Why does nu/tv/ hate this piece of art so much? Is it because they don't understand or have the cinematic intelligence?

Why does nu/tv/ hate this piece of art so much? Is it because they don't understand or have the cinematic intelligence?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=kD8hbg67u5c
youtube.com/watch?v=PSEOq0C-8Ug
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

*whispering* Spriiiiiiiiiiiiing Breaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak

>Paul Thomas Anderson
>John Carpenter
>Harmony Korine
>Gaspar Noe
>Quasar Tarentella
>Michael Haneke
>Richard Linklater
>post-80s Scorsese
>Darren Aronofsky
>the Russo brothers
>Sam Mendez
>Guillermo Del Toro
>Alejandro Inarritu
>James Cameron
>Christopher Nolan

same reason people hated drive at first
the problem with this one was that there were no meme they could latch onto like drive to pretend they always liked it

>starting a second Spring Breakers thread because your first one bombed

Beats me. This is the only Harmony Korine film I like.

>File name
>Not Nigger Faggot

Suck his contrarian dick more.

>user
>triggered

what

all shit save aronofsky

>art
>nu/tv/
nice memes its a piece of shit that only pseduo intellectuals and film posers like

>save aronofsky

>contrarian
This is reddit's favorite buzzword for when they can't defend something so they fall back on pretending that popular = good.

>all shit save aronofsky

found the korinefag

What? Drive was never "hated" on here.

Neither was this film, it didn't really receive enough attention.

I'm the armondfag

Because it has terrible fucking acting and terrible fucking story and terrible fucking casting and terrible fucking dialogue. Fuck you child.

Drive is literal autism. The shit that goes down in that movie is autistic as fuck. Literally. Psychology classes use it as an example to teach how to spot Asperger syndrome..................

nice fifth grader criticism
did nu-Sup Forums help you write it LOL

Uhmmmm WHAT?.... Drive was the Sup Forums's favorite fucking movie ever ever when it came out and it continues to be you stupid underage newfag fuck. You're a fucking know it all faggot who in fact knows nothing. Fucker. You enrage me.

This

>autist cant perceive acting
Im shock LOL

when it first came out and motoko was spamming "2deep4u" it was
once tit took off then most of the board started liking it

Yeah like your ad hominid criticism is any better. It's actually used in a strategy to determine if an argument is valid or not. Fucking hypocritical retard. Prove to me it is good acting and good scripting and good writing. Oh wait you fucking can't because even your ENG152 film analysis teacher would agree with me and he got his fucking PhD in that shit. Fuck off back to your anime shitbrain child.

POST PUDGENS

thank you for blowing that user the fuck out user

if I list off the myriad reasons why you know nothing about any of it will you start liking it? of course you won't. i won't waste my time and everyone else's. what you mean by prove to me is ''why don't you agree with me ;__;''. if i engaged and curbstomped you thoroughly i would receive a swift retarded rebuttal full of insults (just like that one) because that's all plebeians like yourself can do when faced with people like me

my ''elitism'' (as the insecure state so oft) is merely inherent from my ciniphilic nature and want for a better board with a better community. i mean not to startle and insult those below me, but one must pave the path ahead with the blood of the common man. and that is you

try the criterion forums or IMDB, after you fail to kill yourself like you fail everything else in your pitiful life

>terrible acting
>terrible story
>terrible casting
>terrible dialogue


nigga are you in middle school?

>people still use these as criteria to critique films in 2016
>people think any of these criterion in Korine films are relevant
>there are people here that don't realise that this film is an exploration of pop-aesthetic and pop-culture through the lens of "spectacle", the central notion in the Situationist theory, developed by Guy Debord in his 1967 book.
>there are people here that don't realise that Korine films are an example of celebration of the "Jewish soul" and his films are inadvertently red-pilled due to their nauseating extreme degeneracy.

...

>defending shit acting this hard
>in 2016
we reddit now

Uhm a movie can maintain all elements of excellence. The fact that this one doesn't is a valid criticism. It lacks in many areas and is strong in only one, and is therefore unbalanced. Of course this is simply an objective analytical criticism and I have yet to even delve into the subjective analysis of the film. Holy shit tunnel vision and bias is strong on this board.

