/lit/ - Literature

>>16865446
film, literature, music are all equal parts of the art godhead.

>>16865446
Kubrick knew writing wasn't his strong suit, so didn't do it and left it up to others. He also didn't pick up a book (I assume after childhood) until 19, as the common storys go.

>>16865472
>film
>equal to the other arts
That's ridiculous anon.

>>16865472
>film equal to literature and music
Throw in video games while you’re at it

>>16865481
>Kubrick knew writing wasn't his strong suit, so didn't do it and left it up to others.
He did write or co-write some of this films.

>That's ridiculous anon.
Yes, cinema is a legitimate artform now. We're not in the early 1900s anymore.

>>16865496
games aren't even art, much less equal to the actual arts.

>>16865446
almost all art does not just happen in a vacuum. Film is the ultimate art form. It combines (mostly) Visual Art, Storytelling, Music and Poetry. The hallmark of a good creative is the ability to make good art, and the ability to create good art is linked to some kind of intelligence. Therefore, perhaps it is a habit of the intelligent to be well read, which creates a positive feedback loop within their art, as they expand their literary and cultural knowledge, which allows them to create more depth and meaning in their pieces.

>>16865481
>>16865496
>seething bookworms

Can some of you filmfags recommend me some good stuff to watch? Been trying to get into film lately and I'd rather have /lit/izens guide me.

>>16865472
Yes but you don't see as many writers proficient and knowledgeable in the language of films as you do for filmmakers in literature. Almost all good film makers of 20th century were avid readers, how many goods writers from that century were film buff?

>>16865446
>Is there an artistic common ground between film and literature?
No, but there is plenty of things in common between film and theater and every film student needs to read or read bits of Aristotle's Poetics. But it's more that filmmakers like Kubrick and Hitchcock read to find inspiration and to adapt works that were either good or had the potential to be, so they took them or liked something about them and made it into something else, something different and something that was theirs and theirs alone.

>>16865481
>He also didn't pick up a book (I assume after childhood) until 19, as the common storys go.
He said in one of the interviews that he seldom read in his youth, but that soon changed and that he was more than just up to speed once he started going at it. I mean, the madman read over 100 books on Napoleon alone, that tells you all that you need to know about him and so much more, really.

>>16865544

For the Standard of Modern Visual Film, look towards 2001, a space Odyssey. For feel good dialogue and a compelling story, look toward most of the Quentin Tarantino films. I particularly like Inglorious Basterds. Clockwork orange is also fantastic. But youll have to broaden your horizons more than just these

>>16865481
>>film
>>equal to the other arts
>That's ridiculous anon.
yea you're right buddy Ready Player One sure is better than Citizen Kane

>>16865544
Watch Body Heat and The Big Chill and jump on the Russian and Korean trains through Tarkovsky, Lopushanskiy, Bong and Park. You would also like the majority of Bergman's work, particularly Persona and The Seventh Seal. And stop wanting to be spoonfed by faggots browsing this board, find what you want to watch yourself and git gud at it.

>>16865544
Just dig through the Criterion Collection and pick those that sound good to you and watch them one by one.

>>16865519
Video games are art and the exact same arguments were made about film so just fuck off and choke on something the next time you eat, you posturing imbecile.

>>16865628
Mate, I'm a small time game dev. Video games are just games, no different from board games, same shit just made digital. The greatest game of all time is endlessly more shallow than the greatest book.

>>16865505
>Yes, cinema is a legitimate artform now. We're not in the early 1900s anymore.
Ignoring that film has nothing under its belt comparable to the other arts and the environmental troubles it has had since its inception, if we're to do this comparison, what film really is uniquely cannot put it on the level of the other arts alone. Perhaps its potential gives it reign as demigod to the Olympians, but not an equal. Frankly, a film will never reach the heights and meaning of Goethe or Raphael, and its only unique prospect will always make it one for the lazy intellect. I admit it's uniqueness can be brilliant, just take its ability to capture in some ways the mimetic depth uncomparable in its specific exactness, but in other ways it also loses the complexity of the mimetic in art (perhaps it could be put crudely), and contrasted with the general and in-person reality of the mimetic.

Just an example.

My ideas are far too complex to put into a 4chan post without making it an effort post, which is something I would not be willing to do rn, having done it so recently.

>>16865595
>implying we do not judge and contrast by the very best
>implying Citizen Kane isn't a cartoonish overly-sentimental comedy compared to Goethe

>>16865528
How does film combine poetry?

>>16865472
where is painting and sculpture

>>16865528
Literature happens without the influence of other forms of arts, aka in a vaccum.

>>16865446
Film is a lazy modern medium, all it has is a cinematography that tricks the instantly gratified into a true, purely human emotion. It's primarily entertainment, and at very best a lower artform. For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration. Above all film is extremely overrated by midwits who liked to hail it as the "artwork of the future", and it is only a sign of our modern cultural and artistic decline that it is called the medium of the 20th century. It includes so little worth of itself contrasted to the true arts, but it mercilessly steals what it can to bring to the alter. And on this very stone is sacrificed just as mercilessly any work of art before it that it deems possible to use for its lazy mission, as it corrupts it down to its level. The piece is useful for the specificity of the film, and that is that. From the limited potential of film, to its utterly disastrous manifestation as an art-form, developed under jews and lukewarm liberals, paedophiles and sodomites.

Don't get me wrong however, I enjoy good films, but there is always a problem when one assumes it to to be what it is not. My brief word, on an endlessly fraught topic.

>>16865566
Not entirely true. Quentin do not make films from someone's book and he's proficient in literature as well.

>>16865446
There's an artistic common ground between film and literature mostly because the former has derived so much from the latter. Film, however, is too reliant on capital, resources, and production to be genuinely artistic. This is especially the case today when the film industry is so bloated and shallow.

>>16865583
>Quentin Tarantino films. I particularly like Inglorious Basterds
Not gonna watch that Jewish neoliberal propaganda.
>>16865602
I'll check out Bergman. I hate Tarkovsky.
>>16865617
Will do.

>>16865789
based

>>16865789
Just because it has a lot of midwits buzzing around doesn't inherently make the medium a low artform. A medium with easy consumablity will by default attract high density of people.

>>16865789
>Film is a lazy modern medium
Lazy to experience, but hard to make.

>>16865813
You just mean American films

>>16865505
>Implying film didn't peak with Griffith, Stroheim and Keaton

>>16865789
/tv/ here, fuck you. The film adaptation of lolita is much better than the book.

>>16865910
Lol fuck off back to your plebboard

>>16865910
It's 100x worse. Even Kubrick regretted doing it and his wife said it was inferior to the source material. If you mean the 90s version, you're even more wrong.

>>16865505
>>16865481
Film may be a legitimate artform, but it has had such little time to evolve compared to music and literature, which are both ancient forms of storytelling. In fact, film may never be as strong of an art form having only begun so late. Without the presence of ancient ideas to first be established and derived from, it's a forever crippled form of expression that has gotten aggressively commercialized faster and more than the other two. It also costs a fuck-ton more to make, which is likely the cause for the aforementioned. it's a better means of profit than it is expression.

