How did he get so fucking good, bros? He's so talented it's disgusting. I will never write anything as good if even I had a million years to practice because my genetics aren't as good as this Chad Englishman's. It's not fucking fair...

File: 681 KB, 521x512, shakespeare.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:15:50 2018 No.11933521 [Reply] [Original]

How did he get so fucking good, bros? He's so talented it's disgusting. I will never write anything as good if even I had a million years to practice because my genetics aren't as good as this Chad Englishman's. It's not fucking fair...

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:18:46 2018 No.11933539 >>11933521 >my genetics aren't as good What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:22:03 2018 No.11933563 It honestly does blow my mind sometimes Is there any single artist with a body of work comparable in literally any other medium or facet of existence?

Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:23:08 2018 No.11933574

>>11933539
It is known that genetic explanations account for the existence of greats within fields. Because Shakespeare is one such great, it is undeniable that his talent must in part derive from his genetics. Because the probability of such an uncommonly useful genetic arrangement also occurring in me is extremely low, I can safely conclude (with a 99.999999% chance of my conclusion being correct) that I will never attain his greatness. Is that enough?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:23:16 2018 No.11933578 >>11933563 Kubrick, Bergman, in film.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:26:56 2018 No.11933603 >>11933574 I mean yeah, I'm not denying there are geniuses out there, but what if you weren't born a genius? Are you going to perish or fight? Hard work is all that's left for us who weren't born with a genius brain.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 19:28:07 2018 No.11933608 >>11933603 But have you ever heard of a hard worker who could beat any genius?

Anonymous Sun Oct 14 20:22:24 2018 No.11933913

>>11933521
>How did he get so fucking good, bros?

Right place at the right time. the English language was never more flexible than it was during Elizabeth's/James 1's reign. Pair that with incredible powers of observation, a frightening verbal intelligence, and the greatest talent for metaphor that ever was and you get Shakespeare.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 20:37:48 2018 No.11933975 >>11933913 His plots aren’t even that good but nobody cares, why would they

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 20:39:56 2018 No.11933985 Who is this spunk hunk?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 20:45:04 2018 No.11934010 >>11933521 What the fuck do you think he was trying to express in this portrait?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 20:48:02 2018 No.11934032 >>11934010 >"Hey, I'm Shakespeare"

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 20:54:44 2018 No.11934075 >>11933521 Because he was an actor, so he acquired an ability to imitate and improvise

Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:01:22 2018 No.11934114

lmao what age was he there? fucking balding nigga lmao, my dad is 50 and has an almost perfect hairline, this "genetic superior" male right here was what, 30, 40 in this pic and was already bald? LMFAOO

To answer you, right place at the right time. When i read him i feel a deep anxiety that not only i wasn't born with the genetics but i was also born in the wrong time. I can not conceive of any Shakespeare character, that is, a man who takes everything around him and turns into his sphere of action (like Macbeath, Hamlet, Lear etc). When i write, my characters are always powerless creatures suffering at the mercy of society, themselves, their relationships, their past and so on, because that's how i see myself and most of the people around me. In Shakespeare's time you could still be a king and hold nations hostages and impose your will on the world. Nowadays even billionaires who run the world have to hide up behind armies of legal bureaucracy to hide their misdeeds and even then it isn't enough. Even his metaphors can't affect my style because after i've read Sterne and Pynchon, i'm immediately suspicious of any sincere art, i always feel like i have to have a hint of irony or post irony in all beliefs that i express when i write, even in imagery. Everything is shit and the only way to represent shit is to turn yourself into shit as well.

Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:01:44 2018 No.11934116

>>11933913
>the English language was never more flexible than it was during Elizabeth's/James 1's reign

This is an intriguing statement. Can you please qualify it? Is this related to his tendency to manipulate and bend the rules of iambic pentameter more than his predecessors?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:10:59 2018 No.11934163 File: 577 KB, 500x648, the chad Englishman.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11933985

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:11:39 2018 No.11934166 >>11933521 I’ve heard Shakespeare wanted be known more as a poet, and playwriting was to pay the bills. He worked a lot on his poetic skills and then lifted plots from history and folk tales.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:13:19 2018 No.11934179 >>11934166 Well, it isn't as though his plays are good for their plots rather than the language.

Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:27:10 2018 No.11934262

>>11934116
>Is this related to his tendency to manipulate and bend the rules of iambic pentameter more than his predecessors?
English's grammatical rules hadn't yet been standardized, which left Shakespeare to experiment with word order, sentence structure, neologism, using nouns and verbs, and other such things that would be considered grammatically unviable today. If you read Thomas Browne's and John Milton's prose writings, you'll often find that they play around as much with sentence structure as they do with words, which is a thing very much unique to early modern English, and which naturally opened up a realm poetic possibility that Shakespeare took full advantage of. This article goes into more depth.
https://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_early_modern.html

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 21:34:15 2018 No.11934298 >>11934166 Shakespeare is a weird case overall. He didn't seem a super-serious artist and just shot out work, never bolstered his genius, and died quietly.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 23:27:03 2018 No.11934987 >>11933608 Yes, all the geniuses that you've never heard of because they were lazy and undisciplined. Compare that to all the great men that were clearly not geniuses.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 23:28:19 2018 No.11934991 >shakespeare was one guy retards, this whole board

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 23:32:56 2018 No.11935012 >>11934991 >people saying Shakespeare was one person makes someone mentally handicapped Then the globe is mentally deficient. Seriously. I mean Shakespeare WAS one person: a black woman.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 14 23:34:49 2018 No.11935023 >>11934991 >guys Shakepseare literally wasn't Shakespeare, there is no Shakespere the playwright >I know this because.... duhh...

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 00:52:17 2018 No.11935355 >>11933578 tarkovsky and Bergman more like

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 00:55:00 2018 No.11935367 >>11935355 Tarkovsky and Kubrick

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 00:57:04 2018 No.11935375 >>11935367 nah fuck kubrick, he never took the medium as deep as bergman, ozu , tarkovsky ever did. All the guy could do are mostly adaptations of works already made, not that we should discredit someone for that I like kubrick a lot though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 01:14:54 2018 No.11935430 >>11935375 They're different though. I think Kubrick should be given a lot of credit for making, what, +10 _actually great_ movies, and all of them very different from each other. There's a looong fucking way from 2001 to Lolita to The Shining.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 01:17:01 2018 No.11935436

>>11935375
>mostly adaptations of works

Sounds like Shakespeare.

Bergman, Ozu, and Tarkovsky are great, but Kubrick clearly had the most range. Bergman tried some Horror and Tarkovsky tried some SF, but Kubrick did both, and I can't imagine any of the three being able to pull off satire on the level of Dr Strangelove.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 01:18:57 2018 No.11935441 >>11934166 Well his plays are more poetic than prose

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 01:21:13 2018 No.11935448 >>11935375 Kubrick should be commended for his variety. He really has a tremendous and varied catalogue I love Bergman but he doesn't have the versatility that Kubrick did although I think on a film to film basis Bergman is slightly better

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 01:27:30 2018 No.11935465

>>11935430

I agree I was a little harsh, just like literature film has a lot of very diverse "authors" or auteurs whatever you want to call them. I think that a lot of the europeans and asians tried to film making deeper as a medium though and really pry into the human pysche and experiences.

>>11935436

To be fair no one in europe or asia/india had anywhere NEAR the amount of cash flow kubrick had, especially after WW2 europe was in the absolute dumps and the film industry a shambles. It was much much more convenient for a director like kubrick to try his hand at whatever he pleased once he was granted near complete control of his films.

>>11935448

Once again i attribute that partly to budget and also partly to the fact that european cinema much stronger ties to theatre and literature in general. Bergman started out doing theatre before he ever was into films and it shows. I don't think kubrick would ever be able to make something like fanny and alexander.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 01:30:20 2018 No.11935479

>>11935375
I don't particularly care that much about Kubrick but he did Barry Lyndon. Bergman is good when he focuses in intimacy but trash when he tries to make any existential point. He knows no subtlety. Ozu and Tarkovsky are all right I guess but at the same time their films always feel like they're holding something back. They lack passion. It's particularly obvious with Tarkovsky because he tries to emulate it but it always comes out as hollow.
Bresson is where it truly is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 03:18:25 2018 No.11935793 >>11933578 Yeah fucking right mate. I’m a HUGE Bergman fan, and a very big Kubrick fan, but Shakespeare is absolutely lightyears beyond both of them combined

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 03:30:55 2018 No.11935829 >>11935479 >lack passion >names Robert "make all my actors robots" Bresson

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 03:35:01 2018 No.11935838

Don't misunderstand me, I fucking love Shakespeare, but to what extent do you guys think his status as an almost divine genius is because he is basically the founder of literature as we know it? So of course he seems to be the indisputable best because our standards are so modeled after his work?

