Cinema is a superior art form than literature

[Anonymous No.19127476]

There, I finally said it.

[Fuck communists No.19127479]

I agree
I don't really like novels
I only read nonfiction and poetry

[Anonymous No.19127483]

I've said it like 25 times. Are you new here?

[Anonymous No.19127487]

Based.
I highly recommend Bergman's Persona for those interested in peak cinema.

[Anonymous No.19127502]

It has the potential but I've very rarely seen that potential reached. What would you say are some essential pieces of cinema?

[Anonymous No.19127505]

Superior at realising what literature alone can realise? Buddy.

[Anonymous No.19127514]

>>19127502
>>19127487

[Anonymous No.19127525]

>>19127487
You mean peak cringe. The only good part of this movie is that one scene that gets me extremely hard

[Anonymous No.19127530]

>>19127476
Looking that most movies are shit i highly doubt that

[Anonymous No.19127535]

>>19127502
Mouchette
Winter Light
La Dolce Vitta
Paris, Texas
Autumn Sonata
A Woman Under The Influence

[Anonymous No.19127543]

>>19127502
I know plenty of films that equal the best of literature but I'm not going to say them because I don't want pseuds to ruin it for me

[Anonymous No.19127547]

>>19127535
>Bresson
Cringe

[Anonymous No.19127551]

>>19127476
I would guess that's far easier (as well as more self ennobling) than admitting essential laziness, want of discipline, the ability to sustain attention, or general incapacity. It's not even close.

[Anonymous No.19127557]

>>19127535
Maybe world cinema isn't actually that good and you just like it because it's a cultural novelty instead of cinematic quality

[Anonymous No.19127563]

>>19127557
Paris, Texas and A Woman Under The Influence are movies made in America. 3 Women by Robert Altman is also very good.

[Anonymous No.19127569]

>>19127476
>this judeo christian bourgeois art is superior to this other judeo chrsitian bourgeois art

yes, atheism is a mistake

[Anonymous No.19127571]

>>19127476
>read, read, read, read, read, read read
Simply false. The vast majority of movies are terribly written, with the only redeeming quality of being visually appalling. Even the best directors, like Tarkowsky, wrote entirely shitty movies (Nostalgia, The Sacrifice) beside the good ones (Mirror, Stalker). If you take some of the great living ones, such as Gaspar Noe, you can clearly see thousands and thousands of faults in their writing, from cliche-abused plots, to incredibly poorly written dialogue.
There's a reason why Herzog says you can't be a director without reading, namely, that books are the only thing that works on imagination alone. As they bring you in a mental space where you reflect upon things, they will make you sharper in observing life, and this is an essential quality for a director. Today, with books becoming less and less popular, the quality of dialogue is sensibly worse - and not only in your average Netflix series, where you can literally predict what characters are going to say, but in good movies as well. Take the VVitch or the Lighthouse: absolutely averagely written screenplay, masked with the trick of "muh old language" and cool visuals. Both movies are superficial shit. The only two living directors I can think about who are capable of properly writing a movie at the moment are Richard Linklater (see the dialogues in Boyhood, Dazed and Confused, Before Trilogy, etc.) and Ruben Ostlund - both of whom read extensively, the first to the point of dreaming of books, which is a recurring anecdote he related in interviews and someting many of his characters do.
As for Bergman:
>>19127487
Persona is an amazingly written movie (possibly in my top three of the best of all times) as are 1/3 of all Bergmans' movies (Summer with Monica, Wild Straberries, Through a Glass Darkly and Hour of the Wolf also being among his best written ones). 2/3 of what he did, however, is hot steaming garbage. The Seventh Seal reads like a fairytale for kids. He also read extensively, but you can see, in movies like Winter Light, that the writing cracks in so many places - and as soon as it does, the movie becomes shit. This to say: you can have a good movie without having great visuals (Linklater) but you're most likely going to have a shitty movie if the writing is shit.

[Anonymous No.19127578]

>>19127571
You wrote all this for someone who has obviously have watched less than 300 films

[Anonymous No.19127579]

>>19127571
Boyhood is utterly trash. The Before Trilogy are boring and Dazed and Confused is good, but it's not that different from your average indie film.