Kek aronofsky is one of the worst on the list

4U

>puts a fuck ton of words into my mouth
>doesn't include a valid argument simply because "I won't understand it"
>I post a valid argument which is completely misinterpreted and ignored
>more hypocrisy
OK user. Keep living in your world of disillusion. You are a god.

COME BACK ON THAT FAGGOT.

Its this guy
Pay him no mind hes a flickman masquerading as a cinephile.

Shit son you ARE retarded.

Yes that first post is me. "This guy," what of it user?

>(you)

also nice argument.

>elements of excellence
>valid criticism

You are a pleb.

>how many ever years later
>still makes capeshitters confused
youtube.com/watch?v=kD8hbg67u5c

TRULY cīnemą of the ages

>terrible fucking acting and terrible fucking story and terrible fucking casting and terrible fucking dialogue
Good thing it's a film and not a play then, huh?

Does that mean analysis isn't possible on movies? What is your point? I understand what you are implying but it seriously just seems like a very imbecilic opinion and is therefore why you only implied it and didn't actually say it.

Is excellence bad? Because its definition in the dictionary is objectively positive. What is your point? Please use a valid argument other than the ad hominid that I am a

I didnt think it was possible to be this delusional about something you like. Did we just forgo self awareness altogether

>muh acting

acting is completely relevant to films

A film could be one of the most philosophically profound films ever and choose to have shit acting or actors because what they say or how they perform might be completely irrelevant to the themes of the film, or poor acting could be central to the themes of the film, there might be a reason why the director selected poor actors.

We know that Korine selected poor actors, a cast of ex-Disney characters and teen-hearthrob James Franco to create a normiesploitational film that was bait and switch marketed towards normie teens that liked shit like Project X as a wild and crazy Spring Break summer party film. What the normies got instead was a nauseating repetition/echoing of degeneracy and violence when things went wrong. They also got a full-dose of experimental film structure that made them feel trapped, uninterested and cheated.

What was ironic was that they were made to feel nauseated from Korine shining a mirror back towards the normies wanting to see a spring break movie and presenting them with the realities of their degenerate pop-culture and trap music concerned with drugs, partying and violence, simply by removing it's layer of gloss and sheen that exists in music videos and emphasising its reality in raw, up-close detail.

Essentially:
It's a normiesploitational horror film masquerading as a crazy party movie.

Plot and theme should be conveyed through cinematography, lighting and movement only, dialogue, acting and explicitly stated story-telling is irrelevant.

This is something I really like about Refn and that this film also manages.

why do you criticize acting you dont like then you nigger

nobody is saying acting is the most important, but if you dont think it is youre a fucking mong

>Plot and theme should be conveyed through cinematography, lighting and movement only, dialogue, acting and explicitly stated story-telling is irrelevant.
no they should actually be conveyed through all of those. unironically saying acting doesnt matter is fucking stupid.

>This is something I really like about Refn
yes the autists director

I LOVE IT. this is what a real argument looks like. This board is yet to die. Keep doing what you do. I will admit I didn't understand the message when I first viewed, because I was looking for a different but parallel message and wasn't educated in the strategies of conveyance that Korine used. Call me a pleb but not all of us are born geniuses or experienced enough in the industry to catch every single nuance of every single director. Thankfully it was a few years ago and since then I am more mature, less naive, more mindful and more informed. Thanks, once again. You are a true aficionado if there ever could be one and if that were an applicable compliment. Also I like drugs and trap music and violence and partying and many other shallow pursuits. But nobody is perfect and I still believe in the concept of "fun" even though I am slowly realizing how shallow and unfulfilling it is. Sadly life seems boring and currency-centric without it.

While there's definitely elements of I think Korine's scope is quite a lot broader than that. The movie is essentially using people and locations as pieces on a chess board. But the meaning is quite simplistic once you get it.
Alien is the God of nihlism. This isn't just literally about teenagers being hedonistic but pertains to all humanity.
He is the metahporical god of nihilism. The whole film is basically about the internal struggle of a human feeling the pull of nihlism and the fun and misery that comes with it.

That is an interesting interpretation. I never thought about that way. Watching films with this interpretation in mind could cause even a few "flicks" to be "deeper" than they really seem.

>no they should actually be conveyed through all of those
Solely a contrivance of nouvelle vague and new hollywood cinema Tbh that became the standard as cinema became accessible to more people. It is good that we have a few mainstream directors willing to rebel against it.

because nobody is perfect. He can do what he wants but honestly his analysis is extremely well thought out, very eloquent, and very applicable. It is in fact an almost water tight argument unless you approach from a subjective point of view which I chose not to do simply because it was such a good argument and that would be cheap as fuck.

