/lit/ - Literature

Depends on what books and depends on what movies.

>>11214545
this

It requires more active engagement with the material.
Sitting there and having something shown to you vs sitting there and having something described to you.

Literature is way more immersive.

Because film fell out of grace after anyone failed to continue what Griffith had taught us.

>>11214533

I assume we are talking of good movies and good books.

Reading books requires prolonged attention and activity from the reader. When you read, you project the story by reading, and that requires effort, as proved by the fact that the books you read are generally more memorable than the things you watch. Think of how many hours of video you have been submitted to in your life and how many of them you remember: in proportion, you remember much better the things you have read, exactly because you are required an active effort to interact with the medium.
In comparison, you can watch a movie - even a good one - in a completely passive mindset and get nothing out of it. This cannot be done with a book. Skimming over a book, or reading without understanding the sentences, would not be considered reading by anyone: you have not read a book if you don't understand what is written there, while you have watched a movie even if you don't pay attention to it.
The focal point here being this necessity for understanding. The fact that there is something to understand in literature, means that it is likely that something is being explained to you through it. This is exactly what makes literature more "intellectual" than any other medium and the best medium to convey ideas and meaning. Literature use words as a medium and words, at the moment, are the best medium we have to communicate experience. "Explaining" and "thinking" means to explain and think with words. You cannot do this with any other means. It is very difficult to use images or music to explain things clearly without recurring to language. The art that uses language as a medium is by far more high-brow because it uses the code we are more familiar with to send complex messages. The complexity of a message sent through words can never be reached by music or images alone. Literature, therefore, is more intellectual because it does not appeal mostly at our sensory capabilities (as music makes with hearing and movies with seeing) but it appeals to our capability of understanding, and it generates aesthetic pleasure in relation to it without recurring to perception in any way. It relates on the active effort of your intellect to produce enjoyment in you, rather than just bombarding you with nice colors or sounds, as some movies and some music do.

>>11214533
Movies play and all you have to do is sit down and do nothing. Reading books requires an ability to concentrate and decipher complex symbols.

>>11214573
Left: shitty Right: Grand
I don't get it.

Because sometime in the 70s film as an artform surrendered entirely to film as a risk free cash cow

>>11214605

That said, I believe that the aim of art is pleasure - not explaining things. Here I am only arguing why I believe literature is more intellectual than other forms of art. It does not mean it is less effective in conveying aesthetic pleasure - although personally I do find more entertaining to have an active part in enjoying art rather than a passive.
What I was arguing is mainly that literature has a unique role and set of features that make it different - and differently effective - from any other form of art. This is the reason why I think there will be no such thing as "death of literature" or complete conversion to other media.

>>11214613
So what about video games? They require interaction and concentration

>>11214615
If you seriously can't identify what is wrong with the right side then you should give up film because its not worth it.

>>11214637

I don't get it but I want to understand. Can you explain it to me? :D

>>11214637
>left: poorly lit, pastiche, sensationalism
>right: technically perfect, elegant, cerebral

>>11214704
there is no explaining, you have to watch these films yourself until its self evident.

>>11214718
You are beyond saving

>>11214729
It is a mistake to take frames out of context; a gimmick and dishonest as well. Besides I like Godard.

>>11214573

>>11214745
Kek

>>11214625
Film is well and alive as an art form. I've had some of my best film experiences watching zero budget documentaries at the local film festival.

I just finished Thomas Harris Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs and Hanniba trilogy l and I now plan to watch all the movies too (including the 1986 version "Maneater" without Anthony Hopkins)

>>11214636
Videogames are an interactive medium, you can't really compare them to books

>>11214533
Movies are not as interactive as books

What's the film equivalent of start with the Greeks

>>11214995
Video games require critical thinking to a degree while books require imagination more than it does critical thinking. Video games are just better movies

>>11215011
Reading doesn't require imagination.

>>11215013
You're right, I was thinking of fiction specifically.

>>11214636
You get more constant feedback in videogames and that makes concentration easier. Anyone can play a game for 5 hours straight. How many people can read a book for 5 hours straight?

>>11214637
>not showing the famous composite shot for "deep focus"
>pretending a daytime outdoor scene counts

>>11214724
> I can't tell you because I don't know.

Troll or brainlet? 'Fess up.

>>11214533
One reason is the availability. When a book comes out you pay once to read it as many times as you want. When a movie comes out you have to pay $12 per viewing and you can't rewind. Then you have to pay $20 to own it 6 months later when it comes out on DVD. Movie accessibility is so limited it's viewed as a one and done kind of entertainment by the general public. Right, and the way we view movies we see the newest stuff all the time, which means we view a lot of shit. Whereas in literature most people don't actually shift through all the shit to find the good stuff.

>>11215011
I don't understand what your arguing for, that videogames more engaging than books? Yes obviously on the basis they're designed to be interactive. Are videogames more intellectually stimulating? Depends what videogame and book your comparing, both mediums have absolute trash released on the regular but generally 'great' literature is recognized based on it's literary and intellectual merit while 'great' videogames are recognized based on how 'fun' they are to play

>>11215105
I'm arguing that books and video games require different states of thinking, I wouldn't say video games are more intellectually stimulating but they are more stimulating. Like you said it really depends on the book and game being compared rather than vaguely comparing the medium itself, I do think they can be compared though. Movies on the other hand are not interactive although stimulating doesn't require any engagement which makes it far less compatible to books.