[Anonymous No.19127585]

>>19127476
LOL

[Anonymous No.19127587]

>>19127579
I bet you liked the joker movie

[Anonymous No.19127610]

yea it is, so will video games trump cinema in storytelling, after AR/VR will trump them in so on in till we live in Alt Life while being on life support

[Anonymous No.19127624]

>>19127571
Based effortpost

[Anonymous No.19127637]

>>19127476
literature
>pages and pages of describing scenary and "looks".
>cinema
actually showing it
literature really can't compite with that.
the only part where literature really mogged cinema is in inner monologue and in describing thoughts. everything else is a pathetic "competition" where you have to do mental gymnastics to not see the cinema superiority.

[Anonymous No.19127653]

>>19127476
Music >>>>> both literature and film

[Anonymous No.19127658]

>>19127653
cinema have music in it

[Anonymous No.19127659]

>>19127476
True but cinema has been dead for a few decades now.

[Anonymous No.19127664]

>>19127658
yes but soundtrack music is inferior

[Anonymous No.19127667]

>>19127547
Lol

[Anonymous No.19127672]

>>19127664
you can put literally any music you want in cinema.

[Anonymous No.19127673]

>>19127571
>Filtered by Nostalghia, Eggers, The Seventh Seal
>Plot
Dumbass. Most books are terrible too. You know nothing of cinema

[Anonymous No.19127689]

>>19127659
Of the more recent films, I really enjoyed A Ghost Story

[Anonymous No.19127700]

>>19127476
Too bad cinema and literature is dying. Video games, live streaming and tik tok is our future.

[Anonymous No.19127702]

>>19127487
liv ullmann trying to speak swedish is like nails on a chalkboard desu

[Anonymous No.19127705]

>>19127689
Cured my insomnia

[Anonymous No.19127716]

>>19127547
Based

[Anonymous No.19127719]

>>19127571
>filtered by tark
>promoting linklater

[Anonymous No.19127751]

>>19127571
What rational person gives a fuck about the writing in a visual medium?
>Oh no, the writing in the plaque on the plinth of this sculpture was utterly terrible despite the energy, texture, and form of the sculpture I'm afraid this is overwhelmed by the faults in the writing.

[Anonymous No.19127796]

>>19127751
there is like a 2% of cinema that is a purely visual medium. almost every movie you saw have a narrative structure. when you see a movie you are seeing that structure too. so you can talk about it.

[Anonymous No.19127861]

>>19127796
but structure =/= writing. In fact some of the most memorable and evocative scenes of cinema have been synthesized in the editing room and look nothing like the screenplay, if they weren't improvised.
Editing is structure.
So saying that only 2% of cinema is purely visual (and some of my favourite films have virtually no dialogue), which is a misleading comment because the overwhelming majority of the best films are primarily and overwhelmingly visual and dialogue is not an essential part of the enjoyment (especially if you have actors who can, ya know act... non-verbal communication, body language and all that). Primarily visual is not the same as purely visual.
And structure is not the same as writing.
So if the structure is not the writing, and the overwhelming majority of well executed films are primarily visual... why nitpick about writing the least important, least unique, least influential aspect of the medium?

[Anonymous No.19128050]

They aren't in competition

[Anonymous No.19128080]

>>19127861
>and dialogue is not an essential part of the enjoyment
this is what i refer with people like you. its a part of 98% of cinema, even your favourite films have it. its completely essential to it. you can go to brackhage, benning, and other visual directors and i would agree with you. but saying, for example, tarkovski, or whatever "best films" you are talking about are completely separate from writing and the writing is just like the plaque in a sculpture is ingenuous at best.
>And structure is not the same as writing.
we can live in a good fairytale where movies dont have script, which is where you, apparently live, but its just not real.

[Anonymous No.19128097]

>>19127476
It was. Cinema is largely over now though and you will get the never ending waves of female led Norwegian detective Netflix production "films". There is currently no medium of art in the contemporary world

[Anonymous No.19128109]

>>19127476
Cinema can't do a Proteus, nice try though

[Anonymous No.19128113]

>>19127557
Learn to read subtitles, redneck

[Anonymous No.19128133]

As a connoisseur of all art, I gotta say, the only two movies I consider even close to the greatest books of all time are: Lawrence of Arabia and Robocop.

