Films that if you don't cry, you're not human

I'll start.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5eQwoj4qE
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

10/10 beautiful film

you're an effeminate faggot mentally ill subhuman, but also a patrician.

Going to watch Faust next. What's better the domestic release or the export one?

inb4 Griffith turbo-autist derails this thread

that's not even Murnau's most devastating film

>that penultimate scene where he's sitting alone in the bathroom, waiting to die

And even though the studios forced Murnau to make a happy ending against his wishes, I still love watching the guy having a huge feast at the hotel and reveling in his newfound wealth.

...

is that filthyfrank?

...

Why would someone crop a movie poster that way?

>boohoo it made me cwy :'(
Is there any sharper career downturn in history, any bigger sellout

Emotionalism is coddling.

right on cue, my man

...

Marley and Me is the saddest movie I have ever seen I was weeping uncontrollably

...

Does one forcibly cry when they peruse the Sistine Chapel? Does one cry when they walk along the Great Wall of China? Does one cry when they observe the ancient Greek sculptures of Pallas and Chlamys? If not, why should I hold my works back by the fastened chains of emotional manipulation

I never thought about that but that's really interesting

>Does one forcibly cry when they peruse the Sistine Chapel?
Possbily.
>Does one cry when they observe the ancient Greek sculptures of Pallas and Chlamys?
Possibly.
>Does one cry when they walk along the Great Wall of China?
No, they cry if they're on the wrong side of it.

>possibly
If you do, you're a weak individual.

The ending of City Lights. I'm one of those hipsters who'll come shitpost in your threads to claim Chaplin is overrated and Keaton is better, but that ending is pure beauty.

They're both hacks compared to Langdon. Also, Strong Man is literally City Lights but better and was released 5 years earlier. Chaplin, in particular, was always stealing ideas. Even stole Welles's for Monsieur Verdoux

Y'know, I learn a lot from griffithfag when I shut my mouth and listen.

t. Griffithfag

No not really. But you should take the advice. You just might learn something beyond regurgitated memes.

post more eddy.

A Monster Calls

D'oops!

I know it's a pleb choice but you know it's true

The point of good art is to weaken strong men

plebs not allowed. Get that manipulative poorly edited drivel out of here. (seriously, is the guy who made this retarded? What the fuck is that superposed yelling in the end? laughable)

Yeah, I guess you're right

No the point of good art is to expose truth and beauty.

i've been shilling this kino on Sup Forums for almost 2 years

That's not kino, it's a flick. Murnau is shit

he just wanted to be a kid...

No one who perceives beauty is insensitive to it. To witness beauty is to have an emotional reaction to it.

>money can't buy happiness
>needing a flick to tell you this
Orson Welles is a hack that made nothing of worth

Murnau didn't want those last 15 minutes. The only intertitle in the film is basically Murnau making fun of how unrealistic the ending is.

There are a lot of pretty things, there are a lot of shitty things. They can't all be good art let alone masterworks.

There's so much more to it than that. The film isn't about money per se, it's about childhood and the importance of it.

That's not what beauty is... what's your point?

>the only intertitle in the film
You act like films without intertitles is new for 1924. Most techniques on display in The Last Laugh are poorly stolen

I don't have to make a point, you've already made it for me. You made it when you stepped in this thread, you made it when you opened this tab, you made it when you were born. Those with bad genes are destined for failure.

Hi, Orson. You couldn't stop with stealing techniques and themes wholesale, you had to steal this thread too

Now you're just spouting platitudes, you're really shit at having conversations with. Everyone dies faggot, i hope you enjoy losing everyone you ever loved then dying alone and scared, I know I won't.
Meanwhile keep on acting superior in "patrician" movie threads on an asian image board, very proactive way to spend your very valuable time.

Now now just because you're too good for Citizen Kane doesn't mean you have to write off Welles. The Magnificent Ambersons, Othello, Chimes at Midnight, F for Fake, all great

Legends of the Fall. Especially this scene.

>Everyone dies
Not Gods

...

>Shakespeare adaptations
>third-rate novel version of Back Street
>a film essay explaining the non-reality of film when Flaherty already did it leagues better several decades earlier

The sun will die and no one will exist to remember gods.

Too bad you'll be dead long before then. Oops!

Well.. I guess you're not wrong. Are you referring to Nanook of the North? You don't think Welles playful style is unique?

>im a white person living in a first world country with no actual problems and all the privileges of the world but i got really affected by a tawianese film that deals with the problems of rebel youth and lack of identity in a colonized country

>Are you referring to Nanook of the North?
that's that the only one you know of, pleb, so sit down

So will you and so is Griffith already. Too bad for us all.

Okay first of all:
>some aspie role playing as DW Griffith on a Kygistani paper mache forum
Second:
>Orson Welles may be remembered as one of the best directors of all time, but I hate him because I'm edgy! Yeah popular stuff sucks!

>brainlet only knows about Nanook
*smirks
>You don't think Welles playful style is unique?
You mean being a clown?

No its not, but its his most popular instance of "docudrama"
Being a clown, whatever you want to call it, you didn't answer my question

what makes Welles one of the best directors of all time?

>docudrama
You must've learned how to be a clown from Welles.

Are you saying DW Griffith isn't commonly considered one of the all time greats of filmmaking?
Are you saying Welles isn't overrated?

What word would you use? Still not answering the question

>Welles
>best director
If you don't believe he's a hack, hear it from himself.
youtube.com/watch?v=Yc5eQwoj4qE

>what would word would you use
the appropriate one

>Griffith
>dead
Proof?

>the last shot of An Autumn Afternoon
>when Jacques goes looking for Marie but she was gone in Au hasard balthazar
>the third act of Mouchette

Are you implying that Birth of a Nation isn't emotionally manipulative?

Storytelling is inherently emotionally manipulative, only the most challenging art films or non-narrative films come close to an emotionless piece of cinema.

The only reason you wouldn't feel emotion from looking at the crowning achievements of humanity is because you are ignorant of the life that went into it.

>oh no she killed herself waaaaaah :(
faggot
i bet you loved 13 reasons why

Okay poetic documentary, I'll use it, thanks

>Bresson
I've always found Bresson's quote "film should achieve the precision and imprecision of music" emboldening yet misleading. The prior in the sense that it's true there must be multiplicity to derived interpretation similar to jazz but his quote is misleading in the latter sense that this is more hewed from cinema's closer relationship with reality, not entirely from music. What I consider a comedically ironic accompaniment to Bresson's words is his subsequent and constant diversion from this proposed end goal. None of his works do surpass the wholly precise calculation of a Hollywood biopic like Citizen Kane. There is no interpretive truth, all meaning and events are more or less wrapped in a bow with the final credits.
With Bresson in particular, there is no range of thoughts, ideas, or emotions. It's hyper-precise content delivery with no imprecise subtext. He's intellectually humdrum and emotionally monotone. He is nothing but the empty space in a vacant room. The language of antithetical tautologies in his little authorized book are quaint and cute, but he never achieved a balance close let alone greater than that in his pictures. He belongs chiefly in the epicenter of the cinematic middlebrow. In short, his model failed. Always was a clown, always will be a clown.

>Are you implying Birth of a Nation isn't emotionally manipulative
No, I wouldn't.

don’t you have a copypaste for shitting on Ozu too?

imprecise because reality is messy and imperfect but precise because constructing images that "feel real" requires precise, exact work.

>storytelling
Griffith's sunplays may borrow narrative devices, but overtly, they are anything but. They move and glisten like a flowing river, and are the hallmark of true observation. His genius beckons the fusion of all pre-modernist notions of art with gallant leaps into the future of man's conquest for truth. What Griffith knew inherently was that any deluge of psychology in art is mere impressionable worldview and can be nothing more. What Griffith exudes is the peak of observation. Griffith did not make thought, he photographed thought.

Ozu is Griffith for dumdums
>I'm going to stare at the camera and say exactly what I feel
>wow, it's like I'm in the movie

Distancing Griffith from presenting an emotional thesis or a forgone conclusion does not exude the fact that Birth of a Nation demands an emotional response from the viewer. It is a powerful film and a masterpiece, but it manipulates emotions to great effect, hell, it was the 'Avatar' of its day, and was so emotionally incendiary it bolstered the KKK tremendously.

Bresson is Flaherty for dumdums
>I'm going say exactly what I feel to the audience
>I'm going to narrate exactly what I feel to the audience
>I'm going to abuse closeups so the dumbfounded masses can see what I want them to look at

Well put. What directors do you like besides Griffith? Furthermore is there anyone in recent years you would say attempts or succeeds to do what Griffith did?

Y I K E S

t. can’t into non griffith aesthetics

...

why don't you try getting some taste of your own without needing someone to spell everything out for you?

Griffith is not emotionally manipulative. What isolates him in his own class, his own medium, is formal minimalism and maximalist content. His crosscuts are not for show, they're for simultaneity and intelligent synthesis. The might of Griffith. The scant use of a closeup to emphasize connection. Never purely aesthetic, always deliberate. A technique that was once rejected as foolhardy and nonsensical has now been wholly consumed into the entire vernacular of a medium. Whole films are made of nothing but closeups watered down like overspent ejaculation, but with Griffith it meant something. The syntax has remained the same, yet we are so far from his vision.

>non-Griffith
You mean poor copycats

t. autist unable to empathize

Griffith is a master, but there is more than one way to produce worthwhile cinema. I enjoy your thesis that Griffith of all directors is the epitome of cinema, but I disagree with the assessment that a conscious decision to generate emotion makes for lesser art.

>there are this many anti-intellectual passive observers that fault Griffith for not conforming to their lethargic ineptitude
Zoinks indeed

>Griffith of all directors is the epitome of cinema
Find one quote where Griffith has ever considered any of his works film, cinema, movie, or kino

I have taste of my own. And I'm trying to push it further. You state your points very well and if what I've seen so far truly is inferior, what exactly is wrong with asking for a different direction?

Y'know I learn a lot from griffithfag when I shut my mouth and listen.

A lot is an overstatement. His points are good but even when you try to shut your mouth and listen he still insists on being an insufferable egotist autistic asshole that, as it turns out, isn't trying to teach people anything at all but instead just make himself feel good because he's messed up in the head

Oh, is this the hipster check-in thread? Well here I am!

Look mom! I am someone! My tastes are unique! I feel so alive

...

Beside the point, user. It is my interpretation of language that I choose to subscribe to.

Back to the point at hand, if observation and emotional distance and restraint is the best form of cinema, what makes Griffith better than say, Brakhage, who demands a viewer to distance themselves from anything resembling reality and experience the screen?

...

griffith's real talent was making movies so boring nobody could watch more than 15 minutes of them therefore people could latch on to them and pretend they were GOAT and nobody could disagree because they weren't able to finish them

Did Griffith have scores for his films? You cannot have observational music.

Cringe

you've been outed, ZOINKS!

I don't get it.