5998269
>le epic sometimes tree is just tree fallacy

[Anonymous No.5999611]

>>5999596
Do you disagree with what I wrote, or are you just an angry person?

[Anonymous No.5999632]

>>5999611
Both.

[Anonymous No.5999646]

>>5999632
Why do you disagree
What's your take on this

[Anonymous No.5999665]

Would anyone care to rec some good books on all things film?
Film theory, editing theory, colour theory and sho on and sho on

[Anonymous No.5999698]

>>5998269
Do you actually have any examples of film criticism which you think is pointless or do you just have that caricatured example you made up yourself? If you don't, then why did you post this comment?

[Anonymous No.5999709]

I wanted to let you guys know that /tv/ is watching
>>>/tv/52468718

[Anonymous No.5999720]

>>5999709
I hope that's all they do.

[Anonymous No.5999726]

>>5999709
/tv/ are bunch of wankers

[Anonymous No.5999731]

>>5998305
>>5998309
>>5998372
>>5998524
>>5998603
>>5999610
>>5999698
holy shit are you guys retarded or have you literally never posted on this board before

[Anonymous No.5999732]

>>5999646
I'm driving right now and listening to Jefferson Airplane. Will comment later.

[Anonymous No.5999738]

>>5998939
Not all experimental films are just about showing off particular techniques or tricks. Sometimes, they might even be narrative films, and they might even be emotional experiences. The obsession with originality and working against convention is an artistic dead end, I agree, but that doesn't mean that all films that fall under the purview of 'experimental' are bad.

[Anonymous No.5999739]

>>5999646
medium specificity is pretty much a matter of opinion if you ask me

[Anonymous No.5999746]

>>5999739
fair enough

[Anonymous No.5999752]

>>5999738
>originality is an artistic dead end

ayy lmao, nigga you for real?

[Anonymous No.5999779]

Why do English language countries contribute so little to artistic cinema?

[Anonymous No.5999790]

>>5999779
The Anglospehere is a cesspit of consumerism

[Anonymous No.5999792]

>>5999528
>philosopher from Harvard
>Christian
>starting to get derided by critics
Obviously.

[Anonymous No.5999800]

>>5999590
This is the only correct post in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5999806]

>>5999752
>I think that one of the problems with twentieth-century art is its preoccupation with subjectivity and originality at the expense of everything else. This has been especially true in painting and music. Though initially stimulating, this soon impeded the full development of any particular style, and rewarded uninteresting and sterile originality.

[Anonymous No.5999810]

>>5999779
why has "artistic cinema" leeched off of hollywood genre movies over the entire course of its existence

[Anonymous No.5999813]

>>5999806
Whoever said that was/is wrong

[Anonymous No.5999817]

>tfw your tortured between your strong catholic faith and the desire of fucking your underage amateur actress

[Anonymous No.5999821]

ITT: Reasoned and informative discussion turned to shit once /tv/ finds out this thread exists.

[Anonymous No.5999823]

>>5999817
qèq

[Anonymous No.5999825]

>>5999817
How many times a day did he give Mouchette the dick?

[Anonymous No.5999831]

>>5999817
i recommend "my night with maud" and "valerie and her week of wonders" to you with no reservations

[Anonymous No.5999832]

>>5999779
Canada does, though the films aren't really to my preference. America also does, believe it or not: we have too large a pool. The problem is that its dissemination is isolated within the anglosphere, outside of the gallery shit.

[Anonymous No.5999835]

>>5999832
>Canada does

I hope you're not referring to Xavieé 'Give me More' Dough-lan

[Anonymous No.5999837]

>>5999779
Because they're not obscure.

[Anonymous No.5999838]

>>5999821
I can't say I'm surprised. We had a good 100 post run. I'm just waiting for the mods to clean it up now.

[Anonymous No.5999846]

>>5999821
>Reasoned and informative discussion
Dang, I really wanted more in depth analyses of Michael Mann's films.

[Anonymous No.5999848]

>>5999817
>tfw all his films get more and more pessimistic as the years go by
rest in peace Big Bobby B.

