Cannes Winner

so I check to see news about Cannes and shit and I come across this article from IndieWire or whatever it's called:
>This is absolutely amazing. Sofia Coppola just made history at Cannes!

well fuck me sideways, let me check this shit out.
So I click on the thing and start reading their absolutely pat-yourself-on-the-back-girls article:
>The 2017 Cannes Film Festival has come to an end in history-making fashion. When Jury President Pedro Almodóvar announced the Best Director prize to “The Beguiled” helmer Sofia Coppola, she became the second female director in the festival’s 70-year history to claim the prize.

that's cute, let's keep on reading:
>Coppola earned strong reviews for “The Beguiled,” a feminist adaptation of Clint Eastwood’s 1971 film of the same name.
>a feminist adaptation of Clint Eastwood’s 1971 film of the same name.
>Clint Eastwood’s 1971 film of the same name.
>Clint Eastwood’s 1971 film

you can't make this shit up lmao
so the Cannes winner is literally a "LOL I COPIED A MAN'S MOVIE AND WON SO STRONG SO BRAVE!"

but wait! there's MORE.
she's literally the daughter of Francis Ford fucking Coppola.
The daughter of a famous director gets to make movies because of nepotism and her best movie is literally a butchered rip-off of a man's movie.
This is what feminists are proud of in the year of our lord 1999 + 18

lol i heard shakespeare copied some old stories what a hack lmao

>Sofia Coppola just made history at Cannes!
>second woman to wing best director

Does anyone else hate this shit?

If its the second or third to do something it isnt really history making

it is for feminists :^)
>take THAT patriarchy! GIRL POWER

I honestly don't give a fuck because the only thing I was hoping for was that Haneke wouldn't win with his disgusting refugees-are-awesome and white europeans suck flick HAPPY END. fuck that film and fuck haneke.

Aaawwwww, is the little mans wee botty sore? Do you need a hug you pathetic excuse for a human being?

go back

>a feminist adaptation of Clint Eastwood’s 1971 film of the same name.
Yeah that's wrong.
They're based on the same book.

>but wait! there's MORE.
>she's literally the daughter of Francis Ford fucking Coppola.
holy fuck OP I didn't know this
PRAISE KEK

I haven't gotten around to seeing amour yet. I see people jerking off over it all over the place, is it any good?

Fuck off Gia.

You need to be 18+ to post on this site.

shadilay my brothers!

If this is your first time hearing of Sofia Coppola you shouldn't be here. You're either 8 or don't know fuck all about film.

She's not new.

Now, this isn't history as she is the 2nd to do something. But, while I haven't seen it and I doubt you have either, I'm going to assume it's not "butchered" as you say it is. And Logan, a movie which did nothing but steal, gets blown periodically all over this fucking site.

Now, I realize Cannes is not Sup Forums, so there IS merit in being annoyed about it but let's be fucking Frank Coppola about this. shitposting about a movie you haven't and will never see winning a competition you've never and will never care about for ripping off another movie you've never and will never see is pretty much the most autistic thing in the world.

Who gives a shit?

Lost in Translation was good and Somewhere was competent. She gets a pass.

How do you get buttblasted over some blog in this day and age? Are you 12?

day of the rope when MAGA

the fuck does that mean, faggot?

dank meme fpbp

Sofia Coppola is very pretty.

Finally a woman is having some recognition in this world these days. Damn those privileged guys making movies and complaining muh go take a look at the kids of africa be glad you are here doing almost nothing for nothing man. Let us have this moment please. Let us all watch these beautiful women earning well deserved award and showing how it's so much more pleasant when we are stripped out of this arrogance and animalistic violence please. Lets rise above. This is what we should all be striving for. Makes me wanna go back to school coz theres still a lot for me to learn

WAIT TILL I TELL MY MOM

It isn't a remake, it's an adaptation of a book that had previously been filmed in 1971. Or are adaptations not seen as remotely creative now?

desu, adapting a book to make a movie is pretty pleb tier.

people should use the advantages and strenghts of the film medium. Just filming a story for the sake of it is pretty childish.
>gonna film muh touching story with a feminine tweest based on this GREAT BOOK xD

disgusting really. I respect people that try and make something interesting in the film format. People like Malick at least try to be creative in the field and use the medium for what it is, not just as a device to tell a story in visual form, but rather express something through audio/visuals, if you get what I mean.

How could you not hear about Sofia Coppola befor this? Lost in Translation is literally in every top 10 on Sup Forums.

>this is your brain on le red pill

How do we fix Sup Forums problem?

>ywn be casting couched by Sofia

Fine, but all of her previous films save for her debut had original screenplays.

I can respect an original screenplay as well as when a director tries to convey something through the film medium.

Not saying she's a shit director, my rambling was just regarding the fact that while she only won for best director, the media is again trying to blow this shit up as the second coming or some shit as well as making it sound like she made a great movie when in fact it's just an adaptation (hence why I said butchered even if I didn't see the film yet), and an adaptation of a book is always going to be inferior no matter what.

