/lbg/

Letterboxd General

Films & stuff

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/dp/B0091SXDKG/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=2W6F74JH6U0TE&coliid=I1EWUW9OOQ8XVO
youtube.com/watch?v=aTe32rMvB20
fredcamper.com/M/VonStroheim.html
youtube.com/watch?v=sVrDv-4aaNI&t=203s
amazon.com/dp/0375756132/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=2W6F74JH6U0TE&coliid=I1IA0BXPI0628R
letterboxd.com/OriginalName3/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

OLD THREAD

daily reminder that whitey will never be able to fully appreciate cinema because of their privilege. whitey can't relate to the human struggle

Did D.W. Griffith create the first art film??

80967729
The old thread is still up you know

Even Andre Bazin rejected Soviet montage theories in his essay on "What Cinema Is" and said that the long take is superior to montage because montage breaks the illusion of realism whereas the long take reveals real time, exposes truth, and demands more participation from the audience to dissect the composition of a shot. He cited D.W. Griffith, Ernst Lubitsch, Rex Ingram, Orson Welles, William Wyler, and John Ford as masters of such techniques..

It's going to die soon, and I don't want that idiot running away. The QOTD: Did D.W. Griffith create the first art film?

My response:

If you read this book amazon.com/dp/B0091SXDKG/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=2W6F74JH6U0TE&coliid=I1EWUW9OOQ8XVO

There are excerpts from articles all from global press at the time widely regarding Intolerance as the greatest achievement in film ever since its release up to to the 40's

Well? Are there any answers?

Don't Watch Griffith was a hack

Does one actually need to watch old films? If their only value is historically knowing where all the techniques came from that today we take for granted, then shouldn't simply reading about this films be sufficient enough? I think for information acquisition, text will always be the nominated form.
>actually seeing what these techniques look like in action
If they're so ubiquitous, I've probably have a thousand times already.

Why does it matter if Griffith created the first 'art film'?

Learning the origin of certain homages

Someday you'll fall down and weep, and you'll understand it all... all kino.

to user in last thread,
Bazin is still GOAT tier alongside Sarris

Pauline Kael apologists can huff bleach

I can read about it instead. It'll be quicker than watching a three hour film. Plus I get to hear different perspectives on it.

The only reason you, as well as other modern youth, prefer Einstein and Soviet montagists, is because since the 80's with MTV and music videos, films have progressively opted for a music video approach with frenetic editing. Whereas in the 60's and 70's long takes were preferred and taken from the theories of Andre Bazin and the French new wave with revolutions in documentary filmmaking. You consider montage modern but in actuality those still alive from the 60's and 70's consider it outdated and a regression. Montage doesn't take skill or participation from the director nor the audience. That's why many young people bemoan films from the 60's and 70's as being "too slow" and "boring"

>kindle and hardcover are the same price
the absolute madmen

Old can be anything, so it's a very meaningless term there

>If their only value is historically knowing where all the techniques came from
their value is that they are interesting and fulfilling to watch, like any good film regardless of their age

But didn't Bazin invent auteur theory?

Dumb faggot

No, the reason is to understand and interpret the canon. To understand the evolution of film as a medium. To know where it was, where it is, and where it's headed. It's why I find it baffling for so many that use this general to skip Griffith, watch Soviet montage flicks, then pretend they're patrician.

Context.
When I say old along with first to develop techniques, you should be able to assume I'm talking about films from "the dawn of cinema" late 1800s-1920s.

That was probable, but this is Sup Forums, so I always expect the worse.

No. Andrew Sarris butchered the ideas of Cahiers du Cinema writers and invented that phrase.

You can obtain a better understand solely from reading text. If you were to watch these films on their own today without any context, you wouldn't get anything out of them.

>solely from reading text
You have to watch the films. Really several times.

>You can obtain a better understand solely from reading text.
You're Justin in this video. Don't be Justin.

youtube.com/watch?v=aTe32rMvB20

I don't have 81 minutes. Just give me the cliff notes.

>When I say old along with first to develop techniques, you should be able to assume I'm talking about films from "the dawn of cinema" late 1800s-1920s.
Most silent films are better than anything made in the last 30+ years!

Actually I'd say 50+. Because anything in the 80's and upward would be just done with a computer. With silent, they were real and raw

I know that's not true. The fact that they couldn't utilize the audio potentials of the medium makes them inharently inferior tome most films from 1930s and onward. They're antiquated.

Dumb comparison.

Crazy exaggeration.