[Anonymous No.5999850]

>>5999838
>>5999821
there was literally no worthwhile content in this thread at any point

(source: i'm the ghost of sergei eisenstein)

[Anonymous No.5999853]

>>5999806
>twentieth century art
>"preoccupation with subjectivity"
>implying twentieth century art isn't preoccupied with the dissolution of subjectivity and asubjective experience

that's a disappointingly uneducated comment for someone as unquestionably talented as Kubrick

[Anonymous No.5999856]

>>5999850
What happened to Ivan the Terrible part 3

[Anonymous No.5999860]

>>5999850
montage theory a shit

[Anonymous No.5999862]

>>5999835
>>5999832
Cronenberg, Egoyan, Guy Maddin, Snow, etc.

Dolan's craft is too young.

[Anonymous No.5999868]

>>5999862
But they're all shit

[Anonymous No.5999873]

>>5999868
Never said I liked them. Undeniably comtributing.

[Anonymous No.5999875]

>>5999846
There are actual things to learn from Michael Mann's movies

>>5999850
How long will it take for /tv/ to get bored and go back home?

[Anonymous No.5999877]

Why is Lynch so highly rated? How can anyone think the man who made wild at heart and fire walk with me is one of the greatest directors of all time

[Anonymous No.5999888]

>>5999877
Because you should take your loaded questions back to /tv/.

[Anonymous No.5999892]

>>5999875
>There are actual things to learn from Michael Mann's movies
Like what? How to properly record gunshots? How artistic.

[Anonymous No.5999894]

>>5999875
>How long will it take for /tv/ to get bored and go back home?

They won't. They are here to crash this thread WITH NO SURVIVORS

[Anonymous No.5999898]

>>5999888
Double trips!

[Anonymous No.5999905]

>>5999877

Mark Kermode loved Fire Walk With Me. Most of the accusations seemed to come from the fact that it wasn't a good TP movie, which is what people wanted.

[Anonymous No.5999906]

>>5999856
joe stalin is a little bitch
>>5999860
how about you go back to sucking jean renoir's dick and stop posting

[Anonymous No.5999911]

>>5999892
see>>5998176
>Mann is far more conscious of tone and keeping the action realistic. The over the top action antics of most action directors really ruins immersion and tone so they almost have to have a winking sense of irony about the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.5999917]

>>5999911
>immersion and tone
haha, you couldn't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.5999922]

>>5999905
>Mark Kermode loved Fire Walk With Me

A man who thinks the exorcist is the greatest film ever made

[Anonymous No.5999924]

>>5999862
>Dolan's craft is too young.

nah it's just shit.
Dolan is a caricature since his first film. He has nothing to say. The 1:1 he used on Mommy was the funniest thing of 2014

[Anonymous No.5999928]

Is analysis of a Parajanov film even possible?

[Anonymous No.5999935]

>>5999906

[Anonymous No.5999938]

>>5999779
because your idea of what "artistic cinema" is involves subtitles and foreign accents

[Anonymous No.5999945]

>>5999917
>doesn't understand the importance of tone or immersion.

Good.

[Anonymous No.5999986]

>>5999911
>muh realism
This ain't the 1860s, Dorothy.

[Anonymous No.6000011]

>>5999986
What a lazy, stupid post. You're the worst, anon.

[Anonymous No.6000033]

>>6000011
Y-you too.

[Anonymous No.6000050]

/tv/ here. The posturing is not all that bad. A lot of those people genuinely know what they are talking about.

>>5998130

There's no way to say this without it sounding elitist, but psychoanalysis in film criticism is the realm of people who legitimately know nothing about film. When you can't talk about film form or film history to provide context to a film or a film scene, the result is psychoanalysis or trite, extremely subjective observations about superficial things such as the plot, production design, and costumes.

>>5998083

Yes. I don't know if this adequately answers your question, but consider a filmmaker like Bresson. Bresson would hire amateur or first time actors and then do take after take until they stopped acting. He thought the performance was too much a part of theater and he was attempting to create something wholly cinematic. In his films, form is really all that matters. I'd consider the hard formalists of film to be the equivalent of what people call "literature" (not in the obvious all-encompassing sense, but as in fiction or non-fiction that places most emphasis on prose rather than plot, character, etc).