Has anyone noticed the effect that if you happen watch to the movie Before reading the book, you kinda re-live the scenes of the movie but in much more depth

>>11214745

>>11214637
I've watched Citizen Kane an felt it was pretty good. No idea about Stroheim. What is this image supposed to convey? That he copied some other guy? Or that he's worse than the one he copied? The filename is Godtier vs shit, I fail to see how Orson Wells is shit, though I admit I've only seen Citizen Kane.

>>11214724
>>11214729
>>11214573
Nigger what are these, explain.

>tfw you'll never see your favourite author's finished works

>>11215465
my bad i meant to post this to the board

>>11214718

>cerebral

Get out of here.

If there's one thing Welles is not, not, not, it's cerebral. (As he himself said, emphatically and often.)

>>11215514
Welles said alot of self deluded shit to be fair

>>11215083
torrent?

>>11214565
>It requires more active engagement with the material.
Oh, not that sloppy maymay again.

Film noirs often jumps back and forth in time because it's crime mysteries. And the plot itself could be full of foreshadowing and clues. Now keep in mind that these films was directed at a mass audience, and if it didn't work, then there wouldn't have been any complicated crime mystery films.

And even if a film uses long, wide cuts it can still reward those who pay attention to details in the background.

Now, let's regard War & Peace. 1400-something pages longs. Full of bro-tier BS. And then Napoleon shows up at page 900-something. Wow! Much literature! So good! Wow!

>>11214950
>1986 version "Maneater" without Anthony Hopkins
Manhunt, that's a good film.

>>11215013
Depends on how well written.

>>11214724
>on a literature board
>please explain non literature
>wow you can't see the technical details? What a brainlet haha
I bet you are fun at parties

>>11214636
Videogames give you a drip feed of Pat's on the head and congratulations. Meanwhile books require effort to be fully immersed. It's why I can zone out to movies and video games after a long day at work but I can't bring myself to read what I want to read.

>>11215597
>he thinks non chronological storytelling is complex
> he uses doge memes in 2018

What the fuck are you dribbling on about?

>>11216088
Wow! War and peace! Much literature!

>>11216022
>Meanwhile books require effort to be fully immersed. It's why I can zone out to movies and video games after a long day at work but I can't bring myself to read what I want to read.
Stop reading shitty books. Life's too short.

>>11215437
This but with filmspeak.

>>11214745
I dunno anon, I thought the rest of Civil war had some pretty good cinematography.

>>11214605
>>11214634
Good posts

>>11214533
You can absorb more information, faster, through the written medium and you are not limited by the speed at which the film rolls.

More information, more learning, more intelligence.

>>11217233
>utilitarian justifications for art
and I'm supposed to believe that you actually read

>>11217240
You would call a dictionary art?

Then why do you assume we're talking about art here?

>>11217242
>why do you assume we're talking about art here?
Because the thread is about different art forms

>>11217246
>Why is reading books considered high-brow and intellectual but watching movies isn't?

No it isn't.

>>11217249
And even if it were, the point would be the same - choosing the form of media that allows them to absorb most information in the shortest time is what the intellectual would do.

>>11217249
>Why is reading books considered high-brow and intellectual but watching movies isn't?
The thread is very clearly about different art forms. The posts imply as much.
>>11217260
>utilitarian justifications for art, again
imagine being this much of a soulless bugman

>>11214605
I read in completely passive mindsets all the time. I finished Crime and Punishment and the only thing I really remember is Porfiry telling Raskolnikov that suffering is good, which is an alright thing to take away I guess, since I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of the novel.

>>11214533
The primacy of the visual sense in film is inferior to the way literature can mainline straight into your linguistic sense, because any old monkey can look at cool images whereas the construction of meaning through language is a distinctly human faculty

>>11214605
>Reading books requires prolonged attention and activity from the reader.
So do a lot of films and paintings and musical compositions.

>>11217347
>and paintings
>paintings
xD

>>11217382
>what is contemplation
one of the oldest arguments against film was that you can't contemplate the images because they are always flowing, unlike in painting where you stare at a michelangelo for hours.

>>11217395
prolonged attention needed to properly contemplate a movie, a book and a composition are simply not the same as with paintings, indeed. I don't necessarily disagree with paintings requiring attention, it's just the juxtaposition of novel/film/musical composition/painting that is very odd.

this thread is the most absolutely pathetic thing i've seen in weeks. my god. as if the distinction is anything more complex than a type of meaning derived by association, by books being physical and "classy", by proximity to "old, classic, cultured" images such as <<< - and mostly, by an understanding of the world were "harder" is "better", were the world we live in is a crypt one has to unravel, were understanding is the one absolute goal - a type of understanding that is "superior", in which hedonistic pleasures from mario bros. are infantile and regressive.

the impressions of high/low brow have uses, but to justify them as some sort of lineal progression that everyone should strive for - when there isn't a mechanism more objective than our senses - it's ridiculous. if you think you're better than your friends because you've read all the classics while they enjoy whatever it is that you deem inferior, you've played yourself, monkey.

>>11217395
>you can't contemplate the images because they are always flowing
tarkovsky disproves this

>>11217405
>it's just the juxtaposition of novel/film/musical composition/painting that is very odd
I would disagree, and that's why I made those references. Try watching a Tarr movie or listening to an atonal composition without paying attention to what is going on, you won't understand half of it.
>>11217493
Yeah, thankfully that line of thinking really fell out of flavour.

by the way i love how so far no one has mentioned marguerite duras or straub-huillet. shows how aware you fucking idiots are about film form lol

>>11216943
lol you are a complete faggot

>>11214573
wow, fancy seeing you outside of /lbg griffithfag! getting some fresh air?

>>11215851
>I bet you are fun at parties

This thread was moved to >>>/qa/2105616