Is this the birth of the modern American western?

Is this the birth of the modern American western?

Hell or High Water was the only good modern western recently

Before that it was True Grit and No Country for Old Men.

Don't say TAoJJbtCRF either, that had a western/southern setting but it was not a western.

mah nigga
HoHW was so good

>Don't say TAoJJbtCRF either, that had a western/southern setting but it was not a western.

How is a movie set in the late 1800s west, about outlaws, train robberies, and the mythology of the old west not a western?

Is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance not a western either?

Yes may jews make more films yearning for the death of white men and open borders

It's a drama about the possibly homosexual desires of one man to become another

It's not a western. Neither is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Possible as that poster art is a nod to the Searchers

>An important plot undercurrent is the obvious mutual attraction between Ethan Edwards and his brother's wife, Martha. Though no dialog alludes to it, there are a multitude of visual references to their relationship throughout the film.[32][33][34] Some critics have suggested that this unspoken passion implies that Debbie—who is specifically described as eight years old, as Edwards returns from an eight-year absence—may be Ethan's daughter. Such a situation would add further layers of nuance to Ethan's obsessive search for Debbie, his revulsion at the thought that she might be living as an Indian, and his ultimate decision to bring her home—and then walk away. Beyond the ostensible motivations, it might depict a guilt-ridden father's need to save the daughter he made by cuckolding his brother, then abandoned

What defines a western then, and who made you that authority

Bone Tomahawk was a pretty good recent western.
Slow West too.

HoHW was okay, but nothing special.

It cant be that good can it? Be real with me.

just go see it, nigger.

That was 3:10 to Yuma, which Mangold directed anyways

I think modern is the operative word, not a so-so remake

Eat a bullet capeshit faggot

>FOX delivers the best capeshit in the entire genre, the only one with an ounce of artistic merit
>Not the billion-dollar making Marvel Studios
>Not Warner and the visionary genius of Snyder
>Fant4stick, X-Men Apocalypse and X-Men Origins FOX

This timeline is fucking bizarre

>the only one with an ounce of artistic merit

what about The Dark Knight trilogy

only good shots here are man on the boat and close up of Zod's bloody face.

I disagree

For all his faults Snyder has more than enough visual imagination and unironically parallels/tonal metaphors to outweigh the entirety of Marvel and Sony They hire too many TV directors who just competently do things without and style or splendor.

writing > acting > visuals

>dick imagery
>artistic merit

For me, a movie has to fulfill an interesting/pleasing aesthetic and emotional effect above all else. "Smart" dialogue doesn't work for me if it's presented in an ugly visual way. As a visual medium I'd think it's extremely important to place that first. Otherwise you may as well be watching a play or reading a book.

Whatever produces the most feeling is the most important to me. It can be gorgeous but emotionally vapid and I'm left just as empty as if it was ugly and vapid.

/thread

The subject of imagery has nothing to do with whether or not it has merit. Sexual imagery certainly isn't without merit just because immature teenagers can't handle it.

seriously, what makes a movie a western?

I think that something that's at least pretty and vapid is much better than something that's ugly and vapid. It's doubly offensive to the senses.

Existentialism
Conflicts between society/order and lawlessness/freedom
Conflict between the self and the other
Vast wide landscape shots
The march of technology/industry
The viewpoint of the common man/poor to lower-middle class
Horses

westerns are about standing for justice, defending the innocent and killing the wicked.

Sure Jesse James is about a guy that killed jesse james but it doesnt into the same kind of themes of your typical western

Pretty and vapid is like half of Terrence Malick's filmography, so yeah I'd say on average it's better.

It sucked dick.
No plot, the movie.
Suicide Squad actually had a plot

>westerns are about standing for justice, defending the innocent and killing the wicked.

So none of Peckinpah's westerns are westerns? Or are you saying that's just what "classical" westerns are, and the rest are revisionist?

>Malick
>vapid

I'll agree that pretty much all of his movies past The New World have very little focus on narrative, but they're hardly vapid. They're more meditations on different subjects that are kind of universal emotional states. Knight of Cups is certainly the best of his recent movies Though I think that Tree of Life was a hard stumble into real "This is nothing" territory.

>writing over visual on a visual media
I bet you put lyrics over melody too, right you little pleb?

No, I listen to Young Thug.

Tree of Life specifically was what triggered me honestly, I liked Knight of Cups.

I was exaggerating, and keep in mind I love Malick, but Tree of Life was the first time one of his movies took me out of the experience with his style instead of further immersing me. And I don't need a hardass narrative for every movie, but walking the fine line between meditative and masturbatory is difficult, and I felt that recently he was on the wrong side...but then as I said, I really liked Knight of Cups so I dunno what to think.

As a random aside, Woody Allen made a real gem semi-recently too! I loved Midnight in Paris.

It's nice to see some of these guys with a clear style still able to make real solid entries into their filmography when we get less and less true auteurs and more people who will accept their movie is going to be made by committee.

>True Grit
the duke did it 100 times better.

>The subject of imagery has nothing to do with whether or not it has merit
are you for real?

>>writing over visual on a visual media
I hate all you fucking morons who repeat this every thread. Film has the unique position in art as a combination of every other major artform that came before. It's theater, literature, photography, music, dance, painting. Focusing on one aspect over the others doesn't make a film more or less valid.

I'm really interested in how Villenueve's style develops as time goes on.
I think that I just don't like Wayne. Bridges was a lot more believable in the role for me.

Though he was good in The Quiet Man.

wouldnt that be unforgiven?

I'm waiting for him to do anything that seems personally and not just sleekly professional

A movie with good writing and shit visuals will always be more enjoyable than a movie with shit visuals and bad writing.

Yeah but the bar for "good" writing is so low that this hardly ever applies. If you want to experience a good story and don't care about visuals just read a book

I wonder if he'll ever pull a Stone on a subject like in JFK where he just throws every ounce of himself into it.

>theater
The visual aspect of film is not like that of theater it is so much more and is the one aspect that sets it apart from all the others artforms that came before it, to neglect it in favor of any other aspect is a major disasservice to the artform.

I meant the "actors reciting dialogue and moving around a set space" part of theater.

Even in the still camera theatrical style of filmmaking, you still have editing to set it apart from actual filmed theater

Your post gave me the impression that you believe that film is a mere amalgamation of all these other artforms that came before.

The True Grit remake is Western Kino at its finest, although I'd argue that the original detracted from the theme of the book so much that it shouldn't even count as an interpretation.