>>16865894
film peaked with Bergman and Kieslowski

>>16865791
>Quentin do not make films from someone's book and he's proficient in literature as well.
Jackie Brown was an adaptation of a novel very dear to him, but where did I say EVERYONE does that? I gave specific examples.

>>16865528
>Film is the ultimate art form
it's not better than videogames

>>16865931
then that means vidya is dead on arrival as supposed art form kek

>>16865544
Rashomon, Twelve Angry Men and Jagten are some of my favorites

>>16865931
We can see great films by people like Herzog, part of a natural culture-born movement of the new wave of German cinema, really untouched by the horrible abuse of the medium by markets and popular opinion (he never went to film school, you know..); a man with quite a poetic ability and intelligence, who has made some of the greatest films ever, even if they have their flaws, and they still don't compare to the highest of the older arts.

Also I do admit Kinski undoubtedly was essential to Herzog's success, but he always knew when Kinski was the one.

>>16865953
It's a thousand times better. Not sure what kind of shit you've been watching.

what movies/video games would the greeks have made?

>>16865985
you can't separate a culture from its context. it's a senseless masturbatory exercise.

>>16865996
Inevitably, this.

>>16865996
>senseless masturbatory exercise
anyone who says this is low iq

>>16866057
>what movies/video games would the greeks have made?
anyone who asks this has an even lower IQ.

>>16865647

The Stanley Parable, The Beginner's Guide, and Getting Over It are art. Obviously TLOU and similar corporate trash aren't art, but there is nothing about games intrinsically that isn't suitable for art. It's still in its infancy. I cried multiple times when I used my VALVe Index, with no shame. It's genuinely a lifechanging experience to be transported so fully to another part of the world, or some fantasy. People probably thought music was for lazy tribespeople when they learned that hitting rocks together in different ways makes different noises.

>>16866235
What are games focused on gameplay then? Games from the 80s and early 90s were all about memorization and mastering controls to overcome obstacles, which although it takes some attention and time, feels incredibly rewarding to play. I feel like they are in the grey area between mindless passive entertainment and art, because they do require skill and focus to be enjoyed but it's not like they impact you exactly. Castlevania and Gradius 3 are good examples, you don't just feel entertained, but you feel accomplished when playing them because they require active input. Not to mention they are made for a very niche market, and barely any games like that are made anymore, Cuphead and Dark Souls being recent examples.

>>16865472
for me it's the film-lit-music-comics-videogames quinthood

>>16865544
Antiporno and Chungking Express.

>>16866311
>videogames
kek

>>16865910

>>16866282

Mechanic-focussed games like you're describing are just enjoyable activities. It's like asking the difference between reading Tolstoy and Stephen King. Artistry can't be rigorously defined, but I think generally it's agreed that true art elevates the medium, or represents or explores meaning or Truth by design, or pushes the boundaries of knowledge and empathy (list not exhaustive). Cuphead and Dark Souls are fun games, but that's all they are: well-executed, somewhat-original albeit mechanically derivative pastiches on existing concepts.

Although I wouldn't call them high art like the ones I listed originally, DOOM, GTA, and Half-Life 2 are closer to art because they changed the dynamic of the industry. I guess the reason I don't revere them so much is because they only happen to be pioneers by luck. There is no world in which an open-world narrative-based FPS isn't created when the tools are available, in the same way that colored films were inevitable. You can enjoy a well-made game while acknowledging that it isn't revelatory or profound. Something can also be artistic without being art, e.g. Thomas Was Alone, Dear Esther. If you want edge cases, Minecraft and Terraria come to mind.

It seems a little vulgar to me to say that something is Art simply by on account of its attributes (sound, visuals, etc.). There has to be a gradient if not several dichotomies between The Hungry Caterpillar and Shakespeare, a kindergartener's messy crayon and Turner, CoD and Wind Waker.

>>16866399
>The Stanley Parable
>high art
Jesus Christ, lad.

>>16866399
>It seems a little vulgar to me to say that something is Art simply by on account of its attributes (sound, visuals, etc.).
The problem is that you shouldn't be deciding whether or not something is "art." It's all art under most definitions. What you're really trying to determine is "is this good art"

>>16866404

Sure, that was a little too far. It's as high as video game art has got so far.

>>16866376
deal with it luddite

Think about this....
Nearly impossible to make Moby Dick a decent film

However, Jaws is that film. Even down to the scene where he is reading up sharks.

Stephen King rarely translates to good cinema. The movies are kinda clunky. ie Maximum Overdrive.

But Fight Club worked in both mediums quite well.

Where was I going with this?

>>16865577
>I mean, the madman read over 100 books on Napoleon alone, that tells you all that you need to know about him and so much more, really.
Wtf man, how long did it take?
And why did he do it?

>>16865659
>the heights and meaning of Goethe
Wtf, is Faust really THAT good?

>>16865481
>>film
>>equal to the other arts
>That's ridiculous anon.
Film as an art film is too intrinsically tied to the economics of production, which prevents it from being just honest expression. Increased access to the tools and resources to make films aids the art form, just as much as large corporations aiming to "control" it hurts it. Further, I'd say this same thing hurts the music industry, maybe even the literature industry, as well. Technology is growth for art, but business & commercialization is creative theft to shill philosophies.

>>16866465
Deal with what? Your meme art knowledge? I don't have to, lad.

>>16867032
>business & commercialization is creative theft to shill philosophies
meant to add, shill philosophies that are necessarily shared by the artists/directors of a particular work

The idea that you have to read, or in any way engage to something to be a creative artist is foul. The truth is creativity is a gene, it's science, if you have it you have it. Ideas come streaming like tears, they do with me all the time, entire songs, script ideas and just finished a 307 page manuscript, but honestly? I can't take credit, I'm awesome and it's a gift from nature.

>>16867052
>meant to add, shill philosophies that are necessarily shared by the artists/directors of a particular work
You mean, shill philosophies that *aren't* necessarily shared by the artists/directors? Geez if you're gonna fix what you wrote, don't make another massive typo that defeats the whole point

>>16867090
Yeah, that's what I meant.

>>16866282
I think the best games are gameplay focused. I hate games that "try to be movies".
Also, games age terribly to be ART.
Their so proclaimed "masterpieces" are always the lastest shit!!

>>16867057
Go away Blake

>>16866282
>What are games focused on gameplay then?
>>16867098
>I think the best games are gameplay focused. I hate games that "try to be movies".
I think some good points are being raised here, it's a difficult assessment. Fundamentally we've barely tapped the surface of "gameplay" in games, so many games follow the exact same mechanics, but at the same time, I believe a game can can excel within its genre. Like how could one try to compare a Rothko to a Caravaggio? They're both paintings, but really the similarities end there.

>>16867131
>Like how could one try to compare a Rothko to a Caravaggio?
By correctly noting that Caravaggio is a superior artist to Rothko, much like how oranges are superior to apples.

>>16865496
Games are just to pass the time, people say you learn things from it but deeply everyone knows it's just cope. Don't waste your time.