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 03:44:52 2018 No.11935864

>>11935838
In what way is the the founder of literature as we know it? He’s not even the founder of English literature, to say nothing of the Greeks, the Romans and the Italians more generally, all of whom had brilliant poets and dramatists centuries before Shakespeare came along

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:09:02 2018 No.11935914 >>11933563 Mozart

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:10:33 2018 No.11935917 >>11935914 Perhaps if he had lived longer. He likely was a genius of a similar order tho

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:18:16 2018 No.11935935

>>11935917
I'd say even as is it Mozart's body of work is similar. Goat tier work in every genre of music available to him, he has the same ability to mix deep seriousness with frivolity just like Shakespeare, and most of his work is still in the repertoire, like Shakespeare.
They were productive for about the same number of years due to Mozart starting so early.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:23:02 2018 No.11935945 >>11933563 What about the East. There's probably tons of genius poets that rival Shakespeare out there.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:31:54 2018 No.11935959

>>11933603
Of course you can work hard, just, if you weren't born with talent on a particular field, don't expect to be remembered in it for centuries to come.

The good news is, I'm sure almost everyone has talent on something, even if they haven't discovered it.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:33:42 2018 No.11935963

There is no such thing as artistic genius or talent - no one is born with an innate ability. What we see around us is the result of hard work, ambition, suffering and dedication. Genius and talent are used by the weak to explain away the virtues of the strong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:36:38 2018 No.11935968 File: 114 KB, 416x435, 86s1610ntjm11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11935963

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:37:11 2018 No.11935969

>>11935963
Nah, some people are geniuses, some people are mediocre, that's just how it is. If you've ever been in the company of a genius, you'd be able to see how they accomplish certain things effortlessly whereas "hard working" people struggle and suffer to reach the same level.

The world isn't fair.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:37:14 2018 No.11935970 >>11935963 >no one is born with an innate ability. lol

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:40:22 2018 No.11935977

>>11933521
He was hugely influenced by the Greek playwrights, Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, as well as Seneca’s tragedies (probably the most underrated playwright, he may be the second best tragedian of all time) and the other major Romans, Virgil, Ovid, Plutarch, and Horace.

I think Ovid and Seneca are probably the two major influences that are generally ignored. He most likely read the Greeks in translation and the Romans in the original Latin which he would’ve learned in Grammar school.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:42:23 2018 No.11935982 File: 39 KB, 640x480, 1493073853350.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11935963 What a stupid fucking post, my god.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:43:07 2018 No.11935983

>>11935963
I seriously don't know how people can not realize, even after the huge amount of evidence that everything, EVERYTHING is genetic. Literally, literally everything about humans is genetically determinated. Your intelligence, your life choices, your creativity, motivation, psychological health, everything is about genetic and there's nothing you can do about it. Just accept it already.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 04:49:49 2018 No.11935993 >>11935968 >>11935969 >>11935970 >>11935982 >>11935983 NPC's

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 05:14:33 2018 No.11936035 >>11935983 t. materialist cuck.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 05:19:17 2018 No.11936044 >>11933521 Shakespeare had multiple personalities.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 08:28:03 2018 No.11936427 >>11935983 Equally retarded assessment desu

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 08:31:43 2018 No.11936430 >>11935963 a nigga tryin to be deep and he just spouts retarded shit lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 10:39:41 2018 No.11936840 File: 2.08 MB, 1184x1290, Screen Shot 2018-10-15 at 10.39.08 pm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11935367 >Kubrick

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 10:41:23 2018 No.11936845 >>11933521 You practice like a madman. He wrote so bad plays but the good outweighs the bad easily

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 10:49:17 2018 No.11936872 >>11936845 >wrote 37 known plays >19 of them are out and out masterpieces. That's a pretty good hit rate. I can't think of another writer or artist with that level of consistency over such a long time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 10:55:50 2018 No.11936890 >>11934991 Next you're going to tell me Homer wasn't a man either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:19:16 2018 No.11936978 Antony and Cleopatra is a top 5 play.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:19:58 2018 No.11936981 >>11936872 Radiohead

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:32:12 2018 No.11937022 >>11936981 did Radiohead make 37 albums? if you're going by length, Bowie and Sonic Youth both jump to mind as prolific artists without a single bad album (of which Radiohead have one themselves)

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:34:05 2018 No.11937029 File: 96 KB, 416x435, 86s1610ntjm11.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11933578 >Kubrick Yeah, like 2001 is the greatest film ever.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:36:59 2018 No.11937033
File: 322 KB, 446x399, this.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11933913
>the English language was never more flexible than it was during Elizabeth's/James 1's reign
Anon speaks the truth. Just read any poetry from the period. It was a golden age for English literature.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:39:10 2018 No.11937040 [DELETED]

File: 465 KB, 1476x1578, 41784.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11933521
The hidden /pol/ discord is pxmFPxj we have over 5000 members and are growing.

It has to stay hidden or (((discord))) will shut it down. As far as discord knows its a Minecraft discord.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 11:59:07 2018 No.11937120 >>11937022 Bowie and Sonic Youth have plenty of crappy albums.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:00:49 2018 No.11937126 >>11937120 Never Let Me Down and NYC Ghosts and Flowers aren't bad

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:05:33 2018 No.11937141 >>11933563 unironically Michael Ende

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:05:43 2018 No.11937142 >>11933521 t. anglo propaganda pawn

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:07:31 2018 No.11937147 >>11934166 >poet more like scribbles of kiddy sonnets

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:08:51 2018 No.11937151 >>11936427 this desu

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:30:01 2018 No.11937233

>>11933578
I don't think there is a cinematic Shakespeare. There's no one overriding figure that dominates the film canon in the way Shakespeare does to the Western Canon. There isn't even a trio, like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Everyone knows who these artists are too. How many directors are iconic in this way? Spielberg, Chaplin and Hitchcock really and while they are all brilliant each their own way, they are profoundly limited in comparison to the depth and breadth of the Shakespeare's works.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:34:29 2018 No.11937263 >>11935914 The patrician answer is Bach.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:36:05 2018 No.11937267 >>11935959 >wanting to be remembered for centuries to come C O N C E I T O N C E I T

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:38:41 2018 No.11937279 >>11937233 Tbqhwyfam Wagner might be one of the most important figures in film.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:41:48 2018 No.11937288 >>11937279 Explain

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:48:55 2018 No.11937324 >>11937029 Just because an opinion might be parroted by NPC's does not make the opinion itself invalid. Kubrick is kino.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 12:55:35 2018 No.11937355
File: 16 KB, 300x300, leo-tolstoyjpg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Leo Tolstoy, 1906: "I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful aesthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium... Several times I read the dramas and the comedies and historical plays, and I invariably underwent the same feelings: repulsion, weariness, and bewilderment. At the present time, before writing this preface, being desirous once more to test myself, I have, as an old man of seventy-five, again read the whole of Shakespeare, including the historical plays, the "Henrys," "Troilus and Cressida," "The Tempest", "Cymbeline", and I have felt, with even greater force, the same feelings,—this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to discover in him non-existent merits,—thereby distorting their aesthetic and ethical understanding,—is a great evil, as is every untruth."
Daily reminder that nothing out of Britain will ever hold a light to the Russian novelists, the golden age of literature

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 13:09:20 2018 No.11937419 >>11937355 Tolstoy was a genius and is up there with Dante, Homer and Shakespeare himself in terms of greatness but by god he was a petulant contrarian cunt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 13:18:04 2018 No.11937483 >>11937355 Tolstoy also disliked Dostoevsky, one of the pillars of your golden age of literature, as did Vladimir Nabokov although he isn't quite in that period.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 13:50:09 2018 No.11937649 >>11934991 >shakespeare was guy retards, this whole board

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 13:52:22 2018 No.11937659 >>11937355 >paying any attention to an ESL’s opinion on English poetry

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 13:53:17 2018 No.11937663 >>11937324 not with respect to the likes of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Bresson, Kurosawa, Bela Tarr, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 14:01:01 2018 No.11937691 >>11934298 thats the real weird thing, i guess you could say its like the dare i say it beatles or even the guy in BTS doing pop music

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 14:17:01 2018 No.11937749 >>11937483 >Tolstoy also disliked Dostoevsky, No he didn't

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 14:26:53 2018 No.11937788 >>11937233 cue Griffith fag

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 14:29:43 2018 No.11937807

Anyone have a more informed approach to the plays than my shitty professor? Perhaps someone at a better uni has an old syllabus or access to one. I’ve read most of the plays before, some scattered, others chrobologically, but want to get back into the bard.