>>5998152

Style over substance is a lie. There is only good or bad style.

This film essay explains Michael Bay and, as you can see, it's not style that holds Bay back, but an unhelpful use of style. It's not cohesive with the rest of his film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q

>>5998540

Or when people say "I don't get why this is considered good" and proceed to rattle off all they found mediocre and it's entirely things like plot, character, etc. Reading even a dry book like 5 Cs of Cinematography (not even film theory, but basic film form) will help you immensely.

[Anonymous No.6000337]

>>5998540
this so much, it's infuriating when people only look to point out plot holes/other inconsistencies

[Anonymous No.6000387]

>>5999457
Why exactly are you here?

[Anonymous No.6000411]

>>5999457
why do STEM fags hate everyone that isnt a STEM fag

[Anonymous No.6000417]

>>6000411
Because they've been brainwashed to believe they're helping society and that's the only worthwhile goal for humanity.
You doing anything else is detrimental.
A disgusting notion.

[Anonymous No.6000420]

>>6000411
Scientism. Nietzsche foresaw this.

[Anonymous No.6000451]

Hey, kids.

http://www.rouge.com.au
http://cinema-scope.com
http://sensesofcinema.com
http://www.cineaste.com
http://www.movingimagesource.us

[Anonymous No.6000464]

I wish I'd seen this thread earlier. Any good youtube videos/books/critiques on movies/etc.?

Particularly good youtube vids. Sometimes Reddit's True Film board (I think that's the one) has a good critique of a movie.

When Karagarga had that freeleech last week I swiped so many film books. Reading material for ages, after I finish this New Guide to Italian Cinema, which is rather disappointing in its lack of actual film analysis. More of a history of film thing. Still interesting though.

[Anonymous No.6000516]

>>6000464

What you probably want is something like Film Art, Notes on the Cinematographer, and What is Cinema?

History is very important to the study of film, though. I know it's probably not what you're in the mood for now, but people who don't understand film history are worthless critics. Eras, genres, movements, etc, are essential to understanding cinema. You need a combination of history and form.

[Anonymous No.6000530]

Anybody read Adrian Martin's new book, Mise-en-scene and Film Style? It's pretty great, but rather expensive. If you want sort-of an overview of the differing modes of thought in film criticism/analysis and how they coalesce today, it's pretty much necessary though.

Here's the Amazon link if you'd like to buy it:

http://www.amazon.com/Mise-Sc%C3%A8ne-Film-Style-Television/dp/1137269944/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421282629&sr=8-1&keywords=mise-en-scene+and+film+style

[Anonymous No.6000536]

Give me your honest opinion about Harmony Korine

His filmography has left me in a state of intellectual torment, and /tv/ can't give me a comprehensible consensus

[Anonymous No.6000539]

>>6000516
I'm almost halfway through Film Art right now.
And I'm always in the mood for film history. There was a multi-part series on youtube that I started, need to finish. Forgot about it.

>>6000451
http://www.cinephiliabeyond.org/

Another link, if it hasn't already been mentioned.

[Anonymous No.6000560]

>>6000536
Gummo was like watching a disease fester.

[Anonymous No.6000563]

>>6000539

As far as quick youtube videos go, this is the only guy that comes to mind doing actual film analysis that focuses on form and not on social themes or psychology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V-k-p4wzxg

[Anonymous No.6000577]

>>6000536

I don't love him. Spring breakers grew on me though. It's a better film than all its superficial qualities would lead you to believe. It seems to be such a simplistic satire or commentary, but I think there are multiple commentaries stacked on top of each other. Korine will always be controversial on /tv/ though. I'm from /tv/ and opinions are extreme either way. I think Julien Donkey Boy is probably his best. Really couldn't give a fuck about Gummo or Trash Humpers.

[Anonymous No.6000587]

>>6000536
I'm kind of with you. He's clearly heavily influenced by Werner Herzog, who is maybe the worst influence on modern cinema besides Michael Haneke, but unlike those frauds (a term I regret using but feel as though I must), he seems to actually be making movies that he believes in. I think they're mostly bad, as in I don't like them, but I can't fault them for not being genuine, and thus I'm not sure I can even say that they're actually bad.

