Why is Ulysses largely regarded as the greatest novel but pic-related isn't solely considered for film?

Why is Ulysses largely regarded as the greatest novel but pic-related isn't solely considered for film?
>inb4 Citizen Kane
Film is a visual medium
>inb4 racist
Woodrow Wilson did more damage to blacks than Griffith ever did and he gets a pass.

It was Birth of a Nation that was considered racist not Intolerance. Also Intolerance is nothing like Ulysses except both are long.

>Intolerance is nothing like Ulysses

"Griffith had already, in the over four hundred movies he had made — from the one-reelers on up to THE BIRTH OF A NATION — founded the art of screen narrative; now he wanted to try something more than simply telling the story of bigotry in historical sequence. He had developed crosscutting in his earlier films, using discontinuity as Dickens did in his novels. In INTOLERANCE, he attempted to tell four stories taking place in different historical periods, crosscutting back and forth to ancient Babylon, sixteenth-century France, the modern American slums, and Calvary. He was living in an era of experiments with time in the other arts, and although he worked in a popular medium, the old dramatic concepts of time and unity seemed too limiting; in his own way he attempted what Pound and Eliot, Proust and Virginia Woolf and Joyce were also attempting, and what he did in movies influenced literary form as much as they did. INTOLERANCE is a film symphony. No simple framework could contain the richness of what Griffith tried to do in this movie. "

Theodore Huff, one of the leading film critics of the first half of the 20th century, believed that "[Intolerance] was the only motion picture worthy of taking its place alongside Beethoven's Symphony No. 5, Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling paintings, etc., as a separate and central artistic contribution."

>golden age Hollywood

Nobody gives a shit

Griffith verifiably isn't Hollywood. You're thinking Demille.

Is this, dare I say, brap-kino?

Oops!

Uh-oh!

Whoops!

...

...

...

Come up with your own arguments and opinions, pleb.

*yawn
Come up with an original insult, then maybe I'll take you seriously.

...

Griffith is shit, pleb.

...

>t. hairless ape
how can you look at those pics and not recognize it's kino? I haven't even watched the film, but to see those pictures in a 1916 film is simply amazing.

>babby is impressed by geometry

Most of those pics are from the 30's, you dunce. They're also plebbait. Not a single one with clever content communication.

>geometry
you're a dumbass
that's amazing cinematography for the era

aren't they from Intolerance? It's a 1916 film
>clever content communication
literally a bunch of buzzwords with no meaning

See here They're geometrically inclined to be aesthetically pleasing. Any basic visual artist knows geometry is useless since there are limited permutations. All of those images, films included, are certifiably trash. And you have been caught ______

No these are from Intolerance

Is this good cinematography, reddit?

>implying it's the geometry and not the use of scenery that impresses me
you can have the best composition in the world and if your subject and background are dull, it will look dull
looks pretty boring but idk if you cherrypicked, I didn't watch the film
then again, fuck off with your reddit boogeyman
I suspect you're the one who is from there, little man

>look dull
>look
Behold, the one true plebbicus maximus, outside of his natural habitat.

Is this good cinematography, reddit?

>m-muh reddit!
yes, that's amazing
reminds me of chiaroscuro
that one looks good actually

Don Quixote is considered the best novel though

Leni Riefenstahl is cancer. If you want dynamism, choose Flaherty

Now this is good bait. Too bad I'm smart.

>Griffith
shit taste

Is this good cinematography, reddit?

Maybe if you're a spic.

Is this an art fi - I mean, is this good cinematography, reddit?

Are you implying no other film has achieved that since then, or maybe are you implying Ulysses is the only novel to have achieved that status as well? Why is the opinion of this "critic" relevant in any way? What it the purpose of your post?

The point is that Griffith is the biggest pleb filter and executed stream-of-consciousness before any of the literary modernists.
See here

Golden Age is during the Studio System of the late 20s to the late 60s. Are you literally fucking retarded?