Also, unironically name lit films i should watch. I dont watch movies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 15:49:01 2018 No.11938220 File: 54 KB, 514x343, How-Green-Was-My-Valley-review.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11937788 Where the fuck is he, I miss him. Murnau was the true genius anyhow. Also John Ford

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 15:56:54 2018 No.11938272 >>11937355 Tolstoy's specialty is moralism. He was good at depicting people but couldn't help injecting his domineering sense of morality into it all. He can't match Shake's plain humanity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:06:04 2018 No.11938321 >>11934114 Read Art and Artist by Otto Rank. Creative impulse is about reconciling the feeling of the individual with the conditions of society

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:40:49 2018 No.11938500 >>11938272 Shakespeare was an enormous cynic. Probably one of the most nihilistic major writers in the Canon. Tolstoy, being such an idealistic moralist, reacted violently to that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:43:00 2018 No.11938505 >>11936840 lmao solaris is a huge pile of shite compared to 2001, and i like tarkovsky more

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:43:41 2018 No.11938511 Shakespeare was a doomer in outlook but a bloomer in temperament while Tolstoy was the opposite. A clash was bound to happen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:44:43 2018 No.11938516 >>11935914 Definitely Mozart. Just effortlessly perfect

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:47:58 2018 No.11938528 Only Hamlet is worth reading. The rest are typical and worthless. Hamlet is disgusting. It's literally impossible to read it without realizing this is the Ground Zero of modernism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:51:13 2018 No.11938539 >>11935968 >>11935970 >>11935982 >>11935983 Samefag

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 16:55:17 2018 No.11938559 >>11937126 lmao sonic youth spew out shit after shit after daydream nation except maybe washing machine and anything bowie did after scary monsters is shit

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 17:28:04 2018 No.11938731

>>11937807
For a small list to start I would say Tarkovsky's Stalker, Bergman's Wild Strawberries and Persona, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, and Fellini's La Dolce Vita. I would recommend you just start watching movies like those and watch what you want. If you really like Stalker for example watch other movies by Tarkovsky, if you like Seven Samurai find other Japanese directors like Mizoguchi and Ozu. If you like a director, look up their favourite directors and go from there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 17:40:30 2018 No.11938799 >>11934010 he looks fucking hollow

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 17:58:30 2018 No.11938888 >>11938799 His eyes aren't smiling but his lips are, so it looks fake. And it is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:01:14 2018 No.11938898 I've always assumed that he has an earring in his ear but now it just looks like a scratch. There goes my plan to get my ear pierced.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:01:48 2018 No.11938903 >>11938888 are u mistaking his moustache for a smile, anon?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:02:42 2018 No.11938909 >>11938903 Maybe I am, actually. I just don't know anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:03:44 2018 No.11938916 >>11938528 Can you elaborate on this relationship of Hamlet to modernism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:20:07 2018 No.11939001 >>11937807 Watch the complete films of John Ford and DW Griffith.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:20:28 2018 No.11939005 >>11938528 You must be 19

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:27:42 2018 No.11939025 >>11937355 BASED as fuck. Uncle Leo seeing through the eternal *nglo lies

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 18:50:53 2018 No.11939127 >>11933563 Paul McCartney

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:01:59 2018 No.11939163 >>11939127 *from '64 to '70

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:02:17 2018 No.11939165 >>11933578 >>11935355 >>11935367 >>11937233 Kurosawa is the only one actually comparable to Shakespeare.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:11:56 2018 No.11939206 >>11939163 The Beatles were the Francis Ford Coppola of the 60's. GOAT for a decade then nothing nearly of note afterward (on an individual basis). I don't include All Things Must Pass in this because most of that was written during the Beatle years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:15:53 2018 No.11939220 >>11939206 It's weird how they could be so great for a five year period then immediately suck after they broke up. Especially John. Abbey Road is the peak of their music for me

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:16:02 2018 No.11939222 >>11937355 Its comforting to read that even in 1906 people didnt motivate their radical opinions.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:23:06 2018 No.11939259

>>11939165
Closest competitors to GOAT filmmaker
>Hitchcock
Probably the greatest technical director of all time. Was unfortunately stricken by that particular lower middle class English disease of anti-intellectualism which left a lot of his films desperately shallow
>Ford
Similar to Hitchcock. The greatest of craftsman but lacked ambition.
>Kubrick
The visual equvilant of Shakespeare in terms of creating memorable and iconic images (or lines in Shakespeare's case). Quite limited in output and tone, in comparison.
>Godard
Probably more the Joyce of cinema
>Bergman
Profound in ideas and in ambition but limited in technique and in tone.
>Muranu
Died too young but I think he could have done it.
>Welles
Similar to Murnau, though was fucked over by the system instead of dying early.
>Ozu
Master of what he does but lacks the breadth that is required.
>Tarkovsky
Too remote and willfully obscure.
>Chaplin
Lacking in technical ability.
>Kurosawa
Probably the best bet along with:
>Renoir

Can't believe I typed all this vague rubbish out

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:39:01 2018 No.11939342 >>11935963 >>11935993 >>11938539 >samefagging this hard

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:41:10 2018 No.11939354 >>11937355 >>11937419 Tolstoy downplays the aesthetic value of literature itself - he considers his own work to be non-art. He's a strange case

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 19:44:41 2018 No.11939362 >>11933563 unironically bob dylan

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 20:03:19 2018 No.11939442 >>11939259 Dreyer? Bresson?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 20:06:53 2018 No.11939449 I keep hearing different things. Is he one person or a conglomeration of writers from a similar time period

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 20:10:03 2018 No.11939462 >>11939442 Too personal. Maybe Gance and Eisenstein ? Kobayashi ? Griffith ? Nobody can match really.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:17:56 2018 No.11939706

>>11939259
The correct answer is Woody Allen. He's done comedy, drama, and combined both flawlessly. He's influenced by others like Bergman and Fellini, but makes them his own. He's covered all social classes from lower (Radio Days, Purple Rose of Cairo) to higher. He can drill into a character's subjective psychology and even fool the people watching into siding with a flawed hero (Annie Hall, Manhattan) while subtly outlining and attacking their flaws. Some examples:

>Manhattan

Misunderstood by most people who don't realize that Woody Allen is largely condemning Isaac throughout the whole film and the beautiful cinematography is used to reflect Isaac's overblown ideals.

>Husband and Wives

Has an interesting fictional 'documentary' format and is one of the most thorough examinations of romance and marriage to ever exist.

>Crimes and Misdemeanors

Judah Rosenthal is the most realistic depiction of a killer to ever exist and throughout the film we see how humans self-justify and manipulate themselves into commiting crimes. The comedic plotline serves to further deepen the themes of power in a smaller sense while subverting the dramatic nature of the plotline involving Judah.

>Another Woman

Despite being a roughly 1 hr film, thorough examination of a 50 year old woman undergoing a crisis. Hypercondensed and razor-sharp psychological analysis.

>Radio Days

Misunderstood as being 'plotless' despite Allen subtly showing the development of several characters at once through humour, and examining a time period as a whole.

With Zelig, Sweet & Lowdown, Match Point, Cassandra's Dream, Hannah and her Sisters, Annie Hall, Stardust Memories etc... , and even his earlier purely comedic films like Sleeper and Love & Death - you can see his full range at work.

Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:20:40 2018 No.11939722

>>11939706
I hate Woody Allen physically, I dislike that kind of man.

H.J.: I’ve never understood why. Have you met him?

O.W.: Oh, yes. I can hardly bear to talk to him. He has the Chaplin disease. That particular combination of arrogance and timidity sets my teeth on edge.

H.J.: He’s not arrogant; he’s shy.

O.W.: He is arrogant. Like all people with timid personalities, his arrogance is unlimited. Anybody who speaks quietly and shrivels up in company is unbelievably arrogant. He acts shy, but he’s not. He’s scared. He hates himself, and he loves himself, a very tense situation. It’s people like me who have to carry on and pretend to be modest. To me, it’s the most embarrassing thing in the world—a man who presents himself at his worst to get laughs, in order to free himself from his hang-ups. Everything he does on the screen is therapeutic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:23:55 2018 No.11939733 >>11939449 Most likely one person. There's not much known about Shakespeare but conspiracyfags have absolutely nothing backing up Shakespeare NOT being Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon, and all the evidence that exists points to it being him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:27:19 2018 No.11939748 >>11939722 >Orson Welles >unbelievably arrogant Oh the irony.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:30:01 2018 No.11939759 >>11939722 I don't know who Orsen Welles is but he sounds like a massive prick

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:36:23 2018 No.11939782 >>11939759 do you seriously not know who he is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 21:39:07 2018 No.11939794 >>11939706 bait

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 22:07:10 2018 No.11939908 >>11935829 Bresson may be stiff but he's never passionless. It's contained but it's there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 23:46:24 2018 No.11940262 >>11937749 Yes he did

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 23:47:32 2018 No.11940266 >>11938559 Washing Machine was one of their worst mate

>>	Anonymous Mon Oct 15 23:53:32 2018 No.11940293 >>11940266 Radiohead is a good band, OK? But it’s not a good analogy because it’s five people and they have like 9 albums, 1.5 of which are bad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 00:36:01 2018 No.11940416 I want to get into shakespeare. I was going to start with hamlet because ive seen laurence oliviers adaptation and love it but I dont know which version I should go with? Arden, folger someother one? I just dont know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 01:14:27 2018 No.11940553 >>11938888 checked

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 02:31:38 2018 No.11940730

>>11937263
I agree that Bach is the patrician answer (maybe Handel), but he wasn't a genius on the level of Mozart. He was a more "ordinary" genius, who got as good as he did through dedication to his craft over his entire career than being a savant.
I ducking love Bach tho bro :')

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 02:45:22 2018 No.11940755 >>11939748 I mean, he admits as much in the interview.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 02:46:41 2018 No.11940757 >>11940416 Arden is what I usually see recommended. But only if you buy the works individually, I guess if you buy the complete works by Arden theres no notes

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 02:46:46 2018 No.11940758 >>11939442 Suffer from similar problem to Ozu

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 02:51:24 2018 No.11940769 >>11940730 >implying Mozart wasn't tremendously skilled as well He was just so skilled that you don't even notice how complicated his music actually is, quite in contrast to the dreary, laboured technicians like Bog or Peathoven

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 02:53:01 2018 No.11940774 File: 62 KB, 450x586, d.w.griffith1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >comparing all these third-rate filmmakers to Shakespeare I shouldn't really be surprised that you all like fundamentally literary filmmakers, but still.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 03:06:37 2018 No.11940805 >>11940769 >comparing cringehoven and plebzart to Bach Go back.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 03:12:32 2018 No.11940823 >>11940805 Bog is autistic and mundane to the core.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 06:07:21 2018 No.11941183 >>11939706 Not sure if you’ll see this but, great post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 06:11:30 2018 No.11941193 >>11933563 yeah, me

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 06:25:52 2018 No.11941213

>>11935983
This, it's just cause you can't physically see your mind and how it works, it's abstract so retards think we're all equal or some shit and all that matters is hard work.