Well, honestly it is logical to take into account all characteristics of a thing in terms of analysis, otherwise it is inherently an incomplete analysis. It is only logical. And also your argument kind of just seems like you dislike change and evolution of a style's elements.

Literal autism. Im glad ive gotten into your mind. Its basically a type of cognitive dissonance.

Cinematography matters and direction above all, but accepting subpar acting just proves you are being biased

Not an argument

Film is a part of life and in life you can't just leave shit out if you feel like it. If the film industry was completely objective and had explicitly stated rules that "plot and theme should be conveyed through cine.. etc, bar everything else," then I would agree. But since 99% of films portray actual life, then just like life, they can't just arbitrarily ignore elements that are convenient for arguments sake. So until there are explicitly stated rules for film making, you are technically, and literally wrong. But I do understand your point of view.

"elements of excellence" just is no longer relevant in 2016 either.

A director could try as hard as possible, to put together the best story, best cast, best acting, best cinematography and best narrative and structure, but it would still be considered second rate in comparison to a movie like Citizen Kane, particularly since cinema peaked decades ago.

Directors instead today concern themselves with making interesting movies, profound movies, experimental movies because they know that the goal of "perfect movie", or your retarded goalpost of "all elements of excellence" is honestly a pure waste of money. As a NEET, have you ever even given any thought to about how much the perfect move would cost and how much it would likely make as the "perfect movie" that tick off all of your autistic criteria for an excellent film.

I think that a lot of normies would consider your movie that maintains all elements of excellence boring or uninteresting, simply because it doesn't contain any action or their favourite franchise so I can already tell you that this movie is not going to make enough money to pay for itself in the cinema, unless it is already a big name contemporary director that have a proven track record of commercial success like Scorsese or Nolan.

Your stupid little autistic goalposts of "maintain all elements of excellence" are irrelevant when approaching film criticism, you can only really apply it to big cinema blockbusters and not be able to extrapolate it too small-to-medium budget indie or experimental films. They are simply incompatible with your criteria.

There is nothing wrong with disliking a style of a medium, especially when it hampers the medium and makes it approach another (namely literature) rather than staying true to its essence.

He isn't being autistic. Please don't use that word unless you literally mean it because autism is a serious disability that causes fucked up inability to live a fulfilling life no matter how hard you work. He is simply being argumentative and very successfully I might add. Probably took some analysis classes and is using some legitimate points that you only learn from a professional.

>all this samefagging by someone who calls acting a style of a medium

I never said there was, I was just pointing out a possible bias. I'm sorry if you implied my language as criticizing your preferences. It was not my intention.

This

I don't think "elements of excellence" was ever relevant. It was just a phrase that popped into my head and onto my computer screen to try and convey a point. The fact that you continue to focus on it like it is some kind of legitimate term really worries me. Also the fact that you think things can just become irrelevant over time is also worrying because the passage of time has no effect on information relevance except for the fact that new things continue to happen into the future and these actions and happenings could potentially cause irrelevance to occur. Sorry I didn't read the rest of your post because you seem like an idiot. If some other user can verify that it is worth it then I will go back and read it. You also use a lot of arbitrary and un-established buzzwords simply to bulk up your ad hominids which is another indicator you probably have an invalid uninformed argument.

I see, yes it is a bias as I do indeed dislike "literary" film, I'm not hiding that.
Acting should primarily be about how the actors move, rather than how they speak and the dialogue they recite.

Nice samefag faggot fuck. Think you waited long enough to get away with it? Well you thought wrong you cunt.

Yes, your second point is why I can watch the assassination of jesse james endlessly. The movement of the actors portrays so much thought and emotion. The anxiety it causes in the viewer is very unsettling. Is this due to having good actors or good directing? If directing, how do I coach bad actors into achieving that kind of emotional depth only through actions? Just try and put them in the mind space of the scene?

I would assume so? I've had some involvement in theatre (as a musician) but not on the directing side.

It does seem that establishing a cinematic rhythm is very important to this.

Me too fàm, I like trap music and all that degenerate shit even though I have a strong self-awareness of how vapid and shallow it is. It's sad how nihilistic our Godless culture has become.