>>16865446
> and very knowledgeable about literature in genera
Most of the best movies in history are adaptations of the pulpiest books ever. Psychosis was a adaptation of a garbage novel. Kubrick made his name adapting science fiction books Lolita being the only exception. Few of the books that most e/lit/ist consider master pieces had received much attention for the part of film makers, only genre fiction and best sellera tend to do this.

>>16867617

This is because the greatest works of fiction are too dense, long, and complex to show on the screen. It doesn't undermine the medium of film in its own right, nor does it mean the concepts explored in great literature can't also be explored in different ways in films. You also can't hear simultaneous dialogue or sounds in books because you have to read words linearly and a sounds disappear as soon as you stop thinking about them. Gatekeeping mediums of expression is retarded. STALKER is incredibly complex and beautiful, but the book it's based on is barrel-bottom trash.

>>16867617
>>16867719
When I read The Godfather, I was surprised that the people saying Puzo wrote pages talking about Sonny's big dick were kinda telling the truth-- I always thought that was a meme.

But yeah, the mediums are much different, it's not a 1 to 1 comparison.

>>16867057
>The idea that you have to read, or in any way engage to something to be a creative artist is foul. The truth is creativity is a gene, it's science,
I think Fairfield Porter explains it better. https://ia803208.us.archive.org/30/items/mma009-01/mma009-01.mp3

>>16865496
This, and visual novels and photography as well

>>16867719
Those are fair points and I'm not downplaying cinema as an art. Some of the directors I mentioned actually made masterpieces out of mediocres sources. It takes some genius to elevate a so so source.

>>16866311
Yeah, the quinthood of consumism, throw food while you are on it.

>>16867897

>>16867950

>>16865544
I'm by no means a film buff but these all had a profound impact on me.

Alien (1979)
American Psycho (2000)
The Comedy (2012)
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Dr Strangelove (1964)
Eighth Grade (2018)
The Fly (1986)
Happiness (1998)
Lighthouse (2019)
Martin (1978)
Parasite (2019)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Snatch (2000)
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Un chien andalou (1929)
Uncut Gems (2019)

>>16867991

Watch Wild Strawberries, STALKER, Welcome to the Dollhouse, and Synecdoche, New York.

>>16865544
Some of my favorites
>Jackie Brown (1997)
>Pulp Fiction (1994)
>No Country For Old Men (2007)
>There Will Be Blood (2007)
>Wind River (2017)
>Hell or High Water (2016)
>Sicario (2015)
>Prisoners (2013)
>True Grit (2010)
>Unforgiven (1992)
>Nightcrawler (2014)
>La La Land (2016)

>>16865545
A lot of major writers participated in creating films or at least appreciated them. Nabokov, Beckett, DFW, Capote, Faulkner etc.

>>16867991
>Eighth grade
>Uncut gems
>the fly

>>16867991
Yi yi by Edward Yang, just search it on youtube.

>>16865544
Here are a few of my favourites
The Lives of Others (2006)
The Guard (2011)
In Bruges (2008)
Dr Strangelove (1964)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Casino (1995)
Layer Cake (2004)
And Justice For All (1979)
Videodrome (1983)
Dark City (1998)
Hereditary (2018)
Das Untergang (2004)

If you want a couple films that are more lighthearted and comedic I'd recommend Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels as well as Snatch. Guy Ritchie makes some good films.

>>16868063
Oh yeah, and
>The Irishman (2019)
>Heat (1995)
>Taxi Driver (1976)
>Boogie Nights (1997)
>The Nice Guys (2016)

>>16865544
bumfights

>>16867719
>STALKER is incredibly complex and beautiful, but the book it's based on is barrel-bottom trash
Really? I was thinking of reading it

>>16868317
He's just dismissing it because it's not a pretentious contemplative snoozefest but rather pure science-fiction. By all means read it.

>>16868320
Oh ok, thanks

>>16865446
Movies are visual storytelling. Literature paved the way for storytelling, and photography for shot composition.

>Frankly, a film will never reach the heights and meaning of Goethe or Raphael
Based pseud. Throwing buzzwords will only impress your friends in academia, normal people enjoy things instead of trying to delegitimize them whenever their beliefs are challenged.

Film will always be an inferior art form. A byproduct of literatures success.
Film affects our emotions by presenting an image and provoking a response, whether that be elation or boredom it does not matter, the image presented is formed and moulded by another person, usually the director.
Literature demands us to form our own personal image of a narrative and provokes emotions through our response to that individual unique perspective. We are the directors of our own 'films' in our heads when we read.
Most narrative films are made from an original or adapted screenplay, a written medium of expression, forming a 'film' in the filmmakers head. The resulting images that are formed from that 'film' are then moulded into a physical film that can be shared and viewed by others. Hence cinema fails to form an original response to a narrative as all responses to a specific film are only to that filmmakers individual vision and not our own.

>>16868317
>>16868320

I have no problem with action, the book is just trashy stereotypical genre fiction, lacking wit, charm, and depth. Yes, pure sci-fi is usually utterly uninspired, but I appreciate good works regardless of genre, like Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Flowers for Algernon, and The War of the Worlds. Roadside Picnic is popular only because of its contextual relevance and its glass allusion to the hopeful post-USSR dawn. The film elevates the concepts far beyond the book by not parking an 18-wheeler labelled "METAPHOR" on your balls and exploring much deeper questions, which Tarkovsky always does.

>>16868317
it's nit literature by any means, but a gruesome and sad character study. roadside picnic is the tale of a man unable to resist temptation and the price he pays grows worse until he finally begs for deliverance. it is bleak and sad yet anti-nihilistic overall. it's worth the couple if hours it takes to read.

>>16868359
have you ever considered that someone else's vision (e.g. a brilliant director) may in fact be superior to anything you could personally conjure up? that you could be shown a story in a fashion far more sublime than your amateur abilities to visualize it? that is the value of a great film. not to mention actual technique and style of cinematography and pacing which has no parallel in literature, it is an art form unto itself.

>>16868398
I'm not debating the value of great filmmaking, a great film can evoke euphoria. But the spark that generated the vision to create that euphoric film has to come from a written medium, unless we are talking about very specific examples, hence filmmaking is inferior to literature, it comes after the fact.

>>16865544
visit /film/ down on /tv/. you'll get proper recommendations

>>16865528
No it doesn't, it rips them from the metaphysics in which they are designed to function and rapes their hollow corpse for your endorphins

>>16865813
>capital

Marx wasn't an art critic

>>16865931
Music doesn't tell a story. Any story to music is just literature

Can Gravity's Rainbow be put into film?
A brave author would have done it already, there's so much material there. I guess it can't.

>>16865813
outside the USA that does not apply. film is produced with money from the state, hence the cinema of author

>>16868481
Adapting things like that usually just annoys the established fanbase of the work. Lolita and The Shining are Kubrick's most divisive works for pretty much this reason

>>16868436
why would you suppose that something taken after the fact is necessarily inferior, especially when it is apples to oranges? take a video game based on a book. how could the game be "inferior" to the book when the goals of what makes a good game (gameplay) and what makes a good book (narrative) are completely incongruous? just because a common through-line is shared doesn't mean the two separate fields are even comparable, let alone judged
against one another. a video game fan could just as easily judge any book inferior to any game because of the book's terrible gameplay of looking at a piece of paper.