Just as your body is as it is genetically your brain is as it is, there is no changing that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 06:43:33 2018 No.11941244 >>11939722 >Everything he does on the screen is therapeutic This isn't a big secret, Woody Allen has said this multiple times.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 06:54:06 2018 No.11941273

>>11941244
Isn't that the whole point they are making? he "presents himself at his worst", i.e. He's open about how pathetic and egotistical he is in order to absolve himself of criticism. No matter what anyone says about his superficial, self-centered characters and plots, he gets to say "Yeah but, I do that openly. That's the joke. It's ironic."

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 07:02:23 2018 No.11941286 >>11941273 No

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 07:09:40 2018 No.11941306

>>11939706
I'm gonna go ahead and take your obvious bait.

You're forgetting that Shakespeare was a poet - a master of the English language, who could write lines of incredible rhythmic beauty and profound meaning, whose characters are unforgettably vivid and diverse.

Allen is only capable of writing one style of dialogue and one character - an insecure, neurotic guy who is inexplicably attractive to beautiful quirky two-dimensional women. Observe the conversation between the women in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. It sounds completely stilted and unnatural, because those women are talking like Woody Allen. Same thing in almost all his later films. The dialogue is totally sterile and unbelievable. Because it's not Woody Allen saying the lines. You realize how contrived and unnatural his dialogue is when he isn't delivering it with his usual stammerings and mannerisms.

The psychology of his characters is always on one layer. It's a kind of pop psychology influenced by psychoanalysis that foregrounds a person's sex life and emotional relationships.

I guess you are claiming that Allen makes up for his obvious deficiencies in dialogue and character through his handling of the "visual language" of film. But as you acknowledge, whatever beauty exists in his films comes from his mimicry of other auteurs like Bergman and Fellini. None of his films are visually innovative. They simply replicate the innovations of those European filmmakers.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 07:29:26 2018 No.11941358

>>11941306
>Vicky Cristina Barcelona

He declined after Husband and Wives, so picking VCB is like picking Titus Andronicus to criticize Shakespeare.

>one style of dialogue and one character - an insecure neurotic guy

Judah Rosenthal from Crimes and Misdemeanors, everyone in Radio Days, Marion from Another Woman, Emmett Ray from Sweet and Lowdown, the criminal main characters from Cassandra's Dream and Match Point, the couples depicted in Husband and Wives, the sisters from Hannah or Interiors. Seriously, are you even trying?

You also don't realize that the psychoanalysis that occurs is frequently undermined. The whole is usually greater than the sum of its parts. For example, in Hannah and Her Sisters, Elliot goes to a psychoanalyst for his infidelity, but whatever he says is juxtaposed against the comedic scenes with the hypochondriac Mickey.

Furthermore, just look at a work like Another Woman where sex plays so miniscule a role compared to pretty much everything else about Marion's character. It goes through her inner life in a single hour.

You obviously haven't been in enough relationships or experienced life that much if you think the dialogue is sterile and unbelievable. It's obviously more believable than people monologuing poetically in Shakespeare, Bergman, or Fellini films.

He took visual language from others but repurposed it with greater realism. And he could pull off the disparate styles perfectly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 07:47:03 2018 No.11941388 >>11937141 Your not wrong

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:05:16 2018 No.11941419

>>11941358

Just admit that you like his work because it resonates with a particular kind of insecure emasculated male.

He constructs fantasy worlds where everybody communicates and thinks on his terms. Everyone is interested in his preoccupations.

You like his films because they show you a world in which you can be awkward and neurotic and beautiful women will consider it "charming"and want to fuck you. You can be a coward and shy away from any responsibility in life, and good things will still happen to you.

He may as well have filmed his own liaisons with prostitutes and presented it as cinema.

Your dithering, cringey, lazy, pseuodintellectual existence is meaningful because Woody Allen has shown you that that kind of life can be beautiful.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:28:16 2018 No.11941461

>>11940730
>dedication to his craft over his entire career than being a savant.

Yeah no, being taught music from an early age is not being a savant. If Bach were trained on the same level since he was 6 I can't even imagine what his music would sound like, but he came from a family of musicians as well. Anyway, most savants with perfect pitch that can recognize 20 notes being played at the same time are absolutely shit at writing music, it's just autistic gibberish with no emotion. Mozart was a genius but he didn't have deficiencies in other function of his brain, so not a savant.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:47:24 2018 No.11941486 >>11941419 Not that guy, but I'm sensing A LOT of projection in this post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:51:08 2018 No.11941500 >>11938505 >lmao solaris is a huge pile of shite compared to 2001 fuck you

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:52:11 2018 No.11941503 >>11937649 >shakespeare was retards, this whole board

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:54:43 2018 No.11941510

>>11933521
Shakespeare is obviously overblown but he is pretty good. What is more interesting is the phenomenon of your happiness being dependent on other people (in this case, comparing yourself to other people/a desire to effectively be another person)

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 08:57:40 2018 No.11941516 >>11937029 >implying meat portals can get past the ape scene

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 09:05:05 2018 No.11941531 >>11939706 Allen literally might be the most overrated director of all time. His movies are so good damn cringy I can hardly bear to watch them.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 10:47:48 2018 No.11941906

>>11941419
>You like his films because they show you a world in which you can be awkward and neurotic and beautiful women will consider it "charming"and want to fuck you. You can be a coward and shy away from any responsibility in life, and good things will still happen to you.

Actually I think most of the characters in his works are horrible people. But Allen's films shows exactly the psychological cycles and pretensions we can be caught in.

Don't forget that in Manhattan and Annie Hall, which are his two famous 'romcoms', the Woody character doesn't get the girl at all and this is largely due to his own faults. In Annie Hall it's because Alvy tries to mould her into his fixations on death and other stuff you might call pseudointellectual. In Manhattan it's because Isaac is extremely self-deluded and he tries to get with a plainly psychotic woman Mary, despite all the red flags. In Hannah and Her Sisters, Elliot is able to consumate an affair but it cools off in the realistic way that affairs do. Match Point, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Cassandra's Dream involves murders and failed romances.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 11:14:35 2018 No.11942001 >>11939165 >Kurosawa weebs shouldn´t be into films

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 13:42:13 2018 No.11942494 >>11940774 Name ten first rates

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 13:43:44 2018 No.11942503 >>11939706 >The correct answer is Woody Allen. It really isn't. Weak visual stylist with a tendency towards navel gazing. Made some amazing films but he's no Shakespeare of Cinema.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 13:48:31 2018 No.11942524 >>11940730 Handel is definitely the patrician answer and it isn't even close. I'm with you on Mozart's genius though

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 13:49:33 2018 No.11942528 >>11941273 yes that's exactly what he's saying, and he's right. The entire culture of irony and insincerity is based around fear of one's honest expression being rejected.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 13:57:07 2018 No.11942556 >>11942528 >they can't hurt me if I punch myself in the face first.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 13:58:35 2018 No.11942559 >>11933563 Michelangelo

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 14:25:03 2018 No.11942675 Never read Shakespeare. Is their a "best" order to read his plays in?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 14:57:13 2018 No.11942857 >>11938220 john ford was so much better than murnau. and there's orson welles obviously

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 15:04:42 2018 No.11942900 >>11942857 I wouldn't say he was so much better. Sunrise is as good as anything Ford made.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 17:59:16 2018 No.11943872 bump

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:10:07 2018 No.11943917 File: 56 KB, 576x1024, 1536686747239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11935945 There simply isn't, it doesn't work like that (closest is Kl**sa). Really tired of this kind of dipshit speculation, no offense to you in particular

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:21:09 2018 No.11943968 File: 241 KB, 600x1003, teleports behind you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11933521 >I'm not as good as the best Well what the fuck did you think was going to happen? You'd just naturally and effortlessly fall into genius?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:26:15 2018 No.11943990 >>11941461 My mistake, I didn't realize that "savant" implied deficiency in other areas. What's a better word I could use in the future?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:34:46 2018 No.11944049 >>11933521 He's not. This Chad is way overhyped. His work is mostly average at best, simply good. Good rhyming though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:51:08 2018 No.11944147 >>11934166 Nah, if it wasn’t for his friends his work wouldn’t have survived, they had the sense when he died to collect his Scripts. He was a working man, not primarily an artist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:53:37 2018 No.11944164 >>11935375 Kubrick sucks. He is the biggest sacred cow in film and has not onefilm as good as any by Wong kar wai. Even Vincent Gallo is better than Kubrick, Kubrick is the dad rock of film

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:56:00 2018 No.11944174 >>11937022 Sonic youth are a trash band, Radiohead are not much better

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 18:59:33 2018 No.11944192 >>11940293 Lol they have only good songs all of their albums are bad, what’s next talking heads are good?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:00:38 2018 No.11944199 >>11939259 A list of plebs and pleb taste

