"We talk about D.W. Griffith... AGAIN" Edition

"We talk about D.W. Griffith... AGAIN" 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.

>Directions for use
Post profiles and discuss what you have recently watched, if you dare.

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

>News
PUNQ 's wife still loves n*gger babies

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.

>QotT
Is James Healey better than Griffith?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5PkGVaqWeY
youtube.com/watch?v=tej00K8Dwgg
youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=196s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

megaautist is such a brainlet that he thinks photographic realism is the same thing as the aesthetic of Realism
Sad!

you're such a brainlet that you can't even name a single formal innovation in cinema since the 30's. truly a sad pathetic soul you are

i agreee

i can

...

Name it then. Don't pee your pants out of anxiety.

emily jean

1. Intolerance 1916
2. Tabu 1931
3. Nanook of the North 1922
4. Souls for Sale 1923
5. Applause 1929
6. Toll of the Sea 1922
7. Isn't Life Wonderful 1924
8. Dream Street 1921
9. The Struggle 1931
10. A propos de nice 1930
11. Abraham Lincoln 1930
12. The Greatest Question in Life 1919
13. The Italian 1914
14. Greed 1924
15. Manhatta 1921
16. Night World 1932
17. Male and Female 1919
18. Lady Windmere's Fan 1925
19. Conrad in Quest of His Youth 1920
20. Street Angel 1928


Name a me a good nongenre film that did anything better before or after these were made; Name me a good film that has done anything original formally after the 30s, film reached its pinnacle by 1939

...

>pinnacle
If you are implying pinnacle as an ""art"" form, that's a blatant contradiction that deserves recorrection since film fundamentally cannot be art let alone high art. It can be a lowbrow pastiche of other superior art forms but nothing more.

Why did Jonas Mekas list Griffith in greatest films of all time, Griffith is shit

the precedence of the filmic apparatus' material quality in post-war avant-garde and structural cinema (in line with contemporary developments in the plastic arts; the Greenbergian "flattening of the picture plane")
Griffiths did nothing of the sort no matter how far-reaching an argument you make
read some film theory you absolute brainlet

Citizen Kane

Better question: Why do you think Jonas Mekas is better than Stan Brakhage?

Not a single example mentioned just like I expected. Crawl on the floor babby. Doesn't matter what poststructuralist postmodern postwhatever mumbojumbo you spout. Not a single formal innovation. Film will never be art because it can't even progress beyond technical increments

>needs to be spoonfed examples
>thinks anything I said was mumbo-jumbo
not my fault you don't know basic avant-garde cinema and art theory, babby

>women
that's an odd way of spelling nigger babies

When asked about his opinions on Citizen Kane, DW Griffith responded:

"Oh I loved it alright. I loved everything it stole from me."

He was butt hurt Welles did it better

Citizen Kane is just Abraham Lincoln 1930 mixed with Power and the Glory 1934. Even has the same invisible cuts from each location as Lincoln does.

*yawn

Next

explain how the works of Michael Snow and Hollis Frampton can be explained through the filmic vocabulary of Griffiths
(they can't because they reside out of it and represent a formal departure from classical film language)
stay pleb, babby

>not my fault you don't know basic avant-garde cinema and art theory, babby
What did any """art""" film do that wasn't already done by 1929

can you read, babby? I said that post-war developments in avant-garde cinema, particularly in structural film, reside outside of classical film language and Modernist aesthetics altogether
you have yet to refute this position

Ask pic-related

breathless

not an argument

>reside outside of classical film language
Nope. Read pic-related if you can

>Modernist aesthetics
>aesthetics
Not even ging to respond to that one. You know you're retarded by now.

Persona

I'm not referring to art-house or narrative cinema, you illiterate embryo
>Not even ging to respond to that one. You know you're retarded by now.
that was a correct and precise use the the term aesthetics. do you even know what that word means? probably not because you're a brainlet with no knowledge of film or art

Handheld camerawork and on-location shooting already done in 1914 by Thomas Ince and Reginald Barker. You clearly don't know shit and it's actually pretty funny

>Bergman
Pic-related

Ince was a hack. Barker was fine. neither are anywhere near Godard. just because you did it first doesnt mean you did it best

early Bergman, sure. Persona stands alone.

>I'm not referring to art-house or narrative cinema
Yeah, you're referring to nothing except your little 30 second shorts 27amdi34. Sit the fuck nown, downy. Shorts are the anti-cinema.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5PkGVaqWeY

>drawing on the frame
We can go even further back to Melies

27amdi34 EXPOSED

Yeah, but you wouldn't consider Melies art film.

not an argument
many of the essential films in history are shorts
there is nothing innate to the medium that constitutes a suitable length, only that which it draws from literature to establish proper narrative arcs (which are not relevant to non-narrative film)
and Wavelength is 43 min long

I've never posted in these threads, are they good?

>Shorts are the anti-cinema.
Why?

>just because you did it first doesnt mean you did it best
If you're not going to do anything original, might as well be a sequel. Sequels are always uninspired shit so that fits

Everyone with some variation of the 'shorts aren't film' mental block needs to read this post.

There's nothing new under the sun motherfucker

Ask Godard. You mentioned him in defense

That was my first post in the thread.

After the 30's they don't count because everything formally had already been done. The rest is just regurgitation

What DW Griffith did was new. Nobody did this video specifically before him or really even since.
youtube.com/watch?v=tej00K8Dwgg

Everything else is a pale imitation

Good for you, now this is your last. Fuck off, plebbit.

>non-narrative film
The beauty of Griffith, the only poet of the screen. He did narrative and no narrative. It's why Bergman cites him as influence over his own kind.

letterboxd.com/albion

>film fundamentally cannot be art
name ONE (1) other medium that explores the cinematic reality

The Steel Helmet is great. Makes good use of a low budget.

the scene in which he puts his helmet on the officer's grave made me tear up, top movie

stupid weeb

What's a single thing any of these films did that Griffith didn't already do better

structuralism didn't expand filmic vocabulary at all; it's a deconstructivist style

>What DW Griffith did was new. Nobody did this video specifically before him or really even since.
fair, but with a static camera even with development in the frame composition is still drawn from painting, not that I want to summon "Film is not art" shitposters

Theater, plebbit. But you wouldn't know anything about that. It's why Bergman majored in theater first and foremost. Only backwater hicks give a shit about flickies, aspie.

>not watching films on nitrate

>tearing up over flickering images
seek help. film is nonreality bubble incapable of even capturing real emotion or intellectual depth.

>Good for you, now this is your last. Fuck off, plebbit.
It's funny how since you don't have any strong arguments all you can do is call people names and threaten them. Like the force of your invective and death threats are supposed to convince anyone of anything other than your lack of logic and psychopathy. Too funny.

Film isn't art. It's fundamentally impossible for it too be.

idk i've only seen judith of bethulia
I will admit the action scenes in judith of bethulia are better than in the steel helmet though, no idea how he managed to stage those battles

define cinematic reality

film are fucking shit i haven't watched one in two years

>no idea how he managed to stage those battles
Because Griffith was the only poet of the screen.

I wonder how PUNQ's wife would react if she found out he loved another man more than her and had hundreds of pictures of nigger babies saved on his desktop

the funny thing? megaautist is actually correct
even movies supposed to be examples of daring filmmaking like Tarr's Damnation and Satantango haven't developed new vocabulary. It's all fresh iterations of techniques developed several decades earlier

Greed>Satantango

Bela Tarr is for redditor pseuds like Amaranth

Stroheim's ULTRA-realist art films!

Erich von Stroheim on the legacy of DW Griffith:

"He was the first to bring poetry and beauty to an otherwise tawdry form of amusement. He made the first truly great pictures, the first to draw the intelligentsia from that of the theater. "

youtube.com/watch?v=frNv-tVBafo&t=196s

dumb redditposter

Now that I REALLY thought about this, I don't think there's any example of spitfire contemporary action movie editing in Griffith. the Bourne movies, for instance
It's definitely an expressive use of technique instead of a contextual/deconstructive one, and the earliest instance I can think of is Sam Peckinpah's shootouts

If you prefer haphazard editing over duplicity in the frame, look to the Russians of the 20s. They explored the limits of editing

By the late twenties, the silent reached their peak.

By the late 30s, the talkies reached their peak. And the entire gamut of cinema was formally run dry.

>Is James Healey better than Griffith?
No clue who either of those people are.

When asked about why movies about young people doing nothing aren't made more often, Godard responded:

"The Crowd had already been made in 1928."

Griffith never made movies that explore hypnagogic vision.

You:
>D.W. Griffith, Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Faultman
>entry level pleb

Me:
>Robert Beavers, Larry Gottheim, Sandra Davis
>exit level patrician

I hate you all

except for his countless refusals to accept non-narrative (especially those less-than-feature-length) films as rebuttals to his argument

Exposed as what? The only adult in the room? I could've told you that!

>adaptations
nice shit taste retard

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when her wedding ring is shoved up the ass of PUNQ's nigger babies

redpill me on PUNQ

PUNQ already watched and reviewed 8 feature films today. How about you, embryo?

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when she watches movies with him and he cant stop looking at his nigger babiesp

>57 mins
>58 mins
>54 mins
>56 mins
>57 mins
>57 mins
>55 mins
>57 mins
>70 mins
>65 mins

Look at his highest rated films.
>The Revenant
>Mad Max Fury Road
>Swiss Army Man
>12 Years a Slave
>Antman

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when he frames photos of his nigger babies on the wall.

taste is subjective
his flight hours, on the other hand, are objectively superior to yours, mine and everyone on /lbg/

what's wrong here.

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when she is awaken by his nigger babies crying as he rapes them

you're not funny

I wonder how PUNQ's wife reacts when he screams the names of his nigger babies when she has sex

What a sad life you must live. Oh, your mom wants you to move the laundry along down there when you get a chance.

I wonder how PUNQ'S wife reacts when...

>watching illustrated text