>>16868349
>there was no storytelling before the written word
>there was no visual composition before photography

"Cinephiles" in a nutshell

>>16865940
Bergman is overrated.

>>16868436

There's an author called Neetchuh or something who said something like "... [words words words] all expression is a reductive abstraction of thought..." or something like that. You might find it interesting. Pic not related.

>>16868436
that's like saying pure mathematics is superior to physics. While Physics relies and builds on Mathematics it is its own study with its own merit and application and should be judged on its own and not just be considered a inferior because it depends on other roots.

>>16868487
It's worth noting that Kubrick hated his Lolita adaptation and so did his wife.

>>16868487
fuck the fanbase. I'm part of it in this case, but I can separate the work. If there are idiots who are going to misjudge the original only based on the adaptation (which is the only reason I can conceive the fanbase would be annoyed) what do I care what they think? they're idiots anyway.

>>16868490
Again I'm not making a value judgment when I say inferior, literature will always hold dominance over visual mediums because the original vision is derived from it. Narrative based visual arts are in a way enslaved by a dependance on the written word, how can we test the full extent of those forms of art without pushing the shackles of literature?

>>16868508
>that's like saying pure mathematics is superior to physics.
But it is anon. Physicists themselves know it and are not shy about confirming it. I'm willing to guess film directors are the same.

>>16865659
You mean Gerter?

>>16868507
I have read any Nitchy, thanks for the rec. What holds dominance over literature? Is it the boundaries of our thought processes? Does all literature derive from our external experience or can it form from an internal dialogue with ourselves?

>>16868616
*havn't
>>16868508
I'm talking about the superiority of ideas, not a judgement of quality of work, in the grand scheme of things what comes before what?

>>16865446

No OP, of course not. What kind of a stupid question is that? Filmmakers just film things and never refer to written texts.

>>16865446

Hmm *thumps books against wall* book sucks, can't use it.
Hmm *thumps books against wall* book sucks, can't use it.
Hmm *thumps books against wall* book sucks, can't use it.

[Secretary, hearing the usual routine]: ...

*picks up book whilst holding spork* Hmm... wait. There is actually something here. This narrative is some Protestant bullshit with ghosts, but, yes! YES! I can make a film using this! I will do a much better, audio-visual version of this story and shit on the source material all at once! Come, team, let us to The Shining!

[Secretary]: phew!

>>16868784
I read this in Kubrick's voice.

>>16868791

Take my corresponding analysis/literary criticism of the music in 2001.

>>16865940
/lit/ is so pleb. Bunch of midwits.

>>16865940
The only good part of Bergman is the glorious Swedish titties in all of his films

>>16868820
Very nice. I suppose the colors indicate the kind of music used? What's the deal there?

>>16868870
Pleb or midwit. Decide, faggot.
>>16868881
Correct.

>>16865544
Eastern cinema> Western cinema
check out anything Oshii, Ki-duk kim, Kitano, Ishikawa, Tsukamoto, Miyazaki if you want to expand your artistic interests

paradoxically tarkovsky didnt want common ground. he thought the influence of drama and literature prevented film from reaching full potential. he thought his adaptations of literature "rescued" the content from unsuccessful manifestations in literary form.

>>16868882

I just used my personal color-preferences to connote similar things across both graphics. In both cases, Penderecki and Ligeti are the real musical stars of both pictures, and their music in-context suggest themes of foreboding, danger, horror, hence my choice of orange. The grey bits denote minor and incidental music which is nevertheless manifest in both films. Cooler colors denote more placid music, but carrying their own themes within the picture. And for major themes like the aerial context of the Shining's main title theme and the Blue Danube, a light blue is self-explanatory.

At some point in the future I will produce a companion image for Clockwork Orange though I haven't got round to it yet. I may even example non-pleb Kubrick movies along similar lines someday. I don't have a copy but the recent book "Listening to Stanley Kubrick" is the go-to for this autism.

>>16868820
nice work lad. Will rewatch 2001 and look at your notes

>>16868922
>he thought the influence of drama and literature prevented film from reaching full potential
Interesting. Why so?

>>16869037
Not him but I guess for the same reasons as Bresson who said that the cinema of his times was basically just filmed theatre and that cinema had a power and a poetry of its own that could only be revealed through radical choices. To show the invisible wind by the water it sculpts passing by, as he put it. Bresson was pretty heavy on the adaptation side this said. Tarkovsky has a different approach that Bresson but I think that every great film maker post silent film (which is a completely different craft) falls into that category of people who understood that cinema could show something invisible (Dreyer, Bergman, etc.).
If you're interested Notes on Cinematographer by Bresson is a short and good read.

>>16869037
because literature and theater have different boundary conditions, and stuff like stanislavski method of acting was originally developed for stage conditions. he also rejected mise en scene for same reason, too artificial. tarkovsky wanted to develop an original system of aesthetics for film, revolving around time and memory perception.

>>16869078
>poetry
I thought we were getting rid of literary stuff, lads? Yes, even if it's not actual poetry.

>>16869093
Poetry is much more than the just the literary form of poem, it's almost an aesthetic category. I find a lot of poetry in the works of Brueghel the Elder for instance, or in Tarkovsky.

>>16869107
That's beauty, not poetry.

>>16869110
not really, for instance I'd say that Balzac has a beautiful prose but never poetic, or that some poets never wrote a poetic poem in their lives

>>16869107
>>16869110
To me, I think poetry will usually involve written or spoken language (rather than visual communication, like in film)-- but even more than that, poetry is about brevity, and utilizing key and emphatic words, phrases, rhymes -- in that sense, I can understand how film can be "poetic." Poetry is the opposite of an essay, which is often in-depth, aiming for completeness and clarity, rather than short yet impactful language -- and if a video can be an "essay," then I think it can be poetry, too.

(In understanding the importance of brevity, it's not that a work be as short as possible, but that every word tell.)

>>16869130
You're talking about writers now but the subject was film. Literature will forever cast a shadow on cinema. They write screenplays, they use words like 'poetic' to describe some of it. Yet they act like they want to go beyond drama and literature, as if that's possible and still good to watch.

>>16869143
In what sense, I don't get how Tarkovsky's films can be 'poetic'. They're anything but brief.

>>16869172
I'm not too sure, I haven't watched much Tarkosky, although I do believe many have compared his works to poetry. I'd distinguish "brevity" like in poetry from simply being "brief" - reiterating something I briefly mentioned, it's not that the work is condensed and cut down to be as short a possible, but that every element, every detail, is absolutely essential to understanding the work.

I've considered Wim Wender's to be poetic - I think if you changed a single frame of 'Wings of Desire,' you would affect that work (other tastes may vary on this topic, ultimately no film I've ever seen has been more "poetic" than a well written poem, even if it approaches that ideal).