[Anonymous No.19128143]

>>19128080
>its a part of 98% of cinema,
No it's not not even for the general audience who want CGI, stunts, explosions, and special effects. Attractive movie stars. Cinematography in exotic locations.
None of that is dialogue. And yet that has the widest appeal.
> its completely essential to it.
No it's not, no one cares about the dialogue in a Michael Bay or John Woo film. You're wrong in terms of popularist films, you're wrong in terms of Parajanov or Oskar Fischinger.
> is ingenuous at best.
The only ingenuousness is elevating the writing in a visual medium to being 98% of it.
>we can live in a good fairytale where movies dont have script, which is where you, apparently live, but its just not real.
That's not what I said, again you're the disingenous one - I said writing is not structure.
Writing is not structure.
You also foolishly ignored my statement about improvised sequences being synthesized into well structured scenes in the editing room. That also goes for fight choreography scenes, Buster Keaton comedy routines, storyboarded television commercials... the structure doesn't come from a script.
You said that writing is essential because it's structure. But you're wrong.
Oh and also, I've been making documentaries for 6 years. Documentaries don't have scripts. Looks like you're living in a fairy tale world because everything you've said is categorically bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19128257]

How come the lads who consider cinema superior to literature usually have shitty Criterioncore tastes?

All the lads I know who have gotten past that stage (into Tourneur, Biette, Straub/Huillet, Duras, Farocki, Benning, etc.) consider literature a vastly superior art.

[Anonymous No.19128319]

>>19127751
>what is dialogue
Are the vast majority of scenes including human beings silent on your planet?

[Anonymous No.19128348]

>>19127673
>>19127719
Unironically Mirror is the best movie ever made and Nostalghia will make you cringe your insides out. Here, re-listen to this and try telling me Nostalghia is well written:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrjgPqX7nPs

It is still beyond me how the guy who made Mirror, which is perfect, would come up with the most irredeemably banal monologue in the history of cinema. Not only the character of Domenico is the saddest excuse for a "enlightned madman" ever seen in cinema, but he also preaches the most trite stereotypical bullshit about muh nature good muh modernity bad I have ever listened in a movie. It's as if he was filming stalker again and then decided to introduce this guy into the screenplay to just come smear his diarrhea over the beautiful sceneries, images, photography, etc. This scene is the living proof of how bad writing can single handedly ruin a perfectly good movie.

[Anonymous No.19128361]

>>19127476
You can't say that, and proceed to post a G*dard flick, that just makes you a double Pseud

[Anonymous No.19128366]

>>19128319
Oh right, I forgot, everyone loves Zack Snyder, Steven Spielberg, Farely Brother films for the witty and verbose dialogue. Silly me.
I forgot dialogue is the single most important aspect that takes precedence over the visuals, music, non-verbal acting, set design, visual effects, costumes, cinematography, locations, sound effects, foley and the 'efforts' and other phatic non-semiotic vocalizations.
98% of audiences close their eyes when they watch a film. Silly me

[Anonymous No.19128382]

>>19128348
>sane vs insane dichotomy
>crazy people are magical and know stuff
>small things matter
>society must become united
>touch grass ("just look at nature to see that life is simple")
>"we must go back to where we were... to the main foundations of life"
>a dog whimpers about the saint-madman just before he kills himself because animals are more empathetic than humans and know better
>BEETHOVEN'S NINTH

[Anonymous No.19128404]

Cool thread! I hate reading! Recommend me some /lit/ movies, please!

[Anonymous No.19128427]

>>19128404
>8 and a half
>Synecdoche, New York
>La Collectionneuse
>Cries and Whispers
>Barry Lyndon
>Solaris

[Anonymous No.19128446]

>>19128366
Never said it's the single most important aspect, but it's at least 30% of the worth of a movie, if not more. Bergman, Fellini, Ozu, De Sica, Linklater, Ostlund and even man-of-the-street Harmony Korine can write compelling, convincing dialogue for their characters, who sound like real people having conversations. Many of the great visual masters, such as Tarkowsky and Antonioni, wrote objectively terrible dialogue and their movies clearly suffer from it. Antonioni has movies that are visually amazing with dialogue barely keeping pace with it, with Red Desert being possibly the only exception because the female protagonist is openly depicted as mad.
Dialogue doesn't have to be verbose or witty: again, take Dazed and Confused, Boyhood, Force Majeur or The Square to see how incredibly superior their writing is when compared to your average movie. I'm not saying dialogue is all there is, nor that character should talk all the time, but there are a lot of visually stunning movies which are written very very poorly - the best living instances of these being, possibly, Terrence Malick and Gaspar Noe. The Tree of Life is another perfect example of how the inability of a director to write a proper voice-over narrator can ruin the whole experience of an otherwise great movie. Dialogue could have been kept to a minimum and it would have worked, (although, again, terribly stereotypical and with no semblance of actual life in it) but adding poorly written voice-overs positively kills the movie.