You don't have to defend silent cinema or 'old' cinema by making ridiculous claims

Is there anyone who writes about medium specificity with regards to cinema?

Whoops didn't mean to quote

>The fact that they couldn't utilize the audio potentials of the medium makes them inharently inferior tome most films from 1930s and onward
The fact they couldn't use audio equipment made them superior! They're more creative and authentic than anything of recent. People that find silents shitty have never seen them

No, they're better because they communicate the story to you visually

I don't have to defend them at all. They speak for themselves.

>The fact they couldn't use audio equipment made them superior! They're more creative and authentic than anything of recent.
That's a very wrong sentiment. You're simply idolizing and confusing absence of means as a superior way to create films.

Which for most films is patently false- for a very obvious reason.

Ideally they would be the case. But from what admittedly little, I've see that's not the case.
Since sound films have the potential to not only use audio but also use silence as a filmic device, I'd say they're fundamentally preferable to films that have to work around being silent.

Plus if I'm not mistaken, silent films used live music. This should further prove how being silent was seen as an hurdle that the sought to overcome.

>Ideally they would be the case. But from what admittedly little, I've see that's not the case.
Which silent movies have you seen? Have you seen Intolerance? Wings? The Big Parade? Humoresque? How many DW Griffith have you seen?

True, they speak for themselves, and that's not with hyperbolic dumb assertions. That's just you

>hyperbolic dumb assertions
>silent films aren't better than films in the past 30+ years
Then why are so many silents on TSPDT and Sight and Sound lists over movies after the 80's?

I've seen the classics but only out of obligation. I hated the use of Whitman in Intolerance.

Are you just baiting? Your first point doesn't relate with the second.

>I hated the use of Whitman in Intolerance.
Why?

Reminder to not believe PUNQ's lies

Saying silents are better than many movies the past 30+ years is not hyperbolic. Many silent directors, theorists, and stars even said classic movies they got to see long after the silent era were not nearly as good as anything in the silent era.

Big difference between 'many' and 'most'.
And "silent directors, theorist and stars" would, among other reasons, prefer to defend their own work, which sudden and instantly had become on the other side of a revolution. And feel free to provide quotable examples.

fredcamper.com/M/VonStroheim.html

eric von Stroheim's review of citizen kane

And this book has dw Griffith's interview on citizen kane where he essentially says "oh I liked it, I liked all of the ideas and techniques he stole from me." Which he's right because D.W Griffith WAS the first to establish nonlinear narrative, flashbacks, closeups, etc.

Bah, to do it first doesn't mean to deplete the possibilities of any given technique.
Griffith developed and used them, and as in the case, someone like Welles made new uses of them.

post your profiles so I can follow you

That guy is retarded cancer, why would you want to follow him?

I didn't like the orotund repetition of the titular line and the interpretation of it as relating to recurrent social stigma. Made me wonder if Griffith had actually read the rather short poem.
The whole films in fact felt so grandstandish that I couldn't help but roll my eyes.

>Bah, to do it first doesn't mean to deplete the possibilities of any given technique.
Are you this poster Becase if anything, by your definition, Welles was a hack.

Welles was a misunderstood genius. Griffith was the Michael Bay of his time.

>Griffith was the Michael Bay of his time
>Griffith was one of the most misunderstood geniuses of his time

But the line works as a motif to link the disparate stories. The poem is an example of Whitman's romanticism and his recurring themes of love, sexuality, death, and loss which thoroughly play with Intolerance. DW. Griffith's opinions of film, as he stated in the book aforementioned in this thread, that for film to be art, it must be poetic, slow, real, and melodic. He was a man well-versed in literature and theatre. When he was rejected for striving to become an actor, he along, with Cecil B Demille and the rest of the founding fathers of Hollywood sought to command the new medium of film, flee the Edison patent brigade, and set forth to California to do just that. Everything about film can be learned from D.W. Griffith and his works from his use of angles, composure of shots, to his pioneering developments in film acting. His films are so real and documentary-like, they actually transport you to the time they took place.
See hereyoutube.com/watch?v=sVrDv-4aaNI&t=203s

It is exactly why Andre Bazin references him and his directing principles in developing the theory of what cinema is.

See here youtube.com/watch?v=sVrDv-4aaNI&t=203s

D.W. Griffith pioneered a new form of acting for film. He did so to separate it from theatre.

amazon.com/dp/0375756132/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=2W6F74JH6U0TE&coliid=I1IA0BXPI0628R

I don't even have a profile, I don't even use letterboxd. I just come to these threads to shit on all the impudent brats here that pretend they know more than me

No, I wasn't him. Makes no sense to say stupid shit as *(great director) is a hack*

You do.