>>16865789
>For whatever it is in those moments of its artistic uniqueness, juxtaposed to the older, far nobler arts which we call the "traditional". And whereby a modern European Christian definition of art is given, the fine art of that definition which the Greeks had sort to thunk all of mans creations, in which there was no specific word for the fine of the arts, but it was known as it were intuitively, that a poet could not exist without divine inspiration.
wtf

>>16869145
>Yet they act like they want to go beyond drama and literature, as if that's possible and still good to watch.
Only a minority act that way, and while their films are not mainstream they're totally watchable. In my eyes these people achieved what they were aiming for: making cinema an art-form independent from literature.
>>16869143
>>16869172
Poetic or poetry is hard to really define and every "intellectual" poet tried his hand at it. I think you have a point about brevity, but it is not a sufficient point. For instance Rupi Kaur's poem are very brief (in the sense you're using) but they obviously lack any form of poetry because surprise also plays a big role in poetry. Not the jump-scare like surprise but the small one, the one that surprises you you never thought about it or never saw thing this way. Bonnefoy said that poetry is "creator of being" and I think this is quite right, poetry creates new relation between things and yourself. Relations that go beyond rationality and as such "creates being".
As for Tarkovsky, watch the ending of the sacrifice for instance (well watch the movie first, but I think that even the scene on Youtube is worth it). There is something here that goes beyond words and concepts. Something that tries to get to the essence of the world with that tree which is not only symbolical but also very much a tree. That scene is absolutely breathtaking and no amount of analysis can do it justice, it would be like a surgeon trying to find soul.

>>16869365
>For instance Rupi Kaur's poem are very brief (in the sense you're using) but they obviously lack any form of poetry because surprise also plays a big role in poetry
Are you arguing that her poetry is a good example of poetry, or not a good example of poetry?
>for Tarkovsky, watch the ending of the sacrifice for instance (well watch the movie first, but I think that even the scene on Youtube is worth it)
I will, I'll probably just watch the whole film itself. I agree with your point about going beyond words and concepts - great poetry does that (expressing more than just the words themselves), and I think great film can too.

>>16869452
it's a good example of (very) bad poetry

>>16869365
>There is something here that goes beyond words and concepts [...] absolutely breathtaking and no amount of analysis can do it justice, it would be like a surgeon trying to find soul.
>>16869452
>I agree with your point about going beyond words and concepts, great poetry does that, expressing more than just the words themselves
The whole is greater.

>>16868063
>>16868215
What a fucking pleb

>>16867950
Peak reddit.

>>16869594
Back to /tv/

>>16869620
Back to R*ddit

>>16869640

>>16866987
He wanted to make a biopic about his favorite historical person, but the executives he was pitching it to thought it would flop so he scrapped parts of it and made Barry Lyndon instead. And afaik, the official number of books he has read on Napoleon was 150, as is stated by his wife and other people close to him in one of the documentaries about him. He had tons of notes for the storyboard and how the film was supposed to look, and you can still see it all yourself in the Kubrick archives.

>>16865446
Film makers that not only direct films, but write scripts for films definitely read a lot.

>>16866346
nice

>>16866548
I think you meant, it's for the best if we just ignore American literature and film altogether.

>>16868454
>visit academic rejects that are seeped in contrarianism, faggotry and pseudo-intellectualism and have nothing of worth to offer to anyone
Pass, I'd rather spam Eva Green with fellow degenerates and use /tv/ as one ought to. If he actually wants legit recommendations, there are a bunch of courses, articles and widely available information about such a topic for free on the interwebs.

>>16869834
The anons on the /film/ threads can be very aggressive and elitist, but there's a lot of collective knowledge and the mega resources are really good:

>>142591564
>/film/ Literature - https://mega.nz/folder/KvgWTKjQ#rGWJZs0ihnviBKDM9yxwJw
>/film/ Charts - https://mega.nz/folder/g2gBzCpY#-z-2TvXS-CvoKE_VTLR0qw

>>16869875
>but there's a lot of collective knowledge and the mega resources are really good:
They're posturing morons, but like I said, it's nothing that you can't get with a few minutes worth of searching through the internet and widely available information on it. Same way you don't need /lit/ to know you need to read the classics etc.

video games are arguably the most divine medium of art. specific games not being examplary is irrelevant (even though there are many)

>>16866282
>it's not like they impact you exactly
games have been the most memorable and immersive artistic experiences ive had. it gets in your dreams even. if you mean they dont have messages or they dont improoove you, thats not art's concern and doesnt show artistic merit

>>16870115
Video games are an active medium, which drastically shifts the way we experience it and is something only video games can do. People disputing that video games are art are contrarians and people that shouldn't even be taken heed off, not to mention that if film is a young medium that's about 100-120 years old, then video games as an artistic medium is at its infancy and hasn't really even had its "golden" age and is yet to reach the modicum of its potential, let alone fully realized one.

>>16868610
Did I say Go-eeth-er?

>>16868784
>>16868820
Isn't it somewhat mistaken to use the word "leitmotif" for the musical associations in film? They're far simpler and only really "set the mood" for the film.

vidya is probably the most complex artform in existence, nah fuck that, it actually is; people who think otherwise are tunnel-visioned on commercial crap -- there's so much potential that hasn't even been met yet because people are focused on the technical aspects of video game creation, or how to integrate strong social settings because of the market place, instead of what is possible through story telling and conditioning people for better lives

>>16870835
totally agree that there is a lot of potential. I think it's premature to talk about its place among the arts just yet, but, given time, I think games will be up there.

>>16870137
I want you to tell me one, and I said ONE SINGLE game that is undoubtedly GREAT art.
Bonus points if it's something older than 20 years.

>>16872355
Planescape: Torment.

>>16868491
BASED RETARD

>>16865583
Tarantino is very filmbro tier, Pulp Fiction is his only good film. Agree on 2001 though

>>16873140
>Pulp Fiction is his only good film
Do elaborate extensively on how everything doesn't meet the requirement of being "a good film".

>>16867991
Un chien andalou is the most based film pre 1950

>>16873134
He's literally right though, cinephiles have ridiculous notions like that and are generally uneducated.

>>16869875
only good films in this thread

>>16872355
portal

>>16873145
His films are vacuous entertainment for the most part. Pulp Fiction is the only film of his that transcends his sloppy characterization and penchant for extensive homage. There are many beautiful scenes in that film and there is a thematic weight that carries the story unlike any of his other work. I'm honestly a big fan of exploitation film tropes, but he uses them so extensively that it feels so artificial. Inglourious Basterds is a perfect example of a film that is greatly entertaining and highlights his skill at dialogue, but the movie has virtually no substance, thematically or emotionally. The only theme I picked up on is that the film contains a revenge metanarrative toward exploitation film (see: Nazis watching a Nazi kill Our Guys and shortly after we watch Our Guys kill Nazis for the most obvious example)

>>16873237
There's a lot more to IB than a mere revenge fantasy, and there's a lot more to his other films than being vacuous entertainment or mere highly elevated schlock as you lot would put it. Jackie Brown being one of the better examples. Besides, you have a narrow way of looking at his filmography and approach to the medium and that's your biggest sin. You can suggarcoat it in all the nice words you like, it's all meaningless gibberish that doesn't hold water.