[Anonymous No.19128447]

>>19128143
i said narrative structure. if you make a film without narrative structure then its fine.
i didnt say dialogue.
script is writing. script is not only dialogue, you have an structure of the film in the script, you describe the scenes and how the scenes will be included, you describe explosions and exotic locations in the script. that is what i refer with structure. im not saying 98% of movies is writing, but that 98% of films have writing in it so you can see and criticize that part of the film as you can criticize photography or editing and nobody come to you saying that is not essential to film or whatever. i repeat, i talking about narrative in plot-based cinema. (which is the 98% of it, included tarkovsky, lynch and whoever you think is superior or only visually important.). anyway im not the guy you originally respond, im just trying to explain why writing is part of the film too. dialogue is the more obvious writing influence in film, but i think there is more influence in a storytelling medium as 98% of cinema is, than dialogue.

[Anonymous No.19128452]

>>19128404
Le camion (Duras, 1977)
Der Tod des Empedokles (Straub/Huillet, 1987)
Détective (Godard, 1985)
All the Vermeers in New York (Jon Jost, 1990)
Cinq et la peau (Rissient, 1982)

[Anonymous No.19128456]

>>19127476
Wrong.
It *is* superior in storytelling, which is why contemporary storytelling novelists are outdated and should either change their style or start filming. This is why people say of popular books that they will "wait for the movie". Subconsciously they know this kind of book can be filmed.
Proper literature, things like Joyce, Proust, T.S. Eliot, Beckett, or Nabokov, cannot be filmed. It deals with words. It *is* words. It can't even be translated to another language, much less to another medium.
Of course, cinema can *contain* literature, but the proper cinematic language, which without literature is silent, is neither richer nor poorer, it's just different. Maybe you think this capacity to contain literature (and music, as well as reproductions of painting, sculpture etc.) makes it better, in which case, well, fair enough. But there are things which do need words to be expressed, and for them only literature is a possibility, though you can later film an actor reading it.

>>19127502
I agree.
Anyway, cinema is too varied.
I suppose we can differentiate between more cinematic and more literary works.
Vertov, Eisenstein, Brakhage are very cinematic, in that they deal more with the camera and its possibilities. Analyzed as literature, Battleship Potemkin is laughable instance of fifth-rate social pseudo-realist kitsch. Analyzed as cinema, it's a masterpiece.
More literary filmmakers include Rohmer and Buñuel.
I prefer those who can do it all, or nearly all, and whose movies have not only a good literary content but a good command of the camera as well as a good imagery (including everything from the mise-en-scene to the clothes, the lights and so on). Among my favorites are: Cocteau's Orpheus trilogy; Bergmann's movies from the 50's and 60's; Antonioni's La Notte; Fellini's Otto e Mezzo; Parajanov's Sayat Nova; Tarkovsky's Stalker; Bela Tarr's Damnation; Herzog's Aguirre; a lot of the French nouvelle vague directors, specially Godard and Robbe-Grillet.

[Anonymous No.19128468]

>>19127502
Way Down East (Griffith, 1920)
Right Now, Wrong Then (Hong Sang Soo, 2015)
7 Women (John Ford, 1966)
Nicht versöhnt (Straub/Huillet, 1965)
Telemundo (James Benning, 2018)
L'homme atlantique (Duras, 1981)
The Woman in the Rumor (Mizoguchi, 1954)
Histoire(s) du cinéma (Godard, 1988/1998)

[Anonymous No.19128471]

>>19128427
Kaufman is also another example of an extremely gifted screenplay writer, possibly one of the best out there. Not only his dialogues are great, but he's fantastic at narrative structure and his movies are hands down some of the few movies where you cannot predict what is going to happen next. He's not as visually gifted, as a director, as many of his contemporaries, but the fact that Synecdoche New York is revered as one of the best movies of the last 20 years shows that writing matters enough in cinema.