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:01:39 2018 No.11944204 >>11939206 Beatles have like 5 good songs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:04:42 2018 No.11944215 File: 48 KB, 600x759, COGl15iUEAAqOVV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11944199 >>11944204 At least put some effort into it brainlets.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:06:54 2018 No.11944229 >>11944164 >>11944174 >>11944192 >>11944199 >>11944204 Either samefagging or this board really is an NPC infested dump

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:23:56 2018 No.11944319 >>11944215 Pleb taste confirmed

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:27:15 2018 No.11944336 >>11944199 Name 5 better directors with explanation

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 19:53:32 2018 No.11944463 >>11944336 Terrence Malick Wong Kar Wai Werner Herzog Takeshi Kitano Vincent Gallo No explanations needed

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:01:43 2018 No.11944505 >>11933608 Keats...?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:13:59 2018 No.11944554 >>11944463 Patrician

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:17:47 2018 No.11944562

>>11944463
>terrence malick
promising at the begninning. the emperor new clothes in filmmaker. shallow.
>wong kar wai
he had it, but he lost it.
>Werner Herzog
he have some good insights but too dry and emotional arid to make it.
>Takeshi Kitano
he is eclectic and have occasional good films but i assume you dont watch even the half of his filmography to put him in a list of the possible shakespeare of films. he have so much trash is unbelievable. and his best is not even million years near to the best of the medium.
>Vincent Gallo
you make one great movie, you are better than everyone. this is not how it works.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:23:52 2018 No.11944598 >>11944562 >>Vincent Gallo you make one great movie, you are better than everyone. this is not how it works. Sure it does, look at Jesus and Mary Chain one album better than entire Beatles catalog

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:27:33 2018 No.11944611

>how did he get good
>get good
Some don't have to get good. They were just born with spontaneously effective brains. Did da Vinci get good? Did any of the great geniuses like Newton or Leibniz get good? No, they were born good, and subsequently provided all the resources and time necessary for that gift to enlarge and effloresce.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:28:35 2018 No.11944618 >>11944598 You'll realize you're wrong once you're done with your adolescent phase.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:29:46 2018 No.11944626

>>11944598
>Sure it does, look at Jesus and Mary Chain one album better than entire Beatles catalog
ok, you can say psychocandy (i assume you refer to psychocandy, maybe darklands) is better than entire beatles catalog. but the beatles have a more solid discography, (specially since rubber soul.) and jesus and mary chain unfortunately have a total erratic discography. i dont know. i think you can make one great piece, but a real genius make different masterpieces. is all subjective. i think we are talking of filmography as a whole.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 20:56:13 2018 No.11944738
File: 1.74 MB, 550x320, 1536189632649.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'm pretty sure it's a mix, as most things are, between genius and hard work. You can be very smart and not use it to your full potential or you can be kinda smart but study and dedicate yourself to honing your skill and end at being great. However, there is a limit. For example, someone with a very low IQ, 80-ish, will never amount to something at "genius" levels, besides maybe sports, but I'm not sure about that either. I don't think Shakespeare's overrated, but there are some people that use hyperbole too extensively. There are also many people who say that Chaucer and Milton are on par with Shakespeare, and there's likely many other writers/poets as well that we might admit are as good if we could be more honest. But there's also the problem of what better means, in what ways one writer is "better" than another.

I'm not a big film guy, but I didn't like 2001 Space Odyssey. Favorite movies are Big Trouble In Little China and The Thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:02:10 2018 No.11944772 File: 405 KB, 2610x2505, kermit_reaction.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11944738 >Favorite movies are Big Trouble In Little China

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:04:05 2018 No.11944787 >>11944772 What does this say about me?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:15:09 2018 No.11944847 >>11944787 that you´re a fucking moron

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:18:18 2018 No.11944863 >>11944847 That's a bit harsh. I did say I wasn't big on films. Why do those movies being my favorite make me and moron?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:25:36 2018 No.11944898 >>11944863 >and moron an hero

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:31:53 2018 No.11944925 >>11944898 What about my question? Are you just gonna call me a moron and not explain why you think that?

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:48:23 2018 No.11945012 >>11944618 Sure buddy

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 21:49:25 2018 No.11945016 >>11944626 Beatles got worse after rubber soul

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:09:01 2018 No.11945118 >>11935945 Rabindranath Tagore is referred to as the bard of the east. i wouldn't know if he deserves it because translations of bengali are probably trash

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:10:29 2018 No.11945128 >>11945118 idk about language issues but that guy's poetry is honestly beautiful

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:10:55 2018 No.11945131 >>11935983 Twins studies strongly suggest otherwise. Genes are very important, but we are very complicated organisms that do a lot of learning, and go through a lot of plastic and elastic changes as we live.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:12:31 2018 No.11945137 >>11945131 twin studies are fucking creepy. So much that we think is agency was determined at birth. It's true that epigenetics are a thing though

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:22:41 2018 No.11945183 >>11938731 Hey, don't be a faggot. If you're going to recommend Kurosawa, recommend Ikiru, The Idiot, or The Lower Depths. Seven Samurai was his overrated mass appeal movie.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:23:30 2018 No.11945187 >>11944562 Prince Vince made two great films to be far, and he has been doing films just for himself for a while. They may be masterpieces too.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 22:52:48 2018 No.11945338

>>11945137
Oh, calm down. One twin is in a suburb in Oregon, the other in a suburb in Ohio. Their environments are practically identical, so it's not surprising that they end up on similar paths. Yes, temperament is mostly (if not entirely) genetic, as anyone who's raised a litter of kittens will tell you, but everyone still has their own unique experiences, which help mold them into who they are. The issue is that we don't realize just how homogenized our environments and stimuli are in modern society.

Anonymous Tue Oct 16 23:10:28 2018 No.11945409

Why has this whole thread devolved into nothing but literary/film canon wankery, Shakespeare wankery and griping?

This is the main reason why nobody here is a Genius or will write anything great, because all of you are enamored with old forms without having the creative will to remake them into something new.

>>	Anonymous Tue Oct 16 23:14:45 2018 No.11945424 >>11945187 Probably are, Gallo has great taste for music selection

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 00:44:30 2018 No.11945811 File: 149 KB, 1280x720, 1538353261084.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11933563 Nick Cave (unironically, yes)

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 01:13:11 2018 No.11945888
File: 163 KB, 600x600, mirror.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How is he so fucking good? Seriously, to write that many great books of many different genres and with so many distinct and memorable characters is a superhuman feat. And he comes out with a masterpiece or two every year. It's unbelievable... He's so talented it's disgusting. I will never write anything as good, it's not fucking fair...

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 01:56:32 2018 No.11946014 >>11944463 Probably the most pseud list I've ever seen.

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 02:57:45 2018 No.11946196
File: 274 KB, 907x1360, sister miriam joseph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11933521
>How did he get so fucking good, bros?
hey, I got the answer for you (besides innate genius):
a nun by the same of Sister Miriam Joseph wrote an analysis of Shakespeare's usage and mastery of all the classical and renaissance forms of rhetoric - including the Trivium - called Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language
>2013 Reprint of 1947 Edition. Full facsimile of the original edition, not reproduced with Optical Recognition Software. This was the first book which presented, in a complete manner, a general theory of composition then current in Renaissance England. Its particular contribution is the reorganization of the two hundred figures of speech, distinguished by Renaissance rhetoricians, into a simple, understandable pattern basic in Aristotle's Rhetoric: grammar logos, pathos and ethos. The purpose of the book is to provide a handbook of the theory of composition then current during the English Renaissance and to show Shakespeare's use of this theory by simple illustration from his plays and poems. The book is addressed to the wide audience of teachers of English and Renaissance literature, the philologist, the Shakespearian scholar, and to students and teachers of all Romance languages.
here's an amazon review:
>The first part provides an informative background that provides a conceptual and theoretical context by which the reader can better understand and appreciate the author's analysis and discussion of Shakespeare's creative use of Elizabethan English in his plays. Although the first part is somewhat technical in nature, a reader who takes the time and devotes the attention needed to follow the author's discussion will be better able to follow and appreciate the author's later discussion of Shakespeare's creative use of language in his plays.
>The second part looks at many passages from Shakespeare's plays to illustrate and discuss how Shakespeare creatively used grammatical schemes, figures of speech, logic, and elements of classical rhetoric to make his plays lively, interesting, and memorable for his audiences. The second part is the heart of the book and the part most likely to be of interest to readers wanting to learn about Shakespeare's creative use of language, or to better understand and appreciate his plays.
>The third part is a review of the theories of composition espoused by logicians and rhetoricians in Tudor England. The third part is not essential for readers only interested in Shakespeare, but it does provide material against which a reader can compare and contrast Shakespeare's use of language in his plays.
check this shit out if you want to get good (if that's your intent)

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 06:57:54 2018 No.11946803 >>11944925 I'm not him but remember that you're on 4chan, buddy. He's just insulting you, don't expect any explanations.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 07:10:12 2018 No.11946837 File: 14 KB, 130x165, bach2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11933563 Johann Sebastian Bach. All other answers are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 07:46:23 2018 No.11946926 >>11944463 >Vincent Gallo Please stop this meme

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 09:56:12 2018 No.11947272 >>11933563 Jean Racine

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 10:02:56 2018 No.11947288 >>11946803 I really just wanted to know what he found wrong with one of my favorite movies and to keep the thread moving.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 10:06:55 2018 No.11947304 >>11947272 Yikes no

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 13:51:12 2018 No.11948198

If he was born today he would never become Shakespeare, that’s for sure, but is probable that he wouldn’t even get involved with the arts. All the people who say that he would be a great screenwriter or movie director fail to see that Shakespeare’s main talent was not of storytelling, but that of language, of poetry, of words. Movies and TV are much more dependent on the image than on the language, and the dialogue is mostly directed toward the realistic and the natural, and not the poetical and rhetoric. If you try to be poetic on this industry they will soon correct you with the red-pen of the cutting judge.

