What was the first art film and why?

What are your opinions of D.W. Griffith?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=sVrDv-4aaNI&t=255s
youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=244s
youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>art film
Made up category so you'll get a couple dozen answers.
>What are your opinions of D.W. Griffith?
Watched Birth of a Nation only. I can see why it was praised in its time. Curious about Intolerance.

>Made up category
Then when did film become art? Classical film critics and scholars say with Birth of a Nation and Intolerance

The famous sequence with the KKK riding to save the whites in the hut is great, but the rest is forgettable. I should also watch Intolerance, maybe it's more interesting.

Lumiere.

>I can see why it was praised in its time.
Truly. The acting in the film is phenomenal. I hate those that belittle that great man's legacy just because they disagree with his content. I feel as if soon he will be written out of history altogether. And proud Americans should not let that happen. They should hold pride in the greatest pioneer that is DW Griffith

youtube.com/watch?v=sVrDv-4aaNI&t=255s

Honestly I find his films boring, however he's obviously a historically important director and I can't really criticize him because he made his films for the audiences of that time, not to mention that technology was limited

>Then when did film become art?
Arguably it was art from its inception, building on earlier artistic traditions but in a newly available medium.

>I feel as if soon he will be written out of history altogether.
nah

i recently took some film classes in Uni and they still put a great deal of emphasis on Griffith

and if you are referring to his notoriety among "normies," who gives a fuck? 9 out of 10 people don't care about old movies, film history, or film as art

>Then when did film become art?
it always was, or at the latest when those Lumiere shorts started to have "plots" (e.g., the one with the kid playing a joke on the man with the garden hose)

>The famous sequence with the KKK riding to save the whites in the hut is great, but the rest is forgettable
You only care for action. You have no culture. You are aversive towards Griffith's films because you are fundamentally separated from his founding principles of what constitutes film as art. He proposed for film to be art like great poetry and literature, it must be slow, melodic, and emphasize the little details of life. He pioneered film acting to be more realistic to separate it from theater and because of this, his films are starkly documentary-like. That's why Birth of a Nation resonated so well with people and rejuvenated the Klan in the early 20th century. He brought the real hardships of the South to the screen, and Woodrow Wilson tellingly decried "It's like writing history with lightning". What people saw before them was real and incited more emotion than any film before.

>i recently took some film classes in Uni and they still put a great deal of emphasis on Griffith
What do they say of him?

>it always was, or at the latest when those Lumiere shorts started to have "plots"
But Dziga Vertov said for film to be art it must plotless and reflect reality

>it must plotless and reflect reality
I guess The Birth of a Nation is right out then.

And I guess Thomas Edison's shorts were the first art films then

the usual "invented film grammar" stuff, "parallel editing," establishing the foundations of feature filmmaking, etc.; it was an intro to film, overview of history type class.

that's one way to think about film, yes, and i won't dispute him

Do you want to see the ruins my friend?

>You only care for action.
Not true. I liked 12 Angry Men, and that's almost entirely talking.

What did they say of Cecil B. DeMille?

Then you do not care for subtlety and slow pacing

His films are too long and didactic. He pioneered some techniques but overall he is overrated like most American directors.

I don't mind subtlety, but I can't stand slow pacing.

nothing

the lectures that covered the Silent Era went Griffith -> Eisenstein -> German Expressionism -> Hollywood studio system (without any particular emphasis on directors, save for a little extra stuff on Chaplin)

to be fair, it was only a general elective and not for Film majors, and the other film class i took was really an English dept. class about adaptations and the influence of literature on film

>His films are too long and didactic
Elaborate. And which is the film that cemented cinema as an art, one which contributed the most to the medium (late 19th century-1920)

Edison was early but not the first, but yes user, they have as much right to the term as any other example.

Griffith is subtle like a hammer.

What an odd thing to say...

It's probably A Trip to the Moon

>Curious about Intolerance.
If you like films from that era, it's a masterpiece as is Broken Blossoms.

Broken Blossoms is the best Griffith imo. Way Down East is good too.

Forgot pic in case there's a third person in the thread that might know what you're talking about.

They are long, slow and propagandist. And they are still shot mostly like stage plays. The Soviets were more important to early cinema than Griffith.

>Broken Blossoms
Why do you keep repeating this?

I'm only one of those people (the one who also mentioned Way Down East). Also it's his best film.

>The Soviets were more important to early cinema than Griffith.
And we all know their movies weren't long, slow and propagandist at all.

