Learn the differences

Learn the differences.

Intolerance is too long and boring. I stopped watching an hour in.

pass

Intellects: La La Land
Simpletons: Intolerance

>itt. OP watched one silent movie and he's been patting himself on the back for months
It is great, but that is hardly a daring opinion

Why is DW Griffith a meme now?

based griffith retard finally telling it like it is for once

Boredom is a symptom of low attention span, low attention span is a symptom of infantilism, infantilism is a symptom of bad genes, bad genes are a symptom of delayed evolution.

Why does Sup Forums love Jews now?

>movie
Find a single quote of Griffith ever referring to his works as a 'movie'.

>putting on airs over the funny pictures and thinking they're any kind of intellectual pursuit

try reading a book, peasant.

Learn the differences.

What do you think of James Joyce?

The greatest literary genius mankind has ever produced

Oops!

Know your place, boy.

>comparing outdated Griffith to a modernist genius
Read a fucking book.

Oops!

samefag

Read a fucking book.

I cant read tho

Don't miss :)

MEGAAUTIST FUCKING KILL YOURSELF

NO ONE FUCKING LIKES YOU

Oops!

This doesn't count. Read fiction.

She could destroy D.W. Griffith without lifting a finger.

Oops!

Fiction is for children. Spare me the bedtime stories

>but it builds empathy!
You are weak, and you will always be weak.

>the absolute STATE of montage fags

lmao DW (Dumb We-tahd) Griffith was nothing more than a failed theatre impresario who crudely tried to graft his paraliterate dramatic writings onto the art of true motion studies. His doggerel dramaturgy was so banal and his understanding of the motion picture form so simplistic that he was reduced to gussying up his PLAYS with "editing", finally admitting to himself that his turds were nothing more than stage shows with a veneer of spectacle to mesmerize ADHD-addled kiddies like OP. Griffith was the Christopher Nolan of his day.

Educate yourself or neck yourself. See if you can truly come to the sublime motion studies of Eadweard Muybridge, or if you're just another idiot manchild celebrating a lineage that lead directly to Michael Bay.

t. brainlet

hush little montage baby. men are talking.

Talking to yourself, brainlet.

Wordsworth Donisthorpe > Eadweard Muybridge

>seriously implying that the kinesigraph was superior to the zoopraxiscope

nice logical fallacy kiddo

Pick up a physics textbook then come back, buddy.

My least favorite Sup Forums poster strikes again

>WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH GRIFFIN SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

>Griffith
>montage
You have no idea what you're talking about

Oops!

Intolerance was a bit long for my taste.

And it wasn't just a matter of time. I was glued to the semi-restored version of Greed, and it was much longer.

Just picked up a copy of attached pic. Replacement for one I lost years ago.

Okay, but Griffith is still no Murnau or Sjostrom.

>POJOA
Shit. Not even best joan of arc film of the silent
>Intolerance was a bit long for my taste
Oh never mind, you're a brainlet.

Oops!

I disagree if you are talking POJOA with the new Einhorn Voices of Light soundtrack.

It really works so well with the film, raises it to an even higher level.

Oops!!

>Passion of Joan of Arc
Good thing the mise-en-scene is so sparse, gives so much more time to absorb and concentrate on the monotonous bellyaching!
What is this supposed to do? Conjure up some artificial feelings of spirituality? There's nothing to think about, because there's nothing there, and if the abusal of closeups is supposed to get us closer to understanding her emotional state, there's little to no range of that nor psychology to warrant it. Doubly so because it's a fictional historical recreation. Dreyer is a failure in the shadow of his idol, Griffith.

I think you can give Griffith credit as an innovator, but his films are always too overbearing and too preachy.

And intolerance is like an early version of Lost in Translation. I movie that everyone claims is wonderful, but is shit when you look at it objectively.

I would easily put Von Stroheim ahead of him. Hell, I would even put W Van Dyke ahead of him.

Posting black and white photos of early 20th century suit-clad men is a symptom of autism

Capturing the construct and essence of a layered reality, juxtaposition reaching wider sum.

>too overbearing and preachy
Stating facts is not preaching.
>Intolerance is like an early version of Lost in Translation
So you didn't understand it. Not surprising. It's the biggest pleb filter.

>the big brained Griffith fanboy can't engage with any arguments besides accusations of "2deep4u"
How surreal

She's so cute :3

Ford overcame Griffith in every way.

