I believe many of you, the patrician ones anyway...

I believe many of you, the patrician ones anyway, agree with the idea that plot is irrelevant to film as an artistic medium. A misstep I see many people making though, most recently with Malick's 'Knight of Cups', is that your understanding the film must be able to be articulated in some way. "Getting it" is a nebulous, metaphysical concept, and if you're enlightened enough then "feeling" a film supersedes thinking about it and the mistaken notion that your understanding must be able to be put into words.

The feeling elicted by a film is the patricians barometer

This.

>not filming your own shots of flowers, cows, your shitty neighbourhood and yourself staring at the window ocasionally smoking a cigarette and then putting them randomly in VLC 1080p format to watch it later

Fucking plebs.

speaking of patrician, why was my man of steel thread deleted

>A genuinely thoughtful and well written post

Thanks OP, you're a diamond in the rough

>not carring about plot

so turning movies into the equivalent of moe shit GG

...

>no mention of drinking coffee
can you BE any more of a pleb?

I agree that all that matters is the feeling the movie gives you. Whether it be joy, or whatever, all that matters is what it does to you. I cant remember where or who said that art is meant to be felt or some shit. I reference that in the most un pretentious way possible. I do not care or even understand the point in movie criticism's existence.

Too patrician for plebs. Why plot not more simple? Why plot not TV movie quality? Thread must go.

Criticism is externalizing how something made you feel though. Even aside from that, there are objective ways to critique and judge all forms of media, and they should be judged.

Someone seems upset Neon Demon is getting shitted on

This sounds great

There's still narrative even when there's no straightforward story, dialogue, characters etc, but it's up to you to dissect it from imagery.

Judged yes, but it should be much more personal. Reviews should not be used as measurements for the worth of any sort of "art", what the hell entitles a critic to having a more important opinion than anyone else off the street? Maybe some sort of audience aggregator would be better. The opinions of the ticket buyers are better barometers I figure

>and if you're enlightened enough then "feeling" a film supersedes thinking about it and the mistaken notion that your understanding must be able to be put into words.
Would you say that feelings of excitement would also be above story quality?

there was literally no reason to delete it. What a shit.

Art is supposed to make people discuss and talk about it, regardless of how or the intent. Saying someone shouldn't be allowed to discuss the "worth" of an art piece is tremendously hypocritical. If someone makes art, they are making it to express feeling/opinions/anything they want. Stopping people from discussing art in a way that you don't agree with goes against the entire point.

hmm

I wouldn't say plot is irrelevant. It depends on what kind of film one hopes to make.

malick is a hack hasn't made anything decent in 30 years

TOL is five(5) years old

I have to disagree. You need to have some semblance of plot or its just try hard pretentious trash. I love Malick tho

Can I get them dailies? Don't be stingy.

Are there living, real humans on Earth right now who believe the plot of MoS was complicated, clever and deep?

Who the f--
>recall name Terrence
>google Terrance Malick

Oh. That oft-posted smiling, outback-looking guy. I've seen Thin Red Line and The New World, where to next?

This is why I don't get paintings.

If you are incapable of communicating your appreciation for something then that is your own fault. Nothing exists that cannot be explained with words.

Since you have triggered me I suggest picking up a fucking dictionary and learning to not to be such a literal plebeian, you plebeian scum.

Film, along with all other mediums of art, can convey both emotions as well as ideas. I think people land on a spectrum, but gravitate towards the poles, of what they appreciate from art.

Some people are entirely focused on the intellectual, what it can say about politics, science, philosophy, or even just how the medium itself is being manipulated, and when they see something that doesn't present them with an idea they can puzzle over they disregard it. On the other hand I know people that only care about their immediate, visceral, emotional reaction to things, and if it doesn't hit them just right they might completely disregard something intellectually brilliant.

Basically I'm just saying that it's important to both think, as well as feel, your way through art. After all, all the different forms that a work of art can take are just tools, tools for communicating* these ideas and emotions. So no, art can't be bad, but maybe it can be better, and better still. Maybe the best artist is the one with the most tools, and the best art is the art that communicates the most. I am tripping balls right now.
*communicating does not necessarily require an audience outside of ones self

Dumb frogposter.

There are things that don't have words to describe them yet. If you don't see the inherent imperfection of language then let me explain it to you. Words are symbols. Ideas as complicated as envy truly is and feels can not be communicated with mere symbols. Anything abstract, be it an idea or an emotion, will lose something in the translation.

This.

I actually GOT for the first time in 2013 when I watched Eraserhead and OGF.
I didnt watch a lot of movies back then and that was the first time I realized film was a visual medium. Like paintings. Never thought of it that way.

complete Existential "lol everything has no meaning" bullshit

Thanks for the 10/10 copypasta material, fellow "enlightened" one.

You just tried to explain an abstract concept through language, exactly what you just chastised the other dude for. You just terminally plebed yourself user.