In Spring Breakers, Faith believed in God and this became her shield from the culture they were falling into, she was not drawn into temptation of Alien (Lucifer) and thus was the only one that was able to remove herself and save herself from the trap that the other girls fell into.

Hedonistic pop-culture today is only one or two layers removed from drug-dealing and violence. I honestly think that kike Korine was celebrating this fact in this movie however.

I hope that we can be saved and return to a much more wholesome society guided by the hand of God soon.

Great film. One of my top 10 of 2013.

>hurr hurr he wrote paragraphs of text wow autism

nice arguments retard

True shit.
But something I've noticed growing up in the wrong side of town is that Violence is in blood. I've stolen and dealt drugs out of necessity but have had countless opportunities to gain far more with far less effort. I still can't hurt a fly and it has seriously impacted my life. I get taken advantage of. While I see others who are just born to be violent and they stop at nothing to abuse their power over the weak. Hedonism isn't necessarily negative either if it is pursued mindfully but because of the power of first world media, the true impact of our pursuits are hidden from us, allowing us to consume and have pleasure without feeling the true guilt and weight of our indirect actions. It is indirectly our fault, be we are also being directly manipulated to continue the behavior. Also god can't save us. Especially a god who damns those to hell who choose to believe in a different deity or a god who can not forgive the act of stealing out of necessity and believes the loss of a hand equal payment. Spirituality and community might be able to though. Just my opinions thought. I am still very young and naive.

Not an argument.

You lack basic understanding on how to analyse film, this is obvious in how you make what you think is analysis based on "elements of excellence".

It's not an ad hominem because the position you take means you are a pleb, you lack the knowledge of film to make a judgment.
There is nothing wrong with being a pleb, but please don't pretend you are "one of us".

acting is honestly a distraction to many other subtle and more crucial aspects of cinema: mise en scene, cinematography, aesthetic, structure, form, sound. And cause of normies like you that are so concerned with muh acting and muh actors, the basic surface level of the film, you are missing so much of the film and you don't even realise it. I honestly consider acting to be a distraction in film, they are a vessel for meaning made for the lowest common denominator of normies that can't analyse at an abstract level and require human surrogates on the screen to spoonfeed information and meaning to them. Retards like you are also dramatically hindering the development of film as an art by not allowing them to experiment further with the artform because they require some people behind the camera just to make the financiers of the film happy.

Holy fuck, "save aronofsky" kid, you are getting blown out. Go back to /wsg/ for your own sake dude.

this guy has autism

so by just arguing with you I think I'm "one of you"? ok m8. Nice assumption. Didn't know you could read minds. Where can I learn to do that? Obviously I lack the ability because I had to use an arbitrary term like elements of excellence to describe a film's characteristics. Obviously I'm just typing my thoughts. Like I explicitly said. Never once did I cite credentials. What are yours bro? Post your degree.

this is honestly what you sound like fám:

>hurr hurr i'm such a normie I need to see people on my screen or it's way too boring and I'm not interested and I don't know what's going on

Thanks. nice samefagging btw.
stop pretending to be this guy

>reddit breakers

What else other than devotion about cinema can you use to measure superiority on a film board? It's the duty of anyone who takes film serious to come to places like this and use their time fighting inauthentic artistically destructive opinions rather than focusing on petty socializing.

If someone is praising a bad director and I get the opportunity to tell them that their director is shit then that is an important, cinematically constructive event. Maybe not on a small scale, but if every single person who thought that Wolf Of Wall Street and Her were better art than Spring Breakers was left beaten, bloodied and broken then we'd be in a far more advanced world.

The wars of today aren't fought on land with bullets, they are intellectual wars and places like this are the battlefields. I am a champion for raw artistic authenticity in cinema and no warrior will just idly stand by while his enemies preach his destruction.

Spoken like a true pleb

Damn stay woke. Wolf of Wallstreet is still 10/10 in terms of entertainment imo.

It's not arbitrary because it's perfectly clear how you evaluate films, which is rather poorly. A film doesn't need to be excellent in any particular area, the moment you criticize a film for poor X or Y it should not be seen as valid criticism.

