/lbg/ - letterboxd general

Director cameos edition.

Previous thread: >Not sure what letterboxd is all about?
The mission of /lbg/ is to promote the intelligent discussion of film as art by providing members with opportunities for intellectual discussion, by recognizing patrician taste through examinations and by calling out embryos as they arise.

>Haven't got an account? Follow this link and sign up today!
letterboxd.com

>QotT
What are your favorite director cameos?

>News
Previous thread died.

Use as a link to find the /lbg/ thread.

Remember the following:
>Patricians occasionally read these generals and have posted here before.
>Patricians may pretend to be normal users asking for recommendations and when you recommend something, they laugh at you for your plebian taste
>This is a thread for patrician purposes only don't offer or expect frivolous discussion.

Other urls found in this thread:

letterboxd.com/smt/
letterboxd.com/holliehorror/list/director-cameos/
youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0
youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=188s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

What are some good rohmers?

What is that on their noses?

letterboxd.com/smt/
Finally got done with my godzilla marathon, finishing up with Final Wars wich was a blast.
>QotT
Tarantino's cameo in the Hateful eight since he isn't on the screen.

Why does /lbg/ vastly prefer Eric Rohmer and Jacques Rivette over actually good French New Wave directors like Claude Chabrol and Alexandre Astruc?

they're pretty much all the same. you have to be in a leisurely mood or else you won't get anything out of them.

Zinc.

...

Chabrol is pretty much a straight melodrama/thriller Hitchcock pastiche artist. He's entertaining but he did very little to advance the form.

Astruc I haven't seen. any recs?

>He's entertaining but he did very little to advance the form.

>a straight melodrama/thriller Hitchcock pastiche artist
You haven't seen his films.

prove me wrong. The Butcher is what I consider his best.

I haven't seen that many of his films, but Les Bonnes Femmes and Les Godelureaux are both great and not really thrillers. Le Boucher is great, too. And you don't have to advance the form to be great.

letterboxd.com/holliehorror/list/director-cameos/

but if you're comparing him to the revolutionary "New Wave", you've got to embody the "new" somehow.

His early work like Wise Guys is pretty par for the course in terms of French cinema. I don't really know why anyone would elevate him on the same terms as the rest of the Cahiers crew

Favourite dead user?

Not him but Eric Rohmer didn't really do anything new.

invented mumblecore.

The Delinquents already precedes him.

spookyface

me

does anyone tho?

>but if you're comparing him to the revolutionary "New Wave"
I wasn't. He' better than Truffaut and Rohmer, though. And he even defended Robert Aldrich's late films, bless him.

youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0

>he even defended Robert Aldrich's late films
Hustle>Claire's Knee

This isn't a good movie. It was perverse of Chabrol to defend those films, is the point.

You mean invented WoodyAllencore

>This isn't a good movie
Machill would disagree.

so would you say he was .... vulgar?

Godard>your favorite director

the trailer for his new biopic is hilarious. they shouldn't make biopics of people who are still alive. it's a tad embarrassing.

Who was more right? Eisenstein or Bazin?

Agee

>invented mumblecore
That's already every French film.

Amelie is cutecore.

city of stars are you shinin just for me

Why is she watching Don't Watch Griffith and giving his movies 5 stars?

Why is he/she

I'm not him, but I think we should all just take a moment and show our appreciation for smoothhands (The King of Kino).

Thank you.

>it basically had all the stereotypes I have in my head of a 1930s film, with really hammy theatrical acting
Why does Maniac get derided but Satan's Slave gets a pass. And hammy acting is not true for 30's movies. Pic-related features no hammy acting

>and filmed in a really non-dynamic way and everything seems to happen so slowly
What does that even mean? You mean no frenetic editing like Top Gun

>hammy acting

>filmed in a non-dynamic way

>filmed in a non-dynamic way.

especially about a butthurt hack fraud like badard

>hack
How is Godard a hack fraud

Write an essay right now explaining why.

The clock is ticking, anti-Godard poster.

...

Machill I need an answer

>filmed in a non-dynamic way
WHAT does that mean?

The 30's were the BEST decade for cinema, machill!

>There's no point in watching anything before the 60's other than an exercise in film history
Who posted this!? I need answers!

You recommended 99 Women, machill.

They were already doing racy women's prison films in the 30's!!

Orson Welles even called the 30's the best decade for movies. He knows because he stole a lot of his tricks from the 30's

but they were doing it worse

Thing is, hardly anyone writing about film today would maintain, for example, that Don't Watch Griffith was not an artist: yet, to me, he's the epitome of the nonartist, no matter how much he may have contributed to the technique of the film. And this, clearly, not because the film Birth of a Nation is morally objectionable, but because it is artistically and intellectually insufficient.

>not because the film Birth of a Nation is morally objectionable, but because it is artistically and intellectually insufficient.
How is Birth of a Nation morally objectionable if it's being proven today! The niggers are going fucking crazy after they get a morsel of power! Griffith put more about philosophy and human nature in his films than any other filmmaker from his era. That's why Bergman cites him as an influence over his own fucking kind, Seastrom. You know why? Because Seastrom is nobody! All he did was take Griffith's flashbacks and multiply them sporadically. That's it! His acting is hammy and his shots are uninspired. Erich von Stroheim already said it. Griffith was the first to bring beauty and poetry to an otherwise tawdry form of amusement. In Griffith's greatest films, he understood the emphasis on story vs plot more than any other silent director. More than anybody for decades really.

youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=188s

99 Women did it worse? Yeah I know. That's what I already said. Keep up, 'tard.

NOT because it was morally objectionable
NOT
learn to read you nigger

The clock's ticking, anti-Godard poster.

>artistically and intellectually insufficient
>story vs plot
Learn to read film, pleb!

Griffith is to the art of cinema what Tatius was to the art of novel.

Nah the 30s

/lbg/ did you know Griffith was the first to do films that take place in one night?

Griffith did everything!

I only like day films

Griffith doesn't make the cinematic equivalent of novels.

Griffith makes poetry

>I only like day films
Why'd you watch Nosferatu then?

One Exciting Night>Nosferatu

Never seen it

Sorrows of Satan>Faust

Is this machill? Answer my question posted here

retarded pedophiles be like: Oh you like x? Then explain y (completely unrelated) is z. Clock it ticking.

No

Let's see. Griffith was the first to do in film expressionism, unmotivated camera movement, social commentary, crosscutting, flashbacks, closeups to emphasize dramatic/romantic effect, neorealism, story vs plot, oblique camera angles, interwoven stories (a la rules of the game, Nashville, and Magnolia). What else did he do? Looks like everything.

Everybody that came after him improved on him and now his films are obsolete.

First to make a propaganda anti-war film

>1926
murnau and wiene did it first

>and now his films are obsolete.
Why do the contrarians watch and highly rate other films that released around Griffith while giving his 3 stars then?

>1914
Griffith did it first. He did everything first and b

Eisenstein because he actually put his money where is mouth was.

I didnt say his contemporaries were obsolete, only him

better

Because she likes Pickford but doesn't have the attention span to watch her better roles.

>Eisenstein because he actually put his money where is mouth was.
Why does Sup Forums prefer Bazin's form of theory then?

Why were his contemporaries better than him?

fuck off if you don't think that this still wasn't inspired by german expressionistic film

You have already explained that for me earlier in the thread

DeMille did it first as well. Guess "German" expressionism isn't really "German" after all

>Bazin over Eisenstein
Because Sup Forums is filled with cinema nihilists

fuck off if you don't think this gif didn't predate "german" expressionism

can you follow the conversation?
we were talking about griffith

>Because Sup Forums is filled with cinema nihilists
If you don't like my home then go back where you came from, /lbg/. Go back to R*ddit

>one example
>the whole board
You can look to every popular film made within the past 50 years and see otherwise. Directors that film primarily in long takes tend to be very niche (Tsai Ming-liang, Lav Diaz, Bela Tarr, etc.)

Sup Forums is also populated by pants shitting contrarians such as...

And Griffith predates expressionism, pleb.

>Directors that film primarily in long takes tend to be very niche
Hmmm

You should really study other art forms before you say dumb shit.

Chalk another point up for America

>Griffith was the first to do in film expressionism
You should learn to read.

>my home
cringe

Griffith made the cinematic equivalent of Ulysses before Ulysses, pleb.

>not watching films on nitrate

How do I get into Godard? Nothing from him has amazed me though I've seen very little.

>cringe
back2R*ddit