Ah, of course. You're the very sick autist with no life who thinks it's worthwhile to crusade on a general from an awful site for whatever reason.
You're almost right, but you don't come here to 'shit on' people, you come here to shitpost. Any post you make can only be a shitpost.

"Out of the Cradle" is such as small, intimate, poem given Whitman's larger than life person. Seeing it used in such a boisterous film in such an on-the-nose manner is a shame. Its use felt arrogant. I have no doubt Griffith thought of himself as a great artist with poetic intention, but that doesn't mean he achieved a level of cinematic excellence that could rival poetry.

>but that doesn't mean he achieved a level of cinematic excellence that could rival poetry.
Then what was the first art film?

I do

>on a general from an awful site
If it's such an awful site, then why do you use it? Why do you keep coming on my board? Why do you keep making these damn threads? I have absolutely nothing wrong with anybody else on Sup Forums. In fact, I like Sup Forums. It's /lbg/ I fucking hate, the brats that think they know everything. I want these threads gone.

Why does this megaautist get so hung up, so obsessed with the concept of 'art film'?

>so obsessed with the concept of 'art film'?
I'm not. I just want to know why those that pretend they know what film is supposed to be skip D.W. Griffith and highly rate Soviet montage flicks. If any user does that, I need a full essay on your definition of cinema.

/lbg/ is far from the worst part of Sup Forums.
I suppose it makes sense that you as some sick lunatic appreciates the general shitposting of the board.

>my board
There's already countless reasons why you should make the world a favor and kill yourself, but, as shown, new ones can always be added.

I'm in no position to say. I can't even see the value in watching old silent films.

Because if they skip D.W. Griffith, watch film serials, Keaton, and Soviet montage instead, it looks more like they're looking to be entertained instead, yet they think they're "patrician" for watching something with a more obscure name than D.W. Griffith. If they are truly patrician, they would thoroughly tell me their theories of what cinema is supposed to be.

Then is film an art form according to you?

>it looks more like they're looking to be entertained instead
It's probably because they are looking to be entertained.
>yet they think they're "patrician"
No one should think watching narrative films is patrician.

Yes, you are. Otherwise it wouldn't get repeated as a retard's mantra all the time.

You don't even know what art means is the understanding to get from this. More and more looks like you don't even understand cinema.
You're a growing fraud.

Garbage bargin bin film titles are better than silent films from the 1920s

film isn't even a patrician hobby. being well versed in film is like bragging about eating the funniest looking shit.

special mental olympics, you see.

>/lbg/ is far from the worst part of Sup Forums.
/lbg/ is the absolute worst part of /lbg/. I far prefer cunny threads over this hive of teenage pretension and condescension. I would wager /lbg/ is the absolute worst part of this entire site, though I don't visit many other boards beside /out/ and Sup Forums

I can't say.

No, I spam "is this an art film" to ask why all the observe are missing the films I list from the canon.

worst part of the site are r9k and katawa shoujo generals

>/lbg/ is the absolute worst part of /lbg/
deep

The DW in DW Griffith actually stands for Don't Watch


fucked up, but true

By this crazy limitation and continuous misuse of the word patrician, cinema only would have value if it's Brakhage-style. Silliness

No

Probably because they aren't very good in comparison to other films in the "canon".

>I far prefer cunny threads
sup pedo_gorro

No one should think watching anything besides documentaries is patrician.

>Probably because they aren't very good
No, probably because they don't have a Wikipedia article attached to them.

letterboxd.com/OriginalName3/

>cinema only would have value if it's Brakhage-style.
You mean Hans Richter and Man Ray-style

What is cinema? You seem to know since you're giving ratings to silent documentaries

Whoever you want to use, the point is that any retard putting these limitations to cinema is wrong.

Robert Altman said a movie hasn't been made yet. He held that opinion until his grave in 2006.

Cinema is your mother getting raped by a pack of niggers while you masturbate in the corner with your own shit

I mean to write "a film has not been made yet."

HAHAHAHAHAHA. My mother's already dead!

It's a beautiful idea when you see it from a certain angle. But it must not be understood pejoratively

So I'm guessing your criteria for your scores is "did it entertain you".

Gee, what a pleb. And what a shock! No reviews!

If cinema is a language, it should evaluated by its ability to be universal understood. Abstract films like those of Jordan Belson, Len Lye, Hy Hirsh, and Harry Smith, are cinema in it's purest form. Stripped of those elements of culture that obscures them from the outer parts of the world.