I'm not that guy,

but I'm the big paragraph autist and have credentials in film-critique. I have a Bachelor of Film and Screen Media majoring in Digital Design

>>reddit breakers

This movie is not reddit tier fàm

Sup Forums may be pretty much reddit the board now

This movie was liked by Sup Forums prior to its Redditfication. It's movies like Drive that led to the Redditification of this board. Spring Breakers has always been one of the forces of resistance of Redditifcation simply because Redditors are much too fedora to appreciate the post-ironic normie culture on display in Spring Breakers.

Drive is a Redditor fantasy film: one which includes their LARP fantasy of finally being Ryan Gosling having a car to drive around in at night listening to their gay synthwave crap and pretend that they are cool and mysterious with their very classy varsity jacket and fedora on.

Spring Breakers however, especially in 2013 was a crowd favourite at almost exclusive Sup Forums and at times Sup Forums. It took the bulk of Sup Forums until 2014 to come around to appreciate it. The redditification started to strike hard this board later that year. The redditification can be felt accross all boards now, as an example, the Reddit-tier worship of alt-light figures like Milo Yiannopoulous on Sup Forums.

Sup Forums hates Milo now

I know

all these butthurt faggots and or samefaggots responding to the truth...goddamn could Sup Forums be any more stunted?

SPRAAAAAAANG BRAAAAAAAKEEEE

yeah good, because he's a degenerate and a gay cunt. His kike self that wants to co-opt and neuter the alt-right into just being his watered-down and weak strain of cultural libertarianism, specifically anti-SJWism (the lowest hanging fruit of degeneracy), even basic bitch liberals think SJWs are retarded).

This is what Milo sounds like:
>hurr hurr muh cat ladies is oppressing muh flamboyant displays of faggotry
>t-t-the alt-right doesn't really believe in white nationalism the anti-semitism i-i-it's just ironic

he's trying to co-opt a movement for personal gain, attention and shekles

still the, the CTR shilling and redditifcation from r/The_Donald on Sup Forums right now is real

yeah i knew you had credentials. its damn obvious how you're schooling me. But its all constructive btfoing

KINO

youtube.com/watch?v=PSEOq0C-8Ug

SHIT FLICK


FOUND THE CINEMATIC ILLITERATE

>kek skanks and bongs dood
is the impression I got from the 10m I watched before turning it off in disgust. Is it not the pile of garbage it initially appears to be?

Fuck you summed up everything I struggle to say eloquently to this board. Someone please fucking archive this shit right here. Fuck drive. I think Spring Breakers just became my favorite movie. Fuck.

actually, you're wrong, only nu/tv/ likes this, aka people who came here after 2011/12

But you came here in 2013/14 because of game of thrones

But its my favorite movie now and I came here in 2009... yes im pathetic and need to leave...

nu/tv/ hates it because they couldn't recognize that the film was mocking them

The slick Michael Mann vistas, the beautiful women, the hyperstylization = its all right up nu/tv/'s Drive-loving alley

But Korine, despite being capable of "style" insists on holding the viewers morally accountable for the images they enjoy. The film peels its beautiful images back and reveals them to be disgusting. The vistas? A fever dream spurred on by the characters' delusions. The women? Sociopaths.

I think the Chicken Shack robbery scene is a great example of Korine's sin/guilt rhythm in the film. The first time we see the robbery, it's shot in an cool way - following Faith as she drives the getaway car around the restaurant, while the other girls' storm through in the background, robbing the restaurant patrons. There is driving music, the novel camera angle mirror's the characters' excitement. However, we see the same scene again when the other girls threaten Faith. This time, there's no music, just the horrifying sound of glass breaking and threats being hurled about. It's shot from a low angle inside the restaurant, mirroring the fear that the patrons must have felt, threatening to kill them over a few dollars. Faith is terrified by this "flashback" to an event she was present at, and the viewers should be as well. By enjoying "beautiful" images of something horrific, the audience is party to the characters' moral descent.

Korine also plays with race using this technique. The "party" scene in the black neighborhood that eventually causes Faith to leave is basically identical to the earlier debauchery we saw before the girls were arrested - except in this scene most of the background players are black. Instead of "fun" the scene is presented as deeply upsetting - more a picture of hell than anything else. In this way, Korine reveals to the viewers that their own subtle racist beliefs either justify or condemn identical actions from characters with different skin colors.

...

You are my idol. You need a fucking trip man or maybe not, but Sup Forums needs some way to identify authority. Keep shitting on drive.