Spring Breakers in particular reveals a whole host of other influences besides Herzog (especially Michael Mann's Miami Vice [which is definitely one of the only American masterpieces of the last two decades] and neo-realism [especially Rossellini and De Sica]), something that leads me to believe that he could, if he wanted to, make a really great film.

[Anonymous No.6000608]

>>6000536
Well, with Korine ... My opinion of him was a bit mirred by his earlier persona, though it was his most inspired time. Had a need to quote Godard, and generally stake his place in terms of taste rather than in statement -- not that the better parts of Korine's publicity were refined. But his earlier films don't have that ambiguity. In Gummo, the craft wasn't that strong, the shot composition/palette pedestrian, really. But he had a good sense for crude juvenelia, and fortunately it was colored by his earlier experiences as a budding cineaste. Donkey-Boy is his most complete film, but not a film of his to this day is really narratively unified. Not that all forms need to follow an arc, but his logic followed the cues of one.

After his break, it felt more unfocused. Haven't seen the full duration of "Trash Humpers" or "Springbreakers". I heard a critic say he tried to film by 'pure force of will'. Korine, by the interviews I've seen of him, seems follow the incentive of image production. But it lends itself more the gallery. His real home, it seems.

[Anonymous No.6000617]

>>6000587
>Werner Herzog, who is maybe the worst influence on modern cinema besides Michael Haneke

Could you be any more of a pleb? Let me guess, Haneke is a fraud because his work is too sterile and formalistic for you? What an absurd thing to say. Haneke isn't a bad influence on modern cinema, he's a product of modern cinema. Except unlike actual cinematic frauds like Steve McQueen, Haneke isn't channeling video art and simplifying emotional/thematic content and messages in the process.

[Anonymous No.6000622]

>>6000587
You mention his Miami Vice influence and how aspects like that could result in a good film. I find it interesting to note that the next entry in his filmography is a southern crime drama starring Jamie Foxx and Benicio Del Toro, currently titled "The Trap"

I am very excited

[Anonymous No.6000633]

>>6000587
Why do you think Herzog's a fraud? I like him a lot more than I like Korine. His narrative films are OK but his documentaries are fantastic.

[Anonymous No.6000699]

>>6000617
He's so sanctimonious and moralizing, he seems to hate his audience. He offends me morally. This is of course, just my personal opinion; I'm not trying to state that Haneke is a bad director, only that I detest him.

>>6000622
Yeah, I think Korine is moving past his "narrative experiments" phase and into a more mature mode of film-making, or at least one that is more concerned with film-making and not experimentation (which is not to say that experimentation is bad, only that I think Korine has sort of burned himself out in that regard; his recent-ish shorts fell like shock for it's own sake).

>>6000633
Herzog constantly puts his body in danger, there's no danger to his cinema. I think he can be very funny, but he's a fraud. He goes into the jungle and the Arctic and comes back with the same story every time. He believes the way his films are made, and his image as the Only Sane Person Alive, to be more important than the actual film. It seems to me that he just doesn't believe in movies. Plus, his influence seems to be mostly in encouraging others to seek that "ecstatic truth" that Herzog is always going on about, yet no one besides Herzog seems to really understand what that is, and so there is a generation of film-makers lying to their audience in order to make them see... nothing particularly profound or interesting.

[Anonymous No.6000726]

>>5999877
Wild at Heart is fantastic, Fire walk with me is good

[Anonymous No.6000730]

Anyone here Fassbinder's World on a Wire?

[Anonymous No.6000744]

Can anyone shed light on Bergmans persona? I think I´m an idiot and it all goes over my head, yet I find it fascinating for some reason, like staring at an alien bible.

[Anonymous No.6000749]

>>6000730
Yes, what about it?

[Anonymous No.6000750]

>>5999924
No, I don't like his films. But sometimes it happens through persistence. Who knows, after the Cannes award he might start to gear himself. I don't know, he couuld always implode. He seems to *want* to, and he's very young for a filmmaker. It counts for something.

[Anonymous No.6000755]

>>6000730
Hello, I'm World on a Wire.

[Anonymous No.6000771]

>>5997300
Your thread cant beat our thread na na!!