If Shakespeare was born today he would not even had the same education that he was submitted to in a Grammar School (that though mostly Latin, Greek, Rhetoric, Oratory, decoration of speeches from old poetry books and lots of figures of speech), so one wonders if he was even going to discover what his passion and talent really was. For all we know he might end up studying Law.

If Shakespeare was born today with the same genetics that enabled him to become the greatest poet of all time (and that by far, much superior to even Homer or Dante) he would lack, firstly, the education that would cut the rough stones of his talent and sculpt it into a diamond. Then, if he were led to pursue his dream of working with poetry, he would not find a proper theater to let his real talents flow. Books of poetry don’t sell, so he would hardly feel interested to pursue such goal. He might end up writing novels, but not with the same poetic exuberance he displayed in his plays. What’s more, since plots were not his strong suit, he would toil a lot to came up with ideas for novels, and the writing of it would take more time than the writing of plays. The result would be a smaller and less poetic corpus. Maybe some 10 novels, and none of them as poetic as the greatest of his plays.

If he ended up in Hollywood he would hardly be noticed, because his gift – as I already mentioned - was not one of creating interesting and original plots. He might try his hand at adapting books and novels to screenplays, but he would never be allowed to digress and let torrents of words to burst out of the brains and tongues of his characters (like I said before, he wouldn’t even have the training for that – Grammar Schools of the Elizabethan era were better at training one to become a poet than all the Ivy League Universities of today). The first director or reviser that eyed a “Shakespearean” script would cut most of it – “get your feet on the soil and take your head out of the clouds, kiddo” - and son Shakespeare was going to be satisfied (or forced to be satisfied) with the smaller levels of writing of a Billy Wilder and his partners, or a Paddy Chayefsky. Could he win Oscars? Yes. Would he be a genius? No.

1/2

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 13:52:19 2018 No.11948203

>>11948198

2/2

The only way for Shakespeare to be Shakespeare on this time and age is for him to be born again in a world where his previews incarnation – Shakespeare 1 – had already existed. This new Shakespeare – Shakespeare 2 – would need to become obsessed with Shakespeare 1, and work his best to beat him in his own game, and that in spite of the fact that the poetic drama is totally out of Fashion today.

So let us imagine Shakespeare 2 as a boy who likes to read and write. He ends up discovering the works of Shakespeare 1 and falls in love with them. Here, he realizes, is one writer who is not afraid of excess and bombast and color and metaphors and similes. Here is one writer who is not infected by the mediocrity of restriction and simplicity of a Hemingway or the Elements of Style manual. Here is one writer who gives his all in his works, who is always trying to impress the playgoer and reader, always trying to show how smart and brilliant he is, always firing all his bullets. At the same time – let us imagine - Shakespeare 2 gets in contact with the current criticism of the day (Harold Bloom, etc) and learns that Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer of all time.

So Shakespeare 2, moved by his knowledge of his own talent to create metaphors and verbal fireworks, and spurred forward by an enormous ego and unfathomable confidence, decides – against all odds, against the fashion of the day, against the demands of the market, against the spirit of his own age and time, against the pain of not being easily recognized as other, much more mediocre writers are recognized – to become himself the number 1 writer of all time.

He studies all of Shakespeare’s works again and again and again, and also all the best criticism on him: on his use of verse, on his way of handling metaphors and figures of speech, on his uses of rhetoric, on his use of prose, on his construction of songs, on his uses of sources for the plays and the remodeling of the sources, on iambic pentameter, etc.

Only if a miracle like the one above was to happen would he have something like Shakespeare again. Now you people count the chances of something like that ever happen.

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 14:12:48 2018 No.11948286

>>11935963
>>11935983

Before anything, is necessary to acknowledge the fact that “genius” is a subjective concept, some kind of highest-seal-of-approval and supreme-stamp-of-valor that we created to grace those members of our race that we deem to be the most apt examples of the greatness of humanity. It is a term coined to glorify the human beings whose works seem to be inexplicable to the rest of humanity, so difficult and wonderful are the creative powers necessary for them to be produced. In the end, however, “genius” is just a word: there is no organic structure inside the brain of certain individuals that we can call a sure sign of genius. It is even difficult to find a complete unanimity when it comes to the matter of who should receive this ultimate tittle of greatness. Once again: genius is a word that designate a subjective quality.

But to the matter.

What I have read is that a certain level of IQ is necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain limit (IQ of 120) it’s not easy to make correlations. Once this limit is achieved, a person with an IQ of 125-130 might end up creating greater works of art than someone with an extremely rare IQ of 160, and that even though the two people are both making efforts and working hard. The person with the higher IQ might absorb information faster and understand subjects with more facility, and yet his/her creativity might not be as incredible as the one we found in the person with a 125 IQ. The main thing here is:

>A higher than average IQ seems to be necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain level the creativity and personal story of a person can be much more important than extra points of IQ; about creativity, there is no consensus about what it is, how it works, how it can be measured and how much it is related to raw intelligence.

IQ is not an absolute test for intelligence, and everybody knows it, yet there is a correlation between great achievers and successful professionals and higher IQ scores. To say IQ is completely irrelevant is to deny a lot of collective knowledge and accumulated data about the subject. But when we say “high IQ” we are not speaking of enormous IQ scores, such as those of 160-170-180 and higher, but simply IQ’s that are superior to scores like 120. In fact, there are lots of people in the world with the capacity to excel in great creative undertakes.

One of the best phrases I ever read about genius is this one, by Havelock Ellis, on his book A Study of British Genius.:

>“Genius is the happy result of a combination of many circumstances.”

cont.

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 14:14:02 2018 No.11948293

>>11948286

That’s actually perfect. Yes, you need a relatively high IQ, but you also need a proper upbringing, the exposition of the person in the right time of her life to the area of creation that is actually her personal field, the many particular characteristics of personality, like ambition, desire to excel, curiosity, obsession, courage, hard-working capacity, and many other circumstances.

It comes down to this: Genius is so rare not because we have few people with high IQ, but because high IQ is only one of the pieces of the puzzle.

The best book I have ever read on the subject is this one:

>Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius

http://www.amazon.com/Before-Gates-Excellence-Determinants-Creative/dp/0521376998

In short (and Like I exposed before), although a high intelligence coefficient is necessary, it is not necessary that it be absurdly high, but just a little above average, but the similarities end there.

The great geniuses usually had similar personality traits, that motivated them to spend hours and hours and hours, days and days and days working and improving themselves. Great geniuses are a mix of genes (just good genes, a little above the average – being the average today around 100 IQ points) + creation + specific features of personality beget by the life experiences and genetic material of the child.

All great geniuses were ambitious and had broad desire to be recognized and admired for their work; all of them also had obsessive personalities and thought that they creative jobs were the main function of their lives. They might try to fool people, like Einstein tended to do when he spoke that he was only after truth and satiating his curiosity, but not after fame or glory. No doubt he wanted to satiate his curiosity, yet when he was working on general realtivy he was aware that other people were facing the same challenges (like David Hilbert) and he worked like a fanatic, desperately wanting to complete his theory before others did. If he wanted simply to know the truth he could sit down and wait, for people would get there pretty soon. But of course he, like anybody else, wanted to be proud of himself, of his own achievements, and so he worked hard to be the father of general relativity.

cont

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 14:15:42 2018 No.11948306

>>11948293

Another interesting point: although the child who becomes a genius in the future start his/her career in the specific area of activity in a playful manner (playing with musical instruments, drawing for pleasure, reading for pleasure, etc.), in the future the conscience of their own emerging talent (the child or teen realizes his ability in the field and starts thinking on the possibility of achieve fame with his work) makes the chosen activity becomes not just a pleasurable hobby, but an terribly stressful and overwhelming obligation. The great geniuses often had to work without having the slightest desire to do so (all writers relate the difficulty of having to sit all day, in a routine, and fill the paper with significant literature). Even Einstein, when he worked on the theory of general relativity, eventually was tormented by stomach pain, nausea, anxiety, tachycardia and tremors. The anxiety and fear of failure are constant companions of geniuses, and also the constant dissatisfaction with oneself. The moments of pride and joy are quickly dissolved into new ambitions.

It is also a common feature of geniuses that certain feelings, mainly of respect or value, are wanted but not provided in childhood (sometimes this is even imaginary: the child receives attention and love, but not the enormous amount of attention and praise that it commonly desired). The huge ambition that they have is, in a way, a response to not receiving all the admiration they wish they had received when they were children and teenagers. Genius are generally very proud of themselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 14:17:47 2018 No.11948319 For the film fags here. Best screenplay of all time is probably Children of Paradise. As great as any comedy by Shakespeare. Grand Budapest Hotel is also sublime comedy.

