/lit/ - Literature

>>13600256

What's a good philosopher to spend your entire life studying?

Anything made by this man

/lit/ is a Griffith board. The only director who actually made film into an art form

I could encapsulate every work and "accomplishment" by any other established directors in a couple words because they only gleaned superficialities.
>Hitchcock, thriller and meta elements
>Ozu, social masks, elliptics, breaking 180 degree rule and low camera angles constantly as some needlessly condescending stylistic choices, and environmental cutaways
>Bresson narrative convergence centered around closeups as transferrential nucleus,actors as models of precise textual delivery
>Costa, personal scenes cut, impersonal presented through forced pidgeonhole as attempts at evocation of tertiary information
>Benning, diaries and everyday objects juxtaposed with present day environments
>Peter Hutton, portraiture as evocation
>Ford, iconography as evocation and intercommunication with narratological dissertation
>Straub-Huillet prior just with regular people, not professional actors
>Brakhage, textural manipulation for phenomenological simulation
>Dreyer, faux-spiritualism wrung by willpower
>Tarkovsky, synergistic navigation of structuralist emanations, nature as monistic void
>Bergman, denotative deconstruction, dark romanticism, existentialist themes
>Tarr, motivational push-ins, sublimated absurdity
>Lynch, extremified expansion of ecological underbelly
>Ruiz, youth as ontological reversion for epiphenomenal facilitation
You cannot, and I repeat adamantly, you cannot do the same for Griffith, Flaherty, or Eisenstein. They are bar none the most complex individuals

All plebs that disagree must vacate. This is non negotiable.

/lit/ is a Griffith board. That is he is the only director that actually made film as an art.

I could encapsulate every work and "accomplishment" by any other established directors in a couple words because they only gleaned superficialities.
>Hitchcock, thriller and meta elements
>Ozu, social masks, elliptics, breaking 180 degree rule and low camera angles constantly as some needlessly condescending stylistic choices, and environmental cutaways
>Bresson narrative convergence centered around closeups as transferrential nucleus,actors as models of precise textual delivery
>Costa, personal scenes cut, impersonal presented through forced pidgeonhole as attempts at evocation of tertiary information
>Benning, diaries and everyday objects juxtaposed with present day environments
>Peter Hutton, portraiture as evocation
>Ford, iconography as evocation and intercommunication with narratological dissertation
>Straub-Huillet prior just with regular people, not professional actors
>Brakhage, textural manipulation for phenomenological simulation
>Dreyer, faux-spiritualism wrung by willpower
>Tarkovsky, synergistic navigation of structuralist emanations, nature as monistic void
>Bergman, denotative deconstruction, dark romanticism, existentialist themes
>Tarr, motivational push-ins, sublimated absurdity
>Lynch, extremified expansion of ecological underbelly
>Ruiz, youth as ontological reversion for epiphenomenal facilitation
You cannot, and I repeat adamantly, you cannot do the same for Griffith, Flaherty, or Eisenstein. They are bar none the most complex individuals

All plebs that disagree must vacate. This is non negotiable.

>>11133250
>Plastic
>Screen not flush
>Better