>which is the film that cemented cinema as an art, one which contributed the most to the medium (late 19th century-1920)

not him, and that's a matter of opinion, not fact, but i can think of a few candidates that might work:

the first Lumiere (workers leaving their factory)
A Trip to the Moon
The Great Train Robbery
[decade gap of highly influential short films i haven't seen, look this up on your own]
Cabiria
The Dying Swan (and other Evgeni Bauer films)
Birth of a Nation/Intolerance

>They are long, slow
Good, pleb.
>propagandist
No, you are confusing him with the Soviets.
>The Soviets were more important to early cinema than Griffith
No. 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. 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"

Andre Bazin rejected Soviet montage theories in his essay on "What Cinema Is" and said that the long take and deep focus cinematography are 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..

the Soviets were obsessed with Griffith, their early film schools almost exclusively focused on his work

there were a few directors who pre-date Eisenstein in the USSR (e.g. Kuleshov, Bauer), and regardless of what one thinks about them, "slow" isn't a word to describe them

They weren't three hours long and the during made them very dynamic and enjoyable to watch. I don't even hate Griffith, but because of him people tend to ignore other directors from that period such as Sjostrom or Stiller.

while i mostly agree with you, it's a bit rash to say montage is essentially lazy and artless or that utilizing long takes is inherently a better mode of filmmaking (or the assumption that Bazin is the foremost authority in the history of Film Theory)

Montage doesn't take skill? What a nonsense. Montage is what makes file different from the theatre. It creates meaning between two different shots.

I like long takes and deep focus, but I dislike slow pacing. Most good musicals use long takes because it demonstrates the skill of the dancers. Long takes don't have to be boring scenery shots.

>decade gap of highly influential short films i haven't seen
If you haven't seen all the most important films, then how are you qualified to distinguish which were the most important?

>Cabiria
>A Trip to the Moon
>The Great Train Robbery
>Yevgeni Bauer
Explain how any of these are art films

An art film is a film with loose experimental structure that focuses on character and theme over plot progression.

If we're going by this definition, Intolerance was the first art film

False, because film has camera movement.

>because of him people tend to ignore other directors from that period such as Sjostrom or Stiller.
a lot of that is home video/streaming availability, or lack thereof, and honestly only the hardcore enthusiasts are going to look that deep into silent flim, let alone silent scandanavian cinema past Dreyer (but a little more hype from critics and academics couldn't hurt)

Ingeborg Holm can very well be called an at film then.

>And they are still shot mostly like stage plays
You really underestimate just how strong the influence of the medium is. There's even a significant difference between a play and a filmed play.

Or L'inferno.

>impying
i'm not going to follow you down the endless rabbit hole of what criteria decides what is or isn't an "Art film." you won't find a consensus among critics/academics and you sure as shit won't find one here

btw, isn't all early cinema "experimental" since artists are just playing around with form in order to find out what is and isn't possible?

>adaptations
For film to stand on its own as a medium, it can't be an adaptation

>autism

>i'm not going to follow you down the endless rabbit hole of what criteria decides what is or isn't an "Art film."
Convenient excuse to not want to back ut of an argument. Consider yourself a pleb.

>isn't all early cinema experimental
Experimental nture isn't what only constitutes an art film. Learn something about the subject before before yu speak on it.

go to /lit/ if you want an endless philosophical debate parsing out about the meaning of every word/concept that comprises an issue/topic

Birth of Nation was also an adaptation.

>Montage is what makes file different from the theatre
No, editing is. Which doesn't only entail montage. Actually get behind the camera and make a film before you speak.

> it's a bit rash to say montage is essentially lazy and artless or that utilizing long takes is inherently a better mode of filmmaking
Montage has not evolved since its infancy. It reached its zenith in the 20's and hasn't evolved since its roots in montage-byattraction, parallel action, and montage-by-collision.

And the Russians were masters of editing. Your point?

Intolerance was not, and still hasn't been replicated since. The standard melodramas, science fiction and fantasy shit you listed here doesn't constitute art

>reading comprehension
The point is that montage as a filmmaking method is primitive.

/lit/ isn't a board for discussion of film. If you're too ignorant to supply an answer to the OP, be a man and say so. Don't run away scared.

Go ahead and tell us all the first art film

In what way it's primitive? Editing is probably the most important part of every film and the Soviets practically created its more modern version. In Russian the term montage refers to all forms of editing.

Are you American? Because I want to know why you press such emphasis on Swedish film over American.

>doesn't constitute art
Why aren't they "Art"?

>it's another "insufferable faggot ruins a half-decent thread" episode

I'm not. I hate your cultural imperialism. Propaganda and marketing is the only reason why your older films are so praised even if many other directors were as good if not better than yours.

No. 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. 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"

Andre Bazin rejected Soviet montage theories in his essay on "What is Cinema" and said that the long take and deep focus cinematography are 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, Robert Flaherty, Ernst Lubitsch, Rex Ingram, Orson Welles, William Wyler, and John Ford as masters of such techniques. Andre Bazin charts the volution of cinema by stating montage has not evolved since its infancy and roots in montage-byattraction, parallel action, and montage-by-collision whereas the long take and deep focus have evolved over time in films like Rope and into the 21st century with Timecode and Russian Ark

They're either straightforward adaptations or flat out trash genre's. Get better taste before you imply you know anything abut film.