>>16873237
>but the movie has virtually no substance, thematically or emotionally
Define 'substance'

>>16873295
something you can chew on

>>16873140
>Pulp Fiction is his only good film.
That's one of his worst.

>>16873302
Sounds more like a problem with the viewer than with the film itself. There are various themes worth thinking about in that film.

>>16873274
I am slightly clouded by bias against him because there are a hundred filmmakers that deserve more critical praise than he does that don't receive it, but at the same time I've never had a single one of his films resonate with me in any way besides Pulp Fiction. My preference for film isn't really in the realm of stylized, meticulous collages and re-engineered exploitation tropes coated in irony. I enjoy exploitation when it has an amateurish honesty (See Tetsuo: The Iron Man), and something is too meticulously crafted about Tarantino's work for me.

>>16873305
Even though it's very overrated I still think it's his best work due to its emotional core (Travolta/Thurman)

>>16873326
What else is there besides critique of exploitation cinema/moral relativism/maybe cinematic history? What's a theme that you really enjoy in it?

>>16873381
its emotional core is not Travolta and Thurman. what a faggot kek.

>>16873373
Dude, don't give me that shit and don't prattle on about how Tarantino doesn't fit your definition of "food for thought". You're clouding your judgment without even realizing, and all because Tarantino doesn't have any pomp to him and isn't to interested in deep explorations of the human condition, but still has plenty of things worth pondering over and his films are great on more than just a technical level. That's what I'm trying to get across through your posturing head of yours, but it's not working. All I'm saying is that if you think Jackie Brown isn't better than Pulp Fiction, you're wrong and you are pleb filtered. Because that film both has things to ruminate over and is a vast improvement over it, not to mention that Tarantino being "overrated" is bullshit and that if there are directors that are more worthy of that praise, they sure don't deserve it.

>>16873408
Alright anon, somehow I've seen every Tarantino film besides Jackie Brown, so I'll watch it tonight with an open mind and see how I feel about it. It being his only literary adaption I'd imagine the characters are better written than the ones I've seen in the rest of his work. Honestly, most people I've met that consider themselves film fans describe Tarantino as their favorite director, and most of these people also refuse to watch movies before the 60s, so I tend to get a little annoyed whenever I see his name pop up online, because I associate it with people who have an elementary understanding of film. I understand that this is disrespectful to him as a director, of course, and he was one of my favorite directors less than a decade ago as well. I just wish people would watch a black and white movie once in a while.

>>16873153
Unfortunately true.

>>16865544
check out films by:
Pedro Costa
James Benning
Abbas Kiarostami
John Cassavetes
Robert Bresson

and read pic related

>>16873075
>Planescape: Torment
So, a game that tries to be a book?
Is this the better this medium has to offer?

>>16873508
not that anon but Jackie Brown might be his best, Elmore Leonard was a hell of a writer and its one of his best stories mixed with Tarantino's style of film-making *chef's kiss*

>>16873606
That game wasn't trying to be a book because it was trying and was quite successful at being a game.

>>16865446
>Is there an artistic common ground between film and literature?
Yeah, more like FARTisctic you faggot, amirite fellas?

>>16865505
>We're not in the early 1900s anymore.
Yeah, Griffith was a hack who only made shit. Intolerance and Birth of a Nation are garbage

>>16874793
>Intolerance and Birth of a Nation are garbage
Pump the brakes kid, those films a quintessential classics for understanding American film, just as much as Ford imo
>buh-but it's racist!!!
Well yeah, but that's the point of 'BoaN', I honestly think if Griffith never made that film, racism would not have been as bad in the US as it was. It did so many things films had never done before (like something as simple as inventing the close-up), and to me, it showed the power of using new art forms for propaganda. 'Intolerance' is the perfect companion piece since Griffith wanted to use that to atone for what he had done, and he did so masterfully.

It's insane that we live so close to the birth of an art form as powerful as film, and for anyone that truly loves it, it will do them good to study even the "controversial" ones that shaped our visual literacy and understanding. It'd be like loving video games as a medium and disregarding things like Pong or Tetris because they're "old."

>>16875102
I was being sarcastic

>>16865544
STALKER(1979)
The seven samurai(1954)
Seul contre tous(1998)

>>16868063
kys

>>16868063
sorry wrong post
>>16867991
kys

>>16875154
haha of course, i knew that

>>16865544
The ones that got me into FILM
>In the Mood for love
>Nights of Cabiria
>Crumb
>12 Angry Men
>Before Trilogy
>La Haine
>M

>>16873654
>That game wasn't trying to be a book because it was trying and was quite successful at being a game.
Man, so you're saying the epitome of the genre is a shitty interative fantasy novel?

>tfw Harry Potter is more of an art piece than Planescape Torment
Get back to /tv/ and /v/, kids.

>>16875657
>>tfw Harry Potter is more of an art piece than Planescape Torment
I don't doubt, man.

>>16872355
Pathologic

>>16872355
MGS2

>>16868919
Also Ozu, Koreeda, Changdong Lee

>>16865628
Seething redditor

>>16865544
>1910s
Birth of the nation
I accuse
Sir Arne’s Treasure
Intolerance: Love’s Struggle Throughout the Ages
A Man There Was
Broken blossoms
The outlaw and his wife
>1920s
He who gets slapped
The phantom carriage
The wind
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
Häxan
Why worry
Our Hospitality
The general
Sherlock jr.
Chicago
Metropolis
Die Nibelungen Part 1 and 2
>1930s
Monkey business
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Island of lost souls
Duck soup
The invisible man
The roaring twenties
Gone with the wind
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Stage coach
Fury
>1940s
The setup
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
The big sleep
Detour
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
Citizen kane
To be or not to be
The third man
The red shoes
Red river
1950s
Try and get me
Gun crazy
Stars in my crown
Night in the city
Girl with Hyacinths
Ace in the hole
Steel helmet
The quiet man
High noon
310 to yuma
Stalag 17
Pickup on south street
Crime wave
The killing
Invasion of the body snatchers
The searchers
Paths of glory
La strada
The incredible shrinking man
The last hurrah
Rio bravo
>1/2