Anonymous Wed Oct 17 15:10:59 2018 No.11948561

>>11948319
Les enfants du paradis is one of the great French films. some of the most perfect casting and perfect performances I've ever seen.
Grand Budapest Hotel was amusing and very well crafted, but it doesn't reach the level of the sublime in my opinion

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 19:30:50 2018 No.11949830 >>11936044 Is this a conspiracy?

>>	Anonymous Wed Oct 17 21:59:59 2018 No.11950411 >>11948319 Baptiste was such a hateable faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 00:25:15 2018 No.11951003 >>11936044 i can see it

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 00:26:43 2018 No.11951012 >>11933563 Mozart, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 00:27:30 2018 No.11951018 >>11937288 not him, but i think that part of it is the leitmotif idea that Wagner promoted and used being widely used in film scores

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 00:30:03 2018 No.11951028 >>11933563 Death Grips

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 01:02:46 2018 No.11951150

>>11942556
Not that guy, but

>they'll be less likely to punch me in the face if i punch myself and eject squibs out mouth nose and ears.

Also, selffacepunch is a cope against character-critical chads
>"never start with the face" it makes all other pain less compelling

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 01:08:16 2018 No.11951169 >>11946014 Probably the most mauvepilled post ive ever scened.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 01:29:34 2018 No.11951228 >>11934166 There is literally nothing wrong with lifting plots from history, there is no much wealth of drama locked into the past it's just pure arrogance to completely disregard it and believe your story is truly original

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 01:30:59 2018 No.11951230 >>11933521 Honestly I hate shakespeare, no idea why anyone likes him. That play macbeth is fucking awful and retarded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 01:42:13 2018 No.11951265 >>11935479 > Tarkovsky lacks passion This is like saying that Shakespeare lacks passion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:16:28 2018 No.11951336 >>11951230 Its not cool anymore to dislike shakespeare, its cool to love him now. I knwo your just a simple minded contrarian trying to feel good about himself so I just thought id let you know. K? now try again.

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:17:47 2018 No.11951339

Barry Lyndon is Kubrick's masterpiece. Try to change my mind, you can't because this is an objective fact. I watched it once 5 years ago and refuse to watch it again because of how much it impacted me. I still remember every single scene of the 3 hour long movie.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:19:41 2018 No.11951346 >>11951336 damn, guess I was wrong about macbeth. I was just being contrarian when characters just stand there and explain the plot to the audience, or engage in lengthy and meaningless monologues. nice post man.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:45:07 2018 No.11951406 >>11939220 >Especially John. terrible taste

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:48:56 2018 No.11951416 >>11933574 woah, so this is the true power of an NPC...

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:53:15 2018 No.11951423 >>11951346 >engage in lengthy and meaningless monologues kys

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 02:54:13 2018 No.11951428 >>11933578 >>11935355 >>11935367 >>11939165 >>11939259 ahem Hou Hsiao-Hsien

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:04:30 2018 No.11951455 >>11935375 bergman was a glorified playwright, you have no idea what you're talking about when you say words like "medium", do you

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:12:19 2018 No.11951462

>>11939706
Your line of reasoning seems to be
>Shakespeare did comedy and drama
and
>Woody Allen did comedy and drama, but filmed it
>therefore Woody Allen is the shakespeare of movies

when people say "Shakespeare of X" they aren't referring to literally doing what Shakespeare did. You have to completely bowl over the medium and fundamentally change the way it's perceived . Woody Allen is good but, like bergman, he's just a playwright who rented some cameras

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:17:49 2018 No.11951473

>>11933539
Peak quality means victory in the genetic lottery.

>>11933521
Well, he never got to read his works with your eyes. Never got to experience the surprise. You can study his works and learn from him, produce something that will make you proud of yourself.
I hate to say this, but perhaps one does not need to be the absolute best to be acceptable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:18:56 2018 No.11951480 >>11951462 How dare you speak to Woody Allen of /lit/ like that?

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:19:40 2018 No.11951481

>>11951423
oh they were actually good monologues and not pointless meanderings that shakespeare scholars to this day cannot decipher and I should kill myself. Shakespeare must really be great when his proponents have this level of argument in his favor.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:26:36 2018 No.11951501 >>11951428 Lmao a chinaman okay buddy

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 03:29:17 2018 No.11951514 >>11951416 >Admitting truthes makes you an NPC idiot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 04:04:04 2018 No.11951577 >>11942494 Griffith Flaherty Eisenstein B. DeMille C. DeMille Tourneur Strand Ruttmann von Stroheim Hawks

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 05:05:04 2018 No.11951756 >>11951577 Hello Tarantino

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 10:16:01 2018 No.11952638

>>11933521
I'm gonna tell you how he got so good. You and the other anons here won't believe me but that's quite alright. The truth is coming. Soon. And you'll find out I'm right.
Shakespeare was Francis Bacon. Bacon was the first son born to Queen Elizabeth I. She was NOT a virgin.
Bacon was, and still is, a fallen angel. The fallen angels never left Earth. They're still here and there are hundreds of them walking among humanity.
Bacon and other fallen angels are the architects of the "new world order" that we see being put into place.
Bacon's ability as a writer is due to who he is; a fallen angel.
He has incarnated many times on Earth. He was the Count of St.-Germain, Tsar Nicholas II, Lord Randolph, Nikola Tesla, Nicholas Roerich and many others.
Bacon is attempting to redeem himself in the eyes of Heaven but he's not doing a very good job of it.
Soon, our world will learn these secrets and so much more. Be ready...

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 10:21:22 2018 No.11952655

I really love that part of julius cesar where some faggot walks up and says "beware the ides of march." What a great moment of ~foreshadowing~. Thats so cool how he took the time to tell the audience that the main character would encounter a problem at some point in the future. Really amazing stuff.

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 10:42:08 2018 No.11952746

>>11948286
This is somewhat true, but you need to realize that geniuses in maths and physics all had 160+ IQs. Examples would be Einstein, Von Neumann, Ramanujan, basically every high achiever. You will say that Feynman had an IQ of like 124, but the test was heavily verbal rather than spatial and Feynman scored above 160+ in spatial IQ but around 110-120 in verbal, pretty insane, but it explains why he needed to explain his concepts in a simpler manner.

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 10:44:33 2018 No.11952754

>>11951577
Imagine unironically sitting through this many boring ass films only to be able to claim you have a better taste than everybody else. Like holy fuck there's no way you unironically enjoy ANY of Flaherty, DeMille, or von Stroheim. And Griffith is literally film historian fedora tier. You're not impressing anyone dude. Literally just go watch Putney Swope.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 10:45:37 2018 No.11952758 >>11952638 My biggest issue with the Baconian theory is HOW THE FUCK DID HE HAVE THE TIME TO MAKE ALL DIS GODDAM CONTENT? Dude's known works alone are massive.

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 11:39:49 2018 No.11952923
File: 323 KB, 1200x1492, Henry_Neville_(1564-1615),_circle_of_George_Gower.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11952758
Bacon wasn't the poet, he was likely a contributor however, probably more of an editor and also the one who encoded the first folio.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 12:02:18 2018 No.11952986 >>11933563 Gauss. Math is sometimes more art than art itself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 12:37:34 2018 No.11953109 >>11951339 It's even better on a second watch.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 14:45:55 2018 No.11953556 Michael Mann

Anonymous Thu Oct 18 14:57:17 2018 No.11953597

>>11951577
>Griffith
>Flaherty
>Eisenstein
First rate. Primitive but first rate. Were surpassed by their acolytes.
>B. DeMille
Who the fuck is B fucking Demille.
>C. DeMille
An enormous hack - bloated pomposity without style or substance. Walter Scott as a filmmaker except worse.
>Tourneur
good not first rate.
>Strand
Fuck off
>Ruttmann
K E K
>von Stroheim
>Hawks
Great but not on the level of any of the directors mentioned in the post you criticized. Stroheim lacked discipline and Hawks was a very talented journeyman.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 15:21:11 2018 No.11953677 >>11937649 JUDITH SHAKESPEARE

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 15:35:20 2018 No.11953732 Peyton Manning

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 19:42:14 2018 No.11954900 >>11937355 Tolstoy is a fucking pleb. Go spend 300 pages talking about farming, you fucking hack.

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 19:48:10 2018 No.11954941 >>11933521 Just being able to read and write in the 1500 makes you kind of op

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 21:54:48 2018 No.11955521 >>11935914 Could Mozart be still alive?

>>	Anonymous Thu Oct 18 23:55:57 2018 No.11955959 >>11933563 Lil pump

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 00:16:08 2018 No.11956031 >>11948203 You do realize that if we can exhume Shakespere's body and extract his DNA it would be possible to clone him using our current technology? The chances of this are not at all slim as you believe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 00:18:32 2018 No.11956043 >>11956031 How can you clone a fictional character?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 00:23:39 2018 No.11956059 I'm a fucking pleb so i don't understand. Can someone enlighten me as to what is so good about Shakespeare

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:12:51 2018 No.11957487 >>11956059 He's the deepest thinker about common humanity in history.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:41:23 2018 No.11957608 Shakespeare was a sick pervert and drug user

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:05:24 2018 No.11957898

>>11933521
Finished Macbeth yesterday, it was wonderful. One of my favorite quotes is when Macduff said the following:
"That way the noise is. Tyrant, show thy face!
If thou best slain and with no stroke of mine,
My wife and children's ghosts will haunt me still."

