The uniqueness of cinema as an art form is defined by its extension of the spatial and temporal dimensions over its origins in theater and photography respectively. However it is the time function which is what allows the exploration of space to occur in a film. Whereas a traditional photograph is primarily frozen in time and a play is primarily frozen in space, the photograph is also frozen in space as limited by its two dimensionality. The introduction of repetition i.e. in time of the photograph can allow for a separate dimension to merge in the art form, akin to the introduction of depth that delineates painting from sculpture. The time element is therefore akin to introducing the third spatial dimension and thereby crucial in forging the topological feature that separates cinema from its parent art forms.
The uniqueness of cinema as an art form is defined by its extension of the spatial and temporal dimensions over its...
faggot
Technological gimmicks that don't serve the narrative will kill film and give birth to a new medium that will parade around disguised in film's rotting corpse. Placing the audience into virtual spaces that offer pleasant sensory experiences but provoke no thought whatsoever.
>still thinking film is a narrative medium
tits or gtfo
hershlag!!!
OK.
what a shit thread
Wtf does that even mean? It reads like a college student who never learned to write better than at the high school level pretending to be smart.
ok
>It reads like a college student who never learned to write better than at the high school level pretending to be smart
Is this called irony?
>the photograph is also frozen in space as limited by its two dimensionality.
WEW. You wrote shit there.
OK
He may be pretentious but he's not wrong.
A photo can only show one perspective as opposed to something like a statue which he is contrasting with.
~miss me with that nonsense~
Is this ripped out of a college paper? It has to be. Nobody who wants to actually be understood writes like that.
No m8. You just can't read. Let me break it down for your reading level.
"The writing reads like the writing of a pretentious college student, who doesn't realize he still writes like a high schooler trying to sound smart and bullshit his way to an A on an essay."
Too hard? Let's dumb it further. "Yo, wut dis nigga tryin ta front fo? We kno he ain't pass the 5th grade. Yo he high as fuck wut he smokin shieeet"
He's talking about what tarkovsky described as sculpting in time.
I didn't have problems understanding it.
Do you think Natalie loves being fucked in the ass? Does she do ass to mouth?
>You just can't read.
>says the person who can't understand a summary of Deleuze's Cinema II
I bet she's into all kinds of freaky shit.
NO! NAT IS PURE
What? Pretty sure that's from nerdwriter faggot.
Idiot. She's a 100% certified butt slut. She has to be. Trust me.
Show your hot boobs kike whore.
Somebody gets it.
>Cinema is moving pictues and that is really cool I guess.
There, translated it to non-fag speak.
Honestly you used more words than you needed to. Also observations alone don't drive conversation. What is your point?
Hershlag. Singlehandedly responsible for Sup Forums's 50% pedo population.
>The introduction of repetition i.e. in time of the photograph can allow for a separate dimension to merge in the art form, akin to the introduction of depth that delineates painting from sculpture.
Also this sentence is a bit mangled and indirect, and the following sentence comes across as a non sequitur even with your 'therefore'.
The main theme of Malick's films on spiritual dematerialism is not eschatological, but a phenomenological ontology. Thus he implies that we have to choose between predialectic construction and deconstructivist neodialectic theory, essentially Heideggerian as seen in the concept of Dasein. The subject is interpolated then into a cinematic dematerialism that includes spirituality as a whole. But if the Kierkegaardian worldview holds, we have to choose between the cultural paradigm of expression and atomism. In Malick's own "The Concept of Horizon in Husserl and Heidegger" he says that "dread marks the ‘collapse of the world’”. Inherent in this is how the function of Lebenswelt (translated by Malick as "world of life") operates in all his films, chiefly in Days of Heaven and The Tree of Life. We see a phenomenological approach to the world showing a cinematic logic that presupposes a strucutral constraint in rootedness, another intentionality central to his filmography and philosophy. Because "metaphysical comfort" is not an object of temporality per se, but rather an aspect of automatic condition, as suggested by Cavell. Hermeneutic interpretations are also apparent in his post-hiatus movies; in fact the interchangeable subjectivities are but another representation of Husserl's and Wittgenstein's "form of life". As his academic hero Heidegger succintly noted, "freedom is the ‘abyss’ of Dasein, its groundless or absent ground". This is essentially the thesis operating in Malick's films.
>ywn suck of her jewbs
;_;
stop being lewd about my hershlag ok
>this is a 10/10 on Sup Forums
No she's mine