Yes you can offer a new perspective on a known story, maybe even approach it differently than other people, but at the end of the day the book is superior and the movie form is only ever going to be a bastardization of it.

I would honestly immediately disqualify any film from the Cannes festival that isn't an original screenplay, but that's just my opinion and I'm sure others disagree with it.

What in the fuck are you talking about you deranged lunatic? Why on earth does adapting a book mean anything for the way the film will be made? What are you even saying? You sound so stupid.

Also if you seriously think that books are always superior then you must know very little about film.

>alt right pussies cry about literally anything
The fact that she made a film Eastwood had already made is genuinely brave.

you should go to bed since it's probably getting close to your bedtime, retard.
You don't understand what I'm talking about because you don't understand film and don't understand what it means to create something that plays to a medium's strenghts.

>Also if you seriously think that books are always superior then you must know very little about film.
I already realized you're retarded, no need to confirm it further by showing me you lack reading comprehension.

>You can't adapt a narrative from a book because it's uncinematic
Are you retarded?

seriously, just stop posting if this is what you've understood.

This is one of the funniest arguments I think I've ever read on this site desu.

Have you ever even read a book? Do you think that all books are just simple little stories that are intrinsically impossible to alter or adapt in a visually interesting way?

It doesn't sound like you read books or watch movies.

>an adaptation of a book is always going to be inferior no matter what.

^ that's you, being stupid

>first linklater then weir then wongy wong then delannoy then wenders then korine now eastwood

Why is she allowed to be so talentless?

>my rambling was just regarding the fact that while she only won for best director, the media is again trying to blow this shit up as the second coming or some shit as well as making it sound like she made a great movie when in fact it's just an adaptation (hence why I said butchered even if I didn't see the film yet), and an adaptation of a book is always going to be inferior no matter what.
This is a truly stupid opinion. Just so you know.

jesus christ no wonder this board has gone to shit if idiots like you post here everyday

you are truly retarded, just so you know.
see? I can do it too.

literally lmaoing at your idiocy

"books are always better cause movies are different and are not books"

it's quite obvious you're just a panicked Trump supporter who can't handle a woman winning an award

Everyone in this thread is disagreeing with you. That should say something.

Don't reply to this guy -- he needs a movie to point out that he's a fucking moron, books just don't do it justice.

I'm going to try and explain it again to you since you're a bit slow.

an ADAPTATION of a book (what you see when someone turns a book into a screenplay) is never going to be better than the book itself. Why? Because in a movie you can only do so much and can only tackle certain aspects at the expense of limiting other ideas, characters or events in the book due to length.

In a book you can develop everything you want without as many constraints as in a movie (I'm sure you'll manage to misunderstand this too but whatever), and you can focus on many aspects due to the very nature of the medium.
you can develop all of the characters, describe all the events, create and resolve all conflicts.
whereas in a film adaptation you will have to choose what exactly you're going to tackle from the book.

Are you going to focus on a certain relationship between certain characters? Are you going to focus on showing and resolving one or two conflicts (if the book had more than one main conflict), and so on.

You can't do everything in the book because it will make the movie literally 10 hours long or more, I know it's hard for you to wrap your head around that.

I'm not saying books are superior to film, I'm saying that a movie adaptation of a book is going to be shit compared to the actual book. There are countless films you can see that prove my point.
>one samefagging retard or two braindead 15 year old morons with no reading comprehension disagree with me
>everyone
nice try my dude, maybe lay off the poptarts for a second and think about what I'm saying.

I don't understand why you're typing all that nonsense out. Everyone understands that elements of a novel are going to be lost in translation. That doesn't mean the film is going to be inferior.

Oh my god you are such a tasteless moron it is amazing.

If you think PLOT is the most significant aspect of books or films then you have a very superficial, rather pathetic understanding of both artforms.

There have been films that are far better than the books they were adapted from.

It really just sounds like you don't read or watch anything. Why you have deluded yourself into thinking that plot, characters, events, conflicts, etc are the most important aspects of either artform is just beyond informed understanding.

Was the movie good?

The cast seems dope

>I am mentally retarded - the post

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
You have autism my dude. You know Kubrick's films were mostly adaptions, right? I don't think anyone's lining up to praise the Barry Lyndon novel.

It's been receiving high praise.

>Literally resorting to a babby tactic you called someone else out on a few posts back.
See:

since this is a woman director they probably aren't going to let men buy tickets to special screenings

There are many film adaptations that are better than the book. What does this do to your theory?

>crying because he can't go see one screening of a superhero movie made for children

name some and tell me how they are better.
while you're at it, tell me how an adaptation is better than an original screenplay i.e. an original film, which is what I was reeeing about in the first place until that faggot got triggered.

See:
I'm sure you wrote your thesis on Thackaray so I'm excited to hear your thoughts on why the novel is better.