Everything I've read so far from Shakespeare (Macbeth, Hamlet, Richard the III and Romeo and Juliet) is so fucking quotable and so fucking good, I love his prose and it's such a joy to read. Gonna read Othello next and plan to finish it come Sunday.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:10:24 2018 No.11957921 >>11956059 Put some effort into understanding his work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:12:11 2018 No.11957928 >>11933563 Kubrick for sure.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:25:35 2018 No.11957973
File: 637 KB, 400x222, 3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11935375
>All the guy could do are mostly adaptations of works already made, not that we should discredit someone for that
He took other people's work and made it into his own, and he definitely took the medium itself rather deeply as seen in each of his movies. If you boil his work down to simple adaptations, then you're a moron first and foremost and you know nothing about him or his work. How can you like Kubrick and then spout all that horseshit? Fuck you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:27:49 2018 No.11957981 >>11957898 Fyi “prose” is not a catchall term for someone’s writing or style. Shakespeare writes in verse except for very rare instances of prose in his plays. Prose is that form of writing which has no metrical structure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:32:24 2018 No.11957994 >>11948203 He already was reincarnated and his second iteration was James Joyce.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:58:52 2018 No.11958112

>>11957994
Joyce just literally didnt do enough. The only thing that comes close to any of the major works by Shakespeare would be his Ulysses, and it still pales in comparison. Leopold Bloom may rub elbows with the likes of Macbeth and Othello, but he is not nearly as expansive as Lear, Iago, Lady Macbeth, let alone the Fool, Mercutio, Falstaff, and Hamlet. Joyce was too much of a narcissist (which may just be a permanent psychological shift arising in modernity).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:00:55 2018 No.11958122 File: 26 KB, 700x898, 1539273494168.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11935983 >>11935963 both massive brainlets

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:03:59 2018 No.11958134

>>11945118
Bengali guy here. The translation that you guys read doesn't convey even half of the magic of tagore. They bring the reader only the ideas that he tried to put, but his main artistry lied in his manipulation of language. Much like Shakespeare to English, he gave kind of a new direction to the bengali language itself.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:08:41 2018 No.11958158

>>11933521
He was well read, especially in OLD AS FUCK literature. Plus you can tell from reading his work that he was extremely observant irl in general.

>>11933563
>Is there any single artist with a body of work comparable in literally any other medium or facet of existence?

Probably not. Though I'm tempted to say Michelangelo, but even that's pushing it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:12:01 2018 No.11958177 >>11958158 I'd argue someone more singularly influential, like Raphael, or, later on, Cezanne or Picasso. if we're talking about showing the expansiveness and vitality of human life, Rembrandt is a good candidate, and that's about it desu.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:21:53 2018 No.11958752

>>11934166
LITERALLY the opposite. His sonnets were written for his friends and not from the outset intended for wide circulation, though I wouldn't say he wanted to keep them private.
His narrative poems, which were also based on history and myth, were only written to pay bills when the playhouses were closed due to the plague.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:09:11 2018 No.11959251 >>11951028 this but unironically

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:28:14 2018 No.11959346

>>11957981
Thanks for the correction. What I meant to say is that I really love his style of writing, and I love how rythmic it all is and overall how it sounds when it is recited. It's really unlike anything I've read before, Shakespeare really knew his shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:40:46 2018 No.11960383 >>11946837 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:54:24 2018 No.11960435 >>11957608 so r u

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 21:42:25 2018 No.11960622 File: 43 KB, 388x434, 1539714252721.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11939259 >>Godard >Probably more the Joyce of cinema

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 21:47:41 2018 No.11960645 >>11939259 >Profound in ideas and in ambition but limited in technique and in tone. Oh shit, i am laughing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 01:34:35 2018 No.11961421 >>11933563 maybe like a painter? Picasso? >>11951428 truth

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 01:39:36 2018 No.11961432 >>11935479 >Ozu lacks passion watch weeaboo melodramas if you can't appreciate subtle acting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 01:51:44 2018 No.11961474 >>11946803 I didn't even care about this conversation in an otherwise great thread, but holy fuck nuggets are you a newfag and/or gay. No one needs you reminding them where we are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 06:07:42 2018 No.11961960 >>11951265 It really isn't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 06:55:03 2018 No.11962075 >>11960622 >>11960645 Not picking up argument here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 10:19:37 2018 No.11962519 >>11958177 Beethoven was even more influential in music than Shakespeare in letters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 11:35:21 2018 No.11962755 >>11948286 >>11948293 >>11948306 Underrated posts

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 12:29:37 2018 No.11962932
File: 324 KB, 675x380, 3E57D797-EE38-42C9-B8BB-C917B19B52C9.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>11935983
/lit/ wasn’t ready for the hard truth but you left out the part that while you cannot improve on your genetic potential, it can be damaged during your upbringing. There’s the cap you are born with and then what is shaved off it. The most recent studies show that IQ is like 90% hereditary. Even the size of your dick is decided by genes

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 16:50:56 2018 No.11963889

>>11934114
>my dad is 50 and has an almost perfect hairline, this "genetic superior" male right here was what, 30, 40 in this pic and was already bald?

And what has your dad accomplished? Other than cumming inside your whore mother and creating you, a pathetic excuse for a human being, a waste of sperm who spends his days on a Taiwanese knitting forum?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 18:11:08 2018 No.11964244 >>11963889 Didn't you feel bad about yourself when you typed that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 18:17:07 2018 No.11964279 >>11962932 She kind of looks like a frog.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 18:19:21 2018 No.11964293 >>11963889 imagine coming back to a 250+ thread to type all this out. what is this /b/ now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 19:40:47 2018 No.11964694 >>11964244 Tbf he's got a point

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 20:51:39 2018 No.11964946 >>11938528 Fuck you

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 21:03:11 2018 No.11964966 >>11933563 Bach's body of work is more impressive

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 21:19:12 2018 No.11965020 File: 259 KB, 1000x698, huge orson welles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11939759 I think you meant to say: >he sounds like he has a massive prick

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 01:27:41 2018 No.11965743 >>11933521 Tesla, Da Vinci, Newton, Bach, Liszt, Paganini, Mozart, arguably plato and aristotle, arguably proust, arguably the founding fathers

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 04:16:01 2018 No.11966062 File: 29 KB, 342x513, z7tG2FxHKwIWSzMckzNaxqJfT1i.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >blocks your path when it comes to film

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 04:22:01 2018 No.11966092 Stop suckin his dick, unfortunately, no one liked his plays at the time, everyone thought he was a weirdo and only the queen was interested in his shite. Im willing to bet he went for long walks around avon for inspiration.

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 04:27:13 2018 No.11966104 >>11933578 why are directors so lauded instead of writers and cinematographers?

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 04:32:55 2018 No.11966125 >>11939733 Some people just cannot fathom the fact that such genius is in one man

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 04:39:36 2018 No.11966153 >>11965743 >Liszt >Paganini >the founding fathers >proust Wrong, all others are correct

Anonymous Sun Oct 21 06:06:00 2018 No.11966366

>>11941306
>You're forgetting that Shakespeare was a poet - a master of the English language, who could write lines of incredible rhythmic beauty and profound meaning, whose characters are unforgettably vivid and diverse.

this

what's freaky about shakespeare is that we forget he mostly wrote in verse, and his actual poetry (sonnets, a lover's complaint) are both painfully deep and technical

Anonymous Sun Oct 21 06:12:43 2018 No.11966379

I have never really 'got' shakespeare. I had to read most of his plays for a class in college and there are some good passages and I like how much zest and gusto he throws into everything, but I don't really care about the characters or think they're that unforgettable and special. The only exception, I guess, would be Hamlet... I mean what does it matter anyway? I don't really even believe that people are that different... they are all so open to changing at any moment, it doesn't seem that important to give anybody fixed features.

His work is obviously poetically great and full of energy but it's not like sublimely beautiful, I guess, just really really high energy. Also every other word being an archaic usage of that word or a word that I need to look up really

Anonymous Sun Oct 21 06:13:47 2018 No.11966381

>>11966379
fuck I accidentally posted that.

... really cools me down and bores me. Idk. Sometimes I feel like literature just isn't my thing. I wish I wasn't so stupid. Everything that everybody acclaims as sublime, I don't get. It's the same with Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and all the big famous painters. I just have really shitty taste in everything. It really bothers me. what the fuck

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 06:35:38 2018 No.11966416 >>11966381 >I wish I wasn't so stupid. not liking what everyone else likes doesn't necessarily make you stupid

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 06:38:14 2018 No.11966423 >>11940262 After his death Brothers K was found on the table next to his bed you nimrod

>>	Anonymous Sun Oct 21 08:35:48 2018 No.11966686 File: 158 KB, 1080x1080, goggins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11935983 Cope

Anonymous Sun Oct 21 08:38:50 2018 No.11966699

>>11966381
How do you not appreciate the likes of Beethove, Tchaikovsky or Schubert? Also, not everything people find deep, sublime, intelligent, profound or fill the blank actually is deep, so it's a bit silly to get worked up about it. Just start out with some simpler titles and move on to the harder ones. Get rid of the loser mentality as well because it ain't doing you any good my man.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature