When did film become considered art?

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/81114716/#q81114716
archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/80967606/#q80974789
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Birth of a Nation.

Birth of a nation is an adaptation.

>adaptation
Adaptations will never be true cinema for they are always in the shadow of the superior medium being extracted from whether it be theater or literature

autism

Next time follow the criteria, monkey. No adaptation of James Joyce or Steinbeck will supercede the written text. They are entirely different mediums.

So the Godfather is shit because it's an adaptation?

>Godfather
Name something good next time you want to make an argument, imdbabby.

Rumble Fish just got a Criterion release, faggot.

2007

I'd say it's Intolerance, Eternal Motherhood shit is so powerful, 100 years later still one of the best films of all time.

>Rumble Fish
Ha.
Certainly not the first impressionist film let alone art film altogether.

I wasn't saying it was the first art film, you fucking autist.

You're the one that brought up it receiving a Criterion Bluray release acting as if that meant anything whatsoever in the conversation at hand.

What about Apocalypse Now?

Adaptation and remake. Double shit.

You're a fucking autist.

And you're a Neanderthal that can't read since you clearly can't follow the criteria and can't come up with an insult other than "autist."

you said can't three times

You failed to answer the OP question 3 times. Strike you're out, Jimmy.

Three Ages>Intolerance

Intolerance actually has four ages. And Three Ages isn't an art film btw.

Birth of a Nation

How come a lot of the 30's films you posted are adaptations?
Do you enjoy inferior films?

Birth of a Nation does not qualify and was already mentioned. Read the thread before you make a fool of yourself, clown. Though, you seem to be very adept at being one.

who are you replying to

...

Fuck you

>isn't an adaptation
Damn, you got me, OP. That's a tough one. A lot of early silent films were adaptations of plays and books. fuck

Answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

Film is a shit medium.

How did film make Ulysses before Ulysses was even written?

kek you should actually read Ulysses before you say stupid shit. Stick to cunny threads and capeshit, Sup Forums

>parallels Homer's poem, Odyssey with appointments and encounters of Leopold Bloom in Dublin

>four stories that parallel Walt Whitman's poem "Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking"

You should take your own advice, /lit/.

that's not what Ulysses is about but ok

Oh, that's not what Ulysses is about now? After nearly 100 years, the plot has changed entirely according to you? You're a joke, /lit/. You don't even read books, just use them as referential scapegoats to sound superior. Just leave.

at least Ulysses isn't shit compared to intolerance

At least Intolerance came out over a decade before, features four stories, and actually parallels a good poem.

>shitting on Homer's Odyssey
kek found the pleb

You and I both know you have never read Homer's Odyssey and have no interest in even doing so.

Looks like /lit/ left guys. He got scared because he was exposed.

Now answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

You were answered in like the 10th reply you autist.

The 1911 adaptation of Dante's inferno could be considered the first film that was indeed a masterpiece.

>is an adaptation
It's like you can't read.

>fantasy
>features social realism

>Dante's Inferno
>isn't an adaptaion

Read the criteria before answering.

I don't care you're a retard

Google says Intolerance so I guess you're right OP.

Enjoy your genre shit, babby. Run off and go watch cartoons. That's all you're capable of processing.

>trusting Google
Do you believe everything you read on the internet? Name an academic source next time.

Cabiria

Cabiria doesn't emphasize ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression. Being long doesn't equal art film. If it did, then Titanic and Transformers, your favorite films, would be art films

>dissing robotkino and james Cameron
OP can't into vulgar auteurism

>vulgar auteurism
There goes that term again. I don't think it means what you think it means. And Andrew Sarris was not Moses

>Andrew Sarris
who

I rest my case. Go play in the sand, Jimmy. The adults are busy discussing matters that demand more than a toddler can handle.

fuck you autist

>features social realism
Why?

I've already been called that several times in this thread alone already. Find a new disparaging name, mindless parrot.

Cartoons aren't art, Sup Forums. No matter how hard you imply they are by placing them on an undeservingly high pedestal.

Looks like Jimmy and his gang of cartoon-loving Google-spouting nitwits left guys. They got scared because they were exposed.

Now answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

I already told you it was Cabiria

Social realism means not cartoon/animation? What the fuck is that? Why can't you answer to a simple question like a normal human being and act like a jerk? Jesus....

Oh you came back, Jimmy? Alright, since you want to sit at the grownup table, tell us all the ideas and innovations that Cabiria brought to the table. It does emphasize ideas and innovation over standard plot progression doesn't it?

Pic-related is social realism, Sup Forums. Not magical girls and pixie dust.

OP is legit autistic, thanks for the giggle senpai

Jimmy, I'm waiting for you to tell me all the ideas and innovations Cabiria emphasized in its bloated mammoth runtime.

human sacrifice and camera movement bitch

All films are art, you imbeciles.

All paintings are art, all drawings are art, all sculptures are art; art is art is art is art.

Art cannot be not-art.

You idiots need to do away with this morning thinking of "if I like it, it's art; if I dislike it, it's not-art." Bad art is art; good art is art; mediocre art is art.

When a film is made, it is art. Stop using art as a description of "good."

Why do you keep calling me Sup Forums? What does "not social realism" have to do with animation and cartoons? Being hostile for no reason and doing mental gymnastics to assume wrong stuff doesn't make you sound smarter...

Cabiria doesn't emphasize human sacrifice over standard plot progression. If anything, it's only a couple scenes. And unmotivated camera movement was long established before Cabria. Loks like you're not ready to sit at the grown up table. Back to the dunes, boy.

>When a film is made, it is art. Stop using art as a description of "good."
No. Next time know about art history before you sound like a clown. Troubling I know.

Is capekino art?

>capekino
That's a contradiction.

You realize why capeshit is called capeshit, right?

It's because it's superheroes, they're not realistic. They can't die and they have deus ex machine to magically save the day.

That's why it's a horrible comparison to say capeshit is the modern western. Westerns dealt with real social and political issues on a base level, rural developing civilization. Take for example, The Big Country, which is an allegory for the Cold War.

But at the root, what truly separates capeshit from legitimate cinema is not writing. It's the core concept. Superheroes aren't real, they are anti-cinema. Cinema is a reflection of reality, it exposes it and enlightens us about it. That's why the Big Country was shown at the White House and capeshit never will be.

It's why /lbg/ prefers the French New Wave and slow cinema → → archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/81114716/#q81114716

It's why this user agrees on the proliferation of talking cartoon animals dominating the box office having a systematic relationship with the dumbing down of society. archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/80967606/#q80974789

It's why this user cares about Jacques Rivette's opinion It's why this user uses the word "kino" because he's referring to the principles of the kino-pravda to depict reality without plot

It's why this user calls capeshit capeshit despite having reverence for it. He knows it's excrement. It's why he names shit filmmakers like Seijun Suzuki in relation with the genre

It's why this user and this user reference Bazin and Kracauer, strong proponent film theorists in defense of cinema as a fundamentally realist medium

You're wasting people's time and wasting space in this thread. Your teacher and your whore mother lied to you, there are stupid fucking questions. And you're asking one.

>genreshit
'Sup Reddit

Westerns may be genreshit, but they're at least fundamentally better than capeshit.

Looks like Jimmy and his gang of cartoon-loving Google-spouting nitwits left guys. They got scared because they were exposed.

Now answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

You are wasting thread space. You are clearly coming from /lbg/ but I guess the other elitists there bashed you after asking this question.
I am not asking a stupid question, you chose to begin with a stupid answer. No one is taking you seriously and you should go back to your containment general.
Also your Godard image presents no arguments, like anything you have written in this thread. You are a fucking moron.

The mysterious X.

>You are wasting thread space.
I'm asking what the first art film was, hardly an off-topic question.

>You are clearly coming from /lbg/
They wish

>but I guess the other elitists there bashed you after asking this question.
They wish.

>Also your Godard image presents no arguments
You're supposed to click it and read the text, dumbo. I hope you can read because so far, you haven't proven me otherwise.

Genreshit fundamentally cannot be kino as this poster eloquently pointed out, Reddit.

what genre is it

It's a spy flick. But I guess according to you, James Bond is a series of art films.

No, actually franchises can't be art because they're made for commercial purposes

Glad to see you know the basic tenets of art. Now scurry off. You're wasting thread space arguing tautologies.

>what is irony

Okay maybe it's because you don't seem to have ever functioned properly on the outside world so you don't know how to argue or even use a source I will help you out: When you cite a source, historical text, a critique, a quote, you have to actually say what's your point is. I know swearing is a lot more fun and makes you feel superior, but that's how sources work, they don't do the work for you, they merely support your opinion. Even if to you the point is clear from the context.
Also,
>Director's/Film critic's opinion on art and film is the definitive answer as to what is their relation
Also,
>They wish
kek

Yes, I know. It's ironic that you are still here. How about you leave. There's a thread with your name on it discussing Reddit next door

>When you cite a source, historical text, a critique, a quote, you have to actually say what's your point is
You meant to quote Jimmy over here He can't seem to find a source for the first art film. Though, neither can you, so leave or answer the question. You're taking up thread space arguing tautologies like this user

Looks like Jimmy and his gang of cartoon-loving Google-spouting nitwits left guys. They got scared because they were exposed.

Now answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

Until I get a proper answer with citations as this user eloquently stated, I will post this thread every day for eternity.

Now answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

fuck off autist

That's 7 times now. Since you seem confident and decided to enter the conversation, tell us all what makes film an artistic medium separate from theater, music, and literature?

fuck off autist

I knew you wouldn't rise to the occasion. And your incapability of finding a new insult only cements your stupidity.

Man With a Movie Camera

City symphonies and documentaries were done long before Dziga Vertov arrived.

Now answer my question, Sup Forums.

What was the first feature-length art film?

A film that exceeds 70 minutes, features social realism, isn't an adaptation, and emphasizes ideas and innovation in technique over standard plot progression?

Definitely not anything that was made up by kikes in Hollywood.

*art* film has not been made, film is consumer product and not art, there is no contemplation of the beauty and eternal truth in *film*, its ltierally the opposite: just turn your brain off bro.

why is 70 minutes the cut-off point
give one actual reason why something that meets all your other criteria and is 69:58 is not art but one that's 70:01 is