See, now you're slipping into a familiar pattern.

> don't like film
> oh, you don't understand it.

Sure I do. As I said before DWG deserves credit for being an innovator and for inventing many aspects of film, but his work just forces itself to much on the viewer.

Emily Jean is the cutest :3

>And intolerance is like an early version of Lost in Translation. I movie that everyone claims is wonderful, but is shit when you look at it objectively.
This is just as retarded as anything Griffithfag says

Lost in translation was a steaming pile of shit.

But back to the original topic....

I just thought Intolerance wasn't a very good movie.

If someone wants to be a Griffith fanboy, fine. But why would intolerance be considered any better than Broken Blossoms or Way Down East?

>films
Brainlet. Griffith never made a film, and your maladjustment to his work signifies he makes little that resembles a shallow, vapid medium like it.
>everyone claims is wonderful
Because they wish to appropriate it and elevate their finger paintings to high art.

>didn't make "films"

Now you're sounding like the gun hobbyists who jump on someone for calling a magazine a clip and think they have won some sort of victory.

For many critics and scholars — myself among them — D. W. Griffith’s Intolerance is the greatest film ever made. A century later we are as close to its subject as we are distant from its art. Political specifics, moral arguments, and movie styles may look different today, yet the only real difference is Griffith’s still-daring ingenuity, which calls for a more open-minded reception than in our simplistic habits we are accustomed to: It calls for an optimistic, united popular audience, which Griffith took for granted. When Intolerance premiered on September 5, 1916, its opening intertitles introduced silent-movie viewers to an extraordinary narrative device: “Our play is made up of four separate stories, laid in different periods of history, each with its own set of characters.” Employing a prologue and two acts, Griffith called it “a sun-play,” marked by florid melodramatics developed from Emersonian Transcendentalism, which film scholar Bill R. Scalia has described as “calling for an original American literature,” for “poets with the ability to ‘see’ past the material, apparent world to the world of eternal forms, which shaped nature in accordance with a divine moral imperative. Through this connection, man-as-poet would discover God in himself.”

"Griffith had already, in the over four hundred movies he had made — from the one-reelers on up to THE BIRTH OF A NATION — founded the art of screen narrative; now he wanted to try something more than simply telling the story of bigotry in historical sequence. He had developed discontinuity and crosscutting in his earlier works, and in INTOLERANCE, he attempted to tell four stories taking place in different historical periods, crosscutting back and forth to ancient Babylon, sixteenth-century France, the modern American slums, and Calvary. He was living in an era of experiments with time in the other arts, and although he worked in a popular medium, the old dramatic concepts of time and unity seemed too limiting; in his own way he attempted what Pound and Eliot, Proust and Virginia Woolf and Joyce were also attempting, and what he did in movies influenced literary form as much as they did. INTOLERANCE is a film symphony. No simple framework could contain the richness of what Griffith tried to do in this movie. "

My main problem with you, is that you use arguments from people you despise to have a "proof" that Griffith was the best.

He was the best inventor, but not the best filmmaker.

Theodore Huff, one of the leading film critics of the first half of the 20th century, believed that "[Intolerance] was the only motion picture worthy of taking its place alongside Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling paintings, etc., as a separate and central artistic contribution."

In short, you favor entertainment. You don't wish to be challenged, you want to be enticed. That's fine, but when it comes to discussions of art, stick to video games and movies.

>inventor
Name something he invented.
>filmmaker
Find a quote where he called one of his works a film.

You favor entertainment. You don't wish to be challenged, you want to be enticed. That's fine, but when it comes to discussions of art, stick to video games and movies.

>Ford
And the prime reason why John Ford will always be a mediocre pale imitation of Griffith is because he only grasped the superficialities of his content. With Ford, there is always play-like contrivance and centralization, i.e. Stagecoach. With Griffith, paths will most often not cross, but they were linked by editing. That was one of the genius hallmarks of the man, so much so, his works are a separate medium from Ford.

Me before watching Intolerance: Alright, greatest movie of all time *hyuck* gimme your best shot

Me after watching Intolerance for 50 minutes then turning it off; Wow, that was fucking BORING. This is the greatest film of all time?? What am I missing?? It's not like I can't get into silent films! I love Dreyer, Murnau, Keaton, Lang, the list goes ON!

Griffith is not an entertainer. What is considered "arthouse" for film, are theme park rides for the middlebrow. Griffith does not arouse, Griffith does not coddle. Griffith enlightens.