>>16875883
>1960s
Inherit the wind
Village of the damned
Lolita
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Judex
The haunting
Bye bye birdie
Zulu
A few dollars more
The good the bad and the ugly
Spider baby
Viy
The fearless vampire killers
Targets
True grit
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The trial
Chimes at midnight
The producers
>1970s
F for fake
Tora tora tora
Waterloo
McCabe and ms miller
Stroszek
Wake in fright
Heart of glass
Jeremiah johnson
Aguirre, the Wrath of God
Paper moon
The long goodbye
China town
Farewell my lovely
Badlands
Blazing saddles
The outlaw josey wales
Kenny and co.
Network
Bad company
Wizards
The late show
Invasion of the bodysnatchers
King of the north pole
Lancelot of the Lake
Little big man
Ivan Vasilyevich Changes His Profession
Being there
See no evil
Dersu Uzala
>1980s
Thief
Sir Henry at Rawlinson End
Crime Wave Directed by john paizs
Something Wild
The grey fox
Red Sorghum
Alice
The Vanishing
Forbidden zone
Atomic cafe
Pale rider
After hours
Dead man’s letters
The Emperor’s Naked Army Marches On
Tetsuo the iron man
Fitzcarraldo
StageFright: Aquarius
>1990s
Barton fink
Miller’s crossing
Freaked
La Confidential
Bad Lieutenant
Naked
Jacob’s ladder
Nothing but trouble
Timeless Bottomless Bad Movie
Man bites dog
Feed
Matinee
Felidae
Edwood
The green elephant
A simple plan
World war three
My best fiend
Underground
Black hawk down
Peculiarities of the National Hunt
2/3

>>16875896
>2000s
Kungpow enter the fist
Tropical thunder
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The road
Dog soldiers
28 days later
Kung fu hustle
Tv junkie
Songs from the second floor
Secondhand lions
Gozu
Gran Torino
Blood Tea and Red String
>2010s
The tree of life
Violence Voyager
Lighthouse
Death of stalin
Blow the man down
True grit
A field in england
The trip
Buster scruggs
They shall not grow old
3/3
I tried to include more minor films and less major classics in the three posts i made.
Ps use something to record what movies you watch like letterboxd, imdb or even pencil and paper.

>>16875102
>if Griffith never made that film, racism would not have been as bad in the US as it was
that's an incredibly bold claim - it reinforced existing racism, but it didn't create it. It doesn't come close to Triumph of the Will in regards to the efficacy of the propaganda, and even then, not even Triumph could be said to have bolstered the Nazi cause more than things like rallies or military parades

>>16870167

I don't think so, no, hence my employment of the word in the first place. Although "leitmotif" may have had more specific connotations during the 18th and 19th centuries (Wagner), it has been ported to describe the notion of some specific phrase of music indicating a definite thing, or idea. Since Kubrick appropriated various music to his films with this indelible effect, the usage of the word is legitimate IMO. It is now culturally impossible to hear the Blue Danube without conjuring the image of smooth spaceflight, as I noted.

>>16865545
More than you think, Deleuze for example.

Good fucking thread

>>16875422
Why are you so insistent on labeling Planescape: Torment as an interactive novel, instead of what it actually is, a video game? Not that I expect a faggot like you to actually be competent of discussing P: T as an artistic piece and what it brought to video games while they were barely starting to explore the medium and what it could offer. You're boring, your posting style is predictable and the navel-gazing, reductive strawman shtick dimwits like you are so fond of using got boring in like 2010.

>>16865496
games are virtual toys

>>16865628

>>16865813
Jews

>>16865446
>Is there an artistic common ground between film and literature?
Yes, it's called a script, you spastic.

>>16865446
Yes.

well yeah, it is just called human life. but that is too general to be of any use.

literature depicts certain of its aspects, so it is a good source to gather concrete materials to illustrate in a film.

>>16865647
>I'm a small time game dev
And?

>Video games are just games, no different from board games, same shit just made just made digital.
Yeah, how about you take your small dev faggot ass and blow me because you're a fucking joke.

>>16867057
well you may think you´re creative and that your idea was original, but by reading books you´ll humble yourself because you´ll know that your idea wasn´t original to begin with and they made far better execution your silly you came up with

you don´t read to be more "creative", you read it because you know better how storytelling changes in every medium, so you know exactly which is better suitable whenever you want to create something

the true in genius relies in how to use the tools you have at your disposable

>>16868359
>Hence cinema fails to form an original response to a narrative as all responses to a specific film are only to that filmmakers individual vision and not our own.

this is peak philistinism, muh subjective opinion matters, muh death of the author

>>16878416
>yes i will like to get fucked in the ass by a nigger how could you tell? What?! How deep? Here I’ll get tyrone and we’ll find out ol chum. The post

>>16878551
>philistinism
JEW, we got a jew in the thread boys. Lock this baby tight and give away the key to a goyim

>>16878571
In the fields of philosophy and aesthetics, the derogatory term philistinism describes the manners, habits, and character of a person whose anti-intellectual social attitude undervalues and despises art and beauty, spirituality and intellect.[1] A philistine person is a man or a woman of smugly narrow mind, and of conventional morality whose materialistic views and tastes indicate a lack of and an indifference to cultural and aesthetic values.[2]

>>16878571
Since the 19th century, philistinism has come to denote the behaviour of "ignorant, ill-behaved persons lacking in culture or artistic appreciation, and only concerned with materialistic values". Such contemporary significance derives from Matthew Arnold's adaptation to English of the German word Philister — as applied by university students in their antagonistic relations with the townspeople of Jena, Germany, where a row resulted in several deaths, in 1689. In turn, the German word derived from a sermon by Georg Heinrich Götze, the ecclesiastical superintendent who addressed the hostilities between students and townspeople.[3][4]

>>16865789
Cinematography on its own is worthless, what are you on about? It's the academia that is degenerate (liberal, jews, pedos etc.), championing non-entities as art (think Tarr, Angelopoulos, Diaz, Haneke, whom anyone with a modicum of intellect can see as hacks), but that is a manifestation of the times rather than the medium itself. Modern literature is equally if not more depraved.

>tfw lit plebs lashed out emotionally like a toddler because they don´t understand film nor film history

>>16865446
Kubrick read a novel called Eric Bright Eyes very frequently. He always kept a copy in his pocket while filming.

If you get a chance to read it, it is a victorian englishman's take on Icelandic sagas but he really orchestrates the ending very well. He tells you exactly what will happen in the beginning with a dream sequence but the novel is still an incredibly entertaining read and surprisingly emotional read at the end

>tfw film plebs still live in the emotional state of a toddler because they dont understand how the mind in general and consciousness in particular work.

laughingape.exe

>>16878635
>tfw film plebs still live in the emotional state of a toddler because they dont understand how the mind in general and consciousness in particular work.

laughingape.exe

>>16878682
>>16878691
are you still mad?

>>16878598
>>16878605
Well let my eyes rot with pulp mags, let my ears be tainted with the sound of metal, let my belly be a gut— filled with to the brim with alcohol, let my penis be sore —- masturbaiting to Delphine.
I don’t care it’s actually good art...if it means i hang with the likes of (((you)))

>>16878243

There's been a fairly large influx of complete fucking retards over the last few days. Just ignore them, they're not worth reading, let alone responding to.

>>16879148
>over the last few days
More like since the site's inception. But that's irrelevant since I'm making a point and won't cower in face of such obscene faggotry and will call it out as such. That's all.

>>16865544
World on a Wire and anything by Fassbinder
Same for anything by Tarkovsky
That's all I can say

>>16865446
>Is there an artistic common ground between film and literature
Story telling, dumbass lol.

