/lbg/ - Letterboxd General

No more Griffith forever 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
Thread dies

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
Was the Kim Kardashian sex tape realism kino?

Other urls found in this thread:

soundcloud.com/eyedress/manila-ice-2
letterboxd.com/Shamo/
letterboxd.com/smt/
youtube.com/watch?v=cM5hVs2UB4s&t=75s
letterboxd.com/FutureDays/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

What are some great Portuguese movies other than mysteries of Lisbon

...

Why didn't he just change his clothes?

...

Looks like Bruce Melvin and his pack of /s4s/ Emily Jean shitposters are busily working.

13 Palms

OLD
WHITE
MEN

Lads does anyone know where the fuck I can watch Franju's Blood of the Beasts with English subtitles? I can't find it anywhere.

I saw a version with English narration on 35mm. Looks like it's on PTP.

*kicks u in the nuts*
MY EMLY not anyone elses

autism

Its an extra on the Eyes Without a Face criterion

I'm not on any private trackers

>Buying films

>not living in an area with a university library

>going outside

>not on a private tracker
>against paying for art
Leave

Please just tell me where to find my 20 minute slaughterhousekino and I'll go

These threads are like a fucking brain damage displayed advancing in real time when they're her

as of late megautist and amdi or what EVER the fuc have been stealing the show. i barely ponst here

letterboxd.com/albion
this song is cool
soundcloud.com/eyedress/manila-ice-2

>watching any films without watching Birth f a Nation first
Griffith should have patented his techniques just like Edison patented his cameras.

Griffith was an outdated oaf, a man of the 19th century theater with all of its conventions included. There were other people more modern than him even in the '10's.

>Shakespeare is outdated
>Bach is outdated
>Henry James is outdated

all names that are superior to griffith

...

Griffith combined them all in an entirely new medium.

>I blended things from people far smarter than me so that makes my shit smoothie good

You conveniently ignored the part that mentioned "new medium". But it's okay, I know you can't read.

I never understand what plebs mean when they say Griffith is or was outdated. All of his choices were hyper-modern and anticipated so many future movements.

>keeping camera always in front of actors is "hyper-modern"

It's called the 180 degree rule, aspie. It's supposed to mimic a moving photograph

>a moving photograph from 1889

You are not presenting a well-worded counterargument.

autism

Where's Griffith?

SpongeBob's too modern. Griffith would be a flip book.

Good, takes more energy than watching spongedoodle

D.W. Griffith

lol what if in mirror the house say "WHY! WHY DID YOU SET ME ON FIRE SPONGEBOB?"

That's from The Sacrifice, retard

letterboxd.com/Shamo/

give me a run down on Girlz 4 Life. Would SJWs call it 'problematic'?

the only problematic thing about it is the penis shaped usb stick they use and one scene where these preteen girl wear skintight latex suits with belts that have hearts right over their pussys. and it has garbage writing.

Remember when we were friends

no

Ugh, sounds toxic.

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

here's the top 30 movies i haven't seen from the Sight and Sound poll. Which one should I start with?

The Phantom Carriage

playtime is great, havent seen most of the others

Man With A Movie Camera is literally, and when I say mean literally I mean literally as it literally fits the definition, pure kino.

The introduction of sound set cinema back 25 years, Vertov successfully created pure cinema apart from any other artform but the bourgeois Hollywood machine just turned film into staid filmed theatre for decades right around the time it came out.

Whatever you do, don't watch Intolerance.

>dont watch Dont Watch Griffith
redundant huh?

fill the antonioni shaped hole in your heart

The Cameraman+Manhatta>Man With a movie camera

Phantom1922+Dynamite1929>L'atalante

Soul of the Beast>Au Hasard Balthazar

Contmept is the worst film from an already shit director

The Greatest Question in Life>The Word

One Exciting Night>Jean Diemme

I Was Born But>Pather Panchali

Why be Good>Some Like it Hot

Gertrud is the worst film from an already shit director

Speedy>Playtime

Birth of a Nation>Ugestsu

Scaramouche>Barry Lyndon

Pickpocket is the worst film from an already shit directior

Stage Door>Children of Paradise

L'eclipse is the worst film from an already shit directior

3 Bad Men>Once Upon a Time in the West

Rules of the Game>The Magnificent Ambersons

Wild Boys of the Road>Spirit of the Beehive

You can literally pick any silent film to replace Color of Pomegranates

Fanny and Alexander is the worst film from an already shit director that already admitted he stole everything from DW Griffith

A Day in the Country is good

Abraham Lincoln>A Matter of Life and Death

Intolerance is perhaps the greatest film of all time

John M Stahl>Douglas Sirk

Film critics and """academics""" are cancer. And you have shit taste for listening to them.

you want him to get a heart attack from eating some obscure pasta?

>Film critics and """academics""" are cancer. And you have shit taste for listening to them
your right we should listen to you guys instead :&)

Griffith already did films with deemphasized plot in 1919, Jonas Mekas recognized it

...

>Phantom Carriage
Name something good next time, genrebabby.

Also, Demille and Griffith already did superimpositions years before Seastrom ever even thought of doing so. Griffith and Tourneur already did nonlinear storytelling with multiple flashbacks as well

Stop watching Criterionshit and get some taste, babby.

emily jean did it first

This post is going in the archive for whenever someone says lbg doesn't care for realism

Also, there were already hundreds of documentaries and city symphonies before Dziga Vertov. Get some taste

letterboxd.com/smt/
i guess slasher flicks aren't my thing but i will give it one last try with part 3
is texas chainsaw any better?

Slasher films were already done in the late 20's. Get some taste, babby

i'll start with the classics before i go on and watch the ''literally who'' films

>Vertov successfully created pure cinema apart from any other artform
>film """art""""
Ignoring that blatant contradiction, what did he do that couldn't be done with lithography and performance art. All he did was make hooliganism. He wasn't even the first to make a """documentary"""

no one will take you serious if you rate so completely subjectively. friday the 13th is a 3/10? even if you hated it you should see that some effort went into it. the story is coherent, there are characters that are believable, the acting is not horrible, and it has some neat effects. not to mention the influence it had on the industry.
so is it really so far below average? or do you just want to fit in with all the other hipsters that post here?

>Paul Leni literal who
pleb detected.

>Also, there were already hundreds of documentaries and city symphonies before Dziga Vertov

And yet none of them are watched today aside from for the historical value of what they document, apart from maybe Ruttmann's Berlin at a stretch but that is noticeably inferior to MWAMC. Man With a Movie Camera is a brilliant use of cinematic technique to craft a unique experience of pure cinema, with all bourgeois ideas of plot discarded. It goes beyond documentary, Man with a Movie Camera is a work of pure cinematic expression that has never truly been bested because of our misguided desire to make films more 'realistic'.

yeah but 20s films were dog shit

t. Sergei Eisenstein

>hipsters
name a film that has done anything original formally since the 30's.

well ratings are subjective so there's that
also i went in expecting jason and the killer was some old bag

>with all bourgeois ideas of plot discarded
>showing people watching a film
You don't know what plot is. There's not a single technique in that flick that Griffith didn't already pioneer (including emphasis on character and environment over plot). And if you actually want no plot, look at Man Ray you fucking pseud.

>20's films were dogshit

how do you expect to discuss films if you think everything is entirely subjective. you should be able to judge individual elements of a film at least somewhat objectively. if a film as a whole doesnt work for you then fine, you can deduct points for that, but 3/10 means it was complete garbage and has nothing to appreciate by anyones standard.

robertopancake BTFO

no that would be a 0/10
3/10 is just plain bad, wich is what i thought of friday the 13th

>you should be able to judge individual elements of a film at least somewhat objectively
>objectively
Objectively nothing in cinema has been added since DW Griffith

Most things were improved, though.

That only makes Dziga Vertov more of a hack.

This is not a slasher. It's more like a haunted house film.

Explain how any single film improved in any way what Griffith pioneered.

do I watch intolerance or birth of a nation first?

They improved in almost every way. From camera movement to more sophisticated storytelling.

again, how do you expect to discuss movies if your opinion is just "its plain bad". how is plain bad? what movies do you compare it to? how many similar movies have you seen? What did the movie try to achieve and how did it fail at that? did the effects look awfully unrealistic? was the acting horrible? was there no tension at all? was the cinematography and direction so bad that it broke your immersion?

what is it that makes this movie so far below average for you?

L'Aventura and Contempt are essential, watch those.

objectively, you have added nothing of value to this thread, dw griffith would be disappointed in you.

You're an aspie, we all know this.

yes pretty much

>From camera movement
No better camera movement than here

>sophisticated storytelling
>implying film is a storytelling medium
>implying intolerance isn't already the most sophisticated story in the history of film
Stay pleb, reddit.
youtube.com/watch?v=cM5hVs2UB4s&t=75s

It's still not a slasher.

>implying intolerance isn't already the most sophisticated story in the history of film
It's not. It's very crude and simple with clear good and bad guys.

In what way are they essential
Harold Lloyd already discussed more about the medium of film than Godard ever could in 1930
And Griffith already did Antonioni's schtick a million times in the 1910's.

>It's very crude and simple with clear good and bad guys.
Name the good guys and name the bad guys.

You're a downy.

Andy Griffith > D.W. Griffith

I should watch more Ken Russel films

letterboxd.com/FutureDays/

>Ken Russell
Easily impressed babby

>hasn't even seen the film
>implies plot is what makes a story good
BTFO