[Anonymous No.19128489]

>>19127571
>If you take some of the great living ones, such as Gaspar Noe, you can clearly see thousands and thousands of faults in their writing, from cliche-abused plots, to incredibly poorly written dialogue.

True, but you seem to not have watched many movies.
Cocteau, Robbe-Grillet, Buñuel, Pasolini, Godard all knew how to write.

Also, many great filmmakers use little dialogue, perhaps conscious of this problem and attempting to find a pure cinematic language. Bresson, Parajanov, Dreyer, even Pasolini sometimes.
Cinema started in silence, after all.

[Anonymous No.19128505]

>>19127525
I like the movie but yeah I know what you’re talking about. That description gets me diamonds and I feel guilty about it

[Anonymous No.19128515]

>>19128447
>i said narrative structure.
structure is not writing though. writing is not structure.
Look at the career of Stuart Baird to understand why: films made from the same script, but different edits come out with vastly different structures. You can cut the same material and change the structure.
(narrative) structure is not the same thing as writing.
>if you make a film without narrative structure then its fine.
You can make a film with narrative structure but without writing a script, in fact it's been done thousands of times
> you have an structure of the film in the script,
Not in a Buster Keaton/Charlie Chaplain or even a Asif Kapardia film. One comes form improvisation and 'gag's the other from trawling through archive footage and conducting interviews and then assembling in the edit room a structure.
No script is necessary to provide a narrative structure.
You could even use a storyboard - graphic images.

[Anonymous No.19128520]

>>19128489
>Cocteau
More yes than no
>Robbe-Grillet
Haven't seen him
>Bunuel
Haven't seen him
>Pasolini
Accattone is good, Teorema is terrible (much as the novel) and the Greek tragedies are even worse. Was right on everything he ever said on television and was a good poet, but an average literary writer.
>Godard
Most definitely yes, but suffers from the same problem as Bergman, i.e. 2/3 of everything he does is average (visually: in terms of writing he's almost always ok).

[Anonymous No.19128522]

>>19127476
Your preference explains your awful grammar.

[Anonymous No.19128531]

>>19127476
>/tv/ is a totally degenerate, feminine board who worships capeshit and supports pedophilia
>/lit/ is alright
All the evidence I need. The absolute state of cinema today is peak clownworld, while there are a few good authors still releasing books

[Anonymous No.19128535]

>>19128520
only Anglos find Godard appealing, his writing is crude and purile.

[Anonymous No.19128545]

>>19128535
Ok, però sono Italiano e so il francese.

[Anonymous No.19128560]

>>19128545
well then here's a great movie for you: Cet Obscur Objet Du Désir, could be your introduction to Bunuel

[Anonymous No.19128568]

>>19127476
Yes, but only if it's done well.

[Anonymous No.19128571]

>>19128560
Will check it out, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.19128585]

Kneel
>>19128560
>>19128571
Actually he should start with Un Chien Andalou and Simon del Desierto since they’re shorter.

[Anonymous No.19128613]

>>19128585
Will do, very sad that there isn't a place on 4chin to discuss proper cinema

[Anonymous No.19128631]

>>19128613
what's /tv/ like, i've been there maybe once or twice

[Anonymous No.19128654]

>>19128631
Trash.
Cunny, porn, off topic threads, sneed spam, race-bait, the works.
It got so bad they had to make /film/ generals, general threads for the discussion of serious cinema.

[Anonymous No.19128665]

Classic lit has stood the test of time but we're yet to see whether cinema will.

[Anonymous No.19128673]

>>19128631
a digital couch for poltards to discuss their favorite shows

[Anonymous No.19128692]

>>19128665
Film bros...

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19128703]

>>19127476

[Anonymous No.19128708]

>>19127476
I would say it's an extension of literature rather than a superior form.

[Anonymous No.19128747]

>>19127476
True Detective (S1) was the last truly great piece of "cinema" I saw. Everything else has been complete garage for the last decade or so. If the new Star Wars sequels are any indication of how movies/shows are going to be produced I'm out.

Also, one advantage books will always have is that it's almost exclusively created by a single person so you get their unique perspective. Movies and shows are now produced by groups of writers hence the reason for the schizophrenic plots that seem so overly manufactured.