>>16878616
>Cinematography on its own is worthless, what are you on about?
Prose on its own is worthless, what are you on about?
>Modern literature is equally if not more depraved.
Nevermind, we approach these arts differently. I love a good story but I'm also deeply interested in technique.

>>16867897
>art is when no money
lol

>>16873231
>>16879191
>still mad because some stranger insulted his little gimmick game

>>16867828
Unironically yes, depictions of piv doesn't necessarily discount art. You can spam coomer wojaks but you know I'm right.

>>16875883
>no roman holiday
discarded

>>16878668
thanks for the rec

>>16880442
>no arguments
Kek, I win.

>>16865496
Clearly you have not played Katamari Damacy on LSD.

>>16865813
True ingenuity comes from a balance between commercial and artistic compromises.

>>16865659
theatre is art unless someone pointed a camera at it - quote from retard

>>16865472
Now you're gonna say video games are art too, aren't you?

>>16878520
Stay mad.

>>16865813
Saying that the economic process affects cinema and thus not being true art, then the same thing can apply to music (which depends on sells, tours, promotionals, TV appearances) and theater (which depends on having a famous cast nowadays, tickets sells and bookings).
Money has nothing to do to value the artistic integrity of something, because if it did, then the beautiful architecture of the Renaissance and Enlightenment would not be considered art because there was too much money spent on them.

>>16881580
>no arguments
:^)

>>16881800
I'm not the one you were discussing with, I'm just mocking you because you clearly believe the games are art because of your fifteen-year-old mentality that compels you to get mad if someone doesn't believe Lego Indiana Jones 2 is belongs to a pantheon like you do.

>>16868470
Yes he was. Read more Marx

>>16865446
Film is a lifeless artform; a still image. It will never reach the heights of literature or music.

>>16865628
>Video games are art
lmao at thinking your shitty Fallout or Planescape is comparable to Dickens, let alone Shakespeare.

>>16870115
>video games are arguably the most divine medium of art. specific games not being examplary is irrelevant (even though there are many)
>games have been the most memorable and immersive artistic experiences ive had. it gets in your dreams even. if you mean they dont have messages or they dont improoove you, thats not art's concern and doesnt show artistic merit

>>16881427
>Kek, I win.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_onus#:~:text=A%20reverse%20onus%20clause%20is,criminal%20offence%20or%20tort%20claim.

>>16882438
>>video games are arguably the most divine medium of art. specific games not being examplary is irrelevant (even though there are many)
And doesn't post a single one GREAT.

>>16882603
>>16882397
>>16882189
>still no arguments
Kek, I win again.

>>16882688
I got dubs so I double wrecked you

>>16869452
>I will, I'll probably just watch the whole film itself. I agree with your point about going beyond words and concepts - great poetry does that (expressing more than just the words themselves), and I think great film can too.
that's not what poetry is.

>>16882698
Now ask people ITT what art is and whether they've actually read some theory and are aware of the fact that video games are art and that the very definition of art has been the subject of debate for 2000+ years and academics ARE STILL arguing about it.

>>16882698
ok, give me a good way to describe poetry if not imbibing meaning to writing that goes "between the lines"

>>16878243
> Not that I expect a faggot like you to actually be competent of discussing P: T as an artistic piece and what it brought to video games
It's literally textbook genre fiction based off fucking D&D. It is not special in any way shape or form.

>>16882750
It's not based on a D&D setting, not on any actual adventure that was written for a campaign. The writing for the game outside of the setting, that obviously being Planescape, is original and was written EXCLUSIVELY for the game.

>IT is not special in any way shape or form
It most definitely is, but you obviously didn't play the game and aren't capable of arguing your own points (refer to this post right here >>16878243) so ta ta, faggot.

>>16867057
t. underage

>>16876629
triumph of the will is garbage. stylish shots of soldiers marching and people giving speeches. completely lacks the emotional power of birth of a nation

>>16882983
I completely agree with you, just arguing that Triumph was more responsible for Nazism than Birth of a Nation was for racism.

>>16865446
>... voracious reader...


ANOTHER ENTRY IN THE LIST OF CRINGEWORTHY PHRASES, AND IDIOMS...

>>16882380
This

>>16875657
haha based and /lit/pilled
you know what im saying lol

>>16865931
Film is the progression of theatre, it has a rich tradition to draw from.

>>16865931
True. Film has the potential to be a great art form, but it must divorce itself from modern modes of production and it's commonly understood "economics" to pursue the full potential of moving image & sound. Realistically, only experimental filmmakers like Brakhage or Snow come close to this ideal.
>>16883683
True in practice, but I find that limiting in reality. The novel is not necessarily the highest level of art attainable in writing, just as the narrative driven, story-based film is not necessarily the highest either. I think film can just as easily point to photography as it's "true" roots - not to argue that any particular art form is ""better""

>>16865496
If plays can be literature, why not screenplays?

just one final bump at the very end of the catalogue, why not.

>>16865446
yes, fiction

>>16865472
music is lower than film and literature

>>16865659
kys booknigger

>>16883728
Commercialism is the only reason certain art forms are able to be established in the first place. There is no such rule that something commercial can not be artistically sound.

>>16870115
Immersion doesn't have a lot to do with art

Durational 'arts' like film and music are far too long and complex to have a cohesive effect on the viewer, whose experience is at the center of the function of art. They are better suited as crafts as they lack the core metaphysical function of art which is tied explicitly to the qualities of the logos that are mimetic and improving on nature in a way that is unique to man. That is not to say that film and music are bad, but they are closer to nature itself than they are the imitation of its systems, which is the definition of art. In this way video games are an advanced form of art by their similarity (or simulation) of metaphysics, rather than their narrative, immersive, or mechanical qualities (although mechanics do in some way tie into the metaphysics represented by the coding which forms the basis of the program). One could argue the co-ordination of a film project is more of an art than the end result of the film as a product.

>>16885470
back to v kiddo

>>16865544
Anon, I’d recommend films by Malick. Badlands and the thin red line in particular. Bergman and Tarkovsky are also very good, go with Persona and Mirror.

>>16865647
board games are art & video games do not have to actually be a 'game'; they can be an interactive work of art without win/loss states

>>16882397
>thing made of words is different from audiovisual computer thing

well done!

>>16865481
>>16865496
>>16881510
you realize that ~100 years ago your equivalents were saying the same things about novels, and only poetry + classical music + paintings + sculpture were considered serious art

>>16883099
Racism isn't real.

>>16882380
>the mona lisa isn't art because it's a still image
ok

>>16885390
I agree with you to a point - but if the "only" options in a certain art field are "commercial," then I think it's not great for the field. It makes filmmaking limiting for artists already working, and that's assuming they're even able to get in, experimental & other low budget works do make filmmaking more accessible for artists.

>>16886429
What ur replying to has to be b8 lol, whatever arguments you can make against film being an art form, wouldn't be "that" lol

>>16886355
>>thing made of words is different from audiovisual computer thing
>well done!
Not "videogames" but you reminded me of this: https://jamesyu.org/hyperliterature/

>>16886408
Lol you gotta stop baiting me, I can't stop replying to these, but you're a master