Seastrom is still respected for "the Wind" and also his acting in "Wild Strawberries." "The Outlaw and His Wife" is good too.

What did Seastrom invent? What did Stiller invent? They didn't invent anything. They certainly didn't invent the first art film.

Be a man and address me to my face next time.

In what way is Griffith's bloated spectacle more artistic than Cabiria?

>in order for a film to be perceived as good or remembered it has to invent something
Fuck off, autist.You're a literal autist not the meme kind.

boring silent film director who is irrelevant in 2017.

Basin isn't some kind of god of cinema, and Lubitsch was known for using clever editing.

Nonlinear narrative only linked by theme and motif that collides through parallel action editing in the climax, crane shots, realism, unprecedented graceful camera movement, etc.

>Basin isn't some kind of god of cinema
He knew more than you and is where all modern film theory is extracted from.

> and Lubitsch was known for using clever editing
Editing on action is not the same as montage. Actually learn film vocabulary before you speak.

In order to determine the first art film, yes it does have to be first that invented techniques! Now that you hopefully learned the basics of reading comprehension, go play with your toaster in the bathtub, jimmy!

I'm not even the fag who claimed it to be the first art film, you autistic chucklefuck.

Well if you're not here to determine the first art film, you're merely dawdling with your thumb up your ass. Now take that toaster to the bathtub, your bathwater's getting cold!

Seriously shut the fuck up. Your posts are dripping with fucking autism and everyone's telling you to shut up and fuck off. I wasn't even talking to you, you pathetic child.

Editing and montage mean the same thing in Russian. Eisenstein in his essays was writing about editing, not only about what you Americans understand as modern montage.

Oh yeah, that's right. D.W. Griffith not only pioneered the closeup, camera movement, and nonlinear narrative, parallel editing, and realistic acting but he also introduced the flashback in film.

Now, if you can cite any other work that wasn't an adaptation and compiled all these pioneering techniques into one film, that would mean you're a big intelligent man. But you're not. You're an ignorant buffoon. Now run along now, buffoon. Tie your shoes too before you go.

>Editing and montage mean the same thing in Russian
Then if they mean the same thing and you hold Sergei Einstein so high in regard, state for me who it was he thanked in his autobiography for showing him first the ideas of editing in film and the idea that film could be art. Hint: he was American and his name starts with a D

I never said he didn't, you autistic faggot also shut up with your "I don't watch adaptations" bullshit because that's literal autism. You're really fucking weird. Fuck off.

Half of this is wrong.
>closeup
The Great Train Robbery
>realistic acting
Sjostrom and his early films. And acting in Griffith's film isn't realistic anyway.
>flashback
I honestly doubt he invented it.

Some of Guy-Blache's films used flashback.

How about you tell me your phone number and address, so you can say that to my face, buffoon.

No one says Griffith is irrelevant or unimportant. He pioneered some techniques, but still used them in a very primitive way.

>The Great Train Robbery
Close up emphasizing emotional effect in narrative, not 4th wall jabs. Try again.
>Sjostrom and his early films.
No.
>And acting in Griffith's film isn't realistic anyway.
See here: youtube.com/watch?v=sVrDv-4aaNI&t=255s
>Some of Guy-Blache's films used flashback.
No.

You have still yet to provide a film that was not an adaptation employing all techniques with nonlinear narrative that can stand as the first art film.

>He pioneered some techniques, but still used them in a very primitive way.
No. Unless you can elaborate on their primitive nature, you're merely a pleb.

I highly suggest any of you ignorant buffoons that belittle D.W. Griffith's importance to the history of film listen to this radio broadcast by Erich von Stroheim. And any Americans in this thread downplaying Griffith while praising European trash, would do every other proud American a favor by offing themselves.

youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=244s

A Trip to the Moon

>Fantasy & Adventure
No, not an art film.

Roundhay Garden Scene

It is, but I can think of an even earlier one:
youtube.com/watch?v=1dgLEDdFddk

Explain why it's an "art film"

Explain why it's an art film. Explain why cinema is art compared to literature

Your definitions are false and stupid.

Why are you so mad?

I'm not mad, I'm looking for answers. And apparently you're too dimwitted to sufficiently supply them. Go play in the sand with jimmy

It can supply a transforming aesthetic experience.

It's the first film to also be art. It's self explanatory.

No, it doesn't look like you're looking for answers, you're just an asshole shitposting differently.

You can get the same through a painting or a series of pictures. Explain what makes film a unique medium that's art and what the first art film was.

>painting's aren't art so films aren't art
An art film is a film full of art.