[Anonymous No.19128754]

>>19128747
>Garage
Meant garbage kek

[Anonymous No.19128777]

>>19127479
Based

[Anonymous No.19128869]

>>19127476
vg surpassed film in the late 90s

[Anonymous No.19129051]

>>19128631
The /film/ thread sometimes feels too pretentious, but the rest of /tv/ is 90% capeshit and politics, go figure

>>19128703
tumblr-tier movie lmao

[Anonymous No.19129056]

Very good thread. I'm not a big fan of movies in general but here are my two cents.
A problem that I have with cinema is its cost of production. Anyone, even a child, can write a book given enough time. You can make the argument that anyone can make a film provided they have a camera, but the most primitive written form is infinitely more digestible than the most primitive film. While a book generally won't need more than one person, a movie will generally need a cast and a crew. If you're a fan of amateur content or outsider art, I find that the written form is far better in that regard. The same goes for anything of epic scale: you will need money, and therefore, you will need someone to hand you money and that someone will have power over the production (see The Hobbit film adaptions). Budget theater pieces have their appeal, but budget movies usually don't. You can name examples that defy the norm but a complete movie experience today needs at the very least a director, a cast of actors, cameras, editing software and music.
There is also something to be said about text as an artform in itself but other posts have already elaborated on this better than I could. So while some pieces of fiction definitely work better as films rather than as books, the text format will never be completely outdated as long as there is interest in amateur fiction, outsider art, text as art, and impopular works that can't get funding for a visual production.

[Anonymous No.19129059]

>>19128585
Shit taste aside from Persona. You're probably a Adam Cook cocksucker

[Anonymous No.19129063]

>>19128869
Name 5 kino games. Also Fallout (any version) isn't good.

[Anonymous No.19129073]

>>19127525
Lol I thought I was the only one

[Anonymous No.19129162]

>>19129051
sauce?

[Anonymous No.19129176]

>>19128747
>True Detective
>Cinema
sometimes I feel like 4chan is an initiation board where teenagers go to get bullied by oldfags and start learning what is actually cool

[Anonymous No.19129195]

>>19127476
>not posting the best image of Karnia from this film

[Anonymous No.19129209]

>>19129195
That scene was racist af

[Anonymous No.19129211]

>>19127476
book -> movie (many times)
movie -> book (ever heard of this happening)

you could make a movie as expressive as a book but probably no one is going to watch a movie 5 hours long

[Anonymous No.19129232]

>>19129209
*based

[Anonymous No.19129237]

>>19129211
>movie -> book (ever heard of this happening)
Literally happens all the time, but it's usually trash

[Anonymous No.19129249]

>>19129162
Altman's Images, 1972

[Anonymous No.19129294]

>"cinéma is a visual medium"
>blabla fellini bergman kurosawa antonioni etc. and so on, and so on
>"only Anglos find Godard appealing, his writing is crude and purile."
>Ctrl-F "costa", "mizoguchi", "ford" = 0 result (except my own posts)
>some lad flexing because he likes absolute Criterioncore crap
My absolute face when.

[Anonymous No.19129323]

>>19128560
>start with the last movie from his last period, and one of his lesser works.
Terrible, inexplicable advice.

[Anonymous No.19129344]

>>19127476
But for some reason films seem to get outdated much more quickly than books.

I can read 1840 German philosophy books, or Hemingway stories and they feel relevant to exactly me. This doesn't usually happen with movies. Film caters to the moment more, it seems.

[Anonymous No.19129359]

>>19127476
okay but have you played video games?

[Anonymous No.19129401]

>>19127476
Cinema is not art at all because:

- It's not a one person creation but an industrial product aimed at the largest possible audience, whereas a book can be written for one reader or even no reader at all.

- You never start from nothing (the white page), nature will always be the already here. For example you can frame the best shot with the finest actors, but then a fly passes in the field of vision. You can't help it: either accept it or shoot another take.

- You'll never see the hero in a film, even less be him. You'll always see the actor impersonating the hero. In the movies Gérard Depardieu discovered America once and for all.

[Anonymous No.19129417]

>>19128515
i agree with you, my point is that almost the entire film industry is based in written script as the base. commercial hollywood films or arthouse films.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19129421]

>>19129051
>pretentious shit opinion
>Doesn’t understand how comedy can deliver multilayered insights
>invokes website jealousy
So so small

[Anonymous No.19129473]

>>19129421
daisies is a borgouise movie who can be interpreted as revolutionary. when i see it i see a dull teacher of art showing his "crazy, hippie" years to his alumns. it have no punch, it have no profundity, it have no real sense of comedy because it have an arty conscience too pervasive to be free and original.