> he never called them films.

Doesn't matter whether he did or didn't, they are.

Example.... the movie "The Godfather" never uses the word "mafia". Does that mean it's not a film about the mafia?

>Sure I do!
>Intolerance is the silent version of Lost in Translation
And I'm sure you're older than 18

I'm probably older than your father.

And I've been watching silent film since before you were born.

Better luck next time.

Film is vulgar.
>The Godfather
Nice "tast"
*smirks

A monkey watches, a man thinks.

My first choice was "Obama never said the words radical islamic terror. Does that mean it didn't exist"

But then I decided to hut for a film related example, since this is Sup Forums

Robert Flaherty > Dziga Vertov

Pick essence not hooliganism

When I say inventing I mean he popularized the close up, the epic and much more stuff. Still, there are better directors than him and you're literally dismissing my post due to a buzzword.

Griffith was the only one to predict the Obama administration

When the only criticism against something is that it's boring, that's when you know you're talking to a plank of wood.

Someone in the crowd could be the one you need to know
The one to finally lift you off the ground
Someone in the crowd could take you where you wanna go
If you're the someone ready to be found
you're the someone ready to be found

Do what you need to do
'Til they discover you
And make you more than who
You're seeing now

So with the stars aligned
(I think I'll stay behind)
You've got to go and find
That someone in the crowd

What's the greatest novel

You want me to say Ulysses or anything by Joyce since you have some saved images, but I'd say either Don Quijote or Karamazov Brothers, maybe Pale Fire.

You're looking for entertainment.
Your taste implies it, but the way you "critique" only solidifies it. The highbrow elite know Griffith to be the esteemed intellectual wizard he is, but you will never reap that satisfaction. You will continue rummaging for scraps, while we indulge in our heavenly dining halls, heed our higher calling, and embrace our divinity.

How much do u wanna bet I could beat DW Griffith to death with my right hand while directing a better movie than he ever made with my right?

Oops!

i'd bet on you if you were Emily Jean, since it'd be sure fire that you'd be superior

>bigsmartypants keeps reposting the same screencaps and spamming the same talking points for months on end
How surreal

>the absolute STATE of montage fags

lmao DW (Dumb We-tahd) Griffith was nothing more than a failed theatre impresario who crudely tried to graft his paraliterate dramatic writings onto the art of true motion studies. His doggerel dramaturgy was so banal and his understanding of the motion picture form so simplistic that he was reduced to gussying up his PLAYS with "editing", finally admitting to himself that his turds were nothing more than stage shows with a veneer of spectacle to mesmerize ADHD-addled kiddies like OP. Griffith was the Christopher Nolan of his day.

Educate yourself or neck yourself. See if you can truly come to the sublime motion studies of Eadweard Muybridge, or if you're just another idiot manchild celebrating a lineage that lead directly to Michael Bay.

>praises Muybridge
>hates on Bay
That's how I know I'm dealing with a pseud. Michael Bay is one of the true heirs to Vertov and the Kino Pravda project: kinetic cinema, the orgy of the material.

>fiction
Michael Bay is an overindulgent pyrotechnic who made nothing that resembles to creed of Dziga Vertov.

>narrative bourgeoisie

t. never really got what Vertov was about.

Watch Gone in 60 Seconds (1974) or 13 Hours (2016) if you want actuality.

Uh, that quote actually supports my point?

Oops, looks like I overexerted my dominance!
*giggles

>cine-hooliganism

>seriously implying that the cinematograph is superior to the zoopraxiscope

nice logical fallacy kiddo

Give me film-truth over Griffith's dependence to theatre/literature and parlor tricks any day of the week.

@89785344
Kill yourself.

>truth
Pic-related. Found the brainlet millennial.
Every edit is a lie. Man With a Movie Camera has over 500 cuts. Stick to transformers, faggot. Same thing.

>montage baby can't refute the superiority of the zoopraxiscope

Robert Flaherty > Dziga Vertov

Editing is the definitive parlor trick.

Pic-related is better than anything Vertov made.

>muh big ol' brain
Moving images are not an apt medium for intellectualism. If you want that, then open a book

Film is a medium for either kinetic dynamism and unbridled actuality or full blown visual abstraction. Don't give me Griffith's glorified plays

Flaherty knew all about film-truth. You fail

t. film studies dropout

>film
*smirks

>wahhhhhh why are you smarter than me????