>I can't enter a thread without bringing up capeshit

Pathetic

Best Director (That woman) and Jury Award (120rpm because homosexuals) were the worst awards this year.

Rest were pretty good and the Palm d'or was a fucking top kek and fuck you to the critics

You legitimately believe that a movie can't be better than a book it's based on?

Here are a few examples off the top of my head: The Last Picture Show, Eyes Wide Shut, The Godfather, No Country For Old Men, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, The Wolf of Wall Street, Don't Look Now, Rebecca

Why do you for some reason think that an original plot is such an amazing thing? Look at all of the horrible movies that have "original" screenplays.

Movies are not made good because of their plots or their dialog.

>one screening

give em an inch

>kubrick
my man, this doesn't disprove anything I've said.
I don't think that highly of Kubrick, just so we have that aspect cleared, but regarding his works.
I don't wanna get into Thackeray's shit, but I can give you some insight on clockwork orange.

the author of the book hated how kubrick interpreted the thing, and that's because kubrick decided on a certain aspect he wanted to develop and he developed it in his way and in his style.
basically, he took something from the book (he got inspired in a particular way by it) and approached it in his own way by utilising the film medium.

same could be said for barry lyndon and for 2001. it's not a 100% adaptation, no adaptations are (because it's also impossible).
so where do we stand on this? he go inspired by a piece of literature, either decided on certain parts of the book he liked that he adapted faithfully or observationally, or he simply took certain ideas and translated them to film.
what you're seeing on screen is not the book, it is someone's vision of certain passages, ideas or concepts in that book.

an original screenplay, written specifically to be made in film form, is far superior to any book adaptation.

>an original screenplay, written specifically to be made in film form, is far superior to any book adaptation.

this statement is in no way argued by the previous paragraphs

do you even know what you're saying anymore?

This. OP sound like tumblr faggot of altrights, You can smell the autism from here. It wasn't even top prize, just directing award.

>Let me ignore your example because I haven't read the book
>Here's some anecdote which hasn't mattered in literary philosophy since Death of the Author
>Adapting the book into a film means it's no longer an adaption of the book (fucking genius logic)

That about confirms it. You're retarded.

He was a hack. Politics and mass production has more to do with his popularity than his skill with ink and wit.

Yeah dude Shakespeare is terrible haha

>in fact it's just an adaptation
>disregard entire filmography of Kubrick
You have to be underage

wow those feminists are so stupid, amirite fellow gentlesirs?

I bet you faggots also enjoy such masterful works as avengers or other capeshit
this thread confirms it that nowadays book adaptations and capeshit have reached the rank of great works of art in the eyes of people.

Sup Forums is dead
I legit imagine this is what it's like on reddit where you can't make fun of feminists or you get banned and you can't not love OMGKUBRIK or else people sperg out. downright sad tbqhwyfam

Ahahahahahaha you got shit on, nice bail out. Very graceful.

ahahahahahha

You are so sad. Thanks for never responding to this post which I'm sure you couldn't because you likely haven't read/seen half the things I mentioned.

Enjoy being dumb lad.

What a beautiful meltdown.

well they don't seem to learn from their mistakes

haha they're unenlightened sheeple unlike us gamers

I already responded to another poster asking pretty much the same thing. It's a shame none of you can read or understand concepts others than those inside your heads.
Good luck making it in life

>He doesn't realize what he said applies moreso to himself than anyone else.

>all these attempts to get Sup Forums to bite

>Sup Forums finally bites

>Stop adapting books

earned it :D

Hey guys its me Jorgen McRetard you can't actually adapt book btw because when you adapt a book it is no longer words per se because the medium of film is not a medium of words. So when you adapt a book you lose the book and get a film which is why a film will never be a book.

Don't try to debate me silly boys I'm far too smart. You probably watch capeshit anyway unlike me (who reads the superior comics).

No argument here

>unlike me (who reads the superior comics).

Did they already award the Palme d'Or?

ya but shes hot so who cares

literally lmaoed

Are you literally this retarded?
Adapating a book has been done wonderfully times before

You just sound like full blown triggered Sup Forums autist, pls end your life

Yes, Haneke won it again for his refugee film, he carefully strode on stage as no music played, dedicated it to Anne and George and after giving a speech saying how Western civilization is cancer shot himself on live TV

>You will never be this blown the fuck out

yes

The Square won

Lost in Translation = pleb

Somewhere = patrician kino

nuff said

>Sup Forums defending book adaptations
what a time to be alive

Good one

>Lost in translation was good
So? unless you're implying she's the one who made it (hint: she wasn't, it's got daddy's prints all over it) i don't see your point

Nice

>complaining about SJWs when the president of the jury this year literally said political correctness is dictatorship and a film mocking the contemporary art world won the top prize

wat

Lost in Translation feels nothing like a FFC movie

Didn't Ostlund win it with his museum movie?

YOU DELETE THIS
OSTLUND IS LITERALLY HITLER

>feminist adaptation
Will this shit ever end.