[Anonymous No.19129489]

>>19129473
>daisies is a borgouise movie who can be interpreted as revolutionary
100% agree. I don't hate it, but it is *the* tumblr movie

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19129492]

>>19129473
>his
I don’t think you’ve even seen it. Like, maybe you were in the same room with it playing once, but you were to angered by it for distracting the girl you were trying to impress to give it a single glance.

[Anonymous No.19129499]

>>19129473
Extremely based comment. Closely Watched Trains is also shit.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19129501]

>>19129489
You didn’t get it either. Did you skip the ending?

[Anonymous No.19129507]

>>19129492
dont be a retard and understand that there are multiple opinions about a same thing. dont appeal to, "you are not seeing it, you are stupid, reeeeeeeeeee".

[Anonymous No.19129532]

>>19129499
>Closely Watched Trains is also shit.
completely agree with you. the comedy that can't make you laugh.

[Anonymous No.19129539]

>>19129501
In both film and literature, I prefer parsimony - the film didn't say a ton for its runtime, but rather spent a lot of time with elements that are superficially fun. Not to say that's wrong in itself, but that's a huge portion of the movie, and the substance was sparse.

Artsy filters, special effects, attractive girls running around causing mischief - I guess it's to reinforce the point of bourgeois decadence, but when I finally watched it, I felt like I was watching a meme that barely surpassed the .gifs that have been spammed of it. The themes could've been written on the head of a pin.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19129543]

>>19129507
The dismissal is asinine and only reveals that he’s only trying to dismiss me. He has no idea what the film is about.
And basehead calls him base. HA

[Anonymous No.19129568]

>>19127476
I'd enjoy cinema more if it wasn't filled with these people. But for now I struggle to take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.19129575]

>>19129543
>I don’t think you’ve even seen it. Like, maybe you were in the same room with it playing once, but you were to angered by it for distracting the girl you were trying to impress to give it a single glance.
That's not an argument lmao

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19129594]

>>19129575
Neither is >>19129473
it just shows he hasn’t seen it. How many times I gotta say it?

[Anonymous No.19129634]

>>19127476
>true kino blocks your path
nothing personal, kid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOLVm_9UcRw

[Anonymous No.19129654]

>>19129594
>reveals that he’s only trying to dismiss me.
i dont care a bit about you, i was talking about my opinion about a movie
>He has no idea what the film is about.
just enlighten us and stop dismissing opinions with retardation like "you dont see it".

[Anonymous No.19129682]

>>19127476
Pussy is a superior artform to both.

[Anonymous No.19129700]

They're both awful because they filter down "good taste" into a dumb rec chart that people say they enjoy for social capital on a forum no one cares about

[Anonymous No.19129864]

>>19129294
>look at me, I like boring directors because I'm so refined and my taste is so superior to everyone else's

I'm portuguese and Marcha da Juventude was so boring -- in terms of visuals, dialogue, story, and generally everything --- it was a a straight up chore to sit trough.
And I like Tarr.

[Anonymous No.19129896]

>>19127502
Barry Lyndon

[Anonymous No.19129904]

>>19129195
I loled at that scene

[Anonymous No.19129915]

>>19129896
I saw Barry Lyndon and Ran by Kurosawa in the same week in 2018 and have not been able to watch a whole movie since, everything is shit by comparison.

[Anonymous No.19129935]

for me it's cassavetes

[Anonymous No.19129949]

I love film now! I’ve been watching lots of films and I have to say, it might be superior to literature! Certain images invoke such profound feelings that literature could only dream of accessing.

Tarkovsky is a great director and I do love Bergman. But one director I really admire is Edward Yang. His films are all emotionally intense, subtle and quiet masterpieces. He might be one of my favorite artists of all time.

[Anonymous No.19130059]

>>19127487
bergman was a pseud don't (you) me

[Anonymous No.19130304]

>>19129323
he speaks french, and this isn't a book, as much as your pretentious self wants it to be, there isn't anything particularly hard to "get", you're passively sitting or lying down and receiving images upon images of a story, no matter how convoluted the plot may be, it's just a movie. suck a fat cock

[Anonymous No.19130328]

>>